by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics

Advertisement

Search

Search

[+] Advanced...

Author:

Region:

Sort:

«12. . .125126127128129130131. . .269270»

The latest trend in government is to charge parents with neglect simply for allowing their children to play outside unsupervised. We are not talking about toddlers in clear need of supervision. We are talking about children old enough to walk and talk and make basic decisions.

A family in Florida is now in court because their 11 year old son was home alone, shooting basketball in his own driveway.[1] A Silver Springs, MD couple found themselves in hot water for allowing their six and ten year old boys to walk a few blocks home from a park alone.[2]

Even Canada is cracking down. A stay at home mom got a visit from Child Protective Services because her three kids were playing in their own fully privacy fenced back yard.[3]

When I was growing up my parents told me what time I needed to be home. They didn't see me again until that time. They rarely new exactly where I was. This was especially true during the summer months.

Now, with gangs, bullies and an ever growing number of child predators making the news, many people feel the children need to be protected as all times. Especially in the cities and urban areas.

What do you think? Is this necessary or just more big brother government stuff. The new poll is up.

------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] http://www.inforum.com/variety/columns/4028081-parenting-perspectives-when-did-it-become-illegal-let-our-kids-play-outside
[2] http://www.rd.com/culture/free-range-parenting-child-neglect/
[3] http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/mother-says-she-was-investigated-over-children-playing-in-backyard-1.2870845

Sociopia

I'll bet a large amount of these controlling policies are orchestrated by Liberals. I long for times when life was simpler, and the nanny state Liberal mentality butted out of our lives.

Phrontisteries, Xyanth, and Sociopia

Polka mine wrote:I'll bet a large amount of these controlling policies are orchestrated by Liberals. I long for times when life was simpler, and the nanny state Liberal mentality butted out of our lives.

Aye. What an absolute joke, really takes the term nanny state to a quite literal extent.

Phrontisteries and Xyanth

On a completely irrelevant note, what even is the point of technocracy?

My taxes low enough to chill here for a while?

Sociopia

Aidopolis wrote:My taxes low enough to chill here for a while?

You have taxes?

Sociopia

Aidopolis wrote:My taxes low enough to chill here for a while?

You should see my taxes. They haven't kicked me out xD

I mourn the loss of our freedom. Some of the things my group of friends were free to do in my youth would draw the attention of numerous government agencies today. For one example, we made our own rocket fuel and fireworks. Can you imagine the crap storm that would come down around some kid's ears if he did that today? There would be police, ATF, bomb squads, news media, investigations, DHS people, friends will be called in, homes searched, schools locked down...

What a freakin' joke.

Reed audio and Sociopia

Xyanth wrote:I mourn the loss of our freedom. Some of the things my group of friends were free to do in my youth would draw the attention of numerous government agencies today. For one example, we made our own rocket fuel and fireworks. Can you imagine the crap storm that would come down around some kid's ears if he did that today? There would be police, ATF, bomb squads, news media, investigations, DHS people, friends will be called in, homes searched, schools locked down...
What a freakin' joke.

Freedom has indeed declined - a legal and moral (philosophical) decline.

As someone who has finally discovered the American Libertarian Party, I thought I might as well find like-minded folks who are angry about everything and everyone.

Xyanth wrote:I mourn the loss of our freedom. Some of the things my group of friends were free to do in my youth would draw the attention of numerous government agencies today...

Reed audio wrote:Freedom has indeed declined - a legal and moral (philosophical) decline.

This is what we seriously call liberalism these days. People have forgotten what the root of that word once was, now liberalism is just soft Marxism.

Sociopia wrote:This is what we seriously call liberalism these days. People have forgotten what the root of that word once was, now liberalism is just soft Marxism.

Nailed it.

Glad to see a region (probably) sharing my beliefs.

Kapitalska wrote:Glad to see a region (probably) sharing my beliefs.

The only person I agree with 100% of the time is me.

Sociopia and Kapitalska

Xyanth wrote:The only person I agree with 100% of the time is me.

I know that feeling.

An observation on the effectiveness of private ambulances:

In my country (New Zealand), we have a charity called St John's which provides ambulance services for approximately 90% of our population, among other things. Calling one of their ambulances is absolutely free, for emergency and non-emergency callouts.

They do a fantastic job, and you can view their website here: http://www.stjohn.org.nz/ , or view a wikipedia article about them here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_John_New_Zealand .

About 80% of their funding comes from contracts with various local and parliamentary bodies, and the other 20% from individual donations and corporate sponsorship. In 2012, their 2,481 paid staff were supplemented by *8,591* volunteers.

Because they are an entirely private organisation, they don't have 'theoretically endless' amounts of government money available to them, and they are quick to find innovative or just plain necessary changes to reduce costs or increase efficiency. Because they are not government controlled they are able to make such changes without struggling through stifling bureaucracy. I remember one example of this occurred last year. St Johns was struggling under the weight of callouts they were receiving, so instituted a new policy stating they would not respond to some minor injuries they had before, such as broken arms without complications. Such injuries can be just as easily served by driving down to the local medical centre. Their policy change was quick, rational, and effective. And the best part of it all was that the whiny lefties couldn't complain about it at all, because of St John's charity status!

St Johns is much cheaper to run, and for the government to contract, than any nationalised ambulance service would be. It is an extraordinary testimony to the efficiency of private business, and to the power of volunteers and donors in a (mostly) moral society.

If only we were able to put similar systems in place for other public services! The Fire Department would be a good place to start; it's already staffed by large numbers of volunteer firemen.

Sociopia

An observation on the effectiveness of private ambulances:

In my country (New Zealand), we have a charity called St John's which provides ambulance services for approximately 90% of our population, among other things. Calling one of their ambulances is absolutely free, for emergency and non-emergency callouts.

They do a fantastic job, and you can view their website here: http://www.stjohn.org.nz/ , or view a wikipedia article about them here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_John_New_Zealand .

About 80% of their funding comes from contracts with various local and parliamentary bodies, and the other 20% from individual donations and corporate sponsorship. In 2012, their 2,481 paid staff were supplemented by *8,591* volunteers.

Because they are an entirely private organisation, they don't have 'theoretically endless' amounts of government money available to them, and they are quick to find innovative or just plain necessary changes to reduce costs or increase efficiency. Because they are not government controlled they are able to make such changes without struggling through stifling bureaucracy. I remember one example of this occurred last year. St Johns was struggling under the weight of callouts they were receiving, so instituted a new policy stating they would not respond to some minor injuries they had before, such as broken arms without complications. Such injuries can be just as easily served by driving down to the local medical centre. Their policy change was quick, rational, and effective. And the best part of it all was that the whiny lefties couldn't complain about it at all, because of St John's charity status!

St Johns is much cheaper to run, and for the government to contract, than any nationalised ambulance service would be. It is an extraordinary testimony to the efficiency of private business, and to the power of volunteers and donors in a (mostly) moral society.

If only we were able to put similar systems in place for other public services! The Fire Department would be a good place to start; it's already staffed by large numbers of volunteer firemen.

Cool. Doesn't work that way in the US.

Haha, this is your average 'liberal' these days.
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=378937&p=28809105#p28809105

Believes in a command economy, disarming the population, states killing their own citizens and state violence against and suppression of political dissidents.

Sociopia wrote:Haha, this is your average 'liberal' these days.
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=378937&p=28809105#p28809105
Believes in a command economy, disarming the population, states killing their own citizens and state violence against and suppression of political dissidents.

A Bernie supporter.

Sociopia and Polka mine

The latest move in the game of Climate Change is coming from liberal attorneys general trying to shut down anyone arguing against it. Those AG's are issuing subpoenas for truck loads of documents reaching back decades in a fishing expedition into the relationships between oil and coal companies and anti-climate change groups.[1]

Of course oil companies are not taking this lying down. They are already fighting back, one tactic is that the US Virgin Islands Attorney General needs to mind his out territory. There is also some talk of counter suits to cover their expenses and legal fees.[2]

What I cannot figure out is why these righteous crusaders of justice didn't unleash the investigation to end all investigations when the climate change scientists got caught screwing around with the numbers.

So, what do you think? Is this a legitimate function of these offices? Or is this just an attempt to get reelected by hassling the mortal enemies of their voting base?

New poll is up.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/04/12/dem-ags-mounting-big-tobacco-style-probe-oil-companies-industry-fights-back.html
[2] http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/05/18/fighting-back-ags-ask-judge-to-block-climate-change-fishing-expedition.html

Xyanth wrote:Couple of things here. What's inequitable about it? What in all that is logical led you to believe that you or anyone else is entitled to any income, let alone some minimum standard?
Actually, that is exactly what they advocate as long as the playing field is level and everyone is playing by a very limited set of rules.
It is. See the current circumstances in the US.
What's this "we" stuff? "Income equality" and "economic justice" and phrases like those are myths. I want the freedom to make and keep as much money as I am able to earn. Along with that freedom comes the freedom to fail.

"makeshift and inequitable system currently in place" refers to the current welfare state in most of the western world. Canada, USA, UK, Australia... they all have bloated welfare states that are very expensive and inequitable. They do more harm than good in many cases, too. What Milton Friedman was arguing was that it would be cheaper and more equitable to provide a guaranteed minimum income instead of all that. I can't defend the idea as well as he does, but I am also not actively advocating it - I am thinking about it.

Libertarianism doesn't advocate 'dog eat dog' because that is simply not how people behave. Some people, surely, but not most and not in aggregate. Free people still build communities and help each other. In fact, people do more to help each other the less they are forced to pay into broken and useless systems.

"they" and "we" - in both cases I'm talking about libertarians, and I just switched pronouns for no good reason. I agree and believe and assert both statements. Things *are* equitable when the government is not picking favourites. Things are less equitable when you involve authoritarians. "We" want things equitable where people can succeed or fail without someone picking winners and losers.

Asoch wrote:"makeshift and inequitable system currently in place" refers to the current welfare state in most of the western world. Canada, USA, UK, Australia...

Ok, got it now.

Asoch wrote:I can't defend the idea as well as he does, but I am also not actively advocating it - I am thinking about it.

There is nothing defensible about it. In order to provide a minimum income for someone that is not earning it, or not doing enough work to justify that minimum number, government (or someone else) will have to take that money from someone else that earned it.

There is no way that is moral or right.

On top of the moral problems with that, you will have people that will simply accept and live on the dole rather than mow lawns, take out the trash, clean bathrooms, etc. or do other meaningful labor. Employers will be required to raise wages to attract people for the crap jobs. They will have to raise prices to cover that. Inflation will happen and that minimum income will become inadequate. Of course that will get a raise and the inflationary spiral repeats.

Asoch wrote:Libertarianism doesn't advocate 'dog eat dog' because that is simply not how people behave. Some people, surely, but not most and not in aggregate.

Kind of wish you could have covered Katrina with me. I think your view on the matter is somewhat sheltered.

I believe that there is Global warming, but I don't like the way the issue is hijacked by Liberals and Left wingers to promote their agenda.

Polka mine wrote:I believe that there is Global warming, but I don't like the way the issue is hijacked by Liberals and Left wingers to promote their agenda.

For the last 15,000 years the global temperature went up and down and all around. As of now we are still cooler then the 1840's and 1100 B.C.[1] (Got to wonder where all those industrial carbon emissions came from back then.)

So far the only climate scientist that called it is Dr. Easterbrook who said the carbon thing is garbage and the earth is entering a cooling phase.[2][3][4] 20 years ago he predicted the planet was entering a cooling phase. Turned out he was not only right about the cooling, the disciples of Al Gore's Church of Global Warming had to change the name of the church.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm
[2] http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/climate-scientist-who-got-it-right-predicts-20-more-years-global
[3] http://www.globalresearch.ca/global-cooling-is-here/10783
[4] https://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2006AM/finalprogram/abstract_108164.htm

Sociopia and Principality of mind your own damn busin

«12. . .125126127128129130131. . .269270»

Advertisement