by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics

Advertisement

Search

Search

[+] Advanced...

Author:

Region:

Sort:

«12. . .84858687888990. . .269270»

Good point.

Today's poll centers around the California Air Resources Board (CARB). Their latest set of rules requires once legal diesel engines built before 2010 to either be replaced or retrofitted with expensive emission equipment.[1]

This new rule includes trucks, busses, fire trucks, construction equipment, refers, generators, and even federal government fleets. (Wonder how that is going to work out with the military?) The fun loving boys and girls at CARB fined Los Angeles County a quarter million dollars for violations.[2] (Talk about eating one's young...)

In addition to that, California is applying this to any engine operated in their state. So a trucker based in St. Louis would have to comply with the California emissions laws before driving in that state.

So effective Jan 31 of this year. About half the commercial trucks on the road in the United States are no longer legal to operate in California. Upwards of 80% of the construction equipment in this country falls under the same heading.[3] (Construction equipment lasts a really long time.)

There are those that say applying this regulation to trucks registered outside the state violates the commerce clause. Others, both in and out of the state are complaining the regulations are based on junk science and are nothing more then a money grab.

What do you think? The poll is up.

--------------------------------------------
[1] http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/onrdiesel/documents/multirule.pdf
[2] http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/2014/08/29/air-resources-board-fines-la-county-clean-air.html
[3] It is interesting to note that private RVs are specifically exempted from this rule. So it is ok to pollute if you are going to bring tourist money to the state.

The Californian government is hypocritical - on the one hand it passes endless "Green" regulations, but on the other hand it quietly accepts a lot of tax revenue from the oil and gas industry (without this tax money the government of California would already be bankrupt).

As for driving into California - just do not bother, do not deliver supplies.

The place is going down anyway.

Reed audio wrote:As for driving into California - just do not bother, do not deliver supplies.

The place is going down anyway.

We are in a service based industry. There is a lot more to it then just picking up and dropping off loads. And far more money involved as well.

I Just Wanted to Politely Inform You All That (Sadly) I'll be Departing from this Region to Another (I just Recently received a telegram from there and have already Agreed to the Invitation). I've Been Most Happy and Honored to be Here and Show My Respects To You All.

A Florida fifth grader was punished for pulling out a bible during "free reading" time. The teacher ordered the student to bring it up to her desk. The student refused. That led to a phone call to the father, which went to voice mail.

Her rather snarky voice mail on the matter enraged the parents. Lawyers were called and the school board got involved.[1]

A public school should neither promote or denigrate any religion. Allowing a student to read the Bible on their own satisfies that requirement.

But it is easy to see both sides of this. On the one hand if a kid once to read the bible, more power to him. On the other hand if a public school allows the Bible, they have no choice but to allow any other religious text including the Quran and Satanic Bibles.

So where should the line be drawn? The poll is up.

------------------------------------------------------------
[1] http://www.myfoxorlando.com/clip/10132335/boy-told-he-cant-read-the-bible-in-school

I know there are lot of clever people in California coming up with good ideas - but the goods (even the films) are normally then made elsewhere.

And the clever people who come up with the ideas are taxed into the ground. How long before they just decide to move out?

The Bible and the government schools.

Ironically the idea of government schools was first supported by people such as Sam Adams and John Jay - to teach RELIGION.

They had no doubt that people would learn to read and write (and so on) without the government - but they feared they would not be religious enough.

This idea of no prayer in schools (and so on) was all made up after World War II.

Still if people think there should be no religion in government schools - fine.

Then the reason for creating government schools (in the first place) falls away.......

Then we can get rid of public schools all together? Sounds like a win-win to me.

Last year a federal court sentenced Chad Dixon to eight months for the sin teaching people how to beat polygraph tests. The actual charges apparently stemmed from advising at least two federal employees to lie on a polygraph test.[1]

Around the time the court handed Dixon his sentence George Maschke, proprietor of antipolygraph.org claims there was an attempt by the federal government to "entrap" him into some kind of wrong doing.[2] US Customs agents raided a third polygraph "trainer," Doug Williams. In that raid they seized all his computers and business records.[3]

Everyone from retailer's to security professionals to police to federal agencies are crying foul. They say that teaching someone how to beat a polygraph is tantamount to being an accessory to the crime.

On the other hand a polygraph test is so flakey there is no court in the land that will allow the results admitted or even discussed by the prosecution in a criminal case. The polygraph instructors hang their moral hat on statistical evidence that the machine is better then random chance at detecting deception.

They claim their instructions are merely to counter a practice they consider to be something along the lines voodoo and reading tea leaves.

However their most affirmative claim is the First Amendment. All of these people claim the books available on their web sites are protected free speech.

So what do you think?

-------------------------------------------------------------
[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/06/chad-dixon-_n_3882052.html

[2] HEADS UP! If you are in a sensitive government position, police officer or some other job requiring regular polygraphs you may want to skip this link. It is pretty much a given the IP addresses hitting this site are being logged and the owners traced. That information is being shared with all government agencies. This is one link that can get you fired.
https://antipolygraph.org/blog/2013/11/03/an-attempted-entrapment/

[3] http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/09/06/201372_coach-in-polygraph-trial-sentenced.html?rh=1

Yes - whilst the "Public Schools" exist they will be a political warzone. Let any charity (secular or religious) or commercial enterprise create schools. One does not increase resources by imposing Property Tax (and other taxes) - taking a (very large) proportion for the government bureaucracy and then throwing the rest back on (very badly run) schools.

On polygraph test thing - interesting legal dodge.

Teaching people to beat a machine (in the abstract) is not (I believe) a crime - but "advising someone to lie to the Federal government" (in a legal context) does seem to be crime, regardless of any machine angle.

That's kind of the way I see it. Were I in that position, I would terminate the class or lesson the instant someone told me they were going to lie.

Rothbardian fantasy

Hi everyone

I've been reading some Rothbard recently, and decided to create this nation as a kind of 'ideological experiment', running it along the lines of 'What would Rothbard do?'. This region looks like the best place to park it.

I hasten to add that I'm not an anarcho-capitalist myself, although I agree with you guys on quite a few issues. In RL I'm more of a left-wing libertarian- for example, I'm quite taken with Proudhonian Mutualism and Kevin Carson's left-wing market anarchism. When I run a NS country according to my actual beliefs, it usually ends up as a Civil Rights Lovefest.

Anyway...look forward to talking with you.

RE polygraph tests: The state is our enemy, not our friend. Teaching someone how to fool a polygraph test empowers that individual in their dealings with the state, and possibly other oppressive institutions (albeit in a very small way). It is therefore a fine thing to do.

Have you read about some of the underhanded ways the machines are being used?

Elko County, NV has come up with a novel way to offset some of their costs in running a county jail. County commissioners their approved a plan to charge inmates for doctor visits, food and even a booking fee.[1]

Tod Story of the ACLU doesn't much care for the plan. She said, "I was aghast that anyone was even thinking of doing this. It is unconstitutional - cruel and unusual punishment. There is no value in trying to punish them further than the sentence that they are already serving."

The county commissioners say there is no such thing as a free lunch, even in their jail. They have a problem with picking up the tab on people that get themselves tossed in the slammer. (People found innocent of their charges will not be charged the fees.)

What do you think? Good idea or bad idea.

Poll is up.

---------------------------------------------------------
[1] http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/02/08/nevada-county-plan-to-charge-inmates-for-jail-meals-draws-lawsuit-threat/

Provided there's the possibility for the prisoners to work inside the prison in order to cover the costs, I think it can be a good idea.

Depends on the size of the prison. In this case it is a county jail. As a rule there are far more inmates then jobs. According to the ACLU jails may not put prisoners on forced work details. There is some question now as to whether or not road gangs, trash pick up crews, etc constitute cruel and unusual punishment.

So, yeah.

Then let us not forget those that are merely accused, but not yet tried. What happens if the party is found not guilty. In Elko County's case, they erase the charges and refund any money paid. But what happens in an inmate awaiting trial if put on a work detail at the going jail rate of 90 cents an hour to cover their meals and is then found not guilty. I can see all kinds of legal headaches their ranging from minimum wage and overtime suits up to human trafficking.

How do we work that out?

Rothbardian Fantasy - I have big problems with the late Murray Rothbard on history. I believe Rothbard's account of history is indeed "fantasy" (a polite way of saying anti American, indeed anti Western, propaganda). However, on economics itself I have no problem with Rothbard - he wrote nonsense about the Cold War and so on, but on stuff like land and banking he wrote good sense. As for Kevin Carson - he writes nonsense on everything (no redeeming features). Still at least Proudhon wrote well - my French speaking friends keep telling me this and that I have no soul by concentrating on the "mere facts" and not feeling the poetry of the find writing (such is me - philistine monster, space alien).

not "find writing" - fine writing. Sadly something I know nothing about.

On charging for food - perhaps John Jay was mistaken, perhaps a prison mistake was a mistake. Capital punishment for severe crimes corporal punishment for less severe crimes used to be the way in New York (violent criminals do not tend to pay fines or restitution payments). My problem with that is that I am just not comfortable with the idea of the beating a female criminal (yes I am a hopeless sexist).

But certainly prisons are not the reforming institutions that people like John Jay hoped for.

Rothbardian fantasy

Reed Audio: Rothbard's positions on social and political issues changed enormously over time. He started out as a reasonably sane Austrian school economist. Then in the 1960s he turned sharply left, even going so far as to express admiration for the (deeply odious) Malcolm X. He subsequently regained at least some of his marbles for a while, and advocated a 'middle course' between the right-wing extremism of e.g. Ayn Rand and the crypto-Marxism of 'Anarcho'-Communism. Even during this phase he came out with some weird and occasionally disturbing views- for example he is on record as supporting child slavery (see chapter 14 of The Ethics of Liberty).

Unfortunately, he then continued his rightward trajectory, becoming one of the founders of paleolibertarianism. In this period he said nice things about the (deeply odious) David Duke, and supported a kind of right-wing populism that amounted to a scream of hatred and anguish at the modern world.

His economic positions were much more stable than his politics- unsurprising given that he was an economist by training. I agree with some of his positions (e.g. pro free trade, anti patents, anti fractional reserve banking) and disagree with others (e.g. anti trade unions, pro corporations, pro gold standard).

Contrary to what you say, I suspect that you do agree with Carson and Proudhon on at least some issues.

Xyanth wrote:Then let us not forget those that are merely accused, but not yet tried.

Good point. I didn't think about prisoners still awaiting trial and I would indeed exclude them from being charged if I had a say in the matter. They're not imprisoned as a form of punishment; locking away a de iure innocent man is one of the most severe restrictions of freedom I can think of and it certainly shouldn't be made any worse than it has to be.

However, this will get really tricky when there are not enough jobs for all prisoners, or when dealing with a prisoner who doesn't have the money to pay and who refuses to work. I don't have a problem letting inmates pay for their food and potentially work to cover the cost (actually it's probably a better step towards reintegrating them into society after they served their time than letting them sit idly by in their cells and stripping all forms of self-responsibility from them - despite the strongest, or at least the loudest, advocates of rehabilitation often being strongly against measures like this as well) but physically forcing them to work if they refuse to pay is a whole different thing.
If one can't let them starve and can't force them to work, a solution might be unconditional, rudimentary services that cover basic needs and can be upgraded by paying for it. Handing out something like tasteless Soylent[1] that covers nutritional needs and allowing to buy better food.
Of course, like most "central planning" measures this will probably just fire on the black market and smuggling inside prison. Additionally if the system is not kept as simple as possible (i.e. keep government bureaucrats as far away as possible) the added layer of bureaucracy might end up costing more than the savings on food.

Forgot the link I wanted to post:
[1] http://reason.com/archives/2014/08/26/soylent-cuisine

According to the article, prisoners that refuse to pay or cannot pay are still fed, but they build a debt that will be drafted from any money they earn or that relatives place in their inmate account.

Rothbardian fantasy

Re Prisoners paying: This is a good idea in principle. Implementing it is kinda tricky though. I'd suggest the following:

1. As Spinoza says, prisoners awaiting trial are de jure innocent, and shouldn't have to pay.

2. Prisoners should be charged for goods and services at the market rate.

3. Following on from (2), it would be deeply unfair to charge prisoners for goods and services without also giving them the potential means to pay for them. Thus prison work should pay the market wage, or something very close to it.

4. Monies earned through prison work could be spent on necessities, with the excess (if any) being paid to the victims of the prisoner's crime by way of restitution (not saved). Making good restitution payments through prison work could lead to increased privileges, or maybe even sentence reduction (there needs to be an incentive here).

«12. . .84858687888990. . .269270»

Advertisement