quote:

Originally posted by EddieZilker The whole problem with Rand was that she never really saw past the immediate satisfaction of her proposals to really explore the unintended consequences of them.

It is not really that she could not see consequences, but that she did not care about them, or at least not to the extent that she would consider cost-benefit analysis relevant to ethical decisions. Most libertarians, Rand included, have a deontological position on ethics.

[And I realize that Rand, in her desire to be thought a unique snowflake in everything she ever wrote or did, never called herself a "libertarian." But phooey on that.]

quote:

Originally posted by Vector A It is not really that she could not see consequences, but that she did not care about them, or at least not to the extent that she would consider cost-benefit analysis relevant to ethical decisions. Most libertarians, Rand included, have a deontological position on ethics. [And I realize that Rand, in her desire to be thought a unique snowflake in everything she ever wrote or did, never called herself a "libertarian." But phooey on that.]

If you were a girl with a Facebook account, I'd poke you.

quote:

Originally posted by Vector A If the government has the obligation to care for people when they cannot afford medical help -- which it does in many countries -- then it only makes sense that it should also have the power to regulate certain things (seat belt use, for example) so that medical costs will be minimized. You might say that people who cannot afford life-saving medicine should simply be left to die, or that they should rely on private charity (which is pretty much a less harsh way of saying the former); but if you do not take that view, then it makes little sense to object to public safety laws.

That doesn't make a lot of sense with respect to the topic. The healthcare system is a completely different can of worms. And if the government derives the right to control people from offering healthcare to those who can't afford it then why would this right extend to those who can afford it as well?

quote:

Originally posted by EddieZilker I think you're ignoring some pertinent nuances though.

You are seriously pointing out psychological trauma as the biggest problem? What a wimpy hippie you are.
The life-insurance companies are a good point because they will pressurize you into using a seat belt. But you still have the choice.

quote:

Originally posted by EddieZilker You'll be legislating to many of the symptoms of the problem, rather than dealing with the problem in the most efficient manner possible.

I didn't say it was the most efficient solution. Or the most trauma minimizing. But it's the solution that fits best with my idea of what a government should and should not do.


Funny thing is that the same hippies that demand these type of rules for everything are also always pissed about how the government is banning their beloved pot.

Last edited by Meat187 on Dec-04-2011 at 18:40

quote:

Originally posted by Meat187 That doesn't make a lot of sense with respect to the topic. The healthcare system is a completely different can of worms.

Why? If seat belt laws effectively decrease the need for emergency care of people thrown through windshields and stuff, the relationship looks pretty straightforward.

For me it is less about whether the government has "derived a right" than about what is the most rational way of proceeding: to mandate that the government shoulder costs and then deny to it an effective and relatively non-intrusive means of minimizing those costs, or to allow it those means. I am not fond of looking at rights in an absolutist way: for me there are less important and more important rights, and the right not to put on a seat belt in a car does not strike me as a crucial one, when weighed against the potential negatives.

quote:

Originally posted by Meat187 Funny thing is that the same hippies that demand these type of rules for everything are also always pissed about how the government is banning their beloved pot.

I'll punch your face! (Yes, you're right but you hit a little close to home and I'm sorry I lashed out like that.)

I'm actually pointing to high-turnover related to psychological trauma and not the psychological trauma, itself.

Personally, I don't like anti-smoking legislation much. The way it's enacted, in the United States, seems to be targeting the wrong group of people. It proposes that business owners eliminate smoking sections, altogether, instead of allowing business owners to make that decision for themselves.

That, to my mind, is an example of government interference and one that is using negligible evidence to support its validity.


But then according to Wikipedia, I am a consequentialist, for the most part.

quote:

Originally posted by Vector A Why? If seat belt laws effectively decrease the need for emergency care of people thrown through windshields and stuff, the relationship looks pretty straightforward. For me it is less about whether the government has "derived a right" than about what is the most rational way of proceeding: to mandate that the government shoulder costs and then deny to it an effective and relatively non-intrusive means of minimizing those costs, or to allow it those means. I am not fond of looking at rights in an absolutist way: for me there are less important and more important rights, and the right not to put on a seat belt in a car does not strike me as a crucial one, when weighed against the potential negatives.

No, because it comes down to who pays for that care and that's a healthcare discussion. As I said, I don't care about people injuring themselves because they're stupid. Being the asshole I am I'd even let them die. When the relationship looks so straightforward then it will also mean every potentially dangerous activity can and should be forbidden. You got any idea how dangerous it is to change a light bulb? Use a ladder? Or what about the emos like Hal, who cut themselves. Put them in prison right now! Wait, I'm starting to like this idea...
Of course it's a rather unimportant right. That's why it's just an example of what I consider a wrong principle and not something I'm protesting against every day.

quote:

Originally posted by EddieZilker That, to my mind, is an example of government interference and one that is using negligible evidence to support its validity.

Yeah, and I guess everything would indeed be fine if only we could expect our governments to always make the best choice. Sure, I'd have no problem giving them the right to regulate everything when I know they'll make good decisions. Personally, I believe exactly the opposite. Will the naive idealists please raise their hand?

Last edited by Meat187 on Dec-04-2011 at 19:13

quote:

Originally posted by Meat187 No, because it comes down to who pays for that care and that's a healthcare discussion. As I said, I don't care about people injuring themselves because they're stupid. Being the asshole I am I'd even let them die.

Well, at least you are consistent, then!

quote:

Originally posted by Meat187 Yeah, and I guess everything would indeed be fine if only we could expect our governments to always make the best choice. Sure, I'd have no problem giving them the right to regulate everything when I know they'll make good decisions. Personally, I believe exactly the opposite. Will the naive idealists please raise their hand?

I prefer to think of myself as the articulate, naive idealist with perfectionistic demands.

I had a friend who worked in the Public Relations Department for a small-town city manager's office. They wanted to install rail-rode crossing arms for one of the crossings near the main boulevard. They raised the proposal at a city-council meeting and it got clobbered with protest. A few years later, one of the people who killed it, had their daughter driving to school.

She crossed it and stalled, right on the tracks. The train hit the car but was already stopping before the impact. No one was hurt but that didn't stop the phone calls to the city manager's office, who heard nothing less than an earful from many of the same angry residence who had previously kiboshed his crossing arm proposal, for not having crossing arms installed, in the first place.

Invoking many of the same sorts of arguments you're making - basically, because it costs too much, and if someone gets hurt, oh well - they killed the deal that an emergency city-council meeting was called for, afterwards, to demand explanations as to why crossing arms weren't there, in the first place.


It would seem that hippies aren't the only people who believe in a perfect world.

Government policy that reduces mortality is in the interest of the population only to the extent that mortality is suboptimally high. Currently, mortality is suboptimally low.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Government policy that reduces mortality is in the interest of the population only to the extent that mortality is suboptimally high. Currently, mortality is suboptimally low.

Low by what standard?

quote:

Originally posted by Vector A Low by what standard?

Long-term survivability of the population as a whole.