What are laws if not the ultimate attempt to nullify the opinions of others? Once laws are passed, your opinion doesn't matter. What better way to say I am right and you are wrong than to pass a law which forces my will upon you?
Printable View
Yes well said
But. The law is what it is and I must be right because I am obviously wrong again
That is the question
Well questioned
Now we are getting into semantics;).
I think the bigger question here "are we having a big, negative effect on the planet or not". If you can say with absolute authority, NO, and can absolutely prove it, there is no need for a law or regulation banning something (like R22).
If you cannot prove it and there is lots of evidence supporting the negative effects of "X" product then there is grounds for a regulation or law against it use.
How many people died from asbestosis before we banned it in the western world. Stupidly, Canada still mines and sends it to third world countries where bags of it are opened by people without masks. These people last 5 years working before they can't work and die of the effects. "But if you ban it (the business owner says), my ability to make money on it is reduced and that is against my rights......"
What is right?... difficult question
Effects on the planet are neither negative nor positive. The planet doesn't care what we do, one way or the other. Obviously, you are not opposed to semantic games.
I have heard a hundred times business men saying that a regulation is hampering their ability to grow their business and create jobs. You have to go back to economics 101 to know that they are in business to make a profit. Period. There are no ethics courses in most MBA schools and ethics has little role to play in business, according to the business courses I took years ago and echoed by MOST business men I have listened to (and I listen to a lot of them). That is not to say they they live in a vacuum but gaining money is the most important thing to them. Especially in the USA where free enterprise is more of an ideology than anywhere else.
So... you made that up?
Do you want an actual quote? You will accept nothing else? I can't get one from every business man so....
No, I didn't make it up. No BS
It's a strawman setup.
For those who don't know what a strawman argument is: You misstate your opponent's position (set up the strawman) and then debate against that false position (knock down the strawman).
Never heard of a strawman argument but discussions do change direction sometimes.
Enter the healthcare argument (again). Is the reason the American right is against a govt insurance plan because it is against government or because it impedes their ability to make a profit (and a big one at that)?
Very good.....back to the original thought then... I am having a hard time picturing life in your legal utopia. I think I would not want to leave the house for fear of getting sued. It is like hitting a mosquito with a baseball bat.
Utopia?... who said anything about Utopia?
Well it seems like you believe your vision is closer to utopia than the current system
Closer to Utopia? You just can't help yourself, can you?
I think you will find that most people have a romantic longing for utopia (their own definition of it). Sometimes is it just looking at the past through rose coloured glasses and believing it was better than now. It seldom was. Much as I remember fondly filling the old StratoChief with 10 of my friends (some in the trunk or boot to you brits) and going to the drivein, I've almost forgot the stench of the old cars lead laden exhaust.......rose coloured glasses.
You are right, I can't help it.
But it does lead into the earlier point. We are human, and we always have to find a way to fix things or change them even if they are not busted. Example... we have been through 4 or 5 police chiefs in the last 20 years and the new one is implementing changes that the one first one dumped cause it didn't work. He is doing it to make his own mark, that's all.
The point is that we can't help tinkering with peoples lives and our rights (real or imagined) infringe on others and vise versa so how are you going to design a set of laws and regs that work for you and won't get others upset....and are flexible enough to react to things like changes to the environment.
Again....big question
Wow 4 pages! Seems like a troublesome industry we have!
I eke out a living, and go home. I drink on paydays (hopefully every day is a pay day).
No trouble here except for not getting paid.
Reminds me of debating issues on internet forums. No hope of anyone being persuaded into changing their opinion, so why bother.
Mike,
Evidence is in the eye of the beholder, for example wine, is it good for you or bad for you? both maybe true(at least that is what the science suggests) so do we pass a law saying you must drink at least one glass of wine a day "after all the evidence suggest's that it is good for you" and there is a concensus amoung scientists, and since the government controls the healthcare system and we want everyone to be healthy, we must do this for the good of the people or do we ban wine from the planet because if you drink too much too often it is bad for you and usually those around you and may cause depression which will cause health care costs to rise and so for the good of the people we must ban wine..
...Orrrr do we leave the people to decide for themselves whether they will drink wine in moderation in excess or not at all?
Which way shall it be then Mike?
It's my round my shout and I. Am paying that's my choice
My opinion is that I will get the next round also , the reason is because I can
We seem to read the same lingo
http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow...192334971.html
Mike,
I thought you might like a little something to read with that cold beer. Quality, you too may be interested in this article.
Interesting article but check out the author and go to his credentials. He writes for a think tank that states as its mandate;
"Heartland's mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems. Such solutions include parental choice in education, choice and personal responsibility in health care, market-based approaches to environmental protection, privatization of public services, and deregulation in areas where property rights and markets do a better job than government bureaucracies."
Organizations (left or right) that are disposed to a particular ideology and are trying to move people to its way of thinking must have their publications excepted with skepticism. We have a similar "think tank" here called the Frasure Institute. Its mandate to promote a right wing free market agenda. No problem except that newspapers and TV will report on some of their research conclusions without telling the public of the organizations mandate.
Case in point....the Frasure Institute put out a paper rating the quality of education in all the Canadian provinces. all the provinces with conservative governments were on the top of the list and at the bottom were the provinces with more liberal governments. Unfortunately, the real numbers were mixed and there was no correlation between the leaning of the government (in this case) and the quality of the education. The author just wanted the quick soundbite that will influence the casual listener...
Don't believe everything you read......now I need a beer.
So... in your opinion, Heartland Institute is the same as Frasure Institute, therefore because you don't believe what Frasure Institute says, this somehow damages the credibility of Heartland Institute.
And then to prove your point, you bring up a totally irrelevant paper written by Frasure Institute... not Heartland Institute.
And this makes sense to you?
As far as I'm concerned, his credibility vanished when he characterized others as "alarmist". This in itself doesn't mean he is right or wrong... but it tells me he is biased.
I wondered why he would say Alarmist if he was not trying to be alarmist. He is not even subtle in his writing. The bias is very obvious.
I think the two think tanks went to the same school, methods are similar and have the same stated goals. An ideologically based organization wouldn't write a report or article that It doesn't believe in, IMO.
The comparison of the two only shows the similarities. It doesn't matter what the subject matter is. They have the same stated beliefs.
Here is the first part of the Fraser Institute mission statement (it is longer than this):
Our vision is a free and prosperous world where individuals benefit from greater choice, competitive markets, and personal responsibility.
Our mission is to measure, study, and communicate the impact of competitive markets and government interventions on the welfare of individuals.
It is a bit more subtle than the Heartland statement, I think, but if you look at the speakers, researchers and mentors, and listen to interviews on the radio (as I do) it becomes obvious that they are quite similar.