| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Fred Stone" |
| Date: |
07 Dec 2007 06:38:09 PM |
| Object: |
You have the right to be stupid |
http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/03/burchs_law.html
Burch's Law
Greg Burch said:
"I think people should have a right to be stupid and, if they have
that right, the market's going to respond by supplying as much stupidity
as can be sold."
Greg Burch was speaking about sport-utility vehicles, which he feels are
very poorly designed. Note that Burch was not advocating banning SUVs.
Burch did not even advocate regulating SUVs. Burch thinks people should
have a right to be stupid. But Burch also openly acknowledges the real-
world consequence of that right, which is that the market will respond by
supplying as much stupidity as can be sold. Perhaps Burch is strongly
libertarian, and sees the case against regulation as a slam-dunk
regardless of the consequences, and therefore has an easier time
acknowledging the downside of his policy. Or perhaps Burch is just a
skillful rationalist. Either way, I hereby canonize his observation as
Burch's Law.
Burch's Law is a special case of a more general rule: Just because your
ethics require an action doesn't mean the universe will exempt you from
the consequences. If the universe were fair, like a sympathetic human,
the universe would understand that you had overriding ethical reasons for
your action, and would exempt you from the usual penalties. The judge
would rule "justifiable homicide" instead of "murder" and exempt you from
the usual prison term. Well, the universe isn't fair and it won't exempt
you from the consequences. We know the equations of physics in enough
detail to know that the equations don't contain any quantities reflective
of ethical considerations.
We don't send automobile manufacturers to jail, even though manufactured
cars kill an estimated 1.2 million people per year worldwide. (Roughly
2% of the annual planetary death rate.) Not everyone who dies in an
automobile accident is someone who decided to drive a car. The tally of
casualties includes pedestrians. It includes minor children who had to
be pushed screaming into the car on the way to school. And yet we still
manufacture automobiles, because, well, we're in a hurry. I don't even
disagree with this decision. I drive a car myself. The point is that
the consequences don't change no matter how good the ethical
justification sounds. The people who die in automobile accidents are
still dead. We can suspend the jail penalty, but we can't suspend the
laws of physics.
Humanity hasn't had much luck suspending the laws of economics, either.
If people have a right to be stupid, the market will respond by supplying
all the stupidity that can be sold.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
If you go into Sudan today; Your heart will fill with dread
If you go into Sudan today; You might just lose your head
Because on the sands; With blood on their hands
Every nut that ever was; Will be there because
Today's the day the Teddy Bears; Have their Jihad!
.
|
|
| User: "chibiabos" |
|
| Title: Re: You have the right to be stupid |
07 Dec 2007 09:03:07 PM |
|
|
In article <Xns99FFC7C40713Dfreddybear@216.151.153.47>, Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/03/burchs_law.html
Burch's Law
Greg Burch said:
"I think people should have a right to be stupid and, if they have
that right, the market's going to respond by supplying as much stupidity
as can be sold."
Greg Burch was speaking about sport-utility vehicles, which he feels are
very poorly designed. Note that Burch was not advocating banning SUVs.
Burch did not even advocate regulating SUVs. Burch thinks people should
have a right to be stupid. But Burch also openly acknowledges the real-
world consequence of that right, which is that the market will respond by
supplying as much stupidity as can be sold. Perhaps Burch is strongly
libertarian, and sees the case against regulation as a slam-dunk
regardless of the consequences, and therefore has an easier time
acknowledging the downside of his policy. Or perhaps Burch is just a
skillful rationalist. Either way, I hereby canonize his observation as
Burch's Law.
Burch's Law is a special case of a more general rule: Just because your
ethics require an action doesn't mean the universe will exempt you from
the consequences. If the universe were fair, like a sympathetic human,
the universe would understand that you had overriding ethical reasons for
your action, and would exempt you from the usual penalties. The judge
would rule "justifiable homicide" instead of "murder" and exempt you from
the usual prison term. Well, the universe isn't fair and it won't exempt
you from the consequences. We know the equations of physics in enough
detail to know that the equations don't contain any quantities reflective
of ethical considerations.
We don't send automobile manufacturers to jail, even though manufactured
cars kill an estimated 1.2 million people per year worldwide. (Roughly
2% of the annual planetary death rate.) Not everyone who dies in an
automobile accident is someone who decided to drive a car. The tally of
casualties includes pedestrians. It includes minor children who had to
be pushed screaming into the car on the way to school. And yet we still
manufacture automobiles, because, well, we're in a hurry. I don't even
disagree with this decision. I drive a car myself. The point is that
the consequences don't change no matter how good the ethical
justification sounds. The people who die in automobile accidents are
still dead. We can suspend the jail penalty, but we can't suspend the
laws of physics.
Humanity hasn't had much luck suspending the laws of economics, either.
If people have a right to be stupid, the market will respond by supplying
all the stupidity that can be sold.
Fred might be old enough to remember a little book called _Unsafe At
Any Speed_ (by, I'm sure, one of Fred's favorite people, Ralph Nader),
which forced the auto industry, kicking and screaming all the way, into
installing seat belts, padded dashboards, safety glass, and a host of
other safety improvements into their death traps.
Note that I said "kicking and screaming," because that's precisely what
it was. The auto industry fought EVERY technical improvement that would
save lives, for their own selfish economic reasons. But not any more,
because it's a fact that these improvements have, over the years, saved
millions of lives, to the point where safety issues are now a MAJOR
selling point of many cars.
I don't know Greg Burch, and I don't know what kind of point he's
really trying to make, but to say that the market is going to supply
stupidity because we have a right to stupidity is the height of
stupidity itself. In the case of automobiles, we pay tens of thousands
of dollars a pop for each unit. Part of those thousands of dollars is
for engineers who can make the vehicle as safe as possible. If they
don't do that, they're not doing their job, and they should be fired.
We as consumers have the right to expect that the people we pay to do
their jobs are actually doing it, and not serving up stupidity to the
rest of us because we don't know the physics ourselves or, worse yet,
because of some trendy sound-bite "philosophy" about deserving all the
stupidity we can afford.
-chib
--
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
Sarcastic Middle-aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: You have the right to be stupid |
07 Dec 2007 09:37:01 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 19:03:07 -0800, chibiabos <chib@nospam.com> wrote:
In article <Xns99FFC7C40713Dfreddybear@216.151.153.47>, Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/03/burchs_law.html
Burch's Law
Greg Burch said:
"I think people should have a right to be stupid and, if they have
that right, the market's going to respond by supplying as much stupidity
as can be sold."
Greg Burch was speaking about sport-utility vehicles, which he feels are
very poorly designed. Note that Burch was not advocating banning SUVs.
Burch did not even advocate regulating SUVs. Burch thinks people should
have a right to be stupid. But Burch also openly acknowledges the real-
world consequence of that right, which is that the market will respond by
supplying as much stupidity as can be sold. Perhaps Burch is strongly
libertarian, and sees the case against regulation as a slam-dunk
regardless of the consequences, and therefore has an easier time
acknowledging the downside of his policy. Or perhaps Burch is just a
skillful rationalist. Either way, I hereby canonize his observation as
Burch's Law.
Burch's Law is a special case of a more general rule: Just because your
ethics require an action doesn't mean the universe will exempt you from
the consequences. If the universe were fair, like a sympathetic human,
the universe would understand that you had overriding ethical reasons for
your action, and would exempt you from the usual penalties. The judge
would rule "justifiable homicide" instead of "murder" and exempt you from
the usual prison term. Well, the universe isn't fair and it won't exempt
you from the consequences. We know the equations of physics in enough
detail to know that the equations don't contain any quantities reflective
of ethical considerations.
We don't send automobile manufacturers to jail, even though manufactured
cars kill an estimated 1.2 million people per year worldwide. (Roughly
2% of the annual planetary death rate.) Not everyone who dies in an
automobile accident is someone who decided to drive a car. The tally of
casualties includes pedestrians. It includes minor children who had to
be pushed screaming into the car on the way to school. And yet we still
manufacture automobiles, because, well, we're in a hurry. I don't even
disagree with this decision. I drive a car myself. The point is that
the consequences don't change no matter how good the ethical
justification sounds. The people who die in automobile accidents are
still dead. We can suspend the jail penalty, but we can't suspend the
laws of physics.
Humanity hasn't had much luck suspending the laws of economics, either.
If people have a right to be stupid, the market will respond by supplying
all the stupidity that can be sold.
Fred might be old enough to remember a little book called _Unsafe At
Any Speed_ (by, I'm sure, one of Fred's favorite people, Ralph Nader),
which forced the auto industry, kicking and screaming all the way, into
installing seat belts, padded dashboards, safety glass, and a host of
other safety improvements into their death traps.
Note that I said "kicking and screaming," because that's precisely what
it was. The auto industry fought EVERY technical improvement that would
save lives, for their own selfish economic reasons. But not any more,
because it's a fact that these improvements have, over the years, saved
millions of lives, to the point where safety issues are now a MAJOR
selling point of many cars.
I don't know Greg Burch, and I don't know what kind of point he's
really trying to make, but to say that the market is going to supply
stupidity because we have a right to stupidity is the height of
stupidity itself. In the case of automobiles, we pay tens of thousands
of dollars a pop for each unit. Part of those thousands of dollars is
for engineers who can make the vehicle as safe as possible. If they
don't do that, they're not doing their job, and they should be fired.
We as consumers have the right to expect that the people we pay to do
their jobs are actually doing it, and not serving up stupidity to the
rest of us because we don't know the physics ourselves or, worse yet,
because of some trendy sound-bite "philosophy" about deserving all the
stupidity we can afford.
-chib
I have often heard reports of many business wanting to do the right
thing, on any subject, safety, conservation, lying to the customer,
not abusing minorities - but don't feel they can because other
businesses do and then they couldn't compete.
They appreciate laws which force ~all~ businesses to behave in a way
that helps society instead of damaging it, so they don't have to lose
money to act ethically.
And the rest of us do too.
So why is Fred whining about a win/win situation?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: You have the right to be stupid |
08 Dec 2007 04:55:37 AM |
|
|
(Kate ) wrote in
news:47631042.216187343@news-west.newscene.com:
On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 19:03:07 -0800, chibiabos <chib@nospam.com> wrote:
In article <Xns99FFC7C40713Dfreddybear@216.151.153.47>, Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/03/burchs_law.html
Burch's Law
Greg Burch said:
"I think people should have a right to be stupid and, if they
have
that right, the market's going to respond by supplying as much
stupidity as can be sold."
Greg Burch was speaking about sport-utility vehicles, which he feels
are very poorly designed. Note that Burch was not advocating
banning SUVs. Burch did not even advocate regulating SUVs. Burch
thinks people should have a right to be stupid. But Burch also
openly acknowledges the real- world consequence of that right, which
is that the market will respond by supplying as much stupidity as
can be sold. Perhaps Burch is strongly libertarian, and sees the
case against regulation as a slam-dunk regardless of the
consequences, and therefore has an easier time acknowledging the
downside of his policy. Or perhaps Burch is just a skillful
rationalist. Either way, I hereby canonize his observation as
Burch's Law.
Burch's Law is a special case of a more general rule: Just because
your ethics require an action doesn't mean the universe will exempt
you from the consequences. If the universe were fair, like a
sympathetic human, the universe would understand that you had
overriding ethical reasons for your action, and would exempt you
from the usual penalties. The judge would rule "justifiable
homicide" instead of "murder" and exempt you from the usual prison
term. Well, the universe isn't fair and it won't exempt you from
the consequences. We know the equations of physics in enough detail
to know that the equations don't contain any quantities reflective
of ethical considerations.
We don't send automobile manufacturers to jail, even though
manufactured cars kill an estimated 1.2 million people per year
worldwide. (Roughly 2% of the annual planetary death rate.) Not
everyone who dies in an automobile accident is someone who decided
to drive a car. The tally of casualties includes pedestrians. It
includes minor children who had to be pushed screaming into the car
on the way to school. And yet we still manufacture automobiles,
because, well, we're in a hurry. I don't even disagree with this
decision. I drive a car myself. The point is that the consequences
don't change no matter how good the ethical justification sounds.
The people who die in automobile accidents are still dead. We can
suspend the jail penalty, but we can't suspend the laws of physics.
Humanity hasn't had much luck suspending the laws of economics,
either. If people have a right to be stupid, the market will
respond by supplying all the stupidity that can be sold.
Fred might be old enough to remember a little book called _Unsafe At
Any Speed_ (by, I'm sure, one of Fred's favorite people, Ralph Nader),
which forced the auto industry, kicking and screaming all the way,
into installing seat belts, padded dashboards, safety glass, and a
host of other safety improvements into their death traps.
And in the process founded the tort law industry that sells stupidity
wholesale in the form of "consumer protection" class-action lawsuits that
give the consumer *nothing* and make lawyers richer than Croesus. Now
*that's* stupidity on a level that makes the Corvair barely a speed bump.
Note that I said "kicking and screaming," because that's precisely
what it was. The auto industry fought EVERY technical improvement that
would save lives, for their own selfish economic reasons. But not any
more, because it's a fact that these improvements have, over the
years, saved millions of lives, to the point where safety issues are
now a MAJOR selling point of many cars.
So a stupid method of fixing stupid is a good thing because people are
too stupid to refuse to buy cars that aren't stupid. And you think that
refutes the point?
I don't know Greg Burch, and I don't know what kind of point he's
really trying to make, but to say that the market is going to supply
stupidity because we have a right to stupidity is the height of
stupidity itself. In the case of automobiles, we pay tens of thousands
of dollars a pop for each unit. Part of those thousands of dollars is
for engineers who can make the vehicle as safe as possible. If they
don't do that, they're not doing their job, and they should be fired.
We as consumers have the right to expect that the people we pay to do
their jobs are actually doing it, and not serving up stupidity to the
rest of us because we don't know the physics ourselves or, worse yet,
because of some trendy sound-bite "philosophy" about deserving all the
stupidity we can afford.
-chib
I have often heard reports of many business wanting to do the right
thing, on any subject, safety, conservation, lying to the customer,
not abusing minorities - but don't feel they can because other
businesses do and then they couldn't compete.
You just confirmed Burch's thesis.
They appreciate laws which force ~all~ businesses to behave in a way
that helps society instead of damaging it, so they don't have to lose
money to act ethically.
Help, Uncle Sam! Protect us from ourselves, we're too stupid to do it
without you!
And the rest of us do too.
So why is Fred whining about a win/win situation?
Just because you're too stupid to take care of yourself doesn't mean that
you have to inflict your stupid remedies for your own stupidity on the
rest of us.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
If you go into Sudan today; Your heart will fill with dread
If you go into Sudan today; You might just lose your head
Because on the sands; With blood on their hands
Every nut that ever was; Will be there because
Today's the day the Teddy Bears; Have their Jihad!
.
|
|
|
| User: "chibiabos" |
|
| Title: Re: You have the right to be stupid |
08 Dec 2007 12:41:55 PM |
|
|
In article <Xns9A003C531ECADfreddybear@216.151.153.48>, Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
cobalt@newscene.com (Kate ) wrote in
news:47631042.216187343@news-west.newscene.com:
On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 19:03:07 -0800, chibiabos <chib@nospam.com> wrote:
In article <Xns99FFC7C40713Dfreddybear@216.151.153.47>, Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/03/burchs_law.html
Burch's Law
Greg Burch said:
"I think people should have a right to be stupid and, if they
have
that right, the market's going to respond by supplying as much
stupidity as can be sold."
Greg Burch was speaking about sport-utility vehicles, which he feels
are very poorly designed. Note that Burch was not advocating
banning SUVs. Burch did not even advocate regulating SUVs. Burch
thinks people should have a right to be stupid. But Burch also
openly acknowledges the real- world consequence of that right, which
is that the market will respond by supplying as much stupidity as
can be sold. Perhaps Burch is strongly libertarian, and sees the
case against regulation as a slam-dunk regardless of the
consequences, and therefore has an easier time acknowledging the
downside of his policy. Or perhaps Burch is just a skillful
rationalist. Either way, I hereby canonize his observation as
Burch's Law.
Burch's Law is a special case of a more general rule: Just because
your ethics require an action doesn't mean the universe will exempt
you from the consequences. If the universe were fair, like a
sympathetic human, the universe would understand that you had
overriding ethical reasons for your action, and would exempt you
from the usual penalties. The judge would rule "justifiable
homicide" instead of "murder" and exempt you from the usual prison
term. Well, the universe isn't fair and it won't exempt you from
the consequences. We know the equations of physics in enough detail
to know that the equations don't contain any quantities reflective
of ethical considerations.
We don't send automobile manufacturers to jail, even though
manufactured cars kill an estimated 1.2 million people per year
worldwide. (Roughly 2% of the annual planetary death rate.) Not
everyone who dies in an automobile accident is someone who decided
to drive a car. The tally of casualties includes pedestrians. It
includes minor children who had to be pushed screaming into the car
on the way to school. And yet we still manufacture automobiles,
because, well, we're in a hurry. I don't even disagree with this
decision. I drive a car myself. The point is that the consequences
don't change no matter how good the ethical justification sounds.
The people who die in automobile accidents are still dead. We can
suspend the jail penalty, but we can't suspend the laws of physics.
Humanity hasn't had much luck suspending the laws of economics,
either. If people have a right to be stupid, the market will
respond by supplying all the stupidity that can be sold.
Fred might be old enough to remember a little book called _Unsafe At
Any Speed_ (by, I'm sure, one of Fred's favorite people, Ralph Nader),
which forced the auto industry, kicking and screaming all the way,
into installing seat belts, padded dashboards, safety glass, and a
host of other safety improvements into their death traps.
And in the process founded the tort law industry that sells stupidity
wholesale in the form of "consumer protection" class-action lawsuits that
give the consumer *nothing* and make lawyers richer than Croesus. Now
*that's* stupidity on a level that makes the Corvair barely a speed bump.
Note that I said "kicking and screaming," because that's precisely
what it was. The auto industry fought EVERY technical improvement that
would save lives, for their own selfish economic reasons. But not any
more, because it's a fact that these improvements have, over the
years, saved millions of lives, to the point where safety issues are
now a MAJOR selling point of many cars.
So a stupid method of fixing stupid is a good thing because people are
too stupid to refuse to buy cars that aren't stupid. And you think that
refutes the point?
I don't know Greg Burch, and I don't know what kind of point he's
really trying to make, but to say that the market is going to supply
stupidity because we have a right to stupidity is the height of
stupidity itself. In the case of automobiles, we pay tens of thousands
of dollars a pop for each unit. Part of those thousands of dollars is
for engineers who can make the vehicle as safe as possible. If they
don't do that, they're not doing their job, and they should be fired.
We as consumers have the right to expect that the people we pay to do
their jobs are actually doing it, and not serving up stupidity to the
rest of us because we don't know the physics ourselves or, worse yet,
because of some trendy sound-bite "philosophy" about deserving all the
stupidity we can afford.
-chib
I have often heard reports of many business wanting to do the right
thing, on any subject, safety, conservation, lying to the customer,
not abusing minorities - but don't feel they can because other
businesses do and then they couldn't compete.
You just confirmed Burch's thesis.
He doesn't have a thesis. He has a pop philosophy that he hopes will
sell his book(s).
They appreciate laws which force ~all~ businesses to behave in a way
that helps society instead of damaging it, so they don't have to lose
money to act ethically.
Help, Uncle Sam! Protect us from ourselves, we're too stupid to do it
without you!
You're probably only alive today because of mandated safety laws.
Considering where this is coming from, maybe we *were* stupid to make
congress pass them.
And the rest of us do too.
So why is Fred whining about a win/win situation?
Just because you're too stupid to take care of yourself doesn't mean that
you have to inflict your stupid remedies for your own stupidity on the
rest of us.
I had an uncle who killed himself when his brand new '57 Buick collided
with a deer. No seat belts. Dashboard hard as a rock. Windshield
shredded his face. This accident, if it occurred today, would result in
a few bruises and some body work, all as a result of mandated safety
improvements to automobiles. That's how stupid we've become.
-chib
--
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
Sarcastic Middle-aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: You have the right to be stupid |
09 Dec 2007 01:24:05 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 08 Dec 2007 10:41:55 -0800, chibiabos <chib@nospam.com> wrote:
In article <Xns9A003C531ECADfreddybear@216.151.153.48>, Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
cobalt@newscene.com (Kate ) wrote in
news:47631042.216187343@news-west.newscene.com:
On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 19:03:07 -0800, chibiabos <chib@nospam.com> wrote:
In article <Xns99FFC7C40713Dfreddybear@216.151.153.47>, Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/03/burchs_law.html
Burch's Law
Greg Burch said:
"I think people should have a right to be stupid and, if they
have
that right, the market's going to respond by supplying as much
stupidity as can be sold."
Greg Burch was speaking about sport-utility vehicles, which he feels
are very poorly designed. Note that Burch was not advocating
banning SUVs. Burch did not even advocate regulating SUVs. Burch
thinks people should have a right to be stupid. But Burch also
openly acknowledges the real- world consequence of that right, which
is that the market will respond by supplying as much stupidity as
can be sold. Perhaps Burch is strongly libertarian, and sees the
case against regulation as a slam-dunk regardless of the
consequences, and therefore has an easier time acknowledging the
downside of his policy. Or perhaps Burch is just a skillful
rationalist. Either way, I hereby canonize his observation as
Burch's Law.
Burch's Law is a special case of a more general rule: Just because
your ethics require an action doesn't mean the universe will exempt
you from the consequences. If the universe were fair, like a
sympathetic human, the universe would understand that you had
overriding ethical reasons for your action, and would exempt you
from the usual penalties. The judge would rule "justifiable
homicide" instead of "murder" and exempt you from the usual prison
term. Well, the universe isn't fair and it won't exempt you from
the consequences. We know the equations of physics in enough detail
to know that the equations don't contain any quantities reflective
of ethical considerations.
We don't send automobile manufacturers to jail, even though
manufactured cars kill an estimated 1.2 million people per year
worldwide. (Roughly 2% of the annual planetary death rate.) Not
everyone who dies in an automobile accident is someone who decided
to drive a car. The tally of casualties includes pedestrians. It
includes minor children who had to be pushed screaming into the car
on the way to school. And yet we still manufacture automobiles,
because, well, we're in a hurry. I don't even disagree with this
decision. I drive a car myself. The point is that the consequences
don't change no matter how good the ethical justification sounds.
The people who die in automobile accidents are still dead. We can
suspend the jail penalty, but we can't suspend the laws of physics.
Humanity hasn't had much luck suspending the laws of economics,
either. If people have a right to be stupid, the market will
respond by supplying all the stupidity that can be sold.
Fred might be old enough to remember a little book called _Unsafe At
Any Speed_ (by, I'm sure, one of Fred's favorite people, Ralph Nader),
which forced the auto industry, kicking and screaming all the way,
into installing seat belts, padded dashboards, safety glass, and a
host of other safety improvements into their death traps.
And in the process founded the tort law industry that sells stupidity
wholesale in the form of "consumer protection" class-action lawsuits that
give the consumer *nothing* and make lawyers richer than Croesus. Now
*that's* stupidity on a level that makes the Corvair barely a speed bump.
Note that I said "kicking and screaming," because that's precisely
what it was. The auto industry fought EVERY technical improvement that
would save lives, for their own selfish economic reasons. But not any
more, because it's a fact that these improvements have, over the
years, saved millions of lives, to the point where safety issues are
now a MAJOR selling point of many cars.
So a stupid method of fixing stupid is a good thing because people are
too stupid to refuse to buy cars that aren't stupid. And you think that
refutes the point?
I don't know Greg Burch, and I don't know what kind of point he's
really trying to make, but to say that the market is going to supply
stupidity because we have a right to stupidity is the height of
stupidity itself. In the case of automobiles, we pay tens of thousands
of dollars a pop for each unit. Part of those thousands of dollars is
for engineers who can make the vehicle as safe as possible. If they
don't do that, they're not doing their job, and they should be fired.
We as consumers have the right to expect that the people we pay to do
their jobs are actually doing it, and not serving up stupidity to the
rest of us because we don't know the physics ourselves or, worse yet,
because of some trendy sound-bite "philosophy" about deserving all the
stupidity we can afford.
-chib
I have often heard reports of many business wanting to do the right
thing, on any subject, safety, conservation, lying to the customer,
not abusing minorities - but don't feel they can because other
businesses do and then they couldn't compete.
You just confirmed Burch's thesis.
er, no Fred. You just confirmed you can't comprehend what either of
us wrote.
That's why you continually keep screwing up and whining about people
who point it out.
He doesn't have a thesis. He has a pop philosophy that he hopes will
sell his book(s).
They appreciate laws which force ~all~ businesses to behave in a way
that helps society instead of damaging it, so they don't have to lose
money to act ethically.
Help, Uncle Sam! Protect us from ourselves, we're too stupid to do it
without you!
You're probably only alive today because of mandated safety laws.
Considering where this is coming from, maybe we *were* stupid to make
congress pass them.
And the rest of us do too.
So why is Fred whining about a win/win situation?
Just because you're too stupid to take care of yourself doesn't mean that
you have to inflict your stupid remedies for your own stupidity on the
rest of us.
LOL, even the manufacturers want the laws - but Fred is still whining
that nobody should get them.
I had an uncle who killed himself when his brand new '57 Buick collided
with a deer. No seat belts. Dashboard hard as a rock. Windshield
shredded his face. This accident, if it occurred today, would result in
a few bruises and some body work, all as a result of mandated safety
improvements to automobiles. That's how stupid we've become.
-chib
but but but - back in 57 he should have been walking, because that was
the only smart thing to do if your car was dangerous, right?
Apparently Fred thinks anyone who drove a car before seatbelts were
mandated was stupid.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: You have the right to be stupid |
09 Dec 2007 07:37:09 AM |
|
|
(Kate ) wrote in
news:476e9671.316074281@news-west.newscene.com:
but but but - back in 57 he should have been walking, because that was
the only smart thing to do if your car was dangerous, right?
Apparently Fred thinks anyone who drove a car before seatbelts were
mandated was stupid.
Apparantly you think that seatbelts didn't exist before the government
required them to be installed in cars. You *are* stupid, Kate.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
If you go into Sudan today; Your heart will fill with dread
If you go into Sudan today; You might just lose your head
Because on the sands; With blood on their hands
Every nut that ever was; Will be there because
Today's the day the Teddy Bears; Have their Jihad!
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: You have the right to be stupid |
08 Dec 2007 02:25:56 PM |
|
|
chibiabos <chib@nospam.com> wrote in
news:081220071041555946%chib@nospam.com:
In article <Xns9A003C531ECADfreddybear@216.151.153.48>, Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
cobalt@newscene.com (Kate ) wrote in
news:47631042.216187343@news-west.newscene.com:
On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 19:03:07 -0800, chibiabos <chib@nospam.com>
wrote:
In article <Xns99FFC7C40713Dfreddybear@216.151.153.47>, Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/03/burchs_law.html
Burch's Law
Greg Burch said:
"I think people should have a right to be stupid and, if they
have
that right, the market's going to respond by supplying as much
stupidity as can be sold."
Greg Burch was speaking about sport-utility vehicles, which he
feels are very poorly designed. Note that Burch was not
advocating banning SUVs. Burch did not even advocate regulating
SUVs. Burch thinks people should have a right to be stupid. But
Burch also openly acknowledges the real- world consequence of
that right, which is that the market will respond by supplying as
much stupidity as can be sold. Perhaps Burch is strongly
libertarian, and sees the case against regulation as a slam-dunk
regardless of the consequences, and therefore has an easier time
acknowledging the downside of his policy. Or perhaps Burch is
just a skillful rationalist. Either way, I hereby canonize his
observation as Burch's Law.
Burch's Law is a special case of a more general rule: Just
because your ethics require an action doesn't mean the universe
will exempt you from the consequences. If the universe were
fair, like a sympathetic human, the universe would understand
that you had overriding ethical reasons for your action, and
would exempt you from the usual penalties. The judge would rule
"justifiable homicide" instead of "murder" and exempt you from
the usual prison term. Well, the universe isn't fair and it
won't exempt you from the consequences. We know the equations of
physics in enough detail to know that the equations don't contain
any quantities reflective of ethical considerations.
We don't send automobile manufacturers to jail, even though
manufactured cars kill an estimated 1.2 million people per year
worldwide. (Roughly 2% of the annual planetary death rate.) Not
everyone who dies in an automobile accident is someone who
decided to drive a car. The tally of casualties includes
pedestrians. It includes minor children who had to be pushed
screaming into the car on the way to school. And yet we still
manufacture automobiles, because, well, we're in a hurry. I
don't even disagree with this decision. I drive a car myself.
The point is that the consequences don't change no matter how
good the ethical justification sounds. The people who die in
automobile accidents are still dead. We can suspend the jail
penalty, but we can't suspend the laws of physics.
Humanity hasn't had much luck suspending the laws of economics,
either. If people have a right to be stupid, the market will
respond by supplying all the stupidity that can be sold.
Fred might be old enough to remember a little book called _Unsafe
At Any Speed_ (by, I'm sure, one of Fred's favorite people, Ralph
Nader), which forced the auto industry, kicking and screaming all
the way, into installing seat belts, padded dashboards, safety
glass, and a host of other safety improvements into their death
traps.
And in the process founded the tort law industry that sells stupidity
wholesale in the form of "consumer protection" class-action lawsuits
that give the consumer *nothing* and make lawyers richer than
Croesus. Now *that's* stupidity on a level that makes the Corvair
barely a speed bump.
Note that I said "kicking and screaming," because that's precisely
what it was. The auto industry fought EVERY technical improvement
that would save lives, for their own selfish economic reasons. But
not any more, because it's a fact that these improvements have,
over the years, saved millions of lives, to the point where safety
issues are now a MAJOR selling point of many cars.
So a stupid method of fixing stupid is a good thing because people
are too stupid to refuse to buy cars that aren't stupid. And you
think that refutes the point?
I don't know Greg Burch, and I don't know what kind of point he's
really trying to make, but to say that the market is going to
supply stupidity because we have a right to stupidity is the height
of stupidity itself. In the case of automobiles, we pay tens of
thousands of dollars a pop for each unit. Part of those thousands
of dollars is for engineers who can make the vehicle as safe as
possible. If they don't do that, they're not doing their job, and
they should be fired. We as consumers have the right to expect that
the people we pay to do their jobs are actually doing it, and not
serving up stupidity to the rest of us because we don't know the
physics ourselves or, worse yet, because of some trendy sound-bite
"philosophy" about deserving all the stupidity we can afford.
-chib
I have often heard reports of many business wanting to do the right
thing, on any subject, safety, conservation, lying to the customer,
not abusing minorities - but don't feel they can because other
businesses do and then they couldn't compete.
You just confirmed Burch's thesis.
He doesn't have a thesis. He has a pop philosophy that he hopes will
sell his book(s).
I missed the sales pitch there, chib.
They appreciate laws which force ~all~ businesses to behave in a
way that helps society instead of damaging it, so they don't have
to lose money to act ethically.
Help, Uncle Sam! Protect us from ourselves, we're too stupid to do it
without you!
You're probably only alive today because of mandated safety laws.
Considering where this is coming from, maybe we *were* stupid to make
congress pass them.
If people demanded seatbelts, Detroit would have no choice but to provide
them or lose sales. You just want to impose your own ideas on everybody,
and you use simplistic anecdotal fallacies to justify your totalitarian
viewpoint.
And the rest of us do too.
So why is Fred whining about a win/win situation?
Just because you're too stupid to take care of yourself doesn't mean
that you have to inflict your stupid remedies for your own stupidity
on the rest of us.
I had an uncle who killed himself when his brand new '57 Buick
collided with a deer. No seat belts. Dashboard hard as a rock.
Windshield shredded his face. This accident, if it occurred today,
would result in a few bruises and some body work, all as a result of
mandated safety improvements to automobiles. That's how stupid we've
become.
Yep, we're so stupid that we need the government to impose rules for our
own good. And you think you're so fucking superior.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
If you go into Sudan today; Your heart will fill with dread
If you go into Sudan today; You might just lose your head
Because on the sands; With blood on their hands
Every nut that ever was; Will be there because
Today's the day the Teddy Bears; Have their Jihad!
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Fritzinger" |
|
| Title: Re: You have the right to be stupid |
08 Dec 2007 08:09:43 PM |
|
|
In article <Xns9A009D07ECF65freddybear@216.151.153.44>,
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
chibiabos <chib@nospam.com> wrote in
news:081220071041555946%chib@nospam.com:
In article <Xns9A003C531ECADfreddybear@216.151.153.48>, Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
cobalt@newscene.com (Kate ) wrote in
news:47631042.216187343@news-west.newscene.com:
On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 19:03:07 -0800, chibiabos <chib@nospam.com>
wrote:
In article <Xns99FFC7C40713Dfreddybear@216.151.153.47>, Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/03/burchs_law.html
Burch's Law
Greg Burch said:
"I think people should have a right to be stupid and, if they
have
that right, the market's going to respond by supplying as much
stupidity as can be sold."
Greg Burch was speaking about sport-utility vehicles, which he
feels are very poorly designed. Note that Burch was not
advocating banning SUVs. Burch did not even advocate regulating
SUVs. Burch thinks people should have a right to be stupid. But
Burch also openly acknowledges the real- world consequence of
that right, which is that the market will respond by supplying as
much stupidity as can be sold. Perhaps Burch is strongly
libertarian, and sees the case against regulation as a slam-dunk
regardless of the consequences, and therefore has an easier time
acknowledging the downside of his policy. Or perhaps Burch is
just a skillful rationalist. Either way, I hereby canonize his
observation as Burch's Law.
Burch's Law is a special case of a more general rule: Just
because your ethics require an action doesn't mean the universe
will exempt you from the consequences. If the universe were
fair, like a sympathetic human, the universe would understand
that you had overriding ethical reasons for your action, and
would exempt you from the usual penalties. The judge would rule
"justifiable homicide" instead of "murder" and exempt you from
the usual prison term. Well, the universe isn't fair and it
won't exempt you from the consequences. We know the equations of
physics in enough detail to know that the equations don't contain
any quantities reflective of ethical considerations.
We don't send automobile manufacturers to jail, even though
manufactured cars kill an estimated 1.2 million people per year
worldwide. (Roughly 2% of the annual planetary death rate.) Not
everyone who dies in an automobile accident is someone who
decided to drive a car. The tally of casualties includes
pedestrians. It includes minor children who had to be pushed
screaming into the car on the way to school. And yet we still
manufacture automobiles, because, well, we're in a hurry. I
don't even disagree with this decision. I drive a car myself.
The point is that the consequences don't change no matter how
good the ethical justification sounds. The people who die in
automobile accidents are still dead. We can suspend the jail
penalty, but we can't suspend the laws of physics.
Humanity hasn't had much luck suspending the laws of economics,
either. If people have a right to be stupid, the market will
respond by supplying all the stupidity that can be sold.
Fred might be old enough to remember a little book called _Unsafe
At Any Speed_ (by, I'm sure, one of Fred's favorite people, Ralph
Nader), which forced the auto industry, kicking and screaming all
the way, into installing seat belts, padded dashboards, safety
glass, and a host of other safety improvements into their death
traps.
And in the process founded the tort law industry that sells stupidity
wholesale in the form of "consumer protection" class-action lawsuits
that give the consumer *nothing* and make lawyers richer than
Croesus. Now *that's* stupidity on a level that makes the Corvair
barely a speed bump.
Note that I said "kicking and screaming," because that's precisely
what it was. The auto industry fought EVERY technical improvement
that would save lives, for their own selfish economic reasons. But
not any more, because it's a fact that these improvements have,
over the years, saved millions of lives, to the point where safety
issues are now a MAJOR selling point of many cars.
So a stupid method of fixing stupid is a good thing because people
are too stupid to refuse to buy cars that aren't stupid. And you
think that refutes the point?
I don't know Greg Burch, and I don't know what kind of point he's
really trying to make, but to say that the market is going to
supply stupidity because we have a right to stupidity is the height
of stupidity itself. In the case of automobiles, we pay tens of
thousands of dollars a pop for each unit. Part of those thousands
of dollars is for engineers who can make the vehicle as safe as
possible. If they don't do that, they're not doing their job, and
they should be fired. We as consumers have the right to expect that
the people we pay to do their jobs are actually doing it, and not
serving up stupidity to the rest of us because we don't know the
physics ourselves or, worse yet, because of some trendy sound-bite
"philosophy" about deserving all the stupidity we can afford.
-chib
I have often heard reports of many business wanting to do the right
thing, on any subject, safety, conservation, lying to the customer,
not abusing minorities - but don't feel they can because other
businesses do and then they couldn't compete.
You just confirmed Burch's thesis.
He doesn't have a thesis. He has a pop philosophy that he hopes will
sell his book(s).
I missed the sales pitch there, chib.
They appreciate laws which force ~all~ businesses to behave in a
way that helps society instead of damaging it, so they don't have
to lose money to act ethically.
Help, Uncle Sam! Protect us from ourselves, we're too stupid to do it
without you!
You're probably only alive today because of mandated safety laws.
Considering where this is coming from, maybe we *were* stupid to make
congress pass them.
If people demanded seatbelts, Detroit would have no choice but to provide
them or lose sales. You just want to impose your own ideas on everybody,
and you use simplistic anecdotal fallacies to justify your totalitarian
viewpoint.
Jesus, Fred, sometimes industry won't do what is right, in the interest
of profit. That is when you need regulation. After all, it was
government regulation that got rid of child labor. It was also
government regulations that have cleaned up our air and our rivers,
lakes and oceans, since industry wasn't going to do it on its own.
Sometimes you are just unbelievable...
And the rest of us do too.
So why is Fred whining about a win/win situation?
Just because you're too stupid to take care of yourself doesn't mean
that you have to inflict your stupid remedies for your own stupidity
on the rest of us.
I had an uncle who killed himself when his brand new '57 Buick
collided with a deer. No seat belts. Dashboard hard as a rock.
Windshield shredded his face. This accident, if it occurred today,
would result in a few bruises and some body work, all as a result of
mandated safety improvements to automobiles. That's how stupid we've
become.
Yep, we're so stupid that we need the government to impose rules for our
own good. And you think you're so fucking superior.
Yes, Fred, sometimes we do need to have government impose rules for our
own good. Especially since you aren't going to get many industries to do
the right thing, like lower pollution, or make safer cars, when they
don't have to.
--
Dave Fritzinger
Honolulu, HI
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: You have the right to be stupid |
09 Dec 2007 07:34:55 AM |
|
|
David Fritzinger <dfritzin@nospam.mac.com> wrote in
news:dfritzin-E7C0BE.16094308122007@news-server.hawaii.rr.com:
In article <Xns9A009D07ECF65freddybear@216.151.153.44>,
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
chibiabos <chib@nospam.com> wrote in
news:081220071041555946%chib@nospam.com:
In article <Xns9A003C531ECADfreddybear@216.151.153.48>, Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
cobalt@newscene.com (Kate ) wrote in
news:47631042.216187343@news-west.newscene.com:
On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 19:03:07 -0800, chibiabos <chib@nospam.com>
wrote:
In article <Xns99FFC7C40713Dfreddybear@216.151.153.47>, Fred
Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/03/burchs_law.html
Burch's Law
Greg Burch said:
"I think people should have a right to be stupid and, if
they have
that right, the market's going to respond by supplying as much
stupidity as can be sold."
Greg Burch was speaking about sport-utility vehicles, which he
feels are very poorly designed. Note that Burch was not
advocating banning SUVs. Burch did not even advocate
regulating SUVs. Burch thinks people should have a right to
be stupid. But Burch also openly acknowledges the real- world
consequence of that right, which is that the market will
respond by supplying as much stupidity as can be sold.
Perhaps Burch is strongly libertarian, and sees the case
against regulation as a slam-dunk regardless of the
consequences, and therefore has an easier time acknowledging
the downside of his policy. Or perhaps Burch is just a
skillful rationalist. Either way, I hereby canonize his
observation as Burch's Law.
Burch's Law is a special case of a more general rule: Just
because your ethics require an action doesn't mean the
universe will exempt you from the consequences. If the
universe were fair, like a sympathetic human, the universe
would understand that you had overriding ethical reasons for
your action, and would exempt you from the usual penalties.
The judge would rule "justifiable homicide" instead of
"murder" and exempt you from the usual prison term. Well, the
universe isn't fair and it won't exempt you from the
consequences. We know the equations of physics in enough
detail to know that the equations don't contain any quantities
reflective of ethical considerations.
We don't send automobile manufacturers to jail, even though
manufactured cars kill an estimated 1.2 million people per
year worldwide. (Roughly 2% of the annual planetary death
rate.) Not everyone who dies in an automobile accident is
someone who decided to drive a car. The tally of casualties
includes pedestrians. It includes minor children who had to
be pushed screaming into the car on the way to school. And
yet we still manufacture automobiles, because, well, we're in
a hurry. I don't even disagree with this decision. I drive a
car myself. The point is that the consequences don't change no
matter how good the ethical justification sounds. The people
who die in automobile accidents are still dead. We can
suspend the jail penalty, but we can't suspend the laws of
physics.
Humanity hasn't had much luck suspending the laws of
economics, either. If people have a right to be stupid, the
market will respond by supplying all the stupidity that can be
sold.
Fred might be old enough to remember a little book called
_Unsafe At Any Speed_ (by, I'm sure, one of Fred's favorite
people, Ralph Nader), which forced the auto industry, kicking
and screaming all the way, into installing seat belts, padded
dashboards, safety glass, and a host of other safety
improvements into their death traps.
And in the process founded the tort law industry that sells
stupidity wholesale in the form of "consumer protection"
class-action lawsuits that give the consumer *nothing* and make
lawyers richer than Croesus. Now *that's* stupidity on a level
that makes the Corvair barely a speed bump.
Note that I said "kicking and screaming," because that's
precisely what it was. The auto industry fought EVERY technical
improvement that would save lives, for their own selfish
economic reasons. But not any more, because it's a fact that
these improvements have, over the years, saved millions of
lives, to the point where safety issues are now a MAJOR selling
point of many cars.
So a stupid method of fixing stupid is a good thing because people
are too stupid to refuse to buy cars that aren't stupid. And you
think that refutes the point?
I don't know Greg Burch, and I don't know what kind of point
he's really trying to make, but to say that the market is going
to supply stupidity because we have a right to stupidity is the
height of stupidity itself. In the case of automobiles, we pay
tens of thousands of dollars a pop for each unit. Part of those
thousands of dollars is for engineers who can make the vehicle
as safe as possible. If they don't do that, they're not doing
their job, and they should be fired. We as consumers have the
right to expect that the people we pay to do their jobs are
actually doing it, and not serving up stupidity to the rest of
us because we don't know the physics ourselves or, worse yet,
because of some trendy sound-bite "philosophy" about deserving
all the stupidity we can afford.
-chib
I have often heard reports of many business wanting to do the
right thing, on any subject, safety, conservation, lying to the
customer, not abusing minorities - but don't feel they can
because other businesses do and then they couldn't compete.
You just confirmed Burch's thesis.
He doesn't have a thesis. He has a pop philosophy that he hopes
will sell his book(s).
I missed the sales pitch there, chib.
They appreciate laws which force ~all~ businesses to behave in a
way that helps society instead of damaging it, so they don't
have to lose money to act ethically.
Help, Uncle Sam! Protect us from ourselves, we're too stupid to do
it without you!
You're probably only alive today because of mandated safety laws.
Considering where this is coming from, maybe we *were* stupid to
make congress pass them.
If people demanded seatbelts, Detroit would have no choice but to
provide them or lose sales. You just want to impose your own ideas on
everybody, and you use simplistic anecdotal fallacies to justify your
totalitarian viewpoint.
Jesus, Fred, sometimes industry won't do what is right, in the
interest of profit.
Once again, Dave, if people won't buy their products unless they do
what's right, they won't *make* a profit without doing it.
That is when you need regulation.
That is why you don't need regulation. You need to convince consumers not
to buy things that you don't approve of.
After all, it
was government regulation that got rid of child labor. It was also
government regulations that have cleaned up our air and our rivers,
lakes and oceans, since industry wasn't going to do it on its own.
After all, it's just so much *easier* to seek totalitarian solutions than
it is to *convince* people that you're only looking out for their best
interests.
Sometimes you are just unbelievable...
Sometimes you're just so gullible...
And the rest of us do too.
So why is Fred whining about a win/win situation?
Just because you're too stupid to take care of yourself doesn't
mean that you have to inflict your stupid remedies for your own
stupidity on the rest of us.
I had an uncle who killed himself when his brand new '57 Buick
collided with a deer. No seat belts. Dashboard hard as a rock.
Windshield shredded his face. This accident, if it occurred today,
would result in a few bruises and some body work, all as a result
of mandated safety improvements to automobiles. That's how stupid
we've become.
Yep, we're so stupid that we need the government to impose rules for
our own good. And you think you're so fucking superior.
Yes, Fred, sometimes we do need to have government impose rules for
our own good. Especially since you aren't going to get many industries
to do the right thing, like lower pollution, or make safer cars, when
they don't have to.
Yes, Dave, it's just so much easier to *impose* the things you want on
people instead of convincing them that you're right.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
If you go into Sudan today; Your heart will fill with dread
If you go into Sudan today; You might just lose your head
Because on the sands; With blood on their hands
Every nut that ever was; Will be there because
Today's the day the Teddy Bears; Have their Jihad!
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Fritzinger" |
|
| Title: Re: You have the right to be stupid |
09 Dec 2007 03:28:52 PM |
|
|
In article <Xns9A01575335BA6freddybear@216.151.153.66>,
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
David Fritzinger <dfritzin@nospam.mac.com> wrote in
news:dfritzin-E7C0BE.16094308122007@news-server.hawaii.rr.com:
In article <Xns9A009D07ECF65freddybear@216.151.153.44>,
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
chibiabos <chib@nospam.com> wrote in
news:081220071041555946%chib@nospam.com:
In article <Xns9A003C531ECADfreddybear@216.151.153.48>, Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
cobalt@newscene.com (Kate ) wrote in
news:47631042.216187343@news-west.newscene.com:
On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 19:03:07 -0800, chibiabos <chib@nospam.com>
wrote:
In article <Xns99FFC7C40713Dfreddybear@216.151.153.47>, Fred
Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/03/burchs_law.html
Burch's Law
Greg Burch said:
"I think people should have a right to be stupid and, if
they have
that right, the market's going to respond by supplying as much
stupidity as can be sold."
Greg Burch was speaking about sport-utility vehicles, which he
feels are very poorly designed. Note that Burch was not
advocating banning SUVs. Burch did not even advocate
regulating SUVs. Burch thinks people should have a right to
be stupid. But Burch also openly acknowledges the real- world
consequence of that right, which is that the market will
respond by supplying as much stupidity as can be sold.
Perhaps Burch is strongly libertarian, and sees the case
against regulation as a slam-dunk regardless of the
consequences, and therefore has an easier time acknowledging
the downside of his policy. Or perhaps Burch is just a
skillful rationalist. Either way, I hereby canonize his
observation as Burch's Law.
Burch's Law is a special case of a more general rule: Just
because your ethics require an action doesn't mean the
universe will exempt you from the consequences. If the
universe were fair, like a sympathetic human, the universe
would understand that you had overriding ethical reasons for
your action, and would exempt you from the usual penalties.
The judge would rule "justifiable homicide" instead of
"murder" and exempt you from the usual prison term. Well, the
universe isn't fair and it won't exempt you from the
consequences. We know the equations of physics in enough
detail to know that the equations don't contain any quantities
reflective of ethical considerations.
We don't send automobile manufacturers to jail, even though
manufactured cars kill an estimated 1.2 million people per
year worldwide. (Roughly 2% of the annual planetary death
rate.) Not everyone who dies in an automobile accident is
someone who decided to drive a car. The tally of casualties
includes pedestrians. It includes minor children who had to
be pushed screaming into the car on the way to school. And
yet we still manufacture automobiles, because, well, we're in
a hurry. I don't even disagree with this decision. I drive a
car myself. The point is that the consequences don't change no
matter how good the ethical justification sounds. The people
who die in automobile accidents are still dead. We can
suspend the jail penalty, but we can't suspend the laws of
physics.
Humanity hasn't had much luck suspending the laws of
economics, either. If people have a right to be stupid, the
market will respond by supplying all the stupidity that can be
sold.
Fred might be old enough to remember a little book called
_Unsafe At Any Speed_ (by, I'm sure, one of Fred's favorite
people, Ralph Nader), which forced the auto industry, kicking
and screaming all the way, into installing seat belts, padded
dashboards, safety glass, and a host of other safety
improvements into their death traps.
And in the process founded the tort law industry that sells
stupidity wholesale in the form of "consumer protection"
class-action lawsuits that give the consumer *nothing* and make
lawyers richer than Croesus. Now *that's* stupidity on a level
that makes the Corvair barely a speed bump.
Note that I said "kicking and screaming," because that's
precisely what it was. The auto industry fought EVERY technical
improvement that would save lives, for their own selfish
economic reasons. But not any more, because it's a fact that
these improvements have, over the years, saved millions of
lives, to the point where safety issues are now a MAJOR selling
point of many cars.
So a stupid method of fixing stupid is a good thing because people
are too stupid to refuse to buy cars that aren't stupid. And you
think that refutes the point?
I don't know Greg Burch, and I don't know what kind of point
he's really trying to make, but to say that the market is going
to supply stupidity because we have a right to stupidity is the
height of stupidity itself. In the case of automobiles, we pay
tens of thousands of dollars a pop for each unit. Part of those
thousands of dollars is for engineers who can make the vehicle
as safe as possible. If they don't do that, they're not doing
their job, and they should be fired. We as consumers have the
right to expect that the people we pay to do their jobs are
actually doing it, and not serving up stupidity to the rest of
us because we don't know the physics ourselves or, worse yet,
because of some trendy sound-bite "philosophy" about deserving
all the stupidity we can afford.
-chib
I have often heard reports of many business wanting to do the
right thing, on any subject, safety, conservation, lying to the
customer, not abusing minorities - but don't feel they can
because other businesses do and then they couldn't compete.
You just confirmed Burch's thesis.
He doesn't have a thesis. He has a pop philosophy that he hopes
will sell his book(s).
I missed the sales pitch there, chib.
They appreciate laws which force ~all~ businesses to behave in a
way that helps society instead of damaging it, so they don't
have to lose money to act ethically.
Help, Uncle Sam! Protect us from ourselves, we're too stupid to do
it without you!
You're probably only alive today because of mandated safety laws.
Considering where this is coming from, maybe we *were* stupid to
make congress pass them.
If people demanded seatbelts, Detroit would have no choice but to
provide them or lose sales. You just want to impose your own ideas on
everybody, and you use simplistic anecdotal fallacies to justify your
totalitarian viewpoint.
Jesus, Fred, sometimes industry won't do what is right, in the
interest of profit.
Once again, Dave, if people won't buy their products unless they do
what's right, they won't *make* a profit without doing it.
As I said, and you ignored, sometimes industry just won't do what is
right? Why should they, when they can get away with doing what will make
them more profit?
That is when you need regulation.
That is why you don't need regulation. You need to convince consumers not
to buy things that you don't approve of.
From your blathering, I assume you approve of Love Canal, etc., right?
After all, it
was government regulation that got rid of child labor. It was also
government regulations that have cleaned up our air and our rivers,
lakes and oceans, since industry wasn't going to do it on its own.
After all, it's just so much *easier* to seek totalitarian solutions than
it is to *convince* people that you're only looking out for their best
interests.
Totalitarian? These are rules that were voted on by our Congress, who
are elected by the people. If you consider that to be totalitarian, you
really do need a reality check.
Sometimes you are just unbelievable...
Sometimes you're just so gullible...
No, Fred, the gullible one is you. You believe everything your
right-wing masters tell you...
And the rest of us do too.
So why is Fred whining about a win/win situation?
Just because you're too stupid to take care of yourself doesn't
mean that you have to inflict your stupid remedies for your own
stupidity on the rest of us.
I had an uncle who killed himself when his brand new '57 Buick
collided with a deer. No seat belts. Dashboard hard as a rock.
Windshield shredded his face. This accident, if it occurred today,
would result in a few bruises and some body work, all as a result
of mandated safety improvements to automobiles. That's how stupid
we've become.
Yep, we're so stupid that we need the government to impose rules for
our own good. And you think you're so fucking superior.
Yes, Fred, sometimes we do need to have government impose rules for
our own good. Especially since you aren't going to get many industries
to do the right thing, like lower pollution, or make safer cars, when
they don't have to.
Yes, Dave, it's just so much easier to *impose* the things you want on
people instead of convincing them that you're right.
Sometimes, you need to impose them. Or, do you support child labor, the
type of wages paid in China, the massive pollution that almost destroyed
the Great Lakes (remember when the Cuyhuga (sp?) river burned down?),
the Chesapeake Bay, etc, and all the other things that industry got away
with before government regulation?
--
Dave Fritzinger
Honolulu, HI
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: You have the right to be stupid |
10 Dec 2007 09:09:01 AM |
|
|
David Fritzinger <dfritzin@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote in
news:dfritzin-8665AD.11285209122007@johnf2.biosci.ohio-state.edu:
In article <Xns9A01575335BA6freddybear@216.151.153.66>,
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
David Fritzinger <dfritzin@nospam.mac.com> wrote in
news:dfritzin-E7C0BE.16094308122007@news-server.hawaii.rr.com:
In article <Xns9A009D07ECF65freddybear@216.151.153.44>,
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
chibiabos <chib@nospam.com> wrote in
news:081220071041555946%chib@nospam.com:
In article <Xns9A003C531ECADfreddybear@216.151.153.48>, Fred
Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
cobalt@newscene.com (Kate ) wrote in
news:47631042.216187343@news-west.newscene.com:
On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 19:03:07 -0800, chibiabos
<chib@nospam.com> wrote:
In article <Xns99FFC7C40713Dfreddybear@216.151.153.47>, Fred
Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/03/burchs_law.html
Burch's Law
Greg Burch said:
"I think people should have a right to be stupid and,
if they have
that right, the market's going to respond by supplying as
much stupidity as can be sold."
Greg Burch was speaking about sport-utility vehicles, which
he feels are very poorly designed. Note that Burch was not
advocating banning SUVs. Burch did not even advocate
regulating SUVs. Burch thinks people should have a right
to be stupid. But Burch also openly acknowledges the real-
world consequence of that right, which is that the market
will respond by supplying as much stupidity as can be sold.
Perhaps Burch is strongly libertarian, and sees the case
against regulation as a slam-dunk regardless of the
consequences, and therefore has an easier time
acknowledging the downside of his policy. Or perhaps Burch
is just a skillful rationalist. Either way, I hereby
canonize his observation as Burch's Law.
Burch's Law is a special case of a more general rule: Just
because your ethics require an action doesn't mean the
universe will exempt you from the consequences. If the
universe were fair, like a sympathetic human, the universe
would understand that you had overriding ethical reasons
for your action, and would exempt you from the usual
penalties. The judge would rule "justifiable homicide"
instead of "murder" and exempt you from the usual prison
term. Well, the universe isn't fair and it won't exempt
you from the consequences. We know the equations of
physics in enough detail to know that the equations don't
contain any quantities reflective of ethical
considerations.
We don't send automobile manufacturers to jail, even though
manufactured cars kill an estimated 1.2 million people per
year worldwide. (Roughly 2% of the annual planetary death
rate.) Not everyone who dies in an automobile accident is
someone who decided to drive a car. The tally of
casualties includes pedestrians. It includes minor
children who had to be pushed screaming into the car on the
way to school. And yet we still manufacture automobiles,
because, well, we're in a hurry. I don't even disagree
with this decision. I drive a car myself. The point is
that the consequences don't change no matter how good the
ethical justification sounds. The people who die in
automobile accidents are still dead. We can suspend the
jail penalty, but we can't suspend the laws of
physics.
Humanity hasn't had much luck suspending the laws of
economics, either. If people have a right to be stupid,
the market will respond by supplying all the stupidity that
can be sold.
Fred might be old enough to remember a little book called
_Unsafe At Any Speed_ (by, I'm sure, one of Fred's favorite
people, Ralph Nader), which forced the auto industry, kicking
and screaming all the way, into installing seat belts, padded
dashboards, safety glass, and a host of other safety
improvements into their death traps.
And in the process founded the tort law industry that sells
stupidity wholesale in the form of "consumer protection"
class-action lawsuits that give the consumer *nothing* and make
lawyers richer than Croesus. Now *that's* stupidity on a level
that makes the Corvair barely a speed bump.
Note that I said "kicking and screaming," because that's
precisely what it was. The auto industry fought EVERY
technical improvement that would save lives, for their own
selfish economic reasons. But not any more, because it's a
fact that these improvements have, over the years, saved
millions of lives, to the point where safety issues are now a
MAJOR selling point of many cars.
So a stupid method of fixing stupid is a good thing because
people are too stupid to refuse to buy cars that aren't stupid.
And you think that refutes the point?
I don't know Greg Burch, and I don't know what kind of point
he's really trying to make, but to say that the market is
going to supply stupidity because we have a right to
stupidity is the height of stupidity itself. In the case of
automobiles, we pay tens of thousands of dollars a pop for
each unit. Part of those thousands of dollars is for
engineers who can make the vehicle as safe as possible. If
they don't do that, they're not doing their job, and they
should be fired. We as consumers have the right to expect
that the people we pay to do their jobs are actually doing
it, and not serving up stupidity to the rest of us because we
don't know the physics ourselves or, worse yet, because of
some trendy sound-bite "philosophy" about deserving
all the stupidity we can afford.
-chib
I have often heard reports of many business wanting to do the
right thing, on any subject, safety, conservation, lying to
the customer, not abusing minorities - but don't feel they
can because other businesses do and then they couldn't
compete.
You just confirmed Burch's thesis.
He doesn't have a thesis. He has a pop philosophy that he hopes
will sell his book(s).
I missed the sales pitch there, chib.
They appreciate laws which force ~all~ businesses to behave
in a way that helps society instead of damaging it, so they
don't have to lose money to act ethically.
Help, Uncle Sam! Protect us from ourselves, we're too stupid to
do it without you!
You're probably only alive today because of mandated safety
laws. Considering where this is coming from, maybe we *were*
stupid to make congress pass them.
If people demanded seatbelts, Detroit would have no choice but to
provide them or lose sales. You just want to impose your own ideas
on everybody, and you use simplistic anecdotal fallacies to
justify your totalitarian viewpoint.
Jesus, Fred, sometimes industry won't do what is right, in the
interest of profit.
Once again, Dave, if people won't buy their products unless they do
what's right, they won't *make* a profit without doing it.
As I said, and you ignored, sometimes industry just won't do what is
right? Why should they, when they can get away with doing what will
make them more profit?
Because they *won't* make more profits by ignoring what consumers want.
Companies can't sell what people won't buy.
That is when you need regulation.
That is why you don't need regulation. You need to convince consumers
not to buy things that you don't approve of.
From your blathering, I assume you approve of Love Canal, etc., right?
From your blathering, I assume you're not just stupid, you're
deliberately ignorant.
After all, it
was government regulation that got rid of child labor. It was also
government regulations that have cleaned up our air and our rivers,
lakes and oceans, since industry wasn't going to do it on its own.
After all, it's just so much *easier* to seek totalitarian solutions
than it is to *convince* people that you're only looking out for
their best interests.
Totalitarian? These are rules that were voted on by our Congress, who
are elected by the people. If you consider that to be totalitarian,
you really do need a reality check.
That doesn't make them any less totalitarian, Dave. Consider looking up
the definition of the word.
Sometimes you are just unbelievable...
Sometimes you're just so gullible...
No, Fred, the gullible one is you. You believe everything your
right-wing masters tell you...
I know you are but what am I?
And the rest of us do too.
So why is Fred whining about a win/win situation?
Just because you're too stupid to take care of yourself doesn't
mean that you have to inflict your stupid remedies for your own
stupidity on the rest of us.
I had an uncle who killed himself when his brand new '57 Buick
collided with a deer. No seat belts. Dashboard hard as a rock.
Windshield shredded his face. This accident, if it occurred
today, would result in a few bruises and some body work, all as
a result of mandated safety improvements to automobiles. That's
how stupid we've become.
Yep, we're so stupid that we need the government to impose rules
for our own good. And you think you're so fucking superior.
Yes, Fred, sometimes we do need to have government impose rules for
our own good. Especially since you aren't going to get many
industries to do the right thing, like lower pollution, or make
safer cars, when they don't have to.
Yes, Dave, it's just so much easier to *impose* the things you want
on people instead of convincing them that you're right.
Sometimes, you need to impose them. Or, do you support child labor,
the type of wages paid in China, the massive pollution that almost
destroyed the Great Lakes (remember when the Cuyhuga (sp?) river
burned down?), the Chesapeake Bay, etc, and all the other things that
industry got away with before government regulation?
No, Dave, you don't need to impose them. No, I don't support child labor,
massive pollution, etcetera. No thanks for your false dichotomies.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
If you go into Sudan today; Your heart will fill with dread
If you go into Sudan today; You might just lose your head
Because on the sands; With blood on their hands
Every nut that ever was; Will be there because
Today's the day the Teddy Bears; Have their Jihad!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Fritzinger" |
|
| Title: Re: You have the right to be stupid |
10 Dec 2007 07:41:16 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
David Fritzinger <dfritzin@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote in
news:dfritzin-8665AD.11285209122007@johnf2.biosci.ohio-state.edu:
In article <Xns9A01575335BA6freddybear@216.151.153.66>,
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
David Fritzinger <dfritzin@nospam.mac.com> wrote in
news:dfritzin-E7C0BE.16094308122007@news-server.hawaii.rr.com:
In article <Xns9A009D07ECF65freddybear@216.151.153.44>,
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
chibiabos <chib@nospam.com> wrote in
news:081220071041555946%chib@nospam.com:
In article <Xns9A003C531ECADfreddybear@216.151.153.48>, Fred
Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
cobalt@newscene.com (Kate ) wrote in
news:47631042.216187343@news-west.newscene.com:
On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 19:03:07 -0800, chibiabos
<chib@nospam.com> wrote:
In article <Xns99FFC7C40713Dfreddybear@216.151.153.47>, Fred
Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/03/burchs_law.html
Burch's Law
Greg Burch said:
"I think people should have a right to be stupid and,
if they have
that right, the market's going to respond by supplying as
much stupidity as can be sold."
Greg Burch was speaking about sport-utility vehicles, which
he feels are very poorly designed. Note that Burch was not
advocating banning SUVs. Burch did not even advocate
regulating SUVs. Burch thinks people should have a right
to be stupid. But Burch also openly acknowledges the real-
world consequence of that right, which is that the market
will respond by supplying as much stupidity as can be sold.
Perhaps Burch is strongly libertarian, and sees the case
against regulation as a slam-dunk regardless of the
consequences, and therefore has an easier time
acknowledging the downside of his policy. Or perhaps Burch
is just a skillful rationalist. Either way, I hereby
canonize his observation as Burch's Law.
Burch's Law is a special case of a more general rule: Just
because your ethics require an action doesn't mean the
universe will exempt you from the consequences. If the
universe were fair, like a sympathetic human, the universe
would understand that you had overriding ethical reasons
for your action, and would exempt you from the usual
penalties. The judge would rule "justifiable homicide"
instead of "murder" and exempt you from the usual prison
term. Well, the universe isn't fair and it won't exempt
you from the consequences. We know the equations of
physics in enough detail to know that the equations don't
contain any quantities reflective of ethical
considerations.
We don't send automobile manufacturers to jail, even though
manufactured cars kill an estimated 1.2 million people per
year worldwide. (Roughly 2% of the annual planetary death
rate.) Not everyone who dies in an automobile accident is
someone who decided to drive a car. The tally of
casualties includes pedestrians. It includes minor
children who had to be pushed screaming into the car on the
way to school. And yet we still manufacture automobiles,
because, well, we're in a hurry. I don't even disagree
with this decision. I drive a car myself. The point is
that the consequences don't change no matter how good the
ethical justification sounds. The people who die in
automobile accidents are still dead. We can suspend the
jail penalty, but we can't suspend the laws of
physics.
Humanity hasn't had much luck suspending the laws of
economics, either. If people have a right to be stupid,
the market will respond by supplying all the stupidity that
can be sold.
Fred might be old enough to remember a little book called
_Unsafe At Any Speed_ (by, I'm sure, one of Fred's favorite
people, Ralph Nader), which forced the auto industry, kicking
and screaming all the way, into installing seat belts, padded
dashboards, safety glass, and a host of other safety
improvements into their death traps.
And in the process founded the tort law industry that sells
stupidity wholesale in the form of "consumer protection"
class-action lawsuits that give the consumer *nothing* and make
lawyers richer than Croesus. Now *that's* stupidity on a level
that makes the Corvair barely a speed bump.
Note that I said "kicking and screaming," because that's
precisely what it was. The auto industry fought EVERY
technical improvement that would save lives, for their own
selfish economic reasons. But not any more, because it's a
fact that these improvements have, over the years, saved
millions of lives, to the point where safety issues are now a
MAJOR selling point of many cars.
So a stupid method of fixing stupid is a good thing because
people are too stupid to refuse to buy cars that aren't stupid.
And you think that refutes the point?
I don't know Greg Burch, and I don't know what kind of point
he's really trying to make, but to say that the market is
going to supply stupidity because we have a right to
stupidity is the height of stupidity itself. In the case of
automobiles, we pay tens of thousands of dollars a pop for
each unit. Part of those thousands of dollars is for
engineers who can make the vehicle as safe as possible. If
they don't do that, they're not doing their job, and they
should be fired. We as consumers have the right to expect
that the people we pay to do their jobs are actually doing
it, and not serving up stupidity to the rest of us because we
don't know the physics ourselves or, worse yet, because of
some trendy sound-bite "philosophy" about deserving
all the stupidity we can afford.
-chib
I have often heard reports of many business wanting to do the
right thing, on any subject, safety, conservation, lying to
the customer, not abusing minorities - but don't feel they
can because other businesses do and then they couldn't
compete.
You just confirmed Burch's thesis.
He doesn't have a thesis. He has a pop philosophy that he hopes
will sell his book(s).
I missed the sales pitch there, chib.
They appreciate laws which force ~all~ businesses to behave
in a way that helps society instead of damaging it, so they
don't have to lose money to act ethically.
Help, Uncle Sam! Protect us from ourselves, we're too stupid to
do it without you!
You're probably only alive today because of mandated safety
laws. Considering where this is coming from, maybe we *were*
stupid to make congress pass them.
If people demanded seatbelts, Detroit would have no choice but to
provide them or lose sales. You just want to impose your own ideas
on everybody, and you use simplistic anecdotal fallacies to
justify your totalitarian viewpoint.
Jesus, Fred, sometimes industry won't do what is right, in the
interest of profit.
Once again, Dave, if people won't buy their products unless they do
what's right, they won't *make* a profit without doing it.
As I said, and you ignored, sometimes industry just won't do what is
right? Why should they, when they can get away with doing what will
make them more profit?
Because they *won't* make more profits by ignoring what consumers want.
Companies can't sell what people won't buy.
If all the companies do something that is clearly wrong, like
employing children, what choice do the consumers have?
That is when you need regulation.
That is why you don't need regulation. You need to convince consumers
not to buy things that you don't approve of.
From your blathering, I assume you approve of Love Canal, etc., right?
From your blathering, I assume you're not just stupid, you're
deliberately ignorant.
Neither, actually. Now, answer my question...
After all, it
was government regulation that got rid of child labor. It was also
government regulations that have cleaned up our air and our rivers,
lakes and oceans, since industry wasn't going to do it on its own.
After all, it's just so much *easier* to seek totalitarian solutions
than it is to *convince* people that you're only looking out for
their best interests.
Totalitarian? These are rules that were voted on by our Congress, who
are elected by the people. If you consider that to be totalitarian,
you really do need a reality check.
That doesn't make them any less totalitarian, Dave. Consider looking up
the definition of the word.
So, you consider any rule or regulation passed by Congress to be
totalitarian I guess. I don't know what plane of consciousness your
brain inhabits, but I know I don't want to go there.
Sometimes you are just unbelievable...
Sometimes you're just so gullible...
No, Fred, the gullible one is you. You believe everything your
right-wing masters tell you...
I know you are but what am I?
Yes, you are the gullible one, aren't you?
And the rest of us do too.
So why is Fred whining about a win/win situation?
Just because you're too stupid to take care of yourself doesn't
mean that you have to inflict your stupid remedies for your own
stupidity on the rest of us.
I had an uncle who killed himself when his brand new '57 Buick
collided with a deer. No seat belts. Dashboard hard as a rock.
Windshield shredded his face. This accident, if it occurred
today, would result in a few bruises and some body work, all as
a result of mandated safety improvements to automobiles. That's
how stupid we've become.
Yep, we're so stupid that we need the government to impose rules
for our own good. And you think you're so fucking superior.
Yes, Fred, sometimes we do need to have government impose rules for
our own good. Especially since you aren't going to get many
industries to do the right thing, like lower pollution, or make
safer cars, when they don't have to.
Yes, Dave, it's just so much easier to *impose* the things you want
on people instead of convincing them that you're right.
Sometimes, you need to impose them. Or, do you support child labor,
the type of wages paid in China, the massive pollution that almost
destroyed the Great Lakes (remember when the Cuyhuga (sp?) river
burned down?), the Chesapeake Bay, etc, and all the other things that
industry got away with before government regulation?
No, Dave, you don't need to impose them. No, I don't support child labor,
massive pollution, etcetera. No thanks for your false dichotomies.
But Fred, the only way most of these things were stopped was through
government regulations. So, if you don't support the regulations that
stopped these practices, you must support the practices...
--
Dave Fritzinger
Honolulu, HI
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: You have the right to be stupid |
11 Dec 2007 06:40:33 AM |
|
|
Dave Fritzinger <dfritzin@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:4a01733d-82b9-4a9a-a556-7d947d6fd283@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
David Fritzinger <dfritzin@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote in
news:dfritzin-8665AD.11285209122007@johnf2.biosci.ohio-state.edu:
In article <Xns9A01575335BA6freddybear@216.151.153.66>,
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
<...>
Once again, Dave, if people won't buy their products unless they
do what's right, they won't *make* a profit without doing it.
As I said, and you ignored, sometimes industry just won't do what
is right? Why should they, when they can get away with doing what
will make them more profit?
Because they *won't* make more profits by ignoring what consumers
want. Companies can't sell what people won't buy.
If all the companies do something that is clearly wrong, like
employing children, what choice do the consumers have?
How is employing children "clearly wrong?" Define "children". What about
summer jobs? What about family businesses?
What about families with no adult parents? Used to be that an orphaned
child could support him(or her)self and his sibs without having to be
farmed out to a foster home. Now they're forced to be economic dependants
until they're old enough to satisfy *YOUR* requirements. Never mind that
your regulations created a whole new class of "poverty", that just gives
the "poor lobby" more people to whine about, and that's a good thing,
right Dave?
If workers don't like their working conditions, how about they join a
union? Oh, that's right, some workers won't join unless the government
forces them to join. And we can't have that, can we?
If you don't like what a company does, how about not buying their
products? Oh, that's right, a lot of people don't agree with you.
That is when you need regulation.
That is why you don't need regulation. You need to convince
consumers not to buy things that you don't approve of.
From your blathering, I assume you approve of Love Canal, etc.,
right?
From your blathering, I assume you're not just stupid, you're
deliberately ignorant.
Neither, actually. Now, answer my question...
You didn't ask a question. You made an accusation.
<...>
Totalitarian? These are rules that were voted on by our Congress,
who are elected by the people. If you consider that to be
totalitarian, you really do need a reality check.
That doesn't make them any less totalitarian, Dave. Consider looking
up the definition of the word.
So, you consider any rule or regulation passed by Congress to be
totalitarian I guess.
So if Congress decides to pass a law "regulating", say, abortion, you're
OK with that? Prohibiting gay marriage? Or would that be "th | | | | | | | | | | | |
