[quote]Spry wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
If you invite me as a guest in your house, do I then have the right to force you to clean, repair, behave as I deem safe? No, but I can leave.
Its called Torts Law - its been around for quite some time in our capitalist society.
[/quote]
What society do you live in?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Spry wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
If you invite me as a guest in your house, do I then have the right to force you to clean, repair, behave as I deem safe? No, but I can leave.
Its called Torts Law - its been around for quite some time in our capitalist society.
What society do you live in? [/quote]
Australia.
The laws of all the Commonwealth countries trace their laws back to the United Kingdom. Australia started making its own laws early 1900’s and I believe in 1985 it was comepletly cut off from UK legislature and judicary control.
Australian Torts law stems from the Donoghue v Stevenson case decided in the House of Lords in the 1930’s.
Most Common Law countries have Torts law. USA is a common law country isn’t? You’ve got TV shows which are all about negligence law suits…
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Why weren’t taxes being called “socialism” before now?[/quote]
Because they weren’t being used to steal from one group to give to another, openly and blatantly?
Obama has said that the new goal of a Supreme Court is to reduce wealth inequality as a form of social justice.
[quote]Spry wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Spry wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
If you invite me as a guest in your house, do I then have the right to force you to clean, repair, behave as I deem safe? No, but I can leave.
Its called Torts Law - its been around for quite some time in our capitalist society.
What society do you live in?
Australia.
The laws of all the Commonwealth countries trace their laws back to the United Kingdom. Australia started making its own laws early 1900’s and I believe in 1985 it was comepletly cut off from UK legislature and judicary control.
Australian Torts law stems from the Donoghue v Stevenson case decided in the House of Lords in the 1930’s.
Most Common Law countries have Torts law. USA is a common law country isn’t? You’ve got TV shows which are all about negligence law suits…
[/quote]
My point was I don’t live in a capitalist society.
Torts laws are for reparation of damages (post incident) not dictation of behavior (pre-incedent).
Further the standards being held to for negligence are that of the general population, not the individual injured.
Third, there would have to have been some wrong committed for torts laws to apply.
In the original work scenario, if he was exposed to some dangerous chemical because of negligence of a person or the company, yes, he would have legal reprieve. That is not the same thing at all though as him dictating who can and can?t work based on what a person does in their personal life while the person is still fulfilling the duties of their job.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Why weren’t taxes being called “socialism” before now?
Because they weren’t being used to steal from one group to give to another, openly and blatantly?
Obama has said that the new goal of a Supreme Court is to reduce wealth inequality as a form of social justice.
[/quote]
I’ve listened to that interview and I think most of the stuff he said is taken out of context. I don’t think he ever said or meant it was the duty of the courts to enact re-distributive change.
I think Obama’s tax plan raises questions of socialism because he plans of giving “tax breaks” to people that don’t pay taxes. That in my mind crosses the line.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
My point was I don’t live in a capitalist society.[/quote]
Location: Tennessee, USA
Eh?
Penalties dictate your behaviour.
Torts law affords everyone protection against others for a few things but here I refer to negligence. In a truely free society why should someone have to repair their footpath on their own property so that others don’t trip and fall? See! Socialism exists everywhere - even in the 1930’s UK.
Penalties dictate your behaviour.
[quote]In the original work scenario, if he was exposed to some dangerous chemical because of negligence of a person or the company, yes, he would have legal reprieve. That is not the same thing at all though as him dictating who can and can?t work based on what a person does in their personal life while the person is still fulfilling the duties of their job.
[/quote]
Penalties dictate your behaviour.
[quote]Spry wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
My point was I don’t live in a capitalist society.
Location: Tennessee, USA
Eh?
Torts laws are for reparation of damages (post incident) not dictation of behavior (pre-incedent).
Penalties dictate your behaviour.
Further the standards being held to for negligence are that of the general population, not the individual injured.
Torts law affords everyone protection against others for a few things but here I refer to negligence. In a truely free society why should someone have to repair their footpath on their own property so that others don’t trip and fall? See! Socialism exists everywhere - even in the 1930’s UK.
Third, there would have to have been some wrong committed for torts laws to apply.
Penalties dictate your behaviour.
In the original work scenario, if he was exposed to some dangerous chemical because of negligence of a person or the company, yes, he would have legal reprieve. That is not the same thing at all though as him dictating who can and can?t work based on what a person does in their personal life while the person is still fulfilling the duties of their job.
Penalties dictate your behaviour.
[/quote]
The US is not capitalist.
Penalties can be an incentive to behavioral change, but it isn’t the same thing.
Forcing someone to change before an incident and penalizing them is not torts law. Seeing a lose board in your house and fixing it because you don’t want to get sued and a guest in your house ordering you to fix it before they might trip are entirely different even if the board gets fixed in both situations.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
The US is not capitalist.
Penalties can be an incentive to behavioral change, but it isn’t the same thing.
Forcing someone to change before an incident and penalizing them is not torts law. Seeing a lose board in your house and fixing it because you don’t want to get sued and a guest in your house ordering you to fix it before they might trip are entirely different even if the board gets fixed in both situations.[/quote]
What in the hell is the US if it is not capitalist?
You are being stubborn on thinking penalties do not restrict behaviour. The Government orders you to fix the footpath by enforcing penalties for injury occuring from your failure to do so.
You are sort of free to not fix it and leave it to chance if someone trips and falls but that is not freedom in my mind.
That is disobediance of the law.
Anyway, what in the hell is the US if it is not capitalist?
Because it makes everybody equally poor.
[quote]Spry wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
The US is not capitalist.
Penalties can be an incentive to behavioral change, but it isn’t the same thing.
Forcing someone to change before an incident and penalizing them is not torts law. Seeing a lose board in your house and fixing it because you don’t want to get sued and a guest in your house ordering you to fix it before they might trip are entirely different even if the board gets fixed in both situations.
What in the hell is the US if it is not capitalist?
You are being stubborn on thinking penalties do not restrict behaviour. The Government orders you to fix the footpath by enforcing penalties for injury occuring from your failure to do so.
You are sort of free to not fix it and leave it to chance if someone trips and falls but that is not freedom in my mind.
That is disobediance of the law.
Anyway, what in the hell is the US if it is not capitalist?
[/quote]
How on earth is it capitalist? Name an industry that isn’t heavily government regulated and controlled. Heck, our government is in the processes of purchasing banks at the moment.
No, you seem to think a government inspector inspecting your footpath and ordering you to fix it at gunpoint is the same as having to pay someone who was hurt on it.
The existence of things like OSHA in addition to torts law is proof that the two are different. OSHA is not an extension of torts law. If it were it would in essence be convicting someone for a crime not yet committed.
It is the reason we have both a reckless driving law and a vehicular manslaughter law. A guy driving recklessly (pre-incident) and someone who actually hurts someone else (post-incident) are not treated the same because they are different things.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
How on earth is it capitalist? Name an industry that isn’t heavily government regulated and controlled. Heck, our government is in the processes of purchasing banks at the moment.[/quote]
OK. Yes there is regulation but the means of manufacture (at least for some industuries) resides in private hands.
You’re definately not communist.
Argue all you want. I only fix my footpath in fear of being sued. I do not want to fix my footpath. I am made to by the government.
Workplace health and saftey is just dictating behaviour through force rather than penalties. Just prevents injuries better.
That reasoning is wrong. No law maker used that logic when creating those 2 laws.
[quote]Spry wrote:
Anyway, what in the hell is the US if it is not capitalist?
[/quote]
Mostly capitalist.
[quote]Otep wrote:
Mostly capitalist.[/quote]
And back to my original question.
Is Mostly better than Completely?
Is a little socialism a good thing or will it ultimately spiral out of control?
[quote]Spry wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
How on earth is it capitalist? Name an industry that isn’t heavily government regulated and controlled. Heck, our government is in the processes of purchasing banks at the moment.
OK. Yes there is regulation but the means of manufacture (at least for some industuries) resides in private hands.
You’re definately not communist.
No, you seem to think a government inspector inspecting your footpath and ordering you to fix it at gunpoint is the same as having to pay someone who was hurt on it.
Argue all you want. I only fix my footpath in fear of being sued. I do not want to fix my footpath. I am made to by the government.
The existence of things like OSHA in addition to torts law is proof that the two are different. OSHA is not an extension of torts law. If it were it would in essence be convicting someone for a crime not yet committed.
Workplace health and saftey is just dictating behaviour through force rather than penalties. Just prevents injuries better.
It is the reason we have both a reckless driving law and a vehicular manslaughter law. A guy driving recklessly (pre-incident) and someone who actually hurts someone else (post-incident) are not treated the same because they are different things.
That reasoning is wrong. No law maker used that logic when creating those 2 laws.
[/quote]
You know that how? …mind reader… creepy. What am I thinking now? Hint: it isn’t positive on your behalf.
You think they didn’t consider the difference between killing someone and doing something risky in making those laws? You think they should be treated the same? What was my logic flaw?
[quote]Otep wrote:
Spry wrote:
Anyway, what in the hell is the US if it is not capitalist?
Mostly capitalist.[/quote]
I disagree. I think capitalism is truely the idea of personal responsibility, of self sufficiency, and independence and I think those ideas are dead in America.
Whether we are fully socialist or not, no one seems to question the authority of the government to invade our personal and professional lives anymore.
Everyone asks politicians what will they do to make “such and such” better, never questioning whether they have the right to regardless of the proposed solution.
[quote]pat wrote:
streamline wrote:
Why is that republicans don’t see manditory drug testing, as well as drug screening as socialism hard at work. Laws that force individuals to relinquish their freedom for employment. With continuous random period of social conformity to remind the individual that they are not in control. America is already awash with socialism, just look around at the rights, oh sorry you lost those ones.
Mandatory drug testing is wrong. It to is a violation of freedoms. The government has not place trying to control what a person ingests. It is simply none of their business.[/quote]
Mandatory drug testing by the gov? Or by anyone? In either case, can’t I use Doubleduce’s logic?
If you don’t want to take drug tests, don’t become a pilot.
You have a choice. Don’t take a job which requires you to be sober.
[quote]Otep wrote:
Spry wrote:
Anyway, what in the hell is the US if it is not capitalist?
Mostly capitalist.[/quote]
I’d say the U.S. is a constitutional republic with a mixed economy.
A hampered economy.
[quote]Spry wrote:
If it works for Starfleet than why not in the real world?
Is it just lack of technology to provide everyone with their needs?
If we had the technology, would it work?
[/quote]
This is an interesting question and the allusion to Star Trek is apt. Marx viewed communism, a classless society, as a society in which people would not be required to work and they would be allowed to pursue their own interests. Thus, in the “German Ideology” he talks about being a fisher in the morning, a hunter in the afternoon and a critical critic at night.
That would seem to presuppose a high level of technology. A society in which machines performed most of the necessary labor.
We know that in the world Startrek, hunger and want has been eliminated. The members of the Starfleet are there, because they want to be there and they have succeeded in training. There is still hierarchy but not class (class being an economic designation). Individuals are driven by a desire to learn and explore…they are not driven by the necessity to pay for mortgages or to put food on the table.
Of course, getting from here to there is not simple. The first experiments in socialism have failed. First of all, they happened in countries that were originally very backward economically, also there were problems with socialist accounting. For example, there is no way that you can plan a complex economy from a central government, no matter how noble your purpose may be. Of course the notion of complex systems hadn’t been developed yet. Certain areas of the economy can probably be planned but others need market mechanisms in place.
Obviously, it must be admitted that there is a risk that too much centralization of power can and does lead to bureaucracy and corruption. This is particularly true in countries where there is a weak history of democracy. This, of course, was the case with the socialist countries.
That said, recent events have proven that the market is not always rational, millions of people in the US don’t have access to basic healthcare, there are huge gaps between the haves and the have nots. Get fired from your factory job that you’ve worked hard at all your life and you get the shaft. Get fired for fucking up a whole company as CEO and you get a golden parachute.
But to reach the point of Star Trek there is another problem. How to develop technology without destroying the environment and ourselves?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Self interest guides everyone.
I don’t think it always does on the micro level.
Example: Dad goes hungry to feed his kids. Though I guess that would be preservation of his genes. There are individuals that sacrifice with no benefit to themselves. It, however, is a recessive trait.
If the father was not interested in the health of his kids he wouldn’t have acted. Do not confuse self-interest with “selfishness”. Even an act of charity is considered self interest otherwise no one would give to charity. People who give to charity derive a benefit from it – even if only on a emotional level. That is self interest.
I think I have to give you the point on that part. Other than sacrifice of ones own life. Unless the person thinks they will get bonus points in the afterlife. But then, an atheist would never make that sacrifice.[/quote]\
even sacrifice can be self interested if one thinks others will respect him, admire him, make his name live on thus becoming immortal. Whatever will make you happy–thats what your self interests are.