Civil Liberties

[AlexCrowley 0]

yeah...no shit.

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[Airman1270 0]

...I think he has a hard time differentiating between government imposed restriction and those imposed by others...
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

No, but I understand your point. I was mixing my examples to include both categories. Many of the privately-enacted restrictions are an offshoot of public policy decisions, and are based on self-defense.

Example: In recent years USPA has "suggested" ridiculous currency requirements which are based on the assumption that a guy who has made a few dozen (or more) jumps will forget everything and go in without pulling if he takes a few months off. Many DZ's require this guy to pay for additional retraining, when all he needs is a quick gear check, a briefing on wind patterns, and a ride to altitude. This is not a law, with police and courts waiting to pounce on "violators." However, a societal secular-humanist trend toward punishing people for failing to prevent bad things from happening has forced many business owners to adopt this type of thinking. Lawyers will pursue lawsuits against the DZO, and will cherry pick a jury they believe will succumb to such arguments. Ergo, the DZO did nothing wrong but ends up broke and in court because, for whatever reason, his customer had an accident that was beyond his control.

Just one example...

Cheers,
Jon S.

[kallend 1,649]

Quote

...I think he has a hard time differentiating between government imposed restriction and those imposed by others...
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

No, but I understand your point. I was mixing my examples to include both categories. Many of the privately-enacted restrictions are an offshoot of public policy decisions, and are based on self-defense.

Example: In recent years USPA has "suggested" ridiculous currency requirements which are based on the assumption that a guy who has made a few dozen (or more) jumps will forget everything and go in without pulling if he takes a few months off. Many DZ's require this guy to pay for additional retraining, when all he needs is a quick gear check, a briefing on wind patterns, and a ride to altitude. This is not a law, with police and courts waiting to pounce on "violators." However, a societal secular-humanist trend toward punishing people for failing to prevent bad things from happening has forced many business owners to adopt this type of thinking. Lawyers will pursue lawsuits against the DZO, and will cherry pick a jury they believe will succumb to such arguments. Ergo, the DZO did nothing wrong but ends up broke and in court because, for whatever reason, his customer had an accident that was beyond his control.

Just one example...

Cheers,
Jon S.

The flaws in the US tort system are a whole different issue. BTW, in the situation you describe waivers seem to work very well, and you can jump at a non USPA DZ if you wish.

I think there's altogether too much government regulation of our lives, and it really doesn't matter much which party is in power, they just choose to emphasize regulation in different areas.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

If you still believe the myth that we are a "free country," try riding a bike through Boston without a helmet or walking on a public beach at night.

Yep. I've long been pissed off about the idea that I'm not free to be on a public beach at night. It's prior restraint: they keep me off IN CASE I might be one of the types of people who would do "bad things" on the beach at night -- and they don't want to actually patrol the beach at night to make sure that laws are obeyed. Their unwillingness to patrol in case of unlawful acts on the beach at night means they just shut it down and say NOBODY -- law breaking or law abiding -- is allowed there then. It's bogus.

But I disagree with your placing the blame on "creeping secular humanism." This doesn't have to do with belief in god or jesus. This is about attitudes toward individual liberty. So-called Liberals are every bit as bad about supporting individual liberty as they claim Conservatives are, and more so. It has more to do with their FEAR OF LIFE and what can happen to people in the course of it, and their elitist belief that they know what is best for ALL of us.


-Jeffrey

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[billvon 2,435]

>Yet, when I consider the long list of things were were free to do 30 years
> ago, but which are illegal now, I see the results of legislation pushed
>primarily by the Democrat left. A short list includes such things as HOV
>lanes . . .

Originally promoted by democrats in CA like Fran Pavley. Opening the HOV lanes to hybrids was championed by assembly democrats and supported by Arnold.

>seat belt laws,

In FL, Jeb Bush was the strongest proponent of stricter seatbelt laws during recent debate over a bill.

>bicycle helmet laws,

Pete Domenici (R-NM) was the one who championed the mandatory Snell ratings on bicycle helmets.

>smoking restrictions imposed on privately-owned businesses,

This has been almost exclusively a democratic position.

>the redefinition of what is considered "drunk driving" . . .

In CA, the most recent tightening of drunk driving laws was pushed by Senator Dave Cox (R-Fair Oaks.) Thus proving he is 'tough on crime.'

Now, I very much hope that the above does not ignite the usual "my side is great, yours sucks!" argument that 90% of political threads devolve to. The purpose of the above is to demonstrate that both sides are guilty of sacrificing vital liberties for temporary safety. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and the road to lost liberty is paved by well-meaning politicians who want to make sure no one else suffers the devastation of having their 2 year old killed by a drunk driver, or a handgun, or a bike accident, or lung cancer.

The Patriot Act is by no means the only instance of lost liberty - it is merely the most recent and egregious. It is, fortunately, one we have a shot at defeating. It will expire in six months. Hopefully, fans of liberty will take that time to get it defeated instead of sniping at each other.

[Airman1270 0]

...But I disagree with your placing the blame on "creeping secular humanism." This doesn't have to do with belief in god or jesus. This is about attitudes toward individual liberty...
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Many of the laws & atrtitudes we're discussing ARE a result of a secular humanist world view. This is a view that believes that mankind is the ultimate authority, that perfection IS possible, and that any failure to achieve perfection can be addressed by further micromanaging people's behavior.

Example: Drunk driving laws. I've been driving for nearly 30 years, and drunk driving has been illegal for much longer than I can remember. It was easy to understand; The law established a standard, and any amount of alcohol that did not violate that standard was legal. This was fair. We were free to drink moderately and drive without having to worry about compromising public safety or getting into trouble with the law. Any problems that did occur were the result of people exceeding the legal limits. The secular humanist response was based on the belief that it is possible to eliminate drunk driving accidents by changing the standard and passing more laws.

In recent years, laws have been changed ("toughened") to the point where the people who were not causing any trouble have been redefined as criminals. Meanwhile, serious tragedies continue to occur, not because some guy had three drinks in two hours, but because he got himself smashed way beyond what used to be the legal standard.

The secular humanist mind set believes that we can eliminate these tragedies by passing more laws. The flaw in this world view is the belief that the law can change people's behavior. That's wrong. The law can only set a standard and provide for punishment of violations. Thanks to this kind of thinking, people are being arrested and prosecuted even though they did nothing that would compromise public safety.

This puts politicians in a touch predicament, as anyone who believes the laws are already tough and don't need to be modified is accused of "not caring." Also, they're dealing with a population that has itself been trained in a secular humanist school system to believe the role of government is to "solve problems" and take whatever steps it can to eliminate all crimes, accidents, and tragedies from the human experience.

The Judeo-Christian world view recognizes that perfection is unattainable and that mankind does not have all the answers. It accepts the fact that "shit happens" despite our attempts to keep it from happening. Under this world view, the old drunk driving standard was fine. People who obeyed the law were not causing problems, while people who violated the law were responsible for whatever drunk driving-related accidents occurred. It wasn't perfect, but it was as fair as was possible.

By the way, when MADD began gaining steam in the early '80's, they were not demanding the laws be changed. Their entire focus was on persuading people to obey existing laws. And they have been very successful. But instead of congratulating themselves on a job well done, they became intoxicated by their increasing political influence and later started demanding more laws and ridiculously tight BAC standards. According to these people, the fact that any aclohol-related accident occurs anywhere is proof the current laws are "not working."

Thanks to their (secular humanist) approach to legislation, those two beers you enjoyed with your buddies after the sunset load could result in your being arrested at a roadblock on the way home from the DZ. Sure, you may not be convicted; perhaps the charges will be dropped. But you'll still be hassled, despite the fact that you pose no threat to anybody.

I've decided to organize my own political movement. It's called DAMM - Drunks Against Mad Mothers. Our motto is "Don't drink and drive; you might hit a bump and spill your drink."

By the way, if I buy a bottle of something at the liquor store and have a wreck while pulling out of the parking lot, was the incident "alcohol related?"

Cheersh,
Jon S.

[Channman 2]

>Thanks to their (secular humanist) approach to legislation, those two beers you enjoyed with your buddies after the sunset load could result in your being arrested at a roadblock on the way home from the DZ. Sure, you may not be convicted; perhaps the charges will be dropped. But you'll still be hassled, despite the fact that you pose no threat to anybody.

My brother in law is an HPD Homicide Detective...Once made a comment to me, "You might beat the charge but your not beating the ride."

Simply put if you find yourself going down town in the back of a squad car, your looking at 17-24 hours before you get out and several hundred dollars if your lucky.