turtlespeed 212 #1976 October 25, 2019 22 minutes ago, wmw999 said: The approach to the value of human life was entirely different in those days, especially if that life was female, or servant. The early USA was a very British place by heritage -- they said that all men were created equal, but still didn't believe in that enough, and created the Senate, to make sure that America wasn't entirely ruled by rabble. If someone died in a farm accident, it was just life; people died. The scale was smaller, and those were generally servants who died, just as it was poor children who were sent out to serve households, under whatever conditions the households chose -- sometimes good, sometimes bad. We've changed as a society. Maybe we've gone too far the other way, but we value human life more, and we value more people more closely to equally. Many (maybe most) of our safety regulations reflect that, and to return to an unregulated system would allow the currently-empowered corporocrats even greater leeway to do whatever it takes to make a profit. For their stockholders, of course, because they're more important than the customers, or the employees, or even the public at large. Money rules. Wendy P. I can get behind almost all of that - Money drove stuff then too. It ruled then too. What I'm asking for is the Ratio to be closer. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DJL 232 #1977 October 25, 2019 15 hours ago, turtlespeed said: Mostly. That era, anyway. And anyway, what's your question, what are you getting at? We have page full of people doing the "well, you said blah blah" then you should think a law something something. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #1978 October 25, 2019 12 minutes ago, DJL said: And anyway, what's your question, what are you getting at? We have page full of people doing the "well, you said blah blah" then you should think a law something something. I didn't have a question. I stated that I want the government to reduce its size to the ratio of people that it had in the time around its founding. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DJL 232 #1979 October 25, 2019 5 minutes ago, turtlespeed said: I didn't have a question. I stated that I want the government to reduce its size to the ratio of people that it had in the time around its founding. Sorry, I meant about following or not following laws. Can you boil down what you're asking? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #1980 October 25, 2019 34 minutes ago, DJL said: Sorry, I meant about following or not following laws. Can you boil down what you're asking? Oh - yeah - I asked you way back if you agreed with being able to force me to pay for what you want. It went from there to a question you answered about speeding. and so on - What I was getting to ultimately, but I was side tracked by work and other conversations, was that you can make laws that force people to pay, but it just means that will increase the amount of cheating that goes on. People will not follow the speed limit. They will do what they can to get around it. SO then my thinking was that you would assume we could simply charge the corporations and businesses - then the populace HAS to pay - the cost would be passed along to the consumer. Then I wanted to see where the conversation went from there to decide what my response would have been. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,141 #1981 October 25, 2019 35 minutes ago, turtlespeed said: People will not follow the speed limit. They will do what they can to get around it. Except they don't. The purpose of a speed limit is to generally reduce the speed at which people drive. Or more specifically, reduce the speed differential between traffic participants. Speed limits are generally very effective at accomplishing this. The idea that laws and regulations are only successful or warranted if they produce 100% compliance is laughable. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #1982 October 25, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, SkyDekker said: Except they don't. >>> we will have to just disagree here - I have personal experience and a long life of driving and witnessing this first hand. Your claim that people don't is just silly. The purpose of a speed limit is to generally reduce the speed at which people drive. Or more specifically, reduce the speed differential between traffic participants. Speed limits are generally very effective at accomplishing this. The idea that laws and regulations are only successful or warranted if they produce 100% compliance is laughable. Why do you think it is so black and white? Are you projecting? Edited October 25, 2019 by turtlespeed Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,647 #1983 October 25, 2019 4 hours ago, turtlespeed said: Why do you think it is so black and white? Are you projecting? He is not projecting so much as you are creating a strawman. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JerryBaumchen 1,063 #1984 October 25, 2019 10 hours ago, wmw999 said: We've changed as a society. Hi Wendy, And IMO for the better. One only has to read 'A Civil Action' or see the movie to understand what a world w/o regulations would result in. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Civil_Action Jerry Baumchen 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,427 #1985 October 26, 2019 On 10/25/2019 at 7:22 AM, turtlespeed said: What I was getting to ultimately, but I was side tracked by work and other conversations, was that you can make laws that force people to pay, but it just means that will increase the amount of cheating that goes on. Your point of view seems to be "if we have speed limits people will drive faster" but the fact of the matter is that speed limits keep people driving speeds closer to the speed limit. Drunk driving laws do not prevent drunk driving - but they have greatly decreased it (and greatly decreased highway deaths.) The Montreal Protocol did not end the use of CFC's - but they did drastically curtail it, and the ozone layer is now recovering. EPA laws did not end pollution - but they did greatly reduce it, and reduced the resulting deaths. (Fun fact - largely as a result of recent attacks on the EPA, 9700 more people die every year due to pollution.) The reason we use laws is that they work. Not perfectly, of course - but nothing's perfect. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gowlerk 1,923 #1986 October 26, 2019 1 minute ago, billvon said: The reason we use laws is that they work. Not perfectly, of course - but nothing's perfect. I'm not sure why murder is illegal. It hasn't stopped it yet. Why bother with police at all? There is still crime. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #1987 October 26, 2019 8 minutes ago, gowlerk said: I'm not sure why murder is illegal. It hasn't stopped it yet. Why bother with police at all? There is still crime. And by your logic above we should have a military state. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,647 #1988 October 26, 2019 1 hour ago, turtlespeed said: And by your logic above we should have a military state. Your grasp of logic needs work. Your ability to create strawman arguments is, however, unmatched. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,427 #1989 October 26, 2019 7 hours ago, turtlespeed said: And by your logic above we should have a military state. Why? We have laws, and they seem to work. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #1990 October 28, 2019 On 10/26/2019 at 9:55 AM, gowlerk said: I'm not sure why murder is illegal. It hasn't stopped it yet. Why bother with police at all? There is still crime. On 10/26/2019 at 5:57 PM, billvon said: Why? We have laws, and they seem to work. I responded to the statement above yours, Bill. You are right - I was wrong - By his logic we shouldn't have the laws or the police. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 388 #1991 November 11, 2019 https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/forget-green-new-deal-america-now-energy-superpower-95476 According to the experts, less than 9% of our energy will come from wind and solar by the year 2050. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,427 #1992 November 11, 2019 37 minutes ago, brenthutch said: https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/forget-green-new-deal-america-now-energy-superpower-95476 According to the experts, less than 9% of our energy will come from wind and solar by the year 2050. 31% from renewables by 2050 per the EIA - and that number is growing all the time. Remember how you used to mock renewables as being unicorn farts? If you still believe that, by 2050 coal will be less than unicorn farts. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 388 #1993 November 11, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, billvon said: 31% from renewables by 2050 per the EIA - and that number is growing all the time. Remember how you used to mock renewables as being unicorn farts? If you still believe that, by 2050 coal will be less than unicorn farts. No coal will be more. It will be producing more electricity world wide than the aforementioned unicorn farts. Edited November 11, 2019 by brenthutch Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
richravizza 25 #1994 November 22, 2019 On 11/11/2019 at 2:28 PM, brenthutch said: No coal will be more. It will be producing more electricity world wide than the aforementioned unicorn farts. https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/30/asia/china-coal-emissions-climate-change-intl/index.html The Dutch Gov'ts got the worlds solution, the speed limit analogy. https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/14/europe/netherlands-speed-limit-motorway-intl-scli/index.html Brent thought you'd like these crazy Conservative Californians take on our Progressive policy. if time constrained start@ the 10:00 mark. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mbohu 77 #1995 November 23, 2019 18 hours ago, richravizza said: https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/30/asia/china-coal-emissions-climate-change-intl/index.html The Dutch Gov'ts got the worlds solution, the speed limit analogy. https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/14/europe/netherlands-speed-limit-motorway-intl-scli/index.html Brent thought you'd like these crazy Conservative Californians take on our Progressive policy. if time constrained start@ the 10:00 mark. A simple Google search reveals: China (30%) The world's most populated country has an enormous export market, which has seen its industry grow to become a serious danger to the planet. ... United States (15%) The world's biggest industrial and commercial power. ... India (7%) ... Russia (5%) ... Japan (4%) But more importantly: So, does the guy in the middle actually fight for reducing plastic pollution by organizing in China or India? I am sure there are many ways to do that. In fact most actual environmental organizations are doing exactly that. (Along with fighting it right here, at home, where we can probably have the most influence) If that's what he is concerned about, I am certain the environmentalists would be thrilled to have him work on that side of the problem. This argument: "This other guy is throwing much more trash on the road than I am, so why are you asking me to not throw my trash on the road?" is extremely disingenuous. Didn't our parents teach us way back when that we should start in our own backyard? Wasn't there some guy over 2000 years ago who talked about something along the lines of taking out the beam in our own eye? (or was that even longer ago? Not sure which testament it's a part of) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
richravizza 25 #1996 November 23, 2019 On 11/11/2019 at 1:38 PM, billvon said: 31% from renewables by 2050 per the EIA - and that number is growing all the time. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/11/ethanol-has-forsaken-us/602191/ Wonder if we can agree this isn't a green "renewable" path for our country. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
richravizza 25 #1997 November 24, 2019 3 hours ago, mbohu said: . Didn't our parents teach us way back when that we should start in our own backyard? Yes, we voted to allow our State to tax us on most plastics,to the benefit of the environment.To the benefit of our poor, well that's up for debate.As concerned citizens we do our part separating,ignoring the refund the bureaucracy eats everyday.We allow our gov't to regulating our trash company.State,Federal and local regulation on landfills. My backyard is fine. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mbohu 77 #1998 November 24, 2019 5 hours ago, richravizza said: My backyard is fine. Right. So what's his point then...the guy in the middle, in your video? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,427 #1999 November 24, 2019 22 hours ago, richravizza said: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/11/ethanol-has-forsaken-us/602191/ Wonder if we can agree this isn't a green "renewable" path for our country. Corn based ethanol is a poor solution - but one that is very popular with US farmers, which is why it's still around. Sugar cane based ethanol is several times more effective. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,427 #2000 November 24, 2019 16 hours ago, richravizza said: Yes, we voted to allow our State to tax us on most plastics,to the benefit of the environment.To the benefit of our poor, well that's up for debate.As concerned citizens we do our part separating,ignoring the refund the bureaucracy eats everyday.We allow our gov't to regulating our trash company.State,Federal and local regulation on landfills. My backyard is fine. Good thing you have that evil bureaucratic government to enforce the laws that prevent people from just dumping their junk there. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
