Thread: Automotive Tire Safety Law

Late bloomer, I just became aware yesterday of this:

Tire Pressure Monitoring Systems

"In the United States, the Firestone recall in the late 1990s (which was linked to more than 100 deaths from rollovers following tire tread-separation), pushed the Clinton administration to legislate the TREAD Act. The Act mandated the use of a suitable TPMS technology in all light motor vehicles (under 10,000 pounds), to help alert drivers of severe under-inflation events. This act affects all light motor vehicles sold after September 1, 2007"

What is the concensus here? Must we blindly accept every new law which unavoidably adds to the dues we are forced to pay? Americans drove their vehicles for one-hundred years, happily unaware of future intentions to regulate even regulations! The option of buying TPMS on a new vehicle was reserved for the low-volume, high-bucks cars aimed at a limited market. Imagine the development costs, testing, quality assurance implementation, possibly additional expensive Engineering payroll, and forced by regulation, burden placed on all the manufacturers.

What about litigation resulting from TPMS units which fail, whether due to defect or misuse? After all, if a safety device fails to perform, litigation dough is inevitable. Estimate THAT in advance, and add it to the new-car price? That already went up, due to TPMS mandate.

How about this one? Car comes NEW with 5 tires. The SPARE TIRE HAS NO TPMS sensor! Guy gets a flat tire, puts on the spare, not knowing he's only 3/4 protected with the spare on the car. Yeah, I know, easy to program-in a warning, if non-TPMS detected. Maybe.

Maybe the historic vehicle drivers have something after all. But most States require such vehicles may only be driven to bona-fide meets and exhibitions. The next "wave" could be mandatory SCRAPPING of all cars when they reach a certain age. What is it in Tokyo, 5 years old? jocular

Total cost is only a few hundred bucks for the entire system, a system that will not only increase safety, but also pay for itself before the tires wear out from better fuel economy.


Not buying the "historic drivers" arguments--car deaths have dropped dramatically over the past few decades. We're a long ways from the no-seat belt, baby in the lap, kids in the pickup bed, no-lines on the road, steering column will puncture your chest, gas tanks will explode on impact unsafe non-existent standards of the past. Sorry I saw too many families shattered by crippling and death from accidents during the 60s and 70s that most people just walk away from today after a checkup and treating a few bruised ribs.

How many cars have a full sized spare tire now days? My wife's new Fit doesn't.

I find it amazing that

a few hundred bucks

doesn't mean anything to some of you rich guys.

I probably have 6-8 tire guages, maybe $3-$8 a pop
I'd just as soon pay that @$40 than "a few hundred" and every added complexity costs more to maintain, a few hundred and a few hundred more.

so idiots who don't check their tires can be safer. gee thanx

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Total cost is only a few hundred bucks for the entire system, a system that will not only increase safety, but also pay for itself before the tires wear out from better fuel economy.


Not buying the "historic drivers" arguments--car deaths have dropped dramatically over the past few decades. We're a long ways from the no-seat belt, baby in the lap, kids in the pickup bed, no-lines on the road, steering column will puncture your chest, gas tanks will explode on impact unsafe non-existent standards of the past. Sorry I saw too many families shattered by crippling and death from accidents during the 60s and 70s that most people just walk away from today after a checkup and treating a few bruised ribs.

How many cars have a full sized spare tire now days? My wife's new Fit doesn't.

Your opinion is respected, of course. Implementation of innovation can save lives. Problem is, while many such improvements have undoubtedly saved lives, many lives continue to be lost largely through actions not affected by laws and regulations. Addressing a few of the conditions you cite: kids in pickup beds, laws largely disregarded, we seem them as well as adults carried in pickup beds quite often; thus pickup bed laws aimed at protecting stupid folks from hurting themselvesd have not educated stupid folks. Steering columns: collapsible steering columns, break away steering columns, NO steering columns, seem to have been implemented, and are no longer with us. The air bag evidently took their place. Gas tanks are largely no different than they ever were. The infamous Pinto rear end fuel tank fires is cited as an example: Almost all small cars then, had fuel tanks located in similar proximity to the rear of the vehicle
just as they do today. Only fuel cells would make a difference, and they are absent from our cars. "Lines on the road"--- ??

Both passive and active restraints lose their effectiveness in any collision occurring at highway speeds. In fact, they often produce injuries of their own. Generallly, people drive too damn fast, and too damn recklessly, all such activity in violation of the law, and this trend in social more has only increased with increasing legislation. It's like, why do the people in the cities of Holland take great pride in their property, sweeping front sidewalks daily, for example. They care about themselves and others.

BTW, the Pinto gas tank fiasco resulted from good intent gone wrong: the fuel filler tubes were attached to the lower bottom side of the tank, to help prevent "belching" out of fuel while filling. The design error came to light when, upon collision impact, the fill tube sheared off, allowing all the fuel contained to run out of the tank, beneath the vehicle. Only removal of the behind-the-seat location for the tank in pickup trucks has had tank safety effect, and it was, I believe, NOT mandated by law.

Just about every SUV has a full-sized spare tire, as do pickup trucks. The "mini-spares" can be seen driven on cars in any city, the owners happily ignoring the "short term use only" label.

I will accept as Gospel all that you say, if actual numbers of lives saved expressed as a percentage of all vehicular accidents can be displayed showing significant reduction directly attributable to implemented laws. jocular

Can't help if some placed don't enforce child safety in cars. We never see kids riding in the back where I'm at. (personally don't care if adult does it...that's their choice...kids don't get that choice).

Almost all small cars then, had fuel tanks located in similar proximity to the rear of the vehicle just as they do today.

Tanks are much better protected today, from collisions in all directions, the strength of the tank is tested, rear collisions are tested, they are mildly pressurized to detect leaks, as well as being equipped with shut off valves. The Pinto's bad design couldn't happen today, because of those safety and industry standards--that's the whole point.

As a result (and the numbers are easy to verify)
Vehicle fires: "From 1980 to 2008, these fires fell a cumulative 55%, and have been hitting new lows every year since 2002. Civilian deaths from highway vehicle fires fell 4% from 365 in 2007 to 350 in 2008, two consecutive years of record lows. Civilian injuries in highway vehicle fires fell 43% from 1,500 in 2007 to 850 in 2008. From 1980 to 2008, these injuries fell a cumulative 70%. " (bold my added emphasis).
Vehicle fire trends and patterns

when I was a kid, my stepdad had a 51 pontiac and he would tow us on sleds behind the car when the snow was deep.
no seatbelts, and we didn't always remain seated in the back seat.

after tet, i started keeping track of how many guys i knew from my home town had died in nam vs the highways
it was a close race
then b.b. left the road at a high rate of speed with 3 more friends in the car, and the highway finaly won the body count.
whodathunk a war zone was safer than the highways
almost made me wanna re-up (not)

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Can't help if some placed don't enforce child safety in cars. We never see kids riding in the back where I'm at. (personally don't care if adult does it...that's their choice...kids don't get that choice).

Almost all small cars then, had fuel tanks located in similar proximity to the rear of the vehicle just as they do today.

Tanks are much better protected today, from collisions in all directions, the strength of the tank is tested, rear collisions are tested, they are mildly pressurized to detect leaks, as well as being equipped with shut off valves. The Pinto's bad design couldn't happen today, because of those safety and industry standards--that's the whole point.

As a result (and the numbers are easy to verify)
Vehicle fires: "From 1980 to 2008, these fires fell a cumulative 55%, and have been hitting new lows every year since 2002. Civilian deaths from highway vehicle fires fell 4% from 365 in 2007 to 350 in 2008, two consecutive years of record lows. Civilian injuries in highway vehicle fires fell 43% from 1,500 in 2007 to 850 in 2008. From 1980 to 2008, these injuries fell a cumulative 70%. " (bold my added emphasis).
Vehicle fire trends and patterns

Vehicle fire deaths decline accepted. Reasons for the fires, or lesser number of them? Certainly, not all vehicle fires are fuel-caused, or fuel tank related. Vehicular death statistics related to driver-caused events, up or down? jocular

List of motor vehicle deaths in U.S. by year - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Deaths per 100,000: fairly constant from 1930 to 1980.
Since 1980, car deaths have halved.

Either the drivers are safer or the cars are safer.
I'm not sure how the drivers could be safer - especially over only 20 years. Most of the drivers in the 80's are still drivers in the 2010's.
I know my parents are definitely worse drivers now than they were in the 80's.

So, the next questions (if you accept the above statements) are:
How many of the car's improved safety is due to commercial pressure and not legislation?
And do those 'commercial pressure' improvements account for 100% of the decrease in deaths?

I would be astounded if none of the legislated improvements in safety reduced car deaths.

Originally Posted by RedPanda

List of motor vehicle deaths in U.S. by year - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Deaths per 100,000: fairly constant from 1930 to 1980.
Since 1980, car deaths have halved.

Either the drivers are safer or the cars are safer.
I'm not sure how the drivers could be safer - especially over only 20 years. Most of the drivers in the 80's are still drivers in the 2010's.
I know my parents are definitely worse drivers now than they were in the 80's.

So, the next questions (if you accept the above statements) are:
How many of the car's improved safety is due to commercial pressure and not legislation?
And do those 'commercial pressure' improvements account for 100% of the decrease in deaths?

I would be astounded if none of the legislated improvements in safety reduced car deaths.

I think we all would. I am impressed and glad to hear that the rates have declined over 30 years, but surely there was plenty of pressure over the previous quoted 50 years to decrease the number of deaths. Why in the world would those rates have remained fairly constant that long? jocular

Originally Posted by jocular

but surely there was plenty of pressure over the previous quoted 50 years to decrease the number of deaths. Why in the world would those rates have remained fairly constant that long?

"Safety technology has accelerated, particularly during the past decade, driven by legislation, the engineering skills of the car makers themselves and, most importantly, by consumers demanding safer cars."
The History Of Car Safety | NRMA Motoring & Services

Let's look at seat-belts:
Seat-belts are the most effective method of reducing car injuries/fatalities.
So...why were seat-belt wearing laws not introduced until the mid-1980's?

New York was the first US state to implement laws forcing people to wear seat-belts in 1984.
And even today: "In 18 of the 50 states, the seat belt law is considered a secondary offense, which means that a police officer cannot stop and ticket a driver for the sole offense of not wearing a seatbelt." Wiki

If seat-belts are so good, why the reluctance to legislate?
One reason is because the public just did not want legislature forcing them to wear seat-belts.
There was (still is?) a huge psychological barrier to overcome.

And there seems to be a similar attitude to most other safety measures.
Personally, I don't understand why people prefer to be killed than wear a seat-belt.

If seat-belts are so good, why the reluctance to legislate?

Because we have a philosophy and tradition of personal liberty in the US that allows adults to make their own decisions about personal safety.
While I usually wear a seat belt, I completely understand the decision not to, and sometimes choose not to wear one myself for short trips to the corner store. Motorcycle helmet laws are much the same. I draw the line where kids are involved--as adults we can be stupid, but don't think adults can willfully put their children at unnecessary risk.

Companies on the other hand, have a responsibility to provide safe equipment as reasonably possible because they don't know who will be driving and riding in their vehicles.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Because we have a philosophy and tradition of personal liberty in the US that allows adults to make their own decisions about personal safety.

Well, that's not really true though, is it?
Gambling is legal? Drugs are legal? Gay marriage is legal? Prostitution is legal? Euthanasia is legal? Visiting Cuba is legal?
I'm not sure I see the history and tradition of personal liberty that you claim exists.

A car death is detrimental to your family, your friends and society, regardless of if you have a tradition of personal freedoms.
But I don't know if you care about society or your family / friends (or even have any family) though, so maybe that point doesn't mean anything to you.

In the UK it is far more clean cut.
The more hurt someone is (e.g. in a car crash) the more expensive the treatment.
That treatment is paid for by everyone's taxes.
So, someone wanting to not wear a seat-belt is out-weighed by everyone else not wanting to pay for their treatment.

And it is not as though "not wearing a seat-belt" is actually a human right (or even a valid recreational activity).

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

If seat-belts are so good, why the reluctance to legislate?

Because we have a philosophy and tradition of personal liberty in the US that allows adults to make their own decisions about personal safety.
While I usually wear a seat belt, I completely understand the decision not to, and sometimes choose not to wear one myself for short trips to the corner store. Motorcycle helmet laws are much the same. I draw the line where kids are involved--as adults we can be stupid, but don't think adults can willfully put their children at unnecessary risk.

Companies on the other hand, have a responsibility to provide safe equipment as reasonably possible because they don't know who will be driving and riding in their vehicles.

Originally Posted by RedPanda

Well, that's not really true though, is it?
Gambling is legal? Drugs are legal? Gay marriage is legal? Prostitution is legal? Euthanasia is legal? Visiting Cuba is legal?
I'm not sure I see the history and tradition of personal liberty that you claim exists.

Because people in this country have started to forget that philosophy as they sink further and further into their selfish attitudes.
"Freedom" is something we've not truly had for a long time.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Because people in this country have started to forget that philosophy as they sink further and further into their selfish attitudes.

Whereas people accidentally killing themselves for want of wearing a simple seat-belt is not selfish?
(This isn't meant to be facetious - it does seems selfish to me. And my family/friends would consider me a selfish moron if I died because I didn't wear a seat-belt.)

Originally Posted by RedPanda

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Because people in this country have started to forget that philosophy as they sink further and further into their selfish attitudes.

Whereas people accidentally killing themselves for want of wearing a simple seat-belt is not selfish?
(This isn't meant to be facetious - it does seems selfish to me. And my family/friends would consider me a selfish moron if I died because I didn't wear a seat-belt.)

See, a system is in place there that is a different system.

And yes, I see telling other people what they can and cannot do because it has a minimal and minor effect on YOU as selfish.
Where does it end? I mean- Really. Where?
Can you tell other people what they can eat? How they can eat? How much they can eat? Because with the system of socialized health care- you pay for it if they have heart congestion.

So, divided up against your nations population, you pay a very small amount for his choices. You chose the system, though. After the fact, dictating whether a fat guy can eat twinkies becomes a self created problem- it is selfish. You don't want a pound added to your taxes which you voted in if some other guy gains a pound in weight.

Simply put- there is NO choice that you can personally make that won't affect other people in some way. None. There is not one single choice you can make that won't.
So- how many choices can we dictate? How many people can be subjected to authoritarianism in order to pander to the few pennies divided up among selfish people that think they can tell other people what to do?

We did not evolve in that. We evolved in the Natural World where life ain't fair. We evolved in an environment where you watch your ass or you get eaten.
Humans got a little extra brain power at some point and began thinking about how much they dislike running from a predator or having to work to eat or having to sweat. And they began trying to Fix the world. We've been trying to fix the world.
And all we've managed to do is monkey it up.
It can't be fixed. It is much, much bigger than us. You cannot prosecute lions, you cannot sue the Earth for an Earthquake and you cannot take the weather to court. The world does not care about our illusions, or delusions or how uncomfortable we get. It operates on the principle that if you're too uncomfortable, just die and make room for a better adapted species to fill the niche.

I have never understood the authoritarian desire to Fix people- to make the world Better. It's fine the way it is.
We're the ones that are all jacked up.

Yes- it IS selfish to tell Other people how to live their lives, what to do, what choices than can and cannot make just because you think that your checkbook might be oh so slightly impacted from a screwy system that you set up in the first place.

Originally Posted by RedPanda

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Because we have a philosophy and tradition of personal liberty in the US that allows adults to make their own decisions about personal safety.

Well, that's not really true though, is it?
Gambling is legal? Drugs are legal? Gay marriage is legal? Prostitution is legal? Euthanasia is legal?

Drugs were not illegal for most of the US history. The rest are religious based moral were you won't get any argument from me, have always had too much influence on American society. But as a rule, individuals still have nearly always had responsibility to make individual decisions about what risk to take--whether to own a firearm, what sports to play, what jobs to take, what hobbies to persue, what type of transportation they'll own and use, etc.

A car death is detrimental to your family, your friends and society, regardless of if you have a tradition of personal freedoms.

And?

But I don't know if you care about society or your family / friends (or even have any family) though, so maybe that point doesn't mean anything to you.

Liberty trumps much in my mind.

In the UK it is far more clean cut.
The more hurt someone is (e.g. in a car crash) the more expensive the treatment. That treatment is paid for by everyone's taxes.

It doesn't work that way in the US, even with current changes to our medical care laws--it's mostly private. And it's a cost I'd willingly pay for.

And it is not as though "not wearing a seat-belt" is actually a human right (or even a valid recreational activity).

I agree. States have the right to promote public safety on their roads and this is one of there more effective ways to do so.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

And yes, I see telling other people what they can and cannot do because it has a minimal and minor effect on YOU as selfish.

So, if a child loses their father because he wanted to not wear a seat belt, that would be a "minimal and minor effect"? Really?
How about is a parent lost their child because that child decided to not wear a seat-belt? That would be a minimal and minor effect?

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Where does it end? I mean- Really. Where?

That would be a Slippery slope fallacy, would it not?

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Can you tell other people what they can eat? How they can eat? How much they can eat? Because with the system of socialized health care- you pay for it if they have heart congestion.

Why not? If someone decides to eat so much that they are housebound and dependant on the state, then why can we not say "You have eaten too much!".

Originally Posted by Neverfly

So, divided up against your nations population, you pay a very small amount for his choices.

Well, if only one person didn't wear a seat-belt, then you might have had a point.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

You don't want a pound added to your taxes which you voted in if some other guy gains a pound in weight.

Is gaining a pound in weight detrimental to your health to any noticeable of measurable degree?

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Simply put- there is NO choice that you can personally make that won't affect other people in some way. None. There is not one single choice you can make that won't.
So- how many choices can we dictate?

We can dictate a huge amount. We currently do.
And society is better for it.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

How many people can be subjected to authoritarianism in order to pander to the few pennies divided up among selfish people that think they can tell other people what to do?

Not sure why you are talking about authoritarianism.
Do you think all laws are authoritarian?

Originally Posted by Neverfly

I have never understood the authoritarian desire to Fix people- to make the world Better. It's fine the way it is.
We're the ones that are all jacked up.

That doesn't really make sense. If someone is trying to "fix people" it is because they think that people are "jacked up". They are not trying to fix the world.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Yes- it IS selfish to tell Other people how to live their lives, what to do, what choices than can and cannot make just because you think that your checkbook might be oh so slightly impacted from a screwy system that you set up in the first place.

Ok - let's legalise rape and murder then!
Or you could just cut back on the hyperbole - it makes your arguments look stupid.

Originally Posted by RedPanda

So, if a child loses their father because he wanted to not wear a seat belt, that would be a "minimal and minor effect"? Really?

Really?! Really, indeed. You went from focusing on you, the complete stranger to that man complaining about you having to Pay Money due to your system to shifting the goal posts onto his child.
Of course people closer to you will be affected- but what difference does it make? If a mountain lion gobbled him up- does it make that better? Or if he's struck by lightning?
Being affected by it is still irrelevant to whether or not you can choose FOR other people.

Originally Posted by RedPanda

That would be a Slippery slope fallacy, would it not?

While something can qualify as a fallacy, does not mean that it IS a fallacy. Simply put, there is overwhelming evidence that we are sliding down that slope as you provided examples to Lynx_Fox above.

Originally Posted by RedPanda

Why not?

Because creating the state was a choice made in the first place.
Once created, anyone that had the audacity to be born within it's imaginary borders gets bullied into submission. Don't do what we tell you to? Fine- we'll extort money from you, then.

Originally Posted by RedPanda

Well, if only one person didn't wear a seat-belt, then you might have had a point.

Nonsense. The socialized system is an imaginary construct in which other people divide up imaginary money and then imagine that they can dictate how you live your life because they worry about that money.

Originally Posted by RedPanda

We can dictate a huge amount. We currently do.

Indeed. It is called an authoritarian dictatorship.
Being able to do so is often a matter of bullying the citizens into accepting it as their lot in life.

Originally Posted by RedPanda

And society is better for it.

Subjective opinion. Without an absolute measure by which to Compare what is "better" - it is nothing more than your subjective opinion.

Originally Posted by RedPanda

That doesn't really make sense. If someone is trying to "fix people" it is because they think that people are "jacked up". They are not trying to fix the world.

Nonsense. The entire point is to "fix" what people percieve as "wrong" with the world. Claiming otherwise is what makes no sense.
Your subjective opinions about what is right or wrong are not absolute. You cannot say the world is made better, you can only believe that from your own politics.

Originally Posted by RedPanda

Ok - let's legalise rape and murder then!
Or you could just cut back on the hyperbole - it makes your arguments look stupid.

Claiming it makes my arguments look "stupid" is just more of your subjective opinion.

I can't be arsed replying to your post Neverfly.
You posted a phenomenal pile of shit which completely avoided every point I made.
As usual you get angry and lose the plot.
*shrug*

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Drugs were not illegal for most of the US history. The rest are religious based moral were you won't get any argument from me, have always had too much influence on American society.

*nods*

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

But as a rule, individuals still have nearly always had responsibility to make individual decisions about what risk to take--whether to own a firearm, what sports to play, what jobs to take, what hobbies to persue, what type of transportation they'll own and use, etc.

And, as a rule, individuals still have the responsibility to make individual decisions about what risks to take.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

A car death is detrimental to your family, your friends and society, regardless of if you have a tradition of personal freedoms.

And?

Well, I had thought you would care about your friends and family....

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

But I don't know if you care about society or your family / friends (or even have any family) though, so maybe that point doesn't mean anything to you.

Liberty trumps much in my mind.

...but it seems not.
Well, I can't appeal to your better nature if you don't have one.

On a more serious note: you said earlier (talking about children in cars) "[I]don't think adults can willfully put their children at unnecessary risk."
But there are more risks to a child than just simply losing their own health.
If a child lost both parents because they (the parents) chose to not wear a seat-belt, then the child's life could be ruined.
I think that children should be protected from the loss of their parents as much as possible - but that might be just me.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

I agree. States have the right to promote public safety on their roads and this is one of there more effective ways to do so.

*nods*
There seems to be a consensus that seat-belts are the most effective way.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Simply put- there is NO choice that you can personally make that won't affect other people in some way. None. There is not one single choice you can make that won't.
So- how many choices can we dictate?

All of them. A better question is - how many choices SHOULD we dictate? When it comes to a person harming only themselves I'd say it's up to them. When it comes to people harming other people, that's when regulation is appropriate.

It can't be fixed.

But, see, it can. That's the problem. We CAN make cars much safer; we've done it. We CAN make deaths from large carnivores an incredibly rare event.

You cannot prosecute lions

No, but you can put them in zoos, teach people how to stay safe from wild ones, and kill the ones that go after people.

you cannot sue the Earth for an Earthquake

No, but you can design buildings so that when an earthquake occurs, people don't die.

and you cannot take the weather to court.

No, but you can build levees that don't fail.

The argument "we can't fix stuff in the world" has no legs - we can, and have, made the world safer from the threats you list. The question "so which threats SHOULD we mitigate?" is a reasonable one, though.

Originally Posted by RedPanda

I can't be arsed replying to your post Neverfly.
You posted a phenomenal pile of shit which completely avoided every point I made.
As usual you get angry and lose the plot.
*shrug*

Great way to dodge my points- Claim I lost my temper when I did no such thing, claim I lost the plot when I refuted your points and just call it shit. I did not avoid your points, I refuted them with clear examples and explanations. Please TRY to stay honest.

Originally Posted by billvon

All of them. A better question is - how many choices SHOULD we dictate? When it comes to a person harming only themselves I'd say it's up to them. When it comes to people harming other people, that's when regulation is appropriate.

The slippery slope here is that once you've minimized a number, people start noticing the other things that they can claim harms or effects them in some manner.

Originally Posted by billvon

But, see, it can. That's the problem. We CAN make cars much safer; we've done it. We CAN make deaths from large carnivores an incredibly rare event.

That is not fixing the world, that is just minimizing things we may dislike.

Originally Posted by billvon

No, but you can put them in zoos, teach people how to stay safe from wild ones, and kill the ones that go after people.

Exactly- lock them in cages, or cull them. This is our selfish desire to control everything. But again- you can only minimize it a bit. In the end, controlling people instead of allowing them to be free to defend themselves is only a subjective opinion as to whether it's a better system.
The factor given is only one of how many statistical deaths may occur. But that has nothing to do with all the other factors nor does it show an absolute measure by which we can compare "good" vs. "bad."
You might call transportation to work "good." Until you look at our carbon footprint...

Originally Posted by billvon

No, but you can design buildings so that when an earthquake occurs, people don't die.

No, you can only mitigate the chances. You can only minimize the loss of life.
The rest of what you said is refuted by what I've just said above.

Freedom extends up to the point where it infringes on someone else, and then it has to stop or it will become tyranny. (Not the government being tyrannical, but people being tyrannical to each other - which is just as bad.)

The issue about not wearing a seat belt is: how many people who choose not to wear a seat belt have comprehensive medical insurance? If they don't have it, then they should get a seat belt ticket. The public will be the one who has to foot the bill when they get injured.

If they do have it, then they've paid for the right to use up medical services, I guess, but an official warning (no fine) should be given and put on record somewhere so their medical insurance company can see it. That insurance company has the right to know about the financial risks their client is exposing them to.

If health care didn't cost any money, and were just a free resource everybody could get (including doctors willing to work for zero compensation) - then I would agree with the liberty folks, and advocate leaving it up to a matter of personal choice.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

The slippery slope here is that once you've minimized a number, people start noticing the other things that they can claim harms or effects them in some manner.

Of course! This is an indication that we are doing a pretty good job dealing with being eaten by lions. Nowadays people are a lot more worried about being killed by a drunk driver.

That is not fixing the world, that is just minimizing things we may dislike.

Well, no. It's fixing things that used to kill us. That's fixing the world, or at least our exposure to the risks of it.

Exactly- lock them in cages, or cull them. This is our selfish desire to control everything.

Yes, it is quite literally selfish when applied to the whole human race. However as individuals it's not. It is selfish for the human race to try to feed itself; it is not selfish for you to help feed starving kids, even though the goal is similar. It is selfish to want to survive a car crash yourself; it is not selfish to hope other people survive a car crash (either yours or theirs.)

You might call transportation to work "good." Until you look at our carbon footprint...

I drive an electric vehicle that I charge via a solar power system. (When I don't bike that is.) This is progress, and is another example of fixing our problems. Of course we have some more work to do there.

No, you can only mitigate the chances. You can only minimize the loss of life.

Agreed. I should have said that you can design buildings so that when an earthquake occurs, far fewer people die.

Here's an interesting article:

"The costs of fatal crashes and those causing serious injuries have risen sharply since 2005, the last time AAA did a comparable study; then, the cost of a traffic fatality was $3.24 million, an injury crash $68,170."
AAA: Fatal motor vehicle crash costs $6M

So, a fatal accident can cost almost 50 times as much as an injury crash.
And the cost now peaks at $6 million.
(The cost does vary depending on the population of the area; the lowest quoted cost was $670,000.)

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Great way to dodge my points- Claim I lost my temper when I did no such thing, claim I lost the plot when I refuted your points and just call it shit. I did not avoid your points, I refuted them with clear examples and explanations. Please TRY to stay honest.

Try having a cup of green tea - or read a nice book.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

[

Originally Posted by billvon

But, see, it can. That's the problem. We CAN make cars much safer; we've done it. We CAN make deaths from large carnivores an incredibly rare event.

That is not fixing the world, that is just minimizing things we may dislike.

Originally Posted by billvon

No, but you can put them in zoos, teach people how to stay safe from wild ones, and kill the ones that go after people.

Exactly- lock them in cages, or cull them. This is our selfish desire to control everything. But again- you can only minimize it a bit. In the end, controlling people instead of allowing them to be free to defend themselves is only a subjective opinion as to whether it's a better system.
The factor given is only one of how many statistical deaths may occur. But that has nothing to do with all the other factors nor does it show an absolute measure by which we can compare "good" vs. "bad."
You might call transportation to work "good." Until you look at our carbon footprint...

You can call it a "selfish desire to control everything" or you can call it a "selfish desire to survive, and for our children to survive." Why should I care about a lion more than my own family? If push comes to shove and a decision has to be made, I'm certainly not going to trade someone I know and am friends with away to save an animal I've never met.

As far as defending ourselves, there are two objectives included in that. One is weakening your enemy, and the other is strengthening your own defensive position. If making guns illegal weakened my potential enemies more than it weakens my own defensive position, then I'd be a fool to vote any other way. (However admittedly I don't think it does - which is why I prefer to allow people to own guns so long as they register them and take appropriate precautions to protect others from their guns.)


The reality is I'm not really much of an altruist. I don't care all that much about other people outside my own circle of friends, and I don't think I should have to. (And I think if most people were honest enough, they'd say the same thing.)

Originally Posted by billvon

No, but you can design buildings so that when an earthquake occurs, people don't die.

No, you can only mitigate the chances. You can only minimize the loss of life.
The rest of what you said is refuted by what I've just said above.

Minimizing and eliminating differ only in a slight way. If the odds of getting eaten by a lion are less than 1 in a billion, then what is the difference between that and the odds of getting eaten by a lion being absolute zero? What is the practical likelihood that you will ever notice the difference?

Originally Posted by RedPanda

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Great way to dodge my points- Claim I lost my temper when I did no such thing, claim I lost the plot when I refuted your points and just call it shit. I did not avoid your points, I refuted them with clear examples and explanations. Please TRY to stay honest.

Try having a cup of green tea - or read a nice book.

RedPanda- please stop pretending that someone flew off the handle on you. Your farce is not credible - it is simply absurd. Either Refute My Points or do not bother posting.

Billvon- you acknowledge that it is not a fix, but rather, a control.
Which leads to Kojax's points. Controlling things for our own selfish desires- acknowledged again, but rather goes back to what I said above- that it is a selfish desire.
As far as the odds of being eaten by a lion- you need to be where there are lions for a start and in those areas... precautions are necessary. Including being armed. Even so, for the United States, people fall victim to Mountain Lions every year.

Sometime back (Anecdote since I'd need to find a reference for it) a resident of Berkeley CA was out jogging when he was attacked by a mountain lion. He fought it off by literally ripping its tongue free. He reached into its mouth, grabbed the tongue and yanked. He was also 71 years old.

Survival is about surviving. But that doesn't mean everyone will agree as to the methods of survival. We could all build bunkers and hunker inside of them, but those that follow a philosophy of courage and strength would find that to be cowardly.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Billvon- you acknowledge that it is not a fix, but rather, a control.

It is control, which is a fix. If you can control the impact of a crash, for example, you have fixed the problem that the impact will kill you. If you can control where you are and where the lions are, you can fix the problem of being eaten. Of course, if you can't control it completely, you cannot fix the problem completely. But better control means a better fix.

Which leads to Kojax's points. Controlling things for our own selfish desires- acknowledged again, but rather goes back to what I said above- that it is a selfish desire.

Not for individuals. Controlling hunger by giving your food to others, in fact, is the opposite of selfish.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

RedPanda- please stop pretending that someone flew off the handle on you. Your farce is not credible - it is simply absurd .Either Refute My Points or do not bother posting.

Have you tried having a little nap?

Originally Posted by billvon

It is control, which is a fix. If you can control the impact of a crash, for example, you have fixed the problem that the impact will kill you. If you can control where you are and where the lions are, you can fix the problem of being eaten. Of course, if you can't control it completely, you cannot fix the problem completely. But better control means a better fix.

Again, with "better" being a subjective opinion. A selfish desire.
Are you understanding my point here? I'm sure you would be agreeable with something that could save your life. But how far does it go? Which comes back to you asking whether something should be controlled.

Originally Posted by billvon

Not for individuals. Controlling hunger by giving your food to others, in fact, is the opposite of selfish.

It is not the opposite of selfish as that is altruism- which would lead to a tangent debate about whether such can even exist.
But you are correct that an individual is able to choose something selflessly- that's not relevant to blanket laws set to curb individual freedoms.

Again, with "better" being a subjective opinion. A selfish desire.

Are you understanding my point here?

I sure don't. There's nothing subjective about reducing misery or the desire to do so for yourself or others.

The discussion is about where to draw the law between government requirement to enforce public safety and individuals rights to take the risk they want. I think it's pretty straight forward with it comes to consumer goods--most people have a reasonable expectation of things being built and purchased with safety measures in mind and that extends to buildings they go into. In addition, individuals don't' usually have the expertise to evaluate safety of product, buildings, cars etc.

The more difficult discussion is when the behavior doesn't effect others, or only effects them indirectly, particularly when the risk are obvious--such as a motorcycle helmet law.

And please try to keep the rhetoric civil.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Are you understanding my point here? I'm sure you would be agreeable with something that could save your life.

Wanting something that will save my life is a selfish desire.
Wanting something that will save other people's lives is an altruistic desire.
Our desire for things like seat belts, child car seats, horns, good brakes, brake lights, air bags etc is a combination of both.

But how far does it go? Which comes back to you asking whether something should be controlled.

Anything that affects only you should be up to you. Anything that affects others negatively can be regulated (if practical of course.)

It is not the opposite of selfish as that is altruism- which would lead to a tangent debate about whether such can even exist.
But you are correct that an individual is able to choose something selflessly- that's not relevant to blanket laws set to curb individual freedoms.

OK, fair enough, but that's an odd way to look at it. Laws that prohibit recreational drug usage, for example, are often pushed by people who do not do drugs. Those laws will not affect them, but (it is hoped) will benefit society at large. Those people are certainly selfless, but it would be odd to claim that these laws do not curb individual freedoms.

Originally Posted by billvon

Wanting something that will save my life is a selfish desire.
Wanting something that will save other people's lives is an altruistic desire.
Our desire for things like seat belts, child car seats, horns, good brakes, brake lights, air bags etc is a combination of both.

Perhaps- but the reason given for supporting a law that vehicle passengers must wear seat belts is that the money to pay for an accident affects everyone. That is Not Altruistic.

Originally Posted by billvon

Anything that affects only you should be up to you.

Can you really name anything that you can do that no one can claim affects them in some way?

Originally Posted by billvon

Laws that prohibit recreational drug usage, for example, are often pushed by people who do not do drugs. Those laws will not affect them, but (it is hoped) will benefit society at large. Those people are certainly selfless, but it would be odd to claim that these laws do not curb individual freedoms.

They curb an individuals right to choose for himself.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

I sure don't. There's nothing subjective about reducing misery or the desire to do so for yourself or others.

Of course there is. It is based entirely on our own point of view and on our own desires.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

The discussion is about where to draw the law between government requirement to enforce public safety and individuals rights to take the risk they want.

Yes and opinions on this vary widely and they are subjective.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Perhaps- but the reason given for supporting a law that vehicle passengers must wear seat belts is that the money to pay for an accident affects everyone.

Well, like I said, it's both. Here's what the NTSB said on the issue of seatbelt enforcement:
==================
States with secondary enforcement average only 63 percent belt use. But states with primary (standard) enforcement belt laws average 78 percent belt use. Most everyone would agree that protecting lives with seat belts is at least as important as a broken tail light or littering. Yet, while virtually every state has standard laws that allow enforcement officers to stop and ticket a violator for having a broken tail light or for tossing trash out the window, most states currently do not have standard laws for seat belt use. Increasing the national seat belt use rate to 90 percent from the current 68 percent would prevent and estimated 5,536 fatalities, 132,670 injuries and save the nation $8.8 billion annually.
==================
Note that they cite both money AND lives saved.

Here's the text at the beginning of the California seatbelt law:
==================
27315. (a) The Legislature finds that a mandatory seatbelt law will contribute to reducing highway deaths and injuries by encouraging greater usage of existing manual seatbelts . . . .
==================

Nothing about money there. Just preventing death and injuries to motorists.

Can you really name anything that you can do that no one can claim affects them in some way?

Exercising. Reading. Watching TV. Fixing the antenna on the roof. Writing the Great American Novel (especially if no one ever reads it.)

Originally Posted by billvon

Laws that prohibit recreational drug usage, for example, are often pushed by people who do not do drugs. Those laws will not affect them, but (it is hoped) will benefit society at large. Those people are certainly selfless, but it would be odd to claim that these laws do not curb individual freedoms.

They curb an individuals right to choose for himself.

Right. That's why your statement made no sense.

*(Being cautious in the aftermath): I view the concern, for example, voiced that increasing seat belt useage 10% or so would save 5 thousand lives annually as a warped concern when compared to that same "management group" sending away young Americans to possibly die in some twisted "geopolitical necessity". jocular

Originally Posted by jocular

I view the concern, for example, voiced that increasing seat belt useage 10% or so would save 5 thousand lives annually as a warped concern when compared to that same "management group" sending away young Americans to possibly die

I doubt that the people working at The National Transportation Board are the same people that send soldiers to war.

Originally Posted by jocular

that same "management group" sending away young Americans to possibly die in some twisted "geopolitical necessity". jocular

War. Huh. What is it good for. Absolutely Halliburton.

Originally Posted by billvon

Originally Posted by billvon

Laws that prohibit recreational drug usage, for example, are often pushed by people who do not do drugs. Those laws will not affect them, but (it is hoped) will benefit society at large. Those people are certainly selfless, but it would be odd to claim that these laws do not curb individual freedoms.

They curb an individuals right to choose for himself.

Right. That's why your statement made no sense.

This statement does not make sense to me. How is it that we can agree as to basic function yet you then say my statement made no sense? Can you clarify?

Originally Posted by jocular

*(Being cautious in the aftermath): I view the concern, for example, voiced that increasing seat belt useage 10% or so would save 5 thousand lives annually as a warped concern when compared to that same "management group" sending away young Americans to possibly die in some twisted "geopolitical necessity". jocular

Not really sure what your point is, more people are killed each year on American roads per year, than American soldiers were lost in the past ten years--and many of those combat losses were ironically vehicle deaths from roll overs and other accidents.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Not really sure what your point is, more people are killed each year on American roads per year, than American soldiers were lost in the past ten years--and many of those combat losses were ironically vehicle deaths from roll overs and other accidents.

Which is exactly why our arbitrary ideas do not make sense.

We don't mind sending people off to war- which is freaking WAR... And we claim they are "Fighting for our Freedom." But they aren't. At all. Meanwhile, we dictate to others to wear their seatbelt. It's OK to put some people into direct mortal danger but if there are Fines involved- revenue- it's ok to claim you're just trying to save lives?

So- is it really that people Care about the lives of others? The Joker (Heath Ledger version) put it quite well. It's no wonder it drove Ledger a little nutty... He realized that the Joker made more sense than our goofy society.
"It's ok to send a soldier off to war because it's all according to plan. But just threaten to kill one little mayor... and everybody loses their minds!"
"Disrupt the plan."

Cracked's article on the MonkeySphere sums it up perfectly. It's why our society is simply broken and it's why we cannot just fix it.
It's why it is subjective. It's why our high ideals are not only nonsensical, but contrary to what we are:
What is the Monkeysphere? | Cracked.com
I post the link but I doubt anyone would be bothered to read it.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Not really sure what your point is, more people are killed each year on American roads per year, than American soldiers were lost in the past ten years--and many of those combat losses were ironically vehicle deaths from roll overs and other accidents.

Of course! Billions of miles are driven by the civilian population. Any many military deaths are accidental, many are not. However, the point is that those who die while serving in the military, do so without being given the voluntary choice of possible death on the nation's highways. Maybe I make no sense? Not a new phenomenon. jocular

Originally Posted by Neverfly

[

What is the Monkeysphere? | Cracked.com
I post the link but I doubt anyone would be bothered to read it.

I did. I liked it. joc

Originally Posted by RedPanda

War. Huh. What is it good for. Absolutely Halliburton.

And the others, let's see......Bechtel, Black Rock (?), on and on, the perks keep rolling in. The "great" Humvee vehicle, will save the day! My nephew, in the Marine Corps clued me on them. He's a heavy equipment mechanic. In both Iraq and Afghanistan, he saw the floors in those goddamned vehicles blown upwards into them, killing and injuring the occupants. Piss-poor design, he called it. Also a weldor, he was assigned the task of reinforcing those floors to deflect explosions away and downwards. After all, GM owned the company, right? So, it helped to put the guys in harm's way to "save our country" at the same time bailing out a horseshit-run major manufacturing company that had through idiotic management gotten itself into dire straits. Then the taxpayer bailed 'em, anyway. We weren't asked if we were in favor of that move, were we? jocular

Originally Posted by jocular

Originally Posted by Neverfly

What is the Monkeysphere? | Cracked.com
I post the link but I doubt anyone would be bothered to read it.

I did. I liked it. joc

Thanks. Cracked takes actual information and presents it with an often vulgar, but usually fun humorous twist.
They have a rather interesting method of presenting the hard realities.
But I've never seen "Society" so succinctly summed up in all of its absurdities so neatly anywhere else.

We think we own land. We imagine lines, enforce those borders and draw up maps and deeds and then we die and the land reclaims us, our illusions of ownership notwithstanding. The way we treat eachother is as illusory as a Title and Deed. We do this because we want to control the land. We want to control how it is used and most importantly- the revenue secured from the use of the land.

Those arguing in favor of control do not necessarily agree that these are simply human illusions, based on our want to feel that we, ourselves and those within our Dunbar number are safe. They may claim that is no illusion and show numbers. Numbers... not people.
So while some might say the government only wants to save lives... and I'm sure some really do... with regulation comes revenue-
The bottom line. And we have no real choice but to live by that bottom line because that is how our brains are wired. So, it seems ok to decide some people have some "right" to tell millions of people what to do or how to live or what choices they can make because they simply are a NUMBER. They don't really exist to you. But if one of your number gets told what to do- well then you rise up in arms, declare a law to be invasive and unfair and protest.

How about that church group disrupting funerals? What about recent regulations about trans fats in foods? Smoking cigarettes? The laws have been having a lot of fun with the current trend of unpopular stinky ciggies, but forty years ago when smoking was the "In" thing to do- the laws did not invade on that (Nor increase the taxes on by over 2,000% mark up!)
Reading over the posts in this thread, you see right away, from many different members, the line is laid out: "Other peoples freedom gets limited if I feel it affects me." It is not, "I altruistically care about total strangers" and no one should think they could claim it really is that.
People get a strong opinion on these political topics because they feel it personally affects them. If it was not for that, they'd shrug it off with a, "What others do is their own business."

The monkey things made no sense to me. I do not care less for many than just a few--I doubt that more than a few people do.

As an interesting aside our patrols usually took our HMMWVs rather than our mine and IED protected MRAPs because so many soldiers were getting hurt after the top heavy MRAPs rolled over.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

The monkey things made no sense to me. I do not care less for many than just a few--I doubt very few people do.

Ok, so Science makes no sense to you? You doubt the veracity of decades worth of study simply because you reject it since it disagrees with part of the position you put forth in the thread?
Humans use Compression Heuristics to Improve the Recall of Social Networks
Modeling Users' Activity on Twitter Networks: Validation of Dunbar's Number
Neocortex size as a constraint on group size in primates
Network scaling reveals consistent fractal pattern in hierarchical mammalian societies
Comparing Two Methods for Estimating Network Size - Human Organization - Volume 60, Number 1 / Spring 2001 - Society for Applied Anthropology
Social network size in humans - Springer
Evolution of the Social Brain

Feel free to reject all of that if it doesn't "make sense to you" and add to it the silly claim that most other people agree with you... for no reason other than that you say so.

You don't get it Neverfly. I don't reject anything. I simply didn't get the point of the Monkey site at all. You're papers don't even seem to address anything related to that site from what I could tell. Like I said, it doesn't make any sense to me at all.
-

But it was ironic you'd come up with a half dozen links, while simultaneously claiming altruism and desire for benevolent government related to safety is somehow subjective, which seemingly ignores more than 500 years of governmental philosophies and ignoring the ability to quantify misery in hundreds of ways through official death and accident data--not to mention the social science measures of mental stress related to life style etc.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

You don't get it Neverfly. I don't reject anything. I simply didn't get the point of the Monkey site at all. You're papers don't even seem to address anything related to that site from what I could tell. Like I said, it doesn't make any sense to me at all.

You absolutely did reject it if you turned around and claimed that the opposite is true. And Seriously? You claim the links did not relate? HOW? Did you even click them open and read them?
At All? It's as clear as a bell that they are the same premise.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

But it was ironic you'd come up with a half dozen links, while simultaneously claiming altruism and desire for benevolent government related to safety is somehow subjective, which seemingly ignores more than 500 years of governmental philosophies and ignoring the ability to quantify misery in hundreds of ways through official death and accident data--not to mention the social science measures of mental stress related to life style etc.

There is no irony. If you are denying that "good" and "Bad" and "Better" are subjective, than you must be claiming a God that can give us an absolute morality to compare these concepts against.

You absolutely did reject it if you turned around and claimed that the opposite is true.

I didn't claim the opposite was true. How can I disagree with something that didn't seem to really seem to have a point; one I said I didn't understand, and for which I only had a personal observation. I didn't even see a point to the monkey blog (or whatever that is), other than pick up on it's logical fallacies about remembering naming being related to caring about people. Since I didn't get the point of the monkey thread, the papers made no connection what so ever for me. They did not seem to relate in the least.

If you are denying that "good" and "Bad" and "Better" are subjective, than you must be claiming a God that can give us an absolute morality to compare these concepts against.

What are you talking about? You are arguing from a false dichotomy. It's certainly possible to claim relative strengths of government polity to protect people, relate that to benevolent intentions and than quantify increases or decreases of human suffering to determine the effect without reaching anything remotely like a claim of divine absolute morality. Those qualifiers are relatively easy to make, particularly in context and aren't subjective. In fact such reasoning is at the very core of how we got our Constitution, how and why laws are made and how the courts weigh the effects when it's brought to them to demonstrate government interest or lack there of when other rights conflict. Public safety is clearly in the government's interest under the circus tent of "for the common good". Since installing tire safety features improves safety, the overall cost over the life of the vehicle is near zero...(or even a net savings because of better fuel economy) and it violates no ones Constitutional enumerated protections--there's not a strong argument to be made not to allow it. What ever argument can be made has to revolve around unenumerated rights--and those are more difficult to come by.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

I didn't claim the opposite was true. I didn't even see a point to the monkey blog (or whatever that is), other than pick up on it's logical fallacies about remembering naming being related to caring about people. Since I didn't get the point of the monkey thread, the papers made no connection what so ever for me. They did not seem to relate in the least.

Did not seem to?
Have they made a connection yet?
You know what- Don't bother. If you can take the article about Dunbar and then take Robin Dunbars peer reviewed papers on it and say they don't seem to relate- I'm not missing anything by ignoring your input.
If you claim that you don't understand the article but you believe the opposite is true and you also believe that is 'true' for most other people, in spite of the scientific evidence against your belief, I'm not missing anything by ignoring your input.
If you will then turn around and claim that you never claimed that belief you so clearly did and that you spotted fallacies in the provided material after making so many of your own- I'm most certainly not missing anything by ignoring your input.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

I'm most certainly not missing anything by ignoring your input.

Well good we agree on something--because we certainly aren't communicating-- I can't tell whether your serious or just being argumentative. (shrugs)

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

I can't tell whether your serious or just being argumentative. (shrugs)

Funny, I was thinking that about you. Either way, I think it's best we just quit.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

We think we own land. We imagine lines, enforce those borders and draw up maps and deeds and then we die and the land reclaims us, our illusions of ownership notwithstanding. The way we treat eachother is as illusory as a Title and Deed. We do this because we want to control the land. We want to control how it is used and most importantly- the revenue secured from the use of the land.

Those arguing in favor of control do not necessarily agree that these are simply human illusions, based on our want to feel that we, ourselves and those within our Dunbar number are safe. They may claim that is no illusion and show numbers. Numbers... not people.
So while some might say the government only wants to save lives... and I'm sure some really do... with regulation comes revenue-
The bottom line. And we have no real choice but to live by that bottom line because that is how our brains are wired. So, it seems ok to decide some people have some "right" to tell millions of people what to do or how to live or what choices they can make because they simply are a NUMBER. They don't really exist to you. But if one of your number gets told what to do- well then you rise up in arms, declare a law to be invasive and unfair and protest.

How about that church group disrupting funerals? What about recent regulations about trans fats in foods? Smoking cigarettes? The laws have been having a lot of fun with the current trend of unpopular stinky ciggies, but forty years ago when smoking was the "In" thing to do- the laws did not invade on that (Nor increase the taxes on by over 2,000% mark up!)
Reading over the posts in this thread, you see right away, from many different members, the line is laid out: "Other peoples freedom gets limited if I feel it affects me." It is not, "I altruistically care about total strangers" and no one should think they could claim it really is that.
People get a strong opinion on these political topics because they feel it personally affects them. If it was not for that, they'd shrug it off with a, "What others do is their own business."

I love this! I absolutely love this! So perfectly molded to explain the REAL fact that we, as individuals, own NOTHING except perhaps the goddamned cigarette in our mouths! jocular

Marcus Aurelius would be proud.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

The monkey things made no sense to me. I do not care less for many than just a few--I doubt that more than a few people do.

As an interesting aside our patrols usually took our HMMWVs rather than our mine and IED protected MRAPs because so many soldiers were getting hurt after the top heavy MRAPs rolled over.

So, you know then, and are privy to, the difficulties encountered by the Humvees? What you say above, if I perceive correctly, is that NEITHER of the conveyances given you provided reasonable safety, this in an age when technology can prevent damage from atomic blast? Jesus, how can you continue to adhere to the media-twisted lies being foisted upon us? jocular

Of course I knew about the problem...hell more than most because I was both a mechanic and later as a testing officer with privy to a lot of information about how vehicles performed. Ultimately though, it was as Rumsfeld took so much heat for, "that we go to war with the vehicles we have...not the vehicles we wish we did" HMMWV safety increased dramatically from their initial release during the 1980s from being more dependable jeep replacements to being lightly armored vehicles put to all sorts of uses never intended by their designers, including patrolling Middle Eastern sprawling cities with IED and RPG equipped bad guys. Not sure what media lies you are referring to--once my boots hit the ground I was usually paying too much time trying to keep my Soldiers alive to pay much attention to the news--my job was always about Freedom, getting the mission done, and bringing as many of my guys home as humanely possible. I did what I could with the equipment we were issued.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

How is it that we can agree as to basic function yet you then say my statement made no sense? Can you clarify?

You said:

"you are correct that an individual is able to choose something selflessly- that's not relevant to blanket laws set to curb individual freedoms."

So (paraphrasing) if people try to help others when the issue does not affect them - that does NOT impact individual freedoms. It's not relevant.

Then I said that "laws that prohibit recreational drug usage, for example, are often pushed by people who do not do drugs." You said "They curb an individuals right to choose for himself"

So (paraphrasing) if people try to help others when the issue does not affect them - that DOES impact individual freedoms. It IS relevant.

Those two ideas are incompatible. Many people are altruistic, and their desire to pass laws (like anti-drug-abuse laws) are not selfish. They are well-intentioned and are attempting to improve other people's lives, even though their lives will not be improved. These laws, however, absolutely DO curb individual's rights to choose for themselves.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Of course I knew about the problem...hell more than most because I was both a mechanic and later as a testing officer with privy to a lot of information about how vehicles performed. Ultimately though, it was as Rumsfeld took so much heat for, "that we go to war with the vehicles we have...not the vehicles we wish we did" HMMWV safety increased dramatically from their initial release during the 1980s from being more dependable jeep replacements to being lightly armored vehicles put to all sorts of uses never intended by their designers, including patrolling Middle Eastern sprawling cities with IED and RPG equipped bad guys. Not sure what media lies you are referring to--once my boots hit the ground I was usually paying too much time trying to keep my Soldiers alive to pay much attention to the news--my job was always about Freedom, getting the mission done, and bringing as many of my guys home as humanely possible. I did what I could with the equipment we were issued.

Your feelings are completely understandable given the degree of your involvement. As I understand it, the vehicles are being phased out. IMO, Donald Rumsfeld deserves any degree of "heat" he may get, but in the case you spoke of, someone had to take it. He is on the surface upstanding and forthright, but inside a calculating, cunning, and ruthless individual. Having said my piece, this is going nowhere, lengthening and twisting the intent of the thread. jocular

Originally Posted by billvon

These laws, however, absolutely DO curb individual's rights to choose for themselves.

The arguments for condemnation of drug use by individuals often include things like "drain on society", "unfair to close relatives", "promotion of illicit manufacture", naming just a few. The fact remains that if any given person is not allowed free reign over his/her own body, that person in encumbered by their leaders. jocular

Originally Posted by jocular

As I understand it, the vehicles are being phased out.

Not to my knowledge...lots of suggestions going back more than ten years, but nothing concrete. Most proposed replacements are too wide and tall to get around in the increasingly common sprawling cities where the military might be needed--another of the reasons we used them more often than our MRAPs. Replacing a common vehicle is big dollars as well, not only for the fleet, but for the mountain of repair parts and training programs to drive and support them. I'd hope as a tax payer we don't even consider replacing HMMWVs until there is something a lot better which can do the same things (and more).

Originally Posted by jocular

The arguments for condemnation of drug use by individuals often include things like "drain on society", "unfair to close relatives", "promotion of illicit manufacture", naming just a few. The fact remains that if any given person is not allowed free reign over his/her own body, that person in encumbered by their leaders.

Agreed; that is true of most laws. Often these laws are considered good for everyone - the laws against rape and murder for example. Often these have very mixed effects - laws against smoking pot for example. The trick is choosing laws whose good effects (reducing a harmful activity) outweigh the bad effects (restricting individual freedoms.)

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Which leads to Kojax's points. Controlling things for our own selfish desires- acknowledged again, but rather goes back to what I said above- that it is a selfish desire

I don't see anything wrong with running things on the basis of selfish desire. The problem with excessive altruism is that it runs into an "information vacuum."

There's a limited degree to which you can "put yourself in someone else's shoes". You can read expressions of anguish on their face. Evaluate the situation they appear to be in and imagine yourself in that situation, or maybe even listen to them describe it all to you at length. But the fact remains that you *aren't* in their shoes.

The only needs you will ever be intimately aware of are your own. They're the only ones you can evaluate flawlessly.

Like the issue of locking lions in cages. The thing is.... neither of us actually knows whether the lion is happy there or not. Maybe it likes getting its food handed to it for free everyday instead of having to go out and hunt for it. Lock him in there with a female lion, and I think he's probably just overjoyed. But how can I really know?

Originally Posted by kojax

The only needs you will ever be intimately aware of are your own. They're the only ones you can evaluate flawlessly.

These two sentences are ambiguous to me. I cannot be intimately aware of, say, my wife's needs? Is there a simpler way to put forth what you infer here, understandable to the one who flunked Senior English? jocular

Originally Posted by billvon

You said:

"you are correct that an individual is able to choose something selflessly- that's not relevant to blanket laws set to curb individual freedoms."

So (paraphrasing) if people try to help others when the issue does not affect them - that does NOT impact individual freedoms. It's not relevant.

Maybe I did not word my sentences very well- your paraphrase is not what I had meant.
I was talking about the inadequacy of blanket laws or rules when individuals and the situations they find themselves in will probably not fit the blanket law very well.

Originally Posted by billvon

Then I said that "laws that prohibit recreational drug usage, for example, are often pushed by people who do not do drugs." You said "They curb an individuals right to choose for himself"

So (paraphrasing) if people try to help others when the issue does not affect them - that DOES impact individual freedoms. It IS relevant.

If a person is making laws about drugs, it's quite often they are affected by drugs. Just because they do not personally use them does not mean that they are not affected with family member addicts or hit by a driver under the influence- etc.
Now, it is probable that just because someone is pushing a law does not mean that they must be personally affected- but even so, they are often motivated by their personal affectations on the matter.

Originally Posted by billvon

Many people are altruistic, and their desire to pass laws (like anti-drug-abuse laws) are not selfish.

It IS selfish. They do it because they believe their way is better. They believe that 'betterness' makes the world better for them to live in, for the people they care about to live in. They have the same fears that Drugs Will affect their lives.

Originally Posted by kojax

I don't see anything wrong with running things on the basis of selfish desire.

Well... It's subjective, isn't it? Of course we won't see it as "wrong." It is self serving for our own interests. Termites, however, might think we're more like Cobra from G.I. Joe; evil and out to Rule The World.
Without an absolute against which to compare, we cannot say if it is right or wrong. But I can be opinionated on it and I express my political opinions on topics such as these. I try to give compelling arguments as to why, even if I cannot base them against Absolutes or even a sound scientific principle.

It IS selfish. They do it because they believe their way is better. They believe that 'betterness' makes the world better for them to live in, for the people they care about to live in. They have the same fears that Drugs

Will affect their lives.

Many times they aren't just beliefs, they are often easily verifiable facts based on empirical evidence and reasoning. In fact the ability to provide such evidence is exactly the type demanded by courts during challenges--many stand that test because there's a demonstrated interest and evidence that it will improve things to the degree that it out weighs other considerations such as other conflicting rights. A huge chunk of our entire system of law and government has this at the very bedrock of how it operates and bolsters the very legitimacy of the governments actions.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Many times they aren't just beliefs, they are often easily verifiable facts based on empirical evidence and reasoning. In fact the ability to provide such evidence is exactly the type demanded by courts during challenges--many stand that test because there's a demonstrated interest and evidence that it will improve things to the degree that it out weighs other considerations such as other conflicting rights. A huge chunk of our entire system of law and government has this at the very bedrock of how it operates and bolsters the very legitimacy of the governments actions.

Oh to a large degree, yes. For example, since to our own interests, the idea of "saving lives" seems to qualify as "good" or "better." From our point of view.

By the way, Deer season will be open this November - Gotta keep that population in check. Just a friendly reminder.

Look, it is still subjective. "Evidence" that 'such and such action' will "improve things" to a degree that it outweighs Freedom is Entirely Subjective. It's just your opinion- nothing more.
And I am under no obligation to agree.

We're Over populated and we're polluters. We take and take and take and we do not restore the habitats we destroy. Because we're over populated, the damage is extensive and it spreads. Now it has spread to a global scale with Climate Change. Better? Improved? By whose measure? Our own because we WANT cars and we have existing infrastructure that relies on electricity consumption and supply and transportation on such a massive scale? There's too many of us.
That's my opinion. I think we're bad for the planet. I don't think we're the planets doom, either. We're just not so great and certainly are not special.
But we are able to fulfill our selfish desires in the ways other species cannot and with our population growth- it magnifies the effect and the impact.

So is it "better" or "good" to "save Human Lives?" Only to humans.
It's Subjective. And it most certainly IS selfish. Because it's self serving. From another species perspective, the more of our fat over-populated wastes of space that die off- the better.

If we really wanted to save the environment... I mean really- if Humanity was Serious about saving the environment, we would stop driving cars. We would gladly go back to the Horse and buggy days. Or just get off our Fat Asses and WALK. If we were serious, we would get Off Our Computers. We would go outside and Get To Work. We would stop consuming so much energy. Stop consuming so many resources- five hundred MILLION cans. What's with the ridiculous food containers? Tiny itty bitty little cans for food... wasted metal. No, they would grow their own and stop wasting metal on stacks and stacks and stacks of tiny little cans. People would earn their own meat, their own portion. Not hit up the Welfare office because there's TOO MANY OF US. They are not serious. They demand easy prep foods, that can be microwaved in the neat little packaging that it comes in.
We make so much trash. People throw it into the dump. They dump toxic substances, mercury- all in the trash can and set it by the curb and hope no one notices. Yeah- we're very altruistic. Right. No- people make demands of others because we're Stuck On this Rock. We can't leave. We can't go somewhere nicer so since we have to live here, we selfishly want it to be livable.

No One Is Serious about Saving The Environment. Sure, people like to talk about it. They like to offer minimalist suggestions like, drive a "smart Car."
But no one wants to have to sacrifice anything- not really. They just like to talk. Make noises at eachother.

So why don't governments get serious about Saving the World?
BECAUSE THERE'S NO MONEY IN IT.
But if they keep the existing absurdities and wasteful over-populated mess, they can shove regulations and laws at them, and make lots of revenue in Fines and Fees.

Yes... Look how much we care.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Oh to a large degree, yes. For example, since to our own interests, the idea of "saving lives" seems to qualify as "good" or "better." From our point of view.

No from society's view measured by a variety of things pertaining to individuals and groups in the context of society--in this case average drivers that don't check their tire pressure; something we dont' need to guess about because numerous studies show they don't; we don't need to guess about the effects for either safety because we know about the rollovers and loss of control as well as the savings in gas if pressures are correct. It's not mostly subjective in the least--it's quite clearly objective based on good evidence. It doesn't have to mean a direct thing for one individual supporting that position. Someone who doesn't even drive can see the obvious value in saving lives and better gas mileage for a small extra cost that pays for itself. But you keep charging windmills as if this is a discussion about absolute morality again (like your deer quip)....(sigh).

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

But you keep charging windmills

Hardly.
I said it was subjective and I was challenged on that. I have shown that it is subjective.

Look, provide strong objective evidence that forcing people to shell out hundreds of additional dollars on a system that barely works will be "Good."
If it's as solid as you claim, it should be easy for you.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

If a person is making laws about drugs, it's quite often they are affected by drugs. Just because they do not personally use them does not mean that they are not affected with family member addicts or hit by a driver under the influence- etc.

Right. But again, that is caring about OTHER people rather than themselves. Thus even an altruistic approach leads to laws that restrict individual freedoms.

(In any case most of the people who I know who are for drug laws do not do drugs, nor do they have loved ones who do drugs or were harmed by drugs. They just think drugs are bad.)

It IS selfish. They do it because they believe their way is better. They believe that 'betterness' makes the world better for them to live in, for the people they care about to live in. They have the same fears that Drugs Will affect their lives.

So someone who contributes lots of money to "feed the poor" programs is selfish, because they believe their way is better, and that betterness makes the world a better place for them to live in?

Are you really going to go with that?

Originally Posted by Neverfly

So is it "better" or "good" to "save Human Lives?" Only to humans.
It's Subjective. And it most certainly IS selfish. Because it's self serving. From another species perspective, the more of our fat over-populated wastes of space that die off- the better.

If we really wanted to save the environment... I mean really- if Humanity was Serious about saving the environment, we would stop driving cars. We would gladly go back to the Horse and buggy days. Or just get off our Fat Asses and WALK. If we were serious, we would get Off Our Computers. We would go outside and Get To Work. We would stop consuming so much energy. Stop consuming so many resources- five hundred MILLION cans. What's with the ridiculous food containers? Tiny itty bitty little cans for food... wasted metal. No, they would grow their own and stop wasting metal on stacks and stacks and stacks of tiny little cans. People would earn their own meat, their own portion. Not hit up the Welfare office because there's TOO MANY OF US. They are not serious. They demand easy prep foods, that can be microwaved in the neat little packaging that it comes in.
We make so much trash. People throw it into the dump. They dump toxic substances, mercury- all in the trash can and set it by the curb and hope no one notices. Yeah- we're very altruistic. Right. No- people make demands of others because we're Stuck On this Rock. We can't leave. We can't go somewhere nicer so since we have to live here, we selfishly want it to be livable.

No One Is Serious about Saving The Environment. Sure, people like to talk about it. They like to offer minimalist suggestions like, drive a "smart Car."
But no one wants to have to sacrifice anything- not really. They just like to talk. Make noises at eachother.

So why don't governments get serious about Saving the World?
BECAUSE THERE'S NO MONEY IN IT.
But if they keep the existing absurdities and wasteful over-populated mess, they can shove regulations and laws at them, and make lots of revenue in Fines and Fees.

Yes... Look how much we care.

Bejesus, you're so damned right, I envy your ability to get there before I did! Too bad one can't click "like, like like"! joc

Originally Posted by billvon

Right. But again, that is caring about OTHER people rather than themselves. Thus even an altruistic approach leads to laws that restrict individual freedoms.

Billvon, I remember you from SciForums.
Which is a good thing because I have the advantage of having read many of your posts before. So if I point out that you're misusing the word, "Altruism," I'm confident that you can handle it.

If I care about my brother, for example, that is a person other than myself. However, my reasons are still selfish because it is how his presence affects my life or how our relationship functions that creates that caring. It is not Altruistic, even if it is somewhat selfless.
This does not mean that I believe no one can be altruistic nor does it mean that I am claiming that no proposals for laws had altruistic intentions.
But I am claiming that the majority of it is NOT altruistic.

Originally Posted by billvon

So someone who contributes lots of money to "feed the poor" programs is selfish, because they believe their way is better, and that betterness makes the world a better place for them to live in?

Are you really going to go with that?

Yes, I am going to go with that.
Many people contribute for a variety of reasons- some of them quite absurd.

Many do it in order to secure their place in heaven: Look up Zakat and Sadaqa. Look up tithes.
That's selfish.
Many do it to make other people admire them and think they are such good and caring people. Social recognition can mean a lot to people.
Many do it because they feel obligated to.
So on and so on. Some do it because they truly care about the world, too. But my opinion is that they are the minority.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Look up tithes.

Tithing is the direct result of successful bullshitting of the people. They truly believe they can get it, pay, and pay, but "only my dying will tell". Blood, Sweat & Tears, big hit record. joc

Yes, praying is the cheaper way to pretend to do something caring and helpful while doing nothing at all... You can even claim social recognition and praise for it, boosting your ego, by saying things like, "I'm praying for you," "You're in my prayers," "Bless you, you're in my thoughts" and such.

"Yes, you're eviction notice is in my thoughts while I'm blowing large wads of cash at the Stripper Bar. No, really- I thought of you and while slipping a folded bill into a thong, I sent God a quick prayer asking him to intervene on your behalf. See how much I love ya?"