Right. The question is whether the benefits of gambling (entertainment) outweigh the risks (addiction, destitution, crime). From where I'm standing as a non-gambler, the answer is yes, the benefits outweigh the risks.
I wouldn't want it to be legal everywhere in the country because I don't actually like having slot machines everywhere I look (which is the case in places where it is legal); but I don't mind having it legal in a couple states plus a couple other places.
How? Hypocricy washes away the strength of just about any argument; that's the nature of hypocrisy. And in this case, the hypocrisy is furthermore excellent illustration of why libertarians are wrong. The hypocrisy of so many in the libertarian ranks is sufficient to undermine the arguments of them all. That's how.
To be clear, I'm talking about the ideological libertarians (you may or may not be). Some people just want, on balance, a little less government, maybe privatize some of the current government services, or something like that; that's not really libertarianism and isn't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the black-and-white property-rights-trump-everything strict-narrow-thinking libertarians. They have an untenable political philosophy.
it is a travesty to act as if the Constitution is a living document and to just adapt our interpretations at convenience.
I totally understand; I just totally disagree. I'm neither interested in being ruled by 200-year-dead men, nor rewriting the Constitution every two or three years to account for the most recent maturation of society. Frankly, of course our interpretation of the laws which rule us change along with us ourselves; any other way would be ridiculous. They don't change very much, after all, since our societal maturation is very slow.
The rest of your points are fine. I oppose the war on drugs so I'm not going to sit around and defend it, even if I'm not convinced it is necessarily unconstitutional; and all the war on terror stuff you listed is probably beyond the pale.
I agree with that, because I'm a moderate; but a libertarian wouldn't, because they are not moderate. For a libertarian, there is certainly a specific limit on how the government does its job, and what jobs they can do. Environmental protection is a matter of property rights, to a libertarian: my property has been damaged by your pollution.
Yeah, I can see where you're going with that logic, but it clashes with my observations of the south. All I hear is about how the Old South was so great and we should revere it and bring it back and use its flag and talk about it as if it were the bee's knees. That's totally inconsistent with "people and their morals change". From what I've seen, people and their morals NOT changing is exactly the problem with the south.
Then again, I say that as an outsider. If you are an insider, and you say it is true, then I give you some credence -- but not so much that you can sway my opinion without a little more evidence and discussion.
What makes you think you know best for the rest of the US, and by extension, the world?
Hmmm, well I guess that would be my imagination. Even though I'm not black, for instance, I still *imagine* that black people don't like to be slaves. Just because some people in rural Pennsylvania disagree doesn't invalidate my opinion.
What makes you think that they know what's best for them? Isn't it also possible that I (or some third person) does, in fact, know what's best for them?
I'll take a stab. Slavery is explicitly unconstitutional now, at both federal and state levels, so states would have to tiptoe around the 14th amendment.
1. "states rights" happens, in some way or another. 2. some backwater state passes some laws against "loitering" or "unemployment" or pretty much anything vague and universal. 3. the police in that state arrest only black and brown people for the offenses (assuming this is traditional American-style slavery) 4. state law mandates hard labor for all crimes (or for those specific crimes) 5. state law enables the state to sell the fruits of the labor of the inmates. 6. Profit!/Slavery!
Of these, 2, 3, and 5 are already widespread, and some states have 4. It is literally only #1 stopping #6 from happening: the federal government would (and does) step in to stop some of the rest of the steps. This situation isn't hard to imagine, as we have it in small ways today, and had it in large ways in the not-too-distant past.
The war on drugs might be racist (might), but I would hardly call it "equally vile and racist" to segregation. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you were just using a little hyperbole for effect. Be well.
Gosh, one last thing: an internally consistent libertarian would have to reject environmental regulations in favor of torts. Your neighbor spilled oil on your beach? Sue them; the government has no right to be involved.
Slavery is unconstitutional today, but if we "go back to the principles upon which the nation was founded" (which is what the parent was saying) WOULD mean bringing back slavery. That was his point. Your point, although very true, is a non-sequitur.
I'm sure the parent understands the internal logic ("logic") of 'libertarian conservatives', he's just calling you out for being hypocrites. Maybe, maybe not you personally, but definitely almost all of the rest of you. The classic quote from your cohorts is "Get your filthy socialist hands off of my Medicare!" Before you biatch about us misrepresenting your positions, your little clique should get together and kick out the hypocrites. There would be few enough of you left standing to count on my fingers and toes.
Social security is good for America, but almost certainly "unconstitutional" (if you are one of those people who reads the Constitution extremely narrowly, and I am not one of those people).
The War on Drugs is bad for America, but unquestionably constitutional (interstate commerce). I wish it were unconstitutional, but it is not.
The War on Terror is a hollow phrase, but generally the actions taken are constitutional (war powers).
The Constitution doesn't mention big business or the military industrial complex, but I'll happily join you in saying those are bad for America. Still, they aren't unconstitutional.
Indeed. Thank god later generations of Americans moved slightly away from that model to a slightly more centralized model (but still largely decentralized), enabling America to rise to international prominence. Otherwise we would look like the EU looks now -- squabbling impotent infants. I'm very satisfied with the moderate position we've taken on the centralized/decentralized government dilemma; I am very much opposed to the extremists on both ends of that spectrum (the Balkans on one end, China on the other).
Hooray for moderation! It allows us to be both free and strong!
Your trolling makes me laugh. How long do you think you can string people along believing that you actually think "sink" can turn into "sinked"? That's hilarious, and normally I would expect people to simply ignore such an obvious troll, but you seem to have pulled it off. Kudos.
There are lots of options. The obvious one would be to have a 60- or 90-second light (ten minutes seems uselessly long). Another would be to have a dedicated turn lane with a merge lane on the main road. Another would be to have a light on the main road, a quarter mile back, so that there are breaks in the traffic pattern. There are probably a bunch of other, perhaps better, options that a professional could come up with, if he spent more time thinking about it than the 30 seconds I did.
But stopping 15 cars every 50 yards, or having a six-hundred-second wait to turn onto a road, are both bad options.
...did you say 12.5 MPH? That's absurd! Why not just get out of your car and push it, you'd go just as fast!
I can understand your complaint about the other drivers, but the obvious problem is the untenably slow speed of the timed lights.
I have a similar problem here in Madison, WI. There is a long road that I take home, where the posted limit is 25MPH. Okay, sure 25 is a bit slow, it should be 35, which is a comfortable driving speed. But the lights are all times at exactly 40MPH, which frankly is a little faster than I feel comfortable driving. But, unless I want to stop at every second or third light, I have to drive that fast (and break the law, too).
In my opinion, they should raise the limit to 35 and time the lights at the speed limit. Why would they time lights at +15? It's not just that one road, either, many of the roads in this town are timed at +15, it's actually pretty consistent (and baffling).
Another thing is that they are timed *poorly*. There is one block where I know I need to speed way up to 45 or 50, because that next light is about four seconds ahead of the flow; but then I have to immediately slow down to 30 because the light after that is a couple seconds behind.
Don't even get me started on the other road problems here. I've been to 49 states and I have never, ever seen a town with such maddeningly badly managed roads, not even Boston.
The goal isn't to reduce driving, rather to reduce emissions.
The gigantic waste of fuel goes into accelerating a car from stop to full speed, and that happens at stoplights and stop signs. Cruising at speed and idling both use little fuel compared to accelerating from stop.
So, for emissions, the stop/go thing is low hanging fruit.
Slashdot Mirror
Right. The question is whether the benefits of gambling (entertainment) outweigh the risks (addiction, destitution, crime). From where I'm standing as a non-gambler, the answer is yes, the benefits outweigh the risks.
I wouldn't want it to be legal everywhere in the country because I don't actually like having slot machines everywhere I look (which is the case in places where it is legal); but I don't mind having it legal in a couple states plus a couple other places.
You just blew my mind, man. "Has anyone established that internal consistency has some sort of value?" Wow, man, that's awesome.
How? Hypocricy washes away the strength of just about any argument; that's the nature of hypocrisy. And in this case, the hypocrisy is furthermore excellent illustration of why libertarians are wrong. The hypocrisy of so many in the libertarian ranks is sufficient to undermine the arguments of them all. That's how.
To be clear, I'm talking about the ideological libertarians (you may or may not be). Some people just want, on balance, a little less government, maybe privatize some of the current government services, or something like that; that's not really libertarianism and isn't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the black-and-white property-rights-trump-everything strict-narrow-thinking libertarians. They have an untenable political philosophy.
it is a travesty to act as if the Constitution is a living document and to just adapt our interpretations at convenience.
I totally understand; I just totally disagree. I'm neither interested in being ruled by 200-year-dead men, nor rewriting the Constitution every two or three years to account for the most recent maturation of society. Frankly, of course our interpretation of the laws which rule us change along with us ourselves; any other way would be ridiculous. They don't change very much, after all, since our societal maturation is very slow.
The rest of your points are fine. I oppose the war on drugs so I'm not going to sit around and defend it, even if I'm not convinced it is necessarily unconstitutional; and all the war on terror stuff you listed is probably beyond the pale.
I agree with that, because I'm a moderate; but a libertarian wouldn't, because they are not moderate. For a libertarian, there is certainly a specific limit on how the government does its job, and what jobs they can do. Environmental protection is a matter of property rights, to a libertarian: my property has been damaged by your pollution.
Great, glad we agree. Hondo77 and I accept your apology.
Yeah, I can see where you're going with that logic, but it clashes with my observations of the south. All I hear is about how the Old South was so great and we should revere it and bring it back and use its flag and talk about it as if it were the bee's knees. That's totally inconsistent with "people and their morals change". From what I've seen, people and their morals NOT changing is exactly the problem with the south.
Then again, I say that as an outsider. If you are an insider, and you say it is true, then I give you some credence -- but not so much that you can sway my opinion without a little more evidence and discussion.
What makes you think you know best for the rest of the US, and by extension, the world?
Hmmm, well I guess that would be my imagination. Even though I'm not black, for instance, I still *imagine* that black people don't like to be slaves. Just because some people in rural Pennsylvania disagree doesn't invalidate my opinion.
What makes you think that they know what's best for them? Isn't it also possible that I (or some third person) does, in fact, know what's best for them?
I'll take a stab. Slavery is explicitly unconstitutional now, at both federal and state levels, so states would have to tiptoe around the 14th amendment.
1. "states rights" happens, in some way or another.
2. some backwater state passes some laws against "loitering" or "unemployment" or pretty much anything vague and universal.
3. the police in that state arrest only black and brown people for the offenses (assuming this is traditional American-style slavery)
4. state law mandates hard labor for all crimes (or for those specific crimes)
5. state law enables the state to sell the fruits of the labor of the inmates.
6. Profit!/Slavery!
Of these, 2, 3, and 5 are already widespread, and some states have 4. It is literally only #1 stopping #6 from happening: the federal government would (and does) step in to stop some of the rest of the steps. This situation isn't hard to imagine, as we have it in small ways today, and had it in large ways in the not-too-distant past.
I guess "hondo77" can accept your apology now.
I see you are a lawyer. At what law school did you develop this mastery of interstate law?
That is succinct and true. Good point; well said.
The war on drugs might be racist (might), but I would hardly call it "equally vile and racist" to segregation. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you were just using a little hyperbole for effect. Be well.
Gosh, one last thing: an internally consistent libertarian would have to reject environmental regulations in favor of torts. Your neighbor spilled oil on your beach? Sue them; the government has no right to be involved.
Obviously, I think that's absurd.
Slavery is unconstitutional today, but if we "go back to the principles upon which the nation was founded" (which is what the parent was saying) WOULD mean bringing back slavery. That was his point. Your point, although very true, is a non-sequitur.
I'm sure the parent understands the internal logic ("logic") of 'libertarian conservatives', he's just calling you out for being hypocrites. Maybe, maybe not you personally, but definitely almost all of the rest of you. The classic quote from your cohorts is "Get your filthy socialist hands off of my Medicare!" Before you biatch about us misrepresenting your positions, your little clique should get together and kick out the hypocrites. There would be few enough of you left standing to count on my fingers and toes.
It doesn't make you all hypocrites, but it does wash away your arguments, and it does make you all wrong.
Those are all tough examples.
Social security is good for America, but almost certainly "unconstitutional" (if you are one of those people who reads the Constitution extremely narrowly, and I am not one of those people).
The War on Drugs is bad for America, but unquestionably constitutional (interstate commerce). I wish it were unconstitutional, but it is not.
The War on Terror is a hollow phrase, but generally the actions taken are constitutional (war powers).
The Constitution doesn't mention big business or the military industrial complex, but I'll happily join you in saying those are bad for America. Still, they aren't unconstitutional.
Absolutely we get tired of it. Having to keep pointing out the truth over and over is exhausting.
Hmmm. Probably because the first of those is a political practical impossibility and the other is a straightforward way to have a better country.
YMMV.
Indeed. Thank god later generations of Americans moved slightly away from that model to a slightly more centralized model (but still largely decentralized), enabling America to rise to international prominence. Otherwise we would look like the EU looks now -- squabbling impotent infants. I'm very satisfied with the moderate position we've taken on the centralized/decentralized government dilemma; I am very much opposed to the extremists on both ends of that spectrum (the Balkans on one end, China on the other).
Hooray for moderation! It allows us to be both free and strong!
Your trolling makes me laugh. How long do you think you can string people along believing that you actually think "sink" can turn into "sinked"? That's hilarious, and normally I would expect people to simply ignore such an obvious troll, but you seem to have pulled it off. Kudos.
There are lots of options. The obvious one would be to have a 60- or 90-second light (ten minutes seems uselessly long). Another would be to have a dedicated turn lane with a merge lane on the main road. Another would be to have a light on the main road, a quarter mile back, so that there are breaks in the traffic pattern. There are probably a bunch of other, perhaps better, options that a professional could come up with, if he spent more time thinking about it than the 30 seconds I did.
But stopping 15 cars every 50 yards, or having a six-hundred-second wait to turn onto a road, are both bad options.
So, people could get more of something (driving) by spending less (money, emissions)? How is that pointless? It sounds pretty good to me.
...did you say 12.5 MPH? That's absurd! Why not just get out of your car and push it, you'd go just as fast!
I can understand your complaint about the other drivers, but the obvious problem is the untenably slow speed of the timed lights.
I have a similar problem here in Madison, WI. There is a long road that I take home, where the posted limit is 25MPH. Okay, sure 25 is a bit slow, it should be 35, which is a comfortable driving speed. But the lights are all times at exactly 40MPH, which frankly is a little faster than I feel comfortable driving. But, unless I want to stop at every second or third light, I have to drive that fast (and break the law, too).
In my opinion, they should raise the limit to 35 and time the lights at the speed limit. Why would they time lights at +15? It's not just that one road, either, many of the roads in this town are timed at +15, it's actually pretty consistent (and baffling).
Another thing is that they are timed *poorly*. There is one block where I know I need to speed way up to 45 or 50, because that next light is about four seconds ahead of the flow; but then I have to immediately slow down to 30 because the light after that is a couple seconds behind.
Don't even get me started on the other road problems here. I've been to 49 states and I have never, ever seen a town with such maddeningly badly managed roads, not even Boston.
The goal isn't to reduce driving, rather to reduce emissions.
The gigantic waste of fuel goes into accelerating a car from stop to full speed, and that happens at stoplights and stop signs. Cruising at speed and idling both use little fuel compared to accelerating from stop.
So, for emissions, the stop/go thing is low hanging fruit.
No, I'd rather a third thing altogether. Neither of those alternatives sound very good to me. How about you?