...oh. You mean the new-fangled now newish type of new.

Once you have all the other things on your list (which I agree to, to a significant extent), the whole reason for marriage, I think, ceases to exist.

I'm a hypocrite in that category F3. Corporations too big to fail is a blatant falsehood. "corporations big enough to hire lobbiests", "corporations too crap to survive", "corporations i want to work at after i leave gov't" would be more accurate. Bad decisions have consequences. Strings of bad decisions have worse consequences. decades of... you get the point.

GM should have folded. If they needed a government bail out then they should have filed bankruptcy and let the chips fall where the may. It would have been painful and bloodier but for a shorter period of time. More importantly the market would have been reset at that point. The market moves based on the hope for gain and fear of loss. Now we have created a situation where the fear of loss is no longer in the equation if you are big enough. That is not healthy for the future of our economy.

As far as individuals go, I believe we should have a safety net. I don't want someone having a heart attack turned away from the ER. I also don't want them going to the ER for a cold if they aren't paying for it.

I don't know what the "right" system would look like in detail. Honestly it will never happen so I've never put serious thought into it. I believe a genuine safety net is short term, covers only the basics, and by design forces participants back into self sufficiency. Nothing should be free though. If you are on the government dole then you must not be working. If you aren't working then you must have time to go to a job training program, volunteer somewhere useful, or sweep the streets to make the community better.

Not for everyone. I love my wife and that crazy bible thing I read says I'm supposed to become one with her in marriage. the mormons, muslims, and jews probably have something along those lines too.

However, if you don't want to be married, no problem.

Strong supporter of mandatory seatbelt and helmet laws. My perspective being from the fire/EMS public safety side of things. There is a whole snowball chain of consequences most people don't grasp when you choose not to wear your belt/helmet and are in a serious accident.

It puts my life and limb at much greater risk because you will have greater injuries. My response method will be code 3 lights and sirens instead of just code 2 urgent, my time on scene will be much longer since I will have to use additional equipment and procedures to stabilize, and we will not be able to stick around to help others injured since you are now a life/limb priority and have to be moved immediately. This then requires additional resources to be brought on scene from our own department or neighboring departments, placing further strain on their ability to respond to incidents in their own areas since they're having to come out here as a mutual aid. Most line of duty deaths and injuries for my profession occur while responding to or from a call code 3.


You wearing your seatbelt/helmet greatly reduces the chances of your injuries being as serious, therefore scaling back the amount of response required for your care. Reduces my chances of getting hurt/killed on the job, and costs your local departments, and thus the taxpayers, less money. Your own medical bills are just the tip of the iceberg.
:2cents:

To bad we just can't tell them, hey you didn't wear your belt, so I'm not rushing off to get your dying ass to the hospital.

Interesting perspective. How far should we take that though?

A law banning fast food and junkfood would certainly have a knock on affect as well.

How about a ban on alcohol?

How about unprotocted sex?

Use of firearms by anyone not currently serving in a warzone?

Rear wheel drive vs front wheel drive in snow?

Driving a car rather than a covered wagon?

Getting out of bed for longer than your government mandated exercise period?

Is that in the Mrs. Obama plan for America? :p: wouldn't surprise me.

Agreed. It is 1984 newspeak and it is doubleplusgood. I see that as being a trademark of the republican party. The obvious examples are things with catchy names that misdirect, e.g. Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind, to name two. While the Dems are no better, this isn't one of their tactics, I fault the dems for being too "Marquis of Queensbury" in a street fight. The Republicans I admire for their guerrilla tactics, the ends justify the means so they don't feel the need to fight honorably, since the outcome is believed to be in the best interest of the country, even those to whom the best trickles down. The Dems would rather lose everything than their sense of playing by the rules. (not saying they actually always do play by the rules, but for the most part, they seem wedded to the rule book and calling FOUL every chance they get.)

True, all businesses and entrepeneurs should be accountable for their business decisions and while the personal protection afforded by a corporation has its foundation in a good place that has been abused too often (e.g. Enron) In addition to the market being reset, most importantly what would be taught to the entire nation and world at large would be accountability and moral and ethical values, answering to a higher calling than one's financial self interest. Just as crummy parents will model crummy parenting skills to their kids, our countries leaders (as in LEADERS) are whooly responsible for setting the tone of moral and ethical behavior. Just as lack of fear of loss no longer being in the equation is bad for the economy, so is a lack of personal integrity. If the wealth is going to trickle down, I'm sure the moral bankruptcy will follow along.

This somewhat follows with the previous point, re: people who feel they live in a world of integrity are more likely to behave as their role models do and will not likely run to the ER for the sniffles. There is another component to this aspect which involves improving primary care and follow up care. My BIL was working on a study that showed dramatic cost savings and reduction in unnecessary hospital visits resulting from minor improvements to primary care. (I posted a link to the video last year)

Another aspect of this relates to what Andrew Carnegie believed about the greater value to all of society by building schools, hospitals, and museums. His feeling was that if you paid a man a few dollars more he would just spend it on meat and beer, but if you withheld those dollars from everyone and used the accumulated money to build a school or museum, the entire community would be uplifted rather than each bloke having a bit more meat that week. Sadly, it seems that someone along the line decided, "Fuck the schools and museums, I can get even richer if I just pocket the money." Sure, you can do that, but at what greater long term cost? Not intangible costs, but indirect costs. I feel that the erosion of integrity by the LEADERS BY EXAMPLE may serve that one person but at a greater cost to society.

Well, I think the right system will develop organically as people change themselves inside. All of the rules and government are creaeted one step at a time. At a certain point someone decided it was OK to lie, then from that decision new options are available that weren't before. Choices are made and still more options are opened. What it will take is people adopting a code of ethics and conduct. For example, To me it is obvious that allowing lobbying is very dangerous to integrity and the first politician who allowed it to be sugar coated was the pioneer blazing the trail of what is now a six lane highway.

When I lived at the monastery, the roshi was fond of saying that one of the things that set Buddhism apart from other religions was that it wasn't Atheistic, it wasn't Agnostic, it was Non-theistic. It does not see the existence of God as relevant to living a moral and ethical life. 2500 years ago Buddha put forth the following:

I first cottoned on to that while working on a video at a hospital ER. Every time there was a car crash and they heard "unrestrained" the intensity amped up tremendously. It was a much bigger deal at the hospital too.

Bullitt, my post was *edit, cuz i'm stupid*[NOT not, i really meant NOT meant as screw you, but more of a where does it stop? Personally I feel those are all controls the federal government shouldn't be involved with. If the states want to do so and they can convince their voters to go for it, then more power to them. I seriously have a problem with the federal government expanding to control more and more of our lives.

F3, I had no idea you were such an optimist. I see a nation on the decline, not one still developing. I personally think we've gone past the tipping point of "the greater good" and we'll just keep sliding through "i gotta get mine".

Lookout, I'm no optimist. I was speaking merely theoretically.

Well how long has he been dealing?

:lol2:

...btw this has been an interesting discussion for one who is still unsure about all these labels, thanks :)

With that platform Lookout could be a good president. He'd have to ice about a million parasites that lurk around Washington to make it work, but that would be regarded as one of his greatest achievements.

I think a progressive tax is better. I think the socially provided safety net should include education, medical care and financial support for those unable to work through age or illness, plus some kind of paid keep-you-busy work for the capable unemployed. Putting medical care in the safety net makes it appropriate to require people to take certain precautions, like seat belts.

The only thing I can see no reason for is your bigotry against bestiality. Suppose I have some chickens in the back yard. I am allowed to kill them and eat them, but I'm not allowed to stick my wang in them, not even in private. Can you tell me why not?