DOT to ban phones in cars

[Darth Cruel]

I think. . .that that is a ridiculously simplistic view of things

What is the peace emoticon for?

And talking about the founding fathers. Have you read the writings of those guys? Despite their differences, those guys understood very well that compromise in the face of a plurality of interests was at the very foundation of how this country can function. That's how the entire system is set up--to allow a reasonably fair, institutional means for diverse perspectives to voice grievances.

Yes, I have read their writings. This is a means to either end I discussed. Not an alternative end result.

They weren't advocating some simplistic, absolutist perspective to take government out of all our daily affairs.

Are you saying that this is what you interpreted my post to read? If so, read more carefully. I very clearly stated that I find it necessary to cut back government involvement by 75%...not 100%.

If people really hate the idea of taking cell phones away, then they can lobby their elected representatives and try to do away with the idea. If they really like the idea, then it can be put in place. People have the "right" to do that in this country.

Which is exactly what the mudhole brawl I mention is intended to do.

But lumping people into "weak" and "strong" categories like that is possibly the most laughable thing I've ever seen on this forum.

And it stands as my opinion. Unless you can define a good reason to hand over liberties to the government. It will remain my opinion despite how much it obviously offends you.

Folks who can't understand the idea of compromise and nuance are the ones I fear, not the government. Because they are the ones who go off into the woods and start militias, or join cults.

You criticize me for being ridiculously simplistic and the make this statement? I do very much understand the ideas. But even if I didn't I wouldn't go join a militia or cult so you don't have to fear me.

Yeah, be wary of governmental intrusion, but consider that government ensures that your food is reasonably safe to eat and that the air is safe to breathe, provides for your security, has provided public education and roads that allow for economic development, and done innumerable other things that have promoted the public good and well being in ways that a society without such a government could never do. Government may be an evil, but a necessary one so long as a peaceful, effective society can't exist without it.

And this sounds like that "where do you draw the line" argument that I find to be a cop out.

 

[Darth Cruel]

Taking this idea to its logical conclusion, we should therefore get rid of police, no?

You can not draw this as a logical conclusion to anything I posted.

Aside from the fact that no human being on Earth is represented by it?

People ARE grey areas. People ARE a set of hypocritical scenarios. As a simple example, I know you dislike Big Ben's actions. Yet you still support the Steelers. There are contradictions there which may seem hypocritical or a misdirection of loyalties, but its you being a human being operating in the grey area and not behaving like a machine.

I'm against certain regulations, and for others. There is no person on the planet that believes in deregulating everything to the point of chaos.

Even a person who believes in chaos would not support a string of chaotic actions that would render that person dead, for example.

I disagree...every person on Earth can be placed in to one of these groups. The example of the Steeler Love/Roethlisberger Hate is simply an example of the nuances that Karamazov feels that I do not understand simply because I chose not to address them in my post. They will always be there. I do not allow them as arguments because they are too often used as cop-outs and not true support of the side of an issue in my opinion.

 

[karamazov80]

Well, I think you do have to draw a line--a line that moves a bit here and there based on public interests--and I think that's what the founders expected. I don't see how that's a cop-out if that is fundamental to my view of my country. Yes, the founders wanted to set up a system that took away the tyranny of England at the time, and to replace it with a system where people had freedoms from arbitrary and unfair governmental intrusion. But I don't think they expected that the logical, Utopian end of society would be a world where government ceases to play a significant role. Where did the founders say that? There will always be diverging interests competing, and thus, the system must always be oriented toward synthesizing and reflecting these interests. It cannot be driven too far in one direction or the other so long as competing interests are at play. And until we become a homogeneous society (which I don't see happening anytime soon), that's gonna be a constant.

If you think I'm weak because I don't want to live in a world without a government to protect me from crime and exploitation by the majority, then I guess you're right. But some could just as easily argue that it is a strength to accept and embrace the unknown--an unknown that can't be broken down into simple soundbites. An unknown where a government exists that has the potential to do great harm, but is necessary to preserve and promote order and the good of the people. That is a world of compromise and uncertainty. But I'm not making that argument, because I think it is offensive to say that anyone is weaker than anyone else because they hold a certain view of the world.

 

[The Ween]

More dangerous are women putting on make-up and the blue hairs.

yeah, men are always safe drivers.

 

[ProgMatinee]

I don't think I know what your point is DC, but I'll just say this, and if it applies to what you're talking about, great, if not, take it for what its worth.

Nuances in behavior and thoughts prove a person is still capable of rational thought.

 

[The Ween]

Still don't own a cell phone.

Regarding emergencies....remember a time when professionals were trusted to do their job without alerting a loved one first? I'd like to think if I dropped my kid off somewhere that the teachers/daycare provider would call the appropriate medical services if my kid got hurt, then call me with their location once in the hands of professionals.

All my co-workers carry their cellphones into important meetings under the guise of "if my kid's daycare needs to call me" bs, instead the cell phones go off for non-emergencys all the time. Never once has there been an emergency.

What do these parents think they're going to do if there was an emergency? Leave work at once, drive 10 miles, and give CPR to their own choking child?

They will call for medical services first, but for any accident, you have to call the parents too. A boy today fell backwards off his seat at the lunch table (he was screwing around). Even though he wasn't hurt, a complete report had to be made up and the parents called. If you don't, you could get sued. The school nurse has her hands tied too because you have to ask permission for everything.

 

[karamazov80]

I disagree...every person on Earth can be placed in to one of these groups. The example of the Steeler Love/Roethlisberger Hate is simply an example of the nuances that Karamazov feels that I do not understand simply because I chose not to address them in my post. They will always be there. I do not allow them as arguments because they are too often used as cop-outs and not true support of the side of an issue in my opinion.

Whether or not you understand the complexities of the world, you are shoving people into stark categories based on their choosing one "side" or another. But that's just not how it is for many (most?) of us.

I don't watch Fox or MSNBC.

 

[The Ween]

I have to agree with your sarcasm. I have watched people apply makeup, read (yes a book), eat, and turn around and talk to their brats in the back seat. Amongst other things that I can't recall. So you might as well pass a law that allows auto makers to strap peoples heads to the seat so they can do nothing but look forward.

Cell phones aren't the problem. Its women drivers that should be banned.

 

[ProgMatinee]

They will call for medical services first, but for any accident, you have to call the parents too. A boy today fell backwards off his seat at the lunch table (he was screwing around). Even though he wasn't hurt, a complete report had to be made up and the parents called. If you don't, you could get sued. The school nurse has her hands tied too because you have to ask permission for everything.

I know they have to be told, but I don't really understand the "in case of emergency" thing as a reason for a cell phone.

My mom was in an accident about 10 years ago and was in critical condition. I didn't own a cell phone. My father simply called my work and got a hold of me. I just think people think that owning a cell phone is somehow going to prevent an emergency or something. Really it just creates a distraction that people abuse.

 

[BadMoon]

You know I kid Ween. Who else is going to play with my ween while they drive?

 

[The Ween]

You know I kid Ween. Who else is going to play with my ween while they drive?

King?

 

[BadMoon]

King?

 

[BadMoon]

I wish the government would ban the adjective "epic". For ____s sake I'm sick of reading that. I don't think the nerds that use such terms even know what they means anymore.

 

[karamazov80]

Yeah, I would support a Constitutional amendment to that effect

 

[BadMoon]

Yeah, I would support a Constitutional amendment to that effect

You apparently haven't read the latest comic. It was EPIC!

 

[karamazov80]

^^ EPIC post

 

[Nuka Cola Kidd]

^^ EPIC post

EPIC use of the word EPIC

 

[nash]

I know they have to be told, but I don't really understand the "in case of emergency" thing as a reason for a cell phone.

My mom was in an accident about 10 years ago and was in critical condition. I didn't own a cell phone. My father simply called my work and got a hold of me. I just think people think that owning a cell phone is somehow going to prevent an emergency or something. Really it just creates a distraction that people abuse.

I love it....Let's all blame the cell phone for people acting irresponsibly and recklessly. No!, it can't be that some people are just ******* who don't know what safety is about. It's the cell phones that are making them drive dangerously!! Yay for government spoon feeding and hand holding all adults in America.

Thank God that YOUR mom's incident ended the way it did. Just because her accident did not require the use of a cell phone why should any of the 300 million people in this country?

 

[CelticPredator]

What if you were at the store Prog? What if you were driving home? 40 minutes from the house? What if your car broke down? What if you got lost?

To prevent people from using Cell Phones in a vehical is the single worst idea in this stage in history. Stopping people from texting is one thing. You DONT need to text....but a cell phone is such an incredibly important tool in this day and age....

Look, i'm not talking about the way teenagers use their phones...they're idiots. They use it for fun. REAL people use it when they have to.

I've gotten lost a few times, and the ONLY way I was able to find my way was with a cell phone. No way in hell would i have been able to get out of that situation. And I had a map. I took a wrong turn, and ended up on some random interstate.

So anyone who is for this idea, I hope none of you end up in a situation where you have NO HELP what so ever, because you wont be able to use your cell phones. I really do.

 

[devilof76]

Now you done it...

You guys are thinking in extremes again. You can drink, but you can't drink and drive. If you do and you are caught, there are stiff penalties. You can text, but you shouldn't text and drive. Laws either aren't enforced or aren't sufficient to deter people. You can't have an open container with alcohol in a car. . .

Actually, I can drink and drive. I can text and drive too. Safely, on both counts. Do you know how many thousands of people do it every day, and every night?

You have to be reasonable. You can't allow anything just because you fear the government is gonna turn into a fascist state or whatever.

No one has said anything about allowing everything. That's a gross mischaracterization, and for someone who keeps pointing fingers about people going to extremes, I think you should take a look in the mirror. That has been that basis of every criticism you've leveled so far in this thread.

There is a line, and that is the line at which one person violates the rights of another. You can't violate rights in the name of protecting rights. That's plain asinine. You need to formulate law in a manner that uses the inviolability of rights as it's fundamental guiding principle, and banning cell phones in cars or whatever it is you fear does not acknowledge that need.

One has nothing to do with the other. People who drink a lot are putting their own health at risk, when they get behind the wheel then they are putting others at risk.

No. How many murders have been committed by people under the influence? I live in an extremely rural state with low population density, and I hear about a new one every couple weeks.

Devil's posts are going in the same direction. If you think that you have two choices--fascism and state of nature, and if your principles won't allow you to compromise, then I'm sorry. But you're just gonna have to move to Antarctica to get the freedom that you crave. Society is not made up of exclusively reasonable, thoughtful, caring people. And so, rules have to be made and enforced to keep others from doing bad things to the rest of us. Compromises must be made.

I don't think that the choice is between a fascist state and the state of nature. Government derives its justification from the need to protect people from the predations of other people, i.e., to protect their natural rights; those rights which they possess in a state of nature. People do not sacrifice rights to enter into social contracts to protect their rights. There is no such thing as a right to violate other people's rights.

because cell phone use while in a motorized vehicle is really the end goal of "liberty". in that case, I want my "liberty" to drive a steam roller down the middle of a crowded school yard.

No one has a right to do that, and texting while driving is not equivalent to it. It's not even close.

Is this what you mean by grey areas? Blurring the distinction so that you can justify treating one action as though it were the other?

I really think that people can be divided into two catagories. Those who want the government to herd them around like sheep, and those who want to control their own lives.

Yes, because people don't understand that the concept of liberty doesn't include the liberty to do harm to others. I think a lot of them are mired in a grey area where they believe sacrificing liberties is somehow the answer to dealing with people who violate liberties, and they don't realize that subverting the basic principle is all that is necessary to eliminate it wholesale.

The difference is black and white. Either people should be free, or they should not.

I think. . .that that is a ridiculously simplistic view of things

I think it is a ridiculously dishonest view of things to say that you can have your cake and eat it too.

Yeah, the truth tends to be remarkably simple.

They weren't advocating some simplistic, absolutist perspective to take government out of all our daily affairs.

Yes, they were. They were tired of being treated like criminals when they were not, and they removed the government who failed to make principled distinctions as to what constituted criminal behavior, and what did not.

Folks who can't understand the idea of compromise and nuance are the ones I fear, not the government. Because they are the ones who go off into the woods and start militias, or join cults.

Whatever. The people who use their clout as the majority to compromise the rights of the rest of us are the reason why groups like that come into existence.

Yeah, be wary of governmental intrusion, but consider that government ensures that your food is reasonably safe to eat and that the air is safe to breathe, provides for your security, has provided public education and roads that allow for economic development, and done innumerable other things that have promoted the public good and well being in ways that a society without such a government could never do. Government may be an evil, but a necessary one so long as a peaceful, effective society can't exist without it.

That's bull____. Everything that the government has ever provided has been sub-standard, and has usurped the private sector's ability to provide such things in a manner befitting the needs and desires of the individuals who seek them. There is no market that regulates what government fails at, and because things like food are provided by market-bound interests, things like food safety are absolute necessities if a company wishes to survive. The idea that government has ever done a damn thing to prevent problems is nonsense. All they have ever done is waste a lot of people's time and money using guns to duplicate functions that the market already provides. They do it arbitrarily and create dislocations that manifest in the form of higher prices and shortages.

But there are plenty of people out there who see their fellow man as some pernicious beast just waiting for a chance to devour them, the second the heroic government turns its back or loosens its grip.

I'm against certain regulations, and for others. There is no person on the planet that believes in deregulating everything to the point of chaos.

Even a person who believes in chaos would not support a string of chaotic actions that would render that person dead, for example.

If you define regulation as the legislation of actions for the sake of violating people's right to life, liberty, and property, then yes, such regulation is absolutely necessary.

If you define it as second guessing every person who ever goes into business (or leave the house, for tat matter) on the assumption that they will inevitably try to cheat or harm anyone they do business with, and that they need to be forced to follow guidelines that seek to prevent any action that could possibly lead to harming someone, then no. There is no place for preventative law in a free society. That is the exact premise that every dictatorship ever had founded its legal system upon, and it is anathema to a free society.

Taking this idea to its logical conclusion, we should therefore get rid of police, no?

There would be nothing wrong with police if they weren't enlisted to enforce laws that violate our rights, and if there were no police, how could you enforce law that did protect them?

Well, I think you do have to draw a line--a line that moves a bit here and there based on public interests--and I think that's what the founders expected.

The Founders included safeguards in the Constitution to protect people from the tyranny of public interest because they knew that a majority was just as capable of violating individual rights as a government was. In fact, the will of a majority would be the perfect aegis under which to pass law to circumvent the rights guaranteed to individuals vie the Constitution.

Yes, the founders wanted to set up a system that took away the tyranny of England at the time, and to replace it with a system where people had freedoms from arbitrary and unfair governmental intrusion.

Yes, very good so far.

But I don't think they expected that the logical, Utopian end of society would be a world where government ceases to play a significant role.

They weren't determining the size of the role, they were determining the nature of the role. That role was to be the agent of preservation of individual liberty within its jurisdiction.

Where did the founders say that?

Declaration of Independence.

There will always be diverging interests competing, and thus, the system must always be oriented toward synthesizing and reflecting these interests. It cannot be driven too far in one direction or the other so long as competing interests are at play. And until we become a homogeneous society (which I don't see happening anytime soon), that's gonna be a constant.

The market determines who will succeed when there are competing interests, not the government. The market uses the positive incentive of gain to entice a group of people to accept a particular change into their lives. The government uses the negative threat of physical force to ensure compliance with whatever they elect to impose.

If you think I'm weak because I don't want to live in a world without a government to protect me from crime and exploitation by the majority, then I guess you're right.

Only if you think that the government has a right to sacrifice those who have never committed an act of force against anyone to gurantee your sense of security. That's not only weak, it's evil.

But some could just as easily argue that it is a strength to accept and embrace the unknown...An unknown where a government exists that has the potential to do great harm, but is necessary to preserve and promote order and the good of the people.

The great strength of a people like ze Germans. Yes, they were full of it. They looked into the abyss and smiled.

That is a world of compromise and uncertainty.

Actually, it's a world of submission and chaos. But call it safe if you want. Everything is a shade of grey, right?