Bitcoin Forum
December 03, 2016, 09:59:12 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Poll
Question: What is your opinion of the Maximum role of Government in society?
Absolute: Government should control all services and prices. - 4 (4.7%)
Moderate: the Government should control some services, and not others (explain) - 23 (26.7%)
Minimal: The Government should limit itself to courts and military. - 32 (37.2%)
None: All services and goods should be provided privately (or collectively). - 27 (31.4%)
Total Voters: 85

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 [33]
  Print  
Author Topic: Maximum role of Government?  (Read 23064 times)
JA37
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378


View Profile
August 02, 2011, 09:37:43 PM
 #641


Two questions:  1)  What do you do?  2) How can I do it too?   Wink 

So what you are saying is that the government gets to decide what "unnecessary" risks are, regardless of what people are or are not willing to do themselves?  Why?  What I want to know is why government gets to trump people's personal liberty.

Find something you're good at and then find someone wiling to pay you to do it. Preferably good money.  Wink

I'm saying that a company isn't allowed to take risks for you. Foreseeable risks should be mitigated by the company.
When those risks have been mitigated but risk still remains, as it always does, the company sets a salary that they believe will attract workers. People then use their personal liberty to choose if that reward is enough for them to take the job with the risk that follows.

Ponzi me: http://fxnet.bitlex.org/?ref=588
Thanks to the anonymous person who doubled my BTC wealth by sending 0.02 BTC to: 1BSGbFq4G8r3uckpdeQMhP55ScCJwbvNnG
1480759152
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480759152

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480759152
Reply with quote  #2

1480759152
Report to moderator
1480759152
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480759152

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480759152
Reply with quote  #2

1480759152
Report to moderator
1480759152
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480759152

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480759152
Reply with quote  #2

1480759152
Report to moderator
The money raised from these ads will be used to pay for improved forum software and other useful stuff.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1480759152
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480759152

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480759152
Reply with quote  #2

1480759152
Report to moderator
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
August 03, 2011, 06:39:45 AM
 #642

I'm saying that a company isn't allowed to take risks for you. Foreseeable risks should be mitigated by the company.
When those risks have been mitigated but risk still remains, as it always does, the company sets a salary that they believe will attract workers. People then use their personal liberty to choose if that reward is enough for them to take the job with the risk that follows.

Not once did you mention the word 'regulation', as indeed, it's not needed. By George, I think he's got it.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
JA37
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378


View Profile
August 03, 2011, 08:48:31 AM
 #643

I'm saying that a company isn't allowed to take risks for you. Foreseeable risks should be mitigated by the company.
When those risks have been mitigated but risk still remains, as it always does, the company sets a salary that they believe will attract workers. People then use their personal liberty to choose if that reward is enough for them to take the job with the risk that follows.

Not once did you mention the word 'regulation', as indeed, it's not needed. By George, I think he's got it.
What regulation does is raise the minimum standard. Companies are allowed and encouraged to go above the minimum standard, but not below. Yes it's needed.
I have nothing against market solution to problems, but believing it's the one and all solution to all problems is naive to the point of stupidity.

Ponzi me: http://fxnet.bitlex.org/?ref=588
Thanks to the anonymous person who doubled my BTC wealth by sending 0.02 BTC to: 1BSGbFq4G8r3uckpdeQMhP55ScCJwbvNnG
The Script
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336



View Profile
August 03, 2011, 08:51:51 AM
 #644

I'm saying that a company isn't allowed to take risks for you. Foreseeable risks should be mitigated by the company.
When those risks have been mitigated but risk still remains, as it always does, the company sets a salary that they believe will attract workers. People then use their personal liberty to choose if that reward is enough for them to take the job with the risk that follows.

Not once did you mention the word 'regulation', as indeed, it's not needed. By George, I think he's got it.
What regulation does is raise the minimum standard. Companies are allowed and encouraged to go above the minimum standard, but not below. Yes it's needed.
I have nothing against market solution to problems, but believing it's the one and all solution to all problems is naive to the point of stupidity.

Why do regulations tend to go so far beyond what is really necessary, and how do we mitigate that?  I'm not sure what country you live in, but here in the US the culture of work place safety is ridiculous.  It creates horrible inefficiencies and attitudes of snitching.  Do I really need a safety harness and rope if I'm on a ladder farther than six feet off the ground, and does Joe really need to report me to OSHA?
JA37
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378


View Profile
August 03, 2011, 10:16:06 AM
 #645


Why do regulations tend to go so far beyond what is really necessary, and how do we mitigate that?  I'm not sure what country you live in, but here in the US the culture of work place safety is ridiculous.  It creates horrible inefficiencies and attitudes of snitching.  Do I really need a safety harness and rope if I'm on a ladder farther than six feet off the ground, and does Joe really need to report me to OSHA?

Not knowing your local laws I really can't say if they're ridiculous or not. I'll just take your word for it. What you should do in that case is to have the regulations rewritten. They're part of the political process so it's not hard, and probably being rewritten every now and then anyway. Lobby for change, position yourself so that you can take part in the rewrite.

I'm also not familiar with OSHA and how that works, but here the employer is responsible for making sure that you follow the regulations, and it's the employer that will be in trouble if you're not doing it. Unless they can prove that they've done everything they can to make your work safe as can be and you choose to ignore the rules.

A relative (US Citizen) told me that laws in the US are historical and not logical. Once you start to look at laws from a historical point of view, they start to make some sort of sense, but from a logical point of view many are downright dumb.

Ponzi me: http://fxnet.bitlex.org/?ref=588
Thanks to the anonymous person who doubled my BTC wealth by sending 0.02 BTC to: 1BSGbFq4G8r3uckpdeQMhP55ScCJwbvNnG
compro01
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 485


View Profile
August 03, 2011, 02:06:51 PM
 #646

Why do regulations tend to go so far beyond what is really necessary, and how do we mitigate that?  I'm not sure what country you live in, but here in the US the culture of work place safety is ridiculous.  It creates horrible inefficiencies and attitudes of snitching.  Do I really need a safety harness and rope if I'm on a ladder farther than six feet off the ground, and does Joe really need to report me to OSHA?

you start with a functional system.

the US culture of an illusion of workplace safety is ridiculous and i agree.  too much focus is placed on trivial crap, deflecting attention from actual gaping holes in the regulations e.g. no double belting (having two ropes so one is always attached while you're moving the other one to a new attachment point) requirement at extreme heights such as radio towers or wind turbines.

i'm not sure whether your last sentence is being serious or not, but OSHA regs do not require that.  fall protection is not required unless you're above 25 feet.
The Script
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336



View Profile
August 05, 2011, 09:03:19 PM
 #647

Why do regulations tend to go so far beyond what is really necessary, and how do we mitigate that?  I'm not sure what country you live in, but here in the US the culture of work place safety is ridiculous.  It creates horrible inefficiencies and attitudes of snitching.  Do I really need a safety harness and rope if I'm on a ladder farther than six feet off the ground, and does Joe really need to report me to OSHA?

you start with a functional system.

the US culture of an illusion of workplace safety is ridiculous and i agree.  too much focus is placed on trivial crap, deflecting attention from actual gaping holes in the regulations e.g. no double belting (having two ropes so one is always attached while you're moving the other one to a new attachment point) requirement at extreme heights such as radio towers or wind turbines.

i'm not sure whether your last sentence is being serious or not, but OSHA regs do not require that.  fall protection is not required unless you're above 25 feet.


Fall protection is required if it's above 6 feet.  This does not necessarily mean you need a harness to go above six feet, so I was exaggerating a little.   

http://www.osha.gov/doc/outreachtraining/htmlfiles/subpartm.html
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
August 05, 2011, 10:26:36 PM
 #648

Why do regulations tend to go so far beyond what is really necessary, and how do we mitigate that?  I'm not sure what country you live in, but here in the US the culture of work place safety is ridiculous.  It creates horrible inefficiencies and attitudes of snitching.  Do I really need a safety harness and rope if I'm on a ladder farther than six feet off the ground, and does Joe really need to report me to OSHA?

you start with a functional system.

the US culture of an illusion of workplace safety is ridiculous and i agree.  too much focus is placed on trivial crap, deflecting attention from actual gaping holes in the regulations e.g. no double belting (having two ropes so one is always attached while you're moving the other one to a new attachment point) requirement at extreme heights such as radio towers or wind turbines.

i'm not sure whether your last sentence is being serious or not, but OSHA regs do not require that.  fall protection is not required unless you're above 25 feet.


Fall protection is required if it's above 6 feet.  This does not necessarily mean you need a harness to go above six feet, so I was exaggerating a little.   

http://www.osha.gov/doc/outreachtraining/htmlfiles/subpartm.html

In practice, it's four feet, because if you are using a ladder over 6 feet tall you are expected to harness, and you're also not permitted to use the top two steps to actually step upon.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
DiamondPlus
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 66


View Profile
August 15, 2011, 01:37:35 AM
 #649

Okay. I'll follow this line of reasoning just for kicks and giggles. Let's say that no one individual owns the road exclusively. So what? That means now everyone shares a partial ownership in the road, or "easement". Again, so what? That would basically mean the road is part-owned by everyone, right? I'm not sure what portion or in what way each individual would make his "rightful claim" but then it would just be a matter of sorting things out I would think. If you can't sort it out, it would basically fall into the category of homesteadable unclaimed land. There isn't an owner, so why not you, or me, or that "other" guy over there, who might want to make a business out of toll road fees. No one should complain that the road was "staked and claimed". You didn't step up and make a claim to it, so why not the guy who's interested in doing something with it? Or in other words, no one owns it and we just use it as we deem fit until things change. Notwithstanding, this temporary state of "unownership" could not demand forceful intervention for maintenance purposes (or any other similar coercive purpose). That would imply a condition of ownership. You either own it and defend it against trespass, or it remains commonly utilized by all -no more owned than the stars in the sky could be appropriated.

Obviously, no one has a specific right to travel on another man's property without permission. This would be trespass. He may attempt to travel on un-homesteaded land, but that would be the only right he would have, and even then, it would only be temporary until someone wanted to own it. Then he couldn't arbitrarily traverse it, because he didn't acquire it first, and make it exclusive to himself or his assigns. Let's not get caught up in all of the vague verbiage (government, state, "unorganized public"). This merely clouds the issue. And here's why.

If the "unorganized public" wants to fix/improve/reroute the road they apparently jointly own, then they, and only they could expend their effort, money, assets, resources and other what-have-you to improve this "easement" of their own free will. They could not of a natural right, force, expropriate, tax, extort, coerce (I think you get my drift here) from others to achieve this end. If others travel on your road, then they must get permission to use it. If you improve the road, but still not claim it as your own, you shouldn't be upset if others travel on it. You improved it out of the charity of your heart I guess.

Is this a little more clear? We don't need lawyers and legislators making definitions as to what a "highway" or "road" or "easement" is, but we should merely examine who is the rightful owner of such things. I'm trying to keep things simple here. John Locke said, the appearance of property has the distinction of labor mixed with something in Nature. It had to appear to be changed from its natural state when man intervened. If that's the case, I want to see who owns the deed or title, and if there is none, I'll take it.

Last but not least, if the government doesn't own it, then why are they forcing me to pay for its construction, maintenance and improvement?

-DiamondPlus
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 [33]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!