Maximum role of Government?

[Anonymous]

What entitles a man to a set amount of choices? Are we advocating minimum choice legislation now?

You're the one with the system that's based on the right to choose freely.  You do nothing but bitch, moan, and spew hyperbole about your lack of choice in the current system, but more and more it's being revealed that your sysetm is the one leaving people choiceless.  You cannot choose freely if you have no choice or if all your choices are ultimatums.

Again your system proves itself incapable of dealing with a complex real world.

I don't understand how my ideal system has more inherent ultimatums when they still exist pervasively in your ideal system. In addition, your system HAS to limit the CHOICE of others to guarantee more for others that are deemed worthy through whatever means.

[ascent]

No, there aren't other lifeboats and I didn't know the guy was a knife juggler, let alone a knife juggler crazy enough to start juggling knives in a lifeboat at sea.

This thread has given me great entertainment. Otherwise I wouldn't keep coming back. As an aside, are you familiar with the saga of the whaling ship Essex and its survivors? Note that I am not making a claim one way or another with regard to the relevancy of the events as they relate to the debate herein, but I'm sure both sides will be able to find material therein to augment their arguments.

Essex: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essex_%28whaleship%29

[ascent]

Another case, with legal precedent, that some here might find interesting, and I'm certain will add fuel to the fire was the case of R v Dudley and Stephens. Have fun!

R v Dudley and Stephens: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Dudley_and_Stephens

[AyeYo]

Very interesting cases and not the least bit surprising that the hypothetical one lifeboat scenario has occured many times in the real world.

Obviously the bottom line remains the same, circumstances offen preclude choice.  The only problem is that there's been so much deflection and diversion by the other side, I don't even remember why lack of choice matters.  Ah, that's right, because the libernuts assume that if I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place, it can only be because I chose to be there.

[ascent]

Ah, that's right, because the libernuts assume that if I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place, it can only be because I chose to be there.

Yes. Obviously the poor souls on those lifeboats should've accurately predicted what events were going to take place in their futures while they were still children and aspired to become masons or school teachers instead.

[myrkul]

Very interesting cases and not the least bit surprising that the hypothetical one lifeboat scenario has occured many times in the real world.

Obviously the bottom line remains the same, circumstances offen preclude choice.  The only problem is that there's been so much deflection and diversion by the other side, I don't even remember why lack of choice matters.  Ah, that's right, because the libernuts assume that if I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place, it can only be because I chose to be there.

So, what form of government rules down in the Troll caves? Is it still a Monarchy, or have you guys overthrown your King and instituted socialist paradise?

[ascent]

So, what form of government rules down in the Troll caves?

I take offense at the insinuation that I live in a cave. I live underneath a bridge.

[myrkul]

Ah, that's right, because the libernuts assume that if I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place, it can only be because I chose to be there.

Yes. Obviously the poor souls on those lifeboats should've accurately predicted what events were going to take place in their futures while they were still children and aspired to become masons or school teachers instead.

Look, that's life. You pays your dollar, and you rolls the dice. If it comes up snake-eyes, well, them's the breaks. They knew the risks when they signed on for those ships crews.

[ascent]

Look, that's life. You pays your dollar, and you rolls the dice. If it comes up snake-eyes, well, them's the breaks. They knew the risks when they signed on for those ships crews.

Actually, you're correct in this instance. But I don't think you should use that as an example for lifeboat scenarios in general. As an example, which of the following two scenarios do you think is more preferable:

1. Knife juggler accidentally punctures raft, and all members are subsequently devoured by sharks.

2. One of the members subdues the juggler, binds his hands, and all members are subsequently picked up by a vessel one day later.

[Anonymous]

There seems to be a reality distortion field on both sides of the field here. People hardly get stuck in bad positions everybody is proposing. Life isn't this rough guys.

[ascent]

There seems to be a reality distortion field on both sides of the field here. People hardly get stuck in bad positions everybody is proposing. Life isn't this rough guys.

It's exactly those situations that stress any given system though.

[myrkul]

Look, that's life. You pays your dollar, and you rolls the dice. If it comes up snake-eyes, well, them's the breaks. They knew the risks when they signed on for those ships crews.

Actually, you're correct in this instance. But I don't think you should use that as an example for lifeboat scenarios in general. As an example, which of the following two scenarios do you think is more preferable:

1. Knife juggler accidentally punctures raft, and all members are subsequently devoured by sharks.

2. One of the members subdues the juggler, binds his hands, and all members are subsequently picked up by a vessel one day later.

I would have to agree that subduing the juggler would be preferable, and as I said before, in life-and-death situations, civilization tends to break down. I never argued that you should let him puncture the boat, just that if you did subdue him, you'd owe him damages. (probably not a lot, you did save his life, too)

It's exactly those situations that stress any given system though.

No, these situations break every system. Like I said way back when you first brought out the lifeboat scenario, they always break down.

[josell]

I think that gpvernment should manage all resources and judicial issues... Anything else is for society.

[myrkul]

I think that government should manage all resources and judicial issues... Anything else is for society.

State-managed resources is the worst possible outcome. Look at China.

[ascent]

State-managed resources is the worst possible outcome. Look at China.

I won't disagree with you there.

Let's look at it from a slightly different angle. Is there anything that you might define as belonging to the people, as opposed to a subset of the people?

[myrkul]

State-managed resources is the worst possible outcome. Look at China.

I won't disagree with you there.

Let's look at it from a slightly different angle. Is there anything that you might define as belonging to the people, as opposed to a subset of the people?

By that, you mean, owned in common, and unable to be subdivided?

I'd say the only thing that comes close is the atmosphere. Let's put it this way. Any company found to be damaging the atmosphere would be in for one mother of a class-action suit.

[ascent]

State-managed resources is the worst possible outcome. Look at China.

I won't disagree with you there.

Let's look at it from a slightly different angle. Is there anything that you might define as belonging to the people, as opposed to a subset of the people?

By that, you mean, owned in common, and unable to be subdivided?

I'd say the only thing that comes close is the atmosphere. Let's put it this way. Any company found to be damaging the atmosphere would be in for one mother of a class-action suit.

Okay, without getting into litigation yet, let's just talk about things which might be defined as belonging to the people. I'm being very vague here, and maybe we can come up with things that aren't just physical things.

With regard to the atmosphere, why do you include it in, what we'll refer to as public property? Is it because it circulates, and thus it's hard to attach to any one geographical locale?

[myrkul]

With regard to the atmosphere, why do you include it in, what we'll refer to as public property? Is it because it circulates, and thus it's hard to attach to any one geographical locale?

Not just hard. Almost impossible. That said, Only the upper reaches of the atmosphere really fit into this category. Down lower, you can quantify 'local air quality'.

[ascent]

Not just hard. Almost impossible. That said, Only the upper reaches of the atmosphere really fit into this category. Down lower, you can quantify 'local air quality'.

So you're claiming that air near the ground doesn't move north, east, west, south or upwards? I would disagree with that.

[myrkul]

Not just hard. Almost impossible. That said, Only the upper reaches of the atmosphere really fit into this category. Down lower, you can quantify 'local air quality'.

So you're claiming that air near the ground doesn't move north, east, west, south or upwards? I would disagree with that.

It does, but let's say we have a coal plant kicking out sulfoxides. (they almost never do anymore, but that's beside the point) In the immediate vicinity, and for a measurable track over a relatively large area, the local air quality is reduced. Outside of this area, the air quality is not measurably reduced, though there may be other consequences (acid rain damage, etc).

Thus, even though the coal plant is kicking out sulfoxides into the atmosphere, it is not directly, or in most cases, even indirectly, effecting the lives of most people, just those in the path of its emissions.