On Mon, 12 Aug 2013 15:30:24 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> ... Right.. Because it was so clear this is what was being talked about.
> Seriously though.. At the bare minimum, I would say, if you plan to not
> put pressure on other nations to do something sane, then you need to
> make sure you a) never have anyone sneaking in, b) your own people *are*
> vaccinated, and c) that to even enter the country "requires" they meet
> the same basic medical requirements to even get in.

The problem here is that you're aiming for a 100% solution.  But nothing 
is ever 100% certain - that's life.

As evidenced by the current state of "homeland security" in US airports.

When you get to 100% security, you have no freedom.  So you have to 
balance the two, and the debate is about finding the right balance.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 12 Aug 2013 15:51:27 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> To be honest, if you define "conservative" as, "Having a strict dogma,
> which must be followed.", then.. there is no "extreme liberals". 

Which isn't how I was defining "conservative".  I was using the US 
political definitions, and we do have extremists at both ends of the 
spectrum.

My perception, though, is that there are more extremists/extreme 
positions on the right, but I'm fully aware of my biases there as a 
social liberal myself (I do tend to consider myself fiscally 
conservative, though, so I'm not easily pigeonholed).

> The
> problem is inflexibility, from both extremes, with respect to accepting
> any fact, idea, or proposition, which doesn't fit their perception of
> how the universe works. That, and, much more to the point, both fear of
> the imagined consequences, and denial of the possibility they could be
> wrong about it.

Yep, that's a huge problem.  It pretty much defines the political 
landscape here in the US right now - nobody can compromise because 
they're too invested in positions and backed by people who are unwilling 
to compromise - even if the politician is.

We need term limits, and restrictions on leaving government and working 
for governmental lobbies.  Such a high percentage of people in elected 
office go on to become lobbyists that while they're legislating, they're 
thinking about their own future jobs and appeasing their future bosses.

That's just wrong, because it doesn't put the country first.  They 
convince themselves that they DO put the country first, but when they're 
thinking about their next job first, then clearly the country is at least 
second.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

"Patrick Elliott" <kag### [at] gmailcom> wrote in message 
news:52095fb0@news.povray.org...
>
> EFFECTIVE government, not just bloody smaller. What do people not get 
> about that idea?

More efficient while at the same time more authoritarian, and somehow exempt 
from corruption.
Have I got it now?

Why can't the rest of us have such logical goals?

Post a reply to this message

"Patrick Elliott" <kag### [at] gmailcom> wrote in message 
news:5209622f$1@news.povray.org...
>>
>> You don't see this, because people like you and Patrick don't fear power
>> anywhere near as much as you covet it. *That's* the dissonance. That's
>> why you embrace totalitarianism.
>>
>> -Shay
>>
>>
> You need to stop making assumptions, and putting words in other people's 
> mouths.

What words? You're damned good and ready to fix everything IF we'd all just 
get out of the way and let you control prices, wages, borders, and bodies. 
That's not coveting power?

I guess those of us who want anything different are just too selfish and 
short-sighted to "get it."

 -Shay

Post a reply to this message

On 8/12/2013 5:17 PM, Shay wrote:
>
>
> "Patrick Elliott" <kag### [at] gmailcom> wrote in message
> news:52095fb0@news.povray.org...
>>
>> EFFECTIVE government, not just bloody smaller. What do people not get
>> about that idea?
>
> More efficient while at the same time more authoritarian, and somehow
> exempt from corruption.
> Have I got it now?
>
> Why can't the rest of us have such logical goals?
Aaaargghh! You honestly think you get "less" corruption, and less 
authoritarianism, when your 3-4 extra departments have to "negotiate" 
with each other to get things done, and you can sneak things in, without 
the public knowing, so that agency A has its power extended, while the 
public is being distracted with something that B, C, D and E are doing?

Its hardly a bloody wonder libertarians don't have any answers, they 
can't even grasp how things are screwed up as they are now, never mind 
how to actually fix them, without f-ing over literally everyone that 
does need a service, in the process "of" fixing them.

I think I have had about enough at this point. You seem to have endless 
complaints, fears, and endless distrust, but your solution amounts to 
nothing more than, "Get rid of it all, and everything somehow magically 
fixes itself." It wasn't even "good" science fiction, but its supposed 
to apply to the real world? lol

Post a reply to this message

On 8/12/2013 5:22 PM, Shay wrote:
>
>
> "Patrick Elliott" <kag### [at] gmailcom> wrote in message
> news:5209622f$1@news.povray.org...
>>>
>>> You don't see this, because people like you and Patrick don't fear power
>>> anywhere near as much as you covet it. *That's* the dissonance. That's
>>> why you embrace totalitarianism.
>>>
>>> -Shay
>>>
>>>
>> You need to stop making assumptions, and putting words in other
>> people's mouths.
>
> What words? You're damned good and ready to fix everything IF we'd all
> just get out of the way and let you control prices, wages, borders, and
> bodies. That's not coveting power?
>
Those are exactly the words, and since I never actually said any of 
them, @%$%$#^&^^ stop already.

Post a reply to this message

On 8/12/2013 4:09 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Aug 2013 15:30:24 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> ... Right.. Because it was so clear this is what was being talked about.
>> Seriously though.. At the bare minimum, I would say, if you plan to not
>> put pressure on other nations to do something sane, then you need to
>> make sure you a) never have anyone sneaking in, b) your own people *are*
>> vaccinated, and c) that to even enter the country "requires" they meet
>> the same basic medical requirements to even get in.
>
> The problem here is that you're aiming for a 100% solution.  But nothing
> is ever 100% certain - that's life.
>
> As evidenced by the current state of "homeland security" in US airports.
>
Wow.. And now we have someone else telling me what I think.

And, BTW, the problem with "homeland security" period, never mind in 
airports, is that its all fucking puppet theater. We know that what 
works is watching for problem people, dealing with them in a civilized 
fashion, and only harassing the ones that actually show signs of being a 
likely problem, just like other countries, who haven't had a whole hell 
of a lot of terror attacks at their airports, do. Instead, we rely on 
machines, which are not always effective, and people keep looking for 
ways to get around, we harass "everyone" that goes through the place, 
use dogs that, in some studies, have been shown to be more likely to hit 
on things that their human partner reacts to, than actually detecting 
the things they are supposed to be looking for, and watch lists, which 
are so bloody useless they catch more people that are legitimate 
travelers than they have actual terror suspects.

If you think that I am looking for some sort of 100% solution, then what 
the frak does it say that you think we need to merely, somehow, 
"improve", with more theater, and false security, something that isn't 
even a 10% solution?

> When you get to 100% security, you have no freedom.  So you have to
> balance the two, and the debate is about finding the right balance.
>
> Jim
>

I must be talking a foreign language, because you and Shay keep reading 
things into what I am saying that have jack all to do with what I 
actually meant. Or, you are just so, stupidly, scared to death of 
anything involved in government that you can't help but imagine that 
anyone trying to fix it, instead of destroy it, wants a damned 
dictatorship, with perfect solutions. Either way... at this point you 
have both lost all respect from me on this issue, in no small part 
because you keep claiming I said things I never bloody did, because that 
is purely what **you** want to believe I meant.

Post a reply to this message

On 8/12/2013 4:14 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> We need term limits, and restrictions on leaving government and working
> for governmental lobbies.  Such a high percentage of people in elected
> office go on to become lobbyists that while they're legislating, they're
> thinking about their own future jobs and appeasing their future bosses.
>
You are forgetting: Kill 'Citizens United'. It doesn't matter if you fix 
the rest, if some corpseration can funnel shit loads of money at bribing 
them into office.

I mean, what is it with radicals anyway, that they always have to call 
something the total opposite of what it is. If they had a, "Save The 
Fuzzy Bunnies", bill, it would actually contain legislation that 
provided open, year round, licenses to kill people's pet rabbits. I 
suppose, we can add "citizens" to the list, along with "family", and 
"values" as a near certainty that they people behind it are full of 
shit, and believe in none of the things listed.

Hmm. Probably get a kick out of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xx9eH3qOJXw

Post a reply to this message

On 13-8-2013 0:42, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> On 8/11/2013 11:04 AM, andrel wrote:
>
>> Two years ago we had the bird flu disaster. I.e. there was no disaster.
>> Still a couple of companies made good money from it. One side effect is
>> that the WHO is in trouble now. Both financially and morally. Does not
>> help either.
>
> Which is, as unfortunate as it is idiotic. WHO determines its actions
> based on the statistical odds that something bad is likely to happen.
> The math told them, "There is a bloody high probability that this mix of
> genes could prove to be a serious problem, if it became wide spread."
> Turned out not to be accurate. But, the average person always seems to
> assume that the "experts" are omniscient.

In this case there was the additional problem that people that were 
claiming there would potential be a big disaster had ties to the 
industry that profited from the 'precautions'. That was the moral 
problem here. If there had been a great outbreak, of course nobody would 
have complained, that is true.



> Its actually kind of ironic. In this case, everyone got pissed because
> they said, "We think there is a big change of a huge problem here." In
> the case of, for example, Katrina, you had some "expert" claiming that
> the sea level rise was "within" acceptable statistical ranges, with
> respect to spilling over the levees, and they actually **lied**,
> claiming that the maximum level was a few feet under the max levee
> height, without including the "statistical" factor, that it might be
> something like 10 feet higher or lower than that. If the ass had turned
> out right, he would have been praised for it. Instead, he guessed wrong,
> and it was a disaster, and everyone blamed pretty much ***everyone
> else***, including the ones that knew he had lied.
>
> When it comes to things can can kill people, being right as as bad as
> being dead wrong, depending "entirely" on whether you got it wrong and
> people died, or you got it wrong, and everyone starts whining that you
> cried wolf, and they will, more often than not, try to take everyone
> around you down with you, for the "mistake".
>


-- 
Everytime the IT department forbids something that a researcher deems
necessary for her work there will be another hole in the firewall.

Post a reply to this message

"Patrick Elliott" <kag### [at] gmailcom> wrote in message 
news:520aa599$1@news.povray.org...

> Aaaargghh! You honestly think you get "less" corruption, and less 
> authoritarianism, when your 3-4 extra departments have to "negotiate" with 
> each other to get things done, and you can sneak things in, without the 
> public knowing, so that agency A has its power extended, while the public 
> is being distracted with something that B, C, D and E are doing?

Again, you're arguing against Libertarianism by criticizing government!!!

>
> Its hardly a bloody wonder libertarians don't have any answers, they can't 
> even grasp how things are screwed up as they are now, never mind how to 
> actually fix them, without f-ing over literally everyone that does need a 
> service, in the process "of" fixing them.

Libertarians don't want to fix ANYONE. That's the entire *point* of 
Libertarianism. I think you need to do some reading.

>
> I think I have had about enough at this point. You seem to have endless 
> complaints, fears, and endless distrust, but your solution amounts to 
> nothing more than, "Get rid of it all, and everything somehow magically 
> fixes itself." It wasn't even "good" science fiction, but its supposed to 
> apply to the real world? lol

We're better off with less authority in the hands of more people. There's 
nothing magical about it. This is the principal America was founded on 
before we all started trying to "fix" each other. And I don't fear 
government, I fear an unrestrained majority of people who "know better than 
I do."

ps. The regulation you're so fond of? What you don't know--and may never 
fully realize unless you run a business--is that regulation is like a poll 
tax: it's a speed bump to the rich, a road block to the middle class, and a 
BRICK WALL to the poor. Regulation is necessary to protect our shared 
resources, but regulation has to be minimal because it INCREASES INCOME 
INEQUALITY. Think some of these things through before you start deciding 
what's best for your neighbors.

Post a reply to this message