Here is an approach that some of you would like, and is a true nanny solution. Be careful what you wish for.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2gZgspU1...r_embedded

Can't wait for the Inquisition to begin!

"Steer, I propose we remove curbs, because lots of people step off them and die.

People should not be subjected to any risk in life. It's best that the nanny state get involved in their business at all times..........for their own good." CD

Here's where I'm often conflicted but there seems to be some mutual ground.

Although I think of myself as a liberal, I've always admired individual freedom. Much of the cultural revolution of the 60's did revolve around individual freedom. And the mutual ground is I think the right believes that too. The rights of the individual, less intrusion by the state.

And yet both sides seem to drift away from that depending on the issue.

So in this context, the right doesn't see the idea of individual freedom applying to gay marriage. And the left thinks we should legislate all kinds of behavioral laws, like not serving salt on french fries.

It's all a little odd when you think about it. Yet I totally understand there will always be regulation. Both sides seem to think that is good, but only in the areas THEY support, not as a more general thing.

Dips not satisfied until his Orwellian dreams finally come to grasp.

(08-20-2010 10:54 AM)Charm City Bronco Wrote:  Dips not satisfied until his Orwellian dreams finally come to grasp.

Orwellian...............Oh you mean like doing electronic checks of peoples recycling bins to see if they're recycling, and if they aren't fining them a $100? Nahhhhh, nothing Orwellian about that

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2010/08/...high-.html

If you'd like a dozen more examples I'll be happy to provide them

Dip, the laws put in place for public health that you mention (don't forget seat belt and helmet laws) have shaky constitutionality, if you don't like them challenge them see if you can get a few overturned.

Having a country based on individual rights only works when the individuals take the time to get informed of the FACTS and are able to see through the emotional propaganda. But since so many can't be bothered (or are unable) to learn about what they are eating/buying/voting for then go crying to government when their ignorance bites them the government steps in restrict the dangerous stuff for them. If we the people truly cared to research what is happening and hold the companies/groups accountable many of these issues would go away, the free hand of the market would take care of it.

If we all walked, couldn't drive, and had to wear suits of armour we'd all be safer. Should we make that a law? Should we outlaw smoking in the privacy of your own home, after all we'd be a healthier society? Should we overturn the 21st Amendment and return to prohibition, after all there would be fewer drunk drivers on the road.

If you want a bunch of DC pinheads directing your life, great. If you think we're not taxed enough for the government to guide us effectively, then why don't you write an additional check to Uncle Sam.

Most people prefer to manage their own life, and not get some one size fits all solution from some Washington bureaucrat thousand of miles away. I suspect you know your needs and wants better than anyone else. Can you not make decisions on your own? Do you need a so called expert to tell you what's best for you?

I'm kind of with ChipDip on this one. I sure think we should be able to manage our own lives especially in our own homes and on our own property. Within some gross limits of course. Very Libertarian on this one I guess.

But how does this bent towards freedom mix with viewpoints on things like gay marriage and choice for instance? If we are for freedom why can't we extend that to people marrying whom they please?

And throw in free speech, so we are free to talk the various points, benefits and downsides of social stuff as we see it, but leave it to people to make the decisions on their own?

But then there is the political context, we choose to remain a citizen of our country and our state, so we are therefore subject to laws and the legal system. That's where the glitch comes, over the long haul, more and more stuff moves from the individual to the state. So in evey case I would struggle to try to keep the government out of it whenever possible. And I'm saying that as a liberal!

Quote:If we are for freedom why can't we extend that to people marrying whom they please?

They can marry whoever they want. But if a state is going to sanction that marriage the law has to be changed. I'm fine with a legislative body (answerable to their constituents) making that a law and I'm fine with putting it on the ballot, but I'm not fine with advocates shopping for one of "their judges" to make law.

well that's just as much a part of the system as anything else.

It's a big frickin' system and there is always some ploy to play I guess.

(08-20-2010 09:41 PM)Dirty Ernie Wrote:  well that's just as much a part of the system as anything else.

It's a big frickin' system and there is always some ploy to play I guess.

I don't think our founding fathers wanted advocate judges. Granted they've been around since the beginning of time, but that doesn't make it right. Interpreting abortion or marriage issues using the Constitution is a stretch, when one considers that neither issue is mentioned within the document.

That's the problem isn't it.

We don't have a time machine that's lets us live in 1775-6.

One wishes we DID have a time machine though, if we could fast forward those genius dudes I'm betting you they'd love the opportunity to bring conscensus to our country. I don't think they would like the current scene at all, they were fine with differing opinions but they had the genius to find solutions.

The Constitution is acting exactly as intended, it's a framework that's stood on it's own and been a guide for how the federal government is organized and how it relates to states since it's inception, it never was meant to cover every aspect of life with exact verbage. Our legal system is based on precedents and interpretations of existing laws, you guys act like we need to dot every "I" and cross every "T" for it to be applied.

This time you don't like the interpretation, but I'm sure there are many times you have and will.

Quote:This time you don't like the interpretation, but I'm sure there are many times you have and will.

Name one, and don't give me Bush's recount win over Al Gore. The recounts were vetted by 7 different news organizations (all who would have loved Gore to win), and the result was the same every time. Bush won.

The Dems simply wanted to do recounts over and over and over until they got one that worked to their advantage. See the MN senatorial election with azzclown Al Franken picking up thousands of mystery votes, but his opponent virtually none.

Quote:Name one, and don't give me Bush's recount win over Al Gore.

Really? You expect me to name an interpretation that you like? What's next, name your favorite seafood, tell if you're a leg man or a butt man? Serious!?

My point was simpleman, there are interpretations that many of us go along with, for me it would be their opinions on freedom of speech but not giving you the right to yell fire in a crowded theater, regarding illegal search and seizure, and who can forget the Lucy vs Zimmer ruling?

"Name one".....:rolleyes:

(08-18-2010 06:56 PM)Chipdip Wrote:  Steer, I propose we remove curbs, because lots of people step off them and die.

We are doing that, converting curbs at corners to ramps.

(08-18-2010 06:42 PM)steer Wrote:  

(08-18-2010 02:49 PM)Chipdip Wrote:  

Quote:Americans can't mind their own business

Yeah, like not allowing smoking in any public restaurant

And like demanding McDonalds take the toy out of kids meals

And like demanding that coconut oil not be used in movie theater popcorn.

And taking salt off the tables in NYC eateries

^all Dem proposals

They don't call it the nanny state because they're minding their own business.

--------------------------------------------------

Quote:Yeah, like not allowing smoking in any public restaurant

Secondary smoke. I don't want to develop lung cancer because you smoke.

Quote:And like demanding that coconut oil not be used in movie theater popcorn.

Increases risk of heart condition, in turn increases health care costs, and my insurance premiums. I was once told I might have lung cancer. I didn't like hearing that.

Quote:And taking salt off the tables in NYC eateries

Excessive salt is linked with risk of stroke and in turn increases health care costs, and my insurance premiums.

So, chipdip wants to increase my insurance premiums.

Speaking of my insurance premiums:

My employer just announced that revenues were going to allow a 3% increase in salary, and there would be a 15% in insurance payments.

They are discussing whether to use that 3% to pay a portion of the increase in insurance.