Rule of the Hammer by Fremdfirma

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Rule of the Hammer

POSTED BY: FREMDFIRMA
UPDATED: Saturday, June 6, 2009 08:17
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 2630
PAGE 2 of 2

Saturday, June 6, 2009 5:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
That's just never going to fly with me, seeing as we're all posting on a forum dedicated to a TV show. I'm not against TV, or the concept or idea of TV; I'm against BAD TV. The Wire is a long, LONG way from bad.

Hmmm... I guess. I had this discussion with my girlfriend last night - she pointing out that despite all my TV hating I quite enjoy Firefly, BSG, even Quantum Leap and Twin Peaks back in the day. The thing is, I really like movies, and I really like serialized entertainment in general when it's done well. When I bitch about TV it's more in the way that it's used, namely as a cultural indoctrination device and as a high-pressure pump for consumerism.

SergeantX

"It's a cold and it's a broken hallelujah"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 6, 2009 5:26 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
The "nanny state" isn't referring to business regulation, at least not the kind you're referring to. When people bitch about the "nanny state" they're talking about laws which take a purely paternal stance, deciding what's good for us against our will.

I think you've described regulation regarding food safety as unnecessary "nanny state" stuff, but I could be mistaken.

But I was just pointing out that what Kwicko was talking about wasn't necessarily disproved by Geezer's objection.

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
So, let's try to stay focused. Are you in favor or such legislation? Should the state decide what sort of food is good for you? What sort of hobbies are too dangerous? What kind of books and movies are good for you, and which aren't? Which religion you should follow?

No, but I wouldn't have a problem with the government pointing out things that are bad. I think the little colour coded wheels on food over here are a good thing. We're not all nutritionists, so having a simple straight forward colour coded representation that anyone can follow, helps people make informed decisions of their own in a way expecting them to be nutritionists just wouldn't.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 6, 2009 6:00 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
And control purity, safety etc. If some vinyard was putting anti-freeze in their wine, do you think your government or anyone else's would say "oh, well, as long as they're not breaking tax regulations"?

The French did nothing about anti-freeze in the wine for quite a while.

Quote:
Of course there's controls of social behaviour, there's all sorts of laws about what companies can and can't do.

Business behavior isn't social behavior. Social behavior, as it relates to the "nanny state", is behavior the state thinks is bad for the individual to do to themselves, and forbids the individual from doing. Prohibition attempted to control social behavior by forbidding individuals from drinking, not by making sure they got pure hooch. The Drug War wants to prevent individuals from smoking pot, not to make sure there's no oregano in the mix. Bans on trans-fats in food are an attempt to control social behavior.

I got no problem with the government (or anyone else) publishing nutritional or exercise guidelines as an encouragement for people to choose to live a healthy lifestyle. If they come around and say I must eat only so-and-so, and must show up for the communal run every morning, that's nanny state.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 6, 2009 6:01 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Well, you can get around the whole issue of purity/quality by makin your own booze, leastways around here, and nobody much cares - Michiganders aren't exactly fastidious about the feddies stupid laws (See Also: Norinco) to begin with, and when it comes to things like medically used marijuana, "pirate" radio, homebrewing and the like, unless you're making a complete fiasco of it and annoyin the neighbors in a substantial way, it ain't like anyone gives a damn, which is why I like this place.

As for TV and how awful it is from Sarges perspective, I concur with his assessment, and happen to be a founding, card-carryin member of The Society for the Eradication of Television, although in an obvious lost cause, tongue in cheek kinda way - I don't watch the stupid thing and haven't since they canned Firefly.

I've gotten to see some of The Wire though, via a friend, and it's definitely quality programming, something which I have pretty high standards for.
I wouldn't say it'd appeal to everyone, but it left me a bit stunned at the depth and accuracy of their portrayal, since some of the "incidents" they base events in the series around occurred while I was living there, and hell, I *was* one of the guys jacking dealers and their mules for a short time myself, and being not alone in that, found Omar to be very representative of folk who took that path as a lifestyle - he reminds me quite a lot of Shorty B, one of the meanest little bastards I ever met, and a couple other folk who's names I won't mention cause some of em survived even against all odds.

I got out, managed escape velocity and beat out not only the ghetto, but the whole lifestyle it came with, but it always leaves it's mark - and that knowledge is one of the things that makes our little company so effective in this area, we currently have an unspoken truce with the local halfass-syndicate, so long as they keep their people off our turf - which is more than we can say for the local PD.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 6, 2009 6:01 AM

SERGEANTX

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I think you've described regulation regarding food safety as unnecessary "nanny state" stuff, but I could be mistaken.]

I may have described it as unnecessary, but it's a different sort of thing. I'd like to get away from the "package deal" mentality that puts all of us on one side or the other (and thus having the same arguments in every thread). I'm not pointing fingers at you, we all do it, but assuming that one view implies a bunch of others, that might not be related, isn't conducive to discussion. It just pushes us all into teams.

To wit, it seems reasonable to me that one could be against "nanny-state" legislation, and be fine with business regulation that, arguably, has an entirely different purpose. Business regulation is about making sure businesses play fair and aren't bamboozling consumers. The nanny state stuff looks to supersede my own judgment about what's good for me, with that of the state. There might be some overlap in the two concerns, but they have very different aims.

Quote:
No, but I wouldn't have a problem with the government pointing out things that are bad. I think the little colour coded wheels on food over here are a good thing. We're not all nutritionists, so having a simple straight forward colour coded representation that anyone can follow, helps people make informed decisions of their own in a way expecting them to be nutritionists just wouldn't.

I don't have a big problem with that. In the perfect libertarian fantasy world, it wouldn't need to be a government function, but neither is it a gross violation of freedom. It could be argued that it's simply a mechanism to prevent fraud (eg a company implying that their products are healthy and nutritious when they aren't).

SergeantX

"It's a cold and it's a broken hallelujah"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 6, 2009 6:35 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
The French did nothing about anti-freeze in the wine for quite a while.

I'm not sure the French are a relevant topic for discussion of civilisation, strictly speaking :P.

Quote:
Business behavior isn't social behavior.

Surely Business interactions are, by nature, social interactions?

Quote:
Social behavior, as it relates to the "nanny state", is behavior the state thinks is bad for the individual to do to themselves, and forbids the individual from doing. Prohibition attempted to control social behavior by forbidding individuals from drinking, not by making sure they got pure hooch. The Drug War wants to prevent individuals from smoking pot, not to make sure there's no oregano in the mix. Bans on trans-fats in food are an attempt to control social behavior.

Yeah, sure, but I just thought Kwicko was talking about removing government oversight entirely isn't all roses, because in essence that is what has happened with drug distribution.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 6, 2009 6:37 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
The nanny state stuff looks to supersede my own judgment about what's good for me, with that of the state. There might be some overlap in the two concerns, but they have very different aims.

But isn't regulating what poisons can go into a food product exactly that, in a way?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 6, 2009 6:45 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
I'm not sure the French are a relevant topic for discussion of civilisation, strictly speaking :P.

The French are civilized ?
When did this happen, cause I musta missed it.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 6, 2009 7:03 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Quote:
I'm not sure the French are a relevant topic for discussion of civilisation, strictly speaking :P.

The French are civilized ?
When did this happen, cause I musta missed it.

-F

Exactly!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 6, 2009 7:16 AM

SERGEANTX

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
The nanny state stuff looks to supersede my own judgment about what's good for me, with that of the state. There might be some overlap in the two concerns, but they have very different aims.

But isn't regulating what poisons can go into a food product exactly that, in a way?

That's what I meant by overlap. It depends on how such regulations are formulated. If they're saying you must have full disclosure on what's in a product, that seems reasonable. Or even when they prohibit ingredients that are universally, or nearly so, recognized as poisons I'd probably not complain. But when it's not universal, when some consumers want the "poison" anyway, and the state blocks them from getting it "for their own good" -that's nanny state and, in my view, overstepping the legitimate role of government.

SergeantX

"It's a cold and it's a broken hallelujah"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 6, 2009 7:51 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Yeah, sure, but I just thought Kwicko was talking about removing government oversight entirely isn't all roses, because in essence that is what has happened with drug distribution.

There's plenty of government oversight of the illegal drug business, all designed to prevent individuals from getting illegal drugs. The government's planning on spending $22 billion in 2009 overseeing illegal drugs, with the goal of keeping them out of individuals' hands. There are multiple Federal and State government agencies dedicated solely to preventing the sale of illegal drugs.

I'd suggest that if that money and manpower were spent trying to educate those interested and treat those who seek it, rather than prohibit these drugs entirely, things would work better.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 6, 2009 8:17 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
There's plenty of government oversight of the illegal drug business, all designed to prevent individuals from getting illegal drugs. The government's planning on spending $22 billion in 2009 overseeing illegal drugs, with the goal of keeping them out of individuals' hands. There are multiple Federal and State government agencies dedicated solely to preventing the sale of illegal drugs.

I'd suggest that if that money and manpower were spent trying to educate those interested and treat those who seek it, rather than prohibit these drugs entirely, things would work better.

Actually, I'd say that because it's prohibitive there's no government oversight of the drug business, because if they could over see it they'd stop it. If it gets through it's not been overseen by definition.

Apart from that I agree.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE