Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Mar 27, 2010 - 07:45pm PT
|
Again, here is the healthcare bill, in its entirety.
Please don't take anyone's word as to what is or is not in the bill.
Exercise your personal responsibility and read it yourself.
http://www.opencongress.org/house_reconciliation
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Mar 27, 2010 - 10:49pm PT
|
Crimpergirl, you raise an excellent question that goes to another aspect of the libertarian philosophy that is still retained by this government in one realm even today.
Your question carries with it the obvious assumption that, again, "protecting us" is what the government is for. Since prima facie speed limits would usually be employed "after the fact," so to speak, it is thought that they would not be adequate "protection." There are at least two responses.
First, the prima facie speed limit CAN be enforced in all sorts of situations "before the fact." For example, let's go back to the school zone. In my town there is a time range in which the reduced (20 MPH) speed limit is in force. However, for MOST of that time range, no children are either present or anywhere near the street (they sometimes play behind the surrounding fences). Indeed, during the time range, there are only very brief windows in which the children "interact" with the street, mostly when they are en-mass coming or going. Yet, the 20MPH speed limit is in effect basically all day. So, let's look at how the prima facie speed limit might be enforced "before the fact" in school zones.
Not every school zone is alike. There is one near my house where the school sits on one side of a four-lane (with suicide lane, so basically five lane) highway. The normal speed limit on that highway is 55MPH, but, of course, during "school hours" it drops to 20MPH.
Under the prima facie limit, a cop might cite, and a judge might uphold such a citation, a driver going 55MPH while children are actively "interacting" with the highway. While school buses are pulling in and out and hundreds of kids are on the sidewalk and even crossing the highway, 55MPH could well be argued to be "too fast for conditions." However, at 2pm, still in the "children present" window of time, but when not a kid is in sight, 55MPH is obviously a safe speed for the conditions, and a prima facie citation should not stand.
This sort of application of the law is obviously "doable," so the idea that the prima facie speed limit can have no real application until after an accident is not really true. Of course, it's much harder for the State to WIN a prima facie case "before the fact," but isn't that the POINT of the way the Constitution sets up our legal system? The burden of proof is SUPPOSED to be on the State, and it's not supposed to be easy to convict. The POINT is that we're not supposed to have prisons chock full of "offenders" that either are not really hurting anybody or that fall victim to ridiculous laws.
What is an example of a "ridiculous law?" Glad you asked! For example, in Washington (as in many States) we have a three-strikes law. It is also felony speed to exceed the posted speed limit by more than 40MPH, and 100MPH anywhere is considered felony speed. When I was driving around during my "flagrant speeding era," I was often traveling in excess of 100MPH (although ALWAYS safe for the conditions, such as at 2am on I5 in central California, where you could spread your wreckage over a mile and not touch either person or property!). Had I been popped three times for that "violation" alone, I would be life-in-prison! Now, something is very wrong with a confluence of laws that can produce that result! Other examples include the ridiculous legal machinations resulting from the (utterly failed) "war on drugs." Examples from the "war on drugs" abound!
Now to the second point regarding "before the fact" applicability of the prima facie speed limit. It USED to be a fundamental principle of law, one that is still exercised in the realm of the first amendment: "no prior restraint." An example will help.
It is often the case that a celebrity will find out that a journal or tabloid intends to publish something that the celebrity considers to be defamatory. There are many, many cases in which the celebrity has attempted to file an injunction seeking to prohibit the journal from publishing the material. So far, all such injunction attempts have failed due to the principle of "no prior restraint." This principle says, in effect, that one can sue for defamation "after the fact," but that the freedom of speech and freedom of press principles trump "protection" against the possible damages resulting from publication. So, government is NOT in the business of "prior restraint" against "possible damages."
This principle used to be widely applicable, but it now remains as an almost quaint throw-back to an earlier time and is applied almost entirely in the realm of first amendment issues. But we should remember that in general the government should not be in the business of "prior restraint."
This point was made forcibly (although missed by many) in the movie, Minority Report. A major point of that movie was that even with basically assured "prophetic" knowledge of a crime that WOULD be committed (an epistemically privileged position that we can never have), even STILL the government cannot be trusted to properly "prior restrain" people against committing crimes. I say again, the government is NOT in the business of "protecting us," by which I mean trying to, in advance, keep bad things from happening or even being done to us. The government is in the business of protecting our LIBERTIES. On such a model, there "bad things" WILL happen to us and be done to us. On such a model, then we have various legal "remedies" at our disposal in our attempt to be "made whole" again, and such is the basis of all tort law.
If you want a society in which you give up many liberties in an effort to "be protected," then you willingly trade "safety" (a chimera) for liberty, which was resoundingly condemned by the founders in no uncertain terms. Such a society is not what they attempted to set up, and such a society CANNOT be called "the land of the free and the home of the brave."
|
|
Crimpergirl
Sport climber
Boulder, Colorado!
|
|
|
Mar 28, 2010 - 12:14am PT
|
My question was not based on the notion of the government protecting us.
I was interested in the presence or absence of tautology with your example. I wondered how one determines the safe speed of operating a vehicle without the presence of an accident. Do we only know unsafe speeds because an accident occurs? Or is it based on research that demonstrates safe speeds that result? And is there where and why we have speed limits? If not these things, then how do we know the safe speed of operating a vehicle?
That's all. I do appreciate your thoughts.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Boulder, CO
|
|
|
Mar 28, 2010 - 12:29am PT
|
Mad wrote: If you want a society in which you give up many liberties in an effort to "be protected," then you willingly trade "safety" (a chimera) for liberty, which was resoundingly condemned by the founders in no uncertain terms. Such a society is not what they attempted to set up, and such a society CANNOT be called "the land of the free and the home of the brave."
No what they set up was a society that was based on race, stolen land, killing, infringing and denying the rights of others.
Give it up on your liberty and freedom bull...you are making ill.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Mar 28, 2010 - 12:57pm PT
|
So, Bob, you literally think that because people in this country have exhibited human failings that that fact negates the principles upon which this country was founded? Weak!
I'm talking principles here, and you're talking "punt on the principles because we did some bad things along the way."
Thanks, Crimpergirl. I understand better what you were after now. I hope I at least basically addressed your question.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Boulder, CO
|
|
|
Mar 28, 2010 - 01:08pm PT
|
Mad wrote: So, Bob, you literally think that because people in this country have exhibited human failings that that fact negates the principles upon which this country was founded? Weak!
It's easy to talk about climbing 5.13 than it is to do it.
Same goes with "principles"!!
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
|
Mar 28, 2010 - 01:09pm PT
|
madbolter, I admire the clarity you have in your principles, and your ability to give examples of how they should play out in the real world. It is obvious you have given long, hard thought to your beliefs.
As much as I agree with the principle of individualism and personal responsibility, at some point that ideal comes up against reality. To rely upon individuals to use their judgement as to when to slow down their cars in a school zone assumes that all are operating from the same locus, and practically speaking, assumes they are all familiar with that area so they can choose accordingly.
That is just too unrealistic to expect consistent results, and in the meantime, children's lives are at risk. Somewhere there must be a better balance between your ideals and the reality of the way the world actually works.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Mar 28, 2010 - 01:55pm PT
|
"Your answer is the demise of the country, we are following down the same path which Greece, Japan, Spain and others have followed, where it is each persons "right" to have a job, health care, own a home. This is a violation of the basic principles of economics and cannot be sustained over time."
Gosh, how long have they existed as countries?
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
Arid-zona
|
|
|
Mar 28, 2010 - 02:11pm PT
|
Sorry, Fatty but you spent all your credibility. I don't think anyone takes you seriously anymore. You are in Dick Cheney's league when it comes to being correct on these issues. It's a clever ruse to try to pin Greece's financial problems on entitlements when the majority of the problem is that they have a horribly corrupt government and financial system that was taken advantage of by none other than your buddies on Wall Street. Conservatives also keep ignoring the simple fact that our new system delivers 30-40 million new customers into the hands of FOR PROFIT INSURANCE COMPANIES. That sounds like socialism to nobody who is an actual socialist, just people who like demagoguing the issue.
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
|
Mar 28, 2010 - 02:14pm PT
|
"Sorry, Fatty but you spent all your credibility."
Yeah, that's a fact. Anybody who says they are a 'moderate', and says that Dick Cheney is a 'great guy' is either sociopathic, or is talking out of both sides of their mouth.
On second thought, you probably would make a good GOP candidate, fattrad.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Mar 28, 2010 - 04:00pm PT
|
It should be noted somewhere that the net effect of the bill will be to move patients AWAY from gov't healthcare programs, and into the private sector!
How can this be?
Those 30 million people were having health problems, and many went to ER's the worst place it could be. If they couldn't pay, part of the tab was picked up by the gov't (at least in Ca). Those people will now be in the private system, instead of the gov't system.
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
Arid-zona
|
|
|
Mar 28, 2010 - 04:01pm PT
|
The chief advocacy of the Association of american Medical Colleges was on NPR this morning talking about our ridiculous reimbursement system and discussing the "Healthcare Innovation Zones" that were included in the HCR bill that will allow institutions to experiment with outcome based payment systems. This is a huge first step in overhauling our care delivery and fixing the things that are wrong with our system as a whole.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125274322
AAMC on the HCR bill passage: http://www.aamc.org/newsroom/pressrel/2010/100321.htm
Dick Cheney, In the several hours I've spent with him, I've found him to be extremely bright, a keen sense of humor, and very pragmatic about most issues. We do disagree on some social issues, but all in all I think most of you would enjoy chatting with him.
Heh. Yes I'm sure if I also thought that torture was an American value that he and I would be fast friends.
|
|
E Robinson
climber
Salinas, CA
|
|
|
Mar 28, 2010 - 04:15pm PT
|
Just heard a great presentation on the bill from the HHS Center for Medicaid and State Operations this bill will make a huge positive difference for ALL Americans. Without Health Reform the instability and irrationality of the system that is now being changed would only continue to take our country to the brink. I'm so proud that change is finally on its way!
|
|
mrtropy
Trad climber
Nor Cal
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 28, 2010 - 04:46pm PT
|
Jeff, Fatty,
Too nice of day argue politics, just got the garage door fixed and time to get ready for a bike ride. You wrote "Your answer is the demise of the country." Do you really think this is the demise of our country- We had wars with Britain, a civil and two world wars, numerous depressions and have survived as a country. I think it is sad you have so little faith that our country can survive this regardless of political beliefs.
Now get out work and drop some of that fat so you do not die on your daughter.
Cheers,
Jeff
PS- next time you see Dick Cheney tell him to get his teeth worked on. They kinda creep me out.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Mar 28, 2010 - 08:19pm PT
|
Bob, I'm not clear what your argument is. You seem to be saying that because we don't always abide by our most lofty principles that we should just abandon our principles entirely. But that would be ridiculous on the face of it, so I don't think you can be saying that. Perhaps you are saying in another way the same thing that I think apogee just said: principles are fine as IDEALS, but being TOO idealistic is naive and unrealistic; thus we have to sacrifice some principles (even while acknowledging that they are good) to find realistic compromises.
Is that a fair assessment of what you guys are arguing at this point?
And, thanks, apogee, for acknowledging my efforts. Much appreciated!
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Boulder, CO
|
|
|
Mar 28, 2010 - 08:22pm PT
|
Mad..I understand what you are saying and think that reality of it is much different.
You seem passionate about it and that is a good thing. Thanks for posting.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Mar 28, 2010 - 08:26pm PT
|
"next time you see Dick Cheney tell him to get his teeth worked on. They kinda creep me out."
No point. He has had five heart attacks.
No point in putting a lot of money in dental work that will be buried pretty soon.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Mar 28, 2010 - 08:34pm PT
|
Cremation seems more appropriate for Cheney - foreshadowing and all.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Mar 28, 2010 - 08:50pm PT
|
Bob, it's a good thing to discuss like this. Such discussion is better than going to war, and it's one of the great things about the democratic process that we can bounce such things off of people that disagree and have hope, if not confidence, in the rationality of the other party. Over time, with discussion, little by little, our perspectives change; and hopefully we come to more and more of a meeting of the minds. In my mind, such discussions are not about "winning" a verbal battle, but are instead about trying to convey a perspective in a cogent enough fashion that the perspective can have some currency in the "common market" of ideas. To the extent that we mutually exchange in that market, I honor you. Thank you.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!