Can't do nothing no more

[ace99]

Mister Cooper, please report to your eye doctor to receive your government mandated pap smear and mandatory gay abortion. You will not be permitted to graduate to the year 2014 until this is taken care of.

Thank you for your cooperation.

A safe society is a disciplined society.

 

[AlpsStranger]

I bet a gay abortion is extremely bad for one's health.

 

[Old Hippy]

Okay, relax everybody. I've found something that we can still do in America within the strictures of political correctness:

According to new data released by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there were 19.7 million new venereal infections in the United States in 2008, bringing the total number of existing sexually transmitted infections (STIs) in the U.S. at that time to 110,197,000.

I blame the Iranians.

The really interesting thing is why this article, today, is refering to a study in 2008 as new data. Gubbermint must be broke.

maybe the publisher just has a conservative bias...

 

[NovaKart]

One can sympathize, but the solution for that isn't to recognize some right to drive, the solution is to remove all the financial subsidies that make sprawling suburbs so much cheaper than they actually are, and then we'll actually build good cities.

I can agree with the first part but not the 2nd part, cities are already like that and have been for decades and that's not going to change by removing supposed subsidies. Besides many people live in rural areas and small towns and not suburbs. As if people are going to start to congregate around well-planned eco-cities or something.

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

Mr C, you're still funny. But not as funny as when I wasn't entirely sure whether you were trying to be

 

[AlpsStranger]

One can sympathize, but the solution for that isn't to recognize some right to drive, the solution is to remove all the financial subsidies that make sprawling suburbs so much cheaper than they actually are, and then we'll actually build good cities.

Eh, I'd rather not be crammed into a large city against my will.

Mr C, you're still funny. But not as funny as when I wasn't entirely sure whether you were trying to be

I only wish I were half as funny as Cooper.

 

[ace99]

When Saloth Sar wanted to force all the people into the countryside to become farmers he executed the intellectuals, the bourgeoisie and forcibly deported people from the cities.

I suggest that if we want to force everyone into the city we do the reverse of that by executing all the farmers, rednecks, ranchers and deporting everyone from the small towns to the city. Then once they're in the cities we can put up walls, electric fencing, barbed wire, unmanned drones and armed guards to prevent them from leaving.

The resulting famine will also kill off a good chunk of the population solving the space problem for the cities.

 

[AlpsStranger]

Huh, I never knew that was Pol Pot's name. The Moar U Know I guess.

 

[Leoreth]

Am I the only one who thinks that Saloth Sar is a way more badass name than Pol Pot?

 

[ace99]

Nope, it most definitely sounds better.

 

[AlpsStranger]

Totally agree. Saloth Sar sounds like he's destined to fight Conan atop a ziggurat made of the bones of his enemies.

 

[peter grimes]

Eh, I'd rather not be crammed into a large city against my will.

But it wouldn't be against your will - he specifically mentioned removing subsidies which *artificially * make sub- and ex- urban living cheap.

Removing those subsidies reinstates the actual cost of land ownership, and allows the market efficiencies of population density to reduce resource waste.

And, as someone who swore up and down that he would never live in a city, preferring the hills and lakes of northern New England, I have to be honest and state that I really do love living in New York City.

 

[Core Imposter]

And, as someone who swore up and down that he would never live in a city, preferring the hills and lakes of northern New England, I have to be honest and state that I really do love living in New York City.

There are costs and benefits to everything. Your love for city life might be tempered by the loss of an arm or leg when its blown off by a terrorist. If you are lucky.

 

[GhostWriter16]

"Right to drive"

Great thread as always.

I'd agree with him that government has no right to tell you you can't drive. Its ridiculous that anyone would think government should have this power. As for the rest of it... Arrest for throwing a sandwhich seems ridiculously extreme. Just evict the guy from the premises. As for beating someone up, what exactly are the bounds of "Beating someone up" and what was the sentence? I don't necessarily see what happened there as "Self-defense."

 

[AlpsStranger]

That's a pretty hard line there GhostWriter16. I'm on your side about some things, but I'm not sure I can agree here. I think if someone is blind, let's say, that it's not oppressive to pull them over and force them to stop driving. A blind person ( or a blind drunk person ) driving is the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" limitation. It's obscenely, directly dangerous and not at all comparable to something like second hand smoke or hate speech.

Now, if you're saying that people should be allowed to drive by default but sometimes lose that right for X, Y, or Z reason then you might be on to something interesting. Changing it from a license based white list to a black list might make sense, but I do think there are circumstances where not letting someone drive is reasonable.

 

[Leoreth]

Tolerating half-blind people posing a threat to every other road user is downright ********.

But of course it's a much more pressing question whether the government has the "right" to put an end to this or not. Sure

 

[AlpsStranger]

Well, it is an interesting question. I'm not exactly clambering to change our current drivers license system fwiw. I was merely pointing out that a blacklist system could possibly be used instead of our current whitelist system.

I'm assuming that being severely visually impaired would result in a blacklisting under such a system.

 

[peter grimes]

I'd agree with him that government has no right to tell you you can't drive. Its ridiculous that anyone would think government should have this power.

Oh, you really REALLY don't get this, do you?

This is all wrapped up in property rights. Governments pay for the roads, therefore governments have the authority to restrict or allow people onto those roads. If the roads are intended for motor vehicle traffic, the government will restrict the rights privileges of horsemen from straying onto those roads. They will restrict the freedom of movement of pedestrians to stray onto those roads. They will license certain classes of people to operate certain types of machines on these roads, but not necessarily all types of machines.

This is also entirely compatible with that Constitution you have, at various times, claimed to both respect and ignore

You know, I'm sure, of the General Welfare clause:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

So here are two plaintext methods the government has at its disposal to prevent people who are not safe to be piloting several tons of machinery on publicly financed thoroughfares, and you come out with a line like 'It's ridiculous that anyone would think governemnt should have this power'?? REALLY?

respect level... *dropping*

 

[ace99]

JACKSON, MS—Citing a wish to maintain the quality of life for residents across the state, the Mississippi Senate on Thursday passed a bill outlawing the sale of soft drinks in containers smaller than 20 ounces. “We have a responsibility to ensure that Mississippians are consuming sugary beverages at an acceptably high and constant rate, and this ban will see to it that this standard is upheld,” said State Sen. Terry W. Brown (R-District 17) in a morning news conference, adding that the new law will be strictly enforced by state authorities and that any business caught selling soda, coffee, tea, lemonade, sports drinks, or energy drinks in standard cans or containers rather than 64 or 85-oz. cups will be subject to a fine. “This isn’t just about the comfort of individual consumers, it’s about the welfare and overall happiness of entire communities. The fact that a resident of this state could consume less than the equivalent of 16 packets of sugar in one beverage is simply unacceptable, and it demands immediate action.” Brown also called for stricter limits on diet sodas, the sale of which Mississippi lawmakers hope to restrict to minors by the end of the year

 

[AlpsStranger]

It's still better than Bloomberg's law.