Subject:
|
Re: socialism etc. (was: Re: Blue Hopper Car Mania...)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 19 Nov 1999 02:16:56 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1265 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
> Several years ago, I was driving home from Thanksgiving, and had had a
> frustrating drive (try losing your alternator belt at 4:00 PM the
> Saturday after Thanksgiving, with several hours of driving left, and the
> rain pouring down
I'm curious. Just out of interest - don't you have anything in the States
equivalent to the UK's AA or RAC? (You pay a fee - anything from about
£40 ($60) per year upwards then whenever you break down anywhere,
someone will come out to fix it. Anytime, 24 hours a day, and
normally they'll arrive within less than an hour. You'll only get charged
for any replacement parts, not for labour. And if they can't fix it at the
roadside, they'll tow you to a garage - though in that case you'll have to
pay the garages charges).
> Was I being stupid - yes. Was I taking justified action - yes. The
> service station had a serious hazard. Unfortuanatley I don't know if
> they did anything about it. They sure didn't close the pump, even after
> I showed the clerk and the cop the leak.
Wouldn't it be illegal for them to operate a pump like that?
Simon
http://www.SimonRobinson.com
>
> Frank
>
> > It is my opinion that the courts aren't really in the business of
> > _proving_ guilt anyway. Not in any rigorous sense. It's more like
> > suggesting guilt and playing probabilities against one another. All you
> > have to (usually) do is convince a jury that person x is guilty. When I
> > have been on juries I have been impressed by two things: the genuine
> > concern that the members gave to the issue, and their simple mindedness.
> > I certainly wouldn't want my fate resting in their hands with some
> > tricky prosecutor guiding them to whatever conclusion he wanted.
>
> Of course by your legal code you would already be dead. Personally, I'd
> prefer to take the courts and all their (perceived) faults over
> vigilante justice.
>
> > > > Since a system like the one I advocate hasn't been tried, I'm willing to
> > > > entertain that I might be wrong and that it might not work. If it
> > > > didn't, I would evaluate what went wrong, and work to correct the • deficits.
> > > > What's unreasonable about any of this?
> > >
> > > Because there may not be a way to correct the deficits.
> >
> > How so? I suppose if the system really FUBARred and destroyed humanity,
> > that would be uncorrectable. But short of that, the system could be
> > scrapped and the process of governance started over.
>
> I'll reserve judgement on whether systems without a government and rule
> of law can be fixed if they break until the problems in Africa, Eastern
> Europe, South East Asia, and South America get fixed. Of course most of
> those countries do have a government and rule of law, it's just who
> controls the government.
>
> I think the strength of the US is that we have a government which is
> (for the most part) under the control of the whole population. Sure, it
> always seems that some special interest or another had the government in
> it's pocket, but the control isn't absolute. If the US government was
> under total control by big buisiness, there would be an awful lot of
> laws that would not be on the books. If the government was under total
> control of "socialists" (who I don't always agree with, but they have
> some points worth listening to, even if it is only to see where
> percieved problems are, and look for non-socialist ways to fix them),
> there would be a lot more mediocrity in the country.
>
> --
> Frank Filz
>
> -----------------------------
> Work: mailto:ffilz@us.ibm.com (business only please)
> Home: mailto:ffilz@mindspring.com
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
178 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
