Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Tragedy of the Commons
12 views
Skip to first unread message
Islander
Oct 30, 2011, 10:41:13 PM10/30/11
to
I'm increasingly seeing right wing misinterpretation of the classic
tragedy of the commons, so I thought I would give a little example that
even they might understand.
<begin rant>
Last evening I went into town for dinner and returned after dark. As I
get older, my eyes are becoming increasingly sensitive to bright lights.
Perhaps some of you may have noticed how bright the new led headlights
are. In addition, there are companies that sell high intensity
discharge (HID) replacement bulbs that are even brighter.
If you purchase these HID replacement bulb kits, it increases your
visibility, even when facing the headlights of on-coming traffic. After
all, you want to see the road better, right? So we have a battle
between totally independent drivers, each wanting to see better, but as
headlight intensity is increased it becomes more and more difficult for
everyone to see.
Now, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has
regulations that restrict the candlepower of auto headlights, something
that I am sure Libertarians would consider to be a violation of their
freedom. Still, the HID companies keep cropping up as fast as they are
shut down, mainly because most traffic enforcement departments do not
have the equipment to test headlight brightness.
We need regulations so that the self-centered assholes in the world
don't do stupid things like installing ever-brighter headlights. But,
you can expect them to keep doing it because they don't understand the
tragedy of the commons.
<end rant>
tragedy of the commons, so I thought I would give a little example that
even they might understand.
<begin rant>
Last evening I went into town for dinner and returned after dark. As I
get older, my eyes are becoming increasingly sensitive to bright lights.
Perhaps some of you may have noticed how bright the new led headlights
are. In addition, there are companies that sell high intensity
discharge (HID) replacement bulbs that are even brighter.
If you purchase these HID replacement bulb kits, it increases your
visibility, even when facing the headlights of on-coming traffic. After
all, you want to see the road better, right? So we have a battle
between totally independent drivers, each wanting to see better, but as
headlight intensity is increased it becomes more and more difficult for
everyone to see.
Now, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has
regulations that restrict the candlepower of auto headlights, something
that I am sure Libertarians would consider to be a violation of their
freedom. Still, the HID companies keep cropping up as fast as they are
shut down, mainly because most traffic enforcement departments do not
have the equipment to test headlight brightness.
We need regulations so that the self-centered assholes in the world
don't do stupid things like installing ever-brighter headlights. But,
you can expect them to keep doing it because they don't understand the
tragedy of the commons.
<end rant>
mg
Oct 30, 2011, 10:53:57 PM10/30/11
to
meaning of the "Tragedy of the Commons". The original meaning was all
about protecting the environment and natural resources to make them
self sustaining and had little or nothing to do with economics, for
instance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
High Miles
Oct 30, 2011, 11:25:58 PM10/30/11
to
encounter them.
AndyS
Oct 31, 2011, 7:46:36 AM10/31/11
to
On Oct 30, 8:41 pm, Islander <nos...@priracy.net> wrote:
> I'm increasingly seeing right wing misinterpretation of the classic
> tragedy of the commons, so I thought I would give a little example that
> even they might understand.
>
> <begin rant>
>
> Last evening I went into town for dinner and returned after dark. As I
> get older, my eyes are becoming increasingly sensitive to bright lights.
> Perhaps some of you may have noticed how bright the new led headlights
> are. In addition, there are companies that sell high intensity
> discharge (HID) replacement bulbs that are even brighter.
>
> If you purchase these HID replacement bulb kits, it increases your
> visibility, even when facing the headlights of on-coming traffic. After
> all, you want to see the road better, right? So we have a battle
> between totally independent drivers, each wanting to see better, but as
> headlight intensity is increased it becomes more and more difficult for
> everyone to see.
>
> Now, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has
> regulations that restrict the candlepower of auto headlights, something
> that I am sure Libertarians would consider to be a violation of their
> freedom. Still, the HID companies keep cropping up as fast as they are
> shut down, mainly because most traffic enforcement departments do not
> have the equipment to test headlight brightness.
>
Andy comments:
> tragedy of the commons, so I thought I would give a little example that
> even they might understand.
>
> <begin rant>
>
> Last evening I went into town for dinner and returned after dark. As I
> get older, my eyes are becoming increasingly sensitive to bright lights.
> Perhaps some of you may have noticed how bright the new led headlights
> are. In addition, there are companies that sell high intensity
> discharge (HID) replacement bulbs that are even brighter.
>
> If you purchase these HID replacement bulb kits, it increases your
> visibility, even when facing the headlights of on-coming traffic. After
> all, you want to see the road better, right? So we have a battle
> between totally independent drivers, each wanting to see better, but as
> headlight intensity is increased it becomes more and more difficult for
> everyone to see.
>
> Now, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has
> regulations that restrict the candlepower of auto headlights, something
> that I am sure Libertarians would consider to be a violation of their
> freedom. Still, the HID companies keep cropping up as fast as they are
> shut down, mainly because most traffic enforcement departments do not
> have the equipment to test headlight brightness.
>
It makes me wonder if anyone is investigating polarizing the
output
of those headlights. If the windshield of the cars being driven was
similarly polarized, the reflected light back to the driver would
be
bright, but the cross-polarized light of the oncoming car wouldn't....
(Reflections are rotated 90 deg).....
Just an off the cuff thought, but I have similarly been annoyed,
and
try to drive on low beams just to avoid pissing others off...
The WORST is when the other driver gets pissed and flicks on his
high beams just before passing you... and it blinds you. The asshole
doesn't realize that is may actually cause a driver to swerve into
him...
Lots of peeves about this....but I don't really see a way around
it
since the visual sensitivity of people are so different.....
Andy in Eureka, Texas
Message has been deleted
Rumpelstiltskin
Oct 31, 2011, 11:09:40 AM10/31/11
to
On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 08:55:19 -0400, Emily <Em...@nospam.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 19:41:13 -0700, Islander <nos...@priracy.net>
<snip>
>>We need regulations so that the self-centered assholes in the world
>>don't do stupid things like installing ever-brighter headlights. But,
>>you can expect them to keep doing it because they don't understand the
>>tragedy of the commons.
>
>Or, more likely, because they've simply never considered that those
>ever-brighter headlights are a problem for some other drivers. If
>they live to be old they'll come to understand.
>
>I can drive at night on a divided highway just fine, but since there
>are about fifteen miles of two lane road between here and anywhere
>else, I avoid driving at night because even if the oncoming cars have
>regular highlights on low beam, there are a few seconds when I'm
>blinded by them.
I realized while reading this that I rarely drive at night anymore.
I don't even drive very often in the daytime. I have to move my
car at least once a week to keep it from getting vulched by the
agents of city officials anxious for cash because they can't get
enough property tax in California (due to a state initiative that
passed, limiting increases in property taxes). The exorbitant
fines for not moving one's car on street cleaning days are
predatory, though if I owned property I'm sure I'd find property
tax to be predatory too, and I'd probably be right.
I use my car mostly for mass-quantity shopping such as at
Costco. Otherwise, I usually walk around or take public transit.
>On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 19:41:13 -0700, Islander <nos...@priracy.net>
<snip>
>>We need regulations so that the self-centered assholes in the world
>>don't do stupid things like installing ever-brighter headlights. But,
>>you can expect them to keep doing it because they don't understand the
>>tragedy of the commons.
>
>ever-brighter headlights are a problem for some other drivers. If
>they live to be old they'll come to understand.
>
>I can drive at night on a divided highway just fine, but since there
>are about fifteen miles of two lane road between here and anywhere
>else, I avoid driving at night because even if the oncoming cars have
>regular highlights on low beam, there are a few seconds when I'm
>blinded by them.
I realized while reading this that I rarely drive at night anymore.
I don't even drive very often in the daytime. I have to move my
car at least once a week to keep it from getting vulched by the
agents of city officials anxious for cash because they can't get
enough property tax in California (due to a state initiative that
passed, limiting increases in property taxes). The exorbitant
fines for not moving one's car on street cleaning days are
predatory, though if I owned property I'm sure I'd find property
tax to be predatory too, and I'd probably be right.
I use my car mostly for mass-quantity shopping such as at
Costco. Otherwise, I usually walk around or take public transit.
Werner
Oct 31, 2011, 1:16:08 PM10/31/11
to
On Sunday, October 30, 2011 10:41:13 PM UTC-4, Islander wrote:
> I'm increasingly seeing right wing misinterpretation of the classic
> tragedy of the commons, so I thought I would give a little example that
> even they might understand.
>
>...
> I'm increasingly seeing right wing misinterpretation of the classic
> tragedy of the commons, so I thought I would give a little example that
> even they might understand.
>
>
> Now, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has
> regulations that restrict the candlepower of auto headlights, something
> that I am sure Libertarians would consider to be a violation of their
> freedom. Still, the HID companies keep cropping up as fast as they are
> shut down, mainly because most traffic enforcement departments do not
> have the equipment to test headlight brightness.
>
> We need regulations so that the self-centered assholes in the world
> don't do stupid things like installing ever-brighter headlights. But,
> you can expect them to keep doing it because they don't understand the
> tragedy of the commons.
>
> <end rant>
You lack basic understanding of the facts. First, the Tragedy of the Commons is about common resources. This the work 'commons'. Light bulbs are not common a rescource. THey may be widely used, but all are private. Second, Libertarians are not 'rfight wingers. Libertarians are liberal in the classic sense. The misinterpretation is by people like you who call themselves 'liberal' but are actually authoritarian. Authoritarian is the conplete opposite of 'liberal'.
> Now, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has
> regulations that restrict the candlepower of auto headlights, something
> that I am sure Libertarians would consider to be a violation of their
> freedom. Still, the HID companies keep cropping up as fast as they are
> shut down, mainly because most traffic enforcement departments do not
> have the equipment to test headlight brightness.
>
> We need regulations so that the self-centered assholes in the world
> don't do stupid things like installing ever-brighter headlights. But,
> you can expect them to keep doing it because they don't understand the
> tragedy of the commons.
>
> <end rant>
Inform yourself before you blabber about stuff you don't understand.
http://www.capitaldistrict-lp.org/Links.shtml
chatnoir
Oct 31, 2011, 2:12:47 PM10/31/11
to
>
> Inform yourself before you blabber about stuff you don't understand.http://www.capitaldistrict-lp.org/Links.shtml- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
El Castor
Oct 31, 2011, 9:11:27 PM10/31/11
to
On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 19:41:13 -0700, Islander <nos...@priracy.net>
wrote:
anti-conservative rant? Quite an achievement. Relax, have a beer, and
quit trying to read politics into every last detail of life.
Today's exercise is to say something nice about conservatives. I'll
start with something nice about liberals:
They mean well.
Islander
Oct 31, 2011, 9:46:41 PM10/31/11
to
get a law passed requiring it. It would only work if all vehicles were
required to be equipped. It would also be trivial for law enforcement
to verify.
Looks like someone thought of it in '48.
http://www.opticsinfobase.org/abstract.cfm?id=77053
Islander
Oct 31, 2011, 9:57:08 PM10/31/11
to
about what is owned by no-one, but used by everyone. The Tragedy is
most easily understood for environmental issues - the air we all breath,
the water we all drink, etc. The same principle applies to more
abstract things such as the example that I gave. We all depend on being
able to see when we drive at night.
But I didn't expect you to understand.
Here is another example that I doubt you will understand:
http://www.cyclelicio.us/2011/infographic-traffic-jams/
mg
Nov 1, 2011, 3:11:48 AM11/1/11
to
On Oct 31, 11:16 am, Werner <whetz...@mac.com> wrote:
pollution. If you don't think so hook up about a hundred100-W bulbs
and put them on your front yard and see how long it takes before
someone forces you to remove them. However, a more common example
might be where a factory is warming up the water in a stream and
killing all the fish.
Chip Wood
Nov 1, 2011, 3:55:10 AM11/1/11
to
Are these the same gentle folk that play their music (sometimes obscene)
too loud, talk on cell phones while in a restaurant or driving, have way
too loud motorcycles, keep broken down cars in their front yard, don't
mow their lawns, and then say the government is infringing on their
rights. You mean those people?
Chip
On 10/30/2011 7:41 PM, Islander wrote:
> I'm increasingly seeing right wing misinterpretation of the classic
> tragedy of the commons, so I thought I would give a little example that
> even they might understand.
>
>
too loud, talk on cell phones while in a restaurant or driving, have way
too loud motorcycles, keep broken down cars in their front yard, don't
mow their lawns, and then say the government is infringing on their
rights. You mean those people?
Chip
On 10/30/2011 7:41 PM, Islander wrote:
> I'm increasingly seeing right wing misinterpretation of the classic
> tragedy of the commons, so I thought I would give a little example that
> even they might understand.
>
>
Chip Wood
Nov 1, 2011, 3:59:56 AM11/1/11
to
Good idea and probably would work, but it will happen about the same
time that car manufacturers agree on a common height for bumpers. It
probably would take (dare I say it) a government regulation. Horrors!!!
Chip
On 10/31/2011 4:46 AM, AndyS wrote:
>
time that car manufacturers agree on a common height for bumpers. It
probably would take (dare I say it) a government regulation. Horrors!!!
Chip
On 10/31/2011 4:46 AM, AndyS wrote:
>
Werner
Nov 1, 2011, 11:11:55 AM11/1/11
to
On Tuesday, November 1, 2011 3:11:48 AM UTC-4, mg wrote:
>
>
> Bright lights are light pollution just as loud noises are noise
> pollution. If you don't think so hook up about a hundred100-W bulbs
> and put them on your front yard and see how long it takes before
> someone forces you to remove them. However, a more common example
> might be where a factory is warming up the water in a stream and
> killing all the fish.
In that case somebody needs to ban street lights. I had a neighbor a few years ago who liked to play his boom box at an annoying decibel level. I went to his apartment, told him how annoying it was and asked him to stop. It stopped. Any annoying behavior could be interpreted as pollution by a 'progressive' mind that wants the cops to intervene in his behalf and end annoyance. I understand WSO are shitting in the public parks, for example. Behavior should not be defined as pollution. I don't like to hear foul language used in public. But I wouldn't define it as pollution, just poor behavior. Killing fish in the river might validly be considered pollution. But would you do without power to save the fish? I doubt it. Nor would you do without polluting lights.
>
>
> Bright lights are light pollution just as loud noises are noise
> pollution. If you don't think so hook up about a hundred100-W bulbs
> and put them on your front yard and see how long it takes before
> someone forces you to remove them. However, a more common example
> might be where a factory is warming up the water in a stream and
> killing all the fish.
Islander
Nov 1, 2011, 11:34:39 AM11/1/11
to
On 10/31/2011 6:11 PM, El Castor wrote:
> Today's exercise is to say something nice about conservatives. I'll
> start with something nice about liberals:
Some of my best friends are conservatives. They keep me from falling
> Today's exercise is to say something nice about conservatives. I'll
> start with something nice about liberals:
off the left edge of the political spectrum.
Your turn...
Islander
Nov 1, 2011, 11:40:38 AM11/1/11
to
On 11/1/2011 12:55 AM, Chip Wood wrote:
> Are these the same gentle folk that play their music (sometimes obscene)
> too loud, talk on cell phones while in a restaurant or driving, have way
> too loud motorcycles, keep broken down cars in their front yard, don't
> mow their lawns, and then say the government is infringing on their
> rights. You mean those people?
>
> Chip
>
Good examples! We live in a society and that requires consideration for
> Are these the same gentle folk that play their music (sometimes obscene)
> too loud, talk on cell phones while in a restaurant or driving, have way
> too loud motorcycles, keep broken down cars in their front yard, don't
> mow their lawns, and then say the government is infringing on their
> rights. You mean those people?
>
> Chip
>
those around us. Libertarians want us to all respect what they feel are
their individual rights, yet they feel no obligation to respect the
rights of the society that they live in. It is all about me, me, me!
Islander
Nov 1, 2011, 11:42:09 AM11/1/11
to
On 10/31/2011 10:16 AM, Werner wrote:
Thumper
Nov 1, 2011, 12:20:25 PM11/1/11
to
On Tue, 01 Nov 2011 08:42:09 -0700, Islander <nos...@priracy.net>
wrote:
They mistakenly think that Republicans are for less regulations. They
are only half right. They are for less regulations on the
Corporations and more on the individual.
Thumper
wrote:
are only half right. They are for less regulations on the
Corporations and more on the individual.
Thumper
Rumpelstiltskin
Nov 1, 2011, 12:40:33 PM11/1/11
to
On Tue, 01 Nov 2011 08:34:39 -0700, Islander <nos...@priracy.net>
wrote:
Congratulations. I don't read El of course, since he's such
a conservative that it's unpleasant to talk to him, but you
did actually come up with something nice to say about
conservatives which is a task that would have stumped me.
(That includes modern libertarians, who are more often than
not just conservatives with nasty personalities even for
conservatives. I don't think Ron Paul is that way, not that
I've listened to him all that much.)
wrote:
a conservative that it's unpleasant to talk to him, but you
did actually come up with something nice to say about
conservatives which is a task that would have stumped me.
(That includes modern libertarians, who are more often than
not just conservatives with nasty personalities even for
conservatives. I don't think Ron Paul is that way, not that
I've listened to him all that much.)
El Castor
Nov 1, 2011, 12:51:59 PM11/1/11
to
grind them up they make good dog food.
Message has been deleted
Islander
Nov 1, 2011, 1:51:52 PM11/1/11
to
I've read of your posts, you have some pretty liberal ideas about
immigration and conservation. Course, I could be wrong...
Islander
Nov 1, 2011, 1:54:26 PM11/1/11
to
human rights, but his economic views are pretty nasty.
Matthew Scott
Nov 1, 2011, 2:26:32 PM11/1/11
to
On 11/1/2011 10:40 AM, Islander wrote:
>> On 11/1/2011 12:55 AM, Chip Wood wrote:
>> Are these the same gentle folk that play their music (sometimes obscene)
>> too loud, talk on cell phones while in a restaurant or driving, have way
>> too loud motorcycles, keep broken down cars in their front yard, don't
>> mow their lawns, and then say the government is infringing on their
>> rights. You mean those people?
>> On 11/1/2011 12:55 AM, Chip Wood wrote:
>> Are these the same gentle folk that play their music (sometimes obscene)
>> too loud, talk on cell phones while in a restaurant or driving, have way
>> too loud motorcycles, keep broken down cars in their front yard, don't
>> mow their lawns, and then say the government is infringing on their
>> rights. You mean those people?
> Good examples! We live in a society and that requires consideration for
> those around us. Libertarians want us to all respect what they feel are
> their individual rights, yet they feel no obligation to respect the
> rights of the society that they live in. It is all about me, me, me!
You've perhaps unintentionally described the philosophical situation in
> those around us. Libertarians want us to all respect what they feel are
> their individual rights, yet they feel no obligation to respect the
> rights of the society that they live in. It is all about me, me, me!
which we all find ourselves. In that sentence the term libertarians
could easily be replaced by progressives, conservatives, anarchists . .
. . in fact any belief system can be easily inserted. Me, me, me, indeed.
Perhaps you will gain some insight into the rationale for views which
don't coincide with your particular world vision.
Islander
Nov 1, 2011, 3:05:18 PM11/1/11
to
favors the few at the expense of the many. The lesson of the Tragedy of
the Commons is that there are situations where the actions of
individuals will sometimes penalize everyone. In those situations, we
have need of an arbiter. Libertarians object to the government acting
as an arbiter and rely instead on the good will of the individuals to
intervene. Good luck with that!
Rumpelstiltskin
Nov 1, 2011, 7:06:04 PM11/1/11
to
On Tue, 01 Nov 2011 10:54:26 -0700, Islander <nos...@priracy.net>
How did a word that sounds so much like "liberty" get
connected to what is in effect neo-feudalism? When the
American Founding Fathers talked about "Liberty", they
meant freedom from the powerful few who had been
controlling them.
connected to what is in effect neo-feudalism? When the
American Founding Fathers talked about "Liberty", they
meant freedom from the powerful few who had been
controlling them.
mg
Nov 1, 2011, 9:01:12 PM11/1/11
to
instance, are we communists or are we fascists? The answer is neither.
Is the choice really between having a power plant and killing fish, or
no power plant at all? Chances are the choice is between adding a few
pennies to the cost and saving the fish or getting a slightly lower
rate and killing the fish. In national parks, is the choice between
having a generator and not having a generator? Nope. Actually, the
requirement is that the noise level has to be below 60 dbA at a
distance of 50'. Is the choice really between street lights and no
street lights? Nope. Typically, street lights in residential areas are
probably limited to about 10,000 lumens, for instance.
Jerry Okamura
Nov 1, 2011, 9:50:02 PM11/1/11
to
A little inconsistent. If these lights are bad, then we already have a
government agency that is suppose to prevent these bad things from entering
the marketplace. So, if you believe they should not be in the marketplace,
then why hasn't the government agency that already has that responsibility
shirking their responsibility? Shouldn't you aim your anger at the
government agency that has that responsibility?
"Islander" wrote in message
news:it2dnbhcUJ1blzPT...@rockisland.com...
I'm increasingly seeing right wing misinterpretation of the classic
tragedy of the commons, so I thought I would give a little example that
even they might understand.
government agency that is suppose to prevent these bad things from entering
the marketplace. So, if you believe they should not be in the marketplace,
then why hasn't the government agency that already has that responsibility
shirking their responsibility? Shouldn't you aim your anger at the
government agency that has that responsibility?
"Islander" wrote in message
news:it2dnbhcUJ1blzPT...@rockisland.com...
I'm increasingly seeing right wing misinterpretation of the classic
tragedy of the commons, so I thought I would give a little example that
even they might understand.
<begin rant>
Last evening I went into town for dinner and returned after dark. As I
get older, my eyes are becoming increasingly sensitive to bright lights.
Perhaps some of you may have noticed how bright the new led headlights
are. In addition, there are companies that sell high intensity
discharge (HID) replacement bulbs that are even brighter.
If you purchase these HID replacement bulb kits, it increases your
visibility, even when facing the headlights of on-coming traffic. After
all, you want to see the road better, right? So we have a battle
between totally independent drivers, each wanting to see better, but as
headlight intensity is increased it becomes more and more difficult for
everyone to see.
Last evening I went into town for dinner and returned after dark. As I
get older, my eyes are becoming increasingly sensitive to bright lights.
Perhaps some of you may have noticed how bright the new led headlights
are. In addition, there are companies that sell high intensity
discharge (HID) replacement bulbs that are even brighter.
If you purchase these HID replacement bulb kits, it increases your
visibility, even when facing the headlights of on-coming traffic. After
all, you want to see the road better, right? So we have a battle
between totally independent drivers, each wanting to see better, but as
headlight intensity is increased it becomes more and more difficult for
everyone to see.
El Castor
Nov 2, 2011, 3:17:31 AM11/2/11
to
On Tue, 01 Nov 2011 10:51:52 -0700, Islander <nos...@priracy.net>
I'm a conservative, but I don't believe there is a liturgy of
conservative ideas that I am required to observe. I think what I like
about immigration, abortion, stem cell research -- whatever, and as
far as I'm concerned that doesn't make me any less of a conservative.
Whatever makes sense to me is good enough for me, and if other
conservatives disagree on this or that point, that's their privilege.
There are in fact two distinct categories of conservatism -- fiscal
and social -- with libertarians being distant cousins of both. I don't
see anywhere near the flexibility or diversity in liberalism. Liberal
dogma in my view is a manifestation of religious belief. As a radio
rabbi I sometimes listen to puts it, there are three tests that a
belief system must pass before it can be considered a religion --
where we come from, what happens to us when we die, and what we should
do while we are here. Liberals qualify in all three respects, but
conservatives clearly do not.
conservative ideas that I am required to observe. I think what I like
about immigration, abortion, stem cell research -- whatever, and as
far as I'm concerned that doesn't make me any less of a conservative.
Whatever makes sense to me is good enough for me, and if other
conservatives disagree on this or that point, that's their privilege.
There are in fact two distinct categories of conservatism -- fiscal
and social -- with libertarians being distant cousins of both. I don't
see anywhere near the flexibility or diversity in liberalism. Liberal
dogma in my view is a manifestation of religious belief. As a radio
rabbi I sometimes listen to puts it, there are three tests that a
belief system must pass before it can be considered a religion --
where we come from, what happens to us when we die, and what we should
do while we are here. Liberals qualify in all three respects, but
conservatives clearly do not.
Chip Wood
Nov 2, 2011, 10:05:49 AM11/2/11
to
In our neighborhood they are too DIM and far between. My wife will not
go walking at night since her night vision is getting bad.
Counterpoint: I wish they were brighter!
Chip
On 11/1/2011 6:01 PM, mg wrote:
>>> Bright lights are light pollution just as loud noises are noise
>>> pollution.
>>
>> In that case somebody needs to ban street lights. I doubt it. Nor would you do without polluting lights.
go walking at night since her night vision is getting bad.
Counterpoint: I wish they were brighter!
Chip
On 11/1/2011 6:01 PM, mg wrote:
>>> Bright lights are light pollution just as loud noises are noise
>>> pollution.
>>
Werner
Nov 2, 2011, 10:48:04 AM11/2/11
to PleaseDoNot...@nowhere.net
On Tuesday, November 1, 2011 7:06:04 PM UTC-4, Rumpelstiltskin wrote:
>
>
> How did a word that sounds so much like "liberty" get
> connected to what is in effect neo-feudalism? When the
> American Founding Fathers talked about "Liberty", they
> meant freedom from the powerful few who had been
> controlling them.
Has BigGovernment saved you from the powerful? Is it not clear 'the powerful' control BigGovernment more effectively than you and, thus, you are being controlled by the very BigGovernment you want to control them. Power corrupts whether it is yours or theirs. Small government has less power to control anytone. BigGovernment has more power to control everyone. It is a tool of tyranny. It always has been and alway will be. That is why we need less of it.
>
>
> How did a word that sounds so much like "liberty" get
> connected to what is in effect neo-feudalism? When the
> American Founding Fathers talked about "Liberty", they
> meant freedom from the powerful few who had been
> controlling them.
" In crafting the Bill of Rights, the framers were careful to acknowledge implicitly and explicitly two key truths:
The first is that government does not grant rights it acknowledges them. They exist independently of government. They're part of who and what we are. And, as Jefferson noted in the Declaration of Independence, the only legitimate function of government is to secure them.
The second is that government is a servant to whom we delegate powers, not a master who dispenses privileges. The Constitution carefully enumerates the powers we, the people, delegate to our government and it specifically denies that government any powers not so delegated. Our rights lie beyond the pale of that delegation. They are sacrosanct. Any government which infringes upon them is engaged in an intolerable usurpation. " www.badnarik.org -----
A "right" as envisioned by the Founders meant that the government was not permitted to interfere with your pursuit of them, i.e., your pursuit of happiness was to be unhindered by government.
The "right" of free speech means that government cannot interfere with your free speech. The "right" of gun ownership means that the government cannot infringe your gun ownership. What does "right" to health care mean? It means that the government cannot stand in the way of your pursuit of health care, or impede your obtaining health care. The "right" to an attorney means that the government cannot prevent you obtaining an attorney to represent you.
Of course, "right" has incorrectly come to mean that someone must supply you with something. If your "right" to housing means that some slave must supply you with housing, and your "right" to health care means that some slave must supply you with health care, and your "right" to an attorney means that some slave must supply you with an attorney, does your "right" to free speech mean that some slave must supply you with a loudspeaker, or TV air time? Does your "right" to own guns mean that some slave must supply you with guns?
http://www.capitaldistrict-lp.org/Rights.shtml
“It is not an endlessly expanding list of rights ‐‐‐the “right” to an education; the “right” to health care; the “right” to food and housing. That is not freedom. That is dependency. Those are not rights. Those are the rations of slavery – hay and a barn for human cattle.” ‐‐Alexis de Tocqueville
Government makes laws. Laws create privileges for some and steal inalienable rights from others in the process. Laws steal choices. They prohibit and limit choices for some people and make you obey someone else’s choices. It’s like being told where to sit on the bus. Laws make you do things you would not want to do if you were free. Was it meant to be this way? What can be more valuable than choice? What do you have when you have no choice?
http://www.endit.info/
Dollars in the common treasury are like fish in the common sea - anyone who can will harvest to extinction. That is why socialism is fundamentally corrupting and can not work. The Fed is making a lot of paper fish. This is an illusion of wealth. The real fish are gone. ---- http://www.capitaldistrict-lp.org/how.shtml Governing has become a way to get privileges for some at the expense of others. http://www.capitaldistrict-lp.org/what.shtml http://www.investmentu.com/IUEL/2008/August/the-national-debt.html http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dp8ZmQMCtqA&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FSoXKapKQs&feature=related
Tired of
Politics As Usual?
http://www.endit.info/
Islander
Nov 2, 2011, 11:55:04 AM11/2/11
to
Werner
Nov 2, 2011, 10:55:20 AM11/2/11
to
On Tuesday, November 1, 2011 3:05:18 PM UTC-4, Islander wrote:
>
>
> Oh, I have insight. What I don't have is tolerance for dogma that
> favors the few at the expense of the many. The lesson of the Tragedy of
> the Commons is that there are situations where the actions of
> individuals will sometimes penalize everyone. In those situations, we
> have need of an arbiter. Libertarians object to the government acting
> as an arbiter and rely instead on the good will of the individuals to
> intervene. Good luck with that!
Well, how has your dogma worked out? The country is bankrupt. Bankruptcy penalizes everyone.
>
>
> Oh, I have insight. What I don't have is tolerance for dogma that
> favors the few at the expense of the many. The lesson of the Tragedy of
> the Commons is that there are situations where the actions of
> individuals will sometimes penalize everyone. In those situations, we
> have need of an arbiter. Libertarians object to the government acting
> as an arbiter and rely instead on the good will of the individuals to
> intervene. Good luck with that!
Government is hardly and 'arbiter'. It is a dictator. Libertarians had nothing to do with it.
http:www.EndIt.info/how.html
El Castor
Nov 2, 2011, 1:30:39 PM11/2/11
to
On Wed, 02 Nov 2011 08:55:04 -0700, Islander <nos...@priracy.net>
That's a test I would want to fail. You passed.
Islander
Nov 2, 2011, 8:01:26 PM11/2/11
to
As to bankrupt, we are not. You might want to look up the definition of
bankrupt.
mg
Nov 3, 2011, 3:14:15 AM11/3/11
to
On Nov 2, 8:05 am, Chip Wood <chip.a.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In our neighborhood they are too DIM and far between. My wife will not
> go walking at night since her night vision is getting bad.
> Counterpoint: I wish they were brighter!
My wife used to insist on having the bedroom window open all night.
> In our neighborhood they are too DIM and far between. My wife will not
> go walking at night since her night vision is getting bad.
> Counterpoint: I wish they were brighter!
Now, however, we have a street light in our front yard, next to the
sidewalk. If she were still with us, it would have drove her nuts.
Werner
Nov 3, 2011, 1:45:34 PM11/3/11
to
On Wednesday, November 2, 2011 8:01:26 PM UTC-4, Islander wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Well, how has your dogma worked out? The country is bankrupt. Bankruptcy penalizes everyone.
> >
> > Government is hardly and 'arbiter'. It is a dictator. Libertarians had nothing to do with it.
> > http:www.EndIt.info/how.html
> >
> >
> We were doing just fine until free market dogma took over government.
When was that?
>
> >
> >
> > Well, how has your dogma worked out? The country is bankrupt. Bankruptcy penalizes everyone.
> >
> > Government is hardly and 'arbiter'. It is a dictator. Libertarians had nothing to do with it.
> > http:www.EndIt.info/how.html
> >
> >
> We were doing just fine until free market dogma took over government.
Islander
Nov 4, 2011, 12:51:48 PM11/4/11
to
Islander
Nov 4, 2011, 1:10:45 PM11/4/11
to
On 11/3/2011 12:14 AM, mg wrote:
> On Nov 2, 8:05 am, Chip Wood<chip.a.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> In our neighborhood they are too DIM and far between. My wife will not
>> go walking at night since her night vision is getting bad.
>> Counterpoint: I wish they were brighter!
>
> My wife used to insist on having the bedroom window open all night.
> Now, however, we have a street light in our front yard, next to the
> sidewalk. If she were still with us, it would have drove her nuts.
>
http://www.darksky.org/about-ida
> On Nov 2, 8:05 am, Chip Wood<chip.a.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> In our neighborhood they are too DIM and far between. My wife will not
>> go walking at night since her night vision is getting bad.
>> Counterpoint: I wish they were brighter!
>
> My wife used to insist on having the bedroom window open all night.
> Now, however, we have a street light in our front yard, next to the
> sidewalk. If she were still with us, it would have drove her nuts.
>
It is very dark at night where we live now. No artificial light unless
we turn it on.
Personally, I enjoy the absence of artificial lighting, but my wife
doesn't like it. While I have difficulty adjusting my eyes to the dark
when there is artificial light around, normally I can see in very low
ambient light well enough to navigate. When it is overcast at night, it
gets as dark as the inside of your pocket. Even then, I can usually
find my way around if I know the terrain, just from the texture of the
earth under my feet. Course, I occasionally walk into something
unpleasant like a blackberry bramble.
Some of my favorite memories are of sitting on a mountain top and seeing
the stars without interference from city lights. Also, alone on the
deck of a sail boat at night, out of sight of land, with the canopy of
stars overhead and the phosphorescent wake of the boat trailing out
behind. Beautiful!
A couple of years ago, a new gas station/convenience store was built
about a half-mile from town and they installed these massive mercury
vapor lights. Totally unnecessary! We still refuse to patronize them!
Werner
Nov 4, 2011, 1:11:15 PM11/4/11
to
Rita
Nov 4, 2011, 1:17:51 PM11/4/11
to
On Fri, 04 Nov 2011 10:10:45 -0700, Islander <nos...@priracy.net>
wrote:
It is very different in large cities. Brightly lit streets help deter
crime. In New York City where people use public transport in
huge numbers and have to walk home from subway or bus
stops the streets are brightly lit. In my neighborhod in San
Diego where most people drive they are not. I never felt
in danger walking at night in NY but I am wary of walking
at night here where I can't see for more than a short distance
ahead.
wrote:
crime. In New York City where people use public transport in
huge numbers and have to walk home from subway or bus
stops the streets are brightly lit. In my neighborhod in San
Diego where most people drive they are not. I never felt
in danger walking at night in NY but I am wary of walking
at night here where I can't see for more than a short distance
ahead.
Islander
Nov 4, 2011, 1:21:31 PM11/4/11
to
On 11/4/2011 10:11 AM, Werner wrote:
>
> Do you remember Stagflation?
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stagflation
Sure! I assume that you are referring to stagflation in the '70s. It
>
> Do you remember Stagflation?
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stagflation
was caused by an artificially induced increase in oil prices. Even with
stagflation, however, every administration was able to pay down the
debt/gdp ratio until Reagan was elected.
Werner
Nov 4, 2011, 2:00:21 PM11/4/11
to
Rumpelstiltskin
Nov 4, 2011, 3:15:53 PM11/4/11
to
On Fri, 04 Nov 2011 10:17:51 -0700, Rita <rtk...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
>It is very different in large cities. Brightly lit streets help deter
>crime. In New York City where people use public transport in
>huge numbers and have to walk home from subway or bus
>stops the streets are brightly lit. In my neighborhod in San
>Diego where most people drive they are not. I never felt
>in danger walking at night in NY but I am wary of walking
>at night here where I can't see for more than a short distance
>ahead.
I miss the stars, living in the city. That came home to me one
time I was camping out in Yosemite. There were so many stars
in the sky that I couldn't pick out the constellations.
I feel safe in San Francisco because I excercise reason. We
have our areas that are not safe at night or even in the daytime,
(and yes, Gary, they're all mostly black or latino). When I went
to Massachusetts last month, my flight was so early that if I got
the subway to the airport, which I wanted to do because I'd
never been to the San Francisco airport since the subway was
built, the first train would only get me in 40 minutes before my
flight. Though that was tight, I'd have taken the chance
anyway, except that first I had to get to a subway stop at night.
It was so early the busses weren't running. I travel light, so I
could have walked, schlepping my wheeled suitcase behind
me, but I'd have to walk through either the Western Addition to
get to the Civic Center Station, or through the Mission district
to get to the Mission and 16th Station. It would still be dark,
so I wasn't going to do that. If I took a cab, the net cost
would be the same or more than if I got a door-to-door
airport shuttle, so I opted for the shuttle since I could time that
more comfortably.
I did take Bart on the way back. It was nice, though Bart
is not new to me. It doesn't go anywhere I usually go, so I
only take it once or twice a year (though I do pay an extra
half-cent per dollar sales tax to support it). The Bart trip
back cost about $3.50 more than it would have from the
two stations closest to it on the main line from which it
forks, but that's airports for you, and why I almost never buy
anything in them.
<snip>
>It is very different in large cities. Brightly lit streets help deter
>crime. In New York City where people use public transport in
>huge numbers and have to walk home from subway or bus
>stops the streets are brightly lit. In my neighborhod in San
>Diego where most people drive they are not. I never felt
>in danger walking at night in NY but I am wary of walking
>at night here where I can't see for more than a short distance
>ahead.
time I was camping out in Yosemite. There were so many stars
in the sky that I couldn't pick out the constellations.
I feel safe in San Francisco because I excercise reason. We
have our areas that are not safe at night or even in the daytime,
(and yes, Gary, they're all mostly black or latino). When I went
to Massachusetts last month, my flight was so early that if I got
the subway to the airport, which I wanted to do because I'd
never been to the San Francisco airport since the subway was
built, the first train would only get me in 40 minutes before my
flight. Though that was tight, I'd have taken the chance
anyway, except that first I had to get to a subway stop at night.
It was so early the busses weren't running. I travel light, so I
could have walked, schlepping my wheeled suitcase behind
me, but I'd have to walk through either the Western Addition to
get to the Civic Center Station, or through the Mission district
to get to the Mission and 16th Station. It would still be dark,
so I wasn't going to do that. If I took a cab, the net cost
would be the same or more than if I got a door-to-door
airport shuttle, so I opted for the shuttle since I could time that
more comfortably.
I did take Bart on the way back. It was nice, though Bart
is not new to me. It doesn't go anywhere I usually go, so I
only take it once or twice a year (though I do pay an extra
half-cent per dollar sales tax to support it). The Bart trip
back cost about $3.50 more than it would have from the
two stations closest to it on the main line from which it
forks, but that's airports for you, and why I almost never buy
anything in them.
Islander
Nov 4, 2011, 7:55:46 PM11/4/11
to
brighter does not make them safer. Poorly designed lighting creates
high contrast bright and dark areas that help criminals hide from view.
I wouldn't want to live in a city that is as dark as our neighborhood,
but then I wouldn't want to live in a city.
Islander
Nov 4, 2011, 8:00:00 PM11/4/11
to
Werner
Nov 4, 2011, 9:16:28 PM11/4/11
to
Simplify. Assume GDP = housing market. Create money from nothing. What happens to housing market? Understand now?
Islander
Nov 5, 2011, 12:35:08 PM11/5/11
to
On 11/4/2011 6:16 PM, Werner wrote:
> Simplify. Assume GDP = housing market. Create money from nothing. What happens to housing market? Understand now?
Debt/gdp too difficult for you to grasp? OK, think about it in the
> Simplify. Assume GDP = housing market. Create money from nothing. What happens to housing market? Understand now?
context of a home mortgage. The size of mortgage debt that you can
afford is dependent on your income. Most people would not be able to
purchase a new home without incurring debt. Likewise, we as a nation
sometimes need to incur debt, for example to fight wars, and our
debt/gdp ratio is a good measure of where we stand debt-wise. Like our
home mortgage, it is a good idea to pay down the debt, even when our
income is increasing. It is also a good idea to not engage in expensive
adventures such as a luxury vacation or foreign wars without paying for
them.
Every administration after WWII paid down the debt/gdp ratio prior to
Reagan. Since then, every Republican administration thought that they
could boost the gdp by incurring debt. They were very wrong!
The blind belief in the free market nearly put us into another Great
Depression. Capitalism is a powerful and valuable force, but like fire,
it will burn your house down if not carefully managed.
0 new messages