U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-04-2009, 12:22 AM
 
6,752 posts, read 7,668,827 times
Reputation: 10116

Advertisements

From what I've read, most laws regarding safety in the workplace, particularly, have come into being as a direct response to adverse situations - for instance, the shirtwaist factory fire in the early 1900's. So many women died due to the conditions of the factory and their inability to escape, that the laws had to be changed to protect workers. This happens over and over again, and yet people wonder why corporations require regulation.

In the case of landlord discrimination against minority (or other somehow "offensive" tenants), I think that really falls into a very similar category; people in power abrogating another's right to a decent place to live because of a prejudice. Once one landlord does something like that, it's easier for others to do the same.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-04-2009, 07:18 AM
LML
 
Location: Wisconsin
7,112 posts, read 8,642,592 times
Reputation: 5189
This topic is one over which I agonize now and have done for many years. On the one hand I deeply believe that the government's authority over our personal lives and personal choices should be extremely limited. I believe that we are gradually losing our freedom in the time honored "how to boil a frog" manner and that the water is now nearing the boiling point.

On the other hand there is no doubt that the practice of complete personal freedom of choice by some would limit the freedom of choice by others and the unfairness of that reality must be weighed in the balance. The example given of GM's right to choose to hire only Polish workers is a good example of what I mean. It would seriously limit the freedom of all others to work where they choose. Likewise the freedom of some to "choose their neighbors" limits the freedom of others to live where they choose. I am old enough to remember when such freedoms of exclusion were practiced and well remember the injustice of seeing college educated black citizens working in the foundry or cleaning the homes of others because they were unable to obtain work in the field in which they were educated.

So I try, in my mind, to walk a tightrope of "personal freedom" and "greater good." The answers at which I arrive are not "pure." They are also my own answers and are not necessarily shared by others. But I do think we need to be a lot more careful about allowing our personal freedom to slip away. The speed with which we have allowed them to be taken is increasing every day. Soon we will be just as boiled as the frog.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-04-2009, 07:45 AM
 
Location: North Cackelacky....in the hills.
19,556 posts, read 20,736,245 times
Reputation: 2513
It boils down to some like to control others, through legislation if necessary.

It may be couched in 'protecting rights' or doing what is 'moral' but in the end it is about forcing others to do as they demand.

When did the 'rights' of four people(society) become more important than the rights of the individual?

Seems what people are more than willing to believe and enforce is that once they have might of numbers on their side they are free to force others to do as they want.

This is of course a terrible travesty to these same types when they disagree with the issue being forced.....odd that.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-04-2009, 07:48 AM
 
19,213 posts, read 14,324,650 times
Reputation: 2337
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emeraldmaiden View Post
From what I've read, most laws regarding safety in the workplace, particularly, have come into being as a direct response to adverse situations - for instance, the shirtwaist factory fire in the early 1900's. So many women died due to the conditions of the factory and their inability to escape, that the laws had to be changed to protect workers. This happens over and over again, and yet people wonder why corporations require regulation.
And then it was carried to the extreme as it merged other "social movements" (agendas) - like making work so safe that it requires 10, dumb but safe people, to do the job of one competent person (to increase employment). I have really put this to the test, and unions for instance, are very anti-skill. They do not want one person to become better at something than another - and especially they don't want the "gifted" person to be better compensated. The socialized remedy is appallingly stupid - take a machinist who is truly gifted in his skill, take him out of the workplace, and make him/her a management boss over the not-so-abled. I call that a misplacement of value.

I was once an efficiency consultant to a labor-intense company in Foat Wuth, Texas whose management/owner freaked out at my suggestion that he pay his better employees more money than the poor employees and give raises based on skill development. He said I was stupid because I didn't understand that 95% of all employees perform poorly, and the employees performing ten times better provided a company's only way of recovering from losses caused by the poor employees.

Race car driving is dangerous - so require a governor on the carburetor.

Hooters discriminates against flat-chested gay men.

THE OSHA COWBOY

Quote:
Originally Posted by Emeraldmaiden View Post
In the case of landlord discrimination against minority (or other somehow "offensive" tenants), I think that really falls into a very similar category; people in power abrogating another's right to a decent place to live because of a prejudice. Once one landlord does something like that, it's easier for others to do the same.
Yes, let's not forget adult peer pressure either.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-04-2009, 07:51 AM
 
19,213 posts, read 14,324,650 times
Reputation: 2337
Quote:
Originally Posted by oz in SC View Post
It boils down to some like to control others, through legislation if necessary.

It may be couched in 'protecting rights' or doing what is 'moral' but in the end it is about forcing others to do as they demand.

When did the 'rights' of four people(society) become more important than the rights of the individual?

Seems what people are more than willing to believe and enforce is that once they have might of numbers on their side they are free to force others to do as they want.

This is of course a terrible travesty to these same types when they disagree with the issue being forced.....odd that.
You have pinned it down. Good post.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-04-2009, 07:53 AM
 
Location: Irvine, CA to Keller, TX
4,830 posts, read 6,566,392 times
Reputation: 844
Quote:
Originally Posted by oz in SC View Post
It boils down to some like to control others, through legislation if necessary.

It may be couched in 'protecting rights' or doing what is 'moral' but in the end it is about forcing others to do as they demand.

When did the 'rights' of four people(society) become more important than the rights of the individual?

Seems what people are more than willing to believe and enforce is that once they have might of numbers on their side they are free to force others to do as they want.

This is of course a terrible travesty to these same types when they disagree with the issue being forced.....odd that.
Having spent my entire life in CA and seeing the changes from a free state to a nanny state I definitely choose the free state option. I am not a smoker and have never even put a cigarette in my mouth however I defend anyone to smoke as many packs a day as they want. I also defend a persons right to eat meat, trans fats, etc.. I do believe in educating people on the evils and harm of doing things that are or can be harmful to themselves.

I dread the day when our society decides that all people have to think, act, and be the same. That is what a nanny state wants and it scares the heck out of me. I guess you can take the hair away from the long hair Hippy (balding) but you will never take the attitude away.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-04-2009, 08:56 AM
LML
 
Location: Wisconsin
7,112 posts, read 8,642,592 times
Reputation: 5189
I think one of the things that really "drives me nuts" about government intervention into private lives is the hypocrisy of using the power of the tax to enforce their idea of what we should or should not do. Cigarettes are bad for us so they continue to raise taxes on cigarettes in the hope of making us stop smoking. Of course, if we did, they'd lose a major source of tax revenue. They want us to cut back on driving our personal vehicles and force us to use mass transit so they continue to raise taxes on gasoline. They are raising liquor taxes and taxes on soft drinks, fast food, etc. etc. If they haven't yet reached out and taxed what you enjoy....just wait.....they will. In some cities they have gone so far as to tell restuarants what ingredients they can use in food preparation.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-04-2009, 09:54 AM
 
3,336 posts, read 4,835,145 times
Reputation: 1574
Quote:
Originally Posted by LML View Post
I think one of the things that really "drives me nuts" about government intervention into private lives is the hypocrisy of using the power of the tax to enforce their idea of what we should or should not do. Cigarettes are bad for us so they continue to raise taxes on cigarettes in the hope of making us stop smoking. Of course, if we did, they'd lose a major source of tax revenue. They want us to cut back on driving our personal vehicles and force us to use mass transit so they continue to raise taxes on gasoline. They are raising liquor taxes and taxes on soft drinks, fast food, etc. etc. If they haven't yet reached out and taxed what you enjoy....just wait.....they will. In some cities they have gone so far as to tell restuarants what ingredients they can use in food preparation.
Good points. I hate going to an establishment where I am met with second-hand smoke the minute I walk in the door. That being said, I feel it should be up to the owner of the establishment to determine if smoking is allowed or not.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-04-2009, 10:50 AM
 
460 posts, read 756,889 times
Reputation: 269
Weird. Apparently I failed to hit the submit buttton on a post.


Honestly, citydata and other Internet forums are the wrong place to look for intellectual discourse. It's sad, but true. I've been on the Net since (oy) the mid 80s and the character hasn't changed. Why it's like this, I don't know.

Until I moved to New England, a notoriously reserved section of the country, I did find reasonable political discourse with my extended neighbors. As for he level of public discourse, I wholeheartedly agree it's gone down the tubes. Rush Limbaugh is no Bill Buckley.

I trace of back to shifts in our education system. There is an increased emphasis on testing and spewing facts, without critical thinking. Essays are more expensive to grade than multiple choice tests, and we've committed ourselves to that direction. Facts are non-partisan, unbiased, and won't inflame any parent groups. Thinking for oneself is pretty much discouraged or pushed out by he burden of learning innumerable facts.

I'd also add that like China, we've persuaded people to overlook government in favor of new!shiny!consumer baubles.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-04-2009, 04:58 PM
LML
 
Location: Wisconsin
7,112 posts, read 8,642,592 times
Reputation: 5189
It often seems to me that politicians, political pundits, and what now passes for journalism have formed a cabal for the sole purpose of distracting citizens from the real issues at hand. When that is combined with the marked decrease in critical thinking skills on the part of said citizens it spells the descent into ruin now facing our once great republic.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2022, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top