Hefty fines and loss of license for a period would be a good start. These people are like Zombies and cell use is an addiction. They can’t go to the toilet without them and probably have them under their pillow at night just in case they get a text. Somehow, this society has got to get a handle on this problem. I am tired of dodging these fools on the road. I don’t think we need the Feds involved. Obama will create another agency and hire another 10,000 to man it so they can monitor and control all activity.
Interesting observation about Obama, Agent. I think you’re right about that. He has never seen a situation he doesn’t want to control and with pounds of taxpayer money expended to do so.
Yes Rusty, it appears we don’t have enough money to allow school children to tour the White House, but we find enough money to buy new uniforms for TSA to the tune of $50Million and we can send the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt another $250Million. A new agency might not be more than $10Billion each year to monitor cell phone use and read the texts people are sending out while driving.
I actually do not get my news from any of those networks, but think what you want if it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside. And for the record, just because a news organization isn’t constantly stroking the minds of mental midgets, like Fox News does, does not mean they all have a political slant.
March 11, 2013 at 6:29 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Well Politically Free, you must be getting your news from a myriad of left wing sites such as Moveon.org or Media Matters to hold the views you do. Since you have a picture of a seal on your post, perhaps you are just from the loony state of California and that may explain everything.
March 12, 2013 at 9:03 am
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Politically Free,
Don’t worry about his personal attacks. He has to resort to those when the facts don’t support his narrative. Didn’t Fox tell us Romney in a landslide? And repeatedly, at that. No slant there. “Some people say…”
March 13, 2013 at 12:49 pm
Jim says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Planet:
Actually, the personal attack started with politically free with the comment:
“You watch too much Fox News.”
Agent replied with the exact opposite:
“You watch too much MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC. They don’t tend to cover much real news and always put their political slant on”
Then politically free, all insulted, and forgetting the fact that he just made the assumption that Agent watched Fox news, without any shred of evidence that Agent had just quoted Fox news stated:
“I actually do not get my news from any of those networks, but think what you want if it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside. And for the record, just because a news organization isn’t constantly stroking the minds of mental midgets, like Fox News does, does not mean they all have a political slant.”
It seems to me that politically free is just a hypocrite.
Moving forward:
Politically free:
If you don’t watch CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, or NBC, then where you are getting your facts from are opinion pieces, which you have to be extremely careful of the methodology.
I only get my stats directly from the CBO, CRA websites (when showing liberals the effect of the CRA code) the WHO in comparison to the government census (to show the difference in how the infant mortality rate is weighed) and then I cross reference MSNBC to CNN to Fox News, to New York Times (you can actually find from the same author on New York times an article complaining about Bush’s plan to do the largest financial overhaul on banking regulation in 2001, which they said would be a disaster, and then find another in 2008 stating that Bush’s very idea of de-regulation caused the collapse. A complete 180 there, and that’s why I get my own methodology). When you do this, you find the only thing that typically differs is the methodology. And you also find that the liberal methodology is wrong.
When they weigh what taxes oil corporations pay, they weigh their world wide revenues against their U.S. taxes. Huh? If you’re going to compare the tax rate, you have to either do world wide revenues to world wide taxes, or U.S. revenues to U.S. taxes. Not Worldwide to U.S. In that area, MSNBC was notably and provably incorrect in their methodology. Fox News was correct.
You cannot disregard Fox News, and insult it, without being inept and one sided. It is an impossibility. Without their information you are listening to only one or two sources by default.
You are not comparing the methodology, don’t lie and say you are. So yes, you are basically following sources, what Agent accused you of.
March 14, 2013 at 3:00 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Planet:
Yes. He has to resort to insults when the facts don’t fit his narrative…
Kind of like…The politifact proof showing your Reagan comments (which were attacks on the right) when they don’t fit, you just ignore the person and label them a bully.
Kind of like that Planet?
You never have facts that fit any narrative kiddo.
March 13, 2013 at 2:34 pm
perplexed says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Politically Free – is that a gun you’re holding to your head in your picture? Please pull the trigger.
Agent, I say not only end the White House tours, but sell the bleeping place to the highest bidder and tell Obama and his successors to go find a place to rent. One reason this country is in such a mess is that the schoolchildren on those tours are taught from the moment they set foot in a classroom to worship government and the useless, bossy creeps who run it.
Our king seems to think it is his house and it is actually the people’s house. He is only a temporary occupant like all the others before him. There was a time when the office had respect in this country and abroad. That time has come and gone.
Yeah, I used to buy that “respect the office” stuff too, but no longer. We should view the office, and the office holder, with contempt, since the presidency is no longer what the founders laid out. The president should be able to walk down the street in your hometown without anybody paying any attention to him. He is not supposed to be our leader or our god; merely an administrator who every couple of years maybe makes a treaty or signs a trivial law passed by a part-time Congress. Instead of clamoring for a tour of the imperial palace, school children should be singing the praises of folks like you who get up every day and provide products and services that make life better for all of us.
March 11, 2013 at 3:07 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Unfortunately Roland, school children are indoctrinated very well by the union infested teachers in our public schools. They are taught to sing praises of Obama and are not taught the truth of history, but some political slant to the left. If a kid manages to graduate, they get another dose of it in college by left leaning professors. What comes out of college are OWS types who have no skills in the marketplace and they want everything handed to them by the evil “rich”.
March 12, 2013 at 9:12 am
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
And, this relates to the article, how? Yes, sell The White House, that’s the answer. Were you screaming this when Ronald Regan stole the election from Jimmy Carter and then ruined our country with supply side Reaganomics, turning us from a creditor nation to a debtor nation? Selling arms illegally to Iran. Oh, and providing amnesty along the way.
The fact that you just compared Carter to Regan, with Carter as the better, with a stolen election by Regan of all people shows you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
Oh and by the way: Clinton’s tax revenues, at a rate less than half Carter’s tax revenues, caused surpluses for several years. Reagonomics did not ruin our nation. It saved it. If we had not gone down that path of lower taxes, we would not have had the 90’s boom. This is not a matter of opinion.
Since you like to quote Politifact so often. If Reagan was bad, Obama is a disaster.
I’ll take the 11% jobs growth thank you. This was after the tax cuts from Reagan, and this was after the Stimulus was in full effect on Obama’s end. The effect on the debt from the tax cuts was not larger than the effect of the spending on Obama’s end. So if Reagan destroyed the nation, it certainly had some positive effects for the middle class. Whereas with Obama, he spent wrecklessly, and is making us a debtor nation, and you think he has not.
Hold your guy accountable for his spending, not his predecessor. From Bush HW to Clinton our spending went down. Republicans in congress of 1995 were a part of that, as much as you refuse to admit it. The only reason I bring this up, is then to Bush, we went back up to annual deficits around the same as Bush HW except for Bush’s last year which was very high. Obama could have brought these deficits back down. The fact that he still has them at a Trillion per year is much more destruction than Reagan.
March 13, 2013 at 1:15 pm
Jim says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
And while I disagree with the numbers here, as to how I would weigh them, Obama on debt versus Reagan, from a source that you yourself use often:
He loses. Your conclusion: Reagan ruined the nation and turned it into a debtor. I want your logic, methodology, and sources. Not source, sources. Know the difference?
I want to see how you came to the conclusion.
My bet is you didn’t, someone else did.
March 13, 2013 at 1:23 pm
Jim says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Jim:
I should note that as a percentage of GDP comparison at the bottom confirms what I have said several times:
Bush W was not that bad with the debt. Especially if we had not entered a recession in his last year, which I will add again, he did not cause. But…You won’t accept that, with some misinformed sources stating how the collapse happened.
March 12, 2013 at 9:54 am
jw says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I’m sorry for interrupting, but I have to ask: how are school children not allowed to tour the White House? I was there with a school group not too long ago, so I’m a little confused.
Laws cannot regulate the behaviour of most people, but they do give us a stating remedy for those who behave irresponsibly. We can only hope for minimal loss of life before the offending texters learn that you cannot text and drive safely at the same time.
“Solving this problem will require new approaches,” he said. “My hope is that 10 years from now, there will be systems built into all automobiles that disable all hand-held devices when the car is in motion, allow only hands-free phone usage and convert incoming text messages to voice and outgoing voice commands to text using hands-free voice recognition technology.”
Yeah, that’ll help. Sheesh, and this guy’s a doctor? Somebody correct me if I’m wrong, but haven’t studies proven over and over that the problem is not the physical manipulation of the device, but the fact that when you’re concentrating on communicating with another person by phone, you are not concentrating on operating your vehicle safely? If people want the cops to be useful when it comes to highway safety, then they should insist that they start by doing a decent job of punishing behavior that is a direct threat to others. I can’t go anywhere without having some pathetic mouth-breather who thinks he’s a racecar driver sitting two feet from my rear bumper at 60 mph, poised to punt my family and me into the path of an oncoming truck if I have to so much as lift my right foot. Where are the donut-grazers then? Sitting on the shoulder staring at their radar. Tailgaters by definition do not have their vehicles under control, and the widespread acceptance of the practice shows that most drivers don’t even understand that it’s their responsibility not to hit stuff that’s in front of them. If they ever wise up about that, the phone thing will take care of itself.
Good points Roland. Unfortunately, human behavior being what it is, it is unlikely we’ll see much positive change in behavior despite increases in enforcement & fines.
Yep, I think you’re right, Dave. I used to be an advocate of much stricter enforcement against what I see as dangerous behavior on the road, and I suppose my post implied that I still am, but now I know that it probably wouldn’t help. As the cops are quick to point out, they can’t be everywhere. The solution, I think, is fewer preemptive laws and rules, not more. By preemptive laws, I mean laws that seek to prevent bad things from happening. They seldom do any good, and usually just penalize the innocent and drive up costs. I say take down all the regulatory signs, speed limits, etc., but make it clear that when you harm another person or his property, you will be required to make restitution one way or another. Humans have an uncanny ability to cooperate peacefully when left alone. All that most traffic laws accomplish is to give drivers more reasons to become indignant, and to relieve them of their cash so governments can use it to devise additional ways to boss us around.
I think what Roland was saying is that the market better controls human behavior than governmental dictum. Telling people not to build a house in a flood zone has less of an impact on behavior than saying, we don’t care where you build your home, but if you decide to build it in that flood zone there, don’t expect a dime of government support and good luck trying to find affordable non-government supported insurance. I got you right on that Roland?
Yes Dave, I agree 100 percent. Maybe you’ve had the misfortune of reading some of my rants about NFIP on this forum :) When supporters of the National Flood Insurance scam say that without it, owners of structures in flood-prone areas wouldn’t be able to get affordable insurance, I say “Good!” Most of them shouldn’t have been built there in the first place.
I am certain that the market could provide flood insurance, but policyholders would have to pay in proportion to their risk instead of getting bailed out over and over with taxpayer money.
J.S., as far as history books are concerned, I’ll bet out of the hundreds of millions of lost lives recorded in those pages, you won’t find many that weren’t at the hands of the state. Sure, individuals do bad things, and now and then one will even burst into a school and mow down 20 precious kids, but to slaughter innocent men, women and children by the millions, that requires government.
As far as traffic is concerned, it’s easy to find YouTube examples of intersections where the power has gone off and traffic actually flowed much more smoothly without any signals. Google “spontaneous order.” The only thing that government is good at is making things worse.
March 12, 2013 at 10:04 am
jw says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Roland – interesting info on the traffic at intersections. I’m afraid none of those people are in my state. As soon as the power’s out, it’s every man for himself (or woman for herself).
March 13, 2013 at 8:58 am
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Give me one, just one, Libertarian society that has actually been successful for any sustained period of time.
March 13, 2013 at 12:54 pm
Jim says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Planet:
Name one self proclaimed libratarian society, which you have not labeled as libratarian.
March 11, 2013 at 10:21 am
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I would be in favor of the insurance market offering an extra discount on rates in return for the insured to pledge to not talk or text while driving. Have them sign off on it. Of course, you would have to have a penalty for at fault accidents if they broke the pledge. Triple the Collision deductible if the accident was caused by cell use. Double the rate at renewal time.
Yes! A market solution (or possible solution, anyway) that competitors will imitate if it’s successful. Oh, wait: you wouldn’t be treating everybody the same. Discrimination! Unfair!
Agent, as I don’t trust people in general I’d rather offer them a discount if they had a device installed in their car which disabled phones while moving. Unfortunately that shuts down innocent passengers in a car, but too bad.
I understand some movie theaters are painting their walls with paint that doesn’t allow cell phone signals to go through. What a great idea!
Dave, I like your idea on the Movie Theatres. It is extremely annoying for people to get text beeps or phones ringing during a movie. There is a message on the screen that asks cell phones to be turned off, but these idiots pay it no mind.
March 13, 2013 at 9:01 am
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I love the idea of the paint in the movie theater. I can’t agree in the car, though. There are cases of emergency and phones are used for GPS reasons. Stricter regulation on drivers using phones I think is our best bet. Treat it like drunk driving.
Gosh, remember the days of the mounted and corded phones in cars? Talk about a distraction!
March 13, 2013 at 1:14 pm
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Message to “Jim” (or should I say Jim Bob),
I know you are really Bob, I’m not reading your comments. But, nice attempt. You can change the name, but I still choose to ignore the bully. Next.
Well, all the better for me Captain. I’ve provided your source links, all of them disproving your own comments. You’ve provided none, and no data.
You’re going to continue to look like a jerk and fool around here…I mean really, my comments here are not insulting. But you are claiming you are above actually having a debate with facts, while you accuse people of personal attacks (I’m a poet and didn’t know it!)
You’re going to have to learn to be an adult. You keep accusing people of being bullies when they are “insulting”. You’ve done your share of that in this forum.
Sometimes people fight, in that way I am much more human than you.
I don’t restrict my comments, but moreover, I actually provide resources. Ignoring people you think are “below you” is completely…Elitist, and is exactly why you are so stupid. Oh no Planet, I’ve insulted you! *rolls eyes* but you are stupid. You ignore everything but what you want to hear.
Anyone with a brain knows I’m much more combative than Jim.
This will be a good test of Darwinism. Hopefully these people kill themselves before they pass the idiot gene onto their offspring.
That works if they only have single car accidents. Sadly they usually take innocent lives with them.
Good point Anejo.
Hefty fines and loss of license for a period would be a good start. These people are like Zombies and cell use is an addiction. They can’t go to the toilet without them and probably have them under their pillow at night just in case they get a text. Somehow, this society has got to get a handle on this problem. I am tired of dodging these fools on the road. I don’t think we need the Feds involved. Obama will create another agency and hire another 10,000 to man it so they can monitor and control all activity.
Interesting observation about Obama, Agent. I think you’re right about that. He has never seen a situation he doesn’t want to control and with pounds of taxpayer money expended to do so.
Yes Rusty, it appears we don’t have enough money to allow school children to tour the White House, but we find enough money to buy new uniforms for TSA to the tune of $50Million and we can send the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt another $250Million. A new agency might not be more than $10Billion each year to monitor cell phone use and read the texts people are sending out while driving.
You watch too much Fox News.
You watch too much MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC. They don’t tend to cover much real news and always put their political slant on everything.
I actually do not get my news from any of those networks, but think what you want if it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside. And for the record, just because a news organization isn’t constantly stroking the minds of mental midgets, like Fox News does, does not mean they all have a political slant.
Well Politically Free, you must be getting your news from a myriad of left wing sites such as Moveon.org or Media Matters to hold the views you do. Since you have a picture of a seal on your post, perhaps you are just from the loony state of California and that may explain everything.
Politically Free,
Don’t worry about his personal attacks. He has to resort to those when the facts don’t support his narrative. Didn’t Fox tell us Romney in a landslide? And repeatedly, at that. No slant there. “Some people say…”
Planet:
Actually, the personal attack started with politically free with the comment:
“You watch too much Fox News.”
Agent replied with the exact opposite:
“You watch too much MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC. They don’t tend to cover much real news and always put their political slant on”
Then politically free, all insulted, and forgetting the fact that he just made the assumption that Agent watched Fox news, without any shred of evidence that Agent had just quoted Fox news stated:
“I actually do not get my news from any of those networks, but think what you want if it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside. And for the record, just because a news organization isn’t constantly stroking the minds of mental midgets, like Fox News does, does not mean they all have a political slant.”
It seems to me that politically free is just a hypocrite.
Moving forward:
Politically free:
If you don’t watch CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, or NBC, then where you are getting your facts from are opinion pieces, which you have to be extremely careful of the methodology.
I only get my stats directly from the CBO, CRA websites (when showing liberals the effect of the CRA code) the WHO in comparison to the government census (to show the difference in how the infant mortality rate is weighed) and then I cross reference MSNBC to CNN to Fox News, to New York Times (you can actually find from the same author on New York times an article complaining about Bush’s plan to do the largest financial overhaul on banking regulation in 2001, which they said would be a disaster, and then find another in 2008 stating that Bush’s very idea of de-regulation caused the collapse. A complete 180 there, and that’s why I get my own methodology). When you do this, you find the only thing that typically differs is the methodology. And you also find that the liberal methodology is wrong.
When they weigh what taxes oil corporations pay, they weigh their world wide revenues against their U.S. taxes. Huh? If you’re going to compare the tax rate, you have to either do world wide revenues to world wide taxes, or U.S. revenues to U.S. taxes. Not Worldwide to U.S. In that area, MSNBC was notably and provably incorrect in their methodology. Fox News was correct.
You cannot disregard Fox News, and insult it, without being inept and one sided. It is an impossibility. Without their information you are listening to only one or two sources by default.
You are not comparing the methodology, don’t lie and say you are. So yes, you are basically following sources, what Agent accused you of.
Planet:
Yes. He has to resort to insults when the facts don’t fit his narrative…
Kind of like…The politifact proof showing your Reagan comments (which were attacks on the right) when they don’t fit, you just ignore the person and label them a bully.
Kind of like that Planet?
You never have facts that fit any narrative kiddo.
Politically Free – is that a gun you’re holding to your head in your picture? Please pull the trigger.
Agent, I say not only end the White House tours, but sell the bleeping place to the highest bidder and tell Obama and his successors to go find a place to rent. One reason this country is in such a mess is that the schoolchildren on those tours are taught from the moment they set foot in a classroom to worship government and the useless, bossy creeps who run it.
Our king seems to think it is his house and it is actually the people’s house. He is only a temporary occupant like all the others before him. There was a time when the office had respect in this country and abroad. That time has come and gone.
Yeah, I used to buy that “respect the office” stuff too, but no longer. We should view the office, and the office holder, with contempt, since the presidency is no longer what the founders laid out. The president should be able to walk down the street in your hometown without anybody paying any attention to him. He is not supposed to be our leader or our god; merely an administrator who every couple of years maybe makes a treaty or signs a trivial law passed by a part-time Congress. Instead of clamoring for a tour of the imperial palace, school children should be singing the praises of folks like you who get up every day and provide products and services that make life better for all of us.
Unfortunately Roland, school children are indoctrinated very well by the union infested teachers in our public schools. They are taught to sing praises of Obama and are not taught the truth of history, but some political slant to the left. If a kid manages to graduate, they get another dose of it in college by left leaning professors. What comes out of college are OWS types who have no skills in the marketplace and they want everything handed to them by the evil “rich”.
And, this relates to the article, how? Yes, sell The White House, that’s the answer. Were you screaming this when Ronald Regan stole the election from Jimmy Carter and then ruined our country with supply side Reaganomics, turning us from a creditor nation to a debtor nation? Selling arms illegally to Iran. Oh, and providing amnesty along the way.
Planet:
The fact that you just compared Carter to Regan, with Carter as the better, with a stolen election by Regan of all people shows you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
Oh and by the way: Clinton’s tax revenues, at a rate less than half Carter’s tax revenues, caused surpluses for several years. Reagonomics did not ruin our nation. It saved it. If we had not gone down that path of lower taxes, we would not have had the 90’s boom. This is not a matter of opinion.
Planet:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/aug/27/stephanie-cutter/barack-obama-says-his-recovery-has-outpaced-ronald/
Since you like to quote Politifact so often. If Reagan was bad, Obama is a disaster.
I’ll take the 11% jobs growth thank you. This was after the tax cuts from Reagan, and this was after the Stimulus was in full effect on Obama’s end. The effect on the debt from the tax cuts was not larger than the effect of the spending on Obama’s end. So if Reagan destroyed the nation, it certainly had some positive effects for the middle class. Whereas with Obama, he spent wrecklessly, and is making us a debtor nation, and you think he has not.
Hold your guy accountable for his spending, not his predecessor. From Bush HW to Clinton our spending went down. Republicans in congress of 1995 were a part of that, as much as you refuse to admit it. The only reason I bring this up, is then to Bush, we went back up to annual deficits around the same as Bush HW except for Bush’s last year which was very high. Obama could have brought these deficits back down. The fact that he still has them at a Trillion per year is much more destruction than Reagan.
And while I disagree with the numbers here, as to how I would weigh them, Obama on debt versus Reagan, from a source that you yourself use often:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/may/19/nancy-pelosi/nancy-pelosi-posts-questionable-chart-debt-accumul/
He loses. Your conclusion: Reagan ruined the nation and turned it into a debtor. I want your logic, methodology, and sources. Not source, sources. Know the difference?
I want to see how you came to the conclusion.
My bet is you didn’t, someone else did.
Jim:
I should note that as a percentage of GDP comparison at the bottom confirms what I have said several times:
Bush W was not that bad with the debt. Especially if we had not entered a recession in his last year, which I will add again, he did not cause. But…You won’t accept that, with some misinformed sources stating how the collapse happened.
I’m sorry for interrupting, but I have to ask: how are school children not allowed to tour the White House? I was there with a school group not too long ago, so I’m a little confused.
Sequestration.
Laws cannot regulate the behaviour of most people, but they do give us a stating remedy for those who behave irresponsibly. We can only hope for minimal loss of life before the offending texters learn that you cannot text and drive safely at the same time.
“Solving this problem will require new approaches,” he said. “My hope is that 10 years from now, there will be systems built into all automobiles that disable all hand-held devices when the car is in motion, allow only hands-free phone usage and convert incoming text messages to voice and outgoing voice commands to text using hands-free voice recognition technology.”
Yeah, that’ll help. Sheesh, and this guy’s a doctor? Somebody correct me if I’m wrong, but haven’t studies proven over and over that the problem is not the physical manipulation of the device, but the fact that when you’re concentrating on communicating with another person by phone, you are not concentrating on operating your vehicle safely? If people want the cops to be useful when it comes to highway safety, then they should insist that they start by doing a decent job of punishing behavior that is a direct threat to others. I can’t go anywhere without having some pathetic mouth-breather who thinks he’s a racecar driver sitting two feet from my rear bumper at 60 mph, poised to punt my family and me into the path of an oncoming truck if I have to so much as lift my right foot. Where are the donut-grazers then? Sitting on the shoulder staring at their radar. Tailgaters by definition do not have their vehicles under control, and the widespread acceptance of the practice shows that most drivers don’t even understand that it’s their responsibility not to hit stuff that’s in front of them. If they ever wise up about that, the phone thing will take care of itself.
Good points Roland. Unfortunately, human behavior being what it is, it is unlikely we’ll see much positive change in behavior despite increases in enforcement & fines.
Yep, I think you’re right, Dave. I used to be an advocate of much stricter enforcement against what I see as dangerous behavior on the road, and I suppose my post implied that I still am, but now I know that it probably wouldn’t help. As the cops are quick to point out, they can’t be everywhere. The solution, I think, is fewer preemptive laws and rules, not more. By preemptive laws, I mean laws that seek to prevent bad things from happening. They seldom do any good, and usually just penalize the innocent and drive up costs. I say take down all the regulatory signs, speed limits, etc., but make it clear that when you harm another person or his property, you will be required to make restitution one way or another. Humans have an uncanny ability to cooperate peacefully when left alone. All that most traffic laws accomplish is to give drivers more reasons to become indignant, and to relieve them of their cash so governments can use it to devise additional ways to boss us around.
Roland: You say “humans have an uncanny ability to cooperate peacefully when left alone.”
Wow, have you ever read a history book?
I think what Roland was saying is that the market better controls human behavior than governmental dictum. Telling people not to build a house in a flood zone has less of an impact on behavior than saying, we don’t care where you build your home, but if you decide to build it in that flood zone there, don’t expect a dime of government support and good luck trying to find affordable non-government supported insurance. I got you right on that Roland?
Yes Dave, I agree 100 percent. Maybe you’ve had the misfortune of reading some of my rants about NFIP on this forum :) When supporters of the National Flood Insurance scam say that without it, owners of structures in flood-prone areas wouldn’t be able to get affordable insurance, I say “Good!” Most of them shouldn’t have been built there in the first place.
I am certain that the market could provide flood insurance, but policyholders would have to pay in proportion to their risk instead of getting bailed out over and over with taxpayer money.
J.S., as far as history books are concerned, I’ll bet out of the hundreds of millions of lost lives recorded in those pages, you won’t find many that weren’t at the hands of the state. Sure, individuals do bad things, and now and then one will even burst into a school and mow down 20 precious kids, but to slaughter innocent men, women and children by the millions, that requires government.
As far as traffic is concerned, it’s easy to find YouTube examples of intersections where the power has gone off and traffic actually flowed much more smoothly without any signals. Google “spontaneous order.” The only thing that government is good at is making things worse.
Roland – interesting info on the traffic at intersections. I’m afraid none of those people are in my state. As soon as the power’s out, it’s every man for himself (or woman for herself).
Give me one, just one, Libertarian society that has actually been successful for any sustained period of time.
Planet:
Name one self proclaimed libratarian society, which you have not labeled as libratarian.
I would be in favor of the insurance market offering an extra discount on rates in return for the insured to pledge to not talk or text while driving. Have them sign off on it. Of course, you would have to have a penalty for at fault accidents if they broke the pledge. Triple the Collision deductible if the accident was caused by cell use. Double the rate at renewal time.
Yes! A market solution (or possible solution, anyway) that competitors will imitate if it’s successful. Oh, wait: you wouldn’t be treating everybody the same. Discrimination! Unfair!
Agent, as I don’t trust people in general I’d rather offer them a discount if they had a device installed in their car which disabled phones while moving. Unfortunately that shuts down innocent passengers in a car, but too bad.
I understand some movie theaters are painting their walls with paint that doesn’t allow cell phone signals to go through. What a great idea!
Dave, I like your idea on the Movie Theatres. It is extremely annoying for people to get text beeps or phones ringing during a movie. There is a message on the screen that asks cell phones to be turned off, but these idiots pay it no mind.
I love the idea of the paint in the movie theater. I can’t agree in the car, though. There are cases of emergency and phones are used for GPS reasons. Stricter regulation on drivers using phones I think is our best bet. Treat it like drunk driving.
Gosh, remember the days of the mounted and corded phones in cars? Talk about a distraction!
Message to “Jim” (or should I say Jim Bob),
I know you are really Bob, I’m not reading your comments. But, nice attempt. You can change the name, but I still choose to ignore the bully. Next.
Captain:
You don’t like replying back to comments that make sense do you?
Those comments that I have made are not bullying. The way you are acting is though.
Well, all the better for me Captain. I’ve provided your source links, all of them disproving your own comments. You’ve provided none, and no data.
You’re going to continue to look like a jerk and fool around here…I mean really, my comments here are not insulting. But you are claiming you are above actually having a debate with facts, while you accuse people of personal attacks (I’m a poet and didn’t know it!)
My name is Jim BTW.
Very funny.
I have a padawan. Planet:
You’re going to have to learn to be an adult. You keep accusing people of being bullies when they are “insulting”. You’ve done your share of that in this forum.
Sometimes people fight, in that way I am much more human than you.
I don’t restrict my comments, but moreover, I actually provide resources. Ignoring people you think are “below you” is completely…Elitist, and is exactly why you are so stupid. Oh no Planet, I’ve insulted you! *rolls eyes* but you are stupid. You ignore everything but what you want to hear.
Anyone with a brain knows I’m much more combative than Jim.