The General Conversation Area

[shira]

I don't think safety should determine if I should be able to purchase / drive a car or not; Did I ask them to build safer, more complicated cars? if I want to drive a car which is dangerous to my health then that should be my choice, just like people choose to smoke or eat unhealthy foods. I'd scrap crash testing, MOT testing and compulsory insurance. Yes, my world would be a dangerous one... but it'd be cheap to live in.

Dude thats fuckin' stupid lol. The more dangerous the car you drive, the more danger to others. If you're driving **** car, you're more likely to get into an accident due to it failing at a bad time.

"Did I ask for them to be safe?" Well, no, but you also don't pay directly for your healthcare. I mean, dude, the more accidents you have because you're driving a ****** car, the more it costs other people. Cause who's gonna patch you up? The NHS i'm guessing. And even if you turn around and say you go private, then the majority of people would need the NHS.

So, to combat that, you'd say what, "NHS shouldn't cover car accidents" ? In that world, it wouldn't be cheap as you said, it'd be very, very expensive. We'd all be paying for injuries that could have been avoided by having Crash Tests/MOT Tests etc. It's a very very twisted logic to say we should all drive ****** cars bro. I mean, cmon, if your ****** car caused the death of someone else (Simply cause its breaks were in the shitter, or the steering was in the shitter) wouldn't we all be blaming the car companies for producing ****** goods?

Think about it man, cmon.

 

[chaos]

Why make a car that lasts fifty years when you can make it fall apart in ten and sell the customer a new one?

Safety reasons and technology. Those cars are almost 100% mechanical, they were not built to last 50 years, but the ability to fix them is greater as they have less tech in them.

And that's just the way I like it. Makes them easier to repair yourself. I'm in a dilemma now because I want to put my (mechanically sound) twelve year old car back on the road, but the sills have rusted through. It will cost over £200 to weld them up but as of now, the car is worth nothing - and in another year they'll probably have rusted through somewhere else - If they'd made the sills from stainless steel then the car would probably go on for another ten years. Like I say, the running gear is in perfect condition, it's just the outer shell which is deteriorating. IMO, things like that show they built with the express purpose of selling another car a decade down the line.

I can agree with the easy to repair bit. Always had VW's and I like them because all I needed was a wire and a chewing gum to fix it and get home if something broke. I've even been flooded on that car and it still worked!

WRT to regular steel vs Stainless steel, the reason is simple: price.
USD 592 per tonne of carbon Steel
USD 2786 per tonne of Stainless Steel

Oh, and stainless steel is "harder" (?) than regular steel, which causes it to actually be able to break, as opposed to fold.

Besides, I'm a pretty die-hard social libertarian. I don't think safety should determine if I should be able to purchase / drive a car or not; Did I ask them to build safer, more complicated cars? if I want to drive a car which is dangerous to my health then that should be my choice, just like people choose to smoke or eat unhealthy foods. I'd scrap crash testing, MOT testing and compulsory insurance. Yes, my world would be a dangerous one... but it'd be cheap to live in.

Well, that's why I'll have a Shelby one day =D

Communism is the best system for the world, but the world is too selfish and corrupt to ever allow it. Peoples' views of what is rightfully theirs and what they are entitled to are based upon what they get now and what they would like to have in addition to that, which in their defense is what the current capitalistic society has taught them to believe. For Communism to work, society must be changed for the better and all class barriers would have to be annihilated.

No, I disagree. IMHO, the best system for the world would be a compassionate capitalist. Europe is not too far from this vision. Basically, a world where the extra effort is rewarded, but no one starves to death and have the ability to explore their full potential. Basically a world of free food / education / health care. in simpler words, everyone will have plain bread, but if you want a sausage roll, you will have to work for it.

That's called Socialism, aka Communism Lite. It is like Communism but with people getting paid according to their job.

Anyway, you don't often get paid more according to how hard you work in Capitalism anyway. A vast number of factors determine how much you are paid, and how hard you work is one of the lesser ones. Certain areas of work pay more without requiring any greater level of effort, footballers for example.

Artists and athletes in general are a bad example. How well they re paid depends hugely on talent, charisma, etc, while talent in the case of an athlete is measurable as you could compare perfomances, in an artist charisma is not so easily measured.
I'm not saying the reward system is entirely fair, I'm just saying that without the reward system, the world would not evolve at all.

What? why've you dual booted, surely reinstalling the OS would have rectified the problem much quicker than a Dual boot.

He wants to have win7 and be able to play some games that do not run on win7, perhaps?

 

[ayase]

I don't think safety should determine if I should be able to purchase / drive a car or not; Did I ask them to build safer, more complicated cars? if I want to drive a car which is dangerous to my health then that should be my choice, just like people choose to smoke or eat unhealthy foods. I'd scrap crash testing, MOT testing and compulsory insurance. Yes, my world would be a dangerous one... but it'd be cheap to live in.

Dude thats ****' stupid lol. The more dangerous the car you drive, the more danger to others. If you're driving **** car, you're more likely to get into an accident due to it failing at a bad time.

"Did I ask for them to be safe?" Well, no, but you also don't pay directly for your healthcare. I mean, dude, the more accidents you have because you're driving a ****** car, the more it costs other people. Cause who's gonna patch you up? The NHS i'm guessing. And even if you turn around and say you go private, then the majority of people would need the NHS.

So, to combat that, you'd say what, "NHS shouldn't cover car accidents" ? In that world, it wouldn't be cheap as you said, it'd be very, very expensive. We'd all be paying for injuries that could have been avoided by having Crash Tests/MOT Tests etc. It's a very very twisted logic to say we should all drive ****** cars bro. I mean, cmon, if your ****** car caused the death of someone else (Simply cause its breaks were in the shitter, or the steering was in the shitter) wouldn't we all be blaming the car companies for producing ****** goods?

Think about it man, cmon.

Something you need to realise about me is that while I do care about certain particular individuals, in general I have next to no social conscience. One possible solution is for people to drive cars which are so unsafe that if they crash the chance of death is almost absolute, preventing any need for further strain on the healthcare / justice systems. If you're dead you don't need any healthcare and can't be prosecuted (I smile while I type this stuff because I imagine the look of horror on other people's faces).



But thinking more logically (and being somewhat less radical), for a moment; It would be in your interest not to die in a car accident anyway, so people would still keep their cars maintained... Just not to a government mandated level. Look at America. Fifteen states require no safety or emissions inspections at all. I can't find figures, but I don't imagine those states have many more car accidents than the others.

 

[shira]

Something you need to realise about me is that while I do care about certain particular individuals, in general I have next to no social conscience.

That still doesnt work as a soloution though. Our laws and so forth are all built upon consensus (in theory, in practise however it's not always so).

One possible solution is for people to drive cars which are so unsafe that if they crash the chance of death is almost absolute, preventing any need for further strain on the healthcare / justice systems. If you're dead you don't need any healthcare and can't be prosecuted

Then we'd have over crowded graveyards, and moreso, massive amounts of pyschological trauma in most of the population who witness/are in car accidents. Do you know how traumatic it would be to see someone crash infront of you, and when you look in the car, you see a bloodied mess of a body. Our population would soon go insane.

But thinking more logically (and being somewhat less radical), for a moment; It would be in your interest not to die in a car accident anyway, so people would still keep their cars maintained... Just not to a government mandated level. Look at America. Fifteen states require no safety or emissions inspections at all. I can't find figures, but I don't imagine those states have many more car accidents than the others.

Yes, but the thing is, I could have a perfectly well kept working car, but if the other ass hole on the road has decided s/he wants to risk driving a ****** vehicle, them i'm still gonna crash. Not at my fault, but at the fault of their car dying on em, causing me to crash. See what i'm saying?

Also without figures, you can't honestly make a judgement. "I shouldn't imagine..." doesn't really hold water at all.

 

[ayase]

Something you need to realise about me is that while I do care about certain particular individuals, in general I have next to no social conscience.

That still doesnt work as a soloution though. Our laws and so forth are all built upon consensus (in theory, in practise however it's not always so).

I... wasn't really offering that as a solution to anything except understanding how I think. As for laws being made on consensus, I'm pretty sure things would change a lot if we had more referendums. Some things for the worse no doubt, but mainly for the better IMO. I think we'd find my fellow reckless cheapskates and I would win out on this particular issue, for example...

(I'm going to leave the middle part because I was being deliberately over the top and shocking, and I think you countered in a similar fashion. As I said later on, I personally don't think the accident rate would increase by a lot really).

I could have a perfectly well kept working car, but if the other ass hole on the road has decided s/he wants to risk driving a ****** vehicle, them i'm still gonna crash. Not at my fault, but at the fault of their car dying on em, causing me to crash. See what i'm saying?

That happens anyway as a result of bad driving or unforeseen vehicle failure though; Few accidents are the fault of both parties. Really it's all a matter of weighing up the pros and cons - For me, it all comes down to the fact that I would rather live in a less safe, more free world than a safer, less free world (hence my stance against surveillance cameras, gun control etc.). Everyone's views on that subject are going to be different, but in defence of my position I will say that ultimately the people in power would rather have a less free world, because it gives the state more control and individual citizens less. I'm for winning back these little freedoms now; Not only because it would make my life easier but because once all the little freedoms are gone, it's much easier for the bigger ones to follow.

Hmm. This may require a little work but here's the raw data:

US State Populations
Number of Traffic Accident Deaths By State

If you can be arsed to do the sums and prove me wrong, be my guest. Don't feel obliged to though, I can't be arsed to do them to prove myself right after all.

 

[ayase]

P.S: Your links suck ****ing arse.

How so? They look fine from where I'm sitting.

 

[shira]

I... wasn't really offering that as a solution to anything except understanding how I think. As for laws being made on consensus, I'm pretty sure things would change a lot if we had more referendums. Some things for the worse no doubt, but mainly for the better IMO. I think we'd find my fellow reckless cheapskates and I would win out on this particular issue, for example...

House of Commons represents us bro, most laws passed are from a group we decide on. But, the better example is that, in the case of precedent, a Judge can issue a practise statement to over-rule previous decisions and change the law. The most famous case was the one in which made rape in Marriage illegal (See RvR). This practise statement changed a legal principal that had stood for centuries, partly due to the fact societies views had changed over time. So, in a weird way, we do change the law, it just takes time.

See, you should research Law and Morality (Otherwise known as Natural Law, I believe), you'd be interested in it, i'm confident of that.


That happens anyway as a result of bad driving or unforeseen vehicle failure though; Few accidents are the fault of both parties. Really it's all a matter of weighing up the pros and cons - For me, it all comes down to the fact that I would rather live in a less safe, more free world than a safer, less free world (hence my stance against surveillance cameras, gun control etc.).[/quote]

I can understand laws against the possession of firearms.

However, CCTV cams don't hurt anyone, ****** cars failing does. I don't think that's a good comparison. (I'm totally against a lot of the CCTV though. I can understand in trouble spots, but, it's getting silly now).


I also can't be assed to do the maths on your data. Thanks for finding it though, i'll take a scan.

 

[Mutsumi]

Something you need to realise about me is that while I do care about certain particular individuals, in general I have next to no social conscience.

That still doesnt work as a soloution though. Our laws and so forth are all built upon consensus (in theory, in practise however it's not always so).

I... wasn't really offering that as a solution to anything except understanding how I think. As for laws being made on consensus, I'm pretty sure things would change a lot if we had more referendums. Some things for the worse no doubt, but mainly for the better IMO. I think we'd find my fellow reckless cheapskates and I would win out on this particular issue, for example...

What the majority of the people want and what is truly best for them are rarely the same thing. Empowering the people with the choice to maintain their own vehicles at their own discretion will lead to chaos as Spyro (or should I say Chunners now?) has explained. Also, just because something does not completely fail in one country does not mean it will succeed in another. Consider the differences in traffic congestion in the UK and in some states of the US as an example, since some US states are larger than the UK yet with less than a tenth of the population, the likelihood of an accident even if all the cars were rustbuckets is lower.

 

[ayase]

I... wasn't really offering that as a solution to anything except understanding how I think. As for laws being made on consensus, I'm pretty sure things would change a lot if we had more referendums. Some things for the worse no doubt, but mainly for the better IMO. I think we'd find my fellow reckless cheapskates and I would win out on this particular issue, for example...

House of Commons represents us bro, most laws passed are from a group we decide on.

I generally vote Liberal Democrat. My MP is a Conservative. I didn't decide on anyone in that group, I don't consider anyone in the House of Commons to represent me, and most MPs only represent the views of their parties and themselves - They represent their constituents purely as lip-service to maintain power (if they even need to do so at all).

I've said before that I think Democracy is flawed, and this is one of the reasons why - a minority (no proportional representation in our national parliament remember) choose an even smaller, self interested minority who (and this is the important part) then proceed to govern our lives in minute detail. I'd be fine with Democracy, I'd be fine with minority rule if they didn't interfere in peoples' lives so much. In fact, if government shrunk to a minuscule size didn't interfere at all in people's lives wherever possible (save basic services such as healthcare, policing, education and food / housing provision - as chaos said earlier, people shouldn't be left to starve) then I'd be happy to never vote again and let them be dictators.

I will look into Natural Law, cheers. Law isn't something I'm particularly well versed in.

@Mutsu - I'm still not convinced that in those fifteen US states, you have badly maintained cars careering onto the pavement mowing down civilians, or conking out on highways causing massive upheaval every day. Were that the case, and bearing in mind that America has been the most car-oriented country on earth for over half a century, I think they would have changed those laws by now. And what is best for people? Freedom to make our own decisions, for good or ill, or the nanny state (who we pay to force things upon us like this is all some expensive, masochistic role-play fantasy gone horribly wrong*) watching over their every move?

*That is possibly the best allegory for being a British Citizen ever. I'm very proud of that statement.

 

[Zin5ki]

See, you should research Law and Morality (Otherwise known as Natural Law, I believe), you'd be interested in it, i'm confident of that.

Natural law can be traced at least as far back as the Socratic age. Certainly, it remained of great importance in Western and Middle Eastern traditions throughout the Medieval and into the Early Modern period. I suspect its credibility has waned recently, for such strong moral realism has moved from being in a position of dominance to being but a single contender.

Admittedly, I have little zeal for any notions of normative ethics. I prefer a more personal approach, entrenched within individual psychological occurrences instead of universal postulates.

 

[shira]

I generally vote Liberal Democrat. My MP is a Conservative. I didn't decide on anyone in that group, I don't consider anyone in the House of Commons to represent me, and most MPs only represent the views of their parties and themselves - They represent their constituents purely as lip-service to maintain power (if they even need to do so at all).

There are Lib Dems in the House of Commons who also put forward your ideals..

I've said before that I think Democracy is flawed, and this is one of the reasons why - a minority (no proportional representation in our national parliament remember) choose an even smaller, self interested minority who (and this is the important part) then proceed to govern our lives in minute detail.

What? Parliament make all the laws, the Government cant do something unless Parliament says they can. Unless, do you mean something else by 'govern our lives in minute detail'?

Thing is, Parliament made legislation that required Safety Belts to be put in all cars. Everyone was against this, but statistics shown that many more lives would be saved if they were compulsory. Parliament made an Act, all cars had to have Safety belts, and now, society agrees with safety belts. Anyone can see the difference in the figures. Parliament done what is best for us.

(save basic services such as healthcare, policing, education and food / housing provision - as chaos said earlier, people shouldn't be left to starve)

Hold on, you're saying that Healthcare and Education are 'basic' services? Quite the contrary, they're very complex bro. You can't have a tiny government, and have them only 'giving us free education and healthcare' (Cause that's what you're getting at there, or so it seems).

Freedom to make our own decisions, for good or ill

As long as they dont result in the direct harm of others. I confess, we've gone to far into the nanny-state now, but it could be really really bad the other way...

 

[ayase]

Firstly, the Lib Dems don't support my ideals anyway. I was simply stating that my chosen representative (who I voted for as the lesser of three evils) had not won the election, therefore I personally have not chosen a single member of the houses of Parliament.

I've said before that I think Democracy is flawed, and this is one of the reasons why - a minority (no proportional representation in our national parliament remember) choose an even smaller, self interested minority who (and this is the important part) then proceed to govern our lives in minute detail.

What? Parliament make all the laws, the Government cant do something unless Parliament says they can. Unless, do you mean something else by 'govern our lives in minute detail'?

In Britain, I realise being "In Government" has another meaning, that of the ruling party. When I say 'Government' I mean the mechanism by which a country is governed, which you call Parliament as you are being specific to the UK. So to use your term, I'm saying that it is Parliament which governs our lives.

Parliament done what is best for us.

Fantastic. I'll just sit back, and as the years go by I'll fork over more and more of my cash and let them tell me more and more what to do, because they know better than me. This doesn't sound like you Spyro - I thought you were more for the rights of the individual and against government control like that? Perhaps we think along similar lines but just set the bar at different heights for where government should stop interfering?

(save basic services such as healthcare, policing, education and food / housing provision - as chaos said earlier, people shouldn't be left to starve)

Hold on, you're saying that Healthcare and Education are 'basic' services? Quite the contrary, they're very complex bro. You can't have a tiny government, and have them only 'giving us free education and healthcare' (Cause that's what you're getting at there, or so it seems).

It is what I'm getting at. These things could all be massively simplified. Far too much time and money is tied up in bureaucracy and administration. Local councils and authorities for example, aren't needed at all. Why have hundreds of people being paid for making the same decisions when you can have one? Then you don't get people fighting over which schools or hospitals are better or get more funding, 'cause they're all the same (granted, they might all be pretty **** as well, but that would encourage more people to go private and take strain off the system, wouldn't it?). You just have a single, national parliament which governs all areas of the country directly; Where the health and education ministers make the final decisions, take their 50k a year (hell, up it to 100k or 200k - they'd save us millions in administration costs). Eventually, even these ministers could be dispensed with as we built a supercomputer to make the decisions instead based on logic. Since the actions of my idealised minimal government would mainly be confined to balancing budgets, there's no reason a machine couldn't do it. Cheap, quick, logical and unbiased. Everything government should be.

/Mad (Political) Scientist

 

[shira]

In Britain, I realise being "In Government" has another meaning, that of the ruling party. When I say 'Government' I mean the mechanism by which a country is governed, which you call Parliament as you are being specific to the UK. So to use your term, I'm saying that it is Parliament which governs our lives.

Parliament is governing them to an extent yes, but that should not be mixed up with the Government. The Government are a few individuals who only represent one sector of society, Parliament is comprised of many different parties (just with a majority being the elected government). What i'm saying is, Parliament isn't as evil as the government, but it's not perfect.

Fantastic. I'll just sit back, and as the years go by I'll fork over more and more of my cash and let them tell me more and more what to do, because they know better than me.

OK here's the thing bro, i'm pretty sure (But can't find a source or textbook to back this up) that parliament don't get paid for sitting in parliament and debating acts. They get expenses for travel, but that's it if I recall. I think it was during a trip to the Houses of Parliament I got informed of this (Which means I have no documentation whatsoever to prove my point, I could be wrong here).

Also, it's not neccessarily that they know better than you, but they know better than the brainless masses.

This doesn't sound like you Spyro - I thought you were more for the rights of the individual and against government control like that? Perhaps we think along similar lines but just set the bar at different heights for where government should stop interfering?

Oh I very much am in favour for the rights of the individual, but many people don't realise what is good for them. In my example I used the issue of Seat-belts. Everyone was against them coming in, but they've saved so many lives, it was the right thing to do. Parliament try to sway societies attitudes by making legislation like that. And they succeeded in that example.

It is what I'm getting at. These things could all be massively simplified. Far too much time and money is tied up in bureaucracy and administration. Local councils and authorities for example, aren't needed at all. Why have hundreds of people being paid for making the same decisions when you can have one? Then you don't get people fighting over which schools or hospitals are better or get more funding, 'cause they're all the same (granted, they might all be pretty **** as well, but that would encourage more people to go private and take strain off the system, wouldn't it?). You just have a single, national parliament which governs all areas of the country directly; Where the health and education ministers make the final decisions, take their 50k a year (hell, up it to 100k or 200k - they'd save us millions in administration costs). Eventually, even these ministers could be dispensed with as we built a supercomputer to make the decisions instead based on logic. Since the actions of my idealised minimal government would mainly be confined to balancing budgets, there's no reason a machine couldn't do it. Cheap, quick, logical and unbiased. Everything government should be.

Local councils are needed, they can very quickly bring in new laws that only apply to the area in a crisis. It's hard to keep a tab on everywhere if you're just one, large organization. You need several little ones to get tabs.

In regards to the rest of your statement about Hospitals/Education, i'm not sure where I stand. All I know is the education system is terrible. It's Parrot-Fashion teaching with no emphasis on knowing what you're talking about. (I like to think that my independent studying means I am not like that though).

 

[ayase]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPs%27_Salaries_in_the_UK

"The basic salary of an MP in the House of Commons was increased to £64,766 as of 1 April 2009.[2][3] Many MPs (ministers, the Speaker, senior opposition leaders, opposition chief whip, etc) receive a supplementary salary for their specific responsibilities. As of the 1 April 2008 these increments range from £14,039 for Select Committee Chairs to £130,959 for the Prime Minister. MPs also receive extensive expenses, including paying for, buying and furnishing second homes"

But in a way, that's peanuts. The money I'm talking about is that which they waste in the sprawling, labyrinthine bureaucracy of government departments and the civil service. Hack it all down, let's just have "Health Service Man" who decides what the health service does and "Education Woman" who makes education related decisions. The education system is ****, but it will cost a hell of a lot more to make it better; and you can bet the money won't all go into training good teachers and better materials for students. Half of it will be wasted on consultancy before anything changes at all, if it even does.

Doubtless the people involved in running our country are of above average intelligence. However, this doesn't mean they should be making decisions for others. I'm saying that (within reason) we should let the brainless masses do what they like; Then their money is their own, their lives are theirs to do with as they please - and so would yours and mine be. To use examples we have been discussing; Some people wouldn't wear seatbelts. I would wear a seatbelt but maintain my own car. You would wear a seatbelt and have your car maintained by a garage. Thus our chance of survival in accidents would be proportional to our relative intelligence and ability to perform risk-benefit analyses.

 

[shira]

"The basic salary of an MP in the House of Commons was increased to £64,766 as of 1 April 2009.[2][3] Many MPs (ministers, the Speaker, senior opposition leaders, opposition chief whip, etc) receive a supplementary salary for their specific responsibilities. As of the 1 April 2008 these increments range from £14,039 for Select Committee Chairs to £130,959 for the Prime Minister. MPs also receive extensive expenses, including paying for, buying and furnishing second homes"

Ah, then I think I am mistaking the Commons with the Lords in this instance.

The education system is ****, but it will cost a hell of a lot more to make it better; and you can bet the money won't all go into training good teachers and better materials for students. Half of it will be wasted on consultancy before anything changes at all, if it even does.

I really don't think it can be fixed. I think it's more the attitude of the students that's screwed up. To give an example;

I go away and do independant study for Law, and actually learn/understand what i'm being taught, because I am interested in Law. However, 90% of my class aren't interested, take everything in parrot fashion, and don't have any understanding. The problem is, for my teacher to get good grades (and not lose her job) she has to teach in a parrot fashion way.

Doubtless the people involved in running our country are of above average intelligence.

lol, as a side note, I don't always think that they are. Some are narrow minded assholes. (This is me getting angry about the Coroners and Justice Bill again...)

However, this doesn't mean they should be making decisions for others. I'm saying that (within reason) we should let the brainless masses do what they like; Then their money is their own, their lives are theirs to do with as they please - and so would yours and mine be. To use examples we have been discussing; Some people wouldn't wear seatbelts. I would wear a seatbelt but maintain my own car. You would wear a seatbelt and have your car maintained by a garage. Thus our chance of survival in accidents would be proportional to our relative intelligence and ability to perform risk-benefit analyses.

I think i'm getting what you mean now, and I can agree with this to an extent. I do believe there are more variables than you've given in this. (Eg the severity of the accident could mean you're ****** despite being in a seat belt, and with a well kept car) but we're getting there. I agree with quite a bit of what you say- but again I think there are to many variables but make this practical.

 

[Ryo Chan]

HAPPY NEW YEAR EVERYONE

 

[Mutsumi]

Happy Chinese New Year!

 

[TRASHBAT]

Happy Valentines day~

 

[ayase]

Wow. I feel like a right troll after more-or-less starting that entire downloading thing (entirely unintentionally, BTW - I was just confused by what Mutsumi said, honest!)

Well, I've finally got round to trying to cram every single piece of music I own on CD into my iPod. 3586 tracks and counting...

 

[ilmaestro]

Aww, Mutsumi's lack of comprehension of the concept of Intellectual Property was just getting funnier and funnier in that thread, shame it had to be locked.