[KLUG Members] The terrible Gub'mint....

[Robert G. Brown]

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 06:55:05 -0800, Rusty Yonkers <therustycook@yahoo.com> wrote:

>There are those of us that still believe that it is government
>misplaced to try to legislate away stupidity.

This might be one way of looking a the whole seat belt thing, but it
is rather more realistic to look at it as regulating our way around
the physics and mechanics of this activity. When people err in driving,
or are simply careless or foolish, it can be very destructive, not merely
to themselves, but to others. That's where it starts to matter, and some-
one or something else needs to wade in. 

I understand that in theory, you ought to be perfectly free to do any-
thing you like with an automobile, and if you choose to drive it into a
brick wall or over a cliff, no rules or gubmint is going to stop you. I
suppose that's OK with me, too... if it didn't cost me anything... but it
does.. more details if you like, but I think we all understand the costs
to us all.

I also believe you would agree that those "rights", if they exist at all, 
surely end if you take someone with you without their consent. By the
time seat belt regulations required them in cars, and "seat belt laws" 
were passed, this had happened, hundreds of thousands of times.

Let's not get too enamored of some notion that we're trying to
"legislate away stupidity".

>I have always wore my seatbelt but I chaff royally against some schmuck
>in congress...
Actually, it's generally been the state legislatures, not Congress. Most
of the schmucks who voted for the laws requiring the wearing of seat belts
work in Lansing (or other state capitols), not Washington.

>that thinks we need to force something down people because congress thinks
>it is right and smart.
Actually, it was, to a great degree, doctors and folks connected with ER's,
people who saw how many perfectly healthy folk were ending up being cared
for (sometimes for life), State Police officers, and folks concerned about
what all this was doing to their insurance rates (hint: not lowering 'em! :)
in the process. A bunch of testimony by people like this in front of some
committees int he legislature and pretty soon you've got them (YOUR repre-
sentatives) to vote for these laws.

Driving privileges are regulated by the states....

>I have less problems with laws requiring seat belts be a standard part 
>of cars (although there is a point where government has overstepped
>boundaries again).
Well, this is taken up at the Federal level, for several reasons. 
Oh.. Did you forget... we elect these people (aka "schmucks") who are
to represent us.. (of the schmucks, for the schmucks, by the...??)

Do you know what things were like before these schmucks regulated things
(in these and other areas?)? I would agree there is such a thing as
excessive regulation, but I claim this ain't it.

>We should not try to legislate behavior when it
>does not directly affect the health or safety of another.  
Ah, but it does, my Atomic Supergeek friend, it does. When someone loses
control of a car and bangs himself up that may be one tehing, but when he
bangs into another carful of people, it becomes another matter, for sure.

>Hmmm smoking is a really interesting one.  If it is soooo bad then
>why do we first subsidize the growing of tobacco and then second not
>make it just totally illegal.

Ah, now you are asking societies to be rigorous and consistent over time,
and that's just too much to expect. Conversely, you aren't allowing room
for them to grow and change values. After all, we used to value slavery,
debtors' prison, and throwing witches into rivers (who, if drowned, would
be declared innocent, but if floating were found guilty and put to death,
pretty grim prospects, eh? :) but not any more.....

>And if the non-smoking types want smoke-free bars why do they not take
>the risk of their money to open one up.
Some have, and some restaurants closed smoking sections, often
before (or without) regulation in their areas prohibiting smoking
in such places.

>Why should they be allowed to force another person to run a
>business the way they want it run.
Beeecuz....
They're not doing this in a general way, and for the general health and 
well-being of the citizenry as a whole.

I will leave the conduct of commerce in the complete absence of regulation
as an exercise for each reader.

Also, I don't claim that this is done with 100% consistancy; there are 
some real contradictions in all this, just as there are in human behavior.

>This would be akin to forcing all computer companies to carry Apple
>computers as part of their stock so that the Mac user could go to any
>store to get a Mac.
Why stop at computer companies? All businesses must sell Macs, by law!
How's that? :)

I'm sure Mac fans would approve, but in general this sort of interference
in commerce is frowned on in most English-speaking countries, at least.
The motivation behind regulation of business practices and methods is 
uniform trade practices (like not switching accounting methods all the 
time) or public health/safety (meat inspections and regulation of other
industries that produce stuff that is consumed by people, like pharma-
cueticals). The latter includes known carcinogens or destructive experi-
ments with motorized vehicles, both of which can be imposed on people by 
others.

There are isolated cases where regulation eliminates choices about what
products can be used, but they are rare and never done by product name. 
The regulation specifies a set of criteria something must meet to be 
"approved" for use in some regulated process, and it may happen that 
only one product meets those criteria. I'm sure there are cases where 
this happens with favoritism and corruption; I haven't seen any in my 
years of being involved with regulated industries. However, any company 
is free to create products that meet those criteria.

In some places (in the "free world") local laws protect locally produced 
products explicitly, but it is not common. For example, I believe any beer
served at some local Oktoberfest celebrations in Germany MUST be German
beer (or in some cases beer produced in that city or province), but even 
then is is not explicitly restricted to a particular maker or brand name.

>If you think Mac's are great and profitable items then open your own store.
Sure, no problem there.

>> My best example (being painfully familiar with it) is LDAP schema. 
>> To
>> create LDAP schema you have to acquire an OID number from IANA (a
>> central authority for such things).  It is free, as in costs
>
>This item is not a good point simply because you are talking about a
>system that, by its very nature, is meant for corporate (meaning
>interpersonal not business necessarily) interoperability.

I don't think this was part of the point Adam was trying to make. It 
appeared to me that the focus of his writing was how resistant people
are to any kind of compliance, even simple stuff. Adam can certainly
address this point again, unless he doesn't want to do the "paperwork" :)

>....I do not have to have locks on my doors at home that
>function the same as my neighbors for my locks to work.  Nor will
>dissimilar locks affect the operation of his doors.  
That's right; locksmiths have to service both of them, so they need
some standard reference for locks, or all locks must follow a fairly
small number of operating principles in order to economically train
the 'smiths.

>Just because an idea comes from "government" does not mean it is
>going to be the best idea.  We should limit government involvement to
>where it needs to be only.
That's fine. I agree that government isn't anything like a unique source
of good ideas, but we may differ on where government involvement is
appropriate or necessary; "where it needs to be only" is a bit vague for
my taste.

Maybe you would do well to list the government services you would like
to do without.

>There should not be government dictates in most areas of life.  
Oh, please... be specific. I don't think there are, and if you find
these "dictates" to be objectionable, work to change them.

>We do not immunize our children for most diseases simply because the
>risk of the side-effects...
Oh? I think we don't immunize ourselves against most diseases because we
don't have the vaccines, or because it is not necessary to do so.

>I rue the day that government would dictate those choices on us.  
Start ruing, Supergeek. But please, be thankful that the government
does this in some isolated circumstances. There are contagious diseases
you never have the "freedom" to catch as a result of this kind of
regulation. This kind of regulation is part of the vigilance that
several government agencies exist to exercise, and they've done a 
pretty good job of that for a really long time. I'm waiting to see 
if they make the list of services you would like to live without.

>Many in government positions have a significant power hungry bent
>that concerns me when it comes to having to much control of my
>computer or any other item of mine for security or any other area
>that would be sensitive.  Power abuse is all to common a trend in the
>history of mankind to "trust" people that much.  

Yes, that's certainly true. Our government of late has shown a very 
distasteful penchant for imprisoning some people for long periods of
time on some of the flimsiest evidence, often violating their rights.
These cases are the subject of litigation right now; let's all hope
they are resolved in favor of freedom and liberty. Some of the laws 
that have been passed recently have  granted extensive police power 
to enforcement agencies that are, by historical standards, very in-
trusive.

But of course we can look to the private sector for examples of sobriety,
balance, and social conscionce... people who live by the principles of 
fair competition, the merits of a level playing field, and maximizing
the benefits of the business for everyone involved.... people like
Bill Gates, for example, or the fine leaders of SCO, or the pillars
of integrity who come from places like Enron and Tyco....

.....

It's hard to get rid of THIS "pack of schmucks"; you have a set of tools
for getting rid of the previously mentioned "pack of schmucks". They're
called "elections". If more of our population took part in them, we'd
at least have a government that was a LOT more strongly connected to 
them (for better or worse), and rather quickly.

Rather than investing energy and "attitude" in continuing this, I'd suggest
that it would do more good invested in that.

{in reaction to the protective attitude air crews had for their planes}
>I get the same way about my computers simply because I do not trust
>most people to get it right.  If I screw it up then it is just my
>fault.  I have known too many idiots in my life to trust others. 
>Just look at how many people use M$ Windows for everything!!!

That's fine; can you honestly say that you have been aggressive in 
researching changes and adopting them? 

>Yes there are many that will not pay much attention to computer
>security.  I guess those are the ones that will have the struggles
>and either learn from the mistakes or be taken out of the race
>because of stupidity....

Sure, fundamentally a Darwinian process.

>That is one of the reasons our economic method
>works so well is because the stupidest do not survive (notice I did
>not say the best always win - although even though they may have been
>best in technology they obviously sucked at something).

Yes, we seem to constantly eliminate about the bottom 20% or so...

...
>An Atomic Supergeek with an attitude!
And what an attitude, too! :)

							Regards,
							---> RGB <---