Rolled Out On: 11/28/2007 4:52 PM

Want to travel? We're told constantly that driving is a privilege. One given to us by the all powerful state I guess.

Not exactly, driving is a right. Doing so on gov't property (.gov owned and operated roads), however...

You just assume there's some magical license that protects you from your doctor being an idiot. No such thing, buckaroo.

Again, not exactly. While you don't get a guarantee, the medical liscensing board is not a rubber stamp to any Tom, Dick or Harry who walks in the office. There are many med school students who don't pass their boards and don't receive their medical license. Again, it's no guarantee that your doctor isn't wrong in this case, but it does indicate a pretty strong likelihood he knows more about medicine than your cousin Bubba. Who, btw, you don't get to sue for giving you bad advice. I guess that license does do something, after all.

The appropriate question is whether the licensing board has to be the gov't or if it can be a private enterprise and who you can sue for receiving said bad advice.

Rolled Out On: 11/28/2007 5:27 PM

"We are no longer free men and women."

When were Americans ever free in the sense you are pining for?
Subsistence farming on somebody else's property in Maine ain't particularly free. Being grateful to get an job in the military, and hanging onto it for 20 years because you don't have other skills, isn't pure freedom. Arriving in Philadelphia from Poland and being grateful for a job in the local chemical factory, where they withhold money for your bills (rent, food, allowance for clothes and others) isn't 'free.'

As far as I can tell, the rich and powerful have always controllled and bullied the poor and weak.

Precious few people have been rich and educated, or brave and successful, or lucky enough to have freedom you've written about. My siblings and I are more free now than my parents' generation or their parents' generation.

Rolled Out On: 11/28/2007 10:18 PM

Yu-Ain, the driving thing I'll concede that public roads are owned by the govt. And I'm ok with having to pay some sort of tax to allow me to utilize those roads (hell, I drive a toll road every day of my life, so I get to pay double!). But the only permission I should need is that of paying for the usage. As far as those who are not allowed to drive for whatever infractions, when the police pull you over they do a check. If you're not allowed to drive, it's noted and you can be arrested for trespassing.

As far as the law suits go, you can sue anyone you want for whatever reason you so desire. Even cousin Bubba. And I 100% agree about certifications and trusting a certifying source, but if you don't want to and prefer to go to Ernie's Lube & Optometry, you should be allowed to make that choice. Heck, millions of people a day self diagnose medical issues and self medicate. When the problem goes beyond scrapes, burns, and headaches, many people turn towards the Internet to learn more. I know I do. I even check what my doctor tells me against whatever I can find.

And I don't need a license to do so.

Dusty,

You are confusing prosperity with freedom, lad. We are prosperous now in spite of the crushing regulation of the government because of the freedom inherent in capitalism. I run my own business and let me tell you, you can't just do what you do. You have to cross every i and dot every t or Uncle Sam will shut you down. But your little whine about the rich (who keep the poor employed) shows you're not very versed in economics so I can understand where you're confused.

As far as your jab at the military, I hope you won't take this the wrong way but you can go take a running leap and go fuck yourself. The military is a skill, you ass wipe. You think I joined the Marines and worked as an electrician on multi million dollar aircraft because I was destitute? You think that serving your country is a choice only poor people make or one of a last resort? You think our military can run solely on uneducated people?

Yeah, you probably do.

And no, you're not as free as your grandparents were. You can't walk into a hardware store and pick up a new pistol like they could. They didn't have to ask permission to add a new room to their house. They didn't have to worry about using a word that someone would misconstrue and sue them into oblivion.

We still have a lot more freedom than anywhere else in the world. We have not crossed the Rubicon where we can only slip into slavery. But we're working on it. Slowly. And it's attitudes like yours that make it happen.

We could open our freedoms even more. We would prosper even more. The rich would get richer and the poor would get richer and it would happen faster. Hell, our poor are fat! And have cell phones!

Rolled Out On: 11/29/2007 11:54 AM

We could open our freedoms even more. We would prosper even more. The rich would get richer and the poor would get richer and it would happen faster. Hell, our poor are fat! And have cell phones!

And just how much of my tax dollars made that happen?

Guess I'm feeling snarky today. Yes, we have less freedom today. Why? Because folks no longer take personal responsibility for their actions. Damn near everyone is looking for the easy money; be it from the state, courts, or the lottery. Ever think why there are so many warning labels on everything? It's because some twonk sued because they were too stupid to use common sense. Makes me sad to see what we've become.

As a good example, watch the old Christmas specials... Peanuts, How the Grinch Stole Christmas, or Rudolf the Red Nosed Reindeer (the 60's versions). In Peanuts : Charlie Brown is bitching about the commercialization of Christmas, which has only gotten worse since '65. Grinch, basically the same thing. Rudolf... different isn't a bad thing, it can be good.

Can't help but feeling that we, as a country, have managed to lose something special. Ok, going to stop this rant before it goes everywhere... and ends up being way off topic (which I think its already managed).

Sigh, maybe I need to start my own blog where I can rant about the continuous trend towards stupidity. When you were younger did you ride a bicycle wearing pads and a helmet? I know I didn't, road rash is a learning experience... don't try to take a tight turn on gravel... it doesn't work. Pain and injury is a valuable learning experience, if you don't have that experience how can you function later on in life?

(sigh. Robb - apparently your managed to trigger a major snark with me, it isn't a bad thing, just probably not appropriate to the subject on hand. Sorry for the rant, but since I wrote it, I'm going to post it... despite it not quite being on topic)

Rolled Out On: 11/29/2007 11:57 AM

Dano, you're spot on. Feel free to use up as much space as you want (although there seems to be a limit on comment length, so break it up in Notepad first!)

Rolled Out On: 11/29/2007 1:09 PM

On the road thing, I'm not saying the current system is the best. Only that since the road don't belong to you, you don't have a *right* to be on them.

As for lawsuits, yes you can sue anyone you want to for anything you want to.

But when your cousin Bubba tells you you can take a whole bottle of Tylenol safely (max safe dosage is 4 grams) and you hurt yourself by having done so, yes, you can sue him. There's not a jury in the country who won't laugh in your face for it though.

A licensed doctor who tells you the same thing and you hurt yourself... Well, not only can you sue, but you will also win.

That license does carry with it a legal obligation to maintain the standards of practice. Those that don't are held legally liable.

Again, I'm not saying that accredidation shouldn't be done privately, but then who accredits the accreditors?

I guess, maybe, if we did away with the entire accredidation system, the jury wouldn't laugh at me for suing the guy and I might be able to recover, but I'd have to demonstrate why he didn't hold up his end of the bargain (or that he did, in fact, have an end to hold up in the first place).

Though, when you're in an unfamiliar city having a heart attack isn't the best time to research the doctor's credentials on your own.

Rolled Out On: 11/29/2007 1:17 PM

But, YAG, the roads do belong to us. We paid for them. The government has no money of its own. Only what they get from us. The builder who built your house does not own it. Why? Because you paid for it. Same with the damn roads.

Rolled Out On: 11/29/2007 4:37 PM

If you believe that then try walking into the White House and bunking down in the Lincoln Bedroom uninvited.

Afterall, it was paid for by your money.

Something tells me you'd only try it once though. :-)

Seriously, just because it was built using citizen's tax dollars does not confer 'ownership and control' to any or all citizens.

Rolled Out On: 11/29/2007 4:50 PM

Destruction of property isn't the same as the right to use. A better analogy would be to try to sleep in the Lincoln Room, which while I agree you wouldn't get to, you'd have a much stronger case than simply saying you wanted to burn it down.

Rolled Out On: 11/29/2007 6:19 PM

Mr. Allen I don't think you are well versed in cowboy speak . http://www.thefreedictionary.com/bunk+down

Rolled Out On: 11/29/2007 7:16 PM

As Bugspray alluded to: I believe that's what I said :-)


So is bunk down also slang for burning or did you just think it was a typo?

Rolled Out On: 11/30/2007 1:59 PM

Mr. Allen,
Learn to read. "I run my own business and let me tell you, you can't just do what you do." Yes, but how is that different from 20 years ago?

You had said, "Want to run a business? You need the State's permission." How is that different from the 1930s?


"the rich (who keep the poor employed)" Yes, but again, how is that different from the past 2000 years?


"As far as your jab at the military" You, sir, are an idiot. IT IS NOT A JAB at the military to note that one gives up a lot of freedom to put on a uniform. It is not a jab to note that many people put in their 20 years, hoping they won't get canned at year 19 so some captain has a better budget sheet. It is not a jab to note that the people in charge decide what freedoms the people below them get to keep, in the government and outside it ,from the beginning of time right up to now.

"You think I joined the Marines and worked as an electrician on multi million dollar aircraft because I was destitute? You think that serving your country is a choice only poor people make or one of a last resort? You think our military can run solely on uneducated people?" Idiot, what aspect of this makes you less free than previous soldiers of the past 200 years? None of it. YOU are making claims about the government taking away freedoms; I'm pointing out that it is the same as it has always been. To transform that argument into an anti-military stance is a straw-man argument.

"And no, you're not as free as your grandparents were. You can't walk into a hardware store and pick up a new pistol like they could." The right to own a gun is important, but the Bill of Rights isn't the sum of total of our freedoms. Inter-racial marriages in MD, opening a business on a Sunday, keeping a job even though you didn't go to church or pay the union dues, those are useful freedoms. And they didn't always exist.

I know my father's father bought plenty of pistols. I don't know if either of my grandmothers could have. And I know that my mother's father could not have bought a new pistol. He never had the money. A theoretical freedom is useless, that is what lawyers, judges, and politicians talk about when they limit real freedom.


"They didn't have to ask permission to add a new room to their house." Idiot, yes they did. It isn't feasible to add a room onto a basement apartment, and they would have needed the landlord's permission. Again, theoretical freedoms versus real freedoms.

"They didn't have to worry about using a word that someone would misconstrue and sue them into oblivion." Hmm, the only people who can sue now are the rich, and lawsuit-chasing lawyers who find and support clients. The differences in lawsuits is due to a larger middle class and middle-upper class, not freedoms per se. So that's another point I win on merit.


"We still have a lot more freedom than anywhere else in the world. We have not crossed the Rubicon where we can only slip into slavery. But we're working on it. Slowly. And it's attitudes like yours that make it happen." Care to support this slander? I live in MD. Voter fraud is well beyond 10% in MD, and includes conveniences such as early voting centers on college campuses and senior centers. My vote is going to be stolen just as effectively as my grandfathers vote was stolen in Philly. Vote theft is a loss of freedom, and the seriousness hasn't changed with time.

"We could open our freedoms even more. We would prosper even more. The rich would get richer and the poor would get richer and it would happen faster. Hell, our poor are fat! And have cell phones!" There are true and obvious. Why are you making these points? If you think they support your position, you need to realize that you aren't currently thinking clearly about the position you've articulated.

Rolled Out On: 11/30/2007 2:32 PM

For someone who can't understand the difference between feasibility and possibility, there's not much use in arguing.

Rolled Out On: 11/30/2007 2:52 PM

I wrote "isn't feasible to add a room onto a basement apartment"

Mr Allen responds "For someone who can't understand the difference between feasibility and possibility, there's not much use in arguing."

Mr Allen, you are just playing the retard now. Because it is certainly possible to add a room to a basement; it requires digging and shoring up, but it is possible. Just not feasible.

Rolled Out On: 12/1/2007 1:31 AM

About this business about driving on the public streets being a privilege not a right, was it a privilege or a right to take your horse and wagon down the public streets 125 years ago?

It seems that this privilege crap arose only after the invention of the automoble which enabled poor people to actually travel someplace easily, economically, and without bending their desires and schedules to the railroad and streetcar.

Rolled Out On: 12/4/2007 1:50 PM

Windy,

Nope, privelige then too. The gov't always has had the power to remove and/or prevent access to any individual from public spaces.

Public ownership does not confer a right to use.

Just because a gov't power is not excercised does not mean that the gov't doesn't have it.

The change in excersizing this power is not from 'the peasants' getting access to mobility, but that a horse and carriage crash at 15 mph was rarely fatal to either passengers or bystanders. One ton of steel moving at 75mph is a different situation.

That's not to say I agree with our traffic laws, only that the gov't does have the power to make them.