 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / April 2008AAA Study: Cost of Crashes Tops $164.2 Billion Each Year
March 27, 2008 AAA Study: Cost of Crashes Tops $164.2 Billion Each Year CAMBRIDGE, Mass. --- The societal cost of crashes is a staggering $164.2 billion annually, nearly two and a half times greater than the $67.6 billion price tag for congestion, according to a new report released by AAA. The report, "Crashes vs. Congestion: What's the Cost to Society?," demonstrates that traffic safety issues warrant increased attention from the public and policymakers, particularly as Congress prepares to reauthorize federal transportation programs in 2009. "Most Americans will be surprised to learn that motor vehicle crashes cost more than the congestion they face on their daily commute to work," said AAA President and CEO Robert L. Darbelnet. "Great work has been done by the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) to quantify the costs of congestion, raise awareness for the problem and offer solutions. We feel safety deserves a similar focus." According to the study conducted by Cambridge Systematics, the $164.2 billion cost for crashes equates to an annual per person cost of $1,051, compared to $430 per person annually for congestion. These safety costs include medical, emergency and police services, property damage, lost productivity, and quality of life, among other things. The report calculates the costs of crashes for the same metropolitan areas covered by the annual Urban Mobility Report conducted by TTI. In every metropolitan area studied, from very large to small, the results showed crash costs exceeded congestion. For very large urban areas (more than 3 million), crash costs are nearly double those of congestion. Those costs rise to more than seven times congestion costs in small urban areas (less than 500,000) where congestion is less of a challenge. "Nearly 43,000 people die on the nation's roadways each year," said Darbelnet. "Yet, the annual tally of motor vehicle-related fatalities barely registers as a blip in most people's minds. It's time for motor vehicle crashes to be viewed as the public health threat they are. If there were two jumbo jets crashing every week, the government would ground all planes until we fixed the problem. Yet, we've come to accept this sort of death toll with car crashes." The report includes several recommendations to improve safety, including support for a national safety goal of cutting surface transportation fatalities in half by 2025, as recommended by the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission. http://www.automotive-fleet.com/Channel/Safety-Accident-Management/News/Story/20 08/03/AAA-Study-Cost-of-Crashes-Tops-164-2-Billion-Each-Year.aspx The report may be found here- http://www.aaanewsroom.net/Main/Default.asp?CategoryID=7&ArticleID=596 ----- - gpsman > March 27, 2008 > AAA Study: Cost of Crashes Tops $164.2 Billion Each Year [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > > - gpsman I've been saying this for years. Cracking down on criminal drivers would not only save lives but lots of money. Throwing criminal drivers in prison would pay for itself a hundred-fold. > "Nearly 43,000 people die on the nation's roadways each year," said > Darbelnet. "Yet, the annual tally of motor vehicle-related fatalities [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > ground all planes until we fixed the problem. Yet, we've come to > accept this sort of death toll with car crashes." So very true. 43,000 people per year averages out to be around 830 each week and 118 daily. That's over a hundred deaths spread out all across the country and usually with one or two at each scene. Notice how a crash that kills 8 makes national news, but 8 crashes that kill 1 each don't? Same number of deaths, they're just scattered out and not as "spectacular" as one massive crash killing that many. John B. > > "Nearly 43,000 people die on the nation's roadways each year," said > > Darbelnet. "Yet, the annual tally of motor vehicle-related fatalities [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > John B. Even the crash that kills 8 gets scant coverage and NEVER leads to calls for stiffer penalties for criminal drivers. The media is paid very handsomely by the auto industry to call all deadly crashes "accidents" and then move on to something else. On Apr 1, 11:56 am, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <beta...@earthlink.net> wrote: > > "gpsman" <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > very handsomely by the auto industry to call all deadly crashes > "accidents" and then move on to something else And of course the real cost doesn't end with the dead, but attaches to those who are maimed, and need expensive treatment and therapy, and who can't work, or become more costly to employ because special provisions need to be made. It appears in the impositions on the families whose lives are also diminished and who have, in some cases, to structure their work arrangements around supporting someone with a disability. It turns up in the children whose relationships with parents and siblings is damaged when a death or serious injury has affected the family. Really, if the government were spending its resources trying to keep Americans safe according to the actual and prospective morbidity and trauma stats, road safety would be way ahead of Defence or the "War on Terror", the "War on Drugs" and a whole bunch of other stuff. But of course, there's no political advantage to reducing road trauma is there? No wag the dog factor. Indeed, there could be a cost, since many people like driving their cars whenever they feel like it, and efficient, effective public transport costs serious money, and as you say, the car lobby (and the fuel lobby) is well cashed up. Fran >Really, if the government were spending its resources trying to keep >Americans safe according to the actual and prospective morbidity and >trauma stats, road safety would be way ahead of Defence or the "War on >Terror", the "War on Drugs" and a whole bunch of other stuff. The war on drugs and the war on terror are wars on the liberty of the people of the USA. We should be happy that such intrusive attacks are way behind when it comes to road usage. Do you really want to have a TSA type checkpoint to pass through on your drive to work or to the supermarket? The war on drugs, because government cannot stand that some people dare to ingest substances it has not approved and substances it has outright banned, has killed thousands. It has destroyed neighborhoods, ruined lives, seen innocent people killed by the police because of an informant's lie or just the inability to get the correct address. The war on terror is just getting started but it's already claiming its own domestic victims as the powers government got to go after terrorists are being used to go after political opponents (banking as in the case of the NY gov, that's war on drugs too) and even common street crime or copyright violations. We should be happy the road safety war has only progressed as far as the DUI checkpoints and other idiotcy. >But of course, there's no political advantage to reducing road trauma >is there? Same political advantage there is with the war on drugs and the war on terror. And the war on the people under the guise of road safety has taken similiar lines as being for the children etc and so forth. Government increases its size and power through each of them. On Apr 1, 12:43 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > In article <56032b7b-dafe-484c-80c1-3a65bf8bb...@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Fran wrote: > >Really, if the government were spending its resources trying to keep [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > The war on drugs and the war on terror are wars on the liberty of the > people of the USA. So far so good. > We should be happy that such intrusive attacks are > way behind when it comes to road usage. That's just the point though. They aren't. > Do you really want to have a > TSA type checkpoint to pass through on your drive to work or to the > supermarket? Personally, I'd favour a road usage charge that was based on the tare of your car, its emissions, the traffic volumes at the time of usage, your driving skill and risk profile, the risk profile of your vehicle and the availability of transport alternatives along your route(s). Some concession could be made for where you live. Your driving behaviour would be tracked in real time, and when you threatened to exceed speed limits or approached a traffic control signal rather too quickly, or crossed an unbroken road separation line or overtook too close to a crest, you'd be given a warning. If you actually broke the road rule, you'd get an on the spot (but modest, scaled, fine). Your licence could be suspended in real time, and your car shut down on 5 business days notice. Police could shut you down on the spot. I'd abolish all other charges on road usage or fuel or taxes on cars however. > The war on drugs, because government cannot stand that some people dare > to ingest substances it has not approved and substances it has outright [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > copyright violations. We should be happy the road safety war has only > progressed as far as the DUI checkpoints and other idiotcy. Not the same. The right to drive a vehicle on public roads is a privilege, extended to those who make it their business not to infringe the safety of others. It's not every person's right. What you choose to ingest of course, really is your own business. > >But of course, there's no political advantage to reducing road trauma > >is there? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > taken similiar lines as being for the children etc and so forth. > Government increases its size and power through each of them. Some things are best done by the government -- and reconciling divergent and conflicting claims over scarce and essential resources is one of them. The ways in which people get from A to B demand oversight. It's that simple. Fran >On Apr 1, 12:43 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >That's just the point though. They aren't. I am not sure what you are getting at. The war on drugs and the war on terror is rather intrusive, much of it unseen to most people, but once you experience it the intrusiveness is quite obvious. Or maybe you meant the ones for road usage aren't... to that, they are more than bad enough. >> Do you really want to have a >> TSA type checkpoint to pass through on your drive to work or to the >> supermarket? >Personally, I'd favour a road usage charge that was based on the tare >of your car, its emissions, the traffic volumes at the time of usage, >your driving skill and risk profile, the risk profile of your vehicle >and the availability of transport alternatives along your route(s). Nice little control freak world there. Soon only the favored people of the government get to drive and you have to wait 15 years and befriend and bribe the right people to have a chance at permission. >Some concession could be made for where you live. Your driving >behaviour would be tracked in real time, and when you threatened to [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >abolish all other charges on road usage or fuel or taxes on cars >however. Even more control freakism. What drives you people? Seriously, why do you think such control over people's lives is a good thing? All governments go bad sooner or later, why do you want to hurry the process along so and make it that much worse? Do you operate under the illusion government won't use the power against you? Or is it because you see yourself as such a small person you figure that won't matter to you, as you'll never have political office or anything like that? Or is the joy more perverse, sticking it to people you don't like? Using government as bully against people you don't care for? What drives this sort of control freakism? >> The war on drugs, because government cannot stand that some people dare >> to ingest substances it has not approved and substances it has outright [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> copyright violations. We should be happy the road safety war has only >> progressed as far as the DUI checkpoints and other idiotcy. >Not the same. The right to drive a vehicle on public roads is a >privilege, You use the words 'right' and 'privilege' together. They incompatible. Either we have a right to use the roads or it is a government granted privilege. If it is really the later and I don't believe it is, then government can tie anything it likes to the privilege. Of course people now believe it to be a privilege because that's what the government schools taught them. However, if one looks back into the history of the automobile, it's not a privilege, it effectively became one because of mass belief, but that's all it is, belief. > extended to those who make it their business not to >infringe the safety of others. It's not every person's right. Then the infringements are where the government comes in. Not making something a privilege where government can tie anything it likes to the use of the road. Just think, maybe the government decides that one must take a loyalty oath to GWB to get a driver's license. Under the privilege concept it can do that and much worse. > What you choose to ingest of course, really is your own business. How gracious of you. However to believe that government gets to watch where we go, when, with who, by what path and all the other assorted tracking and controls you suggest is incompatible. That sort of watching and control is what is behind the logic of the drug war. Ever see the movie, "Refer Maddness"? Look at why drugs needed to be controled. It wasn't only because people would poison themselves. >> >But of course, there's no political advantage to reducing road trauma >> >is there? >> Same political advantage there is with the war on drugs and the war on >> terror. And the war on the people under the guise of road safety has >> taken similiar lines as being for the children etc and so forth. >> Government increases its size and power through each of them. >Some things are best done by the government -- and reconciling >divergent and conflicting claims over scarce and essential resources >is one of them. Um, no it's not. The political process does not allocate resources best. It results in mismanagement, shortages, long lines, high prices, corruption, theft, and other horrors. Every resource government attempts to manage ends up like that. > The ways in which people get from A to B demand oversight. It's that > simple. government screws everything it touches up. Of course the answer is always more government intervention.... Federal reserve causes a housing bubble with all its cheap money and then the bubble bursts the answer of course is to give the fed more control! You're using the same logic. It's insanity, doing the same thing and expecting different results. More government intervention is not the answer. We'd be better off following the safety based engineering principles instead of controls and enforcement. > In article <94765f95-c4a5-4a27-8bce-31b686ddd...@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Fran wrote: > >On Apr 1, 12:43 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > the ones for road usage aren't... to that, they are more than bad > enough. Neither. I was saying that a lot more resources are devoted to prosecuting the 'war on drugs" or "the war on terror" than on policies that would reduce road trauma. > >> Do you really want to have a > >> TSA type checkpoint to pass through on your drive to work or to the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > the government get to drive and you have to wait 15 years and befriend > and bribe the right people to have a chance at permission. There's absolutely nothing to stop that happening right now, aside from the fact that most people wouldn't put up with it. Actually, if you think about it, it makes perfect sense from a market perspective. Instead of paying large lumps of money to cover third party insurance, and road taxes for vehicles that are heavier than yours and do more damage or based on vehicles that are taking up scarce but luxuriantly maintained road space while you're driving on some potholed low traffic road, you pay according to what you use and your risk to others. If you don't drive much, or drive off peak, or use a car that is fuel economical or are an excellent law-abiding driver, then you should pay less than someone who isn't. Another advantage is that every car that gets off the road creates more spavce for those on the road, improving the safety and amenity of the roads for those who don't have good alternatives. Sure, you pay more per unit of distance, but you get a better quality service, and your car suffers less wear and tear, and your vehicle's property insurance charge declines. You get some of your time back each day, and time, as they say, is money. > >Some concession could be made for where you live. Your driving > >behaviour would be tracked in real time, and when you threatened to [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Even more control freakism. What drives you people? Seriously, why do > you think such control over people's lives is a good thing? You might as well ask, 'why do you think control over thugs in the street is a good thing?' 'Why should lunatics be kept secure from the public?' Freedom is a good thing. I want to maximise it. As perverse as it may seem though, when one person's freedom comes at the expense of another's expanding the first person's freedom does nothing for freedom in aggregate. Indeed, if you force people to compete for limited freedom, they might both finish up with less than if they came to an amicable arrangement. > All > governments go bad sooner or later, That's true. What I think of road safety though is unaffected by that. > why do you want to hurry the process > along so and make it that much worse? The question is begged: does what I propose 'hurry this along'? > Do you operate under the illusion > government won't use the power against you? What power? The government ALREADY licences vehicle use, but in a slipshod and at times arbitrary manner, which imposes a high compliance cost with little compliance benefit. This makes good political sense but little sense in terms of 'the greatest good for the greatest number'. What I propose would lower the compliance cost and increase the scope of compliance benefits. > Or is it because you see > yourself as such a small person you figure that won't matter to you, as > you'll never have political office or anything like that? It's unlikely that I will ever hold political office, but that's beside the point. > Or is the joy > more perverse, sticking it to people you don't like? I like the vast majority of people I'm aware of, or am, at worst, indifferent to them. I take no pleasure in the misery of others. I do object to the behaviour of those whose self-seeking harms others, and likewise to policies that encourage such anti-social conduct. > Using government as > bully against people you don't care for? What drives this sort of > control freakism? It's only your assertion that this amounts to 'control freakism'. I'm not even sure what you mean by that. I don't favour unnecessarily intrusive control over human activities. On the other hand, when human activity stands a very serious prospect of harming the legitimate and especially the compelling interests of others, it's clear to me that the best thing is to take steps to foreclose such harms, if necessary, at the expense of the discretion or personal space of those increasing the harm. All civilised societies follow this principle, although each draws the lines in different places. No society I'm aware of, beyond the days of hunter gatherer existence, has every been totally indifferent to the social behaviour of its members. Indeed, even hunter gatherer societies have some loose rules and obligations. The world is headed in the direction of 9 billion people by about 2050, when one 100,000 or so years ago there were probably 4000 human beings. How do you suppose 9 billion people can live together without metaphorically and literally treading on each others toes? The resources and the space for each of them to act entirely as they pleased simply don't exist, and the attempt to approach that state would cause enormous hardship. So we have to find a way of reconciling the resources and the space we have with the work that has to be done so as to provide the freedoms we think we'd like. > >> The war on drugs, because government cannot stand that some people dare > >> to ingest substances it has not approved and substances it has outright [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Either we have a right to use the roads or it is a government granted > privilege. We have a qualified right, which means it's not an absolute right. Each of us has the absolute right to try and live another day. Life is a *compelling* interest. Nobody ought to impinge on that right, and each of us who asserts that right is ethically bound to come to the assistance of those doing no more than asserting that right. The qualified right to use the roads is a *legitimate* interest. Road space is limited and so we must negotiate with others who also have a legitimate claim. How do we work out who gets road space when two people want the same piece at the same time? We have a set of rules and usages which are ultimately enforceable by those appointed by us for the purpose. Their job is to consistently ensure that whoever has the more legitimate claim, gets it. That way each of us gets as much but no more than that to which we lay legitimate claim. > If it is really the later and I don't believe it is, then > government can tie anything it likes to the privilege. Of course people [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > use of the road. Just think, maybe the government decides that one must > take a loyalty oath to GWB to get a driver's license. That would be stupid, and I don't propose it. It's not relevant to road safety and wouldn't pass any fair test of utility. > Under the > privilege concept it can do that and much worse. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > where we go, when, with who, by what path and all the other assorted > tracking and controls you suggest is incompatible. Well if you don't fancy that, you can always take the bus, or the train, or ride a bike, or walk, or car pool, or take a taxi and totally avoid the big bad government. > That sort of watching > and control is what is behind the logic of the drug war. Ever see the > movie, "Refer Maddness"? Yes ... nasty > Look at why drugs needed to be controled. It > wasn't only because people would poison themselves. Of course not. > >> >But of course, there's no political advantage to reducing road trauma > >> >is there? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Um, no it's not. The political process does not allocate resources best. That's a sweeping generalisation. Sure there's no shortage of examples of inefficient and ineffective and at times corrupt government provision, but business is every bit as likely to misdirect resources. While it's probable that retail goods and services are probably best organised by resort to the usages of markets, even these require a degree of state oversight, if only to protect consumers from shoddy and at times dangerous merchandise and services. And would you really want emergency services run by private businesses? That was tried with fire fighters in ancient Rome. The results weren't great. The odd thing is that if all roads were privatised, you'd very probably have people charging for all usages. Right now, roads are a kind of middle class welfare. > It results in mismanagement, shortages, long lines, high prices, > corruption, theft, and other horrors. Every resource government attempts > to manage ends up like that. No, it doesn't. > > The ways in which people get from A to B demand oversight. It's that > > simple. > > government screws everything it touches up. <sigh> oh here we go ... right wing populist rant ... > Of course the answer is > always more government intervention.... Federal reserve causes a housing > bubble with all its cheap money and then the bubble bursts the answer of > course is to give the fed more control! Well duh ... they left credit providers to make up the rules as they went along, and now they can't work out how to put 1.7 trillion or so of doubtful quality debt back onto bank balance sheets without scaring everyone into hiding from the fall out. So now they are stuck with handing out even cheaper money precisely because they don't want the backwash of letting everyone go toe to toe on who owes whom what. Had they regulated these markets effectively, there wouldn't be the uncertainty that now exists and the proportion of bad debts and whose they were would be plain. > You're using the same logic. > It's insanity, doing the same thing and expecting different results. > More government intervention is not the answer. We'd be better off > following the safety based engineering principles instead of controls > and enforcement. Safety on the roads is only partly related to have safe vehicles and safe road design. It's also about how many people are using the road, and how intensively. That's why during a recession, road trauma declines by a lot more than even the best designed road safety campaign. People stop using their cars. Given that the realtionship between traffic volumes and road trauma is logarithmic, reducing road usage and closely regulating the road usage you have in real time gives you enormous safety payback. You change the culture around road usage to one based on safety and efficiency rather than some mad expression of commuter angst or the man on horseback conquering the west. Everyone wins then. Fran >> I am not sure what you are getting at. The war on drugs and the war on >> terror is rather intrusive, much of it unseen to most people, but once >> you experience it the intrusiveness is quite obvious. Or maybe you meant >> the ones for road usage aren't... to that, they are more than bad >> enough. >Neither. I was saying that a lot more resources are devoted to >prosecuting the 'war on drugs" or "the war on terror" than on policies >that would reduce road trauma. Both those have been far more effective in destroying the protection of our rights. That's not to say the would be police state has not been attacking road use, because it has. The checkpoints can make anyone who grew up in the 80s feel like the US lost the cold war. >> >> Do you really want to have a >> >> TSA type checkpoint to pass through on your drive to work or to the >> >> supermarket? >> >Personally, I'd favour a road usage charge that was based on the tare >> >of your car, its emissions, the traffic volumes at the time of usage, >> >your driving skill and risk profile, the risk profile of your vehicle >> >and the availability of transport alternatives along your route(s). >> Nice little control freak world there. Soon only the favored people of >> the government get to drive and you have to wait 15 years and befriend [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >from the fact that most people wouldn't put up with it. Actually, if >you think about it, it makes perfect sense from a market perspective. Heaven forbid people don't want to be treated like slaves or livestock! >Instead of paying large lumps of money to cover third party insurance, That's because of the insurance lobby. >and road taxes for vehicles that are heavier than yours and do more >damage or based on vehicles that are taking up scarce but luxuriantly [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >is fuel economical or are an excellent law-abiding driver, then you >should pay less than someone who isn't. Law-abiding... nobody driving a motor vehicle on the road is law-abiding. Why? Because the laws are set up such that everyone is a violator. First they post the speed limit so low that almost every driver exceeds it, then there are a variety of laws regarding impeding traffic and profiles of criminals and DUI drivers that driving the speed limit or less makes one fit. Just the other night I was driving under the posted limit and picked up yet another officer trailing me, running my plate. >Another advantage is that every car that gets off the road creates >more spavce for those on the road, improving the safety and amenity of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >insurance charge declines. You get some of your time back each day, >and time, as they say, is money. It doesn't work that way. Instead it just costs more and the congestion is worse. What you controlers don't realize is that most of the trips are not optional. That congestion by itself is more than enough encouragement to move optional trips to other times of the day or not take them at all. Driving has to be made to really suck for someone to take a complicated three hour transit trip instead of what is now a one hour drive. >> >Some concession could be made for where you live. Your driving >> >behaviour would be tracked in real time, and when you threatened to [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> Even more control freakism. What drives you people? Seriously, why do >> you think such control over people's lives is a good thing? >You might as well ask, 'why do you think control over thugs in the >street is a good thing?' 'Why should lunatics be kept secure from the >public?' Thugs on the street? The only thugs on the street I know of are the ones with a government issued badge. They are the ones out there shaking people down for money. There is the occasional and rare car jacking, I've never seen one of those... I have seen countless incidents of police robbing motorists on the side of the road. >Freedom is a good thing. I want to maximise it. As perverse as it may >seem though, when one person's freedom comes at the expense of >another's expanding the first person's freedom does nothing for >freedom in aggregate. Indeed, if you force people to compete for >limited freedom, they might both finish up with less than if they came >to an amicable arrangement. How 1984 of you. Freedom is slavery, war is peace, yadda yadda. The rules of the road already govern that. Central control telling people where and when they may drive is not freedom. >> All >> governments go bad sooner or later, >That's true. What I think of road safety though is unaffected by that. It's difficult to have revolution when you can't assemble. It's hard to assemble when you can't travel freely. >> why do you want to hurry the process >> along so and make it that much worse? >The question is begged: does what I propose 'hurry this along'? The controling of our movements. >> Do you operate under the illusion >> government won't use the power against you? >What power? The government ALREADY licences vehicle use, but in a >slipshod and at times arbitrary manner, which imposes a high >compliance cost with little compliance benefit. This makes good >political sense but little sense in terms of 'the greatest good for >the greatest number'. What I propose would lower the compliance cost >and increase the scope of compliance benefits. There is no benefit to government control except to the controlers. I do notice that you think more control is justified by the fact there is already some control. Sorry, but that does not fly. This 'greater good' thing of yours has been used to justify all sorts of evil and government control over centuries. >> Or is the joy >> more perverse, sticking it to people you don't like? >I like the vast majority of people I'm aware of, or am, at worst, >indifferent to them. I take no pleasure in the misery of others. I do >object to the behaviour of those whose self-seeking harms others, and >likewise to policies that encourage such anti-social conduct. Anti-social conduct.... ahh that term so used in the UK to justify cameras everywhere. I've come to learn that term is just used for people that are not liked. People who refuse to join in and go with the herd is enough to be labeled anti-social. the 'harm' to others is usually some sort of over reaching stretch as well. The rules of the road already govern the interaction on the roads in a fair manner, or at least they did before control freaks started messing with them. No new laws or controls are required, merely restoring the rules of the road, first by making them respectable again by forcing government to set speed limits and light timings per best known engineering practices. >> Using government as >> bully against people you don't care for? What drives this sort of >> control freakism? >It's only your assertion that this amounts to 'control freakism'. I'm >not even sure what you mean by that. I don't favour unnecessarily >intrusive control over human activities. Could have sworn you were favoring a control grid where the government tracked and monitored everyone's travel and restricted it as it sought fit. ?On the other hand, when human >activity stands a very serious prospect of harming the legitimate and >especially the compelling interests of others, it's clear to me that [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >pleased simply don't exist, and the attempt to approach that state >would cause enormous hardship. >So we have to find a way of reconciling the resources and the space we >have with the work that has to be done so as to provide the freedoms >we think we'd like. It's called the rules of the road. It's rather very simple. It doesn't not require number plate scanners, tracking, permissions of movements, oppressive taxation of movement, or anything else of the kind. All it takes is not monkeying with it for government control or profit. Once the system is perverted for those purposes people no longer see it as being about the fair use of a resource, but rather government's game to steal money from them. >> You use the words 'right' and 'privilege' together. They incompatible. >> Either we have a right to use the roads or it is a government granted >> privilege. >We have a qualified right, which means it's not an absolute right. >Each of us has the absolute right to try and live another day. Life is >a *compelling* interest. Nobody ought to impinge on that right, and >each of us who asserts that right is ethically bound to come to the >assistance of those doing no more than asserting that right. >The qualified right to use the roads is a *legitimate* interest. Road >space is limited and so we must negotiate with others who also have a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >the more legitimate claim, gets it. That way each of us gets as much >but no more than that to which we lay legitimate claim. The more legitimate claim... some people are just more equal that others in your universe. No wonder the rules of the road, the simple rules of right of way that go about bringing equal access are not enough for you. I've sorry, I don't want to have to lobby local government just so I can get from point A to B. Your system makes every trip something that government has to approve. Government isn't fair, just, or anything else. There is no 'claim' to the road, no joe's trip is more legitimate than bob's. The simple rules of right of way are all that is needed. Not central control deciding who gets to go where and when. >> If it is really the later and I don't believe it is, then >> government can tie anything it likes to the privilege. Of course people [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> > extended to those who make it their business not to >> >infringe the safety of others. It's not every person's right. >> Then the infringements are where the government comes in. Not making >> something a privilege where government can tie anything it likes to the >> use of the road. Just think, maybe the government decides that one must >> take a loyalty oath to GWB to get a driver's license. >That would be stupid, and I don't propose it. It's not relevant to >road safety and wouldn't pass any fair test of utility. Government doesn't care about tests of utility. It will already take a DL if someone owes child support under the privilege concept. It's the privilege concept that your proposed control grid of the state deciding who's trips are more legitimate functions under. The privilege concept can easily be used for loyalty oaths and much worse. >> How gracious of you. However to believe that government gets to watch >> where we go, when, with who, by what path and all the other assorted >> tracking and controls you suggest is incompatible. >Well if you don't fancy that, you can always take the bus, or the >train, or ride a bike, or walk, or car pool, or take a taxi and >totally avoid the big bad government. bus, train, air travel, etc are all subject to ID checks, searches, etc under the 'war on terror'. Walking and biking are anti-social, its not what the herd does. The last time I was stopped by police and searched was walking home with my dinner, so don't tell me walking is free of government interference. Plus there have been calls to track bicyclists. Once government gets a taste of tracking it won't permit anything it cannot track. Taxis are also very controled by government regulation. It would be trivial to force an ID check and tracking there as well. >> That sort of watching >> and control is what is behind the logic of the drug war. Ever see the >> movie, "Refer Maddness"? >Yes ... nasty That's the argument you are making for road controls. People will go wild and hurt others.... It's the refer madness argument more or less. >> >Some things are best done by the government -- and reconciling >> >divergent and conflicting claims over scarce and essential resources >> >is one of them. >> Um, no it's not. The political process does not allocate resources best. >That's a sweeping generalisation. Sure there's no shortage of examples >of inefficient and ineffective and at times corrupt government >provision, but business is every bit as likely to misdirect resources. There is no shortage of it, because it occurs every time. Show me one instance where government hasn't mismanaged something it has taken control over? There isn't an single instance I can think of. Not one. >While it's probable that retail goods and services are probably best >organised by resort to the usages of markets, even these require a >degree of state oversight, if only to protect consumers from shoddy >and at times dangerous merchandise and services. The best protection is research, the internet makes that pretty easy these days. Most government product and business regulation is actually designed to stifle competition. That is one business or group of buisnesses, sometimes worker groups, lobby government to put in controls that are harmful to the competition. That will drive the competition out of business. One recent example is the animal ID act. This act is a huge burden on the small farmers that is favored by the big corporate farming companies. The FDA is even worse by making it illegal for someone to get treatments they want. Government decides what is best for you, not you. Government regulation is a tool to drive your competition out of business, it doesn't really offer consumer protection. > And would you really >want emergency services run by private businesses? That was tried with >fire fighters in ancient Rome. The results weren't great. However, when it comes to wild fires in CA, the private services are the ones saving homes while the public resources just decide who's home they are going to save and which ones they'll let burn. Someone out there would be silly not to have insurance that doesn't contract with private fire fighters. >The odd thing is that if all roads were privatised, you'd very >probably have people charging for all usages. Right now, roads are a >kind of middle class welfare. If roads were privatized there would need to be competing systems. Instead what we would see in the US would be government granted monopolies. >> It results in mismanagement, shortages, long lines, high prices, >> corruption, theft, and other horrors. Every resource government attempts >> to manage ends up like that. >No, it doesn't. Name where it hasn't. That's going to be a short list. The last attempt in the US were nixon's price controls and other nonsense that resulted in gas lines. >> > The ways in which people get from A to B demand oversight. It's that >> > simple. >> government screws everything it touches up. ><sigh> oh here we go ... right wing populist rant ... Name something it hasn't screwed up? BTW, the 'right wing' in the US is just another set of big government control freaks. >> Of course the answer is >> always more government intervention.... Federal reserve causes a housing >> bubble with all its cheap money and then the bubble bursts the answer of >> course is to give the fed more control! >Well duh ... they left credit providers to make up the rules as they >went along, and now they can't work out how to put 1.7 trillion or so >of doubtful quality debt back onto bank balance sheets without scaring >everyone into hiding from the fall out. Um... the federal reserve fixes interest rates. It caused the problem. Fractional reserve banking and fiat money is the problem. It is what requires the the control. Real money and allowing the idiots who loan poorly to go broke is the only effective control. And, it was your government regulation that encouraged, even forced the bad loans. Remember, if you didn't loan to deadbeats that made you racist, etc and so forth. >So now they are stuck with handing out even cheaper money precisely >because they don't want the backwash of letting everyone go toe to toe >on who owes whom what. >Had they regulated these markets effectively, there wouldn't be the >uncertainty that now exists and the proportion of bad debts and whose >they were would be plain. The answer to government screw ups is more government! The regulation and interference made things worse so the answer is more regulation and intereference. The answer is always more control when attempts at control don't work out. It's absurd. We are all poorer for it. Government protects the privileged, the connected at the expense of the disconnected. Government protects the big banks and other interests that give the right people money at the expense of the many. That's how government regulation and control works. That's what you are seeing right now with your calls for more control. >> You're using the same logic. >> It's insanity, doing the same thing and expecting different results. >> More government intervention is not the answer. We'd be better off >> following the safety based engineering principles instead of controls >> and enforcement. >Safety on the roads is only partly related to have safe vehicles and >safe road design. It's also about how many people are using the road, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Everyone wins then. No most everyone loses. The connected win. The elites win. The masses lose. We get to pay more and more but are permitted to do less and less. Instead of being free we become subject to control. Seriously, you people will be sorry you let government take all that control, all that power. >It's difficult to have revolution when you can't assemble. It's hard to >assemble when you can't travel freely. It's difficult to have revolution when most people are like Fran and agree with every restriction on freedom to come down the pike.  SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. On Apr 1, 7:19 pm, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote: > In article <0MGdndR9CYjyqm_anZ2dnUVZ_hKdn...@comcast.com>, > > >It's difficult to have revolution when you can't assemble. It's hard to > >assemble when you can't travel freely. > > It's difficult to have revolution when most people are like Fran ... Hmmm. That's an interesting phrase. The false claim that follows it isn't interesting at all, but this part is. The irony is enough to LOL... E.P. On Apr 2, 12:23 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > In article <e7638e58-f0de-44bf-9973-20fc6d4b6...@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Fran wrote: > >> I am not sure what you are getting at. The war on drugs and the war on [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > attacking road use, because it has. The checkpoints can make anyone who > grew up in the 80s feel like the US lost the cold war. I read recently that about a third of people suffer from paranoid impulses. Dr Freeman said the results suggest that paranoia was a quite normal emotion: "In the past, only those with a severe mental illness were thought to experience paranoid thoughts, but now we know that this is simply not the case." Paranoid experiences were more common among people who were anxious or worried before starting the experiment, and among those with low self- esteem. "Paranoid thinking is a topic of national discussion given increasing public attention to threats such as terrorism," Dr Freeman said. "It sometimes seems as if the one thing that unites the diverse peoples of the world is our fear of one another. "Worries about other people are so common that they seem to be an essential - if unwelcome - part of what it means to be human." http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article3655498.ece In your case, it seems to be 'the government'. Sure, there is no shortage of examples of nasty government, but I'll bet there are no shortage of examples of poor doctors or wicked stepmothers either. One should resist the tendency to generalise, and even bad and nasty governments aren't necessarily out to get everyone at the same time. Some are incompetent -- no better at controlling the population than delivering any other 'service'. > >> >> Do you really want to have a > >> >> TSA type checkpoint to pass through on your drive to work or to the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Heaven forbid people don't want to be treated like slaves or livestock! I don't believe in heaven, or hell. > >Instead of paying large lumps of money to cover third party insurance, > > That's because of the insurance lobby. Oh I see ... so the insurance lobby is exepmpt from the evil government's machinations? Maybe they control the government? > >and road taxes for vehicles that are heavier than yours and do more > >damage or based on vehicles that are taking up scarce but luxuriantly [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > law-abiding. Why? Because the laws are set up such that everyone is a > violator. Actually because too few think that in practice, they will suffer a sanction, right up until the time they do. > First they post the speed limit so low that almost every > driver exceeds it, No, actually they post speed limits that any driver could comply with. If real time tracking of vehicle speed were effected, it might be possible to have speed limits tailored to each driver, vehicle and road condition combination. You could have your advice sent to you in real time. That way, instead of having ridiculously low speed limits when the road surface and visibility were good, and you, an accomplished driver in a well-maintained car travelling in light traffic were in a hurry, you could have a more generous one. At the moment though the desire to effect compliance -- results in one size fits all. One size doesn't fit all of course, but having tailored speed limits would be too confusing. > then there are a variety of laws regarding impeding > traffic and profiles of criminals and DUI drivers that driving the speed > limit or less makes one fit. Just the other night I was driving under > the posted limit and picked up yet another officer trailing me, running > my plate. So? > >Another advantage is that every car that gets off the road creates > >more space for those on the road, improving the safety and amenity of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > It doesn't work that way. Instead it just costs more and the congestion > is worse. You have some evidence of this? Where? > What you controlers don't realize is that most of the trips > are not optional. That congestion by itself is more than enough > encouragement to move optional trips to other times of the day or not > take them at all. They would be if there were an adequate suite of public transport options. It wouldn't suit everyone, but it might suit a substantial proportion -- perhaps even a majority. I'd be thrilled if even 30% of the existing road traffic passengers were on rail or in buses or carpools. That would be a huge step forward. > Driving has to be made to really suck for someone to > take a complicated three hour transit trip instead of what is now a one > hour drive. Which simple means that we need better tailored transport solutions -- but for as long as road transport continues to be subsidised and there's this urban angst about 'taxes' and public debt, people will continue to make millions of seeming sensible individual transport decisions that hurt themselves as a class. > >> >Some concession could be made for where you live. Your driving > >> >behaviour would be tracked in real time, and when you threatened to [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Thugs on the street? The only thugs on the street I know of are the ones > with a government issued badge. Oooh ... the government ... Look, I'm no fan of the police. They should be a lot more accountable. But someone has to do the job of ensuring that everyone plays nice. In a utopia, everyone would have pretty much the same view of what that meant in practice, and there'd be no excuse for the coercive functions of the state. People could leave their windows and doors open. Small children could frolic in parks unattended. People would work out of a desire to serve the community and people would all get what they needed when they needed it. And with all the money we'd saved on armies and police and courts and in people getting injured in car accidents and whatever else, we'd all be able to lie about communing with nature and each other or reading poetry or doing what we liked for whichever half of the existing work week suited us. Don't get me wrong. It sounds lovely. I'm all for that. But until pretty much everyone on planet Earth shares my vision, we are going to need government. Most people either don't share the same view of playing nice, or don't think it applies to them in all cases. > They are the ones out there shaking > people down for money. There is the occasional and rare car jacking, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > How 1984 of you. Freedom is slavery, war is peace, yadda yadda. Oh yes ... just evade the question with a slogan. > The > rules of the road already govern that. Central control telling people [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > It's difficult to have revolution when you can't assemble. Exactly how many revolutions has the US had over the last 200 and something years of freedom to assemble? The largest chunk of the country thinks that the Democrats or the Republicans are the only conceivable governing parties. You all stumbled blind into a war in the middle east on the basis of total malarkey. Face it, the current laws are not restraining revolution, and if people really wanted a revolution, even the toughest road laws wouldn't restrain them. > It's hard to > assemble when you can't travel freely. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > The controling of our movements. No, the *monitoring* of driver movements, *while on public roads and committed to respecting road rules*. Big difference. > >> Do you operate under the illusion > >> government won't use the power against you? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > There is no benefit to government control except to the controlers. Actually, it's of doubtful benefit to them. They get a lot more responsibility. If someone screws up, they can be blamed. > I > do notice that you think more control is justified by the fact there is > already some control. Sorry, but that does not fly. This 'greater good' > thing of yours has been used to justify all sorts of evil and government > control over centuries. So have a lot of things. The question is whether what I'm proposing makes matters worse or better. > >> Or is the joy > >> more perverse, sticking it to people you don't like? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > cameras everywhere. I've come to learn that term is just used for people > that are not liked. Yes ... people who have decided to beat someone to death for a laugh. People often discriminate against such people unfairly. Some of them film their violence on mobile phones, post it on the internet, but government surveillance -- outrageous. There's a study going on in the Netherlands in which street cameras are fitted with sufficient audio to detect human distress sounds or mishaps such as motor vehicle collisions. In a number of cases already, incipient street conflicts have been broken up *before* someone has been hurt. > People who refuse to join in and go with the herd is > enough to be labeled anti-social. the 'harm' to others is usually some [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > tracked and monitored everyone's travel and restricted it as it sought > fit. I said 'unnecessarily intrusive'. Some intrusion while in public space is defencible. > ?On the other hand, when human > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > being about the fair use of a resource, but rather government's game to > steal money from them. I'm beginning to understand that it's this trait more than any other sets Americans, especially (but not exclusively) the Bush fellow travellers apart from most people -- this obsessive and morbid fear that the government wants to steal your money, when oddly enough, you are amongst the least heavily taxed people in the world. I am continually amazed at how bothered so many of you seem to be about it -- as if the few pennies extra you might conceivably be returned if you wiped out what welfare or public infrastructure you had could buy you something equally good in return. You're not troubled by the increasing numbers of people in your cities sleeping rough or dependent on charity or that your hospitals are under-resourced or that your schools are often like low security prisons. One has to shake one's head at the boneheaded stupidity some of you show. > >> You use the words 'right' and 'privilege' together. They incompatible. > >> Either we have a right to use the roads or it is a government granted [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > The more legitimate claim... some people are just more equal that others > in your universe. But that's just it ... in *my universe* everyone gets less unequal. In the world you inhabit and defend, people are radically unequal and stay that way, although large swathes of them do get to suffer equally at the hands of the privileged. > No wonder the rules of the road, the simple rules of > right of way that go about bringing equal access are not enough for you. > I've sorry, I don't want to have to lobby local government just so I can > get from point A to B. You wouldn't. You'd drive it and pay the charge, or share a car with someone else and come to terms, or get onto a bus or a train. > Your system makes every trip something that > government has to approve. No, it doesn't. No trip is government-approved. Please cite where I said this, in your opinion. > Government isn't fair, just, or anything > else. There is no 'claim' to the road, no joe's trip is more legitimate > than bob's. That's right. We leave it up to Joe and Bob to work it out for themselves. If Joe and Bob want to share the road space, then they both pay the relevant charge. Some of that money goes to providing alternative transport options, precisely so that Fred, Martha and Jane can make other arrangements and Joe and Bob can have more road space. Since Fred, Martha and Jane are not all taking their cars out, the roads are less crowded and Joe and Bob pay less than they would if Fred, Martha and Jane were on the road. In short, the system provides a framework for people to work out what they need, encouraging road use only when cost-effective alternatives could not be provided in practice. It's also dynamic, because the more people that use particular roads at particualr times, the more money is garnered for a complementary and parallel public transport service. > The simple rules of right of way are all that is needed. Not > central control deciding who gets to go where and when. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Government doesn't care about tests of utility. That's true in one sense -- the utility they are interested in is threshhold public support rather than what is in the public interest. Of course, that has to change. > It will already take a > DL if someone owes child support under the privilege concept. It's the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > bus, train, air travel, etc are all subject to ID checks, searches, etc > under the 'war on terror'. There's little doubt that these days, a degree of checking is necessary. Nobody wants to be in a plane hijack of train bombing. Mind you, I don't favour intrusive checking. > Walking and biking are anti-social, Oh ... so you have your own view of what it means to be anti-social? > its not what the herd does. You like the herd after all? > The > last time I was stopped by police and searched was walking home with > my dinner, so don't tell me walking is free of government > interference. Plus there have been calls to track bicyclists. Once > government gets a taste of tracking it won't permit anything it cannot > track. Well I don't see that as practicable or needed. > Taxis are also very controled by government regulation. It would be > trivial to force an ID check and tracking there as well. Do you have any idea how hard it is to make sense of the masses of data you're talking about? > >> That sort of watching > >> and control is what is behind the logic of the drug war. Ever see the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > That's the argument you are making for road controls. People will go > wild and hurt others.... It's the refer madness argument more or less. Not only them but people who are perfectly level headed have hurt others. They do it all the time. > >> >Some things are best done by the government -- and reconciling > >> >divergent and conflicting claims over scarce and essential resources [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > taken control over? There isn't an single instance I can think of. Not > one. Well most of our public services here in Australia are no worse than private organisations of comparable size. Some are better. The ABC, which runs public broadcasting, accomplishes a great deal on very little funding. > >While it's probable that retail goods and services are probably best > >organised by resort to the usages of markets, even these require a [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > you, not you. Government regulation is a tool to drive your competition > out of business, it doesn't really offer consumer protection. You're all over the shop here. If the government drives your competition out of business, that's good (for you) right? > > And would you really > >want emergency services run by private businesses? That was tried with [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > would be silly not to have insurance that doesn't contract with private > fire fighters. Hmmm amusing. > >The odd thing is that if all roads were privatised, you'd very > >probably have people charging for all usages. Right now, roads are a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Instead what we would see in the US would be government granted > monopolies. It's the only way you could have it because of the sunk cost of roads and the huge contracts that would be needed to maintain them. Better to have the government control the lot and have them charge on the basis of some reasonable cost recovery. Then they outsource the actual maintenance. Governments can borrow at a fraction of the cost of most businesses because they have access to reliable income streams. > >> It results in mismanagement, shortages, long lines, high prices, > >> corruption, theft, and other horrors. Every resource government attempts [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > in the US were nixon's price controls and other nonsense that resulted > in gas lines. Well here in Australia, government supplies water. The cost is going to go up, because we are needing to build new water capture infrastructure, but overall, the supply of water over the last century has been good, the quality high and the cost low -- perhaps too low, with hindsight. > >> > The ways in which people get from A to B demand oversight. It's that > >> > simple. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Name something it hasn't screwed up? BTW, the 'right wing' in the US is > just another set of big government control freaks. Sorry, but you're part of the right wing too. There are differences of opinion on the right. Some favour corporatism and some favour ripping up public infrastructure which gets you back to cartles and monopolies by another route. > >> Of course the answer is > >> always more government intervention.... Federal reserve causes a housing [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Um... the federal reserve fixes interest rates. It caused the problem. No, it failed to regulate lending practices, and the result was underpriced risk. > Fractional reserve banking and fiat money is the problem. It is what > requires the the control. Real money and allowing the idiots who loan > poorly to go broke is the only effective control. And, it was your > government regulation that encouraged, even forced the bad loans. > Remember, if you didn't loan to deadbeats that made you racist, etc and > so forth. What nonsense. They wrote loans not because they were liberal on ethnicity but because they could bundle them up in "SIVs" and essentially print money, relying on rising property values to take care of the differences in debt quality. > >So now they are stuck with handing out even cheaper money precisely > >because they don't want the backwash of letting everyone go toe to toe [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > interference. The answer is always more control when attempts at > control don't work out. It's absurd. We are all poorer for it. You need more AND different regulation. > Government protects the privileged, the connected at the expense of the > disconnected. Government protects the big banks and other interests that > give the right people money at the expense of the many. That's how > government regulation and control works. That's what you are seeing > right now with your calls for more control. Of course, it need not work this way. The answer is not throw up your hands and say 'government sucks' but to change how it works and who drives its processes. > >> You're using the same logic. > >> It's insanity, doing the same thing and expecting different results. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > lose. We get to pay more and more but are permitted to do less and less. > Instead of being free we become subject to control. No, the masses win, because the elites are forced to pay for their road usage and the public transport of others instead of being subsidised by the others to drive their large heavy polluting cars along the roads. > Seriously, you people will be sorry you let government take all that > control, all that power. Actually, as a matter of practice, it would be a small step in the masses taking back some of the power Fran >> Both those have been far more effective in destroying the protection of >> our rights. That's not to say the would be police state has not been >> attacking road use, because it has. The checkpoints can make anyone who >> grew up in the 80s feel like the US lost the cold war. >I read recently that about a third of people suffer from paranoid >impulses. It's clear you are unable to discuss this a civil or rational manner. After this first line of yours it is clear that it is not worth my time to read your 600 plus line post. Good day. > In article <b9abd47e-80b0-42bf-8f5d-3fa3ef806...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Fran wrote: > >> Both those have been far more effective in destroying the protection of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > It's clear you are unable to discuss this a civil or rational manner. LOL. The irony is hilarious. E.P. > > In article <b9abd47e-80b0-42bf-8f5d-3fa3ef806...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Fran wrote: > > >> Both those have been far more effective in destroying the protection of [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > LOL. The irony is hilarious. Who was it who said Americans don't do irony? Someone ill-informed, obviously. Fran > > > In article <b9abd47e-80b0-42bf-8f5d-3fa3ef806...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Fran wrote: > > > >> Both those have been far more effective in destroying the protection of [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Who was it who said Americans don't do irony? Someone ill-informed, > obviously. No, Americans often cannot understand subtle UK humor - which can also be found in Canada, Oz and NZ. But then again, most Americans are exceedingly stupid. E.P. > In article <b9abd47e-80b0-42bf-8f5d-3fa3ef806...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Fran wrote: > >> Both those have been far more effective in destroying the protection of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > It's clear you are unable to discuss this a civil or rational manner. Is it? What's uncivil about hypothesising that you are suffering from paranoia? The article makes clear that this is something that is widespread. Each of your posts contains strongly suggestive evidence that you suffer from fears of persecution that are unrelated to any clear pattern of behaviour by government. It seems that you are willing to infer much from very little. > After this first line of yours it is clear that it is not worth my time > to read your 600 plus line post. Good day. That's a matter for you, though of course many of those lines were yours. It may well be that you don't like your paranoia being challenged and the propositions that governments are inherently oppressive of individuals, desirous of maldistributing privilege, incompetent by comparison with private business and so forth are articles of faith -- the things from which you draw your identity. Far be it from me to demand that you lose your grip on what it means to be you. I need not envy your world to recognise your right to wallow in it. Go and be well with yourself. Fran >> In article <b9abd47e-80b0-42bf-8f5d-3fa3ef806...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Fran wrote: >> >> Both those have been far more effective in destroying the protection of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> >I read recently that about a third of people suffer from paranoid >> >impulses. >> It's clear you are unable to discuss this a civil or rational manner. >Is it? What's uncivil about hypothesising that you are suffering from >paranoia? The article makes clear that this is something that is >widespread. Each of your posts contains strongly suggestive evidence >that you suffer from fears of persecution that are unrelated to any >clear pattern of behaviour by government. It seems that you are >willing to infer much from very little. It's wonderful living in the new soviet america where not agreeing with the government and believing it is a good and just parent is a mental disorder. Let me guess, next you'll be saying those with such paranoid mental disorders should be confined to work camps in sibera... er gitmo? Afterall, that's the usual path taken into tyranny since the 20th century. Those who speak up have a mental disorder, then those with mental disorders are round up and put into camps. After most of them are dead then the killing really gets going. I know what you'll say 'it can't happen here'. Not that Germans, Russians, Cambodians, and more ever thought it would happen to them. >That's a matter for you, though of course many of those lines were >yours. It may well be that you don't like your paranoia being >challenged and the propositions that governments are inherently >oppressive of individuals, desirous of maldistributing privilege, >incompetent by comparison with private business and so forth are >articles of faith -- the things from which you draw your identity. Let's see, I feel that government in the USA is doing what government has done throughout recorded history. The disorder is that of most americans who deny the evidence right in front of them and feel government is just and good, and looks out for people. Worse they give government more power after each and every screw up the government makes. Answering the problems of government intervention with more government intervention. Now that's insanity. How about you ask some Iraqi familys who've had US soliders bust into their homes and take the male family members away? Ask them how good the US government is. Katrina only showed Americans a little of that coming home. Yeah, I know, the TV told you they deserved it. >Far be it from me to demand that you lose your grip on what it means >to be you. I need not envy your world to recognise your right to >wallow in it. Go and be well with yourself. I am sorry you are so ignorant of human history. That you have been deluded by government schools and television news. You are wallowing in ignorance and delusion. I have some advice for you. Start reading legislation, executive orders, other things government is doing. Stop letting the talking heads and the elected office holders translate it for you. Start reading what they are actually doing. Nahh... you don't have the time... you trust them. hahahaha. Let me guess, you even believe in the 55mph NMSL fairy tale? > You are wallowing in > ignorance and delusion. ...and the irony keeps rolling on.... "I'm the sane one, it's all you fools who are crazy!" E.P. >> You are wallowing in >> ignorance and delusion. > >...and the irony keeps rolling on.... > >"I'm the sane one, it's all you fools who are crazy!" Hmm. If we're going by quantity, we've got Brent, Dave, Nate, and myself all saying similar things, and you and Fran telling us how none of this bad stuff happens except on TV and how we're tinfoil-hat wearing paranoids, etc. Looks like you're outnumbered... maybe you better contact Reynolds yourself? SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. On Apr 4, 6:22 pm, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote: > In article <c00b410f-d3a0-43f1-904e-fe4be5c58...@13g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > wearing paranoids, etc. Looks like you're outnumbered... maybe you > better contact Reynolds yourself? LOL. Yeah, the majority of folks once thought the world was flat and at the center of the universe. You guys crack me up. E.P. >On Apr 4, 6:22 pm, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >Yeah, the majority of folks once thought the world was flat and at the >center of the universe. Wow, Ed. I mean, WOW. You must be massless, because otherwise there ain't enough energy in the universe to let you change direction that fast. I mean, first you jeer at Brent for believing he's right despite being in the majority. Then when I point out that it's actually you who is in the minority, you jeer at me for echoing your own suggestion back at you. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >>On Apr 4, 6:22 pm, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) >>wrote: [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >in the minority, you jeer at me for echoing your own suggestion back >at you. Thing is, knowledge of the earth being round was quite well known in europe and world wide the majority of people knew it. However one didn't voice that he believed the world to be round in public for fear of punishment. Much the same with the earth going around the sun. There is the truth and there is the offical truth. Ed believes in the latter in most things. A modern example is 9-11. It's as clear as day that the offical government story/theory is chock full of lies and things that are just plain wrong. Polls have shown that the majority believes in some degree of cover-up, of government lying. To voice this in public is to be a kook and the wearer of a tin-foil-hat. People learn to believe one thing privately and another publically. >Thing is, knowledge of the earth being round was quite well known in >europe and world wide the majority of people knew it. However one didn't >voice (in europe) that he believed the world to be round in public for fear of >punishment. Much the same with the earth going around the sun. Correction in ()'s above. > In article <d_mdnWWT6YSXmWXanZ2dnUVZ_h-vn...@speakeasy.net>, Matthew T. Russotto wrote: > >In article <e1c310fc-5414-4162-abab-cea6475ee...@r9g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > Thing is, knowledge of the earth being round was quite well known in > europe and world wide the majority of people knew it. Actually, they didn't. Most astronomers knew it, but the vast majority of the uneducated did not. E.P. > There is the truth and there is the offical truth. Ed believes in the > latter in most things. A modern example is 9-11. It's as clear as day > that the offical government story/theory is chock full of lies and > things that are just plain wrong. You view of government is immaterial to the reasons I think you are a k00k. The above crappola is exactly why I think you'e a k00k, and that everything that comes off your keyboard is 100% sh.t until proven otherwise. Unlike you, I can separate the reasonable info from the clinically insane gibberish. E.P. On Apr 5, 3:58 pm, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote: > In article <e1c310fc-5414-4162-abab-cea6475ee...@r9g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > in the minority, you jeer at me for echoing your own suggestion back > at you. Being in the majority/minority and being right have no f.cking thing to do with one another. They are completely coincidental, and trying to link them makes you a moron. E.P. >Being in the majority/minority and being right have no f.cking thing >to do with one another. > >They are completely coincidental, and trying to link them makes you a >moron. YOU linked them, Ed. YOU linked them when you sarcastically rephrased Brent's view as "I'm the sane one, it's all you fools who are crazy!". SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. On Apr 4, 9:22 pm, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote: > Hmm. If we're going by quantity, we've got Brent, Dave, Nate, and > myself all saying similar things, Perfect example. No rational thinking person equates quantity with quality. A misconception is a misconception, no matter how many may misconceive. > and you and Fran telling us how none > of this bad stuff happens except on TV and how we're tinfoil-hat > wearing paranoids, etc. Oh, it's not just that, you're stupid too, to wit: nobody has forwarded the first premise, and the second, etc., is glaringly obvious. > Looks like you're outnumbered... maybe you > better contact Reynolds yourself? You would be hard pressed to forward a better premise to post in a thread with the subject "Prove you're stupid". ----- - gpsman >On Apr 4, 9:22 pm, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >quality. A misconception is a misconception, no matter how many may >misconceive. See Ed, now that's how to be dishonest. You've got to SNIP the inconvenient bits of context -- gpstroll snipped the bit I was responding to so it sort-of looks like it was me and not you who suggested that quantity was the proper metric. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. On Apr 5, 7:00 pm, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote: > In article <29a58392-8aa6-44ea-9866-ec5f94568...@a22g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > responding to so it sort-of looks like it was me and not you who > suggested that quantity was the proper metric. Well, now it more than sort of looks like you're too stupid to discern that: "I'm the sane one, it's all you fools who are crazy!", was a reference to Brent's tendency to appear completely batshit insane, and not Ed's personal perspective. The quotation marks were your hint... but didn't you hear that old familiar swooshing sound in the vicinity of your head as you were posting? ----- - gpsman > In article <d1a7146b-c539-489f-900c-ce609dff8...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Fran wrote: > >> In article <b9abd47e-80b0-42bf-8f5d-3fa3ef806...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Fran wrote: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > the government and believing it is a good and just parent is a mental > disorder. You cannot point to where I've made such a claim. There is a distinction between the behaviour of governments and the inherent nature of governments. And of course, there are all sorts of arms of government, which in societies such as ours run their own show. The legislature, the executive, the judiciary, the states, local government, bureaucracies at all levels, quasi government agencies and so forth. To make a generalisation about *all* things that can be called government across all time in all contexts seems outrageously sweeping. I agree with very little that the US Executive does. It seems to me that it is oppressive and capricious and often malign and cynical. On the other hand, there can be no doubting that many of the things done by government -- the supply of basic services, regualtion in consumer affairs, provision for education, health, transport, roads communication, water etc, are, while often grossly inadequate or not properly configured, not inherently objectionable. > Let me guess, Frankly, I'd sooner not. Your guesses and surmises have so far proved to be of very poor quality. Really, they amount to little more than reckless cris de coeur about the potential for persecution, as the next line attests ... > next you'll be saying those with such paranoid > mental disorders should be confined to work camps in sibera... er gitmo? No, I wouldn't be saying that. I am amongst those who reject the view that the US government is a good and wise parent, and wouldn't claim that those like me who held this view were paranoid. And even if we were, I plainly wouldn't advocate imprisonment in a gulag or the like. Your style seems to be conflate gross differences between things, to in effect argue that blue and red are the same, as they are both primary colours. The inability, in intellectual terms, to see shade and nuance is a form of blindness, much as someone who lacked the visual acuity to distinguish between brown and beige or between a peanut and a cashew would be considered sight impaired. If you are to propose that my ideas can be logically extended to a point that is not explicit, the onus is on you to show that the extension is logically compelling, that I could not propose the former without the latter. You can't simply say, 'oh well, if you like eating ice cream, next you'll be wanting to force feed it to the populace'. That's just silly. > Afterall, that's the usual path taken into tyranny since the 20th > century. No, that's just empirically wrong. To be sure, one can point to examples where an existing tyranny has borne down with especial ferocity on those with actual mental disorders, and instances where those who are no more than eccentrics or dissidents have been cast as having them by an oppressive state, and brutalised by that means. The paths to tyranny however have been many and various. The first tyrannies of the 20th century were largely hereditary in character, based on aristocratic elites, some of whom were mentally disordered, and often forged in war. Most antedated the start of the century. The tyranny that emerged in Russia was arguably framed by the tyranny and war that predated it. Much the same might have been said of Hitler's Germany, although a weak and ineffectual state stood between 1918 and 1933. China emerged from warlordism and Japanese occupation with its own new peasant atavistic tyranny, and so did North Korea after a slight interregnum between the ejection of the Japanese and the arrival of US forces in the south. I could continue ... > Those who speak up have a mental disorder, then those with > mental disorders are round up and put into camps. After most of them are > dead then the killing really gets going. I know what you'll say 'it > can't happen here'. Not that Germans, Russians, Cambodians, and more > ever thought it would happen to them. I would never say 'it can't happen here'. What troubles me though is that apart from your apparent worry over this, I can see nothing in what I propose that makes it any the more likely. After all, nothing of what I propose predated the brutalisation of dissidents in any of the places you mention. In Germany, the trade unions and the SDP were smashed by the SA and the German state. In Italy it was the Black Shirts. In Russia, civil war and the collapse of the agrarian economy essentially meant that only the Red and White Armies had authority, until the white armies collapsed and military rule followed. In Cambodia, the countryside had been essentially rendered uninhabitable by bombing, defoliant and unexploded ordinance. An atavistic group of enraged peasant radicals seized power over a totally demoralised populace and forced them back from the cities onto the land. Nothing to do with anything I proposed, or the context. > >That's a matter for you, though of course many of those lines were > >yours. It may well be that you don't like your paranoia being [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Let's see, I feel that government in the USA is doing what government > has done throughout recorded history. Well they are doing some of it, for better or worse. > The disorder is that of most > americans who deny the evidence right in front of them and feel > government is just and good, and looks out for people. Worse they > give government more power after each and every screw up the > government makes. Answering the problems of government intervention > with more government intervention. Now that's insanity. No, it's not. It depends what was wrong with the intervention, assuming there was something wrong with the intervention. It's a common human practice when confronted with a problem to try a solution, evaluate its results, modify your practice in the light of what you've learnt and the contemporary context and to try again. For you *all government interventions* are essentially the same because the fact that they can be described as government interventions makes every other feature of them uninteresting or trivial. As I noted above, you conflate gross differences, because you lack the perspicacity to note important detail. This is a kind of fundamentalism rather than a piece of insight. When you take this approach, it's inevitable that you will get the same answer, because all your answers are true by definition. Government = bad. Oddly, though you aren't even consistent, because you seem to imply that *some* road rules might be OK, and if it's not government who devises these and compels compliance, it's hard to imagine who would. In short, your position is untenable due to flagrant internal contradiction. You need to decide which government interventions are OK and which are not, but to do that you need to junk the idea that all government interventions are necessarily instances of oppression, reflecting a desire to control everyone etc. Conversely, you can call for the complete disappearance of all state-like entities -- that would be consistent, but of course in that case what you would have in practice something that looked a little like Iraq or Afganistan today, where the writ of the government can be ignored and where, in c |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message