5,580
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 172:
Line 172: + + + + + + +
User talk:HelpJazz (view source)
Revision as of 03:41, September 22, 2008
, 03:41, September 22, 2008→Politics
::I think that's about all I have for now. I'm anxiously awaiting your reply! Sorry I wasn't as articulate as I was at the beginning, but I'm getting really tired and this is ''really'' long.
::I think that's about all I have for now. I'm anxiously awaiting your reply! Sorry I wasn't as articulate as I was at the beginning, but I'm getting really tired and this is ''really'' long.
::[[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|<sub>Discussion</sub>]] 22:07, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
::[[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|<sub>Discussion</sub>]] 22:07, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
:::A little caveat I should have started with: I'm not very hard lined on most things and I'm willing to hear reasonable discussion. So just because I sound wishy-washy, it doesn't mean I'm changing up my story on ya' ;-)
:::*Economics: the idea of privatizing goes along the lines of UL (united laboratories, which certifies hundreds of products after rigorous testing), EnergyStar, and that insurance rating company that rates cars (yeah, I'm using technical terms here). There are currently, right now, organizations which exsist simply to make sure that other companies are making good products. These companies make money because they charge to perform the rating service; other companies use the rating service so that they can put the logo on their product, thus increasing their sales. Now I fully admit that these companies are open to payoffs, but to my knowledge the companies that are out there already are scandal-free. I don't know ''why'' they are scandal-free, so that would certainly be something to research and discover, but at least we know it can be done. I also don't think *everything* should be privatized; I used to teeter on anarchocapitalism until I realized that it was just plain looney! Obviously certain government functions, like the IRS can't be run by private business, because it just opens up the door for too much corruption, and there's no good check and balance to keep it from happening. Other agencies (such as the CDC) could have their functions privatized, but there's no way to make money off of it. I don't think I would be opposed to ''subcontracting'' the CDC; so the government pays, but the company has to keep costs down and performance up. <br /> <br />For me it's mostly about incentives: what incentive does the CDC have to do it's job properly or efficiently? Arguably Congress should be keeping check, but then again if CDC offices are located in a Congressman's district, he might very well want them to work inefficiently to increase revenue to his home town. I think any solution, private or public, that does not address the issue of incetives will ultimately not be the ideal solution.<br /><br /> The negative income was easily the least-sure idea on that whole list. Theoretically it incentivizes working better than welfare, because you always earn more money for each dollar more you earn. As far as I know there has only been one real study, and it was just of one town in New Jersey. Another problem with it is that it would have to be nationwide, otherwise people on welfare in Kentucky might travel to Ohio to get a better deal, thus draining the system. Perhaps instead of a strict negative tax, there should be a flat tax (of this I am a lot more certain) with a proper welfare system in tact. I think the problem with ''any'' welfare system is that you either ''have'' to take into account that some people will forever live on it, or you have to allow people to be kicked onto the streets. Clearly the latter isn't good government policy. Of course charity and labor laws and the minimum wage also factor in to this in various ways.
:::*Foreign policy: I didn't pay attention enough to the news at the begining of the Afghan or Iraq wars (don't shoot me; I wasn't old enough to vote :p) so I can't say whether or not we should have ever gone. I do feel, however, that now that we are there, we can't leave them worse off than when we started. As for "they hate us for our values", that really hasn't ever been shown to be true. Plus the terrorists themselves said that they attacked us so that we would leave their lands. We put al Queda in power to fight the Russians. I'm not saying that 9/11 wouldn't have happened if we never fought the Cold War (though I think you could make the argument that it's true), and I'm definitely NOT saying that we were "asking for it", since terrorism is ''never'' a way to get your point across.
:::*Abortion: The reason people get worked up about abortion is, except for a few debatable facts and logical inferences, it largely is based on what you ''think'' or ''feel'', not on what logically makes sense. This goes for pro-choicers just as much as it goes for pro-lifers, and the fact is, in many ways, both of them are right.
:::*Gun control: Sometimes when I see real life Swat teams on tv it scares me a bit. You are right that unlimited access to guns could cause an arms race between cops and criminals, but more and more police carrying automatic weapons as standard issue. I realize my argument against gun control is a little... esoteric (is that the word I want?). I don't think that there is any reason for a citizen to practically own an automatic weapon, but at the same time I don't think they should be banned, because there may be a time in the future when there ''is'' a practical reason for an ordinary citizen to own an assault rifle, and by that point it will be too late to relax the rules. Again, I read too much Orwell as a child.
:::*War on Drugs: I dunno, to be honest. Obviously I don't think it would be wise to legalize all of them immediately. At a minimum marijuana should be legalized; nobody has ever died from it and it's less addictive than nicotine. I can't answer about junkies -- for now. Let me sleep on it and see what comes to me in the morning :) <br /><br /> The isolated examples weren't meant for their literal description, but for the rights they represent. There have been numerous infringments on basic human rights which would have never happened had not the justification of "we are fighting drugs" been made. I can list them more specifically, but I'd have to do some research. <br /><br /> I think you missed the point of the Pfizer example; let me state it more clearly. For starters, companies have quality control departments, and companies can be sued if something goes wrong. Let's say a dealer is making drugs (and I'm going to sound ignorant here, so bare with me) and he decides to add fertilizer to the mix because it gives you a better high, even though he knows it's very dangerous. He's going to make a ton of money at first because it's better than the drug he's currently selling. People will start dying, but his customer base won't be affected that much because there are always new druggies to take the place of the old ones. After a while, people will figure out that it's a bad drug and eventually word of mouth will spread enough that it doesn't sell any more. The dealer has made loads of cash, but likely won't lose any customers, because he can just sell them a different drug instead. Even if he does lose customers, he can just move somewhere else where nobody's heard of him and start again. Now let's say that Pfizer intentionally puts fertilizer into their drugs: it won't get past initial testing. Let's say, for sake of argument, that it ''does'' get past initial testing, because someone has greased the wheels. Once people start dying the media will immediately grab hold. Since they intentionally put a dangerous product into their drug, they will get huge fines, lose most of their customers and respect, and likely will be completely shut down. Pfizer is too big a company to just take the money and run. There's also another angle: the drug dealer has a choice between risking arrest for dealing drugs, or risking an arrest for dealing lethal drugs. The law doesn't make much distinction, so he will do whichever one makes him the most money the fastest. Pfizer has a choice between selling drugs or risking punishment for selling lethal drugs. In this case the distiction is ''much'' greater, and they will be much more likely to avoid intentional harm to their customer.<br /><br />One last point about the safety of drugs: I'm not against heavily regulating them. Alcohol can be dangerous and addictive, but there are many rules and regulations concerning the distribution of alcohol. During prohibition if someone was poised by an illegal beer that had grown a bad yeast it was tough luck for them, they shouldn't have been breaking the law. If Coors poisons people because they are below legal standards, tough luck for them they are getting a big penalty. (I don't know if this actually happened during prohibition, but hopefully you can see my point that by legalizing, you can enforce quality standards that you wouldn't otherwise be able to control).
:::And with that whopper, I think I'm done for the night :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:41, 21 September 2008 (EDT)