Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

G. Adams · Apr 2, 2007, 05:33 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Wizzle

Should you have the right to drive emissions-heavy cars in built up areas?

Is the road in this example publicly owned? Then it would be up to the local community. If it's a privately owned road, it is up to the owner.

Scribbler1 · Apr 2, 2007, 06:54 pm

Quote:

Quote by: G. Adams

Is the road in this example publicly owned? Then it would be up to the local community. If it's a privately owned road, it is up to the owner.

But that would be a grey area, as there is no privately owned AIR, and if you live in a smog bowl, like L.A. or other heavily populated area, that right may be modified. The road being private isn't an issue.
ALL your basic rights are predicated on whether they negatively affect others or not.

gw120 · Apr 2, 2007, 07:19 pm

Quote:

Seriously? Do you seriously believe in Socialism?

Yep :)

G. Adams · Apr 2, 2007, 10:34 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Scribbler1

But that would be a grey area, as there is no privately owned AIR, and if you live in a smog bowl, like L.A. or other heavily populated area, that right may be modified. The road being private isn't an issue.
ALL your basic rights are predicated on whether they negatively affect others or not.

True, but you choose to live in a built up area. There is no one stopping you from leaving the area to start a life elsewhere.

It depends upon what you mean by negatively affect others aswell. Some argue that that we shouldn't have extremely skinny women on catwalks, as it promotes an unhealthy body image. Yet I would argue that the government has no right to dictate who is used a model, even though it may have some arguably negative effects upon others.

Scribbler1 · Apr 2, 2007, 11:18 pm

Quote:

Quote by: G. Adams

True, but you choose to live in a built up area. There is no one stopping you from leaving the area to start a life elsewhere.

So it's as easy as that, eh? I would say you are fortunate if YOU have the means to move out, but ask a lot of poor people in the big cities about THEIR chances of getting out.

Quote:

It depends upon what you mean by negatively affect others aswell. Some argue that that we shouldn't have extremely skinny women on catwalks, as it promotes an unhealthy body image. Yet I would argue that the government has no right to dictate who is used a model, even though it may have some arguably negative effects upon others.

Well it sure as hell doesn't depend on YOUR example. I'm using the polluting automobile analogy as an example and LA, Tokyo and Mexico City as the locations. People DIE there at some times when thermal inversion occurs and in places like Tokyo people walk around with surgical masks on their faces. I'm all for rights, but in cases like those you do NOT have the right to foul the PUBLIC air, even on private property.
I believe some rights are absolute, but when what you do interferes with the lives of others you are infringing on THEIR rights, and nobody has the right to do that.

G. Adams · Apr 3, 2007, 04:54 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Scribbler1

So it's as easy as that, eh? I would say you are fortunate if YOU have the means to move out, but ask a lot of poor people in the big cities about THEIR chances of getting out.
Well it sure as hell doesn't depend on YOUR example. I'm using the polluting automobile analogy as an example and LA, Tokyo and Mexico City as the locations. People DIE there at some times when thermal inversion occurs and in places like Tokyo people walk around with surgical masks on their faces. I'm all for rights, but in cases like those you do NOT have the right to foul the PUBLIC air, even on private property.
I believe some rights are absolute, but when what you do interferes with the lives of others you are infringing on THEIR rights, and nobody has the right to do that.

If hundreds of thousands of Poles can pick up and move out of Poland to come to the UK, and I don't know how many more have gone to other countries, why is it so difficult for us to move? So many people far, far poorer than the poorest in our countries are prepared to move across the earth for a better life, and you think it's so difficult to move to another town?

Scribbler1 · Apr 3, 2007, 10:46 pm

Yes. Job availability and housing availability are two big concerns. You are combining the poorest of other countries with Western countries. When you have nothing, moving is a necessity and not just a desire for something better.

And of course when you are discussing issues like air pollution, a huge influx of poor people to another area ends up causing pollution THERE as well. Best to fix the problem than escape it. Unless your solution is to foul the air and then move to a cleaner place, only to foul THAT air as well.
And as far as rights go, if you think your "right" to foul the air is absolute, you must not think forcing others to relocate to get away from your stink infringes on THEIR rights. The bottom line is, air pollution is a poor example of exercising one's rights. You DO affect others and your rights stop right there.

iclaudius · Apr 4, 2007, 02:03 am

Quote:

Quote by: gw120

Yep :)

Would you mind explaining why?

Osborn F Enready · Apr 4, 2007, 04:04 pm

I am left on social issues, right on economic issues.

I am a Libertarian, because they place Constitution, Rights of the Individual, before majority concerns, or nanny-state ideals that shred the intention of the federal union.

Left-Right is a false choice, and meant to be, in a 4 point political compass.

That is why we have a two party system in the U.S., since its easier for the majority to manipulate to suit the prevailing wind of angry voters, while actually giving back no power that has been previously unlawfully usurped.

A constant circuit of say one thing, do another. What are your options when you are forced to choose between the lesser of two evils, as they make it out to be?

gw120 · Apr 4, 2007, 08:44 pm

Quote:

Would you mind explaining why?

Can you explain why you don't?

I believe in socialism because I think there is no need for you to own a 1000 hp car, and have an elevator in your 10 story household, because it makes everyone around you poorer. Also because in capitalisms people get rewarded for their greed, and the hardest working get nothing while the fat pigs who do nothing other than think of ways to be more evil get payed millions. Not to mention 1% of the nation (America) owns 33% of the wealth.

Look at this
Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power

G. Adams · Apr 4, 2007, 10:19 pm

Quote:

Quote by: gw120

Can you explain why you don't?

I believe in socialism because I think there is no need for you to own a 1000 hp car, and have an elevator in your 10 story household, because it makes everyone around you poorer. Also because in capitalisms people get rewarded for their greed, and the hardest working get nothing while the fat pigs who do nothing other than think of ways to be more evil get payed millions. Not to mention 1% of the nation (America) owns 33% of the wealth.

Look at this
Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power

Do you believe each man owns his own labour? If so, why shouldn't someone with the ability to run a company well, and make a great return for the investing shareholders, be paid the value of that labour? Or someone with the ability to invent fusion power be able to sell his highly valuable skills for the amount they are worth?

gw120 · Apr 5, 2007, 05:00 pm

Quote:

Or someone with the ability to invent fusion power be able to sell his highly valuable skills for the amount they are worth?

Yes but not if it's making everyone around them poorer and not if they're making people produce it for virtually no money, and not if the person who developed it is selling it simply to make a huge profit and still paying their laborers near nothing, for example say this corporation is developing a car, this car only costs $10 to produce, and the laborers are getting payed $0.50/hour wages, but the corporation is selling these cars for $10,000,000, no they shouldn't be able to do that, just so they can have a Ferrari and a 10-story house.

G. Adams · Apr 5, 2007, 07:38 pm

Quote:

Quote by: gw120

Yes but not if it's making everyone around them poorer and not if they're making people produce it for virtually no money, and not if the person who developed it is selling it simply to make a huge profit and still paying their laborers near nothing, for example say this corporation is developing a car, this car only costs $10 to produce, and the laborers are getting payed $0.50/hour wages, but the corporation is selling these cars for $10,000,000, no they shouldn't be able to do that, just so they can have a Ferrari and a 10-story house.

Why not?

gw120 · Apr 5, 2007, 09:35 pm

Quote:

Why not?

Well why can they? What gives them the right to virtually enslave people?

PatrickHenry · Apr 5, 2007, 09:48 pm

Quote:

Quote by: gw120

Well why can they? What gives them the right to virtually enslave people?

umm...the Taft-Hartley Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

gw120 · Apr 5, 2007, 10:22 pm

That's not what I meant, I was more asking what gives them the moral right, not the legal one. Like how is it morally acceptable to do what my previous example stated.

G. Adams · Apr 5, 2007, 11:10 pm

Quote:

Quote by: gw120

That's not what I meant, I was more asking what gives them the moral right, not the legal one. Like how is it morally acceptable to do what my previous example stated.

They are not enslaving anyone. You own your own body, your labour and your property. If you want to make money without being self-employed, you will have to sell your labour to someone else. The value of that labour is based upon market forces - supply and demand. If your labour is in short supply with comparatively high demand, like plumbers were in the UK a few years ago, your labour is worth a lot and you get well paid. If however your labour is readily supplied, like plumbers are now, the value of the labour is much lower. This is not slavery, this is economics.

PatrickHenry · Apr 5, 2007, 11:26 pm

Markets set values for goods and labor.

If there is an oversupply, the value diminishes. If there is an undersupply, market forces create more of the scarce commodity.

Only if markets are free, though.

What state-monopoly capitalism seeks to do is control all markets to its advantage while using a PR approach to convince the public that the market is uncontrolled.

The public in the US has largely been convinced by the rhetoric...

fushigi · Apr 6, 2007, 12:41 am

Quote:

Quote by: PatrickHenry

Only if markets are free, though.

What state-monopoly capitalism seeks to do is control all markets to its advantage while using a PR approach to convince the public that the market is uncontrolled.

The public in the US has largely been convinced by the rhetoric...

Would you really say the markets are controlled by the state, or is it more the other way around?

Technosoul · Apr 6, 2007, 01:12 am

I started my own seperate party. So far I am the only member. But I am absolutly a member of any anti-Republican (Bushnik) party. I guess I sort of favor a liberal kind of Democratic party but those representing that party nowadays are a little "out of it" for my full support. But more or less I also favor a kind of balance in polititics so that the best ideas of both sides of the asile can mold things.

Not totally in favor of a "one and one only" system, but prefer to see the best ideas of each poltical persepctive weaved into one new, better, system. And hopefully the bad ideas will end up in the round file. Okay, the Dreamer... but you asked and so there tis,.

View Poll Results: What are your politics closest too party wise?
GOP Republican	2	6.45%
DNC Democrat	2	6.45%
Libertarian	12	38.71%
Independant Third Party (please specify below)	5	16.13%
No Party	10	32.26%
Voters: 31. You may not vote

Apr 3, 2007, 10:46 pm	#47 (permalink) (top)
Scribbler1 Skeptical Patriot Posts: 7,832	Yes. Job availability and housing availability are two big concerns. You are combining the poorest of other countries with Western countries. When you have nothing, moving is a necessity and not just a desire for something better. And of course when you are discussing issues like air pollution, a huge influx of poor people to another area ends up causing pollution THERE as well. Best to fix the problem than escape it. Unless your solution is to foul the air and then move to a cleaner place, only to foul THAT air as well. And as far as rights go, if you think your "right" to foul the air is absolute, you must not think forcing others to relocate to get away from your stink infringes on THEIR rights. The bottom line is, air pollution is a poor example of exercising one's rights. You DO affect others and your rights stop right there. Not a day goes by that I don't see something that reinforces my belief that people are idiots.

Apr 4, 2007, 04:04 pm	#49 (permalink) (top)
Osborn F Enready Principled Observer Location: Toledo, Ohio Posts: 13,876	I am left on social issues, right on economic issues. I am a Libertarian, because they place Constitution, Rights of the Individual, before majority concerns, or nanny-state ideals that shred the intention of the federal union. Left-Right is a false choice, and meant to be, in a 4 point political compass. That is why we have a two party system in the U.S., since its easier for the majority to manipulate to suit the prevailing wind of angry voters, while actually giving back no power that has been previously unlawfully usurped. A constant circuit of say one thing, do another. What are your options when you are forced to choose between the lesser of two evils, as they make it out to be? Petition of Redress of Grievances: http://www.givemeliberty.org/default.htm Canadian Lawsuit Against Their National Banks: http://www.freewebs.com/classaction/ Osborn F. Enready

Apr 5, 2007, 10:22 pm	#56 (permalink) (top)
gw120 Stabbed By Satan Location: Toronto, Ontario Posts: 247	That's not what I meant, I was more asking what gives them the moral right, not the legal one. Like how is it morally acceptable to do what my previous example stated. Economic Left/Right: -9.25 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.79 Reality is fantasy; Facts are perception.

Apr 5, 2007, 11:26 pm	#58 (permalink) (top)
PatrickHenry 9/11: Inside Job Location: Hawai'i, Big Island Posts: 10,453	Markets set values for goods and labor. If there is an oversupply, the value diminishes. If there is an undersupply, market forces create more of the scarce commodity. Only if markets are free, though. What state-monopoly capitalism seeks to do is control all markets to its advantage while using a PR approach to convince the public that the market is uncontrolled. The public in the US has largely been convinced by the rhetoric... "Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense." -- John Adams

Apr 6, 2007, 01:12 am	#60 (permalink) (top)
Technosoul Volcanic Erupter Posts: 8,936	I started my own seperate party. So far I am the only member. But I am absolutly a member of any anti-Republican (Bushnik) party. I guess I sort of favor a liberal kind of Democratic party but those representing that party nowadays are a little "out of it" for my full support. But more or less I also favor a kind of balance in polititics so that the best ideas of both sides of the asile can mold things. Not totally in favor of a "one and one only" system, but prefer to see the best ideas of each poltical persepctive weaved into one new, better, system. And hopefully the bad ideas will end up in the round file. Okay, the Dreamer... but you asked and so there tis,.