US Election 2020 - Pt 2

AlmightyBender

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2012
Messages
4,824
Still haven't replied to me about the meat regulations causing more damage than they solved?
Fine, poor example due to my limited knowledge on that particular subject. Insert any other example that you choose that fits the spirit of what I'm saying. Like pollution. Or drunk driving. There are some conceivable scenarios where the rights of the collective trump individual rights and thus individual rights must be limited through laws and regulations instead of the free market.
 

AlmightyBender

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2012
Messages
4,824
It's actually a great bait and switch tactic by the Dems.

All the racism comes from their side but they successfully virtue signal and blame Trump or Republicans, because nobody can criticize BLM.
I nominate this for the most ridiculous statement ever made on this forum. Like, ever. The collective of Xarog is less ridiculous than this statement.
 

surface

Executive Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2006
Messages
8,386
Fine, poor example due to my limited knowledge on that particular subject. Insert any other example that you choose that fits the spirit of what I'm saying. Like pollution. Or drunk driving. There are some conceivable scenarios where the rights of the collective trump individual rights and thus individual rights must be limited through laws and regulations instead of the free market.
That's it. You admit defeat. You essentially admitted that whatever you have said so far and whatever you will say in future is hereby NULL and VOID.

So the logic will go.
 

AlmightyBender

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2012
Messages
4,824
That's it. You admit defeat. You essentially admitted that whatever you have said so far and whatever you will say in future is hereby NULL and VOID.

So the logic will go.
I'm aware of this pattern, but yet I hope against hope that somebody will engage in good faith.
 

greg0205

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
16,557
The weird thing about this mask issue is many Republican supporters wear masks themselves. It seems only a fringe set of Trump supporters are against masks.
Yup. No masks was never a winning message. Ever.

I'm amused by Fox 'tho... In about a week they'll be telling folk they *always* insisted folk wear masks, that they always said Covid was deadly, and that they never once said this was just a political attack on Donnie.
 

konfab

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
24,661
Fine, poor example due to my limited knowledge on that particular subject. Insert any other example that you choose that fits the spirit of what I'm saying. Like pollution. Or drunk driving. There are some conceivable scenarios where the rights of the collective trump individual rights and thus individual rights must be limited through laws and regulations instead of the free market.
Let me cut you short quicky.
There are no scenarios where you can violate individual rights on the basis of a collective, or to frame it better, there are no scenarios that specifically need collective rights because individual rights are insufficient to protect people's freedom.

Philosophically, this is commutarianism vs individualism.

Good debate on it here:

If you want to fame it correctly, you can limit individual rights when they violate someone else's individual rights. But you can only do this if there is no other way to resolve the issue. This is broadly what is written down in SA's constitution in section 36.
36) The rights in the Bill of Rights may be limited only in terms of law of general application to the extent that the limitation is reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom, taking into account all relevant factors, including— (a) the nature of the right; (b) the importance of the purpose of the limitation; (c) the nature and extent of the limitation; (d) the relation between the limitation and its purpose; and (e) less restrictive means to achieve the purpose
This is a good part of SA's constitution and I think it is the legal principle that most courts use in most cases to resolve conflicts of rights.

So topic at hand: when it is ok to force someone to wear a mask and when it is not.

If I am out running in the fresh air and I can keep away from people (which when I run, happens naturally because I end up sweating and smelling like a pig), I am not violating anyone else's right to life as the chances of someone else catching the Kung flu from me is very low. So forcing someone to wear a mask in this scenario is unreasonable. Also people can voluntarily choose to go to the beach as it is a leisure activity. If someone feels that they are vulnerable to coronachan, they don't have to go there.

That is different to lets say in a supermarket, where there isn't fresh air, keeping a good distance isn't possible, and people kinda have to go to there to get supplies. In that scenareo, given there isn't really much other option, wearing a mask can be a regulation. But you are now also interfering with how the supermarket does its business.
This is where the " less restrictive means to achieve the purpose" comes into play. Simply asking a shop to do this can achieve the purpose in a much restrictive way. Since most people are statists and do whatever the government says they must do, the vast majority of shops will enforce a mask policy.


To use a less controversial topic: speeding.
This might be uncomfortable for you, but there is an acceptable rate of traffic fatalities.

How do I make this claim?
If you limited the speed of every vehicle to 40km/h, you would would dramatically reduce the amount of people who die and get seriously injured from car accidents. Insurance claims would also be a lot less as you would have to be a special person to total a car at 40km/h.
So why isn't this law?
Because of a few things:
1) Enforcing the limitation will be highly difficult as people generally want to go faster than 40km/h.
2) There is an economic cost to enforcing such an imposing thing, both directly in terms of the amount of enforcement and indirectly in terms of the hours of productivity that is lost driving at 40km/h.
3) Turning everyone into a criminal makes it easer for people to break more laws. (broken windows).

Stupid people (eg the South African government), do not look at secondary effects of policy. They only look at the effect right in front of them and don't think about what the broader impacts of said policy will be.
 
Last edited:

konfab

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
24,661
Let me cut you short quicky.
There are no scenarios where you can violate individual rights on the basis of a collective, or to frame it better, there are no scenarios that specifically need collective rights because individual rights are insufficient to protect people's freedom.

Philosophically, this is commutarianism vs individualism.

Good debate on it here:

If you want to fame it correctly, you can limit individual rights when they violate someone else's individual rights. But you can only do this if there is no other way to resolve the issue. This is broadly what is written down in SA's constitution in section 36.

This is a good part of SA's constitution and I think it is the legal principle that most courts use in most cases to resolve conflicts of rights.

So topic at hand: when it is ok to force someone to wear a mask and when it is not.

If I am out running in the fresh air and I can keep away from people (which when I run, happens naturally because I end up sweating and smelling like a pig), I am not violating anyone else's right to life as the chances of someone else catching the Kung flu from me is very low. So forcing someone to wear a mask in this scenario is unreasonable. Also people can voluntarily choose to go to the beach as it is a leisure activity. If someone feels that they are vulnerable to coronachan, they don't have to go there.

That is different to lets say in a supermarket, where there isn't fresh air, keeping a good distance isn't possible, and people kinda have to go to there to get supplies. In that scenareo, given there isn't really much other option, wearing a mask can be a regulation. But you are now also interfering with how the supermarket does its business.
This is where the " less restrictive means to achieve the purpose" comes into play. Simply asking a shop to do this can achieve the purpose in a much restrictive way. Since most people are statists and do whatever the government says they must do, the vast majority of shops will enforce a mask policy.


To use a less controversial topic: speeding.
This might be uncomfortable for you, but there is an acceptable rate of traffic fatalities.

How do I make this claim?
If you limited the speed of every vehicle to 40km/h, you would would dramatically reduce the amount of people who die and get seriously injured from car accidents. Insurance claims would also be a lot less as you would have to be a special person to total a car at 40km/h.
So why isn't this law?
Because of a few things:
1) Enforcing the limitation will be highly difficult as people generally want to go faster than 40km/h.
2) There is an economic cost to enforcing such an imposing thing, both directly in terms of the amount of enforcement and indirectly in terms of the hours of productivity that is lost driving at 40km/h.
3) Turning everyone into a criminal makes it easer for people to break more laws. (broken windows).

Stupid people (eg the South African government), do not look at secondary effects of policy. They only look at the effect right in front of them and don't think about what the broader impacts of said policy will be.
Here is a TL;DRIMG_20200630_203353.jpg
 

jack_spratt

Expert Member
Joined
May 21, 2018
Messages
3,246
In 1977 I was nine.

Steve Biko was killed.

Elvis died and Hotel California came out.

We'd had teevee for two years and we were watching CHiPs and Bonanza and Rich Man, Poor Man and the Dingleys... Before then we'd have to listen to Springbok radio.

My favourite movies that year were Star Wars and Smokey and the Bandit.

Nico Diederichs was president and Colin Eglin started the PFP. Jimmy Carter became POTUS.


I'm 52 today, and obviously, I'm *exactly* the same person I was in '77. No changes, whatsoever... That's how humans work. We never change and learn and evolve, amirite?
What?
 
Top