If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
We survived WITHOUT safety edicts
"JG" wrote in message t...
"Wendy Marsden" wrote in message ... JG wrote: Gee, has anyone perceived a pattern here? With the exception of McCourt's family, all the examples Wendy offered for consideration are instances of "STARVATION BY GOVERNMENT"! (Okay, quasi-government Valley Forge.) Too funny... Just a quick morsel of food for thought. If starvation is usually caused by the government, doesn't that imply that government involvement will usually be required to end it? |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
We survived WITHOUT safety edicts
"abacus" wrote
Just a quick morsel of food for thought. If starvation is usually caused by the government, doesn't that imply that government involvement will usually be required to end it? The only mass starvations of the 20th century were caused by gubmnt actions that blocked food from getting to the people. So yes, sometimes gubmnt involved is needed to end those policies that involve deliberately starving people. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
We survived WITHOUT safety edicts
Roger Schlafly wrote:
The only mass starvations of the 20th century were caused by gubmnt actions that blocked food from getting to the people. So yes, sometimes gubmnt involved is needed to end those policies that involve deliberately starving people. Hang on, I cited a few examples from the 18th and 19th centuries that were caused by governmental actions, but that doesn't mean ALL mass starvations were caused by the government everywhere. Let's see, the 20th Century had the creation of the great dust bowl where crops failed from over-farming and drought. There was also a few bouts of pestilence (ever hear of a chestnut or an elm? Food crops got eaten, too.) *MY* government didn't have the power to prevent these things. There were mass migrations of immigrants to the cities (like my great-grandparents) and there was also a HUGE population of share-croppers and migrant farm-workers doing the agricultural work previously done by slaves (slaves were at least supplied with food even if not freedom or money.) I'd say the government ALLOWED these policies, but I don't think they created the hunger. There was a world wide epidemic of flu that killed predominantly people in their highest earning years. It's a HUGE reach to say the Spanish flu was caused by the Government, although sending the servicemen overseas in WW1 probably aided in its spread. Oh, and how about a Great Depression where people lost their jobs and farms and couldn't buy food? I don't think you can honestly say that was caused by governmental policies, unless you're referring to the precursor of the SEC as a governmental agency and think the world-wide economy is controllable. I imagine you sitting there saying, "well, I'm not hungry and I don't know anyone else who is hungry so hunger must not exist." I find you puzzling - is this really how you think or are you just trolling? Wendy |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
We survived WITHOUT safety edicts
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 03:40:26 GMT, Wendy Marsden
wrote: Roger Schlafly wrote: The only mass starvations of the 20th century were caused by gubmnt actions that blocked food from getting to the people. So yes, sometimes gubmnt involved is needed to end those policies that involve deliberately starving people. Hang on, I cited a few examples from the 18th and 19th centuries that were caused by governmental actions, but that doesn't mean ALL mass starvations were caused by the government everywhere. Roger claims to have a doctorate in mathematics yet he has difficulty with the most basic principles of logic. I find you puzzling - is this really how you think or are you just trolling? I ask myself that about him practically every time I read one of his posts. PF |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
We survived WITHOUT safety edicts
Roger Schlafly wrote:
Migration, yes. Flu, yes. Unemployment, yes. I've lost track of your point here. People need the safety edicts - the welfare system run by the government - to survive. And people without those benefits died. Wendy |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
We survived WITHOUT safety edicts
"Wendy Marsden" wrote
Migration, yes. Flu, yes. Unemployment, yes. I've lost track of your point here. People need the safety edicts - the welfare system run by the government - to survive. And people without those benefits died. And for you examples, you give historical events like the 1918 flu??! You are not making any sense. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
We survived WITHOUT safety edicts
Wendy Marsden wrote in message ...
Roger Schlafly wrote: Migration, yes. Flu, yes. Unemployment, yes. I've lost track of your point here. People need the safety edicts - the welfare system run by the government - to survive. And people without those benefits died. Wendy This is an interesting conversation. I think that a governmental policy of redistribution of wealth (which is what welfare benefits are) does allow more people to survive harsh economic times - which are often the result of governmental policies in the first place. In addition, the current system of providing welfare benefits without requiring the recipients to work for them but only to establish their *need* results in more *needy* people because it becomes a lifestyle choice for some, and for others it becomes a backup that they can rely on rather than relying on themselves. Safety edicts also save lives. But the cost of such measures is usually some aspect of our freedom. I'm not convinced that many of the safety measures currently being legally mandated (such as carseats, bicycle helmets, etc.) are sufficiently beneficial to justify their being required by law rather than optional. Lowering the speed limit to 10 mph would also save lives, but we don't generally consider the cost of such a measure to be worth the price of such a limitation. On the other hand, we do consider speed limits and various other traffic regulations to be reasonable limitations on individual freedom in order to reduce accidents and their resulting damage to an acceptable level. At what point - how many lives - does the imposition of such measures and the resulting reduction in individual freedom become acceptable? I don't what the right answer is, but you've all provided me with some food for thought. Thanks. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
We survived WITHOUT safety edicts
"abacus" wrote
This is an interesting conversation. I think that a governmental policy of redistribution of wealth (which is what welfare benefits are) does allow more people to survive harsh economic times - which are often the result of governmental policies in the first place. The track record is mixed. Most of the FDR New Deal policies of the 1930s ended up making the Depression worse. Safety edicts also save lives. But the cost of such measures is usually some aspect of our freedom. I'm not convinced that many of the safety measures currently being legally mandated (such as carseats, bicycle helmets, etc.) are sufficiently beneficial to justify their being required by law rather than optional. Yes. Some safety edicts are so good that no one questions them, but those you mention are debatable. Lowering the speed limit to 10 mph would also save lives, but we don't generally consider the cost of such a measure to be worth the price of such a limitation. On the other hand, we do consider speed limits and various other traffic regulations to be reasonable limitations on individual freedom in order to reduce accidents and their resulting damage to an acceptable level. At what point - how many lives - does ... For most the 1970s-1990s we were told that the 55 mph US speed limit was saving lives. But now that the national speed limit has been dropped and many states have higher limits, there has been no increase in the accident rate attributable to the increase. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
We survived WITHOUT safety edicts
Roger Schlafly wrote:
"Wendy Marsden" wrote Migration, yes. Flu, yes. Unemployment, yes. I've lost track of your point here. People need the safety edicts - the welfare system run by the government - to survive. And people without those benefits died. And for you examples, you give historical events like the 1918 flu??! You are not making any sense. As an example of something causing starvation that wasn't caused by the government. You have to extrapolate a bit: the 1918 flu was remarkable in how many young and strong men it killed. That left families without their earning power and subsequently one can presume that they went hungry. I'm not claiming it was "mass starvation", but I'd bet my bottom dollar that there was sporadic starvation as a result. Wendy |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
We survived WITHOUT safety edicts
Roger Schlafly wrote:
For most the 1970s-1990s we were told that the 55 mph US speed limit was saving lives. But now that the national speed limit has been dropped and many states have higher limits, there has been no increase in the accident rate attributable to the increase. No increase in the OVERALL accident rate, but more elderly are dying and less healthy young men are dying on the interstate. The problem appears to be one of disparity of speed. An old fogey going 50 is more likely to be rear-ended and killed now that traffic is going 80 around them. Wendy |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Newish review article on safety of VBAC | Ericka Kammerer | Pregnancy | 0 | July 25th 04 05:18 PM |
Car/child safety | aml | Pregnancy | 11 | June 21st 04 01:29 AM |
Internet Safety Day - New Site Combats Net Pedophiles | Simon Johnson | General | 0 | February 6th 04 12:12 PM |
SAFETY WARNING: Pottery Barn Halloween House Tealight Holders | DeliciousTruffles | General | 0 | October 2nd 03 11:04 PM |