Go Back   Motorcycle Forum > Motorcycle.Com General Discussion > Motorcycle News > Old News > MO vs. World

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 11-01-2000, 01:41 PM   #51
MotorcycleMan
Founding Member
 
MotorcycleMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 32
Default And not pay for smokers who get lung cancer, etc.?

__________________
Loncin Italika EX200-21
MotorcycleMan is offline   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links Remove Advertisements
Motorcycle Forum
Advertisement
Old 11-01-2000, 02:00 PM   #52
Gabe
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 720
Default Wow! Deep thoughts!

And very well written! I wanted to grab my itchfork and join the mobs of oppressed workers on the streets, ready to storm the ramparts of the the powerful thugs!



But then I looked outside, and do you know what I saw? I saw ordinary people, walking and talking on the sidewalks, I saw cars driving up and down the street, I saw delivery trucks making their deliveries, a police car driving along, the mailman whistling as he made his rounds.



Your impassioned speech would make a lot more sense if you really DID live in a repressive regime, like North Korea or China. But I just don't see things the way you do. I think there is a lot of economic and social oppurtunity in this country, and everyone almost benefits from our system just the way it is. I really can't think of one thing the government won't let me do that I really want to do.



But you are 100% right. It is all about an almost theological difference. Some people believe living in a well-ordered society with a strong, stable federal government and powerful judiciary is a good thing. Then there are those who would rather live in some kind of libertarian anarchy, with only their fists and private business to protect their interests.



Guess which side I'm on?



Bravo for a well-writen post.



Gabe, the morally inferior being motivated by self-interest.
__________________
Gabe Ets-Hokin

Just a guy in the ether...
Gabe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2000, 03:18 PM   #53
Bluto
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 25
Default Self-interest

It is not a moral flaw to be motivated by self interest-- unless your job and responsibility is to act in the collective interest. It is in this capacity that our power elite are a constant letdown.
Bluto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2000, 05:18 PM   #54
Bluto
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 25
Default Whose Fists; Whose Interests?

"...some kind of libertarian anarchy, with only their fists and private business to protect their interests."



I was going to let this go, but I couldn't.



The only fists (and clubs, and chemical weapons, and firearms, etc.) that I see used with any regularity during the course of ordinary civil life are employed by agents of authority. Whose interests they represent are the interests of power, and not mine or those of people I know.



None of the people I know who promote civil liberties or local rule are inclined to accomplish their ends by force. Many police officers I have met and observed are quick to respond to resistence, pointed questioning, or even scrutiny with physical force.



Whose misdeeds are we to dread under a more libertarian paradigm? And what exactly are we avoiding by clinging to a brutal authority? Not violence, that's certain.



Make no mistake; when you have to measure your words in the presence of a cop, behave in an insincerely submissive way, or refrain from protest at his misbehavior in the interest of self-preservation, you are coping with life in a police state.
Bluto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2000, 05:32 PM   #55
Colorado_F4
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 29
Default Re: You have been duped by the insurance companies

As far as I'm concerned the whole insurance thing is just like a casino. The odds are always in favor of the house. Otherwise they wouldn't be running their businesses. So, statistically, the average customer pays a lot more money to the insurance companies then they ever get back.



Sure, the insurance industry just wants to make money like everybody else. But what would be in the public's best interest would be to have the equivalent of Credit Unions that do insurance instead of banking. A sort of not-for-profit, member-financed insurance pool where rates are more reasonable because profit is not the goal.



But, look at how much the banking industry tries to block credit unions. The insurance company lobbyists would to the same thing and so it'll never happen.
Colorado_F4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2000, 05:37 PM   #56
Colorado_F4
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 29
Default Re: You have been duped by the insurance companies

I would add lobbyists to Abe's list of groups that get laws passed based on the desires of the few rather than the many. The older and wiser I get, the more I see that everything is all about money. Do you really believe that Congress always does what the citizens want, and never gives extra consideration to lobbyists who are contributing big money to the Party? I wish I still believed that........
Colorado_F4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2000, 05:56 PM   #57
Colorado_F4
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 29
Default Re: Allow me to point out a bit of hypocrisy in your essay

Gabe,

I acutally thought about this after I posted it and thought "hypocrisy" was probably too strong a word. What I thought was hypocritical was that you first used the argument saying that if it saves money, it's justified, and then later you say that the "safety nazis" are only trying to save lives, implying that they are all doing their thing out of the goodness of their hearts and not influenced by money.



Anyway, sorry if my original post was inflammatory.



Regarding the Gulf War, let me ask you this: why do you think the USA fought that war? Please don't take my cynicism as an insult to the men & women who did the work - I have high esteem for people such as yourself who took on a dangerous job when your country asked you to. My comments are directed at the people making the decision on whether to fight or not. I believe that their motivation was largely due to the financial interest of the USA. Do you think that because you were involved that maybe you can't analyze it objectively?



And you are right about the safety advocates, that a lot of them could care less about the money and are interested in helping people. Just as the men & women who were sent to the Persian Gulf were honorable citizens whose intentions I would never question. But once again, it's the decision makers and the people/groups with big influence who I question. Sadly I believe the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety will have immeasurably more influence on issues such as helemt laws than any of us. And they, I believe, are motivated mainly by money.
Colorado_F4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2000, 06:15 PM   #58
Colorado_F4
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 29
Default Re: Maxim Magazine Helmet Question

Oh man, the Columbia blew up??? First the Challenger and now this!?!?



But seriously, w. patella, your post makes good points....
Colorado_F4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2000, 06:50 PM   #59
Colorado_F4
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 29
Default Re: Wow! Deep thoughts!

First of all Gabe, what's an itchfork? (Sorry I would've let that go if you hadn't ragged on posters' spelling).



More importantly though, I think you are too quick to dismiss Bluto's thoughts. Many people thought your post was the most eloquent and well-written post in favor of helmet laws. I believe that Bluto's post is the most eloquent and well-written post against such laws.



Just because the masses are not outside planning to overthrow the goverment does not mean everybody is happy with the government. In fact I think that's a large part of Bluto's point. If you did grab your itchfork and march to the police station, what do you think would happen? Remember the WHO protestors in Seattle? The police let everybody know who was boss.



I really can't think of one thing the government won't let me do that I really want to do.



Well I'm happy for you. But surely you realize that many others don't agree with you.



Many people that the government has no right telling them they can't take recreational drugs.



Many people feel they should be able to drive/ride down an empty road at 100mph if they feel like it. (Myself included, so I do it once in a while even though I'm not supposed to).



Many people feel they should be able to roll through a stop sign at 3am when they can clearly see that the only car is 1/2 mile away (happened to me... the car was a cop).



Many people feel they should be able to modify their vehicle with no regard at all to what kind of pollution it spews.



Many people feel they should be able to ride their motorcycle or mountain bike on any public land.



You don't have to agree with any of that, and I only agree with some of it. But the fact of the matter is that if you think long enough, you will find a law that you don't agree with and probably have broken because you figured you knew a little better than the lawmakers.



I'm sure you'll just dismiss this example as well, but have you ever exceeded the speed limit? If so you are doing something the government won't "let" you do. If a cop decided he didn't like your fancy bike, the fact that you were going 55 in a 50 is all the reason he needs to pull you over and force you to take as much of your time as he feels like taking.



But more to the point.... what Bluto is saying is that the goverment doesn't have a right to decide whether or not you put on a helmet. All the stuff about saving other peoples' money and saving lives and how it's stupid to not wear a helmet is all irrelevant. All that is just fluff. The real issue is: who decides what I do and how I do it. Answer should me: me.
Colorado_F4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2000, 07:06 PM   #60
Colorado_F4
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 29
Default Enough with "I don't want to pay when your brains spill"

1) Most people have auto insurance AND health insurance. Therefore most people who crash in a motorcycle are covered by their insurance, or that of the jerk in the car who caused the accident. So stop with the "I will have to pay your medical bills" crap.



2) Be honest and objective here. Riding a motorcycle AT ALL greatly increases your chance of getting injured vs. driving a car. So if you are really going to use this argument about not wanting to have to pay in the form of tax dollars or higher insurance premiums, you really should be advocating elimination of motorcycles from the roads. Oh, or is that too exreme? Helmet laws are not too extreme? But banning motorcycles is? And you get to decide what's too extreme?
Colorado_F4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off