Remove Advertisements

Losing Free Speech?

Invisusira's playground

Moderators: Aergis, Invisusira

Re: Losing Free Speech?

Postby firstamendme » Sun Mar 25, 2012 3:42 pm

Fivelives wrote: I paid $25k of that into a bond account, and the bondsman agrees to pay up to $40k on my behalf, then I pay my bondsman the difference. I could have only put the minimum 10% down on the bond, but I figure that I'd rather not assume a $36k debt in a case where I have to use the full amount of the bond.



I don't understand how this works. You gave them 25k up front for this bond alternative to auto insurance? I must not fully understand, because my wife and I pay 110 a month for very comprehensive auto insurance and it will take quite awhile for it to equate to that amount of money.
Image
User avatar
firstamendme
 
Posts: 506
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008 10:05 am

Re: Losing Free Speech?

Postby Dantriges » Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:53 am

Fridmarr wrote:Absolutely! I don't think, I know, I've seen it first hand many times in several different states. It goes back to what I was talking about earlier, as these agencies expand their base, they are able to get more tax dollars. There may have been a draw down in certain categories now that states are not able to balance their budget (though that's a choice above the individual program), but once the economy picks up, they'll be right back at it. They absolutely get angry when either private or public services encroach on their ability to gain or hold clients. Now that said, private groups don't very often provide services that duplicate gov't offerings (but it does happen), usually in those situations the private organization will educate the client about the availability of the government based service. While that's good within our current system, it's the opposite of how the system should work.


Ah ok. You are probably right. I still think that you can subsitute evil government with greedy corp and the fnal result would be the same.

A lot of talk about how things used to be here I see as terribly invalid analogies, both ways really. It's very hard to attempt to correlate a lot of these things to a different system in a different time.


Probably, but the decision makers and the people debating in this forum have nothing else to extrapolate from and estimate what would happen. Yeah you have to account for different times, different culture etc. If we disregard the mistakes and accomplishments other people made prevously, we have to start from scratch.
The other pointers we have are different countries who do something you could try to emulate. huh well, seems most countries who have internal power blocs controlling vast areas of the country are in no good shape at all. But that can be attributed to uncontrolled loss of power and ruthless warlords fill the vacuum.

But yeah if we use our current times as a baseline you can´t change much anyways. If you shift more power to the state level, your ability to compete on a global scale will decrease. Local industry will play each state against each other to reap even more benefits like corporations already do on a global level. The private sector will be interested in the probably profitable parts of the governments, leaving the gov with the rest. Resulting in a weakening of the Union and a loss of force in the global sphere. Desn´t matter if you are shiny happy utopia if the central gov neighbour next door or in your case the guy across the ocean can dictate his terms at will. And I don´t mean actual conquest but trade agreements. It was quite a stroke of luck when the first world got rid of the colonies and switched from direct control of the country to eploitation via trade with the occasional military expedition if the tributary didn´t do what was expected of him.

Yeah most people say the military should be federal level, but it will be weakened the more power you transfer fom the federal to the state level or to private sectors. More interest groups like states trying to weasel out of joint efforts (rich states will argue about higher contibutions, poor states about being unable to contribute the desired resources and that the rich states pressure them into contributing a higher share than fair). And other interest groups of course. Seems to me that this more the problem than rampant big gov stomping over the individual. Interest groups trying to milk the government coffers, transferring obligations to other people (tax breaks for the rich) or getting the central power to do something for their benefit. Probably doesn´t matter much if the oligarchy pressures the governor or the fed admin into doing their bidding, if they are not preoccupied asset stripping the average guy on the street.

Well power always accumulate around a center, until the whole thing is too big and breaks down. The US will probably go the same way of every other big power on the planet, then the EU (if it ever takes off) and the chinese some time after. Happened to Persia, Rome, the muslim middle east, the mongols, Spain and the british empire (lots of empires not mentioned of course). The US is in the lucky position that their neighbours aren´t in the shape to take over and nowadays, you don´t take over countries, you take their money. Not pretty bu better than an actual invasion.

The article on anarcho capitalism in the Frontier West sounds interesting but sounds a bit biased. Even these quotes are probably biased. Either in its source of origin or the selection process. Like the quote about "crime went up when courts came." Perhaps some stuff was outlawed now or the guy disagreed with the development of events, got caught in stuff he could formerly hide or whatever else. There could be other factors like increased pop, drying up of precious resources etc. Well, doesn´t matter much. He could even be right. The paper discusses the formation of small social groups and humans are plain better regulating small social groups than larger ones. IIRC the magic number is a few hundred. Well in this age, we can´t organise ourselves in small communities of a few hundred who are in close vicinity of each other.
Dantriges
 
Posts: 1252
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 12:39 am

Re: Losing Free Speech?

Postby Fivelives » Mon Mar 26, 2012 11:35 am

firstamendme wrote:
Fivelives wrote: I paid $25k of that into a bond account, and the bondsman agrees to pay up to $40k on my behalf, then I pay my bondsman the difference. I could have only put the minimum 10% down on the bond, but I figure that I'd rather not assume a $36k debt in a case where I have to use the full amount of the bond.



I don't understand how this works. You gave them 25k up front for this bond alternative to auto insurance? I must not fully understand, because my wife and I pay 110 a month for very comprehensive auto insurance and it will take quite awhile for it to equate to that amount of money.


I paid far more than the minimum required by my bond seller. The minimum was 10%, or, $4000.
- I'm not Jesus, but I can turn water into Kool-Aid.
- A Sergeant in motion outranks an officer who doesn't know what the hell is going on.
- A demolitions specialist at a flat run outranks everybody.
User avatar
Fivelives
 
Posts: 3108
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 7:55 pm

Re: Losing Free Speech?

Postby Aubade » Mon Mar 26, 2012 5:41 pm

4000 is still a hell of a lot more than most of us have in cash spare lying around. When we could just pay the minimum car insurance policy and have all the added benefits those companies provide.

Just my opinion.
Image
- Awbade Level 85 Human Paladin - <Tsunami> Frostmourne - Retired.
Deliriously wrote:I prefer the, "Lonely Hand Approach" (trademark pending)
User avatar
Aubade
Moderator
 
Posts: 4877
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 12:51 am
Location: Tacoma, WA

Re: Losing Free Speech?

Postby Fivelives » Mon Mar 26, 2012 6:47 pm

I have it because I don't agree with paying for other people being piss-poor drivers. If it weren't a law, I wouldn't even have that much. I've still got AAA for times I need towing or roadside assistance, and it's a damn sight cheaper (I think I pay something like $150/year for AAA).
- I'm not Jesus, but I can turn water into Kool-Aid.
- A Sergeant in motion outranks an officer who doesn't know what the hell is going on.
- A demolitions specialist at a flat run outranks everybody.
User avatar
Fivelives
 
Posts: 3108
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 7:55 pm

Re: Losing Free Speech?

Postby Aubade » Mon Mar 26, 2012 7:25 pm

Fivelives wrote:I have it because I don't agree with paying for other people being piss-poor drivers. If it weren't a law, I wouldn't even have that much. I've still got AAA for times I need towing or roadside assistance, and it's a damn sight cheaper (I think I pay something like $150/year for AAA).


Personally I pay $85 for basic coverage and personal injury protection, (50k property/150k medical), + 2 dollars a month for AAA, and i think 15 dollars more for some basic collision coverage.

for a total of like 102 dollars a month.....It would take me 3.1746 years just to reach the minimum on your bond.
Image
- Awbade Level 85 Human Paladin - <Tsunami> Frostmourne - Retired.
Deliriously wrote:I prefer the, "Lonely Hand Approach" (trademark pending)
User avatar
Aubade
Moderator
 
Posts: 4877
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 12:51 am
Location: Tacoma, WA

Re: Losing Free Speech?

Postby Fridmarr » Mon Mar 26, 2012 9:22 pm

Dantriges wrote:
Fridmarr wrote:Absolutely! I don't think, I know, I've seen it first hand many times in several different states. It goes back to what I was talking about earlier, as these agencies expand their base, they are able to get more tax dollars. There may have been a draw down in certain categories now that states are not able to balance their budget (though that's a choice above the individual program), but once the economy picks up, they'll be right back at it. They absolutely get angry when either private or public services encroach on their ability to gain or hold clients. Now that said, private groups don't very often provide services that duplicate gov't offerings (but it does happen), usually in those situations the private organization will educate the client about the availability of the government based service. While that's good within our current system, it's the opposite of how the system should work.


Ah ok. You are probably right. I still think that you can subsitute evil government with greedy corp and the fnal result would be the same.
There is one huge difference, evil government has WAY more power and they have little to no competition to act as check and balance. Private companies have both other companies and the government, and if they are able to defeat both of those then they are the de facto government anyhow.

Our system was built on these checks and balances, they worked largely by spreading around power to different branches, levels of government, and ultimately the people. The last two categories are all but gone, and the balance really doesn't exist anymore. At the federal level, all the checks and balances come from within, congress made up entirely of two parties that are shared with the executive branch, and a judicial branch that is appointed by the executive, with no real outside check to speak of, it's a pretty obvious problem.

At one point, the federal government needed a constitutional amendment to impose direct national taxes (not precisely but close enough for my point) on the people. Right now the court is hearing whether or not the federal government has the power to tell you that you MUST purchase a certain product, simply for being alive, no amendment required. The court already ruled that the government can take your property, with fair compensation, for any reason it sees fit. There is no balance.

Dantriges wrote:But yeah if we use our current times as a baseline you can´t change much anyways. If you shift more power to the state level, your ability to compete on a global scale will decrease. Local industry will play each state against each other to reap even more benefits like corporations already do on a global level. The private sector will be interested in the probably profitable parts of the governments, leaving the gov with the rest. Resulting in a weakening of the Union and a loss of force in the global sphere. Desn´t matter if you are shiny happy utopia if the central gov neighbour next door or in your case the guy across the ocean can dictate his terms at will. And I don´t mean actual conquest but trade agreements. It was quite a stroke of luck when the first world got rid of the colonies and switched from direct control of the country to eploitation via trade with the occasional military expedition if the tributary didn´t do what was expected of him.
The exact opposite is true. When states compete they are forced to be more efficient, and more efficiency leads to better GDP. The notion of states competing does exist to a degree now. I mean yes the federal gov't has the vast majority of the power, but state/county/city level taxes are still a significant motivator. Without that competition I shudder to think what levels of spending some states would have hit.

Dantriges wrote:Yeah most people say the military should be federal level, but it will be weakened the more power you transfer fom the federal to the state level or to private sectors. More interest groups like states trying to weasel out of joint efforts (rich states will argue about higher contibutions, poor states about being unable to contribute the desired resources and that the rich states pressure them into contributing a higher share than fair). And other interest groups of course. Seems to me that this more the problem than rampant big gov stomping over the individual. Interest groups trying to milk the government coffers, transferring obligations to other people (tax breaks for the rich) or getting the central power to do something for their benefit. Probably doesn´t matter much if the oligarchy pressures the governor or the fed admin into doing their bidding, if they are not preoccupied asset stripping the average guy on the street.
Again, just simply not true. Wiggle out how exactly? I'm not suggesting that the federal gov't be dissolved or something like that. Besides states don't really pay anything towards the military now (or much else to the federal gov't). Federal taxes are paid by the citizens, collected right from our paychecks and then some is doled back out to states for certain programs. Interests groups exist for the sole purpose of spreading their influence, when the power is decentralized, they are far less effective.

Dantriges wrote:Well power always accumulate around a center, until the whole thing is too big and breaks down. The US will probably go the same way of every other big power on the planet, then the EU (if it ever takes off) and the chinese some time after. Happened to Persia, Rome, the muslim middle east, the mongols, Spain and the british empire (lots of empires not mentioned of course). The US is in the lucky position that their neighbours aren´t in the shape to take over and nowadays, you don´t take over countries, you take their money. Not pretty bu better than an actual invasion.
...yes and that's the whole purpose of pulling back the beast that can not sustain itself. If you believe what you doing will ultimately lead to failure, why would you keep doing it? We can keep doing what every gov't before us has, or we can take a different path. We can sit around and poke holes in what we think things would be like with a less powerful central gov't, but lets not forget the failures we currently have and how they came about.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 9665
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Losing Free Speech?

Postby Fridmarr » Mon Mar 26, 2012 9:27 pm

Fivelives, I'm not familiar with that system. Since it's a bond, are you saying that what you paid is still your money, simply locked up in a bond to be paid out if necessary? That when you decide you no longer need/want that type of insurance that you can cash out the bond getting back your principle, while the bond holder pockets the investment income off of it? Or am I just totally off the mark here?
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 9665
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Losing Free Speech?

Postby Fivelives » Mon Mar 26, 2012 9:50 pm

That's exactly how it works, Fridmarr. I can't just call them up and say "I want my money back tomorrow" but with reasonable notice, I can get my money back.

I don't have a beef with the idea behind insurance - people who are injured in accidents need some way of helping with medical bills and replacing their cars. I just have a problem when the government steps in and decides it's their job to force good drivers to pay for bad. If you want the privilege of owning and operating your own car, you should personally be prepared for the responsibility of paying for the consequences of your own actions behind the wheel.
- I'm not Jesus, but I can turn water into Kool-Aid.
- A Sergeant in motion outranks an officer who doesn't know what the hell is going on.
- A demolitions specialist at a flat run outranks everybody.
User avatar
Fivelives
 
Posts: 3108
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 7:55 pm

Re: Losing Free Speech?

Postby KysenMurrin » Tue Mar 27, 2012 12:41 am

The point of mandatory insurance is what happens when you don't have it: You get hit by an uninsured driver who can't afford to pay damages, then you likely will be paying for their behaviour out of your own pocket.

You might be god's gift to the highway, but there'll be plenty of people who think they are and then still cause accidents. The question isn't whether you want to have insurance - it's whether you want everyone else to have it.
I don't play WoW any more.
Donnan - Nangun - Kysen - Kysen - Mardun - Timkins

Mostly-Book Blog.
KysenMurrin
 
Posts: 6824
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:37 am
Location: UK

Re: Losing Free Speech?

Postby Fridmarr » Tue Mar 27, 2012 7:34 am

KysenMurrin wrote:The point of mandatory insurance is what happens when you don't have it: You get hit by an uninsured driver who can't afford to pay damages, then you likely will be paying for their behaviour out of your own pocket.

You might be god's gift to the highway, but there'll be plenty of people who think they are and then still cause accidents. The question isn't whether you want to have insurance - it's whether you want everyone else to have it.

Yeah, the problem is with implementation though. The system Fivelives is using is really pretty cool, and makes me curious as to whether or not that system is available in my state. The point is that while he is required to have coverage, the cost for his coverage isn't based on aggregate data that just averages him in, it's based on the coverage he wants and probably his ability to pay any difference if an at fault accident occurs.

Government requires insurance companies to insure people at reasonable prices, even terrible drivers need insurance. That's why Progressive (and others do it now too, but Progressive was the first to really boast it nationally) will also tell you what their competitors charge. It's not so they can show you that theirs is cheaper, it's the exact opposite. If you are a bad driver they believe they will lose money on you, so they want to show you someone else who is a cheaper option, so they don't have to take the risk on you. It's an ingenious way to get around the system.

Insurance of high risk in government terms is an "exchange" which is government speak for "we are going to totally screw somebody, but if we slice up the screwing and spread it around it's hard to be able to determine who is getting screwed and by how much." Sometimes it all comes crashing down, like when the gov't backed risky home loans and "securitized them" so they could be put on an exchange. Fortunately auto insurance isn't really leveraged like a mortgage so unless a massive amount of people were to wreck their cars at once, the only pain is a few extra dollars on your monthly premium.

That's not to say that insurance is a bad idea, the concept works, at least for something optional like driving.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 9665
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Losing Free Speech?

Postby Fivelives » Tue Mar 27, 2012 2:03 pm

There is no simple fix toward insurance. It's a shitty system as is, yeah, but I can't come up with a way to fix it - other than perhaps making everyone self-insure themselves as I have. Which wouldn't be a bad solution, come to think of it. If you have insurance, then you know someone else is going to pay for your bad decisions, so you're more likely to get in the car after that 5th drink at the bar, or after staying up for 2 days straight cramming for a midterm or final. Both of those are stupid decisions made easier by impaired judgment and the knowledge that you won't have to bear the brunt of your own actions.

Now, say you have some ungodly high dollar amount attached to your bad decisions. That 5th drink that the bar might just cost you 40 or 50 grand. That's an expensive drink, and knowing that, you might just be less inclined to make that bad decision.
- I'm not Jesus, but I can turn water into Kool-Aid.
- A Sergeant in motion outranks an officer who doesn't know what the hell is going on.
- A demolitions specialist at a flat run outranks everybody.
User avatar
Fivelives
 
Posts: 3108
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 7:55 pm

Re: Losing Free Speech?

Postby Dantriges » Wed Mar 28, 2012 4:01 am

I assume you can still get charged by law with involuntary manslaughter, assault/battery and whatever else the law can sling at you when you are causing damage while drunk or under other impairment. Don´t know but seems this should be enough of a deterrance for the average person, considering that quite a few accidents are a chain of events with guilt spread between several participants or one split decision mistake by you.
Last edited by Dantriges on Thu Mar 29, 2012 12:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
Dantriges
 
Posts: 1252
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 12:39 am

Re: Losing Free Speech?

Postby Fridmarr » Wed Mar 28, 2012 6:24 pm

So I read a NY Times review of a new book "The Righteous Mind" today, and the review really hit home to this thread for me. The book is exploring the psychological differences between liberals and conservatives

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/22/opini ... -soap.html

In short, there are some shared value systems between both groups, but conservatives also have some additional values that liberals do not. Ultimately much of the differences are over exaggerated. However, to me the interesting part is:
Moderates and conservatives were adept at guessing how liberals would answer questions. Liberals, especially those who described themselves as “very liberal,” were least able to put themselves in the minds of their adversaries and guess how conservatives would answer.
In other words, Liberals don't understand conservatives very well and not nearly as well as conservatives understand them. That notion instantly brought me back to some of the rather surprising comments about conservatives in this thread. Now, that article is just a review of the book, and admittedly I haven't read the book itself, so I don't know if it gets into "the why" part or if that review is even accurate on top of the research itself (so grain of salt is in order). My guess is that the book probably addresses "the why" through the values that liberals don't have, for example
The Reviewer wrote:Another way of putting it is this: Americans speak about values in six languages, from care to sanctity. Conservatives speak all six, but liberals are fluent in only three. And some (me included) mostly use just one, care for victims.
But I'm really curious how much of that is a product of our media/pop cultural/education systems. I mean, unless you actually go to a conservative website, watch fox news, or chat about this stuff with conservatives, I don't think you'd ever really hear a conservative perspective. And those that you would hear, through school and especially the media are so flawed and literally framed as badly as possible, why would you bother.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 9665
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Losing Free Speech?

Postby Fridmarr » Wed Mar 28, 2012 6:30 pm

Dantriges wrote:I assume you can still get charged by law with involunatry manslaughter, assault/battery and whatever else the law can sling at you when you are causing damage while drunk or under other impairment. Don´t know but seems this should be enough of a deterrance for the average person, considering that quite a few accidents are a chain of events with guilt spread between several participants or one split decision mistake by you.

Yeah, if you commit a crime you'll be charged with that on top of the DUI. And the fact that you are driving while drunk can make the criminal charges worse. For repeat offenders second degree murder charges could even happen.

But I agree with your sentiment. If everything you already know about drunk driving and its potential consequences isn't enough to stop you from getting behind the wheel drunk, then I doubt some extra cash out of pocket will be enough either.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 9665
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

PreviousNext

Return to Arkham Asylum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot] and 1 guest


Remove Advertisements

Who is online

In total there are 2 users online :: 1 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 380 on Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:28 pm

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot] and 1 guest