The Government: Doing What's Best For Everyone

[Dreadnaught]

Yes, Dread, life is so simplistic, we only need the Ten Commandments to cover all the bases...

And I don't quite get what you of all people should know about the life of a student in Berlin. Please don't talk about stuff you haven't got the faintest of inklings about.
Not to mention that you're conflating quality and quantity again, this time even without any knowledge of the subject.

Are we all now allowed to make wild suggestions and pose them as truth?

In that case I'll posit that "Quality = quantity conflaters" are people who do not think before they speak.

Ten Commandments? It's interesting how you seem to have a stereotype of the kind of person I am based on my political views on issues that have nothing to do with religion.

But, separately, have you not read my haiku thread? Most Americans haven't heard of Neukölln without spending time there. But, more importantly, have you not spent any time in Berlin recently? Your tax dollars are funding a caricature of state dependence. Still, it's a lovely/interesting place to spend time.

More to the point, I am explicitly conflating quality and quantity. I don't see the problem with pointing out the entropy that results from an ever-expanding body of laws. And it really is entropy -- the more laws are created to address some problem or another, the more likely there to be unintended/bad consequences.

At the very least, a legal code that never stops expanding becomes intelligible only to the professional class of lawyers. It makes it impossible to navigate government (and thus, your life) without professional expertise at every turn to avoid stepping in a government mouse trap.

Some have suggested that certain types of laws (especially certain categories of business/tax regulations) should have sunset clauses, so that politicians can continue to vote for them (or re-write them) if they feel they are really important. Which I think is an interesting idea, but it could also waste of ton of time.

And yes, I believe you have a stake in becoming part of that professional class. So please understand that I'm not insulting your assumed profession.

[Khendraja'aro]

Yes, Dread, you spent one day or maybe a week in Berlin as a tourist and suddenly you're an expert. And if you're implying that I don't know the city - well, one of my brothers lives there, as well as my (former) Capoeira Mestre. I also read Der Spiegel, Süddeutsche Zeitung and Die Zeit (and not only the cultural pages at that), so I dare say that I know more about what's actually going on here than you do.

So you know a name of a part of that city. And? If I dropped the name "Manhattan" in a conversation, does that now mean that I'm fully versed in the inner workings of New York? Well, I might actually be. After all, I actually can understand the language...

And I "have a stake in becoming part of that professional class"? Good grief. You must've missed all those posts where I explained my background in paedagogics, where I talked about teaching children or talked about stuff going on at my school. I think I also might've mentioned chemistry and physics.

Also, please don't talk about entropy. The word does not mean what you think it means.

And how frequently do governments engage in this sensible pruning?

Ah, Mr. Loki: The guy who posts oneliners without actually offering anything sensible in return, clothed in his smug superiority.

Counterquestion: In what sense do you think your question offers anything useful?

[Dreadnaught]

It's pretty amusing how you go completely ape shit and diversionary whenever someone brings up something remotely critical of Germany. Der Speigel has an English edition, you know. And you don't see me dismissing everything you say about the US (or anything) with the level of hostility you are bringing to the table.

Though I could pursue citizenship in Germany, I would never pretend go be an expert on the country. But when you go somewhere several times over the course of several years staying with locals for several (cumulative) weeks, you begin to get a sense of a few things. And it's not really that hard to pick up on the welfare-hipster lifestyle of the non-Turkish residents of Neukölln. But it really clarifies itself when they sit around in the park over lunch and talk about filing for benefits, and how much they hate the cops from Bavaria who come every year for May Day.

My sense was you were studying to be a lawyer, I didn't realize you were studying to teach people to study.

Care to explain what entropy really means to you? It's not uncommon for us to use the word in a semi-metaphorical sense. In this case, the reality that more laws passed in a limited context leads to a larger, more complex and more chaotic legal code.

[GGT]

Okay, I'll bite. How exactly did you come to that conclusion? And lets try being specific. I encourage you to even quote what has been written! Or, are you going to go about it the same way you did before, which, we might remember led to your conclusion that this article was about dwindling rural areas, and racism? That is to say, by not reading and making ridiculous assumptions.

Do I really have to quote your dialogue between, say, Nessus and Khen? Or the "six or seven" other posters who read the full article and gave what you'd call an "adequate" response? Really?

Honestly, my response was based on how you framed the topic in your OP. "Government Doing What's Best for Everyone". You'd already placed your ideology at the top of the heap, but somehow expected us to read the full article before giving our opinion?

It seemed to me you wanted to discuss a more nuanced, multi-dimensional and philosophical topic, and this was the article you thought might launch the discussion. Instead of dissecting the article, I decided to cut to the chase. Between this thread, and Lewk's thread about Freedom vs Risk, the common theme is clear.

*What is the role of government?*

*When does government become intrusive?*


Sorry, but the story you posted didn't make me want to delve any further than he was driving with expired plates and an expired license.

[Aimless]

That is the most idiotic defense of wilful ignorance and blatant laziness I have seen in recent times on this forum the problems highlighted in the article are real and significant--and the subject worthy of discussion--no matter what the "framing" may be. Driving without a valid driver's license, for example, is not/should not be grounds for having your money stolen by the police. Read the gods-damned article already

[GGT]

That is the most idiotic defense of wilful ignorance and blatant laziness I have seen in recent times on this forum the problems highlighted in the article are real and significant--and the subject worthy of discussion--no matter what the "framing" may be. Driving without a valid driver's license, for example, is not/should not be grounds for having your money stolen by the police. Read the gods-damned article already

Excuse me, but the "framing" does matter. Police have legitimate reasons to pull over drivers with expired plates. They have a duty to ask drivers for their license, and run a computer check. If someone has an expired license and expired plates, it's not unusual for cops to "frisk" the driver for weapons or contraband. It IS unusual to find someone's pockets stuffed with thousands of dollars.

I'm not saying it's automatically ok to confiscate and hold money found during a traffic arrest. I'd prefer that kind of decision be made by a magistrate or judge....but that's not how Putnam County, Indiana has decided to construct their laws.

[Khendraja'aro]

Care to explain what entropy really means to you? It's not uncommon for us to use the word in a semi-metaphorical sense. In this case, the reality that more laws passed in a limited context leads to a larger, more complex and more chaotic legal code.

Entropy is defined as a measurement for chaos. As such, when used for mundane topics, it usually means a decay into chaos.

Establishing too many rules (which was what you're harping about) is the absolute opposite of entropy. Rules are non-chaotic. They try to offer "If A then B" guidelines. Too many and bad rules lead to a rigid system where nothing moves much. That's not chaos. Chaos is the abscence of rules.

In essence, you got the term completely and utterly wrong. Because with your "definition", both actions (removal and creation of new laws) would lead to an increase in entropy - making the term meaningless.

And I think I'll put you on ignore. You're nothing more than a troll now.

[Aimless]

Excuse me, but the "framing" does matter. Police have legitimate reasons to pull over drivers with expired plates. They have a duty to ask drivers for their license, and run a computer check. If someone has an expired license and expired plates, it's not unusual for cops to "frisk" the driver for weapons or contraband. It IS unusual to find someone's pockets stuffed with thousands of dollars.

I'm not saying it's automatically ok to confiscate and hold money found during a traffic arrest. I'd prefer that kind of decision be made by a magistrate or judge....but that's not how Putnam County, Indiana has decided to construct their laws.

This is exactly why you should have read the whole article.

[Lebanese Dragon]

Establishing too many rules (which was what you're harping about) is the absolute opposite of entropy. Rules are non-chaotic. They try to offer "If A then B" guidelines. Too many and bad rules lead to a rigid system where nothing moves much. That's not chaos. Chaos is the abscence of rules.

when you're talking about societies that's not the kind of chaos people are talking about. They're not talking about whether something is structured or not, they're talking about the type of structure.

For example we could make a rule that whoever kills 3 people each month gets a new house. We have added a rule into society, this rule would cause chaos on the societal level.

I think entropy in society is better defined as situations that detiorate society, and no rules would be one, but bad rules still cause 'societal chaos.'

[Loki]

This is exactly why you should have read the whole article.

That implies having the ability to read two consecutive paragraphs without going off on a tirade about some tangent.

[Dreadnaught]

Entropy is defined as a measurement for chaos. As such, when used for mundane topics, it usually means a decay into chaos.

Establishing too many rules (which was what you're harping about) is the absolute opposite of entropy. Rules are non-chaotic. They try to offer "If A then B" guidelines. Too many and bad rules lead to a rigid system where nothing moves much. That's not chaos. Chaos is the abscence of rules.

In essence, you got the term completely and utterly wrong. Because with your "definition", both actions (removal and creation of new laws) would lead to an increase in entropy - making the term meaningless.

And I think I'll put you on ignore. You're nothing more than a troll now.

Everyone is a troll when you are always angry at everyone.

Though I find it curious that you are somehow saying that I was talking about the removal of laws. My point is that laws are rarely "removed"; the leviathan state is almost always increasing the number of laws on the books. In fact, that was rather essential to what I was saying, so clearly you were misreading me a bit.

Lebanese Dragon had a good point as well.

[GGT]

This is exactly why you should have read the whole article.

Wouldn't change the fact that Indiana has decided not to change/update their laws, like other states have done.

[Aimless]

Innovation!

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local...tickets/nN8Qq/

[ar81]

Theology of wealth?

XIX century to 1929: US government promoted a darwinian competition.
1930 to 1945: Government assistance starts for key companies needed for war effort.
1945 to 1971: Expansion process until Lockheed Aircraft Corporation is bailed out in 1971. It became the blueprint for future bailouts. GSC (Government Sponsored Corporation) appears.

Barry Ritholtz in his book "Bailout Nation: How Greed and Easy Money Corrupted Wall Street and Shook the World Economy" talks about how US became a socialist nation that believes in "corporate welfare" and "socialism for executives". Ritholtz presents US history in detail on how it was a capitalist nation, but now it is only a bailout nation.

Privatizing profit, socializing losses.