If Mort Divine ruled the world

[rms]

You're being very naive if you believe certain people aren't at least somewhat forced to work in certain occupations.

 

[CiG]

Working in a pub is one of them? The only people truly forced to take a job they don't really want are inexperienced young people, don't know what the laws are there but you have to be of a certain age to work in a pub, and people that take high paying dangerous jobs because other things at that moment are way more important than their own well-being.

The rest are just boo-hoos.

 

[Dak]

Did the public vote for smoking bans? I grant you the abdication to a degree, but you're essentially justifying nannyism as if government policy makers really give a fuck about what the public wants.

What I'm saying is, the government enforces something and that looks like the public abdication you mention, but did the public even get a say?

I don't know what you're talking about. When I talk of abdication I mean abdication of responsibility. In the context of the subject of public smoking, the abdications in question are regarding health and civility. When the public wants to live unhealthily yet not accept the economic consequences of doing so (expensive health care), the government is forced to step in. To reduce the incurred costs, the gubmint gotta nanny. When people don't give a shit about the people in their area and want to shit and piss on people cuz AINAH LAW AGIN IT! then we get: Laws against it.

Like rms said, there's no one even trying to run on a platform of bringing back public indoor smoking, so you can hardly claim the government is going against the will of the people here, by traditional understanding.. I'd prefer to question whether the "will of the people" even exists.

I like how you think that's the part i'm critiquing and not the idea that America is on the 'path' to gulags because of some yuppie 18-22 YO's at college campuses.

You didn't understand the point of the article/quote, so I figured I would play along in this game of misunderstanding.

 

[CiG]

Freedom is not allowed!

 

[Dak]

Freedom is not allowed!

View attachment 4874

You are incorrect. Freedom is not wanted.

 

[CiG]

I've been arguing in it's favour this whole time.

 

[Dak]

I've been arguing in it's favour this whole time.

You are one person. I thought you believed in Democracy.

 

[CiG]

I don't remember having the choice to vote for smoking bans.

 

[Dak]

I don't remember having the choice to vote for smoking bans.

So the mere choice to lose that vote matters?

 

[CiG]

So the mere choice to lose that vote matters?

We don't know which choice would win or lose because we weren't give the opportunity to choose to begin with. I shouldn't have to explain this to you. Pushing bans of use of legal substances on businesses and the populace for "our own good" is not justified by a few pussy yuppie faggots that boo hoo over a smell after the bans are already in place.

 

[Dak]

We don't know which choice would win or lose because we weren't give the opportunity to choose to begin with. I shouldn't have to explain this to you. Pushing bans of use of legal substances on businesses and the populace for "our own good" is not justified by a few pussy yuppie faggots that boo hoo over a smell after the bans are already in place.

So what I'm hearing is that no specific policies are an issue for you as long as they are voted on and passed by 51% of the population.

 

[CiG]

You're the populist here, not me.

I didn't say anything about it being no specific issues. Nice try though.

 

[Dak]

I'm a populist?

I don't know why you brought up voting then if it doesn't matter sometimes. I don't know why it would matter at all in determining whether a policy is good or not.

 

[viewerfromnihil]

Populist has lost its definition. The only thing I can make it out to be with the way it's used nowadays is somebody who opposes the party establishment and has different opinions on policy from the mainstream of both parties. So basically like half of America.

 

[Dak]

It is the nature of democracy that politicians have to have a more or less "populist" platform. Whichever happens to be the "more" populist platform of an election cycle gets the label.

 

[CiG]

The way I mean it is the act of doing something or being for "the common people" which is essentially what Dak is defending here, the fact that we didn't get a choice is unimportant because smoking bans would probably still happen if taken to a vote. THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN.

Well no, not really they haven't. Some bureaucrat twats and a few special interest groups have spoken.

 

[SentinelSlain]

Is Dakryn or anyone else on here into psychohistory? I've just discovered the field and it seems like pretty interesting stuff, along with bicameralism (psychology).

 

[Dak]

Well no, not really they haven't. Some bureaucrat twats and a few special interest groups have spoken.

So what?

 

[CiG]

So what?

Too drunk to care anymore. Ban everything. Be a faggot.

 

[Dak]

Ban everything. Be a faggot.

We could ban bans.

Is Dakryn or anyone else on here into psychohistory? I've just discovered the field and it seems like pretty interesting stuff, along with bicameralism (psychology).

At a glance it looks like some Hegelian hogwash.