The only thing I could possibly add to your comment is that wealth is not necessarily indicative of success, and vice versa. But I think that's something we can all agree on even if we didn't know it already.
Word.
Almost everyone I know who is rich started out rich or married rich.
Again, everyone siezes on my skepticism about global warming, when my only real point has been, if we aren't sure about our involvement, how much climate change might occur, or how damaging it may or may not be, we shouldn't gamble our economy on it. If there are solutions avilable, we should incentivize the market to find those solutions, assuming there is enough of a problem o warrant a solution.
I know I probably won't convince you to change your mind, and that's fine - everyone is certainly entitled to their opinions. But I really think you're exaggerating the costs - we're not "gambling the economy" - by every estimate of the costs this will be far far less than what we've spent on the war in Iraq. My own opinion is that addressing climate change would have been a more useful way to spend all that money than a war, but that's just my opinion.
I still think the attempt to destroy data, not respond to FoA requests and switch methodologies to find an answer that fits smacks of corruption. As that office is closely related both to the corrupt UN and IPCC, my skepticism will be really tough to overcome.
Before you fix your skepticism in stone though, you should consider whether you've got the facts straight. I'm sure that you don't in a few places.
There was no attempt to destroy data. You're suggesting a deliberate attempt to hide something. Copies of data were lost 30 years ago -the CRU team was not the guardian of the actual, original data, just copies of it. It's not great that it was lost, but the original data is still easily available, and in fact can easily be found on the internet for anyone to access. (I've seen it, but am too lazy to dig out the links now - I'll try harder if you actually need to see it)
Not responding to FoA requests is a problem (and deliberately destroying records is a much bigger one) - whether what they did is illegal or not remains to be seen, I think, but you probably have a point here.
"switch methodologies to find an answer that fits" does not smack of corruption! All the methodological discussions were public and published! How can this possibly be interpreted as corruption? When you have open discussion and peer review of technique, methods, and results, how is that a corrupt process? It's how science works. It's how science is supposed to work. I think you are way off base here. Not even close to reality.
I don't mean to sound too harsh, and I'm not even trying to change your mind if you don't want it to be changed, but several things you've said are simply not true, and I don't want to let the untrue statements pass for anyone else to read and believe.
Be skeptical of global warming all you want, and even if you don't believe me when I say you are wrong about some of these things, at least take it as a sign that you may have missed something, and look into it further before you make up your mind.
Despite the contents of my posts, I'm not overly concerned about the global warming points, so much as the position that the climate scientists are dishonest, lying, criminals. The leaked email correspondence does not support that, and the tragedy here is not that the science was done with evil intent (it wasn't), but that the public perception of science has been hugely damaged by the (largely manufactured) scandal.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
The only thing I could possibly add to your comment is that wealth is not necessarily indicative of success, and vice versa. But I think that's something we can all agree on even if we didn't know it already.Word.
Almost everyone I know who is rich started out rich or married rich.
Too late for me on both counts.
The added "license points removal" is not the fine, so I am not concerned with it. I am specifically addressing the way fines work (or don't work) as deterrents to misbehaviour. Either they are needed or they are not needed. If they are not needed because, and I quote:
They still receive "points" on their driver's license which can (will) lead to loss of driving priveleges for repeating offenses just like everyone else. And, that is the key.
then there is no need for a fine. If the fine is, in fact, needed because it does help reduce misbehaviour, as you seem to believe since you followed the previous statement with:
The point of the fines is not to PUNISH. It is to make the roads safer for everybody with the threat of a fine.
then I am arguing that fixed-value fines have no effect on the wealthy as deterrents. Instead of addresing this point, you noted that the loss of one's license might be enough to deter such a wealthy person from misbehaving.
I completely agree with you when you say fines are not supposed to punish. They are supposed to deter certain kinds of misconduct by fear of financial loss. All such deterrents are in fact an appeal to one's reason("By misbehaving I may lose something of importance to me, so I should avoid it"). I fail to grasp how a small, fixed-value fine could be as good a disincentive to the rich as it is to the poor.
To repeat, the penalty is a fine whose value is (and should, IMO) be based upon the severity of the civil infraction. Extenuating circumstances can adjust such fines with some examples being on the way to the hospital with a sick person or a first time offense. Still, these will determine where on the scale for the infraction that the fine is assessed.
But you are saying it yourself that fines are not punishments, but, on the contrary, a way to interdict people from misbehaving. Don't you think that they should be constructed in order to reach that goal instead ?
I have seen nothing to state anywhere that the fine is appropriate to the infraction itself rather than to punishing the individual and I have seen nothing anywhere that has shown it would in any way appreciably affect the safety of the roads because it will hit a few rich people hard in the checkbook.
Well, it would certainly make them think twice about doing it because otherwise they would be losing a non-insignificant parcel of their money, as poor people surely do.
The most straightforward manner by means of which I can rationalize what you are saying above is:
"Since there are a lot more poor than rich, the total number of rich people which do exceed speeding limits is so small that adapting a proportional fine would affect very little the number of crimes."
Is this what you are aiming at ? I am not being sarcastic here, I really am trying to understand your position.
The added "license points removal" is not the fine, so I am not concerned with it. I am specifically addressing the way fines work (or don't work) as deterrents to misbehaviour. Either they are needed or they are not needed. If they are not needed because, and I quote:
They still receive "points" on their driver's license which can (will) lead to loss of driving priveleges for repeating offenses just like everyone else. And, that is the key.then there is no need for a fine. If the fine is, in fact, needed because it does help reduce misbehaviour, as you seem to believe since you followed the previous statement with:
The point of the fines is not to PUNISH. It is to make the roads safer for everybody with the threat of a fine.then I am arguing that fixed-value fines have no effect on the wealthy as deterrents. Instead of addresing this point, you noted that the loss of one's license might be enough to deter such a wealthy person from misbehaving.
I completely agree with you when you say fines are not supposed to punish. They are supposed to deter certain kinds of misconduct by fear of financial loss. All such deterrents are in fact an appeal to one's reason("By misbehaving I may lose something of importance to me, so I should avoid it"). I fail to grasp how a small, fixed-value fine could be as good a disincentive to the rich as it is to the poor.
Yes, it is very much that way.
First, complete removal of fines will have a distince effect upon the safety of the roads because it will remove the fine as a deterrence for an enormous number of people. This will result in an appreciable reduction of safety. The numbers affected will be so large that it will be appreciable.
Secondly, I do not care if it is not large enough to be appreciable to the really wealthy for two reasons.
1. The fee should fit the infraction. If one loses his (or her) license, he can take public transit, hire a cab, or even hire a driver for far less than the speeder is being charged for his infraction. The value of the infraction is more than comparable to that of losing a license although the infraction is not. I will tell you right now that I will gladly give up driving for a year to gain $290,000. Heck, I make roughly $50,000 per year by myself. I could greatly lower my amount, quit working, and still come out ahead just for not driving. Again, this relates to a sliding scale where there is a min and max but the max must still be realistic.
2. Charging this high fee to the rich will affect such a small number of individuals that the roads will not be appreciably safer for doing it. The purpose is clearly not to make the roads safer. But, when you can charge the rich the same for the same infraction and charging the rich more will not change the safety of the roads, the act of charging them more is meaningless to the safety of the populace.
There is nothing to gain for society from charging them more other than societal members feeling good that some rich guy got it stuck to him. That is very low value in my book.
Edit note: mismatched answers to two posts.
Again, what does this has to do with "wealthy people are evil" ?For what must be the fifth time, the points are:
1) People who are successful largely make better decisions, ergo, they are less likely to acquire an undesirable expense. A wealthy person is not better than a poor person, but they are more careful or better at allocating their resources. The point is not that a poor person is not impacted by a fine, it is that a rich person is not as likely to make a decision that will cost the fine to begin with.
2)It is no one else's business what a person makes or what resources they have. A speeding rich person is not a greater danger on the streets than a speeding poor person. In fact, they are more likely to be able to handle the responsibility for any trouble they cause. The law should treat everyone exactly the same, and if a person doesn't acquire enough wealth and doesn't have the judgement to avoid a ticket, that is his problem. He isn't less guilty than a rich person. The law isn't picking on him just because he can't afford the ticket. The amount of the ticket has nothing to do with whether a person can afford to pay it. The ticket is punitive. It should not also be confiscatory or prejudicial.
For some in this country, we switched from not judging by the color of one's skin to judging by the contents of their wallet, and that ignorance is tearing this country apart.
** spoiler omitted **
Ok, I will ignore your second point and the commentary which follows it since they do not appear to address anything I have been saying. I honestly have no idea where, in my posts, you read anything implying anything remotely related to what you are saying here.
As to your first point: you are basing your analysis in an a priori judgment of people's reasoning and decision-making capacity based on their wealth, which I think is ironic, given your rant which followed in (2) and after. Even if I accept your (arguable) position, I would say that, the more rational someone is, the more he would be able to successfully gauge the risk/benefit ratio of speeding and risk losing that money.
In fact I would say that, from a purely rational stance, if one ignores the inherent dangers of speeding and considers only the financial risk of the fixed-value fine, the poorer you are, the less likely that the benefit of speeding is worth the risk. On the other hand, the richer you are, the more likely that the benefit of speeding surpasses the risk of financial loss.
Thus, nothing to do with "rich people are evil!"
"Since there are a lot more poor than rich, the total number of rich people which do exceed speeding limits is so small that adapting a proportional fine would affect very little the number of crimes."
Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. Coupling this with believing the fine should fit the infraction means I believe that such a high fine ($290000, I believe) is inappropriate for the speeding. See the abovee post.
Again, everyone siezes on my skepticism about global warming, when my only real point has been, if we aren't sure about our involvement, how much climate change might occur, or how damaging it may or may not be, we shouldn't gamble our economy on it.
That's a point I've never had any problem with; I seem to recall stating point-blank that I myself am against cap-and-trade laws. What I'm trying to warn you of are the boobytraps for your own position that lie scattered throughout your arguments.
If you want to say "I have no idea, so it's too early to gamble," that's a straightforward, honest approach, and one that stands against any scrutiny whatsoever. Doing that from the beginning would have eliminated all of this discussion, in fact. But in trying to bolster your stance with media spin, mirespresentations, or outright ignorance or falsehoods culled from other "skeptical" sources doesn't help -- it weakens, rather than strengthens, what would otherwise be an unassailable position. Just as if Gore had stuck to the facts instead of the politics and the spin, thinking people would have been a lot more impressed with his so-called "documentary."
A healthy skepticism is based on understanding of the facts -- or on knowing where the facts end -- and not on repeating other people's outright misrepresentations of either of those things. Talking points are worse than useless if they're based on a lack of understanding; a simple "until the scientific community reaches an unambiguous consensus" is far better than any number of false claims of left-wing conspiracies or pseudo-scientific nonsense.
Yes, it is very much that way.
First, complete removal of fines will have a distince effect upon the safety of the roads because it will remove the fine as a deterrence for an enormous number of people. This will result in an appreciable reduction of safety. The numbers affected will be so large that it will be appreciable.
2. Charging this high fee to the rich will affect such a small number of individuals that the roads will not be appreciably safer for doing it. The purpose is clearly not to make the roads safer. But, when you can charge the rich the same for the same infraction and charging the rich more will not change the safety of the roads, the act of charging them more is meaningless to the safety of the populace.
Now this is a good argument, at least from a merely utilitarian viewpoint.
There is nothing to gain for society from charging them more other than societal members feeling good that some rich guy got it stuck to him. That is very low value in my book.
This is bothering me a bit. What this has to do with what I have been saying ? I was trying to rationally discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the fixed-value fines. You guys seem hellbent on pointing out how anyone who questions certain things hates the rich.
Again, everyone siezes on my skepticism about global warming, when my only real point has been, if we aren't sure about our involvement, how much climate change might occur, or how damaging it may or may not be, we shouldn't gamble our economy on it.That's a point I've never had any problem with; I seem to recall stating point-blank that I myself am against cap-and-trade laws. What I'm trying to warn you of are the boobytraps for your own position that lie scattered throughout your arguments.
If you want to say "I have no idea, so it's too early to gamble," that's a straightforward, honest approach, and one that stands against any scrutiny whatsoever. Doing that from the beginning would have eliminated all of this discussion, in fact. But in trying to bolster your stance with media spin, mirespresentations, or outright ignorance or falsehoods culled from other "skeptical" sources doesn't help -- it weakens, rather than strengthens, what would otherwise be an unassailable position. Just as if Gore had stuck to the facts instead of the politics and the spin, thinking people would have been a lot more impressed with his so-called "documentary."
A healthy skepticism is based on understanding of the facts -- or on knowing where the facts end -- and not on repeating other people's outright misrepresentations of either of those things. Talking points are worse than useless if they're based on a lack of understanding; a simple "until the scientific community reaches an unambiguous consensus" is far better than any number of false claims of left-wing conspiracies or pseudo-scientific nonsense.
As someone who's given Steven some flack here, I think this is dead on. If he had followed this advice, I would have had nothing to say.
Of course, I could probably still find a way to quibble about what "unambiguous consensus" means, but I can't resist being a contrarian at times ;)
RPG Superstar 2013
|
Kirth - perhpas what I should say is "i am very skeptical, I feel I have a reason to be, but I acknowledge I don't know everything. Until we know more, I'd prefer we addressed our economy over any potentially imaginary disasters in our ambiguous future."
I get what you are saying, and thank you for your advice. SOme of what I have read about some of this process does not jive with what you say, but I am not an hnest guy if I don't pay close attention to those who misagree with me a little or a lot.
Thiago - I think some confusion arises from responding to multiple people about fairly similar posts. I acknowledge you haven't said anything about hating the rich or somesuch. I think those comments are intended for someone else's post. To you, I'd just say a fine should treat all people equally, and how much that fine affects you is entirely up to you.
To whomever - I don't say rich people are better or smarter or anything else. I say successful people tend to make better decisions, which is the personality trait that makes them a success. Richness doesn't cause good character or judgment. It isn't an a priori assessment, in the sense that wealth comes first, then decision-making. It is cause (character) and effect (success). And, this assertion has nothing to do with the fine, except that a person who is careful with their other details might be more careful with their driving.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Affluent show less concern about road safety. Of course, perhaps driving without a seatbelt, driving over the speed limit, etc. is more dangerous in lower income areas. Perhaps.
Affluent show less concern about road safety. Of course, perhaps driving without a seatbelt, driving over the speed limit, etc. is more dangerous in lower income areas. Perhaps.
This is especially true in China, where 90% of the cars I've gouged with my cycling cleats are Audis, BMWs, and high end Toyotas.
Those who have nice cars think they can drive however they want.
Yes, it is very much that way.
First, complete removal of fines will have a distince effect upon the safety of the roads because it will remove the fine as a deterrence for an enormous number of people. This will result in an appreciable reduction of safety. The numbers affected will be so large that it will be appreciable.
2. Charging this high fee to the rich will affect such a small number of individuals that the roads will not be appreciably safer for doing it. The purpose is clearly not to make the roads safer. But, when you can charge the rich the same for the same infraction and charging the rich more will not change the safety of the roads, the act of charging them more is meaningless to the safety of the populace.
Now this is a good argument, at least from a merely utilitarian viewpoint.
This is bothering me a bit. What this has to do with what I have been saying ? I was trying to rationally discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the fixed-value fines. You guys seem hellbent on pointing out how anyone who questions certain things hates the rich.
There is nothing to gain for society from charging them more other than societal members feeling good that some rich guy got it stuck to him. That is very low value in my book.
Your second response (that I missed due either being a ghost post or posted after I started mine) fixed that. My apology that I left that comment as still directed at you.
My point is that this is about the fourth time I have made this utilitarian argument and is the first time that it has been responded to.
I keep making this same point in response to other posts and then those other points will be made again (most explicitly the point that the rich do not feel it the same) without my point being addressed.
So, it has appeared that safety is not the issue but making the rich feel it is. Your secoond post in a row was missed (ghost post or mine just took to long too create) and thus when I wrote my post even you had not bothered to give credence to it and yet had still insisted on making the rich feel punished.
Your second response (that I missed due either being a ghost post or posted after I started mine) fixed that. My apology that I left that comment as still directed at you.
Interesting list; we should have a "What Liberals Believe" thread too.
I) We believe that America is the greatest country in the World, because of the efforts of its people.
National pride is great -- it gives us something to feel good about. So as a lighthearted "Yeah, America, woohoo!" cheer, it's a nice sentiment that most Americans will generally agree on. Unfortunately, certain people have difficulty processing absolute statements like this. To certain people, the idea that "My country is the greatest" is only one degree removed from "My country is the superior to others, and should therefore have authority/power/wisdom/rights above and beyond others."
II) We believe that everyone is capable of great things.
This is the stuff that great parenting is made of. A nice political slogan.
III) We believe that the best solution for anyone’s problems are the ones they come up with themselves. Americans are smarter than government when it comes to their own individual needs.
If everyone could fix all of their own problems, this'd be just peachy. Unfortunately, idealism takes a back seat to reality. I have health problems that I just can't fix myself. It's not a matter of working harder, being smarter, eating healthier or paying for poor life choices -- I have two life-threatening genetic disorders and I need help. Expensive, ongoing and intensive help that my life actually depends on. I consider myself fortunate to be part of a clinic that gives me the treatment and meds I need when my insurance won't pay their bills, which is depressingly often. What's even more depressing is how much debt I'm racking up because I can't pay my bills and my insurance won't -- I will get my life on track in a few more years, but I'll be paying through the nose for years after that.
So yes, generally I like to think that we solve our own problems the best, but I also think that sometimes it's best for the government to step in and pay the bills as a way of saying "Yeah, your life is worth saving, because you're capable of accomplishing great things."
IV) We believe that everyone is responsible for his or her own actions.
Ultimately true.
V) We believe that the greatest asset America has is freedom and it should be exported at every opportunity.
Within the realm of beliefs and ideals, I'm with ya 100%. Outside that realm, we have much greater assets than any ideal, which are what allows us to maintain our freedom in the first place.
VI) We believe that government’s role is to create a climate where everyone can achieve their greatness and then get out of their way. As Thoreau said “That government is best that governs least.”
I agree whole heartedly. I also think that "creating a climate of achievement" requires more government regulation than conservatives tend to think -- and that with the world ultimately headed toward becoming one nation, the need for that regulation will increase. Less is better, but reality dictates our minimum level of 'less.'
VII) We believe that the Constitution is an inspired document and the best source of knowledge about government.
It is pretty inventive, but I don't think it's worthy of absolute praise. It may be the best current source, but it's certainly not the best possible source of knowledge. I'm sure that someone will one-up it someday.
VII) We believe in the rule of law and in the existence of right and wrong.
Anyone but an extreme anarchist would agree with the first part, and most people would agree with the second part. So this one doesn't really say anything other than "We're the good guys."
IX) We believe that taxes serve as a roadblock to economic growth and that lower taxes result in more money for the government.
I'm going to assume you mean "lower taxes result in more money for the people/less for the government." Taxes do tend to hinder economic growth. They're also a necessity and will only become more and more so. I think of taxes like a lot of people think of the military: it's a patriotic sacrifice made on behalf of my fellow Americans. And if it means better social programs for everyone, I'd be glad to pay more taxes.
X) We believe that all people have the right to worship or not worship God as they choose. Government should not dictate how or where a person may worship. A person should not demand that government or private individuals change the way that they act to accommodate that person’s beliefs.
Tack on "All people have the right to be straight or gay, and to not be told who they can or cannot marry in order to accommodate others' beliefs," and you've got #10 of What Liberals Believe.
XI) We believe that a person should be judged on their own merits and not on biological factors like gender or race that they have no control over. This applies to both good and bad judgements.
Most everyone will agree with this.
XII) We believe that everyone has the right to think for themselves and to rethink their beliefs when confronted with contrary evidence....
A lot of these statements are just ways of establishing that "We're not a bunch of old farts who can't get with the times."
Affluent show less concern about road safety. Of course, perhaps driving without a seatbelt, driving over the speed limit, etc. is more dangerous in lower income areas. Perhaps.
Well they tend to have a higher population density in my experience, so yeah, I would think that "reckless" driving would be more dangerous in lower income areas.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Affluent show less concern about road safety. Of course, perhaps driving without a seatbelt, driving over the speed limit, etc. is more dangerous in lower income areas. Perhaps.Well they tend to have a higher population density in my experience, so yeah, I would think that "reckless" driving would be more dangerous in lower income areas.
Still, these affluent drivers do end up on the city streets. The percentages were spread too wide for them to just be reflecting on safety in their own neighborhoods.
Stephen said, "I say successful people tend to make better decisions, which is the personality trait that makes them a success." I think that's nonsense. People who earned their own money probably make better decisions in whatever it was that helped them earn it. People who kept their own money probably make better decisions about savings. People born rich chose good parents.
I'd like to see a study that demonstrates people with higher incomes are more careful drivers that corrects for educational attainment.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Just a few quick points before I've got to work for the day -
For your linked optimism - maybe that's good if you live in Greenland :) That is a temperature record from Greenland only - global climate change refers to the entire planet.
Last time I checked, Greeland was part of the globe.
See, I had this arguement when I linked to another study, this time of Chile, here
I got the same reply, "That's Chile, not the globe."
So, when I find multiple studies that shoot holes in AGW, or GW, the pattent response seems to be "That's not the globe."
So how many 'not the globe' spaces do I need to find?
Also, I find the 'attack the bloggers' meme coutner productive. watts up with that is a Meterologist, for example. Hardly a guy in his basement banging away at conspiracy theories.
Ask Dan Rather how the 'attack the bloggers' meme worked for him.
Ifthe folks at Coppenhagen really believed that CO2 led to GW, then why did they burn so much hosting it? I mean practice what you preach, people?
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
As my previous post managed to quash the evolution discussion, let's see if I can repeat it for Climate Change. Fear my power, mortals!!! I'm using New Scientist as it's a good smart layman discussion of the science.
New Scientist Magazine Instant Expert
Ok, read through these. Again, with blaming floods, forrest fires and the like on Global Warming, it appears that weather is a sign of global warming, except when it isn't.
Edit: Though those hurricanes that swamped the Pacific since Katrina and the untold devistation they caused seemed to bear the predictions of the global warming models out. Oh, wait...
Affluent show less concern about road safety. Of course, perhaps driving without a seatbelt, driving over the speed limit, etc. is more dangerous in lower income areas. Perhaps.
I was surprised that driving under the influence wasn't even a topic.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Affluent show less concern about road safety. Of course, perhaps driving without a seatbelt, driving over the speed limit, etc. is more dangerous in lower income areas. Perhaps.I was surprised that driving under the influence wasn't even a topic.
Mary Jo Kopechne was unavailable for comment.
Affluent show less concern about road safety. Of course, perhaps driving without a seatbelt, driving over the speed limit, etc. is more dangerous in lower income areas. Perhaps.Well they tend to have a higher population density in my experience, so yeah, I would think that "reckless" driving would be more dangerous in lower income areas.Still, these affluent drivers do end up on the city streets. The percentages were spread too wide for them to just be reflecting on safety in their own neighborhoods.
Stephen said, "I say successful people tend to make better decisions, which is the personality trait that makes them a success." I think that's nonsense. People who earned their own money probably make better decisions in whatever it was that helped them earn it. People who kept their own money probably make better decisions about savings. People born rich chose good parents.
I'd like to see a study that demonstrates people with higher incomes are more careful drivers that corrects for educational attainment.
Without knowing enough about the study, I can't say whether the people answering it were thinking about all driving or just about their typical driving experience.
Also, one thing to note, that study was about stated attitudes, not about actually driving practices. There may be people that know they should be more responsible but in practice don't behave in that fashion and there may be people that claim to be free wheeling, but in practice are more cautious.
I would like to see a study comparing the 20% of the population that is the most wealthy with the 20% that is the least and see if flat-rate tickets actually do cause the least wealthy to drive more cautiously (being the harder hit) and cause the most wealthy to drive more recklessly (being the least hit). I have a feeling if the actual statistics were compared, it wouldn't be what some think.
As for comparing earned wealth and inherited wealth, I would agree that those that earn something are more likely to be the type that are responsible about it. But it gets kind of hard in some cases to distinguish between the two and where does it stop. My parents helped me with my college bills, but I still had to take out loans and work jobs. Did my parents helping me cause me to be irresponsible? Was I less responsible than someone whose parents couldn't help them at all?
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
I would like to see a study comparing the 20% of the population that is the most wealthy with the 20% that is the least and see if flat-rate tickets actually do cause the least wealthy to drive more cautiously (being the harder hit) and cause the most wealthy to drive more recklessly (being the least hit). I have a feeling if the actual statistics were compared, it wouldn't be what some think.
As for comparing earned wealth and inherited wealth, I would agree that those that earn something are more likely to be the type that are responsible about it. But it gets kind of hard in some cases to distinguish between the two and where does it stop. My parents helped me with my college bills, but I still had to take out loans and work jobs. Did my parents helping me cause me to be irresponsible? Was I less responsible than someone whose parents couldn't help them at all?
Which population are we talking about? If we're talking about world population then all of us are in the top 20% in terms of wealth, I'll bet and it would be hard to get some kind of perspective.
Restricting ourselves to advanced countries, I wouldn't want to talk about the top 20%. You'd be including the those who make an average of $70,000+ (the fourth fifth) with those who make $170,000+ (the top fifth) with those who make $1,070,000+ (the top 1%). I'm pretty sure that, as far as spending habits are concerned, I think differently that people who make $1,000,000 more than me. (Note, these were 2005 numbers and I know the disparity has increased since then.)
Anyhow, I don't support fines based on income levels because I consider that an invasion of privacy. I support stronger penalties for drinking under the influence and the removal of privileges for reckless driving.
I'm suspicious of Stephen's claim that financially successful people make better choices in most areas of their lives.
P.S. As for your parents paying for your college, I have no idea how it influenced you. I think how the gave you the money would be more important than whether they gave you the money. Also, if you still had to work at odd jobs, then you aren't who I would be talking about when I talked about the wealthy.
Which population are we talking about? If we're talking about world population then all of us are in the top 20% in terms of wealth, I'll bet and it would be hard to get some kind of perspective.
Restricting ourselves to advanced countries, I wouldn't want to talk about the top 20%. You'd be including the those who make an average of $70,000+ (the fourth fifth) with those who make $170,000+ (the top fifth) with those who make $1,070,000+ (the top 1%). I'm pretty sure that, as far as spending habits are concerned, I think differently that people who make $1,000,000 more than me. (Note, these were 2005 numbers and I know the disparity has increased since then.)
I would assume that we would have to restrict ourselves to those countries that have flat-based fines. And then looking at them on a country by country basis. It might not be too meaningful to compare to vary different countries, though maybe we would see a trend.
Anyhow, I don't support fines based on income levels because I consider that an invasion of privacy. I support stronger penalties for drinking under the influence and the removal of privileges for reckless driving.
I agree.
I'm suspicious of Stephen's claim that financially successful people make better choices in most areas of their lives.
Well I think some are making a mountain out of mole hill, with regard to his statements. If you make good choices, you have a higher probability to be success. I don't think anyone would argue with that. That doesn't mean all rich people are going to make good choices. But I don't think that it is outrageous to assume that by and large most people who are wealth tend to make pretty good choices, even if just not to squander the wealth (I'm looking at you Nicholas Cage). But giving someone wealth doesn't force them to make good choices, just look at all the people that win the lotto and end up going into bankruptcy. Certainly the act of earning the wealth tends to make one more responsible at least in regard to it (now I feel like I'm starting to sound like Ian Malcolm). But just because someone inherited money doesn't mean they can't also be a responsible person, it really depends on the values that were instilled in them. Many "legacies" often do alot of charity work, benefiting mankind, things that us poor working Joes just don't have the time or resources to really do. I seriously doubt anyone would claim that Princess Di didn't do jack.
P.S. As for your parents paying for your college, I have no idea how it influenced you. I think how the gave you the money would be more important than whether they gave you the money. Also, if you still had to work at odd jobs, then you aren't who I would be talking about when I talked about the wealthy.
But it goes to the point that if you are given wealth that forces you to be irresponsible. I think alot of people are in my position with getting some aid from their parents, I don't think that made me any less responsible because I didn't "earn" my way entirely on my own. All I think it does is shown my parents worked hard (and of course had some luck) to be able to help provide for me as their child. I don't think we can really point to all wealthy people that inherited money and say they are all "bad" or "lazy" or "irresponsible". That kind of thinking is not doing anyone any good.
As I have stated the problem I have with the flat fine is that it seems more can seem more like a rate to break the law, which is only a deterrent for people who can’t afford the going rate. At a certain point there is a universal punishment (the loss of license), but I think it’s unfair, and not in keeping with the spirit of the law that it should take that long to reach equal ground.
In response, to ensure an equal punishment regardless of financial means I purpose the following. For every 10 miles over the speed limit you are cited for going you will be given a swift kick in the ass by a court official, and then told to “Cut it out.” These tickets may be appealed just like tickets are now or, for people who really don’t want the swift pain of a kick, substituted for 5 hours of community service per kick.
It’s fair, it’s balanced, and it actually creates a job opening for an ‘official ass kicker’ which is awesome.
I find that rich people are far better able to ride out their bad decisions.
As I have stated the problem I have with the flat fine is that it seems more can seem more like a rate to break the law, which is only a deterrent for people who can’t afford the going rate. At a certain point there is a universal punishment (the loss of license), but I think it’s unfair, and not in keeping with the spirit of the law that it should take that long to reach equal ground.
In response, to ensure an equal punishment regardless of financial means I purpose the following. For every 10 miles over the speed limit you are cited for going you will be given a swift kick in the ass by a court official, and then told to “Cut it out.” These tickets may be appealed just like tickets are now or, for people who really don’t want the swift pain of a kick, substituted for 5 hours of community service per kick.
It’s fair, it’s balanced, and it actually creates a job opening for an ‘official ass kicker’ which is awesome.
But, the point of having fines at all is to make the roads safer. I do not see how having the higher fines for a small part of society will make the roads safer.
As I have stated the problem I have with the flat fine is that it seems more can seem more like a rate to break the law, which is only a deterrent for people who can’t afford the going rate. At a certain point there is a universal punishment (the loss of license), but I think it’s unfair, and not in keeping with the spirit of the law that it should take that long to reach equal ground.
In response, to ensure an equal punishment regardless of financial means I purpose the following. For every 10 miles over the speed limit you are cited for going you will be given a swift kick in the ass by a court official, and then told to “Cut it out.” These tickets may be appealed just like tickets are now or, for people who really don’t want the swift pain of a kick, substituted for 5 hours of community service per kick.
It’s fair, it’s balanced, and it actually creates a job opening for an ‘official ass kicker’ which is awesome.
But, the point of having fines at all is to make the roads safer. I do not see how having the higher fines for a small part of society will make the roads safer.
By making sure that small part of society doesn't think they get a free pass to break the law willy nilly? Besides that wasn't the point of my post. I don't believe in higher fines. I believe in kicking ass.
But, the point of having fines at all is to make the roads safer. I do not see how having the higher fines for a small part of society will make the roads safer.
Disagree, from the standpoint of observation. Speeding tickets in particular have nothing at all to do with safety, and everything to do with the collection of revenue. Presumably, rich people are more likely to pay instead of declaring bankruptcy, and so are more likely to receive tickets.
By making sure that small part of society doesn't think they get a free pass to break the law willy nilly?
But, they are punished with the same fine as is everyone else. The reason for the fines is safety. Increasing their fines will not increase the safety of the roads. So, I don't care if they "think" they are getting off willy nilly because it doesn't affect the public.
The justification you gave when I asked for one is so that they won't think they have a free pass to break the law willy nilly. I think that is a weak ground for having the government place its nose in someone's business.
******
But, the point of having fines at all is to make the roads safer. I do not see how having the higher fines for a small part of society will make the roads safer.Disagree, from the standpoint of observation. Speeding tickets in particular have nothing at all to do with safety, and everything to do with the collection of revenue. Presumably, rich people are more likely to pay instead of declaring bankruptcy, and so are more likely to receive tickets.
Disagree.
The point of fines IS safety. Some municipalities taking advantage of its existence for revenue does not mean that is the reason the fines it exist.
But, they are punished with the same fine as is everyone else. The reason for the fines is safety. Increasing their fines will not increase the safety of the roads. So, I don't care if they "think" they are getting off willy nilly because it doesn't affect the public.
If a group of people drive in an unsafe manor because the punishment in place is not enough of a deterrent to prevent them from doing so, then yes it does affect public safety.
Disagree.The point of fines IS safety. Some municipalities taking advantage of its existence for revenue does not mean that is the reason the fines it exist.
I concede that the stated reason for traffic fines is to enhance public safety.
My experience IRL leads me to conclude that they have much more to do with revenue generation.
Just a few quick points before I've got to work for the day -
For your linked optimism - maybe that's good if you live in Greenland :) That is a temperature record from Greenland only - global climate change refers to the entire planet.
Last time I checked, Greeland was part of the globe.
See, I had this arguement when I linked to another study, this time of Chile, here
I got the same reply, "That's Chile, not the globe."
So, when I find multiple studies that shoot holes in AGW, or GW, the pattent response seems to be "That's not the globe."
So how many 'not the globe' spaces do I need to find?
Also, I find the 'attack the bloggers' meme coutner productive. watts up with that is a Meterologist, for example. Hardly a guy in his basement banging away at conspiracy theories.
Ask Dan Rather how the 'attack the bloggers' meme worked for him.
Ifthe folks at Coppenhagen really believed that CO2 led to GW, then why did they burn so much hosting it? I mean practice what you preach, people?
Yes, Greenland is part of the globe, so is Chile, but neither may be representative of the *entire* globe.
If I'm trying to compute the global average temperature, I can't just measure the temperature in Greenland and assume that the rest of the planet is the same. I can't even do this if I'm trying to measure temperature change, rather than absolute temperature. Maybe Greenland is changing less or more (or in a different direction) than other parts of the globe.
If I put a hamburger on the grill and burn the outside but the inside is still raw, neither the temperature of just the outside of the burger nor the temperature of just the inside of the burger will provide a good average temperature for the whole burger. It cooked unevenly. Same is true for climate - temperature, and temperature change, are not even across the entire planet.
It's not a patent response so much as a real response to try to correct a misunderstanding.
Global warming is a measurement of an increase in global average temperature. Dispute that all you want, but disputing it by saying that *global* warming is false because *greenland* temperatures did not increase is simply wrong. It's apples and oranges - no one has claimed that all parts of the globe are seeing increasing temperatures, only that the average over all regions has been going up.
You're right that not all bloggers are nuts, and bloggers/blogs can be useful, as can journalists/news stories, but scientists should not be held accountable for what journalists/bloggers say. So if you want to dispute the science of global warming, make sure you are actually disputing what the scientists have said, not what a journalist/blogger might have incorrectly paraphrased them to have said (to say nothing of the deliberate misrepresentations that are also frequently found....). And a lot of blogs/journalists (and prominent politicians!) do get the science wrong, all the time, in all areas of science - it's fairly pathetic- there a fun parody of that here: Cancer cured!.
And I do agree with you that the Copenhagen issue you mention was ridiculous, and didn't do them any favors in terms of people taking them as sincerely desirable of change.
"What I Believe."
I believe in rainbows and puppy dogs and fairy tales.
And I believe in the family - Mom and Dad and Grandma.. and Uncle Tom, who waves his penis.
And I believe 8 of the 10 Commandments.
And I believe in going to church every Sunday, unless there's a game on.
And I believe that sex is one of the most beautiful, wholesome and natural things.. that money can buy.
And I believe it's derogatory to refer to a woman's breasts as "boobs", "jugs", "winnebagos" or "golden bozos".. and that you should only refer to them as "hooters".
And I believe you should put a woman on a pedestal.. high enough so you can look up her dress.
And I believe in equality, equality for everyone.. no matter how stupid they are, or how much better I am than they are.
And, people say I'm crazy for believing this, but I believe that robots are stealing my luggage.
And I believe I made a mistake when I bought a 30-story 1-bedroom apartment.
And I believe the Battle of the Network Stars should be fought with guns.
And I believe that Ronald Reagan can make this country what it once was - an arctic region covered with ice.
And, lastly, I believe that of all the evils on this earth, there is nothing worse than the music you're listening to right now. That's what I believe.
-Steve Martin
"What I Believe."
I believe in rainbows and puppy dogs and fairy tales.
And I believe in the family - Mom and Dad and Grandma.. and Uncle Tom, who waves his penis.
And I believe 8 of the 10 Commandments.
And I believe in going to church every Sunday, unless there's a game on.
And I believe that sex is one of the most beautiful, wholesome and natural things.. that money can buy.
And I believe it's derogatory to refer to a woman's breasts as "boobs", "jugs", "winnebagos" or "golden bozos".. and that you should only refer to them as "hooters".
And I believe you should put a woman on a pedestal.. high enough so you can look up her dress.
And I believe in equality, equality for everyone.. no matter how stupid they are, or how much better I am than they are.
And, people say I'm crazy for believing this, but I believe that robots are stealing my luggage.
And I believe I made a mistake when I bought a 30-story 1-bedroom apartment.
And I believe the Battle of the Network Stars should be fought with guns.
And I believe that Ronald Reagan can make this country what it once was - an arctic region covered with ice.
And, lastly, I believe that of all the evils on this earth, there is nothing worse than the music you're listening to right now. That's what I believe.
-Steve Martin
My namesake's old material makes my cranium hurt.
If a group of people drive in an unsafe manor because the punishment in place is not enough of a deterrent to prevent them from doing so, then yes it does affect public safety.
But, they are punished with the same fine as is everyone else. The reason for the fines is safety. Increasing their fines will not increase the safety of the roads. So, I don't care if they "think" they are getting off willy nilly because it doesn't affect the public.
Well, I guess I must apologize for leaving out the word "appreciable" this time (an "appreciable" increase to the safety) after listing it the last five times I made this point.
If the result is unappreciable there is no reason for the government to stick its head into other people's affairs, IMO. Just trying to stick it to rich peole does not qualify as a worthy reason to me. They still pay the same fine for the same infraction.
Oops - here is a link for the full comic that I should have linked to in my last post:
Oops - here is a link for the full comic that I should have linked to in my last post:
LOL!
many countries charge fines on a sliding scale based on how easy it is for a person to pay. A rich man speeds and it is 2 grand to pay the ticket a poor man it is 75. This way the fine actually means something and they are more likely to pay attention to the posted speed limits for safety reasons.
Whether or not they do is not an issue for me. My concerns are twofold: public safety and the government telling me (and others) what to do and how to do it.
Still, I have seen nothing to demonstrate that the number of people affected will make a difference in the safety of the roads with this sliding scale. Further, if there is a point system a repeat offender will lose driving priveleges and no longer be a safety concern.
1. The same penalty is paid for the same infraction. Fair enough for me.
2. Charging the rich more will not make an appreciable difference in safety of the roads. What is important to me.
3. Those who are a danger due to repeating (whether rich or just not caring) will still lose driving priveleges. So, they cannot rack up a limitless number of infractions while repeatedly speeding in a manner that would cause an appreciable difference in the safety of the roads.
A further note should be to look at the bottom end of the spectrum. There reaches a point where some people will be on such a short leash with finances that any fee would completely remove their ability to drive. At that point, if the fee is not removed, the fee will be harder on them than everyone else (who would be rich according to their standards...). Thus the situation would occur where everyone but the very poorest would be getting off easy in comparison which is what the debate is about. Logic would dictate that for a fine to be fair it must be on a sliding scale and be so great that no one could pay it. But, that is just silly and loss of priveleges is easier.
If a group of people drive in an unsafe manor because the punishment in place is not enough of a deterrent to prevent them from doing so, then yes it does affect public safety.
But, they are punished with the same fine as is everyone else. The reason for the fines is safety. Increasing their fines will not increase the safety of the roads. So, I don't care if they "think" they are getting off willy nilly because it doesn't affect the public.
Well, I guess I must apologize for leaving out the word "appreciable" this time (an "appreciable" increase to the safety) after listing it the last five times I made this point.
If the result is unappreciable there is no reason for the government to stick its head into other people's affairs, IMO. Just trying to stick it to rich peole does not qualify as a worthy reason to me. They still pay the same fine for the same infraction.
If anyone says "It's worth it if it saves just one child!" flames may actually shoot out of my eyes. ;)
If a group of people drive in an unsafe manor because the punishment in place is not enough of a deterrent to prevent them from doing so, then yes it does affect public safety.
But, they are punished with the same fine as is everyone else. The reason for the fines is safety. Increasing their fines will not increase the safety of the roads. So, I don't care if they "think" they are getting off willy nilly because it doesn't affect the public.
Well, I guess I must apologize for leaving out the word "appreciable" this time (an "appreciable" increase to the safety) after listing it the last five times I made this point.
If the result is unappreciable there is no reason for the government to stick its head into other people's affairs, IMO. Just trying to stick it to rich peole does not qualify as a worthy reason to me. They still pay the same fine for the same infraction.
Well how much or how little is an "appreciable" effect?
Going by this line of thought, are any punitive action really having any "appreciable" effect? People still speed despite fines, people still kill despite the death penalty (only applicable in some areas, of course) etc. Thousands upon thousands step outside the law each year and many are repeat offenders, so why have any punitive measures at all?The hope is, of course, that people will be deterred from repeating offenses or even make them in the first place.
Still, I have seen nothing to demonstrate that the number of people affected will make a difference in the safety of the roads with this sliding scale. Further, if there is a point system a repeat offender will lose driving priveleges and no longer be a safety concern.
Yeah, because it's completely unheard of that people should drive without their license...
Especially repeat offenders who might or might not drive under the influence...
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Global warming is a measurement of an increase in global average temperature. Dispute that all you want, but disputing it by saying that *global* warming is false because *greenland* temperatures did not increase is simply wrong. It's apples and oranges - no one has claimed that all parts of the globe are seeing increasing temperatures, only that the average over all regions has been going up.
True, but after Yesterday's announcement I can't stop laughing at scientists enough to really care what they say about Global warming anymore.
True, but after Yesterday's announcement I can't stop laughing at scientists enough to really care what they say about Global warming anymore.Global warming is a measurement of an increase in global average temperature. Dispute that all you want, but disputing it by saying that *global* warming is false because *greenland* temperatures did not increase is simply wrong. It's apples and oranges - no one has claimed that all parts of the globe are seeing increasing temperatures, only that the average over all regions has been going up.
Yeah, those crazy scientist wackos, I am so glad someone invented the Internet so we could make fun of them! And the computers where the Internet exists. And the processes which allow us to obtain electricity. And the theories which allows us to understand and control all these processes. Take that science klowns!
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Yeah, those crazy scientist wackos, I am so glad someone invented the Internet so we could make fun of them! And the computers where the Internet exists. And the processes which allow us to obtain electricity. And the theories which allows us to understand and control all these processes. Take that science klowns!True, but after Yesterday's announcement I can't stop laughing at scientists enough to really care what they say about Global warming anymore.Global warming is a measurement of an increase in global average temperature. Dispute that all you want, but disputing it by saying that *global* warming is false because *greenland* temperatures did not increase is simply wrong. It's apples and oranges - no one has claimed that all parts of the globe are seeing increasing temperatures, only that the average over all regions has been going up.
Ooh, great off topic post. Now that you've shown you've nothing useful to contribute, does anyone else find it amusing one of the top climetologists now threatening an ice age that apparently no one saw coming in their models and that ice age is claimed to "not disprove global warming."
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Yeah, those crazy scientist wackos, I am so glad someone invented the Internet so we could make fun of them! And the computers where the Internet exists. And the processes which allow us to obtain electricity. And the theories which allows us to understand and control all these processes. Take that science klowns!True, but after Yesterday's announcement I can't stop laughing at scientists enough to really care what they say about Global warming anymore.Global warming is a measurement of an increase in global average temperature. Dispute that all you want, but disputing it by saying that *global* warming is false because *greenland* temperatures did not increase is simply wrong. It's apples and oranges - no one has claimed that all parts of the globe are seeing increasing temperatures, only that the average over all regions has been going up.
Ooh, great off topic post. Now that you've shown you've nothing useful to contribute, does anyone else find it amusing one of the top climetologists now threatening an ice age that apparently no one saw coming in their models and that ice age is claimed to "not disprove global warming."
You did notice that Latif said five months ago that American news media completely misinterprets his research when they say stuff like Latif is denying global warming or disproving global warming, right?