• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Sarah Silverman PWNS Paris Hilton

#101
slugworth said:
You couldn't have used a more bizarre analogy.
Click to expand...
I didn't choose it.
doctorjazz said:
I'm not, of course, advocating drunk driving. It's one of the stupidest, most immature things you can possibly do. I don't do it and I don't let any of my friends do it. It greatly increases your chances of getting in an accident, just like (statistically speaking) being black increases your chances of being poor, getting into the NBA, and having sickle-cell anemia. But just like we shouldn't hand out money, vaccinations, and basketballs to every black person we see, we shouldn't hand out convictions to every drunk on the road.
Click to expand...

That guy did.

My point was that his analogy sucked. sorry to be blunt, but at this point I am desparately trying to divorce myself from the implications of his comments.
 
#103
Not to re-derail? the thread, but to me, the funniest part about the whole anarcho-capitalism thing (AC) is that DJ has it wrong. It's mostly a system that economists like because they believe that private profit-seeking entities will provide more efficient service than the government can. So any government would pretty much enforce only a few rights, and private companies will take over everything else.

So in short, there is no inherent value system in AC -- people will hire company XYZ for police services etc. Which means that people will "vote with their dollars" for the set of laws they like best. Given the response on the thread I'd assume most people would buy in to a company that stopped drunk drivers. So, my best guess is that we'd have really strict laws on DUI in an anarcho-capitalist state.

The other point to make is that pretty much all political/legal theory in modern times accepts that an undue imposition of risk (ie, me shooting in your direction even if i don't hit you, dropping bricks off of a tall building, DUI) is a harm in and of itself. I suspect that if his real life intersected with ill-concieved political theories (such as a driver cutting him off or firing guns in his general direction) DJ would be less philisophical and more pissed off.
 
#104
dconrad said:
Not to re-derail? the thread, but to me, the funniest part about the whole anarcho-capitalism thing (AC) is that DJ has it wrong. It's mostly a system that economists like because they believe that private profit-seeking entities will provide more efficient service than the government can. So any government would pretty much enforce only a few rights, and private companies will take over everything else.

So in short, there is no inherent value system in AC -- people will hire company XYZ for police services etc. Which means that people will "vote with their dollars" for the set of laws they like best. Given the response on the thread I'd assume most people would buy in to a company that stopped drunk drivers. So, my best guess is that we'd have really strict laws on DUI in an anarcho-capitalist state.

The other point to make is that pretty much all political/legal theory in modern times accepts that an undue imposition of risk (ie, me shooting in your direction even if i don't hit you, dropping bricks off of a tall building, DUI) is a harm in and of itself. I suspect that if his real life intersected with ill-concieved political theories (such as a driver cutting him off or firing guns in his general direction) DJ would be less philisophical and more pissed off.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you've been reading John Kenneth Galbraith....
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back