Ants Thread Replies

--- In spacesettlers@y..., Ryan Healey wrote:

> I would also like to address some of the religious implications in
the posts.
> It has been implied and very close to directly stated in some posts
that
> religious people are more moral then non-religious people. That's
actually
> completely wrong. Religion seems to be a barrier to morality, not a
cause of
> morality (and I know I'll probably offend someone but I'm more
interested in
> saying what's true then being politically correct).

You will undoubtedly hear more about this. I'm criticizing it on the
grounds of confusing your opinion with truth.

Religion does make some people worse. It makes others better. I'd be
interested in seeing proof that there are more bad than good. I am
afraid that the bad gets more press than the good. But that is not
proof.

> Every political and Economic system will be tried in space. Whether
it be the
> ones that have already failed on earth like communism or anarchy or
ones that
> haven't even be thought of someone will get around to trying it.
>
I distrust any statement with a word like "every" (or "never") in it.
I firmly believe the rule that there is an exception to every rule.

> Al Globus Wrote:
> > Interestingly, in a society that has many orbital space colonies
you
> > only need one immutable right that must be maintained by an
outside
> > force: the right to leave. With that, bad societies with wither
and good
> > ones gain population (you build another colony when it gets too
> > crowded). The right to leave, however, must be enforced from
outside to
> > avoid despotism with any given colony.
>
> Even so that right can't be absolute. In fact there should be no
absolute
> rights and for society to function well there can not be any.
>
> The reason that right can't be absolute is because there are some
crimes that a
> person really should be locked away for, things like murder, rape,
armed theft,
> etc people shouldn't be allowed to leave a settlement if they're
doing those
> because if they had the right to leave they'd just move to another
one and keep
> doing what they do. The right to leave should definently apply to
those who
> haven't been convicted or charged with any crime. For those who
have been
> either convincted or charged it gets a bit more complex because
whether they
> should be allowed to leave really depends on what they're crime was
and will be
> subject to much disagreement.

This gets complicated. Your point is good. But suppose I have been
convicted of murder because I stuck pins in a voodoo doll I made of
you. Or that I'm jailed away from society because I tell dirty jokes
in public and pinch women.

Also innocent people being framed by police to get a quick conviction
is not unknown in our present society.
>
> It's a good right to have and probably should be used but it's going
to very
> hard to actually implement. You need to make sure people can leave
a bad
> settlement whenever they want but you need to aviod people from
leaving to get
> away from being punished for something other then merely disagreeing
with a
> government (acting on disagreement is different). I do agree with
Ian Woollard
> that it should specificly include the word alive for a rather
obvious reason
> although if the law does get intrepreted the court would probably
say the alive
> part is implied it's better to leave no doubt.
>
I agree.

> Carl Mullin Wrote:
> > I did not become anarchist until after the shock of 9/11
>
> The events of 11/9/01 actually provide more justification for
government then
> against. Quite simply if there were no government such terrorist
attacks would
> happen a lot more due to almost no law enforcement. Of course I'd
also suggest
> you write dates in the correct order.

Again, it is your opinion that 11/9 is the correct order. Most of us
in the States consider 9/11 to be correct. I would suggest that the
"correct" way is "Sept. 11th" which leaves no room for doubt.
>

> I'd also like to see experiments done, preferably in space where
there are less
> variables to content with a controlled environment. Turning social
science
> into something a bit more empirical would be good.
>
Assuming that such a thing is possible. I'm afraid that with people
you'll always have too many variables.

> Rick Brooks Wrote:
> > There are many laws regarding motor vehicles that police officers
have stated
>
> > that they can follow almost any car a few blocks and find a reason
to stop
> it.
>
> Which is a good reason to use photographic based systems. Video the
car
> breaking the law then send the fine in the mail. That way the
police don't
> have to pull the car over. As for being able to follow a car a few
blocks and
> pull most of them over for something. That's probably because most
people on
> the road CAN'T DRIVE A CAR.

Nearly all of us can drive a car. I suppose you mean that most people
cannot drive a car skillfully.

I notice you avoid my point that there are so many laws regarding
driving AND the condition of a car that it is very difficult to keep
up with them. I gather a cracked taillight case is grounds for a
ticket around here.
>
> Rick Brooks Wrote:
> > Some towns have speed traps and rigidly enforce speed limits. Most
towns
> don't.
>
> Those that enforce the speed limits of course have safer roads.

Interesting assumption. I'd like to see proof.

> Rick Brooks Wrote:
> > Laws are also too rigid and don't allow for circumstances.
>
> That can sometimes happen. But that doesn't mean we should get rid
of laws or
> bring the amount of laws to the bare minimum (which no one will
actually agree
> on).
>
> Instead we should make our laws more flexable and allow for
circumstances.
> Although most of our laws do.
>
Really, I thought most laws tended to be too inflexible.

> Rick Brooks Wrote:
> > OHSA regulates for safety. Even a railing must be a set height.
But the
> > accident rate has not declined from pre-OHSA days. Despite all
the laws
> > passed.
>
> Stop making idiotic assertions and start actually finding out if
what you're
> saying is true.
>
> Had you done just a little bit of fact checking you would have found
that what
> you just said about the accident rate was bulls***.
>
The data I found said that the accident rate was nearly the same.

> http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1998/11/art3full.pdf (this proves you
wrong because
> it has the statistics)

I have a degree in math and took 9 hours of Statistics in the process.

I think you use the word "proves" very loosely. It is all too easy to
weigh parts of your raw data differently. Or to define catagories so
as to exclude inconvenient data.

There is an old saying that figures don't lie, but liars can figure.

Too many people pad the data to make themselves look better, too.

> http://www.osha.gov/as/opa/oshasaveslives.html (not statistics but
some
> examples of why it works)
>
> It's always good to check your facts rather then just make up
something because
> it would support your position if true. You should probably get
into the habit
> of making sure what you say is true.

Unfortunately, it is not humanly possible to do so. We live in a very
complicated world and there is always more information than we can
process. We must act on inadequate data. Our lives are too short to
do otherwise. I am sure of very little.

There is always the possibility that all of this is a bad dream.
Though I think such a possibility is next to zero, I could be wrong.
>
> Yes there were other factors involved in the decline and it is quite
possible
> that OSHA didn't have anything to do with it though quite unlikely,
but saying
> that there was no decline whatsoever as you did just shows that you
really
> don't have a clue what you're saying.

Really. I'd ask for proof, but you seem to think you've given proof.
You do have a right to your opinion. Mine differs.

> Rick Brooks Wrote:
> > We have too many laws. It is impossible to so detail laws that
they will
> > cover every human eventuality. But our legislators and
bureaucrats try.
>
> And considering how hard it is they do a great job.
>
Again my opinion differs. Do we really need a state soil and a state
reptile?

> As for whether we have too many that's not exactly agreed upon.
Quality is
> more important then Quantity but we need to have enough laws for
society to
> function.
>
In my opinion, society is functioning worse than it used to and too
many laws are a part of the reason. Prohibition caused contempt for
the Law. Too many laws may be doing the same today.

> Al Globus Wrote:
> > The complexity of legal systems appears to be closely tied to size
of the
> > society it regulates. Large societies typically require a large,
complex
> body
> > of law. Small societies require much less, at least it looks like
that to me.
>
> > Anyone have any real data?
>
> No real data but it does seem to be correct. It may be due to need
but it also
> has something to do with the fact that the small society usually
can't have a
> system as complex as the larger one. Whether a complex system is
good or bad
> depends on your point of view. It's good because it's more clearly
spelled out
> what you can and can't do and also because it already covers a lot
more of
> what's likely to happen and does tend to have a bit more certainty.
But it's
> also harder to learn and will probably have a lot more loopholes as
well as
> being more expensive to maintain.
>
> Large socieities usually are better off with a more complex legal
system
> because of how much they have to deal with. Smallers ones on the
otherhand can
> get by with a less complex legal system and really can't afford the
costs
> associated with the more complex one (which the larger society can
afford).
>
> Although one thing about law which I'm sure everyone here will agree
on is that
> it needs to be well written.

I agree. But I'm afraid that we cannot agree on a definition of well
written.

Remember that the rather complicated language of legal documents is
there to try to reduce the text to a single meaning. To turn out a
document that can't be misunderstood.

Rick Brooks