TheRealMafoo said:
Non Sequor said:
TheRealMafoo said:
| Non Sequor said:
Duly noted. But other people may feel differently. Different people have different ideas about how government should behave.
The question is, will this law create good or bad incentives? So far we've seen at least one bad one, but there may be good ones yet to reveal themselves.
You've got to give them the time it takes to figure out if they've screwed it up better or screwed it up worse. The democrats have won four years in the sand box so let's give them some time to see if they can build anything that will stay up. Let the people get what they asked for and we'll see if they like it when they do.
The only things that should be completely out of consideration are ideas which cannot be justified without using the phrase "the ends justify the means." That's when you know someone is going to do something monstrous and horrible.
|
To the bold:
This is why we have the constitution. To protect us from this. When we put people in office, and give them the authority to tell us what's best for us, of pass laws to shape our lives in the direction they want us to live, we lose our liberties.
As for the "ends justifies the means", 85% of the country thought so when we went to war in Iraq. Does that make it right?
It's not a question of giving them time to figure out if it's better or worse, it's about should they even have the authority to play a role. Yes, there will be positive outcomes for many.
What you lose, is a little more liberty... we lose a little more with every law that passes. Once lost, you can never get it back. A few more quote from the greatest American who ever lived:
Liberty cannot be preserved without general knowledge among the people. - John Adams
There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty. - John Adams
But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever. - John Adams
Every child who leaves school, should know who this man was, and what he meant to the United States. I would be shocked in 20% of americans know much about him.
|
The strength of the Constitution comes from the fact that it represented a set of compromises between competing concerns. It lays out the basic structure of our government, but it doesn't dictate the compromises that need to be made now.
Everyone interprets the Constitution in a way that supports their beliefs. That's because the Cons
titution does not dictate the course of action for government, only it's basic structure and ideals. Elements of it support both sides of debates because elements of both sides of debates went into it.
With all due respect to John Adams, his statement that freedom can never be restored is plainly false. Prohibition was repealed. The Sedition Act which he signed and which is generally regarded as blatantly unconstitutional was allowed to expire.
It's easy to say "Look! Constitution! Listen to me!" and think that people should be obligated to agree with you but it's never been that easy. People have different ideas about how it should be interpreted.
Basically it comes down to the fact that you can't tell people how to feel. That's part of democracy.
Call people on their bullshit, but don't expect them to be obligated to listen to you. If people want something that's stupid, they'll find out in time.
|
Well I have three questions for you.
1. do you think it's the governments job to protect us from ourselves?
2. Do you think the reform we are talking about is to protect us from ourselves?
3. Are you for this reform laws?
|
1. I think that the government is an institution created by men to do certain things. No two people agree on what those certain things are.
Further I think that when there is sufficient public interest in a certain problem, for good or ill, people will make attempts to solve it either through the government or through other means. The best means of addressing each problem depends on it's innate difficulties which vary from problem to problem.
I think any attempt to argue from dogma that certain classes of problems should be handled in certain ways will ultimately result in less than ideal solutions in some cases.
2. I believe the intention of this law is probably to increase transparency of the cost of consumer credit, which currently prices for the cost of misuse of credit through interest rate triggers which are currently not documented to the satisfaction of some people. I believe that this is a legitimate goal since transparency in transactions tends to improve the function of the market, but it remains to be seen whether this will be accomplished.
3. I don't have an emotional stake in this fight and I'm not informed enough to speculate about what it will or won't accomplish. It may have the result of reducing lending to bad credit risks or it may just result in increased cost of credit across the board. I have no basis for predicting its result and none of the possible outcomes seem overwhelmingly objectionable so I have no basis for supporting or opposing it.
