"Freedom" thread or something

Acting in one's self interest does not always serve the best interests of the world at large.  It's oft-repeated by free market-advocates but it's just a myth.  Of course there's a built in assumption in said myth that the decision made to serve one's self interest would always be the most rational one but practical experience shows that things like greed or fear or ambition override rationality all too frequently. Why would an incumbent CEO of GM bother about the ignition switch problem (if I am not mistaken, that is the issue?) if he's very likely not going to be the one who has to face the music when it blows up?

Edited by rogerthat - April 04 2014 at 10:24

The T wrote: I don't hate but I don't revere them either as "makers" or any other stupid name they have been given. And yes, they basically will be able to own the government now. Thanks to the Supreme Court, guarantor of people's rights and freedoms.  Rich people, that is.  And they will find some justification in the centuries old stupid book called the constitution.

This is how legal systems work. You have sets of laws and you make rulings according to them. Complaining about that is just crying that you don't get your way. It's not enough to sit here and throw around blame because you think the ruling will have detrimental consequences. You need to find some justification in the law for them to have ruled differently.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: The T wrote: I don't hate but I don't revere them either as "makers" or any other stupid name they have been given. And yes, they basically will be able to own the government now. Thanks to the Supreme Court, guarantor of people's rights and freedoms.  Rich people, that is.  And they will find some justification in the centuries old stupid book called the constitution.  This is how legal systems work. You have sets of laws and you make rulings according to them. Complaining about that is just crying that you don't get your way. It's not enough to sit here and throw around blame because you think the ruling will have detrimental consequences. You need to find some justification in the law for them to have ruled differently.

You are mostly right Pat. Internet ranting takes many forms. Sometimes it gets me frustrated when I see the level of reverence that is held for the Constitution not because I think it should be violated, but because I think it is quite perfectible and anachronistic (the gun thing for example) and this reverence stops any conversation from being had that deals with severe changes to it. I know how legal systems work (I studied law in Ecuador after all). 

The T wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: The T wrote: I don't hate but I don't revere them either as "makers" or any other stupid name they have been given. And yes, they basically will be able to own the government now. Thanks to the Supreme Court, guarantor of people's rights and freedoms.  Rich people, that is.  And they will find some justification in the centuries old stupid book called the constitution.  This is how legal systems work. You have sets of laws and you make rulings according to them. Complaining about that is just crying that you don't get your way. It's not enough to sit here and throw around blame because you think the ruling will have detrimental consequences. You need to find some justification in the law for them to have ruled differently. You are mostly right Pat. Internet ranting takes many forms. Sometimes it gets me frustrated when I see the level of reverence that is held for the Constitution not because I think it should be violated, but because I think it is quite perfectible and anachronistic (the gun thing for example) and this reverence stops any conversation from being had that deals with severe changes to it. I know how legal systems work (I studied law in Ecuador after all).  If also frustrates me the enormous power the Supreme Court has to basically shape American politics and everything. It has become way more than a co-legislator.

Reverence for the Constitution exists only as a talking point. People use it to justify their positions when it supports them and systematically ignore it when it does not. People never try to change it though which is interesting. 

I agree with your last point.

There is a point though when you expect that even with a minimal feedback loop a company could look at a problem and say "hey, one day we might pay even more for this", to talk in merely monetary terms. In this case, 13 (or so) people died through the years. There was not enough connection between them (or their families better said) to create a consumer movement capable of force any changes. Cases happened not in one week but throughout several years. But GM knew about this defect, they knew the problem from it seems 2005, they knew this ignition problem could potentially turn cars off out of nowhere and the consequences would be obvious. But they didn't act. 

Edited by The T - April 04 2014 at 13:49

That last part is sadly so true... 

progkidjoel wrote:

Check your socialism, statelord.

progkidjoel wrote: Failcore wrote: progkidjoel wrote: Check your socialism, statelord. Check your statism, socialord.

Check your lord, social state.

progkidjoel wrote: Failcore wrote: progkidjoel wrote: Failcore wrote: progkidjoel wrote: Check your socialism, statelord. Check your statism, socialord. Check your lord, social state. Check state lord, your social.

Lord your state, social check.

I don't find comics that clever when you can replace one noun with any other to get an equally worthy joke.

I have too much respect for diction.