Post: #51

(02-11-2012 01:33 PM)Mujeriego Wrote:  Misterstir- As a lifetime CA resident I understand G's frustration. It's not about wanting special privileges, it's about the state having one more reason to bust your balls. Every year some new absurd laws get passed under of the banner of public health/safety. There's almost always a hefty fine attached, revealing the true purpose: revenue generation.

It revenue generation and control.

Create enough laws and we all become criminals.

Post: #52

(02-12-2012 07:11 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  It revenue generation and control.

Create enough laws and we all become criminals.

From "Atlas Shrugged," by Ayn Rand (with bold emphasis added):

Quote:Says the bureaucrat Floyd Ferris: "You honest men are such a problem and such a headache. But we knew you'd slip sooner or later . . . [and break one of our regulations] . . . this is just what we wanted."

Rearden: "You seem to be pleased about it."

Bureaucrat Ferris: "Don't I have good reason to be?"

Rearden: "But, after all, I did break one of your laws."

Bureaucrat Ferris: "Well, what do you think they're there for?"

Continues Bureaucrat Ferris: "Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed? We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against . . . We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."

Post: #53

(02-10-2012 01:38 PM)velkrum Wrote:  It is a slippery slope but you are thinking in absolutes.

What works well for 1 situation may not work well in another.

Banning smoking and drinking in public IS an infringement on SOME peoples rights but it allows other people who are in the MAJORITY to enjoy theirs.

There are times when you have to choose the lesser of 2 evils because it is a statistically better choice (if even marginally)

and trading liberty for protection is a different discussion than creating laws for peaceful coexistence.

I guess I need to repeat myself because some folks don't full comprehend,

Post: #54

(02-12-2012 08:46 PM)velkrum Wrote:  

(02-10-2012 01:38 PM)velkrum Wrote:  It is a slippery slope but you are thinking in absolutes.

What works well for 1 situation may not work well in another.

Banning smoking and drinking in public IS an infringement on SOME peoples rights but it allows other people who are in the MAJORITY to enjoy theirs.

There are times when you have to choose the lesser of 2 evils because it is a statistically better choice (if even marginally)

and trading liberty for protection is a different discussion than creating laws for peaceful coexistence.

I guess I need to repeat myself because some folks don't full comprehend,

So we should just have freedom for the majority.

Post: #55

...Can't please ALL people ALL the time

Post: #56

(02-12-2012 10:11 PM)velkrum Wrote:  ...Can't please ALL people ALL the time

Gotcha.

So you must be ecstatic that you can't throw a football on the beach.

You must be the life of the party.

Post: #57

(02-10-2012 01:38 PM)velkrum Wrote:  Banning smoking and drinking in public IS an infringement on SOME peoples rights but it allows other people who are in the MAJORITY to enjoy theirs.

That is the same argument that kept African-Americans in segregated schools and buses for nearly 100 years.

I have a great deal of sympathy for people impacted by public smoking and drinking, but I look at the big picture -- which is the increasing control of government over every aspect of our lives. California is a perfect example. It has transformed from one of the wealthiest best-run states in the nation to one that literally has the economy of a third-world country. All of these laws, rules, restrictions, and taxes are a cumulative horror from which successful productive people flee.

Even worse, because the school system is more interested in promoting homosexuality, transgender acceptance, and every other form of social engineering -- instead of teaching reading, writing, and math -- students are no longer capable of ascertaining the attributes of good governance, simple economics, or the basic duties of citizenship. They simply clamor for more benefits from government -- and accept ever-increasing government intrusion.

Post: #58

so I guess ANARCHY is the best way for millions of people who live in close proximity to exist ?

be careful GManifesto, you are breaking forum rules

DON'T BE A DICK

Post: #59

(02-12-2012 10:46 PM)velkrum Wrote:  so I guess ANARCHY is the best way for millions of people who live in close proximity to exist ?

be careful GManifesto, you are breaking forum rules

DON'T BE A DICK

You have made it quite clear you would rather live in a police state where people can't throw a football.

Which is why I am sure you are a super fun guy at the party.

Not sure which forum rules I am breaking.

But you seem to love rules, so I will defer to you.

Did you also do a lot of snitching when you are a kid?

Post: #60

(02-12-2012 10:46 PM)velkrum Wrote:  so I guess ANARCHY is the best way for millions of people who live in close proximity to exist ?

Leaving people the hell alone is not anarchy, it is good governance. Pure anarchy is not having even the basic levels of government necessary to protect people (national defense, police, fire department, etc.). We had all those things even before the individual States formed a union.

Post: #61

(02-12-2012 10:33 PM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  

(02-10-2012 01:38 PM)velkrum Wrote:  Banning smoking and drinking in public IS an infringement on SOME peoples rights but it allows other people who are in the MAJORITY to enjoy theirs.

That is the same argument that kept African-Americans in segregated schools and buses for nearly 100 years.

I have a great deal of sympathy for people impacted by public smoking and drinking, but I look at the big picture -- which is the increasing control of government over every aspect of our lives. California is a perfect example. It has transformed from one of the wealthiest best-run states in the nation to one that literally has the economy of a third-world country. All of these laws, rules, restrictions, and taxes are a cumulative horror from which successful productive people flee.

Even worse, because the school system is more interested in promoting homosexuality, transgender acceptance, and every other form of social engineering -- instead of teaching reading, writing, and math -- students are no longer capable of ascertaining the attributes of good governance, simple economics, or the basic duties of citizenship. They simply clamor for more benefits from government -- and accept ever-increasing government intrusion.

His statement is not inaccurate. All people have rights, but often rights are conflicting.
You have many valid points about things wrong with government and california in general. To say that because we are moving towards a police state in the Western countries in general for the last 100 years (which is factually true) means that we should essentially not protect the freedoms and liberty of certain groups of people is more akin to what caused African americans to be unfairly segregated. As it was the government who chose not to protect the freedoms and liberty of African Americans. Which is precisely what occurs when you allow people to smoke on the beach, those people who want to enjoy the beach without their rights being infringed or without having poison being blown into their face or balls hitting them in the head are having their liberty and freedom not protected.

Post: #62

(02-12-2012 10:55 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

(02-12-2012 10:46 PM)velkrum Wrote:  so I guess ANARCHY is the best way for millions of people who live in close proximity to exist ?

be careful GManifesto, you are breaking forum rules

DON'T BE A DICK

You have made it quite clear you would rather live in a police state where people can't throw a football.

Which is why I am sure you are a super fun guy at the party.

Not sure which forum rules I am breaking.

But you seem to love rules, so I will defer to you.

Did you also do a lot of snitching when you are a kid?

I don't think he said he wants to live in a country where people cannot throw a football, the real question is with countless places to throw footballs like soccer, football, baseball, and every park, backyard and hell even suburban street, why would someone choose to do it at the beach of all places. The reality is when people behave in an ignorant and inconsiderate way that violates others freedoms while only thinking of their own you get a police state.

Post: #63

What kind of politicians do Californians elect anyway to make these laws?

Are people in California religious like Puritans so that they make so many laws to restirct and control human behavior?

I always thought California was a liberal, free-loving, full of rich people, swarming with beautiful women and rebellious skateboarding and surfboarding youth living in paradise, smoking, doing drugs, and living lives of debauchery. I thought California was a cool place where the people were all laid-back.

I've read some datasheets about California, but I would appreciate it if someone could tell me a little bit more about the culture in California because after reading some of the posts here, I think I have the wrong idea about California.

Post: #64

(02-13-2012 01:28 AM)misterstir Wrote:  

(02-12-2012 10:55 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

(02-12-2012 10:46 PM)velkrum Wrote:  so I guess ANARCHY is the best way for millions of people who live in close proximity to exist ?

be careful GManifesto, you are breaking forum rules

DON'T BE A DICK

You have made it quite clear you would rather live in a police state where people can't throw a football.

Which is why I am sure you are a super fun guy at the party.

Not sure which forum rules I am breaking.

But you seem to love rules, so I will defer to you.

Did you also do a lot of snitching when you are a kid?

The reality is when people behave in an ignorant and inconsiderate way that violates others freedoms while only thinking of their own you get a police state.

Are you freakin' serious? You get beaned in the head. Or you get smoke in your face. But you don't get a police state. You get a police state when people get used to so many inane laws that they grow numb and apathetic. When they want the nanny state to take care of them from cradle to grave. To tell them when they can throw a football and when they cannot. I'd rather get beaned by a football, punch someone out, and get arrested and jailed for a night (like our fathers and grandfathers) -- because I'll still be far more free than the alternative.

Post: #65

(02-13-2012 01:41 AM)blurb Wrote:  I always thought California was a liberal, free-loving, full of rich people, swarming with beautiful women and rebellious skateboarding and surfboarding youth living in paradise, smoking, doing drugs, and living lives of debauchery. I thought California was a cool place where the people were all laid-back.

Those aren't the people you want voting. That's exactly the problem.

Post: #66

(02-13-2012 01:23 AM)misterstir Wrote:  As it was the government who chose not to protect the freedoms and liberty of African Americans. Which is precisely what occurs when you allow people to smoke on the beach, those people who want to enjoy the beach without their rights being infringed or without having poison being blown into their face or balls hitting them in the head are having their liberty and freedom not protected.

So you are in favor of banning people running on the beach?

Because it might kick up a little sand and get in your eye?

So you are in favor of banning sunscreen?

Because the smell of it might get in your nose?

I really didn't think people like you existed. But I guess a a lot of them do.

Post: #67

(02-13-2012 01:23 AM)misterstir Wrote:  As it was the government who chose not to protect the freedoms and liberty of African Americans. Which is precisely what occurs when you allow people to smoke on the beach, those people who want to enjoy the beach without their rights being infringed or without having poison being blown into their face or balls hitting them in the head are having their liberty and freedom not protected.

Yet simultaneously, those people who do want to smoke on beach are "having their liberty and freedom not protected" under such a law.

Post: #68

(02-13-2012 01:23 AM)misterstir Wrote:  

(02-12-2012 10:33 PM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  

(02-10-2012 01:38 PM)velkrum Wrote:  Banning smoking and drinking in public IS an infringement on SOME peoples rights but it allows other people who are in the MAJORITY to enjoy theirs.

That is the same argument that kept African-Americans in segregated schools and buses for nearly 100 years.

I have a great deal of sympathy for people impacted by public smoking and drinking, but I look at the big picture -- which is the increasing control of government over every aspect of our lives. California is a perfect example. It has transformed from one of the wealthiest best-run states in the nation to one that literally has the economy of a third-world country. All of these laws, rules, restrictions, and taxes are a cumulative horror from which successful productive people flee.

Even worse, because the school system is more interested in promoting homosexuality, transgender acceptance, and every other form of social engineering -- instead of teaching reading, writing, and math -- students are no longer capable of ascertaining the attributes of good governance, simple economics, or the basic duties of citizenship. They simply clamor for more benefits from government -- and accept ever-increasing government intrusion.

His statement is not inaccurate. All people have rights, but often rights are conflicting.
You have many valid points about things wrong with government and california in general. To say that because we are moving towards a police state in the Western countries in general for the last 100 years (which is factually true) means that we should essentially not protect the freedoms and liberty of certain groups of people is more akin to what caused African americans to be unfairly segregated. As it was the government who chose not to protect the freedoms and liberty of African Americans. Which is precisely what occurs when you allow people to smoke on the beach, those people who want to enjoy the beach without their rights being infringed or without having poison being blown into their face or balls hitting them in the head are having their liberty and freedom not protected.

You seriously are going to use the race card here? That incident is completely different considering the history behind it. To my knowledge smoking or any other small shit hasn't caused over 500,000 of soldiers to be killed and a country to be divided in two.

Post: #69

Not surprising since the State of California is in huge debt. They need to make money somehow.

Post: #70

(02-12-2012 10:46 PM)velkrum Wrote:  so I guess ANARCHY is the best way for millions of people who live in close proximity to exist ?

be careful GManifesto, you are breaking forum rules

DON'T BE A DICK

G, he is right. Letting people throw footballs on the beach is one step closer to complete anarchy.

Next they will want to barbecue and have a few drinks.

Then maybe a smoke while watching the sunset.

We can't have that type of chaos man.

Post: #71

(02-13-2012 01:48 AM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  

(02-13-2012 01:28 AM)misterstir Wrote:  

(02-12-2012 10:55 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

(02-12-2012 10:46 PM)velkrum Wrote:  so I guess ANARCHY is the best way for millions of people who live in close proximity to exist ?

be careful GManifesto, you are breaking forum rules

DON'T BE A DICK

You have made it quite clear you would rather live in a police state where people can't throw a football.

Which is why I am sure you are a super fun guy at the party.

Not sure which forum rules I am breaking.

But you seem to love rules, so I will defer to you.

Did you also do a lot of snitching when you are a kid?

The reality is when people behave in an ignorant and inconsiderate way that violates others freedoms while only thinking of their own you get a police state.

Are you freakin' serious? You get beaned in the head. Or you get smoke in your face. But you don't get a police state. You get a police state when people get used to so many inane laws that they grow numb and apathetic. When they want the nanny state to take care of them from cradle to grave. To tell them when they can throw a football and when they cannot. I'd rather get beaned by a football, punch someone out, and get arrested and jailed for a night (like our fathers and grandfathers) -- because I'll still be far more free than the alternative.

When you get a conviction for assault you basically will never get hired in any professional career. No one should have to go to prison because someone violated their rights and the government refused to enforce or protect their rights. if someone wants to play football, I'm all for it, do it on a open empty field that was designed for that purpose, don't do it at the mall or at the beach and complain you have no freedom when people ask that your idiotic behaviour be banned. if I get hit in the head by a football on the beach not only can sue the idiot who threw it but I can sue the city for making an unsafe environment, they have a duty to protect people from dangerous people.

Post: #72

(02-13-2012 01:57 AM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

(02-13-2012 01:23 AM)misterstir Wrote:  As it was the government who chose not to protect the freedoms and liberty of African Americans. Which is precisely what occurs when you allow people to smoke on the beach, those people who want to enjoy the beach without their rights being infringed or without having poison being blown into their face or balls hitting them in the head are having their liberty and freedom not protected.

So you are in favor of banning people running on the beach?

Because it might kick up a little sand and get in your eye?

So you are in favor of banning sunscreen?

Because the smell of it might get in your nose?

I really didn't think people like you existed. But I guess a a lot of them do.

Well I don't see how 1 or 2 people running on a beach create an infringement, but if you want to put a marathon through the beach then it could create a problem. I suspect you are exaggerating a bit though.
Your sunscreen smell will largely be limited to yourself, it will not go into others lungs unless they are within 1 foot of you for the most part.

Post: #73

(02-13-2012 04:11 AM)P Dog Wrote:  

(02-13-2012 01:23 AM)misterstir Wrote:  As it was the government who chose not to protect the freedoms and liberty of African Americans. Which is precisely what occurs when you allow people to smoke on the beach, those people who want to enjoy the beach without their rights being infringed or without having poison being blown into their face or balls hitting them in the head are having their liberty and freedom not protected.

Yet simultaneously, those people who do want to smoke on beach are "having their liberty and freedom not protected" under such a law.

This is true to an extent, but many rights are like that. For example you have the right to free speech but you cannot say slanderous and libelous things about people. So this naturally infringes your free speech. But it also protects people's right not to be unfairly defamed. No rights are absolute because you couldn't have a functioning society. Your rights stop generally where they start to infringe upon others rights in an unreasonable manner. I can't think of a reasonable way a non smoker could really avoid a person(s) smoke on the beach unless they made a smoking room on the beach or something to enclose that smoke to the smoker and thats the crux of the matter. A non smoker simple cannot give any reasonable compromise to avoid the smoke while allowing the smoker to smoke where ever they want. Hence the only reasonable solution to preserve both freedoms is to prevent smoking on the beach as the smoker could for instances smoke in his car and then come to the beach. This does not go to far because it doesn't ban smoking completely so it does preserve smoking rights to an extent

Post: #74

(02-13-2012 04:53 AM)chairman Wrote:  

(02-13-2012 01:23 AM)misterstir Wrote:  

(02-12-2012 10:33 PM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  

(02-10-2012 01:38 PM)velkrum Wrote:  Banning smoking and drinking in public IS an infringement on SOME peoples rights but it allows other people who are in the MAJORITY to enjoy theirs.

That is the same argument that kept African-Americans in segregated schools and buses for nearly 100 years.

I have a great deal of sympathy for people impacted by public smoking and drinking, but I look at the big picture -- which is the increasing control of government over every aspect of our lives. California is a perfect example. It has transformed from one of the wealthiest best-run states in the nation to one that literally has the economy of a third-world country. All of these laws, rules, restrictions, and taxes are a cumulative horror from which successful productive people flee.

Even worse, because the school system is more interested in promoting homosexuality, transgender acceptance, and every other form of social engineering -- instead of teaching reading, writing, and math -- students are no longer capable of ascertaining the attributes of good governance, simple economics, or the basic duties of citizenship. They simply clamor for more benefits from government -- and accept ever-increasing government intrusion.

His statement is not inaccurate. All people have rights, but often rights are conflicting.
You have many valid points about things wrong with government and california in general. To say that because we are moving towards a police state in the Western countries in general for the last 100 years (which is factually true) means that we should essentially not protect the freedoms and liberty of certain groups of people is more akin to what caused African americans to be unfairly segregated. As it was the government who chose not to protect the freedoms and liberty of African Americans. Which is precisely what occurs when you allow people to smoke on the beach, those people who want to enjoy the beach without their rights being infringed or without having poison being blown into their face or balls hitting them in the head are having their liberty and freedom not protected.

You seriously are going to use the race card here? That incident is completely different considering the history behind it. To my knowledge smoking or any other small shit hasn't caused over 500,000 of soldiers to be killed and a country to be divided in two.

I didn't raise the race issue, a previous poster called tail gunner did, I was simply showing why failure to protect the rights of non smokers was more akin to the situation he was describing of african americans.

I'd be surprised if there were no major wars over tobacco given its high value especially in the early colonial period.

Post: #75

(02-13-2012 11:06 AM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  

(02-12-2012 10:46 PM)velkrum Wrote:  so I guess ANARCHY is the best way for millions of people who live in close proximity to exist ?

be careful GManifesto, you are breaking forum rules

DON'T BE A DICK

G, he is right. Letting people throw footballs on the beach is one step closer to complete anarchy.

Next they will want to barbecue and have a few drinks.

Then maybe a smoke while watching the sunset.

We can't have that type of chaos man.

I like how this thread is generalizing the whole state of CA, at my local beaches, I have: watched naked women doing yoga, a naked hippy mom play frisbee with her kids, played football, soccer, etc. taken a barbecue and grilled up bunch of meat, started a bonfire, drank beer/wine/liquor, smoked weed out of a bong, got my dick sucked, etc.