and then in Grover Norquist's America, where he doesn't "want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub."
The Sago Coal Mine was cited 273 times for safety violations in the last two years, according to documents compiled by the Labor Department.
28 comments:
"The Sago Coal Mine was cited 273 times for safety violations in the last two years.."
And yet, the miners made the choice (yes, it was their choice, no one held a gun to their heads and forced them) to keep working there.
Before I can adequately respond to that comment, I'd need to know how much the miners knew about those violations.
However, even if they knew about all of them and worked there anyway, that does not absolve the owners of the mine of responsibility. They're still required by law to provide as safe a work environment as possible.
And the law obviously does not work. Expecting the government to protect you is a sure fire way to lose your life. It makes no difference who's in charge...Democrats or Republicans. I think the Katrina disaster certainly proves that. The government was the problem from the start. They can't even build good levies. They are only interested in getting reelected..well, and stealing your money, too.
The mine safety rules DO work--when enforced. Unfortunately, the regulated have become the regulators.
Individual citizens couldn't build levees if they wanted to - the only organization that has the power to take on tasks that large is the government. And yes, corrupt governments and lawmakers won't help - which is why it's our responsibility to take them to task and hold them accountable. When we don't, we get governments like the one we have.
The miners "chose" to go down there based on a reasonable belief that their employer would be in compliance with the law.
drmagoo, I'm not saying that individuals could build levees. But, I think that a private construction company could do a better job than the government and for much cheaper. Plus, we would know unequivocally who to blame if something went wrong. A company staking its reputation and it's own money is much more reliable than the government using other people's money with zero accountability.
Peter, the miners chose to go down there allegedly knowing that the company had been cited 273 times. Regardless, I would trust that they would know best whether or not those mines were safe. If they had ANY inkling that they were not safe, they should've gotten the hell out of dodge, told all of their friends and the media and looked for a new gig. I mean, aren't we responsible for our own lives?
anonymous,
First of all, if you have some way of identifying yourself, we'd welcome that - I hate addressing things to "anonymous". Secondly, the government has plenty of accountability, if we exercise it - we have the right, every 2, 4, or 6 years, to vote out people we think are doing a bad job. Thirdly, when has business ever indicated to us that if we left it unregulated, they would be responsible and regulate themselves? If the mine owners were responsible, they wouldn't need the government to come in and tell them their mines weren't safe - they'd make them safe out of their personal sense of respect for their employees. But they've shown that they *can't* be trusted, and they're just one example of many in the private sector. Individual employees and consumers don't have the power to get businesses to change their practices or require them to have safe working conditions or produce safe products. But the government does.
The bigger question, to me, isn't why the people were still working, but how the mine remained open with that many violations.
Call me the Libertarian. :)
"Individual employees and consumers don't have the power to get businesses to change their practices or require them to have safe working conditions or produce safe products."
Sure we do. It's simple. Don't buy the products you don't like or from companies whose policies you disagree with and don't work at those places either. Organize boycotts, too. Look how effective the religious zealots are with organized boycotts. They just got an episode of South Park pulled. No goverment help either.
I'm a former liberal, so I know where you are coming from. I urge you to just look a little closer at the government.
Oh, wow, Schmidlap - we've got a Libertarian!
Well, Libertarian, I used to be a libertarian before I became a liberal. I took my modern philosophy classes in college and read Adam Smith and all those guys, and I love the *idea* of libertarianism. I think that practically, it's a recipe for disaster. Turning control over to business will not solve these kinds of problems, for two main reasons:
1) Businesses exist to make money. They do studies on things like "how much is one life worth to our company, in terms of dollars we could spend on safety?" Why would I expect that they'd do anything to make sure their products are safe? The common gedanken experiment I use is of the drug company that invents a drug that, because there's no FDA, ends up getting released when it's not safe, and kills 10,000 people. The market might correct itself and force the company out of business. Everything works from a free market standpoint, but 10,000 people are still dead.
2) The skewing of incomes in our society makes it very difficult for some people to exercise the choice that we'd like to see. I hate WalMart - their business practices are abominable - and I'm well-off enough that I can choose what stores I want to shop at. However, I know plenty of people who hate WalMart, but are living on fixed incomes, or are unemployed, and don't have that flexibility. As the number of people living below the poverty line increases, the number of people who have flexibility decreases. Sure, it's great to say "leave the mine if you think it's not safe", but if you're the sole breadwinner for your family, and that's where your health insurance comes from, it's not that simple.
A better route to safety is to make our government work for us.
Big L Libertarian here again.
Make fun of Libertarianism all you want. The movement is growing. Liberals time has gone.
drmagoo, Where are the 10,000 people? I'm all for some mechanism to monitor new drugs. Competing private certification companies could do a way better job. Think of Underwriters Laboratories. Think of JCAHO. There would be no government force (government IS force..evil, just plain evil), no politics, more consistency (when your guy leaves office, things still run the same way). Tell me why you are so afraid of freedom and personal responsibility and private property and capitalism..all of the things that once made this country so great? Is it because no one would care for the sick and the poor? You mean to tell me that the government cares? You just can't force people to care. Leave taking care of the sick and poor to people who really care. Like you and me. A better route to disaster is to attempt to make our government work for us. Again. Katrina. And, PLEASE, the Clinton administration would've fucked it up just as bad. Government just doesn't work and it never will.
What's so wrong about making money? Do you like what Hugo Chavez is doing in Venzuela? And Castro in Cuba?
Just curious. You are aware than Bush has grown the government more than anyone in history. Right?
Well, I did say that it was a gedanken experiment, so I can't produce corpses for you.
Why would Clinton have fucked up Katrina? Under him, FEMA was a much more effective agency and funding for the levees had gone up. Frankly, we have no idea what anyone else would have done, because Bush was the only one around to screw up.
And obviously, we are operating from very different fundamental assumptions. I strongly believe that governments are necessary and can be amazing forces for good.
Please don't put words in my mouth. I'm not in the least bit afraid of personal responsibility or freedom or private property. I'd ask that you read some of the other things I've written and demonstrate to me any evidence that you think that. Americans don't take anything like the amount of personal responsibility that they should, and I think the world would be a much better place if we did. On the other hand, I believe that we owe something even to those who don't give anything back, much less those that cannot give back in kind - the young, the sick, the elderly, etc. They deserve protection, food, health care, and education as much as anyone else.
Freedom and personal responsibility that gave us Upton Sinclair's Jungle? Slavery? The rail yards where workers were routinely killed in braking accidents? hild labor? Jim Crow?
Private enterprise will build interstate highways, right? Fund universities affordable to the masses? Industry will voluntarily reduce pollution and avoid using toxins in their products?
Pathetic.
Libertarian again.
drmagoo,
The young, sick and elderly do need protection, food, health care and education. I agree. But, is it their right? Once you go down that road you are talking about force and slavery. If you think that health care is a right then health care practitioners are slaves. "I'm sick. Cure me." If I'm a doctor and I say no, what happens? The big bad feds will come after me. How is that fair? How is it fair to steal from others so that they can have that? It's not. We were taught not to steal when we were kids. The way to get more people access to affordable healthcare is by lowering the cost of doing business for the doctors. What does that mean? Well, you ain't gonna like it. Roll back the regulations. We could go on and on. The welfare state in this country is a mess. It's unmanageable, immoral and a fucking joke. Thank you, FDR.
I have not seen anything else you have written. I am just going on this post and this conversation.
I do think we want some of the same things. We just want to achieve them differently. Like you said, we are operating from very different fundamental assumptions. I think government is the spawn of the devil and you don't. I hate the government so much it burns. I hate Bush with a passion. We have that in common, I'm sure.
I can't say I'd force an adult to get health care, but we force children all the time to do things they don't want to do, because it was decided that children don't have the ability to judge what's best for them.
I do think health care is a right, and I think that health care practitioners should get compensated for treating the sick. And the doctors know the deal before entering practice. If I believed that there would be enough unforced giving that fundamental needs would be taken care of without the government being involved, I'd be fine without the social programs. However, I think our collective responsibility to support the weak overrides our rights to keep everything in our paychecks.
I understand why people hate government, but I'm convinced that it's the only system that can provide the infrastructure necessary to run a country this large and diverse. It needs our help to get better, but replacing it with privatization will lead to suffering for way too many.
Oh, and yes, we can agree on hating Bush. We probably differ on who we'd replace him with, though.
Libertarian again.
drmagoo,
Realistically, if the GOP maintains both the House and the Senate, I'd replace Bush with a liberal Democrat with the hope that the government would just argue all of the time and get nothing done. Maybe, just maybe, it would keep the government from growing even more. Libertarians are making more inroads at the local and state level, especially New Hampshire.
"I understand why people hate government, but I'm convinced that it's the only system that can provide the infrastructure necessary to run a country this large and diverse. It needs our help to get better, but replacing it with privatization will lead to suffering for way too many."
That's why Libertarians hate the power the federal government has. State governments are evil, but less so than the feds, except in Illinois. :) Local governments are much better. I think that that is the only sane way to handle a country this big. That was what the founders envisioned all along, until Lincoln put the kibosh on that. Damn him.
Privatization without the government giving corporate welfare would ease suffering for those inclined to work for it and would most definitely increase the wealth of all. Greed is good. It creates jobs and more wealth. Look at Bill Gates. The man gave away over 1 billion dollars last year to some great charities and he provides thousands of jobs. You can't force people to act decently. But, in the absence of decency people will certainly look to give you what you want when they are seeking to make a profit. McDonald's is greedy and serves a mostly unhealthy product. But, they certainly please the fuck out of billions of people worldwide. Out of the goodness of their heart? Nope. Just looking to make a buck. God bless them.
I'm confused - Libertarians hate government because government is the only thing that can handle big problems?
And no, you can't force people to act decently, and you can't expect some of them to do so, which is why to take the option out of their hands and require them to contribute whether they like it or not. That's the compromise - you choose to live in a country that will maintain a military, interstate highway system, etc, you then pay for social services, education, health care, etc. Don't like it? Fine - either (a) move to a place where there aren't taxes or organized governments - say Iraq, become your own warlord, and run things your way, or (b) change the laws. And be careful when you do, because while there are plenty of people who could choose to be in a better situation, life-wise, there are plenty who don't have the choices we'd like to think they have. Hope you're okay with them having no support system at all.
Libertarian here.
drmagoo, Libertarians hate government because it infringes on our freedoms. Where there's more government there is less freedom. That is a fact and plain to see today.
"...take the option out of their hands and require them to contribute whether they like it or not."
So, again, why do you hate freedom? Why do you like force? You must support the war in Iraq then. You stand for the same thing...forcing others to abide by your will. This is a free country. Go study the Constitution and the roots of the US. No where does it say anything about a socialistic state. The second worst president of all time, FDR, set us off on that immoral and destructive path. The founders hated government and did all that they could (obviously not enough) to protect the people from the government infringing on our inherent individual rights.
Do you belive that you own yourself? From what you have said, you appear not to.
Okay, if you suggest I hate freedom again, I'm going to get cranky. First of all, it is fundamentally impossible to have absolute freedom in a society, especially a large and diverse one. At the very least, we have to operate under something like the harm principle - that we are free as long as we don't harm others in their life, liberty, health, or property, otherwise we're in anarchy.
Where I clearly differ from you is that in addition to a right to freedom, as far as prudence will allow, I also believe in a shared responsibility that is as fundamental as our freedom - our responsibility that we let no one, regardless of perceived worth, suffer without the basic needs of life. I would list those as food, shelter, clothing, access to quality education, and access to quality health care. What people do with those things is their choice - they don't have to do what the doctor says. They don't have to learn anything in school. But I believe that providing that access is as basic a human responsibility as there is.
I also in no way believe that business, left to it's own devices, would come anywhere near meeting this responsbility. Businesses exist to make money for the owners and stockholders, not to share responsibility for societal needs. There are certainly counter-examples, and one you brought up earlier, Bill Gates, has done incredible things. But what business is going to provide health care to poor children if there's no one who will pay for it? None. And so those children will grow up less healthy and less likely to be able to manage their own lives.
So, to me, we have to agree that, since we cannot trust businesses and private citizens to meet the needs of so many people, and that we have this responsibility, as I described earlier, that we will set up an entity which will do these things for us - that will provide national infrastructure as well as meet societal responsibilities. And we won't let anyone share in the benefits of such a society without sharing in the responsbility. None of us are self-sufficient, so we all have to share in paying for everyone else.
You call FDR the second worst president of all time, I'd rank him in the top 10. Without him, I know many people who would be living on the streets, starving, without health care, without shelter, without food, and without hope. You may be willing to throw those people out with the trash, but I am not.
Libertarian rant coming:
"At the very least, we have to operate under something like the harm principle - that we are free as long as we don't harm others in their life, liberty, health, or property, otherwise we're in anarchy."
Yes. Life, liberty and property. The government defined in the Constitution exists only to protect that. I agree 100%. I hate the government, but that is its only legitimate purpose.
Once you start talking about shared responsibility you're venturing into socialism. Socialism is evil in theory. Do we even have to go into that? There are so many examples that it's ridiculous. I am not responsible for anyone but myself and my family and I sure as fuck resent anyone trying to tell me otherwise. If I want to help those less fortunate than myself, and I do, I will do it of my own free will. If it's done any other way, it's immoral. It's stealing. It's a violation of basic individual rights.
No society is perfect. None ever will be perfect. Liberals want it to be. Sorry. Some people will ALWAYS fall through the cracks. We have probably the largest welfare state in the world and people STILL fall through the cracks. Some people just can't be reached. You let them go. Do they rise up or do they stay down? I'm willing to bet that more rise up than not. Poverty has not improved on iota since the welfare state came to be. Nothing the government touches gets any better. It usually gets worse. Once the bureaucrats touched schools, we fell behind. Take the war on drugs. Yeah, that's working. They can't even keep drugs out of prisons! Let me say that again. THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT KEEP DRUGS OUT OF PRISONS!! If the government had gotten the hell out of the way, the Red Cross and Walmart could've saved more people in New Orleans. Yes, Walmart. They had trucks full of water ready to go. FEMA stopped them and please don't tell me that if a liberal was in charge that would not have happened. Bullshit. Republicans and Democrats. Different sides of the same coin. Congress hasn't declared war since WW II because they want an out in case things go wrong. That's right. All the Dems who voted yes can now say, "We don't agree with this war. We didn't declare it." It's a game and a joke. Tell me what the government has done well. Please. I am dying to know.
You didn't answer my question: do you own yourself?
You didn't answer my question: do you own yourself?
What do you mean? define "ownership?" Do you mean fee simple ownership, i.e., I am free to dispose of my interest in myself? Can I sell myself?
Do you mean that I can do as I please without just and proper sanction from any person or entity other than myself?
I didn't answer your question because I happen to be busy working. You know, at a job where I earn money to support my family and then share what I have with those less fortunate than I through organized slavery and theft.
You are the owner of your life--your body, your mind, your energy, and any consequent results of your life's efforts.
Yes, you can do as you please without just and proper sanction from any person or entity other than yourself. It comes with serious responsibility. You do not have the right to infringe on someone else's life, liberty or property.
You can sell yourself all you want. It's your inherent right.
A question for Libertarian.
I know a couple of libertarians out in cyberspace, but just wondering how you found our twisted little space.
Peter, I followed a link from the Opinion page of the Trib.
Cool.
I deleted Crap Detector's insult and your response. I love the discourse, but pissing matches can go elsewhere (unless you're me).
I admire your passion. I disagree with much of it, but you make for lively discussion. You are welcome here.
Libertarian here.
Thanks, Peter. As for the pissing match...my bad for taking the bait. Aside from that little interlude I think we had a good, civil yet passionate discussion without lowering ourselves to what most people with ideological differences engage in today.
Post a Comment