Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Individual liberties, regulation and the obesity epidemic (and possibly other stuff)

Options
13

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    keane2097
    Registered Users Posts: 17,770 ✭✭✭✭keane2097


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    Like I said, I don't have much beyond a feeling that this seems intuitively wrong somehow, I am open to reading about how great it is and being convinced.

    It seems like they suck massive amounts of money out of people and contribute very little. It also seems that the fact that people can be denied the opportunity to own their own home because someone got their before them and hoovered up all the available homes is a bit distasteful.


  • Options
    #63
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #64
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭KomradeBishop


    keane2097 wrote: »
    Probably a bit off-topic, but to my uneducated brain there seems something drastically ****ed up about the idea of people who own a load of houses making a living out of making other people pay to live in them.

    Is that something there is a debate on somewhere? I would like to read about it and decide whether my gut is right or wrong.
    So long as the profits aren't rapacious, and are in-line with the cost of maintenance by the landlord (i.e. the landlord is effectively being paid for providing the service of maintenance), then it's not so bad - there is huge huge money to be made by manipulating the property/rental market though, so it's rarely like this.


  • Options
    #65
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    TheChizler wrote: »
    If it's for the greater good and this good is backed up wholly by evidence then I'd be all for it.

    With miscegenation was the scientific proof that the genetics or traits mix and then taking a jump away from evidence to say that was a bad thing? If it was that's only using evidence when it's convenient.

    Edit: All for it is a tad strong, but it definitely would be a large part of the consideration.

    Science is banded about only when people want to pass some law to 'prove' to themselves that this law is for the greater good, while ignoring other science that may go against their ideology.

    Gbear said it best I think.
    Scientific consensus isn't an executive tool - there's no overlord who decides what is and isn't a fact. All the scientific consensus does, from a political perspective, is give you some ammunition to win support. It's by no means the only form or even most powerful form of ammunition.

    Take for instance single parents or separated parents that have children. There has been countless studies done that show that children of parents who are raised in a stable loving home do better on average on a whole scale of criteria than parents who split or who are non-existent.
    These children do better at school, they get better paying jobs, they have better mental health, they do not smoke or drink as much, they end up in more stable relationships...

    So if the Iona Institute came out with this irrefutable scientific proof that divorce is bad and is better for society overall to outlaw it would you be 'all for it'? I struggle to think not.


  • Options
    #66
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Tiddlypeeps wrote: »
    How do you propose laws be decided upon if how they effect society isn't a valid metric to base the decision on? Obviously other factors should be weighted up, but the benefit it will bring society is pretty much the biggest factor in passing any law.

    Stating that it's sometimes used badly isn't a good reason for not using that reasoning, not without suggesting a viable alternative anyway.

    Oh really? That is what we are told when laws that restrict individual freedoms are passed but when the results prove to be far removed the promises, generally either a) more laws are passed and/or b) more public money gets spent on said project or quango.

    Take for example the illegal drugs trade. These laws are passed to protect society for the greater good, yet all they do is empower criminals to engage in violence as they want to protect their territory and distribution networks. Young men are usually embroiled up in this activity as the financial rewards are quite lucrative. No where is this seen more is in the African American community.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    TheChizler
    Registered Users Posts: 9,400 ✭✭✭TheChizler


    jank wrote: »
    Take for instance single parents or separated parents that have children. There has been countless studies done that show that children of parents who are raised in a stable loving home do better on average on a whole scale of criteria than parents who split or who are non-existent.
    These children do better at school, they get better paying jobs, they have better mental health, they do not smoke or drink as much, they end up in more stable relationships...

    So if the Iona Institute came out with this irrefutable scientific proof that divorce is bad and is better for society overall to outlaw it would you be 'all for it'? I struggle to think not.

    There's an example of the logical disconnect I was mentioning; so evidence points out that children grow up better in a stable, loving home. The break in logic comes from assuming banning divorce will create that stable, loving home. Banning divorce wouldn't force people to care for each other, or even live together. If banning divorce would somehow magically prevent relationship breakdown and make people compatible then yes it would be worth considering and debating with all the supporting evidence uninterrupted from the premise to the logical conclusion. The benefits of bringing in one law would have to be considered against the disadvantages it would have, with evidence backing them up as well.


  • Options
    #68
    swampgas
    Registered Users Posts: 3,535 ✭✭✭swampgas


    jank wrote: »
    Oh really? That is what we are told when laws that restrict individual freedoms are passed but when the results prove to be far removed the promises, generally either a) more laws are passed and/or b) more public money gets spent on said project or quango.

    Take for example the illegal drugs trade. These laws are passed to protect society for the greater good, yet all they do is empower criminals to engage in violence as they want to protect their territory and distribution networks. Young men are usually embroiled up in this activity as the financial rewards are quite lucrative. No where is this seen more is in the African American community.

    Drug laws are interesting because they show that evidence can be trumped by ideology and political expediency. However the bigger issue here is that people will not always agree on what is best for the public good, and that is where debate is needed. Just because you or I don't agree with the current consensus doesn't mean that the system is broken.


  • Options
    #69
    Tiddlypeeps
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,103 ✭✭✭Tiddlypeeps


    jank wrote: »
    Oh really? That is what we are told when laws that restrict individual freedoms are passed but when the results prove to be far removed the promises, generally either a) more laws are passed and/or b) more public money gets spent on said project or quango.

    Take for example the illegal drugs trade. These laws are passed to protect society for the greater good, yet all they do is empower criminals to engage in violence as they want to protect their territory and distribution networks. Young men are usually embroiled up in this activity as the financial rewards are quite lucrative. No where is this seen more is in the African American community.

    You completely ignored the question.

    How do you propose laws be decided upon if how they effect society isn't a valid metric to base the decision on?

    All laws restrict individual freedoms in some way, are you proposing all laws be done away with completely?


  • Options
    #70
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    The property tax as currently envisaged by the Irish political class is not progressive. First of all the tax applies to every single penny of the family home (frankly like with the situation with inheritance tax there should be a reasonably high cut off point in value before the main property is taxed, say €300k), secondly there is no increasing gradiations for secondary or overly ostentatious homes. And finally and most egregiously landlords are getting off easy with this tax, monies earned from renting property are "rent seeking" (hence the name for the gain of unearned income from classical economics) yet they are liable for the same rates as a person living in their own home. If the tax were truly progressive then for each extra house a person owned the rate would go ever higher. And actually there's a fourth problem, the government doesn't chase after the evaders, all they have to do is to register their property with an offshore trust and all the tax liabilities will disappear.
    I agree the crude version we have now is not progressive, but I meant the "idea" of "a property tax" should be acceptable to capitalists and socialists alike. Applying the "tax only the bad" principle to property tax, if someone puts their money into improving their house, as opposed to say going on a foreign holiday, there should be no tax penalty attached to that. So I disagree with your points # 1 and 2 above (tax only valuable houses) Instead I would opt for a site value tax, which takes a valuation of the unimproved site based on location and size, and taxes that. (This has already been a Green Party policy proposal for many years)

    On point #3 (landlords) if they are registered, then they pay income tax on the rental income as well as the property tax. And if their tax rate was proportionately higher (due to their not working hard, as suggested earlier) that allows for a lot of tax to be attached to their property investment. So no need for a different rate of site value or property tax.

    On point #4 (offshore accounts) I totally agree. Its just more of the corrupt practices that we constantly see politician's buddies and lobbyists getting away with. Along with Golden Circles, Ansbacher accounts, Anglo Irish Bank loans etc.. The government jet has even been used for private visits to these offshore destinations on occasion..


  • Options
    #71
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭KomradeBishop


    swampgas wrote: »
    Drug laws are interesting because they show that evidence can be trumped by ideology and political expediency.
    ...
    Exactly yes - if an evidence-based approach to policymaking were taken, then there would not be drug prohibition, yet the same posters using drug prohibition to pan laws that affect individual liberties, don't want an evidence-based approach to policymaking.

    The only people who benefit from keeping science/evidence based methods out of policymaking, are people who want to use evidence/reality denying ideologies, to push particular policies. It's (quite literally) anti-science and anti-intellectual.

    I'd imagine this forum would be well versed in rebutting examples of this, from church influence over politics; it's the same kind of thinking, just replacing theology with another ideology.
    Science rises above ideology - and Bad Science claiming to be 'scientific', isn't a part of this, it might as well be considered an extension of whatever ideology it's manufactured to back.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    KomradeBishop wrote: »
    Can't be done while in the Euro, but for countries that aren't (like the UK), it can come directly from the central bank (providing money for government spending with no debt attached), who can withhold money if the government doesn't target taxes at inflating areas of the economy, to keep inflation targets (2-4% inflation) in line.
    Essentially, are you saying the exchequer could be funded entirely from the profits of the central bank? I'm not sure there would be enough cash there.


  • Options
    #73
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭KomradeBishop


    Tiddlypeeps wrote: »
    ...
    All laws restrict individual freedoms in some way, are you proposing all laws be done away with completely?
    This is how free market supporters shift the debate rightwards: Even though they themselves support infringing upon individual liberties, in order to have a government that will protect property rights, they make arguments about individual liberties which are inconsistent with those views, but only against policies they don't like - and it is precisely that this applies to all laws, that makes it a powerful rhetorical tool (can use it as an argument against literally any law they don't personally like).

    When the only argument is "but it infringes upon individual liberties" - without the poster being willing to examine the grey-areas and details, of balancing the 'greater good' against 'individual liberties' - then it can just be discarded/ignored as an argument, because it is impossible not to infringe upon individual liberties, and the posters own political views infringe on individual liberties (unless they advocate no government at all).


  • Options
    #74
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭KomradeBishop


    recedite wrote: »
    Essentially, are you saying the exchequer could be funded entirely from the profits of the central bank? I'm not sure there would be enough cash there.
    No, government would be funded by the central bank creating money - but before jumping to the inflation bogeyman (or devaluation bogeyman - inflation already factors that in, because devaluation inflates prices of imported goods), see that in previous pages, the central bank withholds this funding based on the inflation target (of 2-4%), and requires that the government use taxes to target inflating sectors of the economy.

    This can not be done while stuck in the Euro, only countries with their own currency can do it. Martin Wolf (leading editor of the Financial Times) has supported the core part of this idea (central bank funding government).

    The explanation on previous pages was better, because it focuses on taxes and the inflation-reducing side of this idea first - when it's framed like above (starting from the spending/money-creation side), nearly all people are unable to get past the 'inflation bogeyman' myths, to look at the inflation-reducing policies, or the central-bank withholding money when inflation targets are reached.


  • Options
    #75
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Tiddlypeeps wrote: »
    You completely ignored the question.

    How do you propose laws be decided upon if how they effect society isn't a valid metric to base the decision on?

    All laws restrict individual freedoms in some way, are you proposing all laws be done away with completely?


    Laws should be made to protect the liberties of the individual. Once you go down the road of social engineering which protects people from themselves all for the 'greater good will then it starts getting ridicilous...


  • Options
    #76
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    TheChizler wrote: »
    There's an example of the logical disconnect I was mentioning; so evidence points out that children grow up better in a stable, loving home. The break in logic comes from assuming banning divorce will create that stable, loving home. Banning divorce wouldn't force people to care for each other, or even live together. If banning divorce would somehow magically prevent relationship breakdown and make people compatible then yes it would be worth considering and debating with all the supporting evidence uninterrupted from the premise to the logical conclusion. The benefits of bringing in one law would have to be considered against the disadvantages it would have, with evidence backing them up as well.


    Somewhat in agreement but it didn't stop divorce being illegal in Ireland until the 90's. To prove the case that this still happens, why would banning large sodas cure the obesity epidemic.


  • Options
    #77
    Tiddlypeeps
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,103 ✭✭✭Tiddlypeeps


    jank wrote: »
    Laws should be made to protect the liberties of the individual. Once you go down the road of social engineering which protects people from themselves all for the 'greater good will then it starts getting ridicilous...

    What liberties are you saying should be protected?

    We can lock a person up because they damage another persons property, that persons liberties are very much being denied in this instance. Do you disagree with this, or where do you propose the line be drawn?

    A sugar tax or a restriction on max serving sizes isn't denying anyones basic rights, nor is it strictly protecting people from themselves, it discourages lazy parents from pumping their kids full of sugar. Or are you one of those people that thinks kids are the parents property and the state should butt out when it comes to their well being?


  • Options
    #78
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    The property tax as currently envisaged by the Irish political class is not progressive. First of all the tax applies to every single penny of the family home (frankly like with the situation wrt inheritance tax there should be a reasonably high cut off point in value before the main property is taxed, say €300k), secondly there is no increasing gradiations for secondary or overly ostentatious homes. And finally and most egregiously landlords are getting off easy with this tax, monies earned from renting property are "rent seeking" (hence the name for the gain of unearned income from classical economics) yet they are liable for the same rates as a person living in their own home. If the tax were truly progressive then for each extra house a person owned the rate would go ever higher. And actually there's a fourth problem, the government doesn't chase after the evaders, all they have to do is to register their property with an offshore trust and all the tax liabilities will disappear.

    Homes over a million are charged at a higher proportional rate than those below so you are wrong there. You make it sound so easy to get away with tax but what you outlay sounds illegal to me. How many homes are in an off shore trust?
    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    And then we've the problem that the state is not going after those at the top in society and the major corporations. Their only solution to this or any previous crisis was to load the burden onto the ordinary members of society while giving those at the top a free pass, and often (not least with what happened with the current depression) passing on the gains squeezed out of the rest of us straight to them, doing nothing to solve the underlying problems which caused the crisis (anybody else remember the 1985 bailout of AIB and ICI? Well the same scenario is happening all over again, the country pay to rescue a bank, yet when time comes for the money to be paid back it is forgotten).

    Burden? What burden are you talking about. Those on the min wage pay hardly any income tax. Before the GFC the lower 50% didn't even pay any income tax in Ireland. Should we go back to that model?


  • Options
    #79
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Tiddlypeeps wrote: »
    What liberties are you saying should be protected?

    We can lock a person up because they damage another persons property, that persons liberties are very much being denied in this instance. Do you disagree with this, or where do you propose the line be drawn?

    A sugar tax or a restriction on max serving sizes isn't denying anyones basic rights, nor is it strictly protecting people from themselves, it discourages lazy parents from pumping their kids full of sugar. Or are you one of those people that thinks kids are the parents property and the state should butt out when it comes to their well being?


    Hence the state engaging in social engineering... and when this measure fails they will think of a new way to encourage better diet and eating habits while also giving grants and subsidies to the producers of corn syrup. Parents are responsible for their kids not the state.

    On your first question, people should be free to live their lives in peace and freedom from aggression from others and the state. Their property should also be protected from damage or destruction. People have some infallible rights that should be protected by the courts. Today, people confuse many things for rights.


  • Options
    #80
    Valmont
    Registered Users Posts: 5,856 ✭✭✭Valmont


    jank wrote: »
    Take for instance single parents or separated parents that have children. There has been countless studies done that show that children of parents who are raised in a stable loving home do better on average on a whole scale of criteria than parents who split or who are non-existent.
    These children do better at school, they get better paying jobs, they have better mental health, they do not smoke or drink as much, they end up in more stable relationships...

    So if the Iona Institute came out with this irrefutable scientific proof that divorce is bad and is better for society overall to outlaw it would you be 'all for it'? I struggle to think not.
    Well said Jank!


  • Options
    #81
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭KomradeBishop


    The entire legal/political system and police force is 'social engineering', so as stated earlier, this is very much a case of "social engineering is bad (except where it agrees with my personal political views)".


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #83
    swampgas
    Registered Users Posts: 3,535 ✭✭✭swampgas


    jank wrote: »
    Hence the state engaging in social engineering... and when this measure fails they will think of a new way to encourage better diet and eating habits while also giving grants and subsidies to the producers of corn syrup. Parents are responsible for their kids not the state.

    On your first question, people should be free to live their lives in peace and freedom from aggression from others and the state. Their property should also be protected from damage or destruction. People have some infallible rights that should be protected by the courts. Today, people confuse many things for rights.

    Surely all forms of society involve some sort of "social engineering", if that's what you want to call it? Defined school curricula, legal systems, health and safety rules, food safety standards - are these "social engineering" too?


  • Options
    #84
    Tiddlypeeps
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,103 ✭✭✭Tiddlypeeps


    jank wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    Ah, so you are one of those people that thinks kids are the property of the parents and the state should butt out, all kids who suffer abuse at the hands of their parents be damned.
    jank wrote: »
    On your first question, people should be free to live their lives in peace and freedom from aggression from others and the state. Their property should also be protected from damage or destruction. People have some infallible rights that should be protected by the courts. Today, people confuse many things for rights.

    That's incredibly simplistic. Peoples rights interact in all sorts of ways, and we assign priorities to different ones in various ways. Using the example I previously gave we remove a persons right to liberty because they interfered with a persons right to property. Those rights are clearly not infallible because they can be removed. Different countries assign different priorities to a persons right to property over another persons right to life in the form of taxation to fund health care etc, etc, etc. It's not black and white and it never will be, so blanket statements about liberty and personal freedom are next to useless when it comes to legislation.
    Permabear wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    Effect on society is currently used as metric in passing laws otherwise we wouldn't have things like bans on prostitution, drugs, or pretty much any of the many regulations that currently apply to how businesses operate. Unless I'm misunderstanding you and you are saying it shouldn't be that way?
    Permabear wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    Prostitution is a poor example, banning prostitution in no way improves society. Sex trafficking and coercion are symptoms of a prostitution industry, but these issues only get much worse when it is banned and unregulated. It's only currently banned as a direct result of religious organisations having more say in legislation than they should who completely ignore whats best for society and instead just try to push whatever rules are laid out in whatever holy book they follow.


  • Options
    #85
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #86
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #87
    swampgas
    Registered Users Posts: 3,535 ✭✭✭swampgas


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    Would you suggest having no defined curriculum at all, or would you prefer to improve the existing curriculum? I'm no great fan of rigid teaching standards, but I can't see how a free-for-all would work either.


  • Options
    #88
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #89
    swampgas
    Registered Users Posts: 3,535 ✭✭✭swampgas


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    Why does the model have to be inflexible simply because it is standard? A defined standard can be very flexible.


  • Options
    #90
    Tiddlypeeps
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,103 ✭✭✭Tiddlypeeps


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    I phrased that first part badly, lets go back to the start and break it down. How is prostitution bad for society and in what why would banning it improve society? And if the protection of individual life, liberty and property are the only reason laws are passed as you say then why do laws exist that have nothing to do with protecting individual life, liberty and property?
    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    Where are we getting? I think most people in this thread would agree that special interest groups should not be able to influence legislation in the name of religion. I've either misunderstood your point or you're not actually making one.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


Advertisement