Grover Norquist advocates power to the people

[Universe Prince]

Because it is unhealthy for people to run stop signs, the government taxes to buy them, put them up at intersections, and enforce them with police.

That does not mean stop signs and the traditional cross shaped intersection are the most practical or most efficient method of handling the intersection of two or more roads.

It is also unhealthy for people to be sick. So how is it different for the government to do what it can for everyone to remain healthy and noncontagious?

Do you have a right to have tuberculosis?

I am thinking that no, you don't.

So the government should outlaw disease? No, you don't mean that. But I'm not sure where else to go with your analogy. One thing your analogy does accomplish is to illustrate one of the problems of the expectation of the intervention of government. Somehow the government is supposed to step in and control life the way it supposedly controls traffic with stop signs and enforcement of traffic laws. The only problem with that highly impractical scenario is that the government is wholly incapable of controlling life, and when it tries to do so, the problems tend to get worse, not better. As a primary example I offer the "war on drugs".

[Xavier_Onassis]

Stop signs work pretty well, as do other alternatives, nearly all of which cost more than stop signs (I can't think of one that doesn't) and children are given patch tests for TB at every school, so TB is much more rare than it would be otherwise.

The War on Drugs is a stupid idea, but then again, so was New Coke, Zima, and civilian Hummers. Government has no monopoly on stupidity or failure, but that is not because it is government. It is because governments are run by people.

I would trust at least some people in the government far more than I would trust a flake like Norquist.

[Universe Prince]

Stop signs work pretty well,

You've obviously never driven around my city.

The War on Drugs is a stupid idea, but then again, so was New Coke, Zima, and civilian Hummers. Government has no monopoly on stupidity or failure, but that is not because it is government. It is because governments are run by people.

First, no one said the government has a monopoly on bad ideas. Second, New Coke was not a plan to control people by putting many of them in jail. This difference seems blatantly obvious to me. Third, while you and I are required to support the "war on drugs", no one is required to buy New Coke, Zima or Hummers. Again, this difference seems blatantly obvious to me.

I would trust at least some people in the government far more than I would trust a flake like Norquist.

That's nice, but hardly meaningful. Get back to me on that when someone argues that Norquist should be made dictator for life.

[Xavier_Onassis]

What would you propose in lieu of stop signs?

Overpasses? Underpasses? Roundabouts?

I have found stop signs to be quite useful in avoiding accidents.
Even here in Miami, most people stop at stop signs, except when riding a bike in a low traffic residential area.

I did not propose that you or anyone was proposing making Grover Norquist dictator of anything.

[BT]

Third, while you and I are required to support the "war on drugs",

I'm not so sure that is a true statement.

[fatman]

I'm not so sure that is a true statement.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the Federal Government hand out money to local law enforcement to buy the latest geegaws to fight the drug war?  And doesn't that money come from your taxes?  You might not personally support it, but unless you're not paying taxes you're supporting it financially.

At least that's my take.

[BT]

My take is the feds take my money and put it in a bucket that covers all kinds of expenses. So no, i am not required to support the war on drugs, any more than you are required to support the war in Iraq, i am however required to pay taxes or face the consequences. .

If i were required to support the war on drugs, one would think that i would be required to snitch on any acquaintance that fired up the occasional bong, under penalty of law, or face the consequences for my silence.

In the 57, years of my life, and the 40 something years of knowing what burnt cannabis smelled like, that has never been the case and never been the reality.

[fatman]

My take is the feds take my money and put it in a bucket that covers all kinds of expenses. So no, i am not required to support the war on drugs, any more than you are required to support the war in Iraq, i am however required to pay taxes or face the consequences. .

If i were required to support the war on drugs, one would think that i would be required to snitch on any acquaintance that fired up the occasional bong, under penalty of law, or face the consequences for my silence.

In the 57, years of my life, and the 40 something years of knowing what burnt cannabis smelled like, that has never been the case and never been the reality.

I think that I understand your position bt, but I think that our perceptions differ.  I think that it's the "money bucket" that's the issue, it's (in a roundabout way) the same argument used by pro-lifers to ban or restrict abortion funding (and maybe contraception?  I'm not sure) by the Federal Government.

As for pot, I think that there are more important things for law enforcement to worry about.  I don't agree with "The War on Drugs", it's my opinion that it's a self-perpetuating problem, especially with asset forfeiture and seizure.  As Jesse Ventura said once, if you can't keep drugs out of a maximum security prison, how in the hell do you expect to keep them out of the country?  But I don't do pot, I have a good job that pays me very well, and it would be a shame to lose such a job because I like to smoke the green.  For me it's a case of priorities.

[Universe Prince]

What would you propose in lieu of stop signs?

Overpasses? Underpasses? Roundabouts?

Roundabouts is one very good idea. Another is less signage. That idea is getting a tryout in Europe and, last I heard, actually reduced accidents: Accidents stop in a town without signs. Nothing is foolproof of course, but the basic idea involved is simple and brilliant. Stop trying to control everything. You know, power to the people.

For more info:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1533248/Is-this-the-end-of-the-road-for-traffic-lights.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/22/international/europe/22monderman.html

[Universe Prince]

My take is the feds take my money and put it in a bucket that covers all kinds of expenses. So no, i am not required to support the war on drugs, any more than you are required to support the war in Iraq, i am however required to pay taxes or face the consequences. .

If i were required to support the war on drugs, one would think that i would be required to snitch on any acquaintance that fired up the occasional bong, under penalty of law, or face the consequences for my silence.

In the 57, years of my life, and the 40 something years of knowing what burnt cannabis smelled like, that has never been the case and never been the reality.

I don't get to decide how my taxes are used. And not all "war on drugs" funding happens at the federal level. To say that I'm not required to support the "war on drugs" because my taxes may--may, if we assume that somehow my exact taxes are precisely never ever tapped for use--not end up used for the "war on drugs" is flimsy at best. The "war on drugs" is paid for with tax dollars, and I have no way to tell the government not to use my taxes for the "war on drugs", so I am therefore essentially made to support the "war on drugs". You may not agree, but I guess then we'll just have to disagree on that.

[Xavier_Onassis]

The idea is based on the European Union-supported "shared space" concept of traffic management developed by the Dutch traffic expert Hans Monderman. According to the theory, road users have to negotiate their behaviour with one another, rather than have it prescribed by rules - the idea being that people will pay more attention to what other road users are doing and hence cause fewer accidents.

Nearly 13,000 cars and trucks pour through the town daily. Serious crashes sometimes blipped at seven a month, but that did not take into account the numerous small accidents that police did not get involved in.

Now the town reports not a single scrape, shunt, bump or pedestrian injured in the month since the scheme started.

"We are trying to reduce the jungle of road signs which is spreading across Europe - and the scheme seems to be working," said a Bohmte town hall spokeswoman, Sabine de Buhr-Deichsel. "Now we rely on prudence and people being considerate towards each other."

The inhabitants of Bohmte celebrated the start of the scheme, which is backed by a €2.3 million ($3.7 million) grant from the EU, with a giant street party. Another benefit of the scheme: Bohmte is saving €6000 a month replacing, repainting and repairing signs and signals.
=================================
I am all for this, but the article does not explain even remotely how drivers are negotiating their moves while traveling toward one another at what I assume must be at least 20 mph.

Observe how there must be many, many citizens who are being forced to pay for this.; At $6000 in savings per month, it will take over 31 years to pay for itself--not counting interest on that 2.4 million Euros.

I think it might be worth it, but it would infringe on your assumed right to approve of every penny of your taxes spent on anything.

==========================
It seems that (except for the DEA and their collaboration with LAPD and other cops) that California has reached a state of reasonable bliss over the use of pot. It's medical pot, but it is exceptionally easy to get a prescription for such things as stress. The Feds are full of it when it comes to pot. I know what it smells like, I smell it at least twice a month, and I would not dream of calling the cops about it, nor do I know of anyone that would. Of course, the Miami Dare PD would not do a damned thing about it even if I reported junkies shooting up on the street.
Basically, our local cops have the attitude that everyone who is not a cop is either a criminal, a moron, or both.

[Universe Prince]

I am all for this, but the article does not explain even remotely how drivers are negotiating their moves while traveling toward one another at what I assume must be at least 20 mph.

Yes, it does. "...the idea being that people will pay more attention to what other road users are doing and hence cause fewer accidents." "'Now we rely on prudence and people being considerate towards each other.'"

Observe how there must be many, many citizens who are being forced to pay for this.; At $6000 in savings per month, it will take over 31 years to pay for itself--not counting interest on that 2.4 million Euros.

I think it might be worth it, but it would infringe on your assumed right to approve of every penny of your taxes spent on anything.

I don't recall having assumed such a right. And yes, taking down signs and lights would cost money, but a lot of that could be recouped by selling the signs and lights to individuals. But not putting the signs and lights up in the first place would seem to be a more efficient plan than putting them up.

The project is the brainchild of Mr Monderman, and the town has seen some remarkable results. There used to be a road death every three years but there have been none since the traffic light removal started seven years ago. There have been a few small collisions, but these are almost to be encouraged, Mr Monderman explained. "We want small accidents, in order to prevent serious ones in which people get hurt," he said yesterday. "It works well because it is dangerous, which is exactly what we want. But it shifts the emphasis away from the Government taking the risk, to the driver being responsible for his or her own risk. "We only want traffic lights where they are useful and I haven't found anywhere where they are useful yet."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1533248/Is-this-the-end-of-the-road-for-traffic-lights.html

Imagine that; the individual being responsible for his own actions works.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Yes, it does. "...the idea being that people will pay more attention to what other road users are doing and hence cause fewer accidents." "'Now we rely on prudence and people being considerate towards each other.'"

-----------------------------------------------
Yeah, sure. Everyone was riding a unicorn, too. If this worked, it worked because of something more than prudence and consideration.

We have had periods here in Miami when hurricanes have taken the lights out. No matter how much responsibility this gave to the drivers, it was sheer bedlam at every busy intersection. Lots of accidents, even a couple of shootings.

People can demonstrate their responsibility by stopping at stop signs as well.

[Amianthus]

We have had periods here in Miami when hurricanes have taken the lights out. No matter how much responsibility this gave to the drivers, it was sheer bedlam at every busy intersection. Lots of accidents, even a couple of shootings.

That's because most Americans don't know what to do when the lights are out at an intersection. Seems like everyone assumes that THEY have the right of way.

[Universe Prince]

We have had periods here in Miami when hurricanes have taken the lights out. No matter how much responsibility this gave to the drivers, it was sheer bedlam at every busy intersection. Lots of accidents, even a couple of shootings.

And now you know why I favor the idea of roundabouts as well. They work even when the power goes out.

But Amianthus is correct. We could prevent a lot of traffic accidents if we expected people to actually know how to drive.