Don't drink and vote, you might spill your drink on the public hospital's lawn


  • mod

    @RaceProUK said:

    TIL you can vote at a polling station in the UK even if you're drunk or high

    That seems like a bad idea …



  • @abarker said:

    That seems like a bad idea …

    Dunno, "you seem drunk no voting for you" sounds like a really really easy way to deny someone a vote. So evaluation of the rule depends on where your assumption of default on incompetence vs maliciousness lies probably.


  • sockdevs

    @locallunatic said:

    Dunno, "you seem drunk no voting for you" sounds like a really really easy way to deny someone a vote

    Exactly


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    put a breathalyzer in every polling station problem solved


  • mod

    @FrostCat said:

    put a breathalyzer in every polling station problem solved

    I was about to say that.

    Or, as an alternative, allow them to submit a conditional ballot along with a blood sample. Test the blood sample to see if they are drunk or high. If the test come back positive, throw out the ballot. If it comes back negative, count it. If you don't want to discriminate, make everyone get tested, and just tie the samples to the ballots. No names, just serial numbers.


  • sockdevs

    Two words:

    Postal voting.


  • I survived the hour long Uno hand

    I should write down everyone in this thread who's advocating not allowing people to vote drunk and cross-reference with unironic uses of the term "nanny state".



  • @Yamikuronue said:

    I should write down everyone in this thread who's advocating not allowing people to vote drunk and cross-reference with unironic uses of the term "nanny state".

    ++, deserves more than a like


  • sockdevs



  • The problem with voting rights allowing just anyone to vote isn't that it lets stupid or irresponsible people vote. It's that it lets stupid and irresponsible people become the source of tyranny of the majority.

    This is exactly why I advocate for small government.

    Small government lets drunks vote, but it doesn't let drunks vote on how my front lawn should look.


  • I survived the hour long Uno hand

    And anytime someone suggest putting checks to prevent the tyranny of the majority, people like you scream "SMALL GOVERNMENT!" and cut off all discussion. So forgive me if I'm not impressed.


  • mod

    @RaceProUK said:

    Two words:

    Postal voting.

    And there is the real reason it would never work. You can't expect to monitor sobriety at the polls when there is no way to monitor sobriety for postal voters.

    In all honesty, I don't think a poll worker should be responsible for doing anything to monitor sobriety. I do think that there should be police officers monitoring for the same warning signs of people who are dangerously inebriated that they would watch for anywhere else. A little tipsy? No big deal. Tripping over your feet, puking on your shoes, or angry drunk? Go sober up, at home or in a cell if necessary.



  • Because you don't need checks for drunk voters, unless you're letting the tyranny control every aspect of your life.


  • I survived the hour long Uno hand

    @xaade said:

    Small government lets drunks vote, but it doesn't let drunks vote on how my front lawn should look.

    Small government lets them piss on your lawn en masse until they kill it off, then throw a kegger to celebrate.


  • I survived the hour long Uno hand

    @xaade said:

    unless you're letting the tyranny control every aspect of your life.



  • No it doesn't.

    You don't have to be so small that you don't allow enforcement of the law.



  • You double downed with a straw-godzilla, so I don't see the point here.

    Your first straw man was associating equating small government with anarchy.

    No one gets to vote drunk on what the education system should be like, if we don't have a federalized education system.


  • I survived the hour long Uno hand

    So smaller isn't always better, then, is it?

    Look, I'm pretty sure everyone in the world wants their government to be exactly the right size. If only they could agree on what that size is.

    If you want to piss on someone's lawn, and there's a law against it, you cry "NANNY STATE! SMALL GOVERNMENT!". If you own the lawn, suddenly it's "Small government isn't anarchy!"


  • I survived the hour long Uno hand

    @xaade said:

    if we don't have a federalized education system.

    Ah, so your real position is trusting private corporations to have your children's' best interests in mind.

    When people talk about privatizing social functions, I like to imagine Comcast is the company that provides the essential service. Suddenly it's not so appealing, is it?



  • @Yamikuronue said:

    If you want to piss on someone's lawn, and there's a law against it, you cry "NANNY STATE! SMALL GOVERNMENT!". If you own the lawn, suddenly it's "Small government isn't anarchy!"

    False dilemma.

    You're confusing personal ownership with collective ownership.

    Nobody gets to piss on my lawn, and I don't get to piss on anyone else's lawn, but that isn't the problem.

    The problem is that the government got large enough to own everybody's lawn, and then regulate the height of the grass.


  • I survived the hour long Uno hand

    @xaade said:

    The problem is

    That's really not the problem I have, no.


  • I survived the hour long Uno hand

    This must be super weird to watch two post-editors go at it... XD



  • @Yamikuronue said:

    Suddenly it's not so appealing, is it?

    Big leap between a service I can perform myself, like homeschooling, and a service that has way too big a barrier to entry, because it gets subsidies from the government.

    I have no problem with the government artificially creating alternatives.

    I have problems with the government coming in and monopolizing services under itself, and then blaming companies for being monopolies.


  • sockdevs

    @Yamikuronue said:

    When people talk about privatizing social functions, I like to imagine Comcast is the company that provides the essential service. Suddenly it's not so appealing, is it?

    Can you come over to the UK and teach Cameron and his cronies that skill? Hopefully it'll stop him trying to sell off the NHS bit-by-bit to companies only in it for profit.



  • @Yamikuronue said:

    This must be super weird to watch two post-editors go at it... XD

    It is.

    Also @boomzilla or @pjh or whoever has Jeffing abilities maybe shift things to a new thread?


  • I survived the hour long Uno hand

    It's not the subsidies that make it impossible to enter the market, it's the infrastructure. As soon as a school system is set up, the incremental costs of starting a new school will provide a barrier to entry for newcomers, allowing the system to stagnate, raise costs, lower service, and generally become Comcast. See the US healthcare system for a really good example.

    @locallunatic said:

    Jeffing

    Good idea

    FYI I have to go to a bunch of meetings, I'm not muting the thread yet :)



  • @Yamikuronue said:

    It's not the subsidies that make it impossible to enter the market, it's the infrastructure. As soon as a school system is set up, the incremental costs of starting a new school will provide a barrier to entry for newcomers, allowing the system to stagnate, raise costs, lower service, and generally become Comcast. See the US healthcare system for a really good example.

    Jeffing

    Good idea

    So your alternative is to let the government monopolize and not offer ANY alternatives?

    False dilemma I know, but what is your alternative?

    I mean, when someone comes in and complains that when companies get too big and create barriers to entry, I can't understand why they'd be for the government coming in and creating the ultimate barrier to entry, disallowing alternatives altogether and become the monopoly.

    It's as if people believe that government does everything out of the goodness of its heart and in no way experiences or is subject to greed and other factors that they blame private industry.


  • I survived the hour long Uno hand

    @xaade said:

    what is your alternative?

    It's all about balance. I feel like we need to trim the government's size by a lot, but not as much as the small government people say. I also feel sometimes like we ought to scrap the whole thing and start over from first principles, tbh. I think we rely too much on the false god of the free market, ignoring the fact that there's no such thing -- there's always outside pressures on the economy.



  • @Yamikuronue said:

    And anytime someone suggest putting checks to prevent the tyranny of the majority, people like you scream "SMALL GOVERNMENT!" and cut off all discussion.

    Huh? I call for small government and checks against tyranny of the majority all the time. I'm still angry that Senators are popularly elected.



  • @boomzilla said:

    I'm still angry that Senators are popularly elected.

    I'm more angry that a Senator in New York, that I can in no way get rid of, has the power to manipulate the environment such that my representation (especially when I was in Louisiana) is null and void.

    Fuck federal government.



  • @Yamikuronue said:

    Small government lets them piss on your lawn en masse until they kill it off, then throw a kegger to celebrate.

    Wat?

    @Yamikuronue said:

    If you want to piss on someone's lawn, and there's a law against it, you cry "NANNY STATE! SMALL GOVERNMENT!". If you own the lawn, suddenly it's "Small government isn't anarchy!"

    Wat wat wat?

    Do you honestly know of "small government" advocates who think that private property rights shouldn't be enforced by the government?



  • @Yamikuronue said:

    Ah, so your real position is trusting private corporations to have your children's' best interests in mind.

    I fear those corporations a lot less than the government, whose response to failure isn't to fail or change but to do more failing stuff.


  • I survived the hour long Uno hand

    @boomzilla said:

    Do you honestly know of "small government" advocates who think that private property rights shouldn't be enforced by the government?

    Yes. But I know a lot of really stupid people.



  • @Yamikuronue said:

    false god of the free market

    I do no such thing.

    I feel like its the lesser evil by a long shot.

    Balance would be to offer alternatives to the government at every turn possible.

    I absolutely love that I can ship via Fedex.
    That I can hire a Taxi.
    That I can have my own car.
    That I can join a fitness club and run through its private park.
    That I can buy books.
    That I can start a company.
    That I can hire a private doctor (I just lost the ability to keep my medical information private...)

    The opposite of all that is a socialistic government that monopolizes all those services.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @boomzilla said:

    Do you honestly know of "small government" advocates who think that private property rights shouldn't be enforced by the government?

    I can probably think of a couple.



  • I also know of a guy that bought up tons of carbon-credits and then tried to make them legally mandatory, all out of the goodness of his heart.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    I fear those corporations a lot more than the government, since their ideal motive isn't the betterment of the citizens, but profit. More often than not, those two ideals don't line up...

    ED: You can argue the point that government fails to perform its duties as assigned, and I won't disagree entirely, but the point stands... At least the government is supposed to do what's best for the people. Companies aren't, period.



  • @Yamikuronue said:

    I think we rely too much on the false god of the free market, ignoring the fact that there's no such thing -- there's always outside pressures on the economy.

    Yesss....the No True Free Market argument.



  • @FrostCat said:

    I can probably think of a couple.

    Who? Are these just random people or politicians or some other well known person?

    @sloosecannon said:

    I fear those corporations a lot more than the government, since their ideal motive isn't the betterment of the citizens, but profit. More often than not, those two ideals don't line up...

    Fuck that shit...

    “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

    Fuck it hard...

    It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest

    @sloosecannon said:

    ED: You can argue the point that government fails to perform its duties as assigned, and I won't disagree entirely, but the point stands... At least the government is supposed to do what's best for the people. Companies aren't, period.

    Even granting all that, it's still bullshit. Intentions aren't worth dick compared to results. And the Knowledge Problem prevents shit like central managers from being able to realize their good intentions. I'd rather rely on spontaneous order out of cooperation of independent agents looking for local maxima. AKA "The False God of the Free Market."


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @boomzilla said:

    Even granting all that, it's still bullshit. Intentions aren't worth dick compared to results. And the Knowledge Problem prevents shit like central managers from being able to realize their good intentions. I'd rather rely on spontaneous order out of cooperation of independent agents looking for local maxima. AKA "The False God of the Free Market."

    Or perhaps we should try to make the government better, rather than giving up and giving in to greed...

    I'm not saying your point is wrong, by the way - I understand where you're coming from and what you're saying. I just have what most would probably say is an "optimistic" view on the whole thing, and I think government can be made effective, if we try.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @boomzilla said:

    Who? Are these just random people or politicians or some other well known person?

    Essentially random people.

    The guy who runs coyoteblog is one of those "allow unrestricted immigration" types and I suspect he'd take the other view as well, just from reading his blog over the years.

    @sloosecannon said:

    Or perhaps we should try to make the government better

    If The Right People™ existed, we would have found them by now.

    Never appeal to a man's "better nature." He may not have one.
    Invoking his self-interest gives you more leverage.
    -- Lazarus Long



  • @sloosecannon said:

    Or perhaps we should try to make the government better, rather than giving up and giving in to greed...

    We should definitely make the government better. I don't think anyone is out there saying, "Let's make government worse!" I'm not sure what you mean by "giving in to greed," though.

    @sloosecannon said:

    ...and I think government can be made effective, if we try.

    I totally agree. It's the right body to do stuff like build roads and blow foreigners up. It's not the guys we need micromanaging motherfucking rasins.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    I seriously doubt we've determined the best governmental system yet :smile:

    We may never get to that point. But I hope we do.


  • sockdevs

    @sloosecannon said:

    I seriously doubt we've determined the best governmental system yet

    The best political system is always one we haven't yet tried ;)


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @sloosecannon said:

    I seriously doubt we've determined the best governmental system yet

    I don't think we need to, though. I think the ideals of the American one historically have done a pretty good job. We don't need to fiddle endlessly on the margins, try to come up with something new, or, heaven help us, increase the amount of socialism/communism/other totalitarianism involved.


  • sockdevs

    @FrostCat said:

    I think the ideals of the American one historically have done a pretty good job

    It's a pity the implementation is so fucked up (not that our system is any better)


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @boomzilla said:

    giving in to greed

    Corporations. Privatization of things. While it can be effective, it can also lead to legalized monopolies and un-restricted greed.

    @FrostCat said:

    I don't think we need to, though. I think the ideals of the American one historically have done a pretty good job. We don't need to fiddle endlessly on the margins, try to come up with something new, or, heaven help us, increase the amount of socialism/communism/other totalitarianism involved.

    I'd generally agree. I'd argue we need to watch out for moving in the other way too though...



  • @xaade said:

    Nobody gets to piss on my lawn

    What kind of tyranny do you live under, where a man can't piss on his own lawn?



  • @sloosecannon said:

    Corporations. Privatization of things. While it can be effective, it can also lead to legalized monopolies and un-restricted greed.

    "Legalized monopolies." Corporations don't make things legal. Public monopolies are a lot scarier because there's no way to get rid of them.

    @sloosecannon said:

    I'd argue we need to watch out for moving in the other way too though...

    Now if we could move that way a little bit.

    @flabdablet said:

    What kind of tyranny do you live under, where a man can't piss on his own lawn?

    I think he meant nobody who isn't him.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @flabdablet said:

    What kind of tyranny do you live under, where a man can't piss on his own lawn?

    Well if he lives here, I'd say there's a case for public indecency to be made :)


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.