Should elevators and escalators be illegal?

[DevilMayCry]

people shud use stairs imo. its healthier. but there some people old or with disabilities wich they need to use elevators or escalators.. and having gaurds just for esc/ele is just stuipd i think they shud just let it be.. people still drive cars when theyre drunk and crashing everywhere. noone can stop it

 

[FreedomFight]

Democracy is one of the worst forms of government. Rule of the mob. Two wolves and sheep deciding what's for lunch.

No form of government is perfect. Morally speaking, you'll find the best form of government to be some sort of totalitarian dictatorship.

I'd be interested to hear a new alternative where majority opinion can be overruled without an even greater restriction of liberty; after all, you can't just shout "Let's be nice guys!". And if you're thinking of anarchy as the solution, explain to me how.

 

[Repentless]

OMG.

Cars kill people too!

So do plane crashes!

Let's make cars and planes ILLEGAL!

Wait, guys... I just read that people can fall down NORMAL STAIRS.

We should just make all multiple story structures illegal!

(AKA the government needs to keep out of people's lives.)

 

[DropKick Murphys]

By all means, you do not have to consent. You are, however, forced to obey.

Why am I forced to obey? Because they have the most guns?
And you support this organization?

 

[Arya]

No, it's not. Now I ask you:

Does that mean we can't try to change it?

You can try all you want.

Does that mean it'll work?
Probably not. Like Murphy said, they have the biggest guns.

Yes of course the government has that power right now. But does that mean we should just sit around and say nothing?

Until you actually have the legal power to do something about it, yes. Whining and revolting will only cause death, pain, and headaches.

Whoa. So are you saying that people are too dumb to make their own decisions? Why do you think this?

In America, we agree to disagree. Putting, 'The People' in charge would only bring mayhem and destruction. In such a scenario where the people were truly in charge, opposites wouldn't attratch.

Yeah, but does that mean we should just act like it is right and do nothing? We need to speak out and wake people up from this dream.

You don't have to act like it's right. The First ammendment tells us that.
Do you not realize how corrupt the system is?

Speak out, get shot. Become a robot or become an inmate.
^For the individual or group trying to "Wake up", these are your options.
Which brings me back to my original point. I don't agree with the governments powers and abilities, but I tolerate them.

Why am I forced to obey? Because they have the most guns?
And you support this organization?

Oh, God. How many times must I type that I do not agree with them?
Yes, you are forced to obey because they have biggest, best guns in the game. Simple.

 

[Alex k]

Why is this even up for discussion?

30 people a year in the US? Thats about how many people die from attempting to cook a pancake

Elevators are about as dangerous as any other manmade machine.

Imagine how many people use elevators in the US (note 1 person could count as up to around 500 elevator uses during a year)

And now notice that only 30 times people have died in 12 months.

 

[Arya]

Why is this even up for discussion?

30 people a year in the US? Thats about how many people die from attempting to cook a pancake

Elevators are about as dangerous as any other manmade machine.

Imagine how many people use elevators in the US (note 1 person could count as up to around 500 elevator uses during a year)

And now notice that only 30 times people have died in 12 months.

17,000 injuries.

 

[Metallicion]

Why should we ban elevators and esculators? If you are fully capable to walk into an elevator/walk onto a levitating step and wait patiently, there should be no problem at all unless the elevator malfunctions which is no one to blame since its technology and technology usually craps out over a period of years. Now say there are people who run into an elevator like a maniac or fool around on an esculator. They are asking for a death wish and should not spoil it for the others in having quick access to areas.

 

[dam prayer noobs]

No form of government is perfect. Morally speaking, you'll find the best form of government to be some sort of totalitarian dictatorship.

I'd be interested to hear a new alternative where majority opinion can be overruled without an even greater restriction of liberty; after all, you can't just shout "Let's be nice guys!". And if you're thinking of anarchy as the solution, explain to me how.

What is it with you and majority opinion. If the majority wanted it to be a requirement to go to church would you agree with that? If the majority wanted all black people to count as 3/5ths of a person, would you agree with that? What the majority wants is not always right, and it gives the majority the power to do whatever the fuck it wants, including infringing on minority rights. The United States was not made as a democracy, it was made as a constitutionally limited republic. There is nothing about democracy anywhere in the constitution.

The best form of government would be a limited government that only serves to protect life, property and liberty. It would protect minority rights. "That government is best which governs least"

 

[FreedomFight]

The best form of government would be a limited government that only serves to protect life, property and liberty. It would protect minority rights. "That government is best which governs least"

You've dodged the question. I'm with majority opinion because it's our closest guide to real morality. That is, any government can make demands, but very few remain stable without democracy. Either the majority will rule, or the rich will rule; a government lets them continue to rule, but with constaint.

You seem to idealize how you see a government. You can't just "protect" things without inadvertently restricting the liberty of others. The question here isn't whether this protection is neccessary, but rather who decides whether this protection falls within reasonable constraints.

So I'll clarify what I mean, who do you think should be the ones to draw the gray moral line? And if you tell me you see morality as debate of black and white as well, you might as well consider turning the "let's outlaw everything" idealogy into a seroius thread. I'd hope not.

 

[Demented Radio]

No... I'm honestly to lazy to walk up normal stairs.

 

[dam prayer noobs]

You've dodged the question. I'm with majority opinion because it's our closest guide to real morality. That is, any government can make demands, but very few remain stable without democracy. Either the majority will rule, or the rich will rule; a government lets them continue to rule, but with constaint.

No, you don't understand. You have this stupid idea that big government is completely necessary, big government is the cause of all our problems. No matter how perfect your blue print for a big central government will be, I guarantee you 100% that it will become corrupt in a couple of years. It's simple, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. This is obvious throughout all of human history. When the constitution was written, the founding fathers even said that this system will probably turn into despotism in a few years, and look where we are now.

It's not either majority will rule, or the rich will rule. No one needs to rule anyone, I don't know why people have this stupid assumption that people need to be controlled, it's retarded.

You seem to idealize how you see a government. You can't just "protect" things without inadvertently restricting the liberty of others. The question here isn't whether this protection is neccessary, but rather who decides whether this protection falls within reasonable constraints.

The thing is, when you start putting restrictions on stupid shit like crack, guns, etc. because you think it's putting people in danger, that's when you go too far. Guns don't kill people, crazy motherfuckers with guns kill people. Only the basics need to apply, if one citizen starts attacking or stealing from another citizen, then thats fucked up. It doesn't matter what drugs he was on or what gun he carried, he fucking hurt/stole from another person, so that's what he should be punished for. When you start putting restrictions on material objects, that's when the avalanche starts and next thing you know you are being governed by a dictator.

So I'll clarify what I mean, who do you think should be the ones to draw the gray moral line? And if you tell me you see morality as debate of black and white as well, you might as well consider turning the "let's outlaw everything" idealogy into a seroius thread. I'd hope not.

What the fuck is it with you and this black and white shit. There should still be courts, where people go to find out exactly what happened and what the punishment should be. But laws should be kept simple, life, liberty and property. No drug law bullshit or gun control bullshit, they are only tools.

 

[FreedomFight]

No, you don't understand. You have this stupid idea that big government is completely necessary, big government is the cause of all our problems.

I don't like BIG government.

It's not either majority will rule, or the rich will rule. No one needs to rule anyone, I don't know why people have this stupid assumption that people need to be controlled, it's retarded.

Maybe it's because frankly, people are retarded. After all, if people were that self-capable to begin with, they wouldn't let themselves be ruled would they?

What the fuck is it with you and this black and white shit. There should still be courts, where people go to find out exactly what happened and what the punishment should be. But laws should be kept simple, life, liberty and property. No drug law bullshit or gun control bullshit, they are only tools.

Ok, so you've established there will be courts. Now who gets to say what's wrong? You're in favor of an open juror who use their own guidelines to decide guilt?

 

[DropKick Murphys]

Why would you want an enforced monopoly on justice and courts, dpn?

 

[dam prayer noobs]

Maybe it's because frankly, people are retarded. After all, if people were that self-capable to begin with, they wouldn't let themselves be ruled would they?

Well people don't let themselves be ruled because they think they are retarded. They have a belief that a central government is necessary to create order and without it, everyone would run around killing each other. They think it's either government, or no government, and no government would allow the rich to rule, so they choose government. What they don't know is that a little bit of government is all they need.

And how are you implying that people aren't "safe-capable." I mean people go to work and pay taxes, I don't understand how government makes people any more capable...

Ok, so you've established there will be courts. Now who gets to say what's wrong? You're in favor of an open juror who use their own guidelines to decide guilt?

Ah, but when did I say my idea of a court is the same as your idea of a court? I personally think the jury idea is flawed. It lets a small group of people, with all their prejudices and logical flaws, decide the fate of a person. We saw in the early 20th century, if a white policeman brutally attacked a black person, an all white jury would render the white policeman innocent just because they were all racist bastards.

The guidelines need to be natural law. Everyone can agree on these laws and they have validity everywhere. I personally think something similar to the 19 laws that are written in Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan can do the job just fine.

Why would you want an enforced monopoly on justice and courts, dpn?

I can't really think of any other way to do it. How else would theives and murderers be brought to justice? I think the justice system needs to be completely changed though. The hierarchy of courts need to be done away with and courts should remain local. The jury system needs to be done away with and a guideline of natural laws that everyone can agree on needs to be implemented.

 

[Chantecleer]

This is another freedom-obstructing retardation of a law, why not make walking illegal? People die when they cross the street every year.

 

[dam prayer noobs]

This is another freedom-obstructing retardation of a law, why not make walking illegal? People die when they cross the street every year.

That's the whole point of this thread lol. If people think the government has the authority to protect people from anything, then they should agree with the government banning things like fast-food, which possibly leads to heart attacks and fining people who don't look both ways before crossing the street.

 

[Jay_0x]

LOL!

People would cause mayhem in my opinion if the government tried to make tax for using them.

It wouldn't burn that much calories going up and down stairs either. =|

 

[Chantecleer]

That's the whole point of this thread lol. If people think the government has the authority to protect people from anything, then they should agree with the government banning things like fast-food, which possibly leads to heart attacks and fining people who don't look both ways before crossing the street.

i think they should fuck off, but at the same time it would seem irresponsible of a government, and maybe not have a very progressive nation. It is really confusing.

 

[dam prayer noobs]

i think they should fuck off, but at the same time it would seem irresponsible of a government, and maybe not have a very progressive nation. It is really confusing.

But why should government hold the responsibility to baby millions of people? We are all adults correct? So shouldn't we hold the responsibility to treat our own bodies however we wish? A body is an individual's property correct? So isn't a government that says what you are allowed or not allowed to do with your property imply that the government has some ownership of your property?