nope... still disagree. the laws, imnsho, don't rein in anyone unless you believe that laws actually prevent folks from doing stupid things.

Sort of like the belief that the threat of Capital Punishment 'keeps people from killing people.'

If anything, those laws 'prevent' people who wouldn't commit that kind of crime in the first place and have no effect on the ones who would anyway... whether the crime is murder or running red lights and stop signs.

That's what I meant in my 'confession' that I DO 'run red lights' but ONLY when it's safe, imnsho, to do so, AND the light appears to be malfunctioning.

Laws are created as reminders in society for 'things to Don't Do.' If you say they 'rein in' people from doing bad stuff, you'd have to then quantify what percentage of participants ARE 'reined in' and what percentage are NOT, as well as WHY...

Whole 'nother discussion... :)

Sorry about your co-worker.
The laws will only do so much. People sometimes choose to not follow them. Could you imagine the anarchy if there were no laws? At least the laws rein in most people.

jp, the law against running the red light WAS already there; the LAW didn't protect him from being killed.

One of my co-workers, dozens of years ago, was killed by a repeat-offender drunk driver as she was returning to work from her lunch hour.
Beautiful, successful young girl. Just graduating with a degree, had a great boyfriend, and some bitch t-boned her. I'd complimented her on her looks while walking in to work that day. By early afternoon she was dead.

And the LAWS (i.e., LACK of 'anarchy') were also 'on the books already' about drunk driving. The t-boner-bitch was estimated at roughly 60 in a 35 zone.

It's not the laws or lack thereof; it's people's behavior! Laws may lead to punishment, and SOMETIMES they discourage people from doing stupid things, but they are NOT primary means of 'danger prevention.'

I agree completely Robbie.

The bottom is where too many projects fail though. Management often (not always thankfully) has a tendency to think they can issue orders and demands and get exactly what they envision. But in reality since so many of them have rarely if ever done the work they are trying to manage, the instructions leave a lot to be desired.

If the workforce buys in, they will get it done anyway, and help correct the procedures. But if they don't buy in they do what they are told and things wind up worse than before the project started.

Six Sigma is very much a team effort, and buy in is required at all levels.

Unfortunately too many people cause the projects to either have problems, or flat out fail when they get defensive, or try to control things about which they are clueless. And you are right, its usually the middle that goes wonky on you.

This morning, just before leaving for work, my wife referred to her work as Communist. She is very close to shrugging.

I would protect my family with my life. But I wont do it without a fight!!!!!!!

My best friend was killed on his motorcycle because some woman ran a red light at 10:30 pm. He had the green light and she turned left in front of him and he hit her broad side. Killed him instantly. She didn't even get a ticket even though she admitted to running the light!!!!

You are missing the point that without the law there would be anarchy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And why are the 'cops of today' different?
(and your first answer is probably wrong, too... )
:)

jpellone... yes, only laws and rationale can even stand in the way of you speeding on roads or running stop signs and traffic signals.

But most of the laws against that stuff came from societal agreement to set up some limits so that folks who want to do those things can, in some cases, be made to take responsibility for their actions, and especially if those actions actually hurt other people. And speeding and running red lights can greatly increase the odds of hurting (or killing) an innocent victim.

Anarchy is, again, a straw dog thrown into discussions to deflect the discussion away from the concept of personal responsibility and rationale.

One of my favorite examples used to be the Autobahn in Germany, back when it had NO speed limits AT ALL posted anywhere. Total anarchy.
I kept getting passed by faster cars because my rental had a huge front end vibration above about 60 mph. I learned to pass quickly before the headlights in my rearview mirror quickly got 'wider' and flashed furiously.
Then I asked a German friend about the speed limits and accidents on the 'Bahn... He said that there were few problems. If someone went off the road with an accident, they didn't bother to send police or ambulance, just a wrecker to remove the shredded wreck from the field nearby. Survival chances at those speeds were negligible and accidents were often single-car wrecks. So, at one level... no problemo.

When I have to wait, alone, for a minute or more for a red light to change, I occasionally will, With Extreme Caution, go through the intersection. My stepson-lawyer told me that I could claim to have assumed that the signal has sustained some kind of electrical or mechanical failure if no cars had come through the intersection on the crossing road during that period. I've probably done that dozens of times.
But VERY carefully. And never been caught, ticketed or involved in an accident.

But if 'everyone' did that 'all the time' for 'any reason,' it Would be anarchy and Very Dangerous, and you should bet that folks like me would rarely, if ever, run those lights or signs.

Or, as I've learned over the decades, the 'right answer' is often "It Depends."
:)

Absolutely right!

AND.... re: "The root cause is quite simply the collectivist and statist mongering and pandering that we've all accepted in our society for far too long. "....

Why have the mongering and pandering been accepted [or even tolerated] 'far too long'?

And you think that was an 'inane question'?
I am an advocate of Critical Thinking, and some folks have labeled my approach as Socratic. Whatever...

When people pose issues that 'need fixing,' I approach the stated problems NOT with 'my answer' (unless they demand it, but only under duress...) but with the Question Cycle of "well, why DOES THAT HAPPEN?"

The 'problem' as I see it, is that 'everyone' wants The Answer to come from that initial posing of the question. I believe that, in most cases, that's impossible.

The First Answer to "Why?" is nearly always simple, easy and wrong.

Why Things Go Wrong requires, in my NEVER so humble opinion, the Repeated Asking of "Why does THAT occur" until you get close to what might actually be a Root Cause of The Problem.

Why do people steal?
Because they are poor and need stuff.
Why are they poor?
Because the system screws them over.
Why does 'the system screw them over'?
Because it's designed to do that.
Why is it designed to do that?
Because it's run by money-grubbing rich folks.
Why do MGRF's run it?
Because they have money and power.
Why do they have money and power?
Because they inherited it or have political pull.
Why do they have political pull?
Because our political system is built that way.
Why is it built that way?

In my experience, unless one or both sides of that Why-Because 'dialogue' deliberately try to avoid finding Root Cause, a rational give and take on that WILL get close to Root Cause in no LESS than about six iterations. And those are the Easy Issues.

Some month or so ago, I engaged my step-grandson in such a discussion on a subject he'd inquired about. We went, according to his count, something like ELEVEN layers down and still hadn't found Root Cause, and it wasn't because we weren't both trying to find it.

The issue was, in Reality, just That Complex as to require that kind of in-depth search!

I'll now go back up the thread a bit and demonstrate how my questions could be applied to some of the 'answers' AND questions above.

Thanks for participating and inspiring.

Zen - We're on the same page. I didn't take your comment as criticism at all. I think my comment and its tone was a combination of two things. 1. I had something to say, and 2. I am not bashful about hearing my head rattle when I am convinced that I am right about something.

Zenphamy: Well said. I concur with your statement that individuals should denounce the injustices, the unlawful actions that occur within the fields they work and participate.
It is a responsibility that, as you say, would preserve the freedoms and rights of our society.
Thank you for your passionate responses.
JC

JC; I appreciate your thoughts on the matter and you're very right about those others in our society that are permitted by us to poison the minds of children and judges as well as many others. But, yes I condemn those within such systems or with such responsibilities that are individually honorable, ethical humans that don't stand up to the wrongness, even criminality they work with and see on a day to day business.

Taking principled stands are the only way that we can maintain our freedoms and rights against those in our societies that wish to deny such. IMHO

Excellent point freedomforall!! +1

Alright! Your actions show that aggression isn't always required.

Isn't there a quote by someone to the effect that good government fears it's citizens and tyranny has the citizens fearing the government?

Yes, all of us. And I believe that mindset transfer down the the cop on the street as well.

Interesting, I hadn't considered the roid problem.

Please don't misunderstand. I for one appreciated your comment. You have obviously given the matter serious consideration.

Yes Abaco, and it's so sad that we leave our children such a dangerous situation.

If anarchy means a tightly limited and controlled government not intruding into our lives and private property and people do anything they want limited only by the identical rights of anyone else and their own desires, then I guess I could be called one, but that's not what an anarchist is. I'm simply an Objectivist that believes in man's individual natural rights.

I simply have no interest whatsoever in determining or limiting what you or anyone else does with their lives and actions up to the point of attempting to use or apply force to me or stealing from me.

You brought up the need for police to control 'hostile areas' and that justifies the war type actions that police partake in and apply to their interactions with citizens. And yes, if someone else make's it necessary for me to protect myself and my property, I am prepared. As anyone should be.

Looks that way, doesn't it.