- Joined
- Dec 23, 2009
- Messages
- 16,881
- Reaction score
- 2,980
- Location
- virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Private
i dont think so,its my opinion that every time a politician makes a good decision, its 'cause they're stoned
"Driving my train high on cocaine" ("Casey Jones")
Grateful Dead | Casey Jones lyrics
I voted yes. We drug test a lot of American workers whose drug use could cause harm to others. Politicians and bureaucrats can cause a worse train wreck than any of them. Why should they be immune?
Instead of drug tests, I would rather politicians were hooked up to a lie detector whenever they're speaking.
Look at your daily activities though, risk is involved every time to drive to work or eat food. Should we regulate every activity of every human being?
I know this is a touchy subject, but I would propose some form of population control. Not by killing anyone already alive, but by having an individual understand the risks of over population in the area they live, and choosing weather or not to have a child. In this way you wouldn’t keep treating symptoms of modern life, but create the conditions in which you can hope for a cure.
Instead of drug tests, I would rather politicians were hooked up to a lie detector whenever they're speaking.
If they fail any of the tests, then that needs to be treated as a medical problem. Failed the drug test? Addicted to something? Medical intervention is necessary. Failed the vision test? No different, just visit your optometrist.
For every job that could endanger the public is a very large list, every person taking these tests would require an enormous bureaucracy. Who would pay for it? Who would make sure you couldn't just buy your way around it? I think it would create more problems then it solves. Much like most government feel good fixes today.
It's a great idea in theory, but not workable, because most people aren't intelligent or thoughtful enough to live their lives according to what is sensible and sane. It's a shame, but it seems to be true.
I know, but the alternative is to use force on others or do nothing. Using force is kind of amoral and creates problems like restance and unintended consequences. Doing nothing means our species will no longer be able to support it self and we could all die or have unthinkable consequences like total control over everyone who lives, with the people who make those choices main goal of staying in power and acquiring more power.
You left out option 3. Let nature take its course, and let people suffer the consequences of their choices at the personal level.
Like we did with the housing markets idea that everyone should be able to afford a house regardless of ability to pay? How about with the Government getting involved with the banks to make sure that there would be enough money to buy goods, like oil and gas.
Over population and good intentions are two conditions that could wipe out every man woman and child on Earth. That is a big risk, understanding it and letting others see that risk may lead to solutions, instead of mistakes.
My personal belief is that humans have much more capability than they know, but many have forgotten what they can accomplish and what life requires.
The issue is people like you and me who have time to post on debate politics are fairly well off compared to others. We don't know what it is like living on the streets or what daily life is for them. Unless do live that life we never will.
We do have good intentions though, we want to feel like we helped in some way and ask for a change effecting those who have no voice. We do this not knowing what that change we are asking for will really do.
Unintended consequences.
My other point was an idea that government should be smaller and not try to fix everything.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?