Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Also NC
“I agree there should be rules against drunk driving (not sure why you keep saying I say otherwise)”
I keep saying otherwise because, 1)when ifirst brought it up (and the many times since) you never said you agree with me on that issue, so seems fair to assume you dont and 2) you are opposed to any restrictions on weapons including nuclear weapons it seems a bit funny to defend peron’s right to but a dirty bomb but not to drive drunk. I can come up with a few distictions, so definitly not a stirah or anything, just a bit funny
“Again, individualism isn’t anti-rule and has nothing to do with government. It’s a philosophical school associated with people like Ralph Waldo Emmerson. It has no shaychus to anything you’re saying.”
We’ve been discussing this for over a month
In one of your first comments to me you wrote “Any crimes where the victims cannot functionally stick up for themselves (child abuse, animal abuse, elder abuse, poisoning a town’s water supply) are good arguments you could use against me”
I thought you were arguing that you oppose all government rulesI first brought up drunk driving 12/26, admittedly you never said otherwise. you did say “I’m b’klal anti-government …Probably because I’m not really a libertarian. They would concede to the “usefulness” of government a lot earlier than I would in this conversation” and that you were “Closer to an Anarchist…. but I have my priorities. Some parts of government more urgently need to be dissolved than others”
“If someone is willing to take the risk of killing himself and/or other people, it isn’t a traffic ticket that’s going to stop him…they’re punitive not preventative.”
Of course they’re preventative, if a person is driving drunk, they can (and often are) stoped BEFORE they harm someone .
and this is orne out by data*. And many drunk people think thye are “good drivers” even drunk , and arent afraid of accidents thye are more afraid of losing their license.I agree regarding your federal government distinction.
I’m fine getting rid of NASA, though the problem is who decides who the “bad guys “are
Some say those banning drunk driving are the bad guys ., well too bad on those unenlightened simpletons. Of course if they convince enough people that drunk driving is good (or that laws dont help) then well get rid of the laws
ditto for NASA*Kane, J. M., Wickizer, T. M., Sorensen, G., Boudreau, D., & Wells, K. (2019). Association of State Alcohol Laws With Motor Vehicle Crash Mortality in the United States, 2000-2015. JAMA Internal Medicine.
It just occurred to me
You said
” I don’t agree with them, because in a free market you can take your business elsewhere (at least more freely than you can take your citizenship elsewhere). The larger country or state is worse because it’s inherently a monopoly and even worse a monopoly that can force people to give it money.”
Obviously moving is never easy but it is doable.
You say an HOA can make rules on the individual “Anyone can just leave the pack at any time. Where’s the coercion there?”
AAQ says even a State can make rules on the individual “If majority becomes too overbearing, people can move away to other states.”
And I say even on the federal level“because in a free market you can take your business elsewhere (at least more freely than you can take your citizenship elsewhere). The larger country or state is worse because it’s inherently a monopoly and even worse a monopoly that can force people to give it money.”
Got it thanks
“To clarify as best as I can, if you were asking:
-As an individualist, would I support HOA rules that are collectivist in nature simply because an HOA is private not public? No, individualism doesn’t have anything to do with government or lack-thereof.
-Are anarchists ok with HOA rules? Depends on which school of anarchism. That one is probably the far more interesting question, but I’m not really the person to ask.”It was the second.
.” If you’re now admitted to making decisions based on your own self-interests rather than for the good of the motherland/humanity/collective/whatever, then you’re theoretically an individualist, but I don’t really buy it. Your stances show that you do want to tell people who to live their lives even when it has no effect on you whatsoever.”
I don’t really buy it either. I think I would support telling people how to live even when it has no effect on me whatsoever.. But IM more on the fence about it and definitely don’t think its crazy or evil to think otherwise. That was not the part of your view I found interesting (again IM not sure especially when we consider that the example I did call evil namely being ok with child molestation (not that you’re ok with it but your system is) isn’t one that affects me yet that was one of my earliest problems with your approach).
Allowing people to hurt other people is not an individualist ideal, nor have I ever claimed it was.
No but it is an inevitable absolute certain outcome of your approach. More so than mine. If there is no rule against drunk driving people will drive drunk and hurt other people (even with the rule people do it 1. Its probably less 2. We can stop them if caught BEFORE anyone is hurt)
“What’s the ikker here? … but it’s not coercion if people agree to it.”
I think thats the ikker
What do you mean by “people agree” if you mean a majority then that is what government is*. If you dont like our rules then like in HOA as you said “Anyone can just leave the pack at any time. Where’s the coercion there?”
You said “You would look into the HOA rules before buying a home, right? By buying it, you are agreeing to the rules.” Same is true when you (or your ancestors) immigrated here you look into US laws before settling here by living here you are agreeing to the rules
Why isnt a state or a larger country (like you I agree this distinction today is arbitrary) simply a large HOA?
(The only distrintion I can think of is, I’m not sure you should be bound by your parents’ immigration thats why I included “or inherited a home in HOA” but at least for an immigrant who willingly came here why is it wrong to have them follow the laws (including system in place to create new laws) that they agreed to follow by living here
* unless when you meant by “People agree” it has to be ALL people even if the bylaws stated that questions are decided by the majority that is inheritly amoral and wrong which is what I thought you were saying by “but I sort of reject the whole idea of “groups.”” but later you say “Yes, obviously, and so do you. If this imaginary HOA built into the contract that they can evict or fine people even for headphones, then I guess it wouldn’t make a difference in that universe…. it’s not coercion if people agree to it.” implying you are ok with the group trumping an individual.
NC
“Even a hardcore collectivist such as yourself is inherently acting on your own self-interests. You’ve just convinced yourself of your own benevolence and selflessness”
for sure true (the first part) I dont want drunk drivers becasue I dont want to get hit by one. This is true for all the examples given I dont want anyone to have access to chemical weapons becasue I dont want them to harm me (or those I care about)
“. If you cared about people, you would let them live their best lives by their own free will. ”
No this is silly. Letting someone follow his beleif of achieving eternal salvation by following his free will and releasing a chemical weapon isn not “caring about people” ditto for drunk driving, poisoing water. or all the examples we gave.
The one time were it was strictly carign about OTHER people, Seatbelt laws were I dont cover their health care, I’m a little conflicted should we protect “the brain too stupid enough to protect itself”? I’m not sure.” This trait is shared by seemingly all doctors, so I find it impossible to believe that you’re “the odd one out” in the people you associate with. Most doctors basically wish America was North Korea.”
I dont hang really hang out with doctors, and definitely never discuss politicsWhat’s the ikker here?
Trying to understand your view of the groups, at first yo usaid “The simplest answer is that individuals trump groups, but I sort of reject the whole idea of “groups.”” Though HOA’s you are ok with . Which is throwing me off a little
“You gave no reasons as to why it’s not arbitrary. You just repeated several times that it’s not even though I think it is. ”
Apologies I thought I did .Arbitrary means with no rhyme or reason
An individual acts in his own self interest, even at the detriment of others. People have different even conflicting self interests. Too sort out who wins we created a government to weigh different options, whats more important this guy living here or a road to benefit many? So the Government representing the people decides on behaldf of the most people. This is not the same as an a individual deciding for himself.you definitely dont agree with it. But it isnt “Random” it is a system. A bad one in your opinion, but a system nonthless.
“You agree in principle that someone should not be coerced into paying for a product they don’t want… but, somehow it’s okay when the government does exactly that, ah but only in cases where you personally approve it, so not the Ford example. The only reason the philosophical logic makes sense to you is because you were raised with it and have never considered anything else. ”
No, its not ok when the government does that. It is ok when the government does that for the benefit of society. So would society beenfit if you had a Frod? No therefore it is an example I dont approve. Would society benefit if you had to buy Auto insurance yes, therefore you have to buy that.
how did we decide Ford is not beneficial but auto insurance is? We elect representives to decide these things.
(IF you dont like the representative sytem, we can switch to direct democracy but that ios a side issue, the main issue is that as a group we are all better off if indivudals follow rules)
Again, I’m not trying to convince you. But this isnt arbitraary this a clear system.,“he only reason the philosophical logic makes sense to you is because you were raised with it and have never considered anything else.”
No IVe considered it, I’ll consider it again. Do I want drunk drivers ? Nope. Molested children? nope (not sure if this is due to self interest but if it is, stil ldont want it) people poluting my drinking water? nope I dont like it.
If you are still going to steadfastly refuse to consider the possibility that this axiom of government’s right to coerce is false, then why are you still talking to me?”
Ive considered the possibility
As I said I find your view fascinatingNC
Thanks for your engagement thus far.
The thrust of our disagreement has been over how much weight to give the individual vs collective. with you placing individual liberty higher than collective even at the expense of the group .
I’m curious if this is a strictly government thing, or individuals always trump groups
to illustrate:A group of us buy land together and start our own community say a bungalow colony.
We create Laws that we want our community to adhere to, and we decide all music is evil . no music ! doesnt matter Jewish goyish loud quiet earphones or speakers.1) Is this wrong in your view, since the individual is losing his rights? Or no, the individual chose to join the group and that includes giving up his right to music
2) does the above change if one of the individuals doesn’t like the rule, but feels pressured to go along with it (he likes other aspects of the community location price people etc). Is it immoral to force him to abide by it?
3) A few years later I change my mind about the rule, I no longer want to abide by it. Do I have the right to start listening to music or am I bound by the community rule (I’m not asking legally (lets say this wasn’t written in any contract so it is not enforceable in court they just agreed to each other this was the rule they would follow) I’m asking morally)
4) I bought or inherited one of these homes, am I bound by the rules? I never agreed to them
5) Is any of the above different if I play music quietly on earphones (hard to imagine how that affects anyone else. even Icant come up with an argument) vs out loud on speakers on my porch vs at 2 AMdont feel pressured to answer 1, 2 etc if easier to just elaborate on your philosophy that is just as good.
thanks
NC
“the arbitrary distinction everyone makes between private and government in the favor of government (eg. a corporation paving over a community = evil, but the government eminent domain’ing over a community = progress)”
I’m not sure thats arbitrary. Arbitrary means based on random choice or whim. There’s a reason why we have that distinction. A good reason in my opinion, one that you certainly reject but that doesn’t make it a not system. Its not random that we allow the government to lock up people even kill people but not private people, similarly the government taking over land is not the same as a private person doing so. I get that in your view it is (if not worse) but the distinction is not arbitrary.
I do agree that staes vs federal distinction, today is somewhat arbitrary. Historically people views it as “These United States” though htis is has been largely if not completely supplanted by “The United States”
NC
“. You would also oppose emergency powers for the president since there are almost no checks or balances to that potential stupidity.”
I oppose that
EPA is harder, I dont know if every regulation is practical for Congress to decide.
“The mere fact that you are shocked by the novelty of caring about individual liberty”
Its not the novelty of caring about individual liberty that shocks me. ITs caring about individal liberty at the expense of others.
Letting people poison water supplies, have access to chemical weapons , be free to molest children, have fires burn in their homes in a dense neighborhood to cite some of the examples weve covered.“. So, yes, I can tell you confidently that Avram and I hang out with better people.”
could be, but that doesn’t change the fact that the people I hang out with exist too. and will cause real damage (not MAY cause) on the rest of us.” You either exist in a very liberal bubble, or modern-day conservatives just do a terrible job of articulating these concepts because they’re too busy whining about political correctness and other things that don’t matter, so you’ve never actually come across the real meat of it before.”
I definitely don’t exist in a liberal bubble. I’m the odd one out in my circles
And You definitely don’t fit in with “modern day conservatives” modern day conservatives are a cholent of ideas limited government but more restrictions on abortion for example, drug use . Which definitely don’t fit your view.
In fact I think conservatives are closer to my view in this thread that to yours. Even regarding seatbelt laws (see below), while I couldn’t find a poll to find their support among the populace in general, and conservatives in particular. It is telling that in 49/50 states (all except NH “Live free or die”) there are laws requiring seatbelts. Granted this doesn’t PROVE that Conservatives support them per se, ?government over reach perhaps, but hard to imagien they are as opposed to them as you are“Ubiq, could you explain within your shittah why it wouldn’t just be intrinsically better for everyone if you were just the dictator of the country? ”
Oh it for shure would. Though I wont last forever and who would replace me? And besides as Avram pointed out absolute power corrupts absolutly, so I’m not sure even a benevolent dictator like me would stay benevolent for long. and as you point out everyone feels that way, so How would we settle on me? We need some way to choose the best dictator, and some way to prevent the dictator from being to powerful, and some way to get rid of the dictator after a couple years , and … guess what we just created! the best system! Pluas as mentioned earlier “best” is a bit vague is best water the cleanest? Safest ? cheapest? tastiest? different people disagree./ by coming together we come up wit ha system that satisfies the most people
Regarding seatbelts I explained ” given that we share healthcare costs ”
Though you said “then I’m sorry but you cannot in good faith keep saying that you “only support regulations when it affects others.”” I dont think thats what I said. I do support laws against suicide. I’m a little conflicted about motorcycle helmets laws since as Seinfeld pointed out “the idea behind the helmet law is to preserve a brain, who’s judgement is so poor, that it doesn’t even try to prevent the cracking of the head it’s in” Especially when you consider an unintended consequence namely that in Florida without helmet laws the wait for Kidney donation is much shorter since have all these otherwise healthy people dying with useful kidneys that can be used by others.
But Im not automatically agaisnt a regulation that doesnt affect others
Though again this is a side point. If we vote to get rid of seatbelt laws and helmet laws I can live with that. I would vote to keep them since even stupid people deserve protection, but if you argue that stupid people deserve the right to die ok I can live with that (maybe we can exclude them from health care policies or something , or say if EMS gets called “was he wearing seatbelt?… , no? ok were not coming” similar to your proposal for fire insurance). I dont think that is as unreasonable as your other suggestions, therefore similar to my discussion with Avram it isnt so interesting to me
you want to get rid of seatbelt laws? fine I accept“We could just easily flip this argument on you: People are all selfish and stupid as individuals unless they work for the government? Only people working for the government want what’s best? Seems odd.”
Oh very odd. But as A GROUP it would work, not “as individuals” thats why your appointing me a dictator wile it sounds like a good idea, actually isnt.
avram
“Hasn’t been my experience. Maybe you hang out in better groups 🙂”
Lol! love it
“You’re in the medical field. Is it a quibble on HOW MUCH medication to give a patient? ”
Yes! great analogy If a patient comes in with say shortness of breath and 2 doctors disagree on dose of antibiotics thats a minor quibble . If doctor C says no its viral and doesn’t need antibiotics or COPD exacerbation and needs nebs/steroids THAT is a disagreement (of course in real life these patients get all of the above or as a medical satire blog jokingly wrote FUROSESONEROLAQUINOX )
Agree completely on celebrity worship
And mostly agree with your last paragraph. There does need to be more accountability
avram
quick clarification of what I meant by “and I’m not sure we are “debating” I don’t think there is a possible winner.”
Yo uare are of course right that strictly speaking it is a debate. I meant that I’m not looking to convince him nor do I supect it is possible, nor am I looking to be convinced (it definitely isn’t possible).
Most people I hang out with are fairly similar. We agree more than we disagree, yo ufall squarely into that category. You said “That’s why we need some government regulations and enforcement” Sure a little more regulation a little less, more weight to the individual vs to the collective. meh that isnt interesting to me (no offense) Your entire last reply and mine didn’t really add anythingIm just learning more about a fascinating view. One that advocates for unrestricted access to biological weapons, , thats not a view I encounter everyday
Also one other point:
your point about the constitution shows the opposite you said “When reading the US Constitution, it seems that the biggest concern it attempted to address was the behavior of government, not of individuals.” they took it as a given that a government was necessary. Sure they favored a limited government, but the need for a Government was a given “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” EXACTLY as IVe been saying not like NC
They (correctly) realized that every man for himself would NOT result in general welfare notr establish Justice nor secure blessings etc .
Again this isnt a real chidush to you I iamgine you agree, (of course he can argue that they were wrong, and would have MORE general welfare and blessings of Liberty WITHOUT a constiton. ) Sure we can quible how strictly you interpret the constitution but again I dont find that particularly interesting“So your presumption is, in essence, that individuals are too stupid or selfish to do the right thing, so we need some form of “benevolent” collective that, in addition to providing societal services, also rigorously polices behavior”
Yes. Exactly right
“The catch to the collective is that it is really just a bunch of individuals put together, so it follows that they will also be too stupid and selfish to do the right thing. ”
No, with a group of people and checks and balances hope is the stupidy will “even out”
“My presumption is that most individuals try to do what is best for themselves and for others. There is a minority who are anti-social or malevolent, and some who may be ignorant of the effect of an action on others”
Hasn’t been my experience. Maybe you hang out with better people. That’s why we need some government regulations and enforcement”
Great! So you agree with me.
sure we can quibble on HOW MUCH regulation.
Though doesnt this undermine your problem with my approach. If most people “try to do what is best for themselves and for others” then how did we we get ham handed Covid policies that treated citizens as if they were the problem, not the virus?
People want whats best unless theyre int eh government? seems odd, and even if true ok then lets get a new governmentMy guess is that you will try to say we agree because we both support regulations in some instances, but that is not the case. Intent is important.”
You guessed correctly, . and sure intent mattersAvram
that elephant was mentioned before.
and I’m not sure we are “debating” I don’t think there is a possible winner. Its a difference of opinion as to what to give more weight the individual or collective.The individual believes he is a great driver even drunk “I drive better drunk than you do sober” (real quote Ive heard more than once) why should he have to pay for an uber home? Obviously as a collectivist I disagree with that approach (I’m guessing NC is opposed to laws banning drunk driving)
This is another example not brought up before, I don’t think it wil convince him . I doubt it hasnt occured to him.
He views the individual as mattering more in his words ” frighteningly possible that full-blooded Americans are now ending up with that level of disregard for individual liberty”
That isnt WRONG per se. sure it leads to overall worse outcomes by any measure other than the “freedom” measure (though even the freedom measure is debatable, since the collective wants freedom to travel on roads without drunk drivers) but that doesn’t make it wrong. “give me liberty or give me death” that philosophy has been floated before- though I never met someone who actually advocated for it hence my fascinationI think hte bigger elephant is how to define what affects others. which is a big part of his shita that stil l confuses me
earlier I asked ““How do we decide what’s your own buisness and what affects others? he replied “With guns and lawsuits”
does drunk driving affect others? I think it does, could easily argue it doesn’t until you crash , though not sure how can use “guns and lawsuits” to prevent crash but allow the driving . and wh ogets the guns? The “excellent drunk driver” or the other cars on the road. thye all get guns and just work it out? that doesnt seem like a workable system, though definitely an interesting one
Seat belt laws are an example that some would argue doesn’t affect others. I’m not sure given that we share healthcare costs – on this I’m certain NC would vehemently disagree Obviously he isnt wrong.
NC
“Your opinion on public health isnt “invalidated” either again I’m not sure what you mean.”
It seemed like you were suggesting that I don’t have the right to specifically criticize public health when I also have criticisms for all parts of government.”You have the righjt to criticize whatever you want. I’m sorry if I implied otherwise
“So, you would contend that you have the answers for literally everything? By me admitting that I don’t, I somehow lost credibility? Does that really make sense?”
Yes.
Keep in mind my system includes yours. So while in your system the only thing stopping a terrorist from releasing chemica l wepaons on the subway is threat of a lawsuit. In my system yo ucna still sue him! Plus we have regulations to (try) to prevent him from getting them in the first palce. Ditto for posoing water whith heavy metals“OK, yet you do support regulation in other areas (which is fine). Yet, somehow if I support deregulation in one area, I have support it everywhere?”
I’m not sure what you mean by “have to” I though t that was your position, no government regulation. as mentioned several times (though you dont believe me) , my position is not “regulate everything” my position is whatever works.
” So, why did you keep asking me about other government functions? What if I had said “yes, I do support THAT part of government” to one of you inquiries? Would I then “lose” for being inconsistent?”
Lose what?
Yes you would be inconsistent. when I described your position as “closer to anarchy” you said this was correct. (1/6/25 CE 10:45 AM) So yopu supporting “parts of government” makles you not an anarchist.“I don’t mean to devolve this into insults, but this is just flat out arrogance. Of course you believe your ideas “work” and mine “don’t,” otherwise there would be nothing to talk about. There’s no constructive point in saying that other than demonstrating that you’re very sure of yourself. And, while I’m being a degenerate anyway, your opinions actually just seem like mainstream, textbook liberalism at this point (not saying that as an insult as I couldn’t care less about the left/right split). The unwavering dedication to the moral superiority of collectivism seems a bit foreign like Canadian/European or Israeli perhaps, but I guess it’s frighteningly possible that full-blooded Americans are now ending up with that level of disregard for individual liberty.”
Not an insult. Agree with (almost) every word of this paragraph. copied it verbatim, very well put. (except 1) “frighteningly possible” thats a great thing not frighteing
and 2) you said “Of course you believe your ideas “work” and mine “don’t,””
Its not a “belief” Ive demonstrated it. Child abuse, you agree on. ditto for other vulnerable groups. fire department weve covered you are forced to create an imaginary world where “probably” people would buy insurance . etc etc. You support terrorist having the right to buy automatic weapons and chemical weapons (1/11/25 CE 9:16 PM) . I dont hink its fair to call it a “belief” that this wont work. I get it, you view “individual liberty” as being the most important goal. and this is the price to pay but this is not a workable system1)The 6th hour isnt always maadim Only shabboos
2) I don’t know about what is fine dutring the hour of bad mazal. wh osays leanring and buisness are problematic, maybe its just starting Shabbos with Kiddish (Fiday night ie Shabbos is the day that STARTS w/ maadim that seems to be the probelm
3) ok so Don’t do those things if you think its a problem. Not sure what your point is.
4) youre disgraceful, yet you’re tolerated here, extend the same courtesy to the Magen Avraham, Its not your cup of tea, gezunderheit don’t follow it
5) “… every hour one of the seven mazalos, rules: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn and Neptune…” Those arent the maazalos, and I’m not sure about copying from Non-jews but it is a gemara (not the kiddush part) see for example Berachos 59b regarding Birchas hachama as xaplained by Rashi thereSquare
“Furthermore, it is wrong to needlessly delay the performance of any mitzvah.”
emphasis on “needlessly”
And your post cracked me up.
Ok so theres a magen avraham but hes arguing on a mefarush “hakehl shul community bulletin” who does this guy think he is“Therefore, you can safely bet everything you own that Jews will NEVER abandon this minhag under ANY circumstances,”
Thats a beutiful setment.
True maligim like you arise every so often people wh think they know better and scoff at klaal Yistoel. but even for money Klal yisroel will stand by their mesroa.
Its beautiful to see how crazy it drives youYou are of course free to stand by whatever you believe
I’m not sure what you mean by my “opinion is invalidated”
Public health has led to longer life expectancy therefore it is good. It doesn’t become bad even if I am a government boot licker
Your opinion on public health isnt “invalidated” either again I’m not sure what you mean.“Just to recap this again because I think it’s important: when you failed to “get me” because I was actually consistent, you switched to calling me evil.”
I didn’t call you evil, I called not caring about children getting molested evil.
“Have you ever truly entertained the merits of the alternative? Have you even tried? ”
No, you lost me when you dismissed real problems as a “kasha” . Any problems with my system are ones that I’d address. A system that addresses problems is better in my book than one that ignores them.So far as I can tell, your only interest in keeping this going is to be “fascinated” by me as you would by a circus freak. That’s not really a role I’m interested in continually filling for you.”
Thanks for partaking thus far.
That is a fair assessment“Do you support state bans on abortion while also supporting federal funding for Planned Parenthood?”
I dont support state bans on abortion, I do support federal funding for planned parenthood” Do you somehow support republican-proposed bans on trans athletes while also supporting their forced inclusion?”
no” make your position as un-mainstream as mine.”
not being mainstream isnt a problem. Whatever works. thats my position. yours doesn’t
I’m fine not being main stream“So, if the government did force me to buy a Ford, and I drove that Ford around and benefitted from it, then it would be wrong to me to oppose the law mandating me to get it?”
I dont agree that driving a ford as opposed to a Toyota is a benefit.
I do think that living is a benefit over dying from smallpox . Though again I dont get what you are saying. you are of course free to oppose it. My point was it is fair to make you pay for it since you benefit from it“It’s notable that this economic concept was invented just over a century ago to justify more taxes”
could be. Still holds true“Each individual can decide what he wants to pay for in a capitalist society. If enough people decide to pay for the CDC, it will exist. If not, it won’t. Why are you so afraid of leaving it up to this?”
Markets have their failures.
Look up negative externality“Then give me an example where you don’t support the government. A real, concrete example. ”
I thought I did
I oppose a regulation requiring everyone to buy Ford cars.“I have yet to see any evidence that you actually support any limits on the government by the people or even from within the government.”
Because you have yet to provide an example where we would be better off not being regulated. (Besides the Ford example)“I would benefit from the Ford too,”
I’m not sure what you mean. you DO benefit from the eradication of smallpox, you DO benefit from clean water and air. you benefit from food safety regulations etc etc. Not “would benefit” therefore it is fair to have your taxes fund them. You say “Also, I’d prefer to leave it up to me what I do and don’t benefit from.” But the problem is youre wrong. You don’t think you benefit from all these examples when you clearly do . You think a private fire department would work and that everybody would pay their fire insurance (a demonstrably wrong supposition) . This answers your question “Why are you so afraid of leaving it up to this”Agree with you on slippery slope arguments.
“If you have time, look up “night watchman state.”
Thanks! (earlier I asked for more background on this view of yours – thanks)
NC
“You’re consistent in your shittah of seemingly always supporting government, and I’m consistent in my shittah of seemingly* never supporting it.”
That isnt my shita. but yes You’re consistent I didn’t mean to imply otherwise
when conversation first began and you said “I don’t public health should exist as a concept.t” I thought I would “get you” statement was (and is) so preposterous to me that I assumed 1) you dint know what public health was (are we differed on what was included) or 2) you hadnt thought the statment through
I was completely wrong
You have your shita driven by, I’m not sure what exactly, but interesting nonetheless
But it isnt a “public health” shita. At first I (wrongly) assumed it was. thats what I meant by my comment.
Granted I dont have a soley “public health” shita either, but the conversation started with your statement which I thought was about public health“If the majority, or even plurality of people drive Fords, should I have to drive a Ford instead of anything else?”
no.
See I dont always support the government. There should be no regulation requiring everyone to buy Fords“You like the services that the CDC and NIH provide, so you can pay for them, but I don’t, so why should I have to?”
Because you benefit from them. And even if you think you don’t or even if you actually dont its part of living in society. Same as if you oppose war your taxes fund wars. You are of course free to vote for an anti-war candidate or and anti-CDC candidate. But at some point collective decisions need to be made and not every indicdual is happy (You knew this I dont get what your getting at)“With guns and lawsuits.”
Am I right in assuming you oppose gun limiting legislation? what about machine guns? heavy weapons/explosives such as bazookas/ grenades? chemical weapons? any restrictions on those?Also how are the judges apointed who enfoirces their decisions?
(* you stuck in “seemingly” was this intentional? is there some government entity/regulation that you do support that I haven’t uncovered?)
NC
Your last post answers my question. thanks
Except for #3 Are you sure it was in “for over a thousand years”
To be clear, im not saying it wasn’t but I’m skeptical that it was in such regular use among frum people” but I will put it before my interest in fleeting, emotionalist, yeshivish social-norms.”
go for it!
If the point of this thread was to make sure there was no definite halachic source forbidding it, youre probably safe . go for itNC
I dont understand your question
1) Are you sure theres no shemetz issur in saying AD . Mishna in Sanhedrin says saying an A”Z is “my God” is a chiyuv sekila. Saying “In the year of our lord 2025 ” sounds adjacent to that
2) Even if not assur. and not strictly logical ok so what its emotional AD certainly makes me uncomfortable. why is it bad to say somehting that makes people more comfortable even if built on emotion rather than logic ?
3) I’m not sure there ever was a period where “everyone used BC and AD” These are generally used in historical context no one says “I was born in 1948 AD” or “he died in 1986 AD”) Was there ever popular history books geared to a frum audience that used BC/AD . Artscroll certainly never used it . I have an older History of the JEws written by one Solomon Grayzel published in 1947 that uses BCE/CE. Are you sure BC/AD were in regular use among frum people?NC
How much does it make sense to sink into repairs before it’s just time to scrap the thing? ….
Agreed that this is the best we can do in reality.”So we are doing ok! Not like China or naziism.
No need to scrap . If there was then scrap“That’s not a “fix;” that’s just you being maskim in those cases that the government should stay out of it.”
Yes!
I propose the perfect system call it a fix or not. Whatever works.
I’ll use the same argument you used above on this page: when you said you do support public health, it “was a bit of an understatement. Within your worldview, of course you do.”
Yes! Not an argument. That’s a compliment. Public health is probably the greatest government success there is eradication of smallpox near eradication of polio. Clean water sewage control all has led to a huge rise in life expectancy.
Of course I support it directly led to better outcomes. Something the private sector did not and could not do.
That’s not a gotcha. Exactly right of course I support it“when your decisions DOES affect me do I get a say”
The problem is then it becomes a game of how to twist everything into “affecting me” so that I get to tell everyone how to live their lives.Thats true
So we vote and decide as a group.
It has to be that way. Your system.has the same problem. I say target shooting in my apartment with its thin walls and a family on the others side only affects me. I imagine they feel. Differently. Some say polluting drinking water doesn’t affect anbody else those down stream feel differently
How do we decide what’s your own buisness and what affects others?Amom
I didmt miss your point.
Im in healthcare I’ve thought about it a lot too.You were comparing hstzolah to 911. They aren’t comparable.for the several reasons I’ve outlined
FurthermoreHospitals have plenty of competition. Some are good some not so much. A problem is when someone has a heart attack he can’t exactly ask around for which ambulance service or hospital is the best nor the cheapest
Growing up every refrence to yushka included “pandrick”
I grew up when CE and BCE were in use
For what its worth it makes sense to me
the OP said “sn’t this just the same thing as getting a Christmas tree and calling it a “Chanuka Bush?””Assuming it is (I can think of differences) yes if a person feels the need to bring in a tree its better to call it a Chanukah bush. seems obviosu to nme – note still not good and I’m advocating against it but seems obviously better than calling it a Christmas tree .
similarly I’m not into decorating houses with lights but if someone feels the need to blue/white with menoras and magen dovids seems bettter than green/red santas /candy canesNC
forgive me I have lots of pending comments, but I genuinely find this interesting.
you are exactly right in your analysis of how the conversation progressed
In a pending comment I wrote in response to your comment “I’m arguing that the only people making life altering decisions should be the individuals involved. It’s nobody else’s business.”
That isn’t completely true. Depends how you define “individuals involved” obviously you polluting water supply or not paying your fire insurance affects others, arguably those too are “individuals involved” yet they cant stop you
I think this is the crux of our discussion.
when your decisions DOES affect me do I get a say. , I would assume you’d say no its solely your decision Even if you have say TB you should be allowed to travel the world as you see fit . You should be allowed to dump your toxic by products wherever you want (in public areas) – correct me if I’m wrong.
(You seem to offer conflicting responses since a few posts were defending why private fire departments would be better – if I understand you correctly it doesnt matter, If you choose not to pay for fire insurance and set fire to your house 10 feet from mine during a dry windy season that is yoru right Even if it was a worse system still nobody;’s business what decisions you make. correct?)
Do I have this right?and other issue of people who cant make their own decisions, whci you conceded was a “kasha”
amom
Q- How is it that Hatzalah (volunteer) comes so much faster? A- Because they are motivated to.
Correct
And because they live/are in the vicinty.
A friend called Hatzolah after an accident on the Belt they said to call 911 since they were much closer. The belt is not close to a concentration of hatzolah
furthermore as 2scents pointed out it depends on volumeand as I pointed out to NC Hatzolah isnt exactly “privatized” they arent driven by profit . If they only came if you can pay I’m not sure people would love hatzolah so much
NC
“I’m arguing that the only people making life altering decisions should be the individuals involved. It’s nobody else’s business.”
That isn’t completely true. Depends how you define “individuals involved” obviously you polluting water supply or not paying your fire insurance affects others, arguably those too are “individuals involved” yet they cant stop you
““However Volunteers are the OPPOSITE of your approach.” Not sure where you get this. ”
volunteers are there to help everyone no questions asked. No insurance ? no problem is the opposite of what you are suggesting in whcih we only help put out your fire if you pay us
“You implied that with my ideology one thing would lead to another, and I did the same with your’s. The difference is that with your’s we’ve already observed it happen so it isn’t just conjecture.”
I didnt imply, I outright said it. People abuse they wont stop in an anrachsit society. why would they? In my society we can try to prevent them and lock them up. In yours w you cant. What do you mean by “just conjectrue” Are you suggestign there would be less abuse of children with no government?
“In any case, we’ve drifted from the original topic….” agreed
You hit the nail on the head i yur “to be fair …” paragraph ” So, those of us who support deregulation get to chose between being hypocrites or being evil apparently.”
YES! exactly right. (of course depends on how much regulation) Being allowed to pollute public drinking water is evil. Not wanting a sytem to prevent child abuse is evil. I dont think thats a controversial take . to be fair can thread the needle by saying oppose all regulations of activities that dont affect others (which his what my original list was limited to and msot if not all of my examples) .At first I thought you either didn’t understand what public health included (for example you didn’t iclude safe drinking water, though admitredly this is semantics so I cant prove I’m right or wrong) . Or didnt think through the repercussions.
I was wrong on that, but conversation then got far more fascinating“Case and point, I could just pick apart the areas where you want less government–which allegedly exist despite not being presented here–and do the same thing to you, forcing you to either double-down or accept being inconsistent.”
go for it. I cant think of any specific areas , I’m sure there are 1000’s of obsolete regulations that would make sense to get rid of. Though again I dotn view big government nor small government as the goal, just means to an end.
NC
Just to clarify a point in my most recent post .
I said “Your system sounds evil. sure government has its problems but these are bugs not features. Your approach is designed this way”What I mean is any problem with the government, my response is “ok lets work to fix it” Government led to holocaust? Ok lets have a system with checks and balances/separation of powers to prevent one branch (certainly individual) from becoming too strong. Any other problem you identify my response will be the same, ok lets fix it. The “fix” may even be ok lets give that role to the private sector.
Plus the private sector ALSO exists so going back to my original point of discussion regarding clean water. I’m on board with allowing individuals to sue if an entity contaminates water supply. I am not saying leave it solely to the government. I dont think thats enough PLUS as alluded to in last psot STILL need government to adjudicate the lawsuit and to enforce its decision
with your system when there are problems (and there are plenty as I identified) repsosne is thats just the way it has to be.Also your original comment that first intrigued me namely “I don’t public health should exist as a concept.” was a bit of an understatement. within your worldview of course you don’t
“To see the government as not evil requires a lot of sticking your head in the sand.”
You misunderstood
Your system sounds evil. sure government has its problems but these are bugs not features. Your approach is designed this wayYour holocaust part is a bit silly. I’m not advocating for a totalitarian system. And I’m confused as to how Anarchy would prevent wars
” As long as some people in the building are paying or the building’s management, then the fire department would put it out.”
I dont t understand this. some buildings (my neighbor) are single family homes. I don’t understand who will pay if he doesn’t and who will protect my home 10 feet away if r”l he has a fire .And They wouldn’t let the entire building burn just because the fire started in a unit owned by someone who did not pay.”
Says who? who would force them?
And My guess is an apartment building would have a hiugher fee. one that would be payed by the landlord so its on him/her to pay not each individual.and furthermore. Say my neighbor DID pay but they were too lazy/cheap to come
How does he sue them? Is there a court system ? how are its rulings enforced?
” By the way, a large potion of the country exists on volunteer fire departments. Hatzolah has been more effective at reaching emergencies quickly than government-funded EMTs. How can that be so? It’s almost like the government isn’t better at everything.”
The government is certainly NOT better at everything not even sure where you got that from, I said the opposite a few times
However Volunteers are the OPPOSITE of your approach. Hatzalah is not looking to maximize profits. I dont understand how this shows a for profit system would work. IT would be a disaster if their goal was profit
ditto for volunteer fire departments. how does thsi show private for profit would work
and even those, I’m fairly certain their equipment is usually government funded . Sure The people volunteer their time (again often gaining some government perk like reduced property taxes ) Running a fire department seems expensive I doubt there are any fully privately funded certainly not many“I don’t think you really mean this. I think you treat government as the fallback solution when nothing else is obvious.”
Even if thats true, that doesnt contradict what I said to which you “Agreed in theory,” what I said was ““I’m not looking for an all encompassing solution. Each area can be different.”
So manufacturing works better in private hands let them handle it
Fire fighting works better in Government hands (for arguments sake) let them handle it
education not sure which is better no obvious solution so we’ll fallback on the government until we come up with a less obvious/ better approach that may not involve the government. This doesnt contradict what I said at all .
In other words I DO treat government as a fallback solution when nothing else is obvious at the same time I’m not looking for an all encompassing solution. Each area can be different.“. My shittah is that if there are problems that aren’t financially advantageous enough to be naturally dealt with within a free capitalistic system, then they aren’t truly worth dealing with at all no matter how cold that may sound.”
Not just cold it sounds evil (as you sort of concede “Any crimes where the victims cannot functionally stick up for themselves (child abuse, animal abuse, elder abuse, poisoning a town’s water supply) are good arguments you could use against me”
not thinking that child abuse is a problem “truly worth dealing with” is more than cold“This renders all of those statements meaningless. If they’re all allowed to be subjective, then I will just declare that I personally think the government solution is subjectively worse. That’s just my opinion, but you left it up to my opinion with this clause.”
Not at all Again there is no “government solution”
If you define “better” as tasting better, cleaner, safer, cheaper, better for teeth. However we define it the government can regulate accordingly . If you define better as more poisonous we can do that too! More likely it will be a balance of all of the above (except more poisonous that is more likely with your capaitilistic system)” since it’s unlikely an entire building would not pay for protection”
Lol! this literally made me laugh out loud. not unlikely it is a certainty some people wouldn’t pay. (I know people who intentially set fires, you think they have “remembered” to pay for the fire fighting ) . and again “unlikely ” is not good enough. If it is “likely ” that my neighbor 10 feet away rmebered to pay annual fire service bill , that is not very reassuring .
“need to feel like everything is “free” because we ignore the fact that we pay for it with taxes.”
It isnt ignoring the fact. It is a feature of the system
“I appreciate your restraint. My position could be called a lot worse than odd. Genuinely, I really do appreciate how interested you seem to be in something that 99% of people would just swear off as “crazy” almost right away.”
In this post, My restraint waned a bit (sounds evil) , but it is fascinating . . Ive had these discussions before (simplistic statements like FDA shouldn’t exist or Public health shouldn’t exist etc) you’re the first who is sticking to this “cold” (your word) evil sounding shita Kudos I guess?
Is it your own? Ive met liberterians before, but as you said earlier you arent really a libertarian. Closer to an Anarchist. Do you oppose all government?
Who or what shaped this ideology of yours?
(Im not big on arguments of authority the few times you thought I made one I wasnt eg the Rambam wasnt a reply to you and same in time zone thread reg Aguda) rather to spare you endless questions and this back and forth sometimes takign day for post to go up is a bit ineffcent — maybe government could do better 🙂 )UJM
A maiseh I think you’ll enjoy:
In shul people were talkign to an old survivor about Europe pre war etc. Someone asked him “ven zent ir geboiren, in Toof resih …?”
He replied “ven ich bin geboiren hut men nuch nisht azoi gerachent”“There are plenty of people that die as a result of government as well..nobody has an all-encompassing solution”
I’m not looking for an all encompassing solution. Each area can be different.
I dont want the government regulationing everything no matter what.
Does government control over manufacturing result in better outcomes* ? If yes then govt should control of not then not
Does government control over healthcare result in better outcomes* ? If yes then govt should control of not then not
Does government control over education result in better outcomes* ? If yes then govt should control of not then not
Does government control over public health result in better outcomes* ? If yes then govt should control of not then not
Your position is a bit odd to me though overall consistent. Even if it would result in “better outcomes” you don’t want them involved. .
But it’s not like I’m saying they should always be involved.
There are areas where unquestionably need govt involvement. For example where your decidions impact other people . Suing you after the fact is too little too late.I recall once reading of a community with private fire department you made a small annual fee and if rl was a fire they came to put it out. Someone who hadn’t paid had a fire they let it burn. Tgis would never work in a dense place like NY. Here it works better run by government . Does this mean govt should only run fire department if they can do everything better? Of course not. Each area is separate. I’m not looking for an “all encompossing solution”
(*however we define it)
NC
“but you’re departing from what I or anyone else actually means by public health.”I’m not sure what you mean. In my first comment to you I mentioned environmental protection. Which is what we have since been discussing. Why didn’t you say then you didn’t include it in public health
“but you don’t die from a kasheh.”
Except of course in these cases they literally do.
And I don’t find it frustrating I find it fascinating though kudos on the self awareness part that position has lots of problems
“That’s all nice, but not really relevant to what we’re talking about”
Aaq
No even if follow halachic oven regulations are liable for damage (source above).
Though like NC said halacha isn’t really relevant here. I only brought it as a counter to your example of halchic drregulationIt was relevant to Aaq’ comment
AAQ
Great point there you have a specific exception for a specific reason
Its Nedarim 80b as “Rashi” explains because cheyecha kodmin there isnt enough water for everyone so chayecha kodmin presumably based on B”M 62a (theres a machlokes whether water for washing clothes comes before drinking water for downstream people)Again I am not suggesting EVERY thing should be regulated, so even if this is an example of deregulation, and it very well might be, it doesnt undermine my point.
chazal have many many regulations on what you can do in your property. In the 2nd Perek of Bava Basra you’ll find restrictions on what you can do with waste, noise pollution (for example 20b) , environmental pollution (25a) .
At first I thought these weren’t good examples, since I was under the impression that from a halachic standpoint there is no distinction between criminal and civil. as opposed to lehavdil the US.
Meaning in America as I understand it even if I am allowed to do something if someone gets harmed they can sue me. So NC’s argument (as I understand it) is there should be no regulation on where I discharge my waste and if someone gets harmed (and realizes i t and can afford a lawyer and can prove causation) he’ll sue (of course with the hope being that my fear of a lawsuit will prevent me from misbehaving in the first place).
At first glance I thought the B”B examples were not relvent since there is no “suing” in halacha if I acted properly .Generally speaking If I have a right to do something and someone gets damaged thats on them. Therefore we need halacha to say I am not allowed to do something.
However when flipping through the relevant blat this is clearly not correct. Mishna B”B 20b gives oven safety regulations how far oven has to be from floor/ceiling. Thers a machlokes in Mishna if damage happens even if I followed the regulations am I liable?. Rambam Shecheinim 9:11 and MEchaber CM 155:1 both pasken are chayav. Clearly the regulation is NOT just to allow the damaged to sue for damages .
“I don’t believe poisoning people’s water supply falls under public health either; ”
It sure does
ensuring clean water supply is squarely (and waste management) is absolutely part of public health
Probably one of the greatest government achievements
Thats why I focused so much on it . I have heard all sort of libertarians arguments before
being anti (government involvement in) clean water isnt one Ive heard before – hence my fascination with thisI agree regulations should not be based on haphazard decisions nor quack science
NC
The Government can (and does) set regulations BEFORE they occur. These regulations can be enforced BEFORE they cause damage.
Yes if there are victims they need money but the point of regulations is to prevent victims
I don’t understand your next paragraph.
Under your proposal I can dump toxic substances into local drinking supply. Until someone is harmed (and knows they are) cand can prove that my substance caused their harm i’m good. It might ne worth taking that risk.
Even if you know I’m polluting your water supply. The only way to stop me is to get haarmed.That doesn’t seem like a good approach.
Yo usay “If a big company wrongs people living in upstate NY…” The idea of regulation is to stop them before the people are harmed.
Maybe I’m not being clear,
Drunk driving probably doesn’t fall under “public health” (or does it?)
Should there be a law banning drunk driving?
I say yes. The idea is to stop the drunk driver BEFORE he hurts someone. Sure he can be sued if/when he hurts someone. but a. That is still tru with government regulation, and 2) that is too little too late once the damage has been done.
Same thing here it wouldn’t suffice to let the private sector sue companies AFTER thyeve committed damage ( and is known and can be proven) the idea is to stop it beforeAAQ
“I am not saying I am against all regulation,”
Then we agree!“This may be a silly argument when you are suggesting full gov regulation v. full lack of it”
I agree completly
Though at no point did I say “full gov regulation”
NC did say full lack of it whci hsurprised me “I don’t public health should exist as a concept.”AAQ & NC
There are several problems with relying on lawsuits It is often impossible to prove any specific cause and effect. There is no way to prove that Joe’s cancer resulted from my dumping chromimum 6 into his drinking supply. and more often it is years down the line my factory may have moved or disbanded before he is diagnosed .
not to mention suing takes some know how, need someone to figure out this town seems to have a high prevelance of cancer lets try to see if there is a local cause. who is doing this investigation? sure they could hire a lawfirm but why people’s safety be limited to those with money/sophistication to go down that road?“Yeah fumes was not the best case he could have chosen since it’s not like the government can really do anything about those either (i.e. they can’t suck them back out of the air once they’re there).”
thats why its a GOOD example. Suing isnt enough. The damage has been done already. What comfort is that to a town Ive poisoned? “Ok so good news and bad news you all have cancer BUT youre getting a huge settlement”
I dont know seems like regulations up front BEFORE there is a problem is a better approach . PErfect? no but better than letting people do what they want and if things go wrong youll get sued
NC
“Any other questions?”
Yes pleaseHow would some of these be done privately
Lets start with one Specifically environmental regulations . I have a factory that produces hazardous waste fumes, heavy metals all of that stuff
how should tI “privalty:” be prevented from pumping my toxic fumes into the air and radioactive waste into the local drinking supply ?“To be fair, your post has caused me to realize there are more adjusters than I thought.”
And vice versa! I (your post led me to realize there are less than I thought)
“So each community would have to know what the average noon is for their exact longitude?”
this was in last post but worth repeating so you dont miss it:
I just discovered a website: 6thhour dot com in which can enter location and it tells you when the 6th hour is2scents
“Yet you make him seem like some silly goose who tweets randomly and doesn’t even know what he himself meant.”
Lets use onse specific example
He famously tweeted “Covfefe”
Do you htink this was more than a random tweet?
If yes then clearly he does tweet randomlly (at least sometimes)He welcomed back “Melanie” from the hospital do you think Melania briefly changed her name to Melanie or was that a typo?
If yes then clearly he does have occasional typos?Why are you so sure that THIS tweet is one that he fully thought through and meant
And here’s the real kicker
In 2019 he tweeted the Opposite:
““Making Daylight Saving Time permanent is O.K. with me,” (3/11/19)
OF course he MAY have changed his mind .but this does not seem to be the most likely explanantion
Still mistake in my comment though point still holds
I added instead of subtracted NY is earlier than Phili (more east) not later
Mean solar noon is 11:56 in NYC EST so the 6th hour is 5:56 – 6:56PM EST. during DST , average noon is 12:56 PM DST so the 6th hour is 6:56 – 7:56PMI just discovered a website: 6thhour dot com in whci hcan enter location and it tells you when the 6th hour is
“but wouldn’t it be based solely on Shaos Zmaniyos?”
although there is such an approach I dont think this is standard (for those who follow this minhag) The “rulership” of maazalos dont depend on the the zemanei hayom. Granted I dont understand what this means but comes up in Shas a few times where each mazal has an hour
Asking around I did hear some people say they do 6-7 all year round, maybe it is a “real shita” though I agree with you that it is starange and I’m not sure why they would change for DST
NC
“If other people want to take risks with their own lives, it shouldn’t bother you.”
This is silly.
1) No vaccine is 100% effective
2) your health does affect me, putting aside the both as a frum person I am required to care about you, but even as a felow human, there is an element of communal responsibility. You probably disagree with htis, so I’lll include a bottom line approach as well if someone gets sick from Polio we all pay for it both in the literal sense whether through insurance/govt if Medicare and by taking up medical time
3) some cant get a vaccine for one reason or other..you can certainly argue on all these points iff cant get vaccine well thats not your problem, and can have a system where hose who chose not to get a vaccine and then get Polio are left to die in the street though this too comes with its drawbacks
which brings me to this
“If the government stays out of people’s business, we don’t have problems.”
this is demonstrably falsethe eradication of smallpox is a huge accomplishment its an odd take to say ” I don’t public health should exist as a concept. I have my approach to my health and you have your’s” Polio was almost eradicated
There are other vital areas of Public health
Poison control is an invaluable resource
Clean water
sewage management
these are all included in Public health
Are you really arguing that you should deal with your waste, and I am free dto do with my waste as I please?Not to mention Environmental issues, sure you probably believe they go to far. Are you saying everybody should be free to discharge whatever the ywant into the air?
strangest of all RFK doesn’t want to get rid of the FDA in fact he wants to greatly expand it by limiting more chemicals in foods.
Are you arguing that there should be no regulation of food/medicines Let the free market decide..
Try my medicine, if it works then more people wil buy it, if you get sicker or die, well then I guess demand for it will drop]Is that your approach?In short are you saying there should be
vaccine program?
Food regulations?
environmental regulations ?
drug safety?
govt funded health resources (eg Poison control)If you answered yes to ANY of these ie some of these should exist to some extent then you do in fact believe in public health
If no you believe these shouldn’t exist thank you for taking the time to read this“If a region switched to permanent DST, would even the second camp concede that the issue would be between 6 and 7, or would they forever switch to 7-8?”
Obviously minhagim vary , but most do not shift ” every week with zmanim. ” nor should they ,
they should forever switch to 7-8.
There are a few different Shitos as to how to calculate the 6th hour. Some consider it the first hour of Shabbos, some 6th hour after the actual chatzos of that day. Most (who follow this minhag) do so 6th hour after the average Chatzos .As you allude though average chatzos is not exactly 12 noon since it varies longitudinally. Yes some do adjust for this though in NY it is a slight difference
Astronomical average noon is 12:04 in NYC EST so the 6th hour is 6:04 – 7:04 PM EST. during DST , average noon is 1:04 PM DST so the 6th hour is 7:04-8:04 PM which his pretty close to 7-8. In Lakewood its even closer , in Phiidelphia whci his the center of time zone Mean local time = EST“as for areas at the far side of a time zone,”
In those cases those who do not adjust for the change from mean local time to time zones (I thought people did, some certianly do), harder to understand that approach. I suspect it isnt based on any real shita. I dont know anyone who “holds” this way I think it might be a mistake in which case hard to know what they “should” do since it is anyway probably wrong(other version had mistake, fixed in this verions)
2scents
I htink youre giving Trump to much credit
his tweets are often fleeting thoughts often with spelling errors often contradicting each other .
while Ihe did tweet hos “proposal” do get rid of DST I’m not sure he knew wah the meantAs NC correctly points out MArco Rubio, is cleary pro permanent DST and in his tweet Elon supported permanent DST as well
You say
“To broaden your limited understanding, a simple Google search will reveal the 1966 Uniform Time Act, which prohibits year-round DST. However, year-round Standard Time is not illegal.
At this point, the federal government cannot expand DST to be all year, nor does it make sense for most states to do so.”I don’t get this the 1966 act was a law by congress, ie the federal government they can just as easily change it as they almost did a few years ago .
you also say ” Trump was clear in his message,” was there any message other than tweet ?(admittedly it was clear though again I’m not sure how much weight to give it)
“If a region switched to permanent DST, would even the second camp concede that the issue would be between 6 and 7, or would they forever switch to 7-8?”
Obviously minhagim vary , but most do not shift ” every week with zmanim. ” nor should they ,
they should forever switch to 7-8.
There are a few different Shitos as to how to calculate the 6th hour. Some consider it the first hour of Shabbos, some 6th hour after the actual chatzos of that day. Most (who follow this minhag) do so 6th hour after the average Chatzos .As you allude though average chatzos is not exactly 12 noon since it varies longitudinally. Yes some do adjust for this though in NY it is a slight difference
Astronomical average noon is 12:04 in NYC EST so the 6th hour is 6:04 – 7:04 PM EST. during DST , average noon is 1:04 PM DST so the 6th hour is 7:04-8:04 PM which his pretty close to 7-8. In Lakewood its even closer , in Phiidelphia whci his the center of time zone Standard time = EST“as for areas at the far side of a time zone,”
In those cases those who do not adjust for the change from standard time to time zones (I thought people did, some certianly do), harder to understand that approach. I suspect it isnt based on any real shita. I dont know anyone who “holds” this way I think it might be a mistake in which case hard to know what they “should” do since it is anyway probably wrongNC
“You’re simply wrong. Everybody knows that Litvishers marry at an age gap ”
Im not interested in what “everybody knows” Im interested in facts.
I fully get that this doesnt interest you. Beseder. I am NOT trying to convince you. I dont find arguments over belief prodcutive. This is your belief you will not change your mind. Ok“Huh? This has nothing to do with anything. Nobody cares about whether or not people can go on dates”
This is demonstrably false. I see you havent been following the discussion over years. this is ALWAYS the complaint . It was mentioned in this thread as i posted a verbatim quote . So again while YOUd odnt care this it undermines your beleief system, others do .
” If there is a surplus of let’s say 5 thousand women this past year, then it’s perfectly possible that every women gets to date, ”
Yes! Exactly! , yet that isnt what is happening . this CANNOT be explaiend by the age gap (as you all but acknowlegde) – though again Ive had thsi discussion years ago ok dates dont matter marriage does I get it“Your “data” (if it actually exists) ”
It exists source provided above , data by Yosef Sokol (was YWN article on it trying to debunk it by R Yair Hoffman)
I know I know the data is no good. spare me
I dont think it will convinve you I really get it“I’m not sure what I can say to convince you of the easily observable minhag. ”
Probably nothing
You cna provide data., thats all.But again. I dont need to be convinved Ive heard it all this is not a new topic its ben discussed again and again (though Im a little surprised yu never heard of the complaitn that girls arent gettign dates)
The tumult is now over 10 years oldIT is fair to ask if there are any updates. has the age gap narroewed ? are there less singles? is the problem better ? worse ? same ? etc etc
IF you dont have any ok say no updates we need to keep working at narrowing the gap .Forever nothing else to do. Ok that is your response I haear it loud and clear
IF someone else has updates let them provide them“It is a thing about people not understanding others …”
I’m not sure what you mean
thats my question.Tell me….. I’m all ears.
to be clear yes its annoying. but I havent heard any talk about trying to get it changed. And the Agudah lobbied for the opposite .It seems they arent aware either. sure it is possible they are so out of touch, and/or that as NC understood another poster “but he might have been citing this as an example of powerful Rabbonim putting machmirus over what’s practical for baal habatim. ” is that the case?
” If you think there is, then you don’t understand the problem.”
So never?
We dont have to rehash the tired old stuff IVe heard it all .
“If I had a room of 10 men and 15 women and had to match them up for marriage with no polygamy, you accept that there would be 5 women leftover, right?”
Yes.
“If a population is growing exponentially, you accept that the population born 5 years later at any given time will exceed that born 5 years earlier, right?”
Yes“Do you accept that the frum population is growing exponentially?”
Yes
“If you answered yes to all of these, then mazel tov you believe in the shidduch crisis whether you admit it or not. If you answered no to any of these, then you are objectively wrong.”
No. there are other missing pieces . how many of the men are exiting for other reasons (eg off the derech)
Is the age gap really that wide? (real data says no)
Shiduchim arent “closed rooms” more people are always entering some women marry men older than them. Your analogy is cute and simple but not reflective of realityand not to mention the most obvious as another poster pointed out “a normal girl from a typical family can go six months without dating a boy thats even close” this is not due to the Age gap for the simple reason that people date more than one person.
so in your of room of 10 men and 15 women. If each man sat with say 5 women before choosing one. IT would be very odd if after the dust settles and the 10 men went on their 50 dates 5 women never got dates. This cannot be explained by the age gap..
Again I get that you dont find this convincing and are married to the simple Age gap . fine I am not trying to convince you
You believe there is no other option. Ok
anyone else ?
I too am interested in response to UJM’s OP