Your political views

[theVOID]

I think that the problem is none of these political ideologies have much in the way of a theory of value, let alone a correct one, so the only choice people have is reactionary measures.

The main problem with doing that is the reaction is always towards isolated or small sub-groups of incidents, they have a massive problem of conformation bias, looking at the bigger picture seems to be something they either can't or won't do. It's realistically just post-hoc emotional responses and let's face it, they aren't exactly known for effectiveness, especially compared to a base methodology for determining value and consequence.

There has been a prime example of that in NZ at the moment with the deaths of 29 miners at Pike River, calls are being made for major chances to labor laws by some because they think there must necessarily be something more than could have been done to prevent the deaths (though the experience of the miners who worked there couldn't be further from that conclusion) - The reality is the labor laws for workplace safety are already at the point where making them more stringent would have a negative impact on the values of others in the general population as these laws would have to be applied to all industries, which would make one of NZ's largest and most dangerous industries, adventure tourism, effectively unable to operate - Not to mention dozens of other industries that would see costs rise and jobs decline, ultimately effecting everyone else far more so than the current balance of things.

This is the danger of reactionary policies, a failure to overcome that which caused the reaction. That is not to say that all reactionary measures are bad, it is to say that it would be almost certainly more effective to take the most effective theories of values in both ethics and economics and combine them in the way that brings the most value to the most people.

[lilyannerose]

The reality is the labor laws for workplace safety are already at the point where making them more stringent would have a negative impact on the values of others in the general population as these laws would have to be applied to all industries, which would make one of NZ's largest and most dangerous industries, adventure tourism, effectively unable to operate - Not to mention dozens of other industries that would see costs rise and jobs decline, ultimately effecting everyone else far more so than the current balance of things.

So NZ does not have regulation that applies to just a targeted industry? The Mining Industry in the US is like a step back into the 19th Century, the mine owners are brutal, they buy a lot of political influence and get away with bypassing safety regulations. Several of the mining communities are really afraid of the mine owners.

[theVOID]

Sure, we can do that, but it creates a double standard. The current overarching line is "all reasonable measures are to be taken to ensure the safety of all people on site at all times" or something to that effect. Reasonable is dictated by risk assessment vs project viability, some kind of opportunity cost. The only solution here would be to require that only mines have to comply with higher required risk aversion. As dangerous as mines are more people die on rail yards on average, so the double standard is unfair.

[Valkyrie]

You're a Kiwi Valkyrie?

No, I'm a (hanging head) American, but considering relocating.

---

Somewhere between moderate liberal and moderate libertarian. The government has a role to play. Business' role is to generate the wealth for society and the government's role is to keep them honest. On social issues, the government has little role to play apart from victim-related crimes.

By modern American standards, that's considered "far left".

I'm a former conservative. As theVOID has posted, I'm driven by pragmatic results more than ideology. When I realized that my logic at the time wasn't based on a sound foundation of facts, I admitted I was wrong and shifted to the left to adopt a new political outlook that was based on the information I had.

Ziggy, you make Australia seem like a nice place to be. And, here I am, thinking of New Zealand.

So, by American standards, I suppose I'm a flaming-pinko-bleeding heart-Marxist-liberal.

That standard is shifting further to the right by the day. Although Bush once represented the right wing, now he's a centrist by Republican standards. Reagan, for all the reverence he receives by the Republican Party, is so far to their left that anyone like him would never get their nomination.

My sentiments, too. To paraphrase Bill Maher, they keep staking out a position further and further to the right, and then insisting that we meet them in the "middle."

[lilyannerose]

Sure, we can do that, but it creates a double standard. The current overarching line is "all reasonable measures are to be taken to ensure the safety of all people on site at all times" or something to that effect. Reasonable is dictated by risk assessment vs project viability, some kind of opportunity cost. The only solution here would be to require that only mines have to comply with higher required risk aversion. As dangerous as mines are more people die on rail yards on average, so the double standard is unfair.

I believe that "reasonable" "risk assessment" "viability" are too fluid to use as a standard what are your scales measuring? You wouldn't have the same standards for a mine that one would have for a rail yard as both present different safety issues within different working environments. I'm not certain what measurement you are using. I would think that the end result would be that all steps be taken to ensure that regulations are in place to address the issues that lead to accidents or death. Which one environment can require more stringent regulation to achieve a safety goal than the other.

[theVOID]

I love Maher

[DeistPaladin]

My sentiments, too. To paraphrase Bill Maher, they keep staking out a position further and further to the right, and then insisting that we meet them in the "middle."

If Democrats win an election, even if its by a massive majority like in 2006 or 2008, the media always spins it as a call for bipartisanship.

If the Republicans win, even if its by a 51/49 margin like 2004, its always a massive mandate from the voters and a call for the Democrats to get out of the way.

[theVOID]

Sure, we can do that, but it creates a double standard. The current overarching line is "all reasonable measures are to be taken to ensure the safety of all people on site at all times" or something to that effect. Reasonable is dictated by risk assessment vs project viability, some kind of opportunity cost. The only solution here would be to require that only mines have to comply with higher required risk aversion. As dangerous as mines are more people die on rail yards on average, so the double standard is unfair.

I believe that "reasonable" "risk assessment" "viability" are too fluid to use as a standard what are your scales measuring? You wouldn't have the same standards for a mine that one would have for a rail yard as both present different safety issues within different working environments. I'm not certain what measurement you are using. I would think that the end result would be that all steps be taken to ensure that regulations are in place to address the issues that lead to accidents or death. Which one environment can require more stringent regulation to achieve a safety goal than the other.

I think you misunderstand, it's not "the same measures for all workplaces" but the same goal for compliance, that goal again is "all reasonable measures are to be taken to ensure the safety of all people on site at all times" - The standards (the "reasonable measures") are relative to the specific working environment, you don't need compressed air on a rail way any more than you need a conductor in a mine yet both are necessary in the relative environment to meet the standard of taking "all reasonable measures".

The mining industry is just as compliant as supermarkets in terms of "reasonable measures".

[technophobe]

I am curious to find out what the political views of the people on here.

I'm a liberal with Democratic leanings, and I think. Therefore, I'm probably one of the right wing's worst enemies.

[theVOID]

The democrats are centre-right wing by any comprehensive account. No matter how much the GOP want to call them leftist socialists that's hardly the case.