There's two kinds of people in the world...

[SteveAitch]

There's two kinds of people in the world - those who impose artificial binaries on everything, and those who don't.

Or:
Flavin: Dylan Hunt. there are three kinds of peple - those who can count and those who can't.

Anyway, re government control, a certain amount of 'research' suggests:

In England, everything which is not forbidden is allowed.
In Germany, everything which is not allowed is forbidden.
In France, everything is allowed even if it is forbidden.
In Russia, everything is forbidden, even that which is expressly allowed.
In North Korea. everything that is not forbidden is compulsory.
In Australia, if something's illegal you do it to find out why.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

I do think there is a distinct difference between people with and without the ability to deal with ambiguity.

I also think that there is a fundamental difference between people who played a lot of tabletop RPG and those who did very little or none.

 

[ahhell]

Nope.
They are only okay with State Control because they are the ones controlling it, not because they ideologically believe it should be so for everyone, including themselves.

Not sure why that means they don't believe in the default being state prohibits all things except what they deem appropriate. Seems to be how they operate at least. The Kims and Mullahs especially seem to believe "no" as the default.

ETA, I think if the OP were soften a bit I could buy into it. Something like, most people either think the precautionary principle is wise to protect individuals and society and others who think more risk is necessary to avoid stifling innovation for the good of individuals and society.

But really there are three kinds of people; Sales folk ( successful politicians are just sales folk), engineers, and suckers!

Not all engineers are engineers by profession or training but there is a sort of mindset that might be related to autism or psychopathy.

 

[ahhell]

I must confess I am not an absolutist about much of anything. I think few rights can be absolute without impinging on someone else's rights, and few if any values are unalloyed. I think some degree of compromise is the only way to get through life. Where one draws the line between absolute freedom and the common good is, of course, a matter of disagreement among many, but once that necessary exception is made compromise is on the table. To question, dispute, or reject a specific compromise is an inevitable component of the necessity for argument in life. To reject compromise itself is fanaticism.

There are two do kinds of people, those that understand nuance and monsters.

 

[8enotto]

I came into bit of conflict in the states when I was working in big factory situations.

They mandated more and more PPE in hot work areas that made unpleasant work nearly unbearable. We had been in there years before with no notable injuries or illnesses.
I protested but complied as long as I was there.
Insurance reasons, company policy or whatever, let another try in my place in the future.

I use dangerous power tools often. I taught my son to use them. WE regulate what level of gear and rigging we use to prevent injury.
It's actually kind of impressive for a non municipal or corporate setting. I even geared up others I work with as possible.

I see videos from Asian sources of barefoot guys going up tall trees with only a huge ancient chainsaw. Or worse rednecks putting a tall ladder on a tractor fender and passing his beer to the camera guy before trying to cut a dangerous old tree over his shed.

We aren't them. Climbing harnesses, guide lines and whatever is needed. It's all available. I don't need the government to tell me not to suicide by tree work. Kinda figured it out on my own.

But I truly appreciate the government covering the police/fire/military aspects of the relative safety my family lives in.

 

[bruto]

8enotto, I tend to agree where your individual conduct is concerned, but we must also remember that different rules should apply when one is working for others. We often trust others to know and regulate what is and is not safe, and though at some level of course we're always free to refuse a dangerous job, it can be a big and expensive decision. Where safety laws are concerned, there's a tradeoff between the cost and the consequence. If the consequence of an event is fatal or bankrupting, an employer might well institute a rule that is expensive, inconvenient, or even odious to the majority of their employees.

The sort of general principle is that there are two sorts of laws: permissive and prohibitive. The words' connotations are a bit contrary to the laws, in that a permissive law is one that says basically "you may do these things, and anything else is illegal," while a prohibitive law says "you may not do these things, and anything else is legal." I think if we make the basic assumption that government has some consensual component, and that one of the things we bargain for is protection from certain kinds of harm, we need both sorts. In matters of civil rights and the like any laws should be prohibitive. We cannot foresee what free speech, for example, will entail, but we can largely foresee and forbid harmful speech, and the consequence of prior restraint is far worse than the consequence of immoderate expression, and the harm done by restraint is often immediate and cannot be mitigated. We forbid things we know, from experience, are harmful. In some other matters, such as land use and worker protection, permissive laws make sense. An unforeseen development can be permanent and harmful in unforeseen ways, and unprotected workers can die. The harm done by the absence of such restraints is often immediate and cannot be mitigated. We allow things we know, from experience, are not harmful.

 

[Susheel]

Exactly. A more apt example would be a run-of-the-mill communist.

And how many communists do you know. I consider myself one, and I don't fit into your rather simplistic definition of it? But then I am not surprised that this is your world view.

 

[bruto]

Economically, sure. But that same communist could easily have very "libertarian" views on sex and drugs and so on, while someone with libertarian views on the economy might be a fundamentalist Christian.

Which kind of goes against your notion of two kinds of people, rather than people having different ideas about which parts of life should be "free".

As a matter of fact, I have known a few actual Communists over the years, including a brother-in-law who was a card-carrying Moscow-line member (British, where that's legal). Most of his communist opinions were economic, political, and in some cases rather crudely ethnic, and often naively stupid, while his individual behavior was often anomalous, because he was a capitalist at heart. I knew some people back in the 60's who were members of another hard-line outfit calling itself the "Socialist Workers' Party." I don't know how many workers were involved there, and they spent most of their time in political intrigue, propagandizing and trying to flush out dissenters, wreckers, and members suspected of Trotskyism, while living in the biggest and nicest apartment I've ever seen in Harlem. Another fellow who at least claimed to be a communist seems to have lived a pretty routine life, except without much frill, and has worked for many decades for the Postal Service. With the exception of a relatively abstract view of the ideal social economy, which itself was pretty malleable, I think they were about as varied as people in general are. At a presumably theoretical level, they touted a form of government that's more controlling and comprehensive than what we're used to, but I suspect that if such a thing were actually to occur, they would find it far less attractive to live in than to talk about.

 

[8enotto]

My wife in her broke as dirt college years adopted communist ideals while living in a capitalist paradise. Using local markets to avoid paying retail taxes and all the other perks of an underground economy.

She still thinks those ideals have real world value despite a lifetime now of living otherwise.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

NVM

 

[EHocking]

There are two do kinds of people, those that understand nuance and monsters.

There are two kinds of people in the world.
Avoid both.

 

[ahhell]

And how many communists do you know. I consider myself one, and I don't fit into your rather simplistic definition of it? But then I am not surprised that this is your world view.

I think that makes you kind of a bad person, mostly on account of willful ignorance. How many "communist" governments can exist that end up killing millions of people before you stop saying, "well, they weren't true Scotsman?"

 

[Susheel]

I think that makes you kind of a bad person, mostly on account of willful ignorance. How many "communist" governments can exist that end up killing millions of people before you stop saying, "well, they weren't true Scotsman?"

My home state in India has a communist government that has done no such thing.