So, apparently I'm a Paulbot

[eflatminor]

Bottom line, Ellis (the lifeguard company I assume) wasn't being paid to guard beyond a certain zone. That someone needed help outside that zone would seem to me to be a shortcoming of the city or county who was paying to have the beach guarded.

And how is that not libertarianism? Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that Ellis had any responsibility to post guards beyond what their territory. But what we have here is a company that willfully let's people drown, because they want to first be paid to render aid. And they're willing to fire employees who under take heroic actions that might ever so slightly undermine the integrity of a future bottom line.

I don't know why he was fired really. Perhaps he didn't follow the rules you outlined above. Perhaps Ellis is run by dicks...I really don't know. But either way, this does not, in my opinion, speak at all to the values of Libertarians.

The reason he was fired is because Ellis runs his contract sites under the premise that beachline is money. You quote a price, he'll give you a portion of beach he's willing to cover for that price, and he'll adamantly refuse to do anything outside of that zone. He'll then come back to you and try to sell you on extending that zone for a higher price. All the talk about liability is smoke and mirrors.

While I do appreciate your knowledge and interest on this case, I remain unconvinced this is about any Libertarian ideal. I cannot condemn a company for telling its employees to abide by an existing contract with the city/county. I can certainly condemn the city/county for leaving beach goers unprotected.

I suspect the city/county has a law or rule against providing life guard services in areas where you're not contracted to do so. Sure as heck, if a lifeguard company started overseeing areas they were not contracted to cover, the city/county would put a stop to it.

More importantly, I strongly disagree that liability has nothing to do with it. If a lifeguard is liable for unintended harm in the course of his duties and he's in the area the company is contract to cover, the insurance company will pay to defend. If he causes harm OUTSIDE the contracted area, the insurance company will deny coverage. That is a STRONG motivator to tell your employees to stick to the contract coverage area because the right lawsuit that is not covered under your insurance contract can end the company. The owners of that company have a fiduciary responsibility to ensure that doesn't happen.

This case isn't about Libertarianism run amok, it's about a local government failing to provide adequate coverage for their citizens at the beach and the realities of our litigious civil and often overzealous criminal court systems.

 

[paulitician]

Most people are Paulbots in their hearts. Unless they're heartless.

 

[Inthemiddle]

More important to me
Domestic policy

I side the most with Ron Paul and Gary Johnson on 97% of domestic policy issues.

I'm not sure I buy this. Ron Paul would get rid of all forms of welfare. I know you don't agree with that.

No, I don't agree with that. I think it comes down to the particular questions. Welfare wasn't among them under that heading. Social Security was touched on under "social" and medicare was touched on under "health care."

Do you support increased gun control?
No

Do you support the Patriot Act?
No

Should the federal government regulate the internet to deter online privacy?
No

Are you in favor of decriminalizing drugs?
Yes, but not all drugs

Should we restrict federal funds to public schools that do not meet performance standards?
Yes

Do you support affirmative action programs?
No

 

[Inthemiddle]

And these problems are done away with when more gov't steps in, in your view?

Well, that's an interesting question. I certainly said nothing about government, so your challenge is illogical in the first place. But the scenario I brought up does have to do with a public beach. Ellis was contracted out to provide lifeguarding services for the local government. Maybe the local government should operate the beaches directly. Then, this nonsense about saving lives getting people fired wouldn't be an issue anymore.

Some things, like emergency response services (which is what lifeguarding is at the end of the day) should be operated by government entities in public arenas. If the locality wants to pass some kind of ordinance to address indifference, I have no problem with that. It's for them to decide.

 

[thanatos144]

almost all progressives will have Paul high on their list and not just cause these tests are bullshit ran by paulbots

 

[Inthemiddle]

More importantly, I strongly disagree that liability has nothing to do with it. If a lifeguard is liable for unintended harm in the course of his duties and he's in the area the company is contract to cover, the insurance company will pay to defend. If he causes harm OUTSIDE the contracted area, the insurance company will deny coverage.

This falls under good Samaritan laws, mostly. If a person, any person, breaks your ribs while giving you CPR that was needed, they have no liability as long as they did the CPR correctly. Of course, if they decided to do CPR by jumping up and down on your torso, that would be a different story. But if that were the case, the company's potential fault wouldn't change either way. The company's fault would be based on whether or not they provided adequate training.

Meanwhile, one thing that many people don't realize, is that lifeguards are legally recognized as professional rescuers on par with fire fighters, EMTs, and police. This creates a duty to act on the lifeguard's part. Failure to act creates negligence. So, the greater liability comes into play if the lifeguard ignores the drowning victim. Despite the "swim at your own risk" signs, the duty to act is not absolved.

Here's comparable scenario: Imagine you have an in ground swimming pool in your back yard. You take all reasonable precautions. You put up a fence, you lock the gate, you even put up a few signs that warn against trespassing. And you even put up a picture sign of a mean looking dog in hopes of scaring away any young children who won't know how to read. But one day all this fails to be enough, and a five year old climbs over your fence and jumps in the pool. You walk outside and see the five year old drowning in four feet of water. You decide that "well, I put up the signs, no need to do anything, I'll just call 9-1-1. Do you think you're going to escape liability of some kind?

 

[g5000]

More important to me
Domestic policy

I side the most with Ron Paul and Gary Johnson on 97% of domestic policy issues.

I'm not sure I buy this. Ron Paul would get rid of all forms of welfare. I know you don't agree with that.

No, I don't agree with that. I think it comes down to the particular questions.

That is exactly right. It is the questions they DON'T ask you that really reveal what Libertarians are about.

The OP poll is a classic "push poll".

The poll is designed to delude Libertarians into believing they have more public appeal than they actually do. But anyone who spends thirty minutes in a crowd of them quickly realizes, holy shit these people are nuts!

If you take this poll and think you are in agreement with Ron Paul, then that reflects badly on you. Do you want to eliminate the FDA and child labor laws? Do you want to eliminate federal workplace safety laws? Do you want to eliminate federal environmental laws?

Not just a few of them. All of them?

Do you believe factory owners who create toxic waste won't dump them into Love Canal if there were no federal regulations against it? Do you believe coal companies would adequately protect their miners if there were no federal regulations? Are you that gullible and ignorant of history? If so, then you might be a Libertarian.

This poll is good for flushing out people who never study the issues and who vote based on what they hear from partisan ads and push polls.

Welcome to the revolution. Of dimwits.

 

[thanatos144]

I'm not sure I buy this. Ron Paul would get rid of all forms of welfare. I know you don't agree with that.

No, I don't agree with that. I think it comes down to the particular questions.

That is exactly right. It is the questions they DON'T ask you that really reveal what Libertarians are about.

The OP poll is a classic "push poll".

The poll is designed to delude Libertarians into believing they have more public appeal than they actually do. But anyone who spends thirty minutes in a crowd of them quickly realizes, holy shit these people are nuts!

If you take this poll and think you are in agreement with Ron Paul, then that reflects badly on you. Do you want to eliminate the FDA and child labor laws? Do you want to eliminate federal workplace safety laws? Do you want to eliminate federal environmental laws?

Not just a few of them. All of them?

Do you believe factory owners who create toxic waste won't dump them into Love Canal if there were no federal regulations against it? Do you believe coal companies would adequately protect their miners if there were no federal regulations? Are you that gullible and ignorant of history? If so, then you might be a Libertarian.

This poll is good for flushing out people who never study the issues and who vote based on what they hear from partisan ads and push polls.

Welcome to the revolution. Of dimwits.

If you believe all of these things are good then you are a progressive.....And a real big one. Shit the country would be far better if we let the state handle 80% of then and eliminates 50% of the remaining 20%

 

[Inthemiddle]

I'm not sure I buy this. Ron Paul would get rid of all forms of welfare. I know you don't agree with that.

No, I don't agree with that. I think it comes down to the particular questions.

That is exactly right. It is the questions they DON'T ask you that really reveal what Libertarians are about.

The OP poll is a classic "push poll".

The poll is designed to delude Libertarians into believing they have more public appeal than they actually do. But anyone who spends thirty minutes in a crowd of them quickly realizes, holy shit these people are nuts!

If you take this poll and think you are in agreement with Ron Paul, then that reflects badly on you. Do you want to eliminate the FDA and child labor laws? Do you want to eliminate federal workplace safety laws? Do you want to eliminate federal environmental laws?

Not just a few of them. All of them?

Do you believe factory owners who create toxic waste won't dump them into Love Canal if there were no federal regulations against it? Do you believe coal companies would adequately protect their miners if there were no federal regulations? Are you that gullible and ignorant of history? If so, then you might be a Libertarian.

This poll is good for flushing out people who never study the issues and who vote based on what they hear from partisan ads and push polls.

Welcome to the revolution. Of dimwits.

Like I said, this little quiz should be primarily seen as a bit of fun. No need to take it so seriously.

 

[thanatos144]

Most people are Paulbots in their hearts. Unless they're heartless.

Fuck you I am not heartless and I sure as hell am not a follower of that crazy old fart.

 

[g5000]

Like I said, this little quiz should be primarily seen as a bit of fun. No need to take it so seriously.

The paulbots take it seriously. And they are seriously deluding themselves with it.

 

[g5000]

Most people are Paulbots in their hearts. Unless they're heartless.

False dilemma - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Mad Scientist]

"Paulbot" checking in!

 

[Dr.Drock]

Anybody know why g5000 is so offended by the results of a voluntary poll? I already knew what mine would say, then the results proved that. Agreeing the most with Paul, 2nd most with Johnson, survey was spot on in my case.


And no i didn't take it seriously, was just for fun. But it didn't open my eyes to anything new, just a way to waste 5 minutes.

 

[thanatos144]

Anybody know why g5000 is s offended by the results of a voluntary poll? I already knew what mine would say, then the results proved that. Agreeing the most with Paul, 2nd most with Johnson, survey was spot on in my case.


And no i didn't take it seriously, was just for fun. But it didn't open my eyes to anything new, just a way to waste 5 minutes.

could be cause the polls are bullshit made in a specific way to bring about preset outcomes. It is how Paulbots work.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Anybody know why g5000 is s offended by the results of a voluntary poll? I already knew what mine would say, then the results proved that. Agreeing the most with Paul, 2nd most with Johnson, survey was spot on in my case.


And no i didn't take it seriously, was just for fun. But it didn't open my eyes to anything new, just a way to waste 5 minutes.

could be cause the polls are bullshit made in a specific way to bring about preset outcomes. It is how Paulbots work.

No, the poll was very favorable to Mitt.

It's going by what he says on the campaign trail the last few months, the poll answers didn't go along with what Mitt said for years and what he did in office. For example if someone favors Obamacare, the survey should say you agree with Romney and Obama.

 

[thanatos144]

Anybody know why g5000 is s offended by the results of a voluntary poll? I already knew what mine would say, then the results proved that. Agreeing the most with Paul, 2nd most with Johnson, survey was spot on in my case.


And no i didn't take it seriously, was just for fun. But it didn't open my eyes to anything new, just a way to waste 5 minutes.

could be cause the polls are bullshit made in a specific way to bring about preset outcomes. It is how Paulbots work.

No, the poll was very favorable to Mitt.

It's going by what he says on the campaign trail the last few months, the poll answers didn't go along with what Mitt said for years and what he did in office. For example if someone favors Obamacare, the survey should say you agree with Romney and Obama.

 

[Dr.Drock]

could be cause the polls are bullshit made in a specific way to bring about preset outcomes. It is how Paulbots work.

No, the poll was very favorable to Mitt.

It's going by what he says on the campaign trail the last few months, the poll answers didn't go along with what Mitt said for years and what he did in office. For example if someone favors Obamacare, the survey should say you agree with Romney and Obama.

Romney is the original author of Obamacare, Obama just stole his idea. Romney also said and repeated for years that Romneycare should be done at the federal level.

 

[thanatos144]

No, the poll was very favorable to Mitt.

It's going by what he says on the campaign trail the last few months, the poll answers didn't go along with what Mitt said for years and what he did in office. For example if someone favors Obamacare, the survey should say you agree with Romney and Obama.

Romney is the original author of Obamacare, Obama just stole his idea. Romney also said and repeated for years that Romneycare should be done at the federal level.

No he isnt you lying piece of shit. Romney care wasn't ever to be federal

 

[Dr.Drock]

Romney is the original author of Obamacare, Obama just stole his idea. Romney also said and repeated for years that Romneycare should be done at the federal level.

No he isnt you lying piece of shit. Romney care wasn't ever to be federal

Damn, we've got a sensitive one.

I'll reword what I already said and made blatantly obvious.

For years, Romney SAID Romneycare (aka Obamacare) should be the federal solution to healthcare. Now he says the opposite cuz it's what neocons want to hear.