Iconic NYC experience to be banned?

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by MichiGator2002, Dec 31, 2013.

  1. GT Gator
    Offline

    GT Gator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    1,509
    Likes Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +185
    Of all the horrible plans de Blasio has, the carriages in Central Park would be the least of my worries if I lived in NYC.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  2. gator7_5
    Offline

    gator7_5 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    12,502
    Likes Received:
    180
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +622
    So he's telling them to simply trade in a horse and carriage for a car? WTF? It's not even the same job. Would you be ok if the gov. forced this kind of change on you and your profession? It would be like telling a semi-truck driver to go drive a cab.
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  3. gator7_5
    Offline

    gator7_5 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    12,502
    Likes Received:
    180
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +622
    GTFO? Mind my own business? Are you 12? I'm not even there. You couldn't pay me enough to live there. lol.

    Your horrible mayor is the subject of the thread. If you don't like it, don't open it.

    BTW, my Podunk town's mayor just brought in 300 new jobs from Boeing last week. That's about 300 more than NY's likely will in his political career.
    Last edited: Dec 31, 2013
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  4. G8trGr8t
    Online

    G8trGr8t Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2008
    Messages:
    13,633
    Likes Received:
    925
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    SW Florida
    Ratings Received:
    +1,717
    he will create plenty of gubmnt jobs if elected, no doubt about that, and the contracts with the unions will send NY back into bankruptcy sometime after he leaves office.

    why should the gubmnt be able to tell me what to eat or drink or smoke? there is a medium somewhere between anarchy and Orwellian control where liberty and a state of law can exist
  5. harwil
    Offline

    harwil Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2007
    Messages:
    1,699
    Likes Received:
    27
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +126
    So what happens to the "retired" horses?The glue factory or the abattoir?
  6. asuragator
    Offline

    asuragator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2009
    Messages:
    20,158
    Likes Received:
    4,061
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +5,926
    I agree, there is a middle ground. I think banning cup sizes goes too far but not banning companies from selling food with transfats in them. Now if they said you couldn't eat transfats, that would be a different story.
  7. wgbgator
    Online

    wgbgator Sub-optimal Poster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    22,249
    Likes Received:
    357
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,343
    Its the same exact job, with a different mode of transport. They're offering training, etc for drivers. If they don't want to do it, someone else will. In any case the "job" isnt lost, even if the person doing it is different.
  8. gator7_5
    Offline

    gator7_5 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    12,502
    Likes Received:
    180
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +622
    "Just a different mode of transportation?" WTH? The mode of transportation is 99% of a carriage ride!!!!!

    Also, you made a lot of assumptions. Especially the one that the people who enjoy carriage rides want to pile into an electric car for a tour. And who's going to purchase these new cars? I have a better idea. Why doesn't the gov. just butt out?
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
  9. G8trGr8t
    Online

    G8trGr8t Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2008
    Messages:
    13,633
    Likes Received:
    925
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    SW Florida
    Ratings Received:
    +1,717
    are the people too ignorant to decide for themselves what to eat? if transfats are bad, educate them and let them be responsible for their own healthcare and the consequences that come with bad choices.

    the perpetuation of the nanny state is the precursor to the removal of our rights and transfats is just one small example. if the state is going to be responsible for your healthcare, should the state be able to tell you what to eat, drink, smoke (or not) and how much you are required to exercise.

    it all goes back to the root of responsibility. who is responsible for what? I am a libertarian and willing to suffer the consequences of my choices to maintain my freedom of choice. That is what this country was founded on, really sad that we have devolved into a society where lack of personal responsibility is not looked down upon and everything is somebody else's fault.
  10. asuragator
    Offline

    asuragator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2009
    Messages:
    20,158
    Likes Received:
    4,061
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +5,926
    So you are now saying that you don't believe there is a middle ground? By the libertarian token, there shouldn't be any laws at all, least not in the public good. It's a pipe dream detached from any reality whatsoever.
    Last edited: Dec 31, 2013
  11. wgbgator
    Online

    wgbgator Sub-optimal Poster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    22,249
    Likes Received:
    357
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,343
    They should "butt out" if there is no harm to anyone. But the case is being made that not only is there harm to the animals, but the people of the city as well. No one has the right to their job or business if it harms others to a significant degree. In this case, offering an alternative seems more than fair.
  12. wgbgator
    Online

    wgbgator Sub-optimal Poster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    22,249
    Likes Received:
    357
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,343
    And you are assuming that they won't.
  13. CHFG8R
    Offline

    CHFG8R Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2007
    Messages:
    5,884
    Likes Received:
    219
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    St. Augustine, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,001
    Nevertheless, getting rid of it because you don't like it and doing so (or at least threatening to) so unilaterally is pretty lame. And the inhumane thing is just stupid and definitely brings those horses at Aqueduct, police dogs, other working dogs/animals into play as well. I don't know about being the downfall of the US Republic, but it's pretty lame on many levels, especially the rationalization. If you really hate them that much, wouldn't a traffic argument be more likely to sway NYers to your side?
  14. G8trGr8t
    Online

    G8trGr8t Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2008
    Messages:
    13,633
    Likes Received:
    925
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    SW Florida
    Ratings Received:
    +1,717
    no that would be an anarchist .... once again we have to define terms it would seem

    libertarian as in do what the constitution prescribed without scope creep and no more. secure the borders, protect life, insure property rights. the rest is basically scope creep
  15. wgbgator
    Online

    wgbgator Sub-optimal Poster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    22,249
    Likes Received:
    357
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,343
    This was light-hearted comment. The case has been laid out pretty well by De Blasio and it has nothing to do with simply "not liking" it. Also, it should come as no surprise to anyone since its something he and others have been advocating pre-election, since at least 2011. You don't need to be swayed by the rationalization or the argument, only the voters of NY, and their representatives.
  16. CHFG8R
    Offline

    CHFG8R Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2007
    Messages:
    5,884
    Likes Received:
    219
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    St. Augustine, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,001
    Ah, the conundrum. Sorta like the beef cows to the vegan crowd? Can't just "let 'em go."
  17. CHFG8R
    Offline

    CHFG8R Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2007
    Messages:
    5,884
    Likes Received:
    219
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    St. Augustine, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,001
    Yeah, I read the NYT link after posting this. Needless to say, more to the story. Though the NYT definitely makes the case a lot better than De Blasio. Wow! Horses running loose down the streets and in the park, grazed by busses. Definitely more to the story. As I figured, the traffic argument is the most salient.
  18. wgbgator
    Online

    wgbgator Sub-optimal Poster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    22,249
    Likes Received:
    357
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,343
    I've seen many libertarians rationalize heavy-handed state and local laws, because its not the big bad Fed gov. If you can rationalize that states should have the power to ban things like gay marriage, then you should be ok with a city banning big sodas or horse-drawn conveyances, on a "can they do it?" level at least.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  19. asuragator
    Offline

    asuragator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2009
    Messages:
    20,158
    Likes Received:
    4,061
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +5,926
    This notion that only the most minimal of laws is what the constitution provides is not historically accurate. The constitution provides for a great amount of law-making in the interest of what is good for the country. While we should not want government to try to control everything, reasonable measures and sometimes in some contexts, pretty extreme measures can be taken toward this public good. Ensuring clean drinking water and safe foods for example are public goods that would certainly allow for laws regulating such things. Can some laws go too far? Absolutely. Is there some creep? Absolutely. But as the saying goes, the constitution is not a suicide pact.
    Last edited: Dec 31, 2013
  20. asuragator
    Offline

    asuragator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2009
    Messages:
    20,158
    Likes Received:
    4,061
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +5,926
    That's what I don't understand. The intense focus on federal laws while ignoring state and local ones (albeit in all fairness, this thread is about a local one) is kind of odd, and the many folks who I know well who call themselves libertarians seem to have this overly intense fixation on federal laws.
    Last edited: Dec 31, 2013

Share This Page