Tuesday, June 12, 2007

AmeriNZ #16 – Feedback Interaction

Episode 16 is now available, and it's free no matter where you get it from. You can listen to it or download it through the player at the bottom of the post here, or subscribe for free through iTunes here (you must have the free iTunes player installed). You can also listen to it for free through the player on my MySpace page.

Today I talk mostly about feedback, both by email and the comments from Episode 15.

First, though, I clarify a couple things about the “No Nukes” topic, inspired in part by the summary on podcastsoup.net

An expat American emailed me with some confusion over the extent of poverty in
New Zealand. There isn’t homelessness in New Zealand as Americans understand the word, but there are poor people. I explain how the request for donations addresses that (or doesn’t). Overall, the poverty in New Zealand is different than in America, but in New Zealand cities it may be similar to American cities of a similar size.

After that, there’s an extended discussion of the comments from Episode 15, one of which is quite long. These provide me with the opportunity to go into more detail about the topics discussed.

What about personal responsibility? Do people who bring harm onto themselves through bad deeds still deserve the full support of society?

New people on my Frappr! I also give a little more info about what’s coming in future podcasts.

Get AmeriNZ Podcast for free on iTunes


mike hipp said...

Thanks for the shout out on your show today Arthur, it's very much appreciated.

There are many issues surrounding your story about the meth lab and the public having to pay for the madical care of the men who were cooking up the drug .... I am only going to focus on one for this comment.

Consider why those two men were making a batch of illegal drugs. I can say with near 100% certantity that it was being cooked up because of the profit that it represented to them.

You say why does the public have a responsibility to care for stupid people and I agree with you, it shouldn't. They should have to pay that money back but the problem here goes deeper. People should have the right to be stupid and that includes injesting substances that might bring about changes in their body chemistry.

It's a long winded way of saying decrimilize drugs which gets rid of the profit motive and then these drugs will only be taken by stupid people who get them from companies that make them under controlled conditions.... i.e. the only person being harmed is the person taking the drugs and that's his or her right.

Now, having said that.... if somebody takes a drug and then goes out and causes harm to another individual through the use of a car or whatever... then that person should be subject to the full force of the law. Just don't go into their home and try to regulate what they do there.... that's all I'm saying.

Kalv1n said...

Well, Mike said a lot of what I was going to say about your analogy. Personally, I'm in favor of general accident funds. But I'm certainly not in favor of tort reform. It was funny, the guy who Regan (or was it Bush?) nominated for the Supreme Court was a huge supporter of tort reform (basically making it so people don't personally sue each other for car accidents, slip-and-falls, batteries, negligence, etc.) and recently, he slipped and fell on some stairs, and guess what? That's right! He's suing!

I guess what I'm saying is that I really agree with this cosmopolitanism book that I've been reading. Principles are near impossible to define and do not transfer well to one person from another. Just look at the "golden rule". Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Maybe you would love for someone in a bar to come up and take you home and ravish you, that might be the last hope of some straight guy in the bar. Instead, the book (and I am too) tries to focus on VALUES. Things we can collectively discuss that we can define more easily. And in a way, looking back, maybe you were talking more about values, and I think Mike and you were as well, are just flushing out what the values are that are involved in the scenario. Anywho, feel free not to respond to this rambling incoherent mess!

Nice show though.

Anonymous said...

Every time I hear your show and hear you talk about all the different aspects of New Zealand I more convinced it's the place to be.

Love hearing your responses to all the comments.

Arthur Schenck said...

Mike: I completely agree with you. This also raises the whole issue of personal responsibility, which I think is the flip side of personal freedom. There are a couple things I'll add to this in today's podcast.

Kalvin: Not rambling or incoherent at all. In America, I was against tort reform, too, because the system there had so many barriers to justice for ordinary people that the right to sue, in my opinion, was a necessary evil in order to prevent (or provide redress for) damage from runaway corporations. It's not so necessary in other countries. Interesting about the values thing and I'd like to know more about that.

Archerr: In so many ways, New Zealand is the place to be, for me at least. Plenty of other people migrate here, too.

The main reason I read the comments is precisely as you say--so I can share my responses. It also gives me an opportunity to share some of my own thinking about the issues raised. And, listeners get a chance to understand what I was thinking when I wrote my own comments.

ReMARKable Palate said...

Kalvin, it was Robert Bork, who slipped and fell while going up to the dais at the Yale Club. He had a long love-hate relationship with Yale, mostly hate. Even though he taught there for 15 years. He frequently joked: "Save America; close Yale Law School."