Topic: Right to endanger? - page 2. (Read 6727 times)

Whoa, whoa, whoa!  These are Internet forums you're talking about here.  Ad hominem attacks *and* straw man arguments is what you were looking for 


Sorry to burst this bubble for 'ya, but for $20-30, you can take any car to a local autocross event and see what you're capable of.  So, you're allowed and encouraged.  It just isn't free. 

Is the "big part of why [you're] an anarchist" because you want to be 'free' to drive how you want?  I, personally, don't want to be on the road with every over-confident Fast and Furious fan free-for-all racing their lowered Honda, with a fart can, and blown shocks, thinking it is a supercar,  This is where I love having conversations with staunch anarchists.  I have to ask, "how would that work?"  Could you get affordable insurance if you drove like a maniac?  Is insurance against the anarchist's view?  If so, how does an anarchist pay for damages?  Is there a debtor's prison for anarchists?

They are honest questions.  I didn't mean to upset you.  As for the sky being so full of aircraft, I don't see any relation between participant density and the need for regulations.  I think higher density requires more freedom so people can find ways to cooperate without worrying about breaking laws.

Spoken like a pontificating philosopher who doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground. Lot of words from you, without understanding the simplicity of it all.

Let me help you out. This isn't the romantic age of the Great Gatsby's roaring '20s. There's a shitload of aircraft in the sky these days. Regulations are necessary. Unless, of course, in your fantasizing mind, complete with all it's ignorance of aviation, you can derive a solution that will enable safe air travel. If not, please shut the fuck up with your aviation philosophies.

I don't think anyone would use "freedom" to describe the impossible condition of being able to exceed limits imposed on us by physics ("performance limited", as you wrote).  It usually refers to an absence of regulation.  In that sense, the notion of freedom is a fantasy, in the sky or not, but fantasies can come true.  They are more likely as more people understand what it takes to make them a reality.  Flying in the sky (regulations or not) was once a fantasy for humans, and now millions do it every day.  Flying in the sky without regulations ("freedom in the sky" as you put it) was once the norm, but then the government got involved.  Likewise motorized travel - first pure fantasy, then reality without regulations, and now we don't have freedom on our roads because of regulations like the speed limit.

Would you like the state to create regulations about posting to bitcointalk.org?  Or about how you use your toothbrush?  What you eat?  What parts of your house you can sleep in?  Which side of the walkway you use in a park or a mall?  Or would you rather have the freedom to explore the options on your own and make your own decisions about what limits you will set for yourself in these areas? 

I can guess that you'd rather have the freedom in all the areas I mentioned, but not in your car on the road, so how do you decide in what areas you want to be ruled and in what areas you'd rather have freedom?  Does it make any difference whether the limits the state creates apply only to you, to everyone but you, or to everyone including you?

An ethics question...fun.

The Golden Rule (i.e. 'Do unto others as you would have done unto you") exists for a good reason, namely that it's likely how justice unfolds in the Universe.

The Golden Rule is beautiful because it is both objective and subjective.  It applies to everyone (objective) and obviously allows for individual interpretation (subjective).  

Syndiffeonesis (sameness-in-difference) is the logical principle that any two relands x and y are fundamentally similar, for even if one were to say x is absolutely different from y, then both x and y are still the same in that they share inclusion within the medium of absolute difference.  This logical principle has serious implications on the objective-vs.-subjective debate, and it shows that objectivity and subjectivity are simultaneously the same and different.

So, do people have the right to endanger the lives of others?  Is it OK for me to drive 120 mph in a 55 mph zone?  Is it OK for me to aim a gun loaded with a single bullet at your head and pull the trigger?  Well, what do you think?  One person may answer 'yes,' the other may answer 'no,' and both can still be correct if they abide by the Golden Rule.  Statistical analysis of endangerment does nothing to suggest one way or the other whether something is 'wrong' or not, it only suggests the likelihood of endangerment.  

Nope. I meant disgusting. It fits the bill perfectly: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/disgusting

Aircraft are subject to altitude, flight path, and speed limits, both regulatory, and performance limited. Great circles often define the most economical route, and they are adhered to, but subject to airspace regulations. Range is limited by fuel as well. Direction of travel also affects the chosen altitude (think in terms of lanes). Altitude also affects speed, especially with regard to what is on the ground below. And finally, there are restrictions with regard to the sound barrier.

The notion of freedom in the sky is a fantasy.

Vne is not a speed limit, it's a structural limit.  You are free to exceed it at your peril and the FAA doesn't care (until your flaming hole in the ground causes property damage of course, but that's another story.)

It's scary when the training wheels come off for some.

It's almost never stated flat out like that, but it's always asked in one way or another.

I noticed some ad hominem attacks and wanted to suggest that refraining from them strengthens everything else you say because it demonstrates an ability to address what's important and ignore what isn't.  That isn't enough for me, though:  I also feel the need to imagine the other readers who see me ignore and fail to return an ad hominem attack, imagining also that my silence will be a shining example to them.

I love that question - never seen it before, not stated that way.  I think the answer for those who have an ego to defend on the pro-law side will be something like "Not everyone knows their limits, so we have to provide them with some through a government," as if the provision of law is necessitated by ignorance.  It is difficult to shake that assumption once you hold it, so I offer this to help:

The best way to find your limits is to be allowed and encouraged to explore them in a safe environment.  When it is illegal to operate near your own personal limit, you have no (legal) way to test and expand it, nor can anyone benefit from your ability to operate beyond that legal limit.  If you read this thinking about driving fast, read it again thinking about doing anything the law touches.  This is a big part of why I am an anarchist.

Disgusting is such a subjective term.  Do you really mean something more like foolish, dangerous, or immoral?  I would submit that sex is pretty disgusting too, but we still have kids.

This goes back to the question libertarians and anarchists always end up asking: Is it better to know your limits, and stay within them, or to allow an external authority to set limits for you?

For instance, I know I would probably not be able to get a license in Finland, at least not at my current level of skill. With enough practice, I could probably do it.

Speed limits encourage reliance on external authority, in addition to garnering revenue for the locality they're in. They encourage "average drivers," rather than skilled ones who know their limits.

What is crazy is that drunk driving does increase risk for everyone and that there are laws about it yet those who cause drunk driving accidents are typically repeat offenders either because punishments are too low or they simply drive illegally. Government is simply not in a good position to administer access to the roads. They can't simply consider safety and efficiency but there are many other competing considerations and some hurdles based on (quite sound) legal restrictions on what government can actually do (those drunk-driving road blocks are a travesty

The driving test here in Tennessee is a joke also.

You're rather uncultured, and dare I say, stunted, by virtue of both your black and white and callous view on life, and your misconception of movie genres. It's Japanese melodrama (or Hong Kong or Taiwanese) for the most part - movies that have been voted the greatest films ever made - as in:

1. Tokyo Story (Ozu)
15. Late Spring (Ozu)
24. In the Mood for Love (Wong Kar-Wai)
50. Ugetsu (Mizoguchi)
59. Sansho the Bailiff (Mizoguchi)
84. A Brighter Summer Day (Yang)
93. Yi Yi (Yang)

The funniest thing of all - your attitude has you deliberately missing some of the most powerful, poignant and most revered films ever made. And I warned you - if you mention films negatively, you're going to get lectured on your own ignorance on the subject.

FirstAscent still using the Newspeak dictionary, I see (in quotes).

Simply put; In many cases you can own things that can endanger others (cars, guns (for now), swords, etc), but that does not give you the right to use them in a way that endangers others.  In my state, the laws clearly allow anyone to counter a real threat against someone's life, including a 3rd party, with deadly force to stop it.  None of that waiting for the bad guy to shoot you first, crap.

Back to speeding... Near and dear to me, because 1) I instruct types of high performance driving and have seen how badly people can f-up when faced with handling a car beyond its limits, and 2) I live where Janet Napolitano's legacy includes shoehorning 78 speed cameras into the state budget as revenue generating tools.  Thank goodness the latter was repealed, but speeding enforcement was a hot topic for a few years, here.

Speed limits include a lot of factors.  The one that is usually absent from forum discussions are how drivers react to situations that they need to stop, slow, or change direction suddenly.  The US, like many countries, does not require drivers to prove they can handle cars with any slip angle on the tires.  In almost every situation I've seen a driver on the road start to slide tires, they wind up losing control.  I lost track of how many cars I've seen stuffed into highway guardrails because the driver grabbed the brakes as soon as the tires started to slide.  Speed limits are kept artificially low to avoid putting drivers in situations where they need to control a car at/beyond the limit.  I admire countries like Finland where getting a license requires driving your car beyond the limits on slippery surfaces while maintaining control.  (Probably why so many top race car drivers come from Finland.)  I'd say that any complaints about low speed limits should be directed towards either the average drivers, or the lack of training required for them to get a license.

I don't expect such a stunted mind as yours to understand reality. Just go back to your Japanese Sci-Fi, and let the rest of us do the big thinking.

Sometimes you say things that are just mind boggling. This wins the 'sick post of the year' award.

It hardly weakens my argument. The drunk, by virtue of surviving the accident, can pay restitution. Of course, if he didn't, it could have been taken from his estate, but that's neither really here nor there.

Of course it's a bad thing that the person the drunk hit ended up dead. I just don't see why punishing the victim's survivors by forcing them to pay for the drunk's (and so many other drunk's) room and board is a valid option. Especially when so many of those other drunks did not harm anyone.

You're imposing an unnecessary social cost, you who are so concerned with externalities. Now that's irony.

Which only weakens your point. Do you not think it's bad thing that who the drunk hit ended up dead?