Demonstrate that C. S. Lewis was against traffic laws.
You're so cute when you try to use logic.
As I said, demonstrate that C. S. Lewis was against traffic laws.
Topic: So I got pulled over for speeding... - page 3. (Read 6742 times)
You're so cute when you try to use logic.
As I said, demonstrate that C. S. Lewis was against traffic laws.
Who did he harm?
Depends on how you look at it. He took up resources that could better be spent on solving or preventing other crimes.
And the consequences of a collision gets worse with increased velocity, so while nothing happened today, the police acted in the public interest to prevent that.
Nope. That's an increased risk of harming someone, and it was his decision to take that risk. Risk ≠ harm, though. So, fail on that, too. Or you could argue that increased speed leads to more pollution which harms the environment and thus everybody.
Nope. Any increased pollution is a result of increased consumption of gas. The cost of the pollution that is caused by burning the gas is already factored into the cost of gas. Either way he didn't follow the rules that were setup and got punished for it. Rightfully so.
Nope, still not harm. That's no different from jaywalking or letting your grass grow too tall. 1) You're not serious? If people weren't speeding cops could do other things. Now they have to watch over people who can't follow the rules. That cop would could have been put to better use than to catch speeders. Helping somebody's granny over a street or something.
2) That's his risk to take when he's on the race track. Not on a public road. The harm he has potential to do increases, and he has no right to take that decision for everybody else on the road.
3) More fuel burned, more pollution. WTF does cost have to do with anything? People nearby breathe in more pollution, that's harm. And if you agree with +90% of the climate scientists you also contribute to global warming, admittedly not by much though. Still harmful to the environment.
4) Nope, not harm. I agree with that. Didn't say it was though. Just that there are rules and you either follow them or accept the consequences.
In my state they do you for speeding if you are 1km over the limit. Now speedo error can be +/- 10%. Tell me how one can do the right thing when its technically impossible to do so ?
I believe the most likely case here is you don't have your facts straight.
Demonstrate that C. S. Lewis was against traffic laws.
You're so cute when you try to use logic.
My way causes risk of harm to the neighbors.
Your way causes definite harm to the property owner.
Risk of harm > definite harm.
Your way causes definite harm to the property owner.
Risk of harm > definite harm.
Children have boundaries for their own safety as well as to prevent harm to others. Adults aren't really that different. Boundaries for behavior are useful when living within a society. There isn't anything magical about being an adult.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternalism
Quote from: C. S. Lewis
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
Comparing adults to children is not the way to win friends. The "something magical" about being adult is that you get to make your own decisions.
Demonstrate that C. S. Lewis was against traffic laws.
Not when you endanger others due to irresponsible behavior. You have a habit of twisting around things. Such habits will lead you down paths that will not be fruitful for you, precisely because your views are a twisted version of common sense.
Try to be more constructive.
Who did he harm?
Depends on how you look at it. He took up resources that could better be spent on solving or preventing other crimes.
And the consequences of a collision gets worse with increased velocity, so while nothing happened today, the police acted in the public interest to prevent that.
Nope. That's an increased risk of harming someone, and it was his decision to take that risk. Risk ≠ harm, though. So, fail on that, too. Or you could argue that increased speed leads to more pollution which harms the environment and thus everybody.
Nope. Any increased pollution is a result of increased consumption of gas. The cost of the pollution that is caused by burning the gas is already factored into the cost of gas. Either way he didn't follow the rules that were setup and got punished for it. Rightfully so.
Nope, still not harm. That's no different from jaywalking or letting your grass grow too tall. 1) You're not serious? If people weren't speeding cops could do other things. Now they have to watch over people who can't follow the rules. That cop would could have been put to better use than to catch speeders. Helping somebody's granny over a street or something.
2) That's his risk to take when he's on the race track. Not on a public road. The harm he has potential to do increases, and he has no right to take that decision for everybody else on the road.
3) More fuel burned, more pollution. WTF does cost have to do with anything? People nearby breathe in more pollution, that's harm. And if you agree with +90% of the climate scientists you also contribute to global warming, admittedly not by much though. Still harmful to the environment.
4) Nope, not harm. I agree with that. Didn't say it was though. Just that there are rules and you either follow them or accept the consequences.
In my state they do you for speeding if you are 1km over the limit. Now speedo error can be +/- 10%. Tell me how one can do the right thing when its technically impossible to do so ?
I can't believe what I am reading. 79 mph (126.5 kph) and 'pretty damn fast'? lol
Love that part too:
I didn't expect the land of the muscle cars to be so harsh on public roads' speed limits. If the driving conditions are safe I don't even see problems in driving 120 mph in the center of a city (although there might not be many possibilities, I can often drive at ~80 mph and much more on highways).
We're saving gas for WWII! Don't worry. We got our shit figured out. Love that part too:
Another disclaimer: Aside from travel on the interstate up to Duluth one year, that is the FASTEST I have ever gone for more than a second or two when I redline my engine...
Typical speeding for me consists of maybe 8-12 over, but usually closer to 8 than 12. My speedo also over-reports my speed by about ~2%, so I really have no clue exactly HOW much over I'm going when I dip up and down.
This morning, I was REALLY late to work and that was the reason for the speedin'.
Typical speeding for me consists of maybe 8-12 over, but usually closer to 8 than 12. My speedo also over-reports my speed by about ~2%, so I really have no clue exactly HOW much over I'm going when I dip up and down.
This morning, I was REALLY late to work and that was the reason for the speedin'.
I didn't expect the land of the muscle cars to be so harsh on public roads' speed limits. If the driving conditions are safe I don't even see problems in driving 120 mph in the center of a city (although there might not be many possibilities, I can often drive at ~80 mph and much more on highways).
My car is rated to 110mph, but has a hard time getting to 90. It's got something like, 55KW. Fucking economy cars.
My way causes risk of harm to the neighbors.
Your way causes definite harm to the property owner.
Risk of harm > definite harm.
Your way causes definite harm to the property owner.
Risk of harm > definite harm.
Children have boundaries for their own safety as well as to prevent harm to others. Adults aren't really that different. Boundaries for behavior are useful when living within a society. There isn't anything magical about being an adult.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternalism
Quote from: C. S. Lewis
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
Comparing adults to children is not the way to win friends. The "something magical" about being adult is that you get to make your own decisions.
My way causes risk of harm to the neighbors.
Your way causes definite harm to the property owner.
Risk of harm > definite harm.
Your way causes definite harm to the property owner.
Risk of harm > definite harm.
Children have boundaries for their own safety as well as to prevent harm to others. Adults aren't really that different. Boundaries for behavior are useful when living within a society. There isn't anything magical about being an adult.
Our opinions differ in this matter. You won't succeed in convincing me, I won't succeed in convincing you. Further discussion will serve no useful purpose. It has been an interesting discussion nonetheless.
You're probably right that I will not convince you. I know you will not convince me. But consider this:
My way causes risk of harm to the neighbors.
Your way causes definite harm to the property owner.
Risk of harm > definite harm.
Or they can simply join together as a community and force the offending property owner out, or otherwise impose their will upon him. Which is what they already do, and so we've come full circle.
Might makes right, huh?Or they can simply join together as a community and force the offending property owner out, or otherwise impose their will upon him. Which is what they already do, and so we've come full circle.
Might makes right, huh?The funny thing about statists is that the first argument they use when anarchists complain about taxes is "just move, then," but when property use comes into play, that argument is never brought out.
The owner cannot set whatever rules they want. Their property will still border the property of others and those others will not be willing to accept certain levels of risk that the private owner is willing to put on them. Calling the property private does not solve the problem of risk management.
Then they can move.
Might makes right, huh?
The funny thing about statists is that the first argument they use when anarchists complain about taxes is "just move, then," but when property use comes into play, that argument is never brought out.
The owner cannot set whatever rules they want. Their property will still border the property of others and those others will not be willing to accept certain levels of risk that the private owner is willing to put on them. Calling the property private does not solve the problem of risk management.
Then they can move.
Might makes right, huh?
The funny thing about statists is that the first argument they use when anarchists complain about taxes is "just move, then," but when property use comes into play, that argument is never brought out.
The owner cannot set whatever rules they want. Their property will still border the property of others and those others will not be willing to accept certain levels of risk that the private owner is willing to put on them. Calling the property private does not solve the problem of risk management.
Then they can move.
The funny thing about statists is that the first argument they use when anarchists complain about taxes is "just move, then," but when property use comes into play, that argument is never brought out.
The owner cannot set whatever rules they want. Their property will still border the property of others and those others will not be willing to accept certain levels of risk that the private owner is willing to put on them. Calling the property private does not solve the problem of risk management.
Then they can move.
That would be an opinion, not a fact. It is as easy to argue that the speeder is responsible for hitting the person who cuts them off, as it is to argue that the shooter is responsible for shooting the person that suddenly steps in front of their bullet.
Yet, you ignored my point: "clearly illustrated by the anecdotal evidence presented by Electicbees. Skill and attention plays a large part in it."Why shouldn't they get to? I can't agree that you should be allowed to turn your home in the middle of a residential community into a high explosives factory. You may be willing to accept that risk, but you shouldn't be allowed to force that risk on the people who own homes next door to yours.
Your own argument was that the shooter's rights shouldn't supersede the playground kids'. By that same argument, what lets the kids' rights supersede the shooter's? The funny thing about statists is that the first argument they use when anarchists complain about taxes is "just move, then," but when property use comes into play, that argument is never brought out.No, eliminating public property doesn't solve the problem.
Yes, it does. The owner can set whatever rules they want, including a speed limit on private roads. Or they can choose not to impose a speed limit, and you can choose to drive on that road or not. Public roads are everyone's property equally, and you don't have the right to dictate how someone else uses their property.That would be an opinion, not a fact. It is as easy to argue that the speeder is responsible for hitting the person who cuts them off, as it is to argue that the shooter is responsible for shooting the person that suddenly steps in front of their bullet.
Yet, you ignored my point: "clearly illustrated by the anecdotal evidence presented by Electicbees. Skill and attention plays a large part in it."
Why shouldn't they get to? I can't agree that you should be allowed to turn your home in the middle of a residential community into a high explosives factory. You may be willing to accept that risk, but you shouldn't be allowed to force that risk on the people who own homes next door to yours.
Your own argument was that the shooter's rights shouldn't supersede the playground kids'. By that same argument, what lets the kids' rights supersede the shooter's? The funny thing about statists is that the first argument they use when anarchists complain about taxes is "just move, then," but when property use comes into play, that argument is never brought out.
No, eliminating public property doesn't solve the problem.
Yes, it does. The owner can set whatever rules they want, including a speed limit on private roads. Or they can choose not to impose a speed limit, and you can choose to drive on that road or not. Public roads are everyone's property equally, and you don't have the right to dictate how someone else uses their property.
But why should even 95% of the population get to enforce their will on the other 5%? Simply because there are more of them? How does their right to use the land supersede the right of the minority?
Because the two cannot coexist. Either gunners get to use the playground and force people out of it who would be using it as intended, or laws are put into place for acceptable use of public property. Either speeders get to user the road and force people off of it who would be using it as intended, or laws are put into place for acceptable use of public property.To me, it is all about intended usage. Roadways are built so that people can get from point A to point B, not so that people can use it as a racetrack. Playgrounds are built so that kids have play structures to play on, not so that gun-wielding people can use it as a shooting range. Gun shooting ranges are built for guns to be shot in, not for kids to play in. Racetracks are built for races to take place, not for people to get from point A to point B on. And laws enforcing those proper uses are absolutely legitimate and necessary (in my opinion). Otherwise, those who wished to use it for its intended purpose will be largely evicted from it via the risk forced upon them by others.
notice something interesting in your examples. Racetracks are private property. Gun ranges are private property.
The entire argument hinges on the fact that it's "public" property in the first place. Public property is a fallacious concept - more than one person cannot simultaneously, fully own any scarce resource.
If a restaurant goes out of business, the first thing you think in your head is "bad management". If a fatal car crash occurs on the highway, is "management" held accountable in any way? There is no accountability, because of the huge inherent moral hazard of the bullshit concept of "common" or "public" ownership of a scarce resource. non-scarce, you can go to town (why Intellectual "property" is absolutely garbage), but with a scarce good that cannot be instantly replicated ad infinitum, you cannot have simultaneous full ownership/control over it.
The stop gap for this huge moral hazard is mandatory insurance, which just further shifts liability for ACTUAL harm, and then behavior modification for victimless acts with penalties for violation of what can only be completely arbitrary restrictions (since customers cannot have a say over them, in any way whatsoever). What I'm saying is, I can get a $300 ticket for speeding and harming no one, but then I go out drunk driving and kill someone, and I might get a couple of years in jail and a hefty insurance premium once my privilege suspension has been revoked.
If we had a free market in roads, private property ownership and actual accountability, I would have to pay to feed, shelter, and clothe the family of the guy I just killed because I felt like driving drunk. Instead, we just play around inside of this stupid gray area where all of the moral lines get changed whenever the consensus changes, and people are robbed at gunpoint and then not held accountable for actual harm caused. Welcome to socialism and moral fascism. It's A Wonderful Life....
But why should even 95% of the population get to enforce their will on the other 5%? Simply because there are more of them? How does their right to use the land supersede the right of the minority?
Because the two cannot coexist. Either gunners get to use the playground and force people out of it who would be using it as intended, or laws are put into place for acceptable use of public property. Either speeders get to user the road and force people off of it who would be using it as intended, or laws are put into place for acceptable use of public property.To me, it is all about intended usage. Roadways are built so that people can get from point A to point B, not so that people can use it as a racetrack. Playgrounds are built so that kids have play structures to play on, not so that gun-wielding people can use it as a shooting range. Gun shooting ranges are built for guns to be shot in, not for kids to play in. Racetracks are built for races to take place, not for people to get from point A to point B on. And laws enforcing those proper uses are absolutely legitimate and necessary (in my opinion). Otherwise, those who wished to use it for its intended purpose will be largely evicted from it via the risk forced upon them by others.
I'd argue that fault lies with both in such a situation. I don't think that most people aren't aware that some drivers exceed the speed limit, but that doesn't prevent high speed accidents from occurring every day.
No, it doesn't. . .
I'm impressed with your consistent opinion on the matter and can certainly respect that. Unfortunately I can't agree with your viewpoint. I doubt any amount of conversation will ever bring either of us around to the other's point of view on such a matter. In my opinion, society can collectively own a piece of land, and can through law determine uses for that land that they find acceptable. Perhaps it needs to be a majority, or a super majority, or 95%, but at some level, the local community should be able to protect intended use.
But why should even 95% of the population get to enforce their will on the other 5%?The problem is the fact that the roads, and other public property, are equally owned by everyone. The speeder has just as much right to do whatever he wants on the road as anyone else. All of this is solved by making roads private property. Then you can place whatever restrictions on their use that you want. In the meantime, don't impede the man's right to use his property as he sees fit, unless he harms someone else.
No, eliminating public property doesn't solve the problem. As you can see in my example of turning a home into a high explosives factory, you still have to deal with a community being able to control the safety of its residents. Public or private, the fact remains. We live in a world populated by a multitude of people who are not exactly like ourselves. There is no way to exist peacefully in such a world if everyone chooses to live entirely selfishly. The only way it works is if there is a system in place to ensure that certain rights of some are not imposed on by others. It is my opinion, and the opinion of a controlling majority of the population, that a community has to have control over risk management. The majority will always force their will upon others if enough of them feel that the will of the others increases their risk to an unacceptable level. Jump to: