100 years ago today

[TruthSeeker]

Fascism! Why aren't these guys catching real crooks. Only in America do the police waste their time looking for speeders.

How many traffic tickets must be issued to pay for one cop's salary.

Wait for the driver to cause a real problem, THEN you can haul 'em in. Speeding is a victimless crime. I HATE IT ALL. Where is liberty and justice for all? This is negative liberty when you hop in a car and think, "Only in America can I break 100 laws, simply by driving this car".

I'm assuming that this is "tongue-in-cheek", right?

The "crime" that always cracks me up is prostitution. These TV reality cop programs show this group of 8-10 cops doing these prostitution stings. They send out cops to pose as hookers or johns, and then bust the real hookers and johns when the "sex for money" transaction goes down (no pun intended).

What an unbelievable waste of resources and manpower. Wasting 8-10 cops to bust "working girls" and guys looking for a "quickie", while REAL criminals are robbing and stealing and assaulting and murdering.

 

[PLC1]

I'm assuming that this is "tongue-in-cheek", right?

The "crime" that always cracks me up is prostitution. These TV reality cop programs show this group of 8-10 cops doing these prostitution stings. They send out cops to pose as hookers or johns, and then bust the real hookers and johns when the "sex for money" transaction goes down (no pun intended).

What an unbelievable waste of resources and manpower. Wasting 8-10 cops to bust "working girls" and guys looking for a "quickie", while REAL criminals are robbing and stealing and assaulting and murdering.

Yes, and speeding, driving drunk, and doing all sorts of foolish things that put us all at risk on the highways.

 

[GenSeneca]

Yes, and speeding, driving drunk, and doing all sorts of foolish things that put us all at risk on the highways.

Then mandate electronic governors for vehicles so they cannot exceed the posted speed limit, mandate the installation of biometric breathalyzers in every vehicle to make sure the driver is not intoxicated, and do all sorts of things that trade the freedom of the individual for the safety of the collective.

 

[PLC1]

Then mandate electronic governors for vehicles so they cannot exceed the posted speed limit, mandate the installation of biometric breathalyzers in every vehicle to make sure the driver is not intoxicated, and do all sorts of things that trade the freedom of the individual for the safety of the collective.

And take away the individual choice to be foolish?

No, it's good enough to protect my right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Or, would you go totally the opposite way and allow the drunks and fools to endanger the rest of us with impunity?

 

[steveox]

Fascism! Why aren't these guys catching real crooks. Only in America do the police waste their time looking for speeders.

How many traffic tickets must be issued to pay for one cop's salary.

Wait for the driver to cause a real problem, THEN you can haul 'em in. Speeding is a victimless crime. I HATE IT ALL. Where is liberty and justice for all? This is negative liberty when you hop in a car and think, "Only in America can I break 100 laws, simply by driving this car".

I think Real Crime should be enforced like Murder,Robbery and Rape. Not for a measley traffic volation.

 

[PLC1]

I think Real Crime should be enforced like Murder,Robbery and Rape. Not for a measley traffic volation.

This looks like a crime to me; loss of property, possible loss of life:

 

[GenSeneca]

This looks like a crime to me; loss of property, possible loss of life:

That's quite an emotional appeal... Statistics from the NHTSA say only 15.4% of drivers involved in fatal crashes are under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or medication. That means 84.6% were not under the influence. Add reckless driving (3%) and pretend those statistics do not overlap, and we have a new total of 81.6% of drivers who were neither under the influence nor driving recklessly when they were involved in a fatal crash.

If you're going to be killed in a car accident, you're much more likely to die as a result of someone you don't consider to be a danger to the rest of us.

Now do you believe, as I do, that your rights end where my nose begins?

Laws against endangering others end your rights at the tip of your fist, no matter how far from my nose it might be.

 

[Hobo1]

Yes, and speeding, driving drunk, and doing all sorts of foolish things that put us all at risk on the highways.

Living among other humans puts you at risk. Life is a risk. Wait until someone does a crime, then punish them.

You know, a real crime like this one:

Speed limits can also be used to improve local air quality issues or other factors affecting environmental quality[63] for example the "environmental speed limits" in the United States including one in an area of Texas.[64]

The European Union is also increasingly using Speed Limits as in response to environmental concerns.[50]​

I love laws that will save the earth from global warming

 

[PLC1]

Living among other humans puts you at risk. Life is a risk. Wait until someone does a crime, then punish them.

You know, a real crime like this one:

Speed limits can also be used to improve local air quality issues or other factors affecting environmental quality[63] for example the "environmental speed limits" in the United States including one in an area of Texas.[64]

The European Union is also increasingly using Speed Limits as in response to environmental concerns.[50]​

I love laws that will save the earth from global warming

Putting other people's lives and property at risk is a crime. How do you feel about kids and illegal fireworks for example? I suppose that depends on where you live (dry or wet), what sort of a roof you have, how close you live to dry brush and grass, etc.

Where do they have "environmental" speed limits today? There used to be a 55 mph limit in California, long before anyone knew about global warming. It was put in place to save fuel during OPEC. It was generally ignored. The fine was $30 up to 70 mph, so most traffic was about 69 mph.

BTW, we would save a ton of imported oil if everyone were to abide by the existing speed limits, but then, that's another issue.

 

[Hobo1]

Putting other people's lives and property at risk is a crime. How do you feel about kids and illegal fireworks for example? I suppose that depends on where you live (dry or wet), what sort of a roof you have, how close you live to dry brush and grass, etc.

Where do they have "environmental" speed limits today? There used to be a 55 mph limit in California, long before anyone knew about global warming. It was put in place to save fuel during OPEC. It was generally ignored. The fine was $30 up to 70 mph, so most traffic was about 69 mph.

BTW, we would save a ton of imported oil if everyone were to abide by the existing speed limits, but then, that's another issue.

In my opinion, putting other people's lives and property at risk is only a reason government to take away my liberty and my freedom. Think about it. I can select any action I take, everything that I do in my life and make it illegal. You are putting someone's life in danger by letting them use your computer. A child might see pornography, or someone may develop carpal tunnel syndrome. Knives should be banned because they can be used as a lethal weapon.

Look how ridiculous the airlines have become. A baggage screener took away my bottle of shampoo at the airport because it could be a potentially contain explosive liquid. Where does it end? It doesn't.

Don't make it a crime to put someone's life at risk, make me liable for some crime or tort. If I give my kids fireworks (which I do), I watch them carefully and teach them safe behavior. If my kid starts a forest fire or my kid blows his finger off because of fireworks, then hold me liable for damages.

With your logic, my kid can't buy fireworks. But my kid can read how to make a pipe bomb from the internet and buy the matches from the grocery store.

Liberty is precious, and we are loosing it to silly claims of putting lives at risk. And the most insidious argument of all is to say, "We are making this illegal for your own protection."

 

[PLC1]

In my opinion, putting other people's lives and property at risk is only a reason government to take away my liberty and my freedom. Think about it. I can select any action I take, everything that I do in my life and make it illegal. You are putting someone's life in danger by letting them use your computer. A child might see pornography, or someone may develop carpal tunnel syndrome. Knives should be banned because they can be used as a lethal weapon.

Look how ridiculous the airlines have become. A baggage screener took away my bottle of shampoo at the airport because it could be a potentially contain explosive liquid. Where does it end? It doesn't.

Don't make it a crime to put someone's life at risk, make me liable for some crime or tort. If I give my kids fireworks (which I do), I watch them carefully and teach them safe behavior. If my kid starts a forest fire or my kid blows his finger off because of fireworks, then hold me liable for damages.

With your logic, my kid can't buy fireworks. But my kid can read how to make a pipe bomb from the internet and buy the matches from the grocery store.

Liberty is precious, and we are loosing it to silly claims of putting lives at risk. And the most insidious argument of all is to say, "We are making this illegal for your own protection."

Making a pipe bomb is a crime, too, even if it doesn't kill anyone.

By your logic, it should be perfectly legal to conduct target practice on a busy street unless you actually hit someone. It should be OK to drive drunk, so long as you weave your way home without actually causing an accident. It should be legal to go as fast as your car will go, no matter where you are, until you injure someone or destroy property.

Laws against speeding, driving drunk, firing weapons in populated areas, and the like are not for your own protection. They are for the protection of the rest of us.

"....these truths are self evident, that all men are created equal, endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, among those life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (which originally meant the pursuit of property) and (paraphrasing) governments are instituted for the protection of those rights.

I have a right to drive the freeway without having to dodge idiots racing or driving drunk. Government is instituted to protect my right to life and property, and protecting me from fools and drunks is a legitimate function of that government.

It's not to protect me from myself.

 

[Gipper]

Making a pipe bomb is a crime, too, even if it doesn't kill anyone.

By your logic, it should be perfectly legal to conduct target practice on a busy street unless you actually hit someone. It should be OK to drive drunk, so long as you weave your way home without actually causing an accident. It should be legal to go as fast as your car will go, no matter where you are, until you injure someone or destroy property.

Laws against speeding, driving drunk, firing weapons in populated areas, and the like are not for your own protection. They are for the protection of the rest of us.

"....these truths are self evident, that all men are created equal, endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, among those life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (which originally meant the pursuit of property) and (paraphrasing) governments are instituted for the protection of those rights.

I have a right to drive the freeway without having to dodge idiots racing or driving drunk. Government is instituted to protect my right to life and property, and protecting me from fools and drunks is a legitimate function of that government.

It's not to protect me from myself.

Agreed, but where do we draw the line between individual liberty and protecting society? It is nonsensical to argue that our government is leaning toward more liberty for the individual. It is quite the opposite. And, the pendulum has swung too far. The government now tells us how our toilets should work, what light bulbs to buy, and a myriad of other regulations and laws limiting our freedoms.

I am not a cigarette smoker (though I do enjoy a cigar while hacking away on the golf course), but look at how smokers have had their rights taken from them. It is apparent that soon it will be illegal to smoke ANYWHERE. I heard that some state is debating making smoking in the car and in the home illegal if a child is present.

What this proves is progressive/liberal policies implemented by an omnipresent coercive government ALWAYS results in less individual liberty.

There is no debating the fact that Americans today have much less liberty than our ancestors did before the American Revolution and they were ruled by a tyrannical king.

 

[PLC1]

Agreed, but where do we draw the line between individual liberty and protecting society? It is nonsensical to argue that our government is leaning toward more liberty for the individual. It is quite the opposite. And, it has gone too far. The government now tells us how our toilets should work, what light bulbs to buy, and a myriad of other regulations and laws limiting our freedoms.

I am not a cigarette smoker (though I do enjoy a cigar while hacking away on the golf course), but look at how smokers have had their rights taken from them. It is apparent that soon it will be illegal to smoke ANYWHERE. I heard that some state is debating making smoking in the car with child illegal.

What this proves is progressive/liberal policies implemented by an omnipresent coercive government ALWAYS results in less individual liberty.

There is no debating the fact that Americans have much less liberty than our ancestors did before the American Revolution.

Mostly agreed.

Cigarettes are a bane and a nuisance. Further, continued exposure to second hand smoke can and often does lead to serious health issues.

But yes, the government tends to go too far, resulting in less individual liberty.

You should be allowed to smoke anything you like, so long as you do it outdoors and downwind.

 

[GenSeneca]

Living among other humans puts you at risk. Life is a risk. Wait until someone does a crime, then punish them.

Looks like you and I are on the same page here... If you're not violating anyone's rights, then you're not committing a crime. It's only for violating the rights of others that you should be punished.

Where does it end? It doesn't.

Moving laws away from that clear black and white line of 'either your violating rights or your not' and into the "gray" area of 'might-could-possibly-violate ones rights', creates an ever expanding gray area that does never end.

Laws against speeding, driving drunk, firing weapons in populated areas, and the like are not for your own protection. They are for the protection of the rest of us.

Protecting "the rest of us" from what? ....Having our rights violated. That's the real crime. As Hobo pointed out, your "protection" laws have no end, there is always going to be some potential "threat" still lurking out there. As I pointed out, the odds of being being killed by a speeding drunk are less than 18%, which leaves at least an 82% chance you'll be killed by someone you do not view as a threat, and therefore have no laws (yet) to "protect" you from them.

 

[PLC1]

Looks like you and I are on the same page here... If you're not violating anyone's rights, then you're not committing a crime. It's only for violating the rights of others that you should be punished.



Moving laws away from that clear black and white line of 'either your violating rights or your not' and into the "gray" area of 'might-could-possibly-violate ones rights', creates an ever expanding gray area that does never end.


Protecting "the rest of us" from what? ....Having our rights violated. That's the real crime. As Hobo pointed out, your "protection" laws have no end, there is always going to be some potential "threat" still lurking out there. As I pointed out, the odds of being being killed by a speeding drunk are less than 18%, which leaves at least an 82% chance you'll be killed by someone you do not view as a threat, and therefore have no laws (yet) to "protect" you from them.

So, you're willing to accept an 18% risk of being killed, and who knows how great of a risk to your property, in order to allow others to engage in foolishness that risks not only them, but us as well?

No, sorry, that is not an option.

If someone wants to surf the ten meter waves or go base jumping, let them. If they want to stage races on public highways, that's where we need to draw the line. The one thing is a risk to those who engage in risky behavior, the other is a risk to everyone.