Ownership of property and your rights as a citizen - Page 3

nbiggershaft · 12-29-2006, 03:54 PM

Originally Posted by lew

Because the free market is SO inefficient like that lol!

How the fuck else would you do it? I guarentee I would dodge every toll in my city if you didn't put them at every corner.

lew · 12-29-2006, 05:49 PM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

So then you would have no problem with me owning and selling nuclear weapons, right.

Everyone can own one and they should only be in trouble if they use it.

Although others have made the argument about Artillery before, I myself have no problem with you owning nukes. Which is EXACTLY why I have no problem with other nations owning nukes. Which is why I'm against invading Iraq or any other nation.

lew · 12-29-2006, 05:49 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

State park? I pay taxes to maintain it so, i own it, i am going to go cut trees down. Its not hurting you so mind your own business.

I would mind my own business.

nbiggershaft · 12-29-2006, 06:15 PM

Originally Posted by lew

Although others have made the argument about Artillery before, I myself have no problem with you owning nukes. Which is EXACTLY why I have no problem with other nations owning nukes. Which is why I'm against invading Iraq or any other nation.

How is life in fairy tale land?

lew · 12-29-2006, 07:38 PM

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

How is life in fairy tail land?

Insightful post.

Diesel66 · 12-29-2006, 08:00 PM

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

How the fuck else would you do it? I guarentee I would dodge every toll in my city if you didn't put them at every corner.

funny thing is his world would have more tracking then the current one. GPS on every car, automatic billing based on the number of miles you traveled on x's road, and y's highway. etc....

RMNIXON · 12-29-2006, 08:26 PM

You have every right to be stupid until it has a serious negative effect on someone else. Then you become a celebrity or end up in court or both!

lew · 12-29-2006, 08:37 PM

Originally Posted by Diesel66

funny thing is his world would have more tracking then the current one. GPS on every car, automatic billing based on the number of miles you traveled on x's road, and y's highway. etc....

No

Dumpy Dooby · 12-29-2006, 08:41 PM

I'll go ahead and jump in here now.

Lew and I disagree on very few things when it comes to politics, but one thing that I've noticed is this: He does not believe in making things illegal if there's a possibility that it can be extremely dangerous to others. I agree with him to a certain extent, but there's a point at which I draw the line. I have a problem with individuals owning nukes. I have a problem with people going "11ty billion miles an hour." On the other hand, I have a bigger problem with establishing a concrete limit.

However, I think that the law should be more pragmatic. That is, rather than a speed limit, the law should only extend to individuals that are being dangerous while driving fast. I have a bit of knowledge regarding how speed limits are established (in California, that is); while not going into detail about it, I'll just say it's fundamentally based on circular reasoning. Before you start that "404 link not found" bullshit, let me emphasize that HOW California establishes their limits is irrelevant to me. I'm against it, regardless of how it's done; I'm merely saying that I have a pretty good understanding of how it's done.

Anyway, the restrictions should be more dynamic. At 2am, I should be able to go 70mph (arbitrary figure; again, I'm not submitting something concrete) down a city street. While during the day, it might be more practical for me to maintain a speed of ~45mph on the same road.

I acknowledge that my position seems to be kind of a slippery slope. The question is asked, "At what point do we decide that the person is endangering others?" To which I don't necessarily have a response, which is why I default to abolishing the limits all together. If there's no practical way of establishing the law, then the law should not be established.

Perhaps lew and I are in agreement in terms of legalities, but I fail to see why one should be allowed to go (for example) 120MPH down a residential street at 3pm right after 10 elementary schools have just gotten out. If the individual manages to miss every child on the street, that doesn't change the fact that all of the kids were, in fact, in danger.

Dumpy Dooby · 12-29-2006, 08:46 PM

Here's one for lew....

If you and I are both in public. And I pull out a gun and point it at you, do you have a right to shoot me?
What if I open fire in your direction?
What if I miss you with every shot?
What if you shoot and kill me?

It can be said that I didn't harm you, so you should not be at liberty to shoot me. It can also be said that since you shot me, and I never caused you any harm, you just killed an innocent man and should be put on trial for murder. Don't you think that your ideals are outside of practicality?

Diesel66 · 12-29-2006, 08:48 PM

Originally Posted by lew

No

Then how would you plan it ? Toll booth on every intersection.

Or would it be a natural monopoly with 1 company per town.

lew · 12-29-2006, 09:02 PM

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Here's one for lew....

If you and I are both in public. And I pull out a gun and point it at you, do you have a right to shoot me?
What if I open fire in your direction?
What if I miss you with every shot?
What if you shoot and kill me?

It can be said that I didn't harm you, so you should not be at liberty to shoot me. It can also be said that since you shot me, and I never caused you any harm, you just killed an innocent man and should be put on trial for murder. Don't you think that your ideals are outside of practicality?

If you pull a gun on me in public, and I have reason to believe that my life or property is in danger (which, of course I do since you just pulled a gun), then I have every right to shoot you.

In all honesty, I understand that several of my ideals may not be practical in the real world - which is why I'd be completely fine with a minarchist, originalist government, instead of an anarchist one.

I just find it hilarious when people imagine that it would be complete chaos without laws. Like if there were no speed limit laws, everyone would drive 200+ mph and kill each other. Too bad that in THE REAL WORLD, that doesn't happen. Europe has many examples of "anarchy on the roads" with no speed limits, no traffic signs, etc - and yet they have less accidents and safer driving than we do in the states.

I also don't even mind speed limits or other laws - as long as they are appropriated properly. That is, local or state government enacting laws without any coercion from the feds. Which sadly, happens all the time. Alcohol and speed limits are federal legislation and to get their way, they coerce states to comply. I find that abominable.

But whatever, I'm just a wacky anarchist with no practical views on the world. Fuck liberty. Let's let the feds protect us with all their laws.

lew · 12-29-2006, 09:04 PM

Originally Posted by Diesel66

Then how would you plan it ? Toll booth on every intersection.

Or would it be a natural monopoly with 1 company per town.

Does Wal-Mart have a checkout at the end of every aisle? Nope. They have aisles in a designated area in the store.

Private companies would not have toll booths every mile. There would be a central location - just like everything else the market provides for.

nbiggershaft · 12-29-2006, 09:21 PM

Originally Posted by lew

Does Wal-Mart have a checkout at the end of every aisle? Nope. They have aisles in a designated area in the store.

Private companies would not have toll booths every mile. There would be a central location - just like everything else the market provides for.

Prolly beating a dead horse here. But lets say I live at the green arrow, work at the red dot, shop at the blue dot, have a friend at the brown dot and take classes at the black dot. Where are you going to put this centralized toll booth to pay for all those tiny little residential and connecting roads?

Dumpy Dooby · 12-29-2006, 09:30 PM

Originally Posted by lew

If you pull a gun on me in public, and I have reason to believe that my life or property is in danger (which, of course I do since you just pulled a gun), then I have every right to shoot you.

Likewise, if you're going 70mph down the road, and I think you're a threat to my life or property, I should have the right to shoot you, yes? This is sort of the slippery slope thinking that I referenced earlier. At what point am I at liberty to decide what's "dangerous" to me? What if I think 30mph is too fast? Air bags go off at 30mph because there's a consensus that an impact at 30mph is considered a dangerous impact. So should I be able to shoot people going more than 30mph because I think that they're a threat to me?

Dumpy Dooby · 12-29-2006, 09:35 PM

Originally Posted by lew

I just find it hilarious when people imagine that it would be complete chaos without laws. Like if there were no speed limit laws, everyone would drive 200+ mph and kill each other. Too bad that in THE REAL WORLD, that doesn't happen. Europe has many examples of "anarchy on the roads" with no speed limits, no traffic signs, etc - and yet they have less accidents and safer driving than we do in the states.

I also don't even mind speed limits or other laws - as long as they are appropriated properly. That is, local or state government enacting laws without any coercion from the feds. Which sadly, happens all the time. Alcohol and speed limits are federal legislation and to get their way, they coerce states to comply. I find that abominable.

But whatever, I'm just a wacky anarchist with no practical views on the world. Fuck liberty. Let's let the feds protect us with all their laws.

Not sure if you read my post above, but I did say that I was in agreement that speed limits should be abolished. My reasoning was simply because I don't see a practical way of establishing them. If someone can convince me of a practical and fair way of establishing them, then I would be all for it.

lew · 12-29-2006, 09:44 PM

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Likewise, if you're going 70mph down the road, and I think you're a threat to my life or property, I should have the right to shoot you, yes? This is sort of the slippery slope thinking that I referenced earlier. At what point am I at liberty to decide what's "dangerous" to me? What if I think 30mph is too fast? Air bags go off at 30mph because there's a consensus that an impact at 30mph is considered a dangerous impact. So should I be able to shoot people going more than 30mph because I think that they're a threat to me?

I knew you were going to say that.

I don't really have a good answer to that.

lew · 12-29-2006, 09:45 PM

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Not sure if you read my post above, but I did say that I was in agreement that speed limits should be abolished. My reasoning was simply because I don't see a practical way of establishing them. If someone can convince me of a practical and fair way of establishing them, then I would be all for it.

The part you quoted wasn't directed towards you, as we tend to agree on political issues. It was directed towards a general philosophy that a lot of people have.

7960 · 12-29-2006, 11:23 PM

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

The question is asked, "At what point do we decide that the person is endangering others?" To which I don't necessarily have a response, which is why I default to abolishing the limits all together. If there's no practical way of establishing the law, then the law should not be established.

But there is a practical way to establish the law. Side streets = 30mph, rural streets = 40 or 45mph, state roads = 45/50/55mph depending on width, numbers of lanes, and anticipated traffic, highways 55/65/etc.

I say "etc" because I'm not against raising the speed limit to 70 or 75 or possibly even 80mph on some roads in some places in some circumstances, but the idea that it may be legal for one person to go 80mph while it's illegal for another to go 70mph just because of the type of car or age or "mAd l33t sKiLz Yo" is fairly dumb.