• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Cold Medicine Registry

Metalhead47

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2009
Messages
2,800
Location
South Whidbey, Washington, USA
Without a basis in natural law it has no real validity. As an example, what does it matter if I jay walk on an empty road? or travel at 140mph down the interstate in rural Nevada where there are no fellow motorists? Who is being wronged? who is even being endangered? Unless someone is harmed the government has no just power to punish a person. Such laws are on the level with sodomy laws, and laws against selling liquor on certain days. There is no victim yet there is a person deserving of punishment? Your arguments smack of progressivism, which seeks to go around the constitution and eliminate liberty.

Careful now, calling me a progressive.... them's fightin' words 'round here. Labeling someone or their ideas "progressive" simply because they do not walk in lock step with your own, well... that smacks of Ameriican liberalism to me.
Yes, there IS a victim when a person behaves recklessly and actively endangers the safety of those immediately around him in a definite, measurable way.

Metalhead,
My turn for the cell phone... LOL

To reiterate a bit. I have no problem with a law that may clarify who shall yield the right of way or what have you as a firm guide. If there is no one to yield to though, no harm, no foul. What I take issue with is having the law "enforced" instead of what we used to have in the peace officer days. There's no reason the government needs to be involved if no one has been wronged.

The burden of being responsible should be on the individual citizens. Having "Law enforcement" write out tickets to someone that's done no harm is like San Francisco forcing McDonalds to remove toys from their happy meals instead of parents just telling their kids no.

A better response probably could be had from my computer of course.. :)

Now that I have a proper keyboard (but limited time)...

Hey y'know what? You're right about the "peace officer" thing. The police should be reformed back to such a concept. Maybe the traffic enforcement aspect should be completely separated from "police work" as such. I know some states have something akin to that for accident response.

What y'all are saying is all well & good, but it's got one glaring problem: It WILL NOT and CANNOT work here in the real world. Driving isn't like sailing or riding a horse. You have hundreds or thousands of vehicles moving very quickly mere feet apart in a narrow corridor. And that's before one figures in pedestrians and intersections even. Most people can't properly negotiate a simple four-way stop sign. You want to turn them loose on the highways with no rules?

What you're telling me is akin to me going down to Westlake where that bunch of twits are "occupying" (there's not nearly as many as the news makes it out either), setting up a shooting target, and plinking away. It's OK as long as I'm a good shot today & don't miss right? Not actually harming anyone after all.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
What is wrong is an all encompassing law. They should instead make the law read if you impede traffic or put others in danger etc. But to make it illegal to cross the street in the middle of the block safely is wrong.

Plus roads are not provided to us by the government. They are provided to us by us and our tax dollars. Like the drug laws I see many people simply ignore them all the time.

About progressivism. It has so ingrained into our society that many people don't even realize they are embracing some aspects of it. Many republican heroes like Teddy Roosevelt was a "progressive" I would put Lincoln in that category too although the term wasn't yet popular. (It did exist at that time though in Marx writings, the guy who sent a congratulatory letter on Lincoln winning his election)
 
Last edited:

Brass Magnet

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
2,818
Location
Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
...What y'all are saying is all well & good, but it's got one glaring problem: It WILL NOT and CANNOT work here in the real world. Driving isn't like sailing or riding a horse. You have hundreds or thousands of vehicles moving very quickly mere feet apart in a narrow corridor. And that's before one figures in pedestrians and intersections even. Most people can't properly negotiate a simple four-way stop sign. You want to turn them loose on the highways with no rules?

What you're telling me is akin to me going down to Westlake where that bunch of twits are "occupying" (there's not nearly as many as the news makes it out either), setting up a shooting target, and plinking away. It's OK as long as I'm a good shot today & don't miss right? Not actually harming anyone after all.

Hmmm...I fear we are going to have a hard time seeing eye to eye on this.

Really? It can't work? Any empirical proof? Also, to say that we'd turn them loose with no rules is a bit disingenuous. There are rules. You are bound by the equal rights of others. There are consequences to actions. You're second paragraph is way out there man and totally non-sequitur. Any sane person wouldn't try something that is likely to hurt people. Which is probably a great point in the larger discussion.

Let me say that I have seen the result of what I'm talking about; where the traffic rules are known but aren't enforced unless something happens (besides tickets via automatic cameras that everyone knows the location of). It isn't necessarily pretty or orderly but it works. If you want to see it yourself, all you have to do is drive from Pudong airport in Shanghai to Hangzhou or pretty much anywhere else in the area. You think L.A. is bad? Ha! Let me tell you, it's organized chaos. They drive in the emergency lane, nudge into a lane while staring down other drivers to see who gives first, park on the sidewalk, and speed like hell in between cameras. All this with 6 lanes worth of cars stuck into 4 lanes. The first time you are in a car over there you are genuinely afraid for your life.

I have never seen, in my year or so total time over there, anyone ever pulled over by the police. When someone has an accident, they move their cars out of the way if they can and they try to work out a deal. Either money/insurance changes hands and everyone drives away or if an agreement can't be made they call the police or drive to the nearest station. One day, we got in just such an accident where our "professional driver guy" got a little angry and cut off someone that was driving like a granny. They had it out on the side of the road and couldn't see eye to eye so we went to the police. We found out there that the other guy had just gotten his license. The officer listened to both sides of the story and then it turned into something right out of Mayberry (in a weird Asian sort of way). The translation was something like this:

To the other guy...."You have just received your license and are inexperienced and ignorant in the ways of the road. You are at some fault for impeding traffic by driving too slowly. You should get more practice on roads that aren't so busy. To our guy...."You are an experienced driver but have become arrogant and could have easily avoided this problem so you are also at fault." I believe in the end there was some kind of 70-30 or 60-40 split on fault.

On another occasion, a coworker and I were riding scooters around the local town where we were working. A taxi stopped quickly in front of him and he hit the throttle instead of the brake. He hit the taxi and broke out the tail light. Hilarity ensued. As a group of 100 people came to stare; here are two white guys standing at an intersection with a Chinese guy yelling at us in Chinese. I could speak enough to calm him down "no problem, I'll call my friend, here's the phone". Anyway, we ended up agreeing on a price of 400 RMB, shook hands, and no police ever came.

In the U.S. we actually have a leg up on China. We've been driving longer, are far more experienced on the road and have a culture more conducive to politeness on the road. There is also a lot less corruption here; believe it or not. I see no reason it wouldn't work 100 times better over here.

Now here's my point (yeah, took me long enough I know): You said something about a libertarian "utopia". Well, a libertarian "utopia" is a heck of a lot different than what others might describe as utopia because the benchmark is liberty and not "everything works right all the time and everybody is happy". In other words, a libertarian "utopia" is actually possible. It may not always be pretty and will have it's share of problems, but not for lack of liberty. What we are going over here is the old liberty vs. security argument. Some of us are willing to give up a little "feeling" safe and instead feel free to do as we wish as long as we don't hurt anyone or trample on anyone else's rights.
 

Daylen

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
2,223
Location
America
Careful now, calling me a progressive.... them's fightin' words 'round here. Labeling someone or their ideas "progressive" simply because they do not walk in lock step with your own, well... that smacks of Ameriican liberalism to me.
Yes, there IS a victim when a person behaves recklessly and actively endangers the safety of those immediately around him in a definite, measurable way.



Now that I have a proper keyboard (but limited time)...

Hey y'know what? You're right about the "peace officer" thing. The police should be reformed back to such a concept. Maybe the traffic enforcement aspect should be completely separated from "police work" as such. I know some states have something akin to that for accident response.

What y'all are saying is all well & good, but it's got one glaring problem: It WILL NOT and CANNOT work here in the real world. Driving isn't like sailing or riding a horse. You have hundreds or thousands of vehicles moving very quickly mere feet apart in a narrow corridor. And that's before one figures in pedestrians and intersections even. Most people can't properly negotiate a simple four-way stop sign. You want to turn them loose on the highways with no rules?

What you're telling me is akin to me going down to Westlake where that bunch of twits are "occupying" (there's not nearly as many as the news makes it out either), setting up a shooting target, and plinking away. It's OK as long as I'm a good shot today & don't miss right? Not actually harming anyone after all.

Well I would agree that I take a classical liberal approach to the government. However, regulating the speed someone travels is in that core of progressive thinking. It fits in with prohibition of alcohol, drugs, and machineguns. All these are victimless crimes. Why should it be a crime? Well progressives claim its a safer cleaner world if people drive slow, don't consume drugs and only the government has weapons. Claims of liberty not working in the real world because modern technology and numbers of people have made it outdated and no longer relevant are also at the core of progressive arguments.

And no its not a matter of was anyone physically harmed. Was anyone wronged? Did someone have to change course to avoid a speeder or jaywalker? If so then now someone has been wronged and there is a victim, so the perpetrator should then be punished. By setting up a shooting range did you damage a building or cause someone to leave by shooting in their direction? If so then there is a victim, there is a crime.
 

Metalhead47

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2009
Messages
2,800
Location
South Whidbey, Washington, USA
Hmmm...I fear we are going to have a hard time seeing eye to eye on this.

It would appear so my friend. :( It seems you and I have entirely different definitions of what "works." I was going to use that same example of what you posted about traffic in the 3rd world, until I got a chance to read your entire post. You see, I don't call that sort of chaos "working." It's not smooth and orderly, and it's certainly not safe. You think it would be better over here with our superhighways and disparities of vehicle size? My Suburban could run over a Prius and I'd hardly feel it. Soon as I get it mobile I plan to try anyway.


Any sane person wouldn't try something that is likely to hurt people. Which is probably a great point in the larger discussion.

Now THIS is an insightful observation. You say that, and yet, any sane person would not drive 100+ down a busy freeway weaving in & out of traffic. Any sane person wouldn't turn left in front of a motorcycle covered in bright lights who clearly has the right of way. Any sane person would not cut off 60,000lbs of moving bus, in the rain, to slam on their brakes & turn right with one hand on the wheel while giving the finger out the sunroof.

There seems to be something about driving an automobile that makes men go mad. You can take an ordinary, thoughtful, completely rational person, put them behind the wheel, and suddenly they either turn into a raving lunatic or suffer a schizoid break with reality and disappear off into their own little world. Usually with the aid of a cell phone.
 

Brass Magnet

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
2,818
Location
Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
It would appear so my friend. :( It seems you and I have entirely different definitions of what "works." I was going to use that same example of what you posted about traffic in the 3rd world, until I got a chance to read your entire post. You see, I don't call that sort of chaos "working." It's not smooth and orderly, and it's certainly not safe. You think it would be better over here with our superhighways and disparities of vehicle size? My Suburban could run over a Prius and I'd hardly feel it. Soon as I get it mobile I plan to try anyway.
I'm sure we wouldn't have that sort of chaos here, for the reasons I stated. Also, disparity of size is actually much worse over there. Disparity of speed is probably even more of a problem. They have superhighways too and a lot of them are privately owned! You can drive the crappy government road for free or pay a toll and cruise the good stuff. But anyway, like I said, it seems we won't agree.




Now THIS is an insightful observation. You say that, and yet, any sane person would not drive 100+ down a busy freeway weaving in & out of traffic. Any sane person wouldn't turn left in front of a motorcycle covered in bright lights who clearly has the right of way. Any sane person would not cut off 60,000lbs of moving bus, in the rain, to slam on their brakes & turn right with one hand on the wheel while giving the finger out the sunroof.

There seems to be something about driving an automobile that makes men go mad. You can take an ordinary, thoughtful, completely rational person, put them behind the wheel, and suddenly they either turn into a raving lunatic or suffer a schizoid break with reality and disappear off into their own little world. Usually with the aid of a cell phone.

Well, part of freedom is trusting our fellow citizens to do the right thing. The same argument you are making can and is made with firearms and a multitude of other things including stuff that's not even close to dangerous. Every time you get behind the wheel you have to trust that your fellow citizens aren't going to swerve into your lane and kill you. Somehow you can handle that but think that a law being enforced is going to stop people from doing something stupid. What really stops them from doing something stupid is that they are genuinely worried about hurting someone else or in the very least, hurting themselves.

I can trust you to carry a gun, trust my neighbor not to defile my property, trust a random person to not swerve into my lane and kill me, and trust Bruce Campbell to keep being the best "B" movie actor but I surely can't trust the government to keep me secure at the price of liberty. They're the only ones that throughout history have definitively proven they can't be trusted.
 
Last edited:

Metalhead47

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2009
Messages
2,800
Location
South Whidbey, Washington, USA
Well, part of freedom is trusting our fellow citizens to do the right thing. The same argument you are making can and is made with firearms and a multitude of other things including stuff that's not even close to dangerous. Every time you get behind the wheel you have to trust that your fellow citizens aren't going to swerve into your lane and kill you. Somehow you can handle that but think that a law being enforced is going to stop people from doing something stupid. What really stops them from doing something stupid is that they are genuinely worried about hurting someone else or in the very least, hurting themselves.

I am not for a minute saying that the system does not need extreme reform, but just based on your own examples, taking good with bad without any reform, most people would rather have our system with its laws than their system with its chaos, because the perception is, ours works better.

And the key difference comparing gun laws to road laws, the keeping and bearing of arms is a Constitutionally protected natural right, whereas the operation of a privately owned motor vehicle upon public roads is a legitimately government-regulated privilege. ;)
 

Brass Magnet

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
2,818
Location
Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
I am not for a minute saying that the system does not need extreme reform, but just based on your own examples, taking good with bad without any reform, most people would rather have our system with its laws than their system with its chaos, because the perception is, ours works better.

And the key difference comparing gun laws to road laws, the keeping and bearing of arms is a Constitutionally protected natural right, whereas the operation of a privately owned motor vehicle upon public roads is a legitimately government-regulated privilege. ;)

LOL! I'm not even gonna bite :lol: Someone will be along shortly of course.....:p
 

Metalhead47

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2009
Messages
2,800
Location
South Whidbey, Washington, USA
LOL! I'm not even gonna bite :lol: Someone will be along shortly of course.....:p

No need to. THAT particular one has already been talked to death enough to make a verbal mortician rich. If we've already reached the "agree to disagree" point by now, them worms need to remain canned.

If it's any consolation, neither you nor I will be getting our respective ways any time soon.:cry:
 
Last edited:

Daylen

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
2,223
Location
America
...
Now THIS is an insightful observation. You say that, and yet, any sane person would not drive 100+ down a busy freeway weaving in & out of traffic. Any sane person wouldn't turn left in front of a motorcycle covered in bright lights who clearly has the right of way. Any sane person would not cut off 60,000lbs of moving bus, in the rain, to slam on their brakes & turn right with one hand on the wheel while giving the finger out the sunroof....

weaving in and out of traffic would likely violate someones right of way and if a cop noticed such would then have justification to summon them before a court that is likely to penalize them. Driving 100+ mph on an empty road would not and thus a cop couldn't do anything. Notice the difference?
 

Metalhead47

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2009
Messages
2,800
Location
South Whidbey, Washington, USA
weaving in and out of traffic would likely violate someones right of way and if a cop noticed such would then have justification to summon them before a court that is likely to penalize them. Driving 100+ mph on an empty road would not and thus a cop couldn't do anything. Notice the difference?

Not so much. :)

The difficulty with that is, that at 10mph, unless one is blessed with superhuman omniscience, one does not have the distance to react if said omniscience about said empty road is, in fact, wrong. :p

And the higher the speed, the more that applies.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Daylen

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
2,223
Location
America
Not so much. :)

The difficulty with that is, that at 10mph, unless one is blessed with superhuman omniscience, one does not have the distance to react if said omniscience about said empty road is, in fact, wrong. :p

And the higher the speed, the more that applies.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

really? are you in a nursing home? For the rest of your post would you mind breaking the run on sentence up?
 

Metalhead47

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2009
Messages
2,800
Location
South Whidbey, Washington, USA
really? are you in a nursing home? For the rest of your post would you mind breaking the run on sentence up?

Seriously? Is that the best you can do? Criticize text that was quite clearly produced on a two inch "keyboard?" I'm disappointed man, I was expecting better from you. And if you think that's a run on sentence, you may want to brush up on your English syntax. Surely you know that our founding documents contain prose that makes my wordiest reply look concise.

Shall I then interpret your decent into borderline ad hominem attacks (ad linguam? My Latin is pretty rusty) as an admission of defeat?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Daylen

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
2,223
Location
America
Seriously? Is that the best you can do? Criticize text that was quite clearly produced on a two inch "keyboard?" I'm disappointed man, I was expecting better from you. And if you think that's a run on sentence, you may want to brush up on your English syntax. Surely you know that our founding documents contain prose that makes my wordiest reply look concise.

Shall I then interpret your decent into borderline ad hominem attacks (ad linguam? My Latin is pretty rusty) as an admission of defeat?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I was a bit tired of seeing the same argument over and over in worse prose.

In a free society risk is inherent. If one chooses to drive very fast and possibly get into trouble that should be up to the individual. Once another person is wronged, then courts can be involved. Otherwise constitutional protections don't really matter because the scope of constitutions don't matter because all that seems to matter is protecting people. If it is ok to punish someone for driving fast and not harming anyone, for they MIGHT harm someone in the future with excessive speed is the same as punishing someone for say owning a firearm, for the MIGHT harm someone in the future with it. Or should we base everything off of empiricism instead of natural law? Then we could look to Norway and studies done there on how to reduce crime. I'm an engineer empirical methods are nice, but they are not a good justification for laws if one intends to be free. Empirically driven laws are the basis of progressiveness, drunkards are useless, lets outlaw booze so everyone must always be sober. People with college degrees make more money than those who don't, everyone should have a college degree; so lets subsidize them. It goes on and on.
 

Metalhead47

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2009
Messages
2,800
Location
South Whidbey, Washington, USA
I was a bit tired of seeing the same argument over and over in worse prose.

In a free society risk is inherent. If one chooses to drive very fast and possibly get into trouble that should be up to the individual. Once another person is wronged, then courts can be involved. Otherwise constitutional protections don't really matter because the scope of constitutions don't matter because all that seems to matter is protecting people. If it is ok to punish someone for driving fast and not harming anyone, for they MIGHT harm someone in the future with excessive speed is the same as punishing someone for say owning a firearm, for the MIGHT harm someone in the future with it. Or should we base everything off of empiricism instead of natural law? Then we could look to Norway and studies done there on how to reduce crime. I'm an engineer empirical methods are nice, but they are not a good justification for laws if one intends to be free. Empirically driven laws are the basis of progressiveness, drunkards are useless, lets outlaw booze so everyone must always be sober. People with college degrees make more money than those who don't, everyone should have a college degree; so lets subsidize them. It goes on and on.

Wow dude, so you're an interwebz master debater AND the resident forum literary critic? Geeze, and I feel bad when I go all spelling nazi on someone.

Get over yourself man. At least BM kept it cordial and doesn't take off-topic forum spats so seriously.

So everyone who doesn't think exactly like you on every little thing is spiraling down the road to progressivism eh?
 
Top