100 years ago today

[GenSeneca]

So, does that mean you agree that the examples I gave are violations of our rights, or not?

...driving under the influence on a public road...
...setting hazardous fires...
...nutters using freeways as their private racetrack...

There is simply not enough information contained in those examples to make a determination.

You had originally asked if they were using force, now you're asking if they're violating rights... Even if you massage the details to make it so they are violating the rights of others with the use of force, the example will then support my view and not yours.

They don't have to use "force" in order to jeopardize my liberty and yours.

Give me an example of someone who is not using force but is jeopardizing/violating the rights of others. Offering yet another example of people using force to violate the rights of others does not support your position.

 

[PLC1]

...driving under the influence on a public road...
...setting hazardous fires...
...nutters using freeways as their private racetrack...

There is simply not enough information contained in those examples to make a determination.

You had originally asked if they were using force, now you're asking if they're violating rights... Even if you massage the details to make it so they are violating the rights of others with the use of force, the example will then support my view and not yours.


Give me an example of someone who is not using force but is jeopardizing/violating the rights of others. Offering yet another example of people using force to violate the rights of others does not support your position.

It all depends on your definition of "force" of course. You gave a definition from physics. How that applies to drunk driving, setting fires, or racing on public roads I'm not sure.

You're the one who brought up "force", so I suppose whatever position you want to take, according to your definition, is going to be right.

My original premise was that jeopardizing the public is a violation of our rights. Someone, I think it was Hobo1 maybe, didn't agree with that. Right now, I'm not even sure just what the debate is centered around.

 

[Hobo1]

...driving under the influence on a public road...
...setting hazardous fires...
...nutters using freeways as their private racetrack...

Personally, I would rather these actions not be laws. Normal people do not do such things, so we are talking about irrational humans who are careless in their action.

To me the crime does not occur until some we have a victim in the action. For example, DUI is a subjective judgment, determined by a blood alcohol content. Taken to the extreme, drinking one beer and driving will be a DUI. The is an example of how these victimless crimes result in an irrational a loss of liberty.

Hazardous fires and high speed driving are also subjective, victimless crimes. What is a hazardous fire? Any fire that may possibly cause damage? What is high speed driving? Driving at a speed that may be dangerous?

Who sets these standards? The government. And they are highly subjective, victimless crimes. When your government has that kind of power to control your actions, you are definitely loosing your liberty.

The whole subject boils down to whether you want the government telling you what to do - and they do it prior to the commission of a crime. That is loss of liberty and freedom.

Only after an individual has done something that causes damage to a victim should that individual's rights be revoked and severe punishment imposed. Once an individual has shown himself to be a criminal, then the government should protect the public from someone who has a proven propensity to commit criminal acts that harm other people.

 

[GenSeneca]

It all depends on your definition of "force" of course.

So what is your definition of "force"?

You gave a definition from physics. How that applies to drunk driving, setting fires, or racing on public roads I'm not sure.

Physics: a natural science that involves the study of matter and its motion through spacetime, along with related concepts such as energy and force.​

What definition do you feel is more appilcable to the relationship between the use of force and the violation of rights?

You're the one who brought up "force", so I suppose whatever position you want to take, according to your definition, is going to be right.

And you are the one who said force was not needed to violate rights or to jeopardize the rights of others.

My original premise was that jeopardizing the public is a violation of our rights.

And your best explanation is that the violation of rights is some giant gray area with no clear boundaries?

Right now, I'm not even sure just what the debate is centered around.

If you wish to claim that rights can be violated/jeopardized without the use of force, then you need to furnish at least one example in support of your theory. I have answered all your questions, explained every premise and conclusion, offered multiple examples, and provided definitions when requested...

Considering that I've now had to ask several times as to your definition of the word "force", and for an example of how rights can be jeopardized/violated without the use of force, you do not seem to be offering the same level of cooperation.

 

[PLC1]

OK, now I see what has happened . I have mixed up the positions of Hobo1 and Genseneca. Actually, I think Gen and I have pretty much the same position, when everything is sorted out.

The difference of opinion is really with Hobo1, who doesn't seem to think that jeopardizing the safety of the public is a violation of our rights.

Maybe I've mischaracterized his position as well.

Let me once again outline my own stance:

The purpose of government, as outlined in the Declaration of independence, is to protect our rights. Laws against drunk driving, firing weapons in crowded places, racing on public streets, and setting dangerous fires are examples of violations of our rights, whether or not they fit your definition of use of force. Outlawing such actions and using the force of law to discourage people from engaging in them represents an appropriate action of government.

 

[clarkatticus]

Personally, I would rather these actions not be laws. Normal people do not do such things, so we are talking about irrational humans who are careless in their action.

To me the crime does not occur until some we have a victim in the action. For example, DUI is a subjective judgment, determined by a blood alcohol content. Taken to the extreme, drinking one beer and driving will be a DUI. The is an example of how these victimless crimes result in an irrational a loss of liberty.

Hazardous fires and high speed driving are also subjective, victimless crimes. What is a hazardous fire? Any fire that may possibly cause damage? What is high speed driving? Driving at a speed that may be dangerous?

Who sets these standards? The government. And they are highly subjective, victimless crimes. When your government has that kind of power to control your actions, you are definitely loosing your liberty.

The whole subject boils down to whether you want the government telling you what to do - and they do it prior to the commission of a crime. That is loss of liberty and freedom.

Only after an individual has done something that causes damage to a victim should that individual's rights be revoked and severe punishment imposed. Once an individual has shown himself to be a criminal, then the government should protect the public from someone who has a proven propensity to commit criminal acts that harm other people.

Under that definition, all laws are unjust as all crime is subjective, otherwise, why would we need jurys to examine the evidence? There has to be a speed limit or a law againsed careless and imprudent driving so that a person that actually has an accident depriving someone of life or property can be detained and prosecuted. This legal standard is called precedent, without which the rule of law as we know it is unusable.

 

[Hobo1]

Under that definition, all laws are unjust as all crime is subjective, otherwise, why would we need jurys to examine the evidence? There has to be a speed limit or a law againsed careless and imprudent driving so that a person that actually has an accident depriving someone of life or property can be detained and prosecuted. This legal standard is called precedent, without which the rule of law as we know it is unusable.

I disagree. Let's take reckless driving as a crime. In that case, the burden of proof would be for a prosecutor to show that the driver was driving in a manner that threatened to cause damage. For someone who has never had an accident and is a skilled driver, with a car that is equipped to handle well at high speed, then driving 85 miles per hour would not be reckless driving. That is assuming the driver was not rapidly swerving and lane jumping which would be evidence that the driver was driving recklessly.

The little old lady who is uncomfortable driving in heavy traffic at 45 miles per hour (my mother is an true-life example) will not be arrested on the suspicion of reckless driving. She breaks and accelerates erratically, drifting around within her lane, yet she stays within the speed limit.

The proof or president of a crime should be erratic or unsafe driving practices. That would depend on the road and traffic conditions plus evidence of erratic movements.

Any law that is written to protect the society should be proven by direct evidence, not presumptive or corollary evidence alone.

Simply convicting someone of a crime, say reckless driving, by showing someone has violated a speed limit, is selective and arbitrary. It is similar to profiling. Just because someone is speeding or driving with a certain blood alcohol content is not de facto proof that a crime was committed. They are evidence, not a crime.

 

[clarkatticus]

We are all aware of the rules of the road, I used to drive a jag S Type but I knew enough to drive safely. Could I have driven faster safely? Yes, but the law says not to and the need was not there. Your mother could indeed be guilty of careless and imprudent driving and her license can be taken away here in CA and there is ample evidence of it happening. Usually a doctor's permission and a new test would be required to drive again. Percedent is also called "past practice". For instance, a person where I work was disiciplined for not wearing a saftey belt while driving a forklift. It was subsequentally proven that many drivers were allowed to drive w/o a belt so he was given a pass, now the rule is strictly inforced. It is the same with law, the criteria must be the same for all and trained professionals must be used to discern infractions (ie. the police). If you are looking for a perfect solution where authorities can divine the true intentions and recreate the actual infraction in real time for a totally impartial jury or judge and justice handed out in a balanced method combining all the above situations with matching fines and sentences, well, I wouldn't hold my breath.

 

[ProudLefty]

Rules and laws are passed for many reasons, but one of the reasons is because sometimes we don't get do-overs in life.

We know that drunkenness impairs our reflexes and perceptions. That is pretty obvious to all. Accidents happen way too often where alcohol is involved.

The idea that every drunk gets his first killing for free is abhorrent to me. My bet is would be to you, too, if a known drunk were allowed to kill your mother just because he hadn't killed anyone else yet.

 

[PLC1]

Rules and laws are passed for many reasons, but one of the reasons is because sometimes we don't get do-overs in life.

We know that drunkenness impairs our reflexes and perceptions. That is pretty obvious to all. Accidents happen way too often where alcohol is involved.

The idea that every drunk gets his first killing for free is abhorrent to me. My bet is would be to you, too, if a known drunk were allowed to kill your mother just because he hadn't killed anyone else yet.

Agreed. There are already way too many drunks and other assorted idiots on the road despite the vehicle code and the efforts of the Highway Patrol. It is particularly bad in California, or so it seems to me. I've driven through other states and noted that the vast majority of the drivers actually understand that the speed limit is the maximum speed, rather than the minimum, and that there is a difference between the track at Indy and the local freeway. I've also noted that the highway patrol vehicles in Washington, as an example, can't be spotted a mile away like the ones here can. Perhaps there is a connection.

Or, perhaps there re just more idiots in California. There. A perfect opening for someone to rail about "liberals".

 

[GenSeneca]

To me the crime does not occur until some we have a victim in the action.

Agree.

Only after an individual has done something that causes damage to a victim should that individual's rights be revoked and severe punishment imposed.

Disagree. I gave an example of PLC and I in a canyon, him at the top and me at the bottom. In my example, I considered it a violation of my rights for him to begin pushing the boulder. That violation takes place prior to the boulder striking me.

If you consider physical damage a requirement for the violation of rights, then PLC has not violated my rights unless, and until, I'm actually struck with the boulder. Is this a correct interpretation of your position?

 

[Hobo1]

Rules and laws are passed for many reasons, but one of the reasons is because sometimes we don't get do-overs in life.

We know that drunkenness impairs our reflexes and perceptions. That is pretty obvious to all. Accidents happen way too often where alcohol is involved.

The idea that every drunk gets his first killing for free is abhorrent to me. My bet is would be to you, too, if a known drunk were allowed to kill your mother just because he hadn't killed anyone else yet.

So what happens when the government decides to set the speed limit at 50 mph because a gas engines produces less emissions and saves fuel. Or charges you an extra tax because you (or your electric company) is not using "green" power.

These are two examples of with dubious scientific evidence that the ecosphere somehow benefits from these laws. If you live under the pretext that the government knows better and is smarter than you, then we are going down a slippery slope.

As a government bureaucrat I can make an argument that not washing your hands after you go to the toilet, or not brushing your teeth every day is bad for your health and could potentially cost the taxpayers money - to provide you medical care because you can't afford insurance.

Where is the line in the sand? Do we outlaw all fast foods because they can make you fat? Do we subsidize whole wheat bread and tax white bread for health reasons. Where do you stop?

One hundred years ago we did not have all those regulations. I could drive without a driver's license. I fight for liberty and freedom; and if it can be proven that I have caused a harm to someone because of negligence, then I am willing to face the consequences. That is liberty and that is the foundation that America was founded upon.

 

[PLC1]

So what happens when the government decides to set the speed limit at 50 mph because a gas engines produces less emissions and saves fuel. Or charges you an extra tax because you (or your electric company) is not using "green" power.

Since we have a representative democracy, an unpopular move like that would result in a landslide of negative comments, followed either by a changing of the guard at the next election, or, more likely, by a change in the law.

We are the government.

These are two examples of with dubious scientific evidence that the ecosphere somehow benefits from these laws. If you live under the pretext that the government knows better and is smarter than you, then we are going down a slippery slope.

Ummm.. Does anyone reading this thread really think that the government knows better and is smarter? anyone arguing that point? Anyone, anyone???

As a government bureaucrat I can make an argument that not washing your hands after you go to the toilet, or not brushing your teeth every day is bad for your health and could potentially cost the taxpayers money - to provide you medical care because you can't afford insurance.

As a government bureaucrat, you don't make the laws. Our elected representatives make the laws, and are answerable to us.

Where is the line in the sand? Do we outlaw all fast foods because they can make you fat? Do we subsidize whole wheat bread and tax white bread for health reasons. Where do you stop?

No. Why do you ask? Was that an aside of some sort?

One hundred years ago we did not have all those regulations. I could drive without a driver's license. I fight for liberty and freedom; and if it can be proven that I have caused a harm to someone because of negligence, then I am willing to face the consequences. That is liberty and that is the foundation that America was founded upon.

One hundred years ago, most people rode horses or in buggies. Cars of 100 years ago topped out at around 25 mph., and shared the road with only a few other cars.

Can you imagine unlicensed drivers on unregulated freeways able to do anything that they wanted? Can you imagine no one being held accountable until they actually caused an accident?

Can you imagine going back to the world of 100 years ago?
No, liberty is the foundation that America was founded on. License is not.

 

[GenSeneca]

We are the government.

LOL

Our elected representatives make the laws, and are answerable to us.

LOL

Can you imagine unlicensed drivers on unregulated freeways able to do anything that they wanted?

People being allowed to do whatever they want so long as it doesn't violate the rights of others... Oh the humanity!

Can you imagine no one being held accountable until they actually caused an accident?

As opposed to people being held accountable for NOT causing an accident?

 

[PLC1]

LOL


LOL


People being allowed to do whatever they want so long as it doesn't violate the rights of others... Oh the humanity!


As opposed to people being held accountable for NOT causing an accident?

Now you have totally confused me as to your position.

You answered Hobo1 as follows:

Originally Posted by Hobo1 View Post
Only after an individual has done something that causes damage to a victim should that individual's rights be revoked and severe punishment imposed.

Disagree. I gave an example of PLC and I in a canyon, him at the top and me at the bottom. In my example, I considered it a violation of my rights for him to begin pushing the boulder. That violation takes place prior to the boulder striking me.

If you consider physical damage a requirement for the violation of rights, then PLC has not violated my rights unless, and until, I'm actually struck with the boulder. Is this a correct interpretation of your position?

Just what is your position? Do you disagree with Hobo1, or not? Is jeopardizing public safety a violation of our rights or is it not?

You consider it a violation of your rights for me to roll boulders down the canyon in your direction, yet you want to allow anyone to do anything they want on the freeway, regardless of public safety.

So, are drunk driving laws a violation of our rights, or is driving drunk a violation, even when the drunk makes it home without killing anyone?

I might not actually hit you with one of those boulders, you know.