100 years ago today

[Mr. Shaman]

100 years ago today, on June 16, 1911, four companies merged together in New York to form a new company, and adopted the name "Computing Tabulating Recording Corporation".

Thirteen years later they changed the name to International Business Machines, or IBM.

1951: Novel "Catcher in the Rye" by JD Salinger published.

1957: Marine Major John Glenn sets transcontinental speed record (03:28:08).

1973: During Watergate hearings, Alexander Butterfield reveals existence of tapes.

1980: Ronald Reagan nominated for President by Republicans, in Detroit.​

 

[Hobo1]

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.

It is my position that someone who is clearly and undeniably presents a threat to harm someone must be stopped. Presumed innocent until proven guilty, that person must be convicted of attempting (or posing a clear and present danger) of hurting someone. No one has the right to roll boulders down the hill when people are in the path of the boulders pose a clear danger of hurting someone. When police have clear evidence that someone is going to rob a bank, that person has also violated his rights. A clear and unambiguous threat to break the law (ie, to harm someone), should be stopped.

An artificial and capricious threshold (such as blood alcohol, or speed limit, or driving without a driver's license) are examples of victimless crimes where the government is actively seeing to violate my rights as an American citizen. These are "laws" that have been made without regard to my skill as a driver, or my ability to function after consuming alcohol. That sort of arbitrary crime is wrong.

 

[PLC1]

It is my position that someone who is clearly and undeniably presents a threat to harm someone must be stopped. Presumed innocent until proven guilty, that person must be convicted of attempting (or posing a clear and present danger) of hurting someone. No one has the right to roll boulders down the hill when people are in the path of the boulders pose a clear danger of hurting someone. When police have clear evidence that someone is going to rob a bank, that person has also violated his rights. A clear and unambiguous threat to break the law (ie, to harm someone), should be stopped.

An artificial and capricious threshold (such as blood alcohol, or speed limit, or driving without a driver's license) are examples of victimless crimes where the government is actively seeing to violate my rights as an American citizen. These are "laws" that have been made without regard to my skill as a driver, or my ability to function after consuming alcohol. That sort of arbitrary crime is wrong.

At what point, then, is a speeder (for example) presenting a threat? Is it a threat to be going 5 mph over the speed limit? How about 50 mph over? Is it OK to be going 90 in a residential area, where children are playing?

Clearly, there is a point at which the driver is presenting a threat that is at least as great as rolling boulders down the hill. What is that point? Who gets to decide?

 

[GenSeneca]

Just what is your position?

Initiating the use of force against others should be a crime. This means there must be both a criminal and a victim for a crime to be committed.

Is jeopardizing public safety a violation of our rights or is it not?

No. Jeopardize and Violate are not synonyms. Jeopardizing the rights of others is not the same thing as violating the rights of others.

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.

Whether intentional or accidental, you have a habit of creating appeals to ridicule. Use of the phrase, "anything they want" implies some form of anarchy and does not accurately reflect the restrictions that I have proposed. Anything they want... So long as they do not initiate the use of force against others. Which is based on the precept of, your rights end where my nose begins.

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 agree with Hobo on this point; setting arbitrary BAC numbers and punishing people who blow beyond the "legal limit" is a travesty of justice. Whether drunk or sober, any driver that initiates the use of force against another should be held accountable for his actions.

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

Initiating the use of force against me, whether striking me or not, is a violation of my rights.

Out of time for now... I'll check in later.

 

[PLC1]

Initiating the use of force against others should be a crime. This means there must be both a criminal and a victim for a crime to be committed.


No. Jeopardize and Violate are not synonyms. Jeopardizing the rights of others is not the same thing as violating the rights of others.


Whether intentional or accidental, you have a habit of creating appeals to ridicule. Use of the phrase, "anything they want" implies some form of anarchy and does not accurately reflect the restrictions that I have proposed. Anything they want... So long as they do not initiate the use of force against others. Which is based on the precept of, your rights end where my nose begins.


I agree with Hobo on this point; setting arbitrary BAC numbers and punishing people who blow beyond the "legal limit" is a travesty of justice. Whether drunk or sober, any driver that initiates the use of force against another should be held accountable for his actions.


Initiating the use of force against me, whether striking me or not, is a violation of my rights.

Out of time for now... I'll check in later.

Then initiating the use of force against you by the misuse of my automobile, or by setting fires, or by the misuse of a firearm would be a violation of your rights whether or not I actually strike you, injure you, or destroy your property, correct?

 

[GenSeneca]

Then initiating the use of force against you by the misuse of my automobile, or by setting fires, or by the misuse of a firearm would be a violation of your rights whether or not I actually strike you, injure you, or destroy your property, correct?

Correct, but I fear you still do not understand the difference between using force against someone vs using force in general. If I'm correct, you're going to suggest the laws I have been arguing against, e.g. drunk driving, are specifically for preventing people from being able to initiate the use of force against me. Am I wrong?

 

[Hobo1]

At what point, then, is a speeder (for example) presenting a threat? Is it a threat to be going 5 mph over the speed limit? How about 50 mph over? Is it OK to be going 90 in a residential area, where children are playing?

Clearly, there is a point at which the driver is presenting a threat that is at least as great as rolling boulders down the hill. What is that point? Who gets to decide?

Well, you can choose a strategy where someone like a policeman has the responsibility for making a subjective judgment. He can size up the facts of a particular situation based on his observations. A policeman should be well trained and educated so he can make competent decisions. His judgment, not some arbitrary numerical legal limit, will determine who is arrested.

The accused always has the right to choose to contest a policeman's judgment in court with a fair and speedy trail [IMO, our courts do not meet this standard - but that is another subject]. The courts should be cognizant of the accused's right to liberty, and not allow a policeman's judgment to carry extra weight because he wears a badge.

If the accused wins in court, he should be fairly compensated for his lost time. Also, a policeman who consistently looses these court cases, should be periodically subject to a board of review that examines his competence and ability.

A policeman has eyes and a brain - and should be required to use them on the job to make a good judgment. Simply pointing a radar gun at a driver does not require brains. A robot can read a radar gun and stop a driver - that is neither justice nor liberty.

It seems to me that the purpose of a policeman is to keep an element of good judgment sitting between the law book and the arrest. That way, someone can cruise down a straight, uncrowded highway at 90 miles per hour without "breaking the law".

 

[PLC1]

Correct, but I fear you still do not understand the difference between using force against someone vs using force in general. If I'm correct, you're going to suggest the laws I have been arguing against, e.g. drunk driving, are specifically for preventing people from being able to initiate the use of force against me. Am I wrong?

Drunk driving laws are there to keep damn fools from getting drunk and slamming their cars into mine.

What force has to do with it, I'm not sure.

In your rolling of the boulders analogy, did I force you to be at the bottom of the canyon? Does it matter?

 

[PLC1]

Well, you can choose a strategy where someone like a policeman has the responsibility for making a subjective judgment. He can size up the facts of a particular situation based on his observations. A policeman should be well trained and educated so he can make competent decisions. His judgment, not some arbitrary numerical legal limit, will determine who is arrested.

The accused always has the right to choose to contest a policeman's judgment in court with a fair and speedy trail [IMO, our courts do not meet this standard - but that is another subject]. The courts should be cognizant of the accused's right to liberty, and not allow a policeman's judgment to carry extra weight because he wears a badge.

If the accused wins in court, he should be fairly compensated for his lost time. Also, a policeman who consistently looses these court cases, should be periodically subject to a board of review that examines his competence and ability.

A policeman has eyes and a brain - and should be required to use them on the job to make a good judgment. Simply pointing a radar gun at a driver does not require brains. A robot can read a radar gun and stop a driver - that is neither justice nor liberty.

It seems to me that the purpose of a policeman is to keep an element of good judgment sitting between the law book and the arrest. That way, someone can cruise down a straight, uncrowded highway at 90 miles per hour without "breaking the law".

It's not so much the policeman's judgement as it is the laws passed by our representatives. Currently, the law in California says you're drunk if your blood alcohol is at .08 or more. Is that figure arbitrary? Sure. Does a BA of .08 affect everyone the same way? No. Is it more fair than simply relying on the judgement of an individual? Yes.

How would you determine when someone is under the influence and not safe on the road? Should we wait until the drunk causes an accident?

 

[Hobo1]

It's not so much the policeman's judgement as it is the laws passed by our representatives. Currently, the law in California says you're drunk if your blood alcohol is at .08 or more. Is that figure arbitrary? Sure. Does a BA of .08 affect everyone the same way? No. Is it more fair than simply relying on the judgement of an individual? Yes.

Absolutely NO.. How does a policeman decide to pull someone over and check his blood alcohol now? He sees someone driving erratically, swerving, and generally driving carelessly.

The problem isn't driving under the influence of alcohol or simply erratically driving because someone is mad as hell at his wife or his boss. The crime is driving recklessly so as to clearly threaten a victim, ie, clearly endanger some victim who has the misfortune of being in the path of a reckless driver. Whether a crime is committed in this case should be born out by the facts presented to an impartial judge. Blood alcohol certainly can be part of the evidence, but not the whole judge, jury and executioner.

If you allow an arbitrary number or level to stand in the way of due process of the law, then you are abandoning the basic principle of justice and also removing the rights and liberties of every American.

Taken to the extreme, we could easily move to an autocratic form of government.

Do you want a computer to review the numbers on your tax return and pre-determine guilt or innocence? If your reported numbers do not match the computer's calculation with a tolerance of 15%, then you are assumed to be guilty of tax fraud. Do you like that system? That is the way we are headed if Americans do not stand up for their liberty of demanding an impartial human brain be inserted into all judicial processes.

What did we do before machines that determine blood alcohol? What did we do before computers. Don't allow the government to use machines to take away our liberties.

 

[PLC1]

Absolutely NO.. How does a policeman decide to pull someone over and check his blood alcohol now? He sees someone driving erratically, swerving, and generally driving carelessly.

The problem isn't driving under the influence of alcohol or simply erratically driving because someone is mad as hell at his wife or his boss. The crime is driving recklessly so as to clearly threaten a victim, ie, clearly endanger some victim who has the misfortune of being in the path of a reckless driver. Whether a crime is committed in this case should be born out by the facts presented to an impartial judge. Blood alcohol certainly can be part of the evidence, but not the whole judge, jury and executioner.

If you allow an arbitrary number or level to stand in the way of due process of the law, then you are abandoning the basic principle of justice and also removing the rights and liberties of every American.

Taken to the extreme, we could easily move to an autocratic form of government.

Do you want a computer to review the numbers on your tax return and pre-determine guilt or innocence? If your reported numbers do not match the computer's calculation with a tolerance of 15%, then you are assumed to be guilty of tax fraud. Do you like that system? That is the way we are headed if Americans do not stand up for their liberty of demanding an impartial human brain be inserted into all judicial processes.

What did we do before machines that determine blood alcohol? What did we do before computers. Don't allow the government to use machines to take away our liberties.

What do you think a jury is more likely to listen to, a cop saying that someone was driving erratically, or the fact that the driver had a BA of .2?

The one is an opinion, the other a fact.

Maybe the erratic driver was just looking for an address, who knows?

 

[Hobo1]

What do you think a jury is more likely to listen to, a cop saying that someone was driving erratically, or the fact that the driver had a BA of .2?

The one is an opinion, the other a fact.

Maybe the erratic driver was just looking for an address, who knows?

This is a hypothetical case where we don't know all the facts. I won't argue with an extreme case. All the facts you presented would seem to indicate that the man was driving recklessly because he was drunk.

The point is he was driving recklessly and the evidence seems to bear that out. But if his BA was .02 is a jury to ignore the policeman's testimony. No numbers, no automatic innocent or guilty. But human brains, evidence, and fair and impartial jury is the basis for US judicial system - or at least it should be. My liberty, my rights.

 

[PLC1]

This is a hypothetical case where we don't know all the facts. I won't argue with an extreme case. All the facts you presented would seem to indicate that the man was driving recklessly because he was drunk.

The point is he was driving recklessly and the evidence seems to bear that out. But if his BA was .02 is a jury to ignore the policeman's testimony. No numbers, no automatic innocent or guilty. But human brains, evidence, and fair and impartial jury is the basis for US judicial system - or at least it should be. My liberty, my rights.

Human brains and human opinions are much more credible when there are hard facts to back them up.

 

[GenSeneca]

Drunk driving laws are there to keep damn fools from getting drunk and slamming their cars into mine.

1. DD laws do not keep people from getting drunk.
2. DD laws do not keep people (drunk or sober) from slamming into your car.

Your concern about drunk drivers centers around what might happen. Such concerns are based on an appeal to consequences. Focusing on those consequences becomes an appeal to fear. Both of which illicit an emotional response and that appears to be the basis of your conclusions.

You claimed that the mere presence of a drunk on the road violated the rights of everyone else on the road with him... So at a BAC of 0.079, he's not violating the rights of anyone BUT add another 0.001 to make it 0.08, and suddenly the guy is recklessly endangering others?

Such a conclusion is emotional, not rational...

My view of the subject is entirely rational. Fact is, only 12% of the time that you are struck by another vehicle is the driver under the influence of alcohol. The other 88% of the time, the driver has not been drinking. Pass only laws that make the action of violating my rights illegal, that's it. Such laws will cover every driver, drunk or sober. When another vehicle strikes my own, that is a violation of my rights and the sobriety of the other driver is totally irrelevent.

What force has to do with it, I'm not sure.

Obviously... Perhaps if you finally shared your operational definition of "force", I could better understand how you perceive the concept of force and reply accordingly.

In your rolling of the boulders analogy, did I force you to be at the bottom of the canyon? Does it matter?

When someone slams their vehicle into yours, does it really matter if they are drunk or sober?

 

[PLC1]

1. DD laws do not keep people from getting drunk.
2. DD laws do not keep people (drunk or sober) from slamming into your car.

but they do make such an event less likely. Nothing can keep us perfectly safe, can it?

Seriously, would you repeal all of the laws against DUI? What about laws against other actions that put the public at risk? Should it be OK to run red lights, race through neighborhoods, or play chicken?

Your concern about drunk drivers centers around what might happen. Such concerns are based on an appeal to consequences. Focusing on those consequences becomes an appeal to fear. Both of which illicit an emotional response and that appears to be the basis of your conclusions.

The same is true of the boulders rolling past you at the bottom of the canyon. They might hit you, so the such an eventuality is an appeal to fear and elicit an emotional response. I know they would elicit one from me, were I the one at the bottom of the canyon.

You claimed that the mere presence of a drunk on the road violated the rights of everyone else on the road with him... So at a BAC of 0.079, he's not violating the rights of anyone BUT add another 0.001 to make it 0.08, and suddenly the guy is recklessly endangering others?

You have to draw the line somewhere. The term DUI has to have a legal definition.

Such a conclusion is emotional, not rational...

Oh, I think the desire to not share the road with drunks and fools is totally rational.

My view of the subject is entirely rational. Fact is, only 12% of the time that you are struck by another vehicle is the driver under the influence of alcohol. The other 88% of the time, the driver has not been drinking. Pass only laws that make the action of violating my rights illegal, that's it. Such laws will cover every driver, drunk or sober. When another vehicle strikes my own, that is a violation of my rights and the sobriety of the other driver is totally irrelevent.

Correct, which is why there are laws against running red lights, speeding, and assorted other imbecilic actions that endanger the public and thus violate our rights.

Obviously... Perhaps if you finally shared your operational definition of "force", I could better understand how you perceive the concept of force and reply accordingly.

You gave your definition earlier. I'll see if I can find it.

When someone slams their vehicle into yours, does it really matter if they are drunk or sober?

Nope. It only matters whether they are at fault or not. If they are, I'll sue the pants off of them.

The vehicle code, however, is there to make it less likely that they will slam into my car in the first place.