Bitcoin Forum

This morning, I was pulled over on my routine drive to work. I know exactly how the damn lights look before they come flash the reds and blues, so I knew I was fucked waaaay before they even pulled me over.

So the cop walks up and says, "Do you know why I pulled you over?"
I say: "Uhhhhhhhh.... Speeding, yeah?"
: You were going 79 in a 55 zone. You do realize that's pretty damn fast, yeah?
;;Yeah, I know. Pretty bad. Here's my license and registration
: You know, we lost you for a good 5 miles back there. Ran the radar and started following, but we had no idea where you went after you passed 36th Ave... Unlucky that we caught up to you.
;;... Yep.


5 minutes elapse, get ticket, drive away. Take off shoes in anger and finish working.
Realize, I don't give a shit. Tickets are chump change. Fuck the Police.

Drink some chocolate milk, tell story on bitcointalk.org, go back to work.
I am a fucking dumbass boss.

Moral of story: Police will catch you speeding, but when someone steals your bike/car/house/wife/bitcoins, they aint gonna do shit. I think.

Finding your bike doesn't get them revenue.

Exactly, unfortunately. Contrariwise, if I have to go buy a new bike, I pay taxes which eventually, a tiny bit, get funneled to them.

So what EVERY cop should do to get raises, it FUCK everyone's stuff up, AND charge them for every tiny law infraction possible. Also, steal people's bikes/cars/houses/wives/bitcoins.

Yeah, that's basically what they do: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset_forfeiture

... So if I become a cop and fuck people's shit up, I'll get nice things?

So you are mad at the police for doing their job? Wasn't it you who were in the wrong here? How about not speeding thus freeing up resources for the police to go look for your "bike/car/house/wife/bitcoins" instead?

I too have been nicked for speeding but I didn't have to whine about it. You did wrong. Deal with it. Do right next time.

Who did he harm?

Depends on how you look at it. He took up resources that could better be spent on solving or preventing other crimes.  And the consequences of a collision gets worse with increased velocity, so while nothing happened today, the police acted in the public interest to prevent that. Or you could argue that increased speed leads to more pollution which harms the environment and thus everybody.

Either way he didn't follow the rules that were setup and got punished for it. Rightfully so.

Nope. Cop did that. Didn't have to chase him, could have stopped when he lost him.

Nope. That's an increased risk of harming someone, and it was his decision to take that risk. Risk ≠ harm, though. So, fail on that, too.

Nope. Any increased pollution is a result of increased consumption of gas. The cost of the pollution that is caused by burning the gas is already factored into the cost of gas.

Nope, still not harm. That's no different from jaywalking or letting your grass grow too tall.

1) You're not serious? If people weren't speeding cops could do other things. Now they have to watch over people who can't follow the rules. That cop would could have been put to better use than to catch speeders. Helping somebody's granny over a street or something.

2) That's his risk to take when he's on the race track. Not on a public road. The harm he has potential to do increases, and he has no right to take that decision for everybody else on the road.

3) More fuel burned, more pollution. WTF does cost have to do with anything? People nearby breathe in more pollution, that's harm. And if you agree with +90% of the climate scientists you also contribute to global warming, admittedly not by much though. Still harmful to the environment.

4) Nope, not harm. I agree with that. Didn't say it was though. Just that there are rules and you either follow them or accept the consequences.

1) If cops didn't chase speeders, they could do something else.
2) Still not actually harming anyone. Should you be arrested because you might throw a brick through a window?
3) You're defending a Speeding ticket (Charging him a fine) by saying that goes to defray costs caused by increased pollution. That cost is already factored into the price of the gasoline.
4) No harm, no foul. He didn't hurt anyone, so why are you defending the extortionists in blue?

Hahaha.

State worship much?

And you add the Climate Grift to a speeding thread. 

Wow.

He doesn't choose the cop's priorities.

Actually, that's not true. The expected severity of an accident goes up but the chance of an accident goes down. This is primarily because the faster you go, the less time you are on the road and accident risk correlates much more strongly with time on the road than it does with speed. In most realistic scenarios, he poses less risk to others because he's not on the road for as long. (Obviously, this isn't true if he was going so fast he wasn't in control.)

Right, but to figure out if that's a *net* harm you have to balance it against the net gain to society of his speeding. If you don't see why this is so, imagine if everyone drove at 10 miles per hour and think about what effect that would have on the economy.

Would you support a national 45 mile per hour speed limit? I mean, look at all the benefits it should have -- less risk, less fuel burned, all things you seem to think are good. If you think speed limits are set to some kind of scientifically optimal value, I have a bridge to sell you.

Thank you to myrkul for saving me some posting in this thread.

Also, good input from JoelKatz, as is typical.

1) Yes, but cops are put there to enforce the rules. If people followed the rules they would have find other things to do.
2) If you're carrying a brick in a no-brick zone, yes.
3) No, I'm defending charging him a fine because he broke the rules.
4) Because there is no extortionist in blue here. There is a rule enforcer and someone who broke the rules, well aware that there was consequences.

2) So if I have this straight, someone can fire their rifle into a public park full of children repeatedly, and as long as they don't actually hit any child they should be allowed to continue?  Sure there is a risk that they could hit a child, but risk is not harm.

3) I don't think he was saying that the fine defrays costs of increased pollution. I think he was saying that increased pollution is a harm that is caused by speeding, and that the fine is intended to be a deterrent.  For a deterrent to be successful it must be significantly higher than the associated costs. This would be the difference between a fee and a fine, wouldn't it?

The $24k a year cops around my area build big new homes in gated communities.

1) No, the cops rulebook does that.
2) I've read that too. What would make the least amount of harm in your opinion if you compare any number of fender-benders to fatalities or serious injuries? I don't know about you, but I'd rather come home late with a bumped car, than not at all, or handicapped.
3) I was asked where the harm was. More pollution is harmful, at least to the people nearby. The people who get sick probably doesn't care if there's a *net* harm or not. They're still harmed.
4) I don't think there's a scientifically optimal value to the speed limits. They're still rules to be followed.

Well 79 in a 55 is fucking fast. I'ts not like driving 60 in 55.

If I would se you driving I would think that you are a douche speeding that much.

No mean to insult. But I don't like people driving recklessly.

Nobody does. But this was about speeding, not driving recklessly. If police observe people driving recklessly, they should charge them with that too.

I'm not certain that I agree that overall risk decreases with an increase in speed.  Can you point me to an analysis that demonstrates this? I suspect you are mistaken on this point.


But society has already determined the balance they want.  They elected representatives who chose a speed limit that society feels is fast enough to provide the necessary benefit, while slow enough to keep risk and pollution acceptable.

While I may not support a 45 mile per hour limit, I may also not support a 55 mile an hour limit.  As such I can choose my representatives based on their stand on this issue.  If enough of society is willing to accept a 45 mile an hour limit for those benefits, then the law will change, and I'll be held to the new rules regardless of personal preference for speed limits.  They don't need to be scientifically optimal, they simply need to be acceptable by society.

So, all this boils down to "he disobeyed words on paper, so he should be fined"

If I wrote down words on paper that you had to give fellatio to anyone who demanded, would you do it? What if I got all your neighbors to agree that you should give fellatio to anyone who demanded it? What if I got all your neighbors to agree that you should give fellatio to anyone who demanded, or be shot?

Following rules because they are the rules is no different from following orders because they are orders.

"I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do."
Robert A. Heinlein


2) No, because it can be reasonably assumed that you are trying to hit a kid. In fact, it would be silly to assume otherwise. However, it cannot be assumed that a speeder is trying to have an accident by speeding. If he wanted to have an accident, it's trivial to twitch the wheel and plow into oncoming traffic, or veer the other direction and start mowing down pedestrians.

3) Well, if he's harmed people by forcing them to breathe air that is more polluted, then they should receive the compensation for that, shouldn't they? The state, in collecting the fine, is stealing from the victims, in that case.

2) And if the shooter was aiming at targets that he set up on the opposite side of the park and successfully hitting the targets, then it becomes acceptable?  Since it can no longer be assumed that the shooter is trying to hit a kid?

3) Perhaps.  Perhaps not.  It doesn't change the fact that the fine is intended to be a deterrent against the causing of cause harm.

Even the NHTSA agrees that the average driver on a highway is driving over the speed limit and that your crash risk increases if you driver slower than other vehicles.

http://casr.adelaide.edu.au/speed/vol-1.html
This study suggests that your crash risk is minimized when you are going faster even than the average vehicle on the highway. (See figure 2.2) And this is all *before* you correct for higher speeds meaning less time on the road.

The newer studies are even more dramatic (because vehicles got safer), but I can't seem to find them online.

We as a society have defined an acceptable level of risk that he decided to go above, so he should be fined. Yes.

Good quote. I like that. Morally responsible. And willing to take the consequences for breaking the rules I assume.

Why can that be reasonably assumed? Hitting a kid that is? Because it would be hard to defend your "risk != harm" position otherwise?

Who's to say they're not being compensated, by enforcement officers that try to protect them from harm, just to give an example.

I would choose not to reside in such a community.  There are a variety of communities with a variety of speed limits.  Find a community with a speed limit you can accept and live there, or work within your community to change the local speed limit law.  But if you choose to live in the community, you choose to be held to the laws that community has put in place.  Additionally, forcing me to commit such an act does not protect others from harm, and arguable could be considered as causing harm to me.  This would be the opposite of the laws being discussed where forcing a me to drive at a safe speed decreases the risk of harm to others and myself. Nobody said anything about shooting speeders.

True, but failing to follow orders has consequences as well.  You can choose to refuse orders, but in doing so you choose to have those consequences imposed upon you.

Heinlein was a fiction writer.  He said a lot of stuff, most of it fictional. That doesn't make him someone whose words I would choose to live by.

All crimes require a victim to be an actual crime.  Find me one, in this instance.

The figure indicates that your crash risk is minimized when you are going slightly faster than the average speed of the highway. According to the figure, more than 10 mph over the average speed and your crash risk increases above that of maintaining the average speed. Furthermore, the figure does not take into consideration the increase in damage, injury, or fatality at the higher speed when a collision does occur. Beyond that the figure also doesn't adjust for the fact that impaired drivers tend to drive slower, meaning that the figure is skewed since impaired drivers while slower are significantly more likely to be involved in a collision.  If the graph were adjusted for this bias, it is likely that the minimized risk would be at the average speed.

What's an actual crime? Crimes that have a single victim? You can't think of a few things that you're not allowed to do because it's bad for the general public?

Please refer to my previous post regarding a shooter shooting through a park full of children, but not hitting any of them.  You would not consider this a crime?

This is the same, how?

You state that there must be a victim to be an actual crime.  I'm asking your opinion.  If a shooter is shooting through a park full of children, but not hitting any of them either:

A) There is no victim, therefore you do not consider this a crime.

or

B) This is a crime, and you can identify a victim in this action.

Is the park public property or private property?

What part of "refer to my previous post" confuses you?


I assumed that when I stated "into a public park" that it would be clear that I meant that the park is public property?

Well, then you are dealing with moral hazard before anything else.

Let me put my position another way.  If I build a road and people have the choice of whether or not to pay me to use it, if I decide to impose a speed limit of 90mph on it, am I right to do this?  What if I decide to impose no speed limit?  Am I also right to do this?

You aren't answering the question, and your new example has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.  The discussion involves an individual choosing to exceed a publicly determined speed limit on a public road.  If you build a private road you can do whatever you want with it as far as I'm concerned.  Speed limit 1 mph, speed limit 250 mph.  Death penalty to those that exceed your speed limit.  As long as the rules, consequences, and costs are clearly known ahead of time by anyone choosing to use your road, I really don't care.

But you are stating that a speeder on a public road is not commiting a crime, since there is no victim.  I'm asking you to defend your position.  You state that the shooter example is a moral hazard.  That may be true, but do you consider this a crime?

A crime must have a victim.  You can't say "society" is a victim - prove it!  The burden of proof must always rest on the accuser.  I can easily produce ten people who would say "I was not harmed in any way by this gentleman's speeding" just as easily as you could produce ten that say "society has been hurt by this fellow who didn't actually hurt any individual human being!".  What do you have to go on at that point?  Consensus?  Where does that lead?

The moral hazard exists in the fact that I have a gun pointed at my face that says I must pay for these things whether I use them or not, and then another gun pointed at my face saying that, if I do decide to use them, I must use them in this specific way, even though nobody actually owns them, and that if I don't conform my behavior to these things over which I have no say, and nobody has a demonstrable moral right to attempt to impose in the first place, it is a "crime".

WTF?  I'm having a difficult time finding any meaning in your last "sentence".  I think you are saying that the act of creating a law against the actions of the shooter is the crime, but I'm really not certain. Lets try this one more time.  Simple question, requesting simple yes/no answer:

There are many children playing in a public park designed for children. A shooter sets up targets at one side of the park, then proceeds to the opposite side of the park and begins shooting his high powered rifle through the park at the targets.  Up until the moment where he accidentally shoots a child, in your personal opinion, is this shooter committing a crime?

So you 'discovered' that there are fewer collisions per mile on freeways vs. roads.  What's you Point?

Lot of mad Juniors in this thread... Both for and against the idea of speeding tickets.

Here's a little about me;

I speed. A lot. I have always driven fast, my siblings also have, my parents as well. Always always always fast.

Number of accidents in the family as a direct result of speeding? Zero.
Number of accidents in the family as a result of our own shitty driving? Zero.

We've all been hit several times by idiots texting, old people, faulty road markings (This one was me, they repainted the street after I got hit.) and someone falling asleep at the wheel.

Here are some other facts some of you should consider before taking a stance here.

While I myself am a very defensive driver, and have the cognitive capabilites* to drive 80 on a deserted highway at night, some people don't. In fact, I would venture that a sizable population percentage of americans should not even have a license.

This is why laws like this are in place. Because if you take an average, this is what it takes to keep morons and old people from destroying everyone in their path.

Now me? I think I should be exempt from the limits, because I can handle my driving. (Cry foul, but come watch me drive before you tell me I'm just as shitty as anyone else.) BUT! There is no way to make an exception here, so instead taking it up with courts and representatives, I bitch to friends/family/forum.

My stance is such that we need these laws, but there are people out there who not only can get away, but should be allowed to get away with breaking laws such as speeding.

I pay every ticket, I never take it to court. I know I broke the rules, and accept my punishment.

(Fun tidbit for you all. If I had a ticket for every Stop-sign/Stop-light I have blazed through at 20+MPH, I would have approximately 14,000 instances of infraction. I drive for my job, and I know the neighborhoods I work in down to who's up at what time, who drives to work when, and even when/where the police patrol on their given patrol nights. Number of times anyone has even got close to being hurt by my actions? Zero. I can break the law in such a way that is smart and takes others into account. Keep in mind that this IS possible for people to do.)

You are required to get in to drug stealing/dealing,

I think odds of getting caught should also be clearly posted... 

There is the spirit of the law and the letter of the law.  This is a good example of following the spirit of the law, while you have broken the letter many times.  The spirit is to keep everyone safe and ordly.  The letter of the law cannot account for all situations, and it is upto people to decide on appropriate actions.  Its seems more often the police are only looking at the letter, and letting the courts sort things out, I think this is a considerable waste as it usually takes a full day to week to deal with certain issues.

I'm kind of in the same boat as you... my wife and I both drive very aggressively/fast (though perhaps not quite as much as yourself) compared to the average person, but we are still safe/aware/defensive about it and we've never been in any accidents.  We've both been driving for 10 years now.  I think speeding is a good way to stay attentive to your driving as well.  I'd probably fall asleep on the freeway if I didn't give myself a little bit of excitement!  And lots of people do... heh.

No. He's doing a very stupid thing, and assuming his trajectories cross the potential paths of the children, a very risky thing no matter his level of skill, but not committing a crime. Of course, to avoid being confused for a criminal, he should make it very clear that this pubic park is about to become a shooting range.

Of course, this is where your comparison breaks down: the level of risk does not correlate to the skill and practice of the shooter. He could easily hit a kid because the kid moved into the path of the bullet. The level of risk assumed by the speeder is affected by the skill and practice of the driver.

I am not saying that either person should be able to avoid the consequences of his actions. But to punish someone before there are consequences is like charging you with murder because you might kill someone.

Another disclaimer: Aside from travel on the interstate up to Duluth one year, that is the FASTEST I have ever gone for more than a second or two when I redline my engine...

Typical speeding for me consists of maybe 8-12 over, but usually closer to 8 than 12. My speedo also over-reports my speed by about ~2%, so I really have no clue exactly HOW much over I'm going when I dip up and down.

This morning, I was REALLY late to work and that was the reason for the speedin'.

I would only offer the small possibility that some of those accidents may have been avoidable while traveling at a speed closer to the posted speed limit.  Slower speed would provide more reaction time, and would be less likely to put your vehicle in a position where an inattentive driver didn't expect you.

I suspect that every driver out there that breaks laws intentionally believes that they belong in the same category as you.  Clearly many of them are wrong.  [sarcasm:mood=lighthearted]Only the few like yourself have an accurate image of their own driving skills, right?[/sarcasm]

Glad to hear it.  This has been my only point all along.  Respect the job the police are tasked with.  Understand the reasons they must perform this job. Accept the consequences when you make a choice to intentionally violate a law.

I guess one interesting question is: Since the current fine does not act as a deterrent for you, but rather as a fee for the privilege of exceeding the posted speed limit, would the risk of fine act as a deterrent for you if the fine was higher? If it was a $1,000 fine for each infraction? $5000? $25,000?  What is the tipping point where you decide that given the choice of driving no faster than the posted limit, or the risk of being fined, you choose the posted speed limit?

That price has changed for me over the years.  When I was in my early 20's I'd have told you that it would require a fine in excess of $500 to act as a deterrent for me.  As I approached my 30's, I'd probably have told you that $200 was enough of a deterrent. By my mid-30's I was of the opinion that anything over $20 wasn't worth the risk. Now that I'm in my 40's I'm probably back up around $150 to $200. (assuming that I'll probably get caught by the police approximately 1 out 100 times, this works out to a $1.50 to $2.00 fee for the privilege of speeding each time I choose to do so).

Interesting point of view.  I'm not sure that your viewpoint is one shared with a significant majority of the population, but at least it is consistent.

Actually the comparison does not break down here at all.  In both cases an actor is tacking an action that sends an object at a higher than normal speed through an area populated with innocent and unaware citizens.  In either case, one of these unaware citizens could at anytime move unexpectedly into the path of the object being propelled by the actor.  In either case, the laws of physics can prevent the actor from diverting the propelled object from intersecting the path of the unaware citizen.  In both cases the intersection of paths can result in the loss of life.

In other words, as the high speed driver passes another inattentive slower speed driver, the slower driver can change lanes suddenly and unexpectedly cutting off the high speed driver, and leaving the high speed driver without enough time or traction to avoid the collision.

So, given your response, it seems that to avoid being confused for a criminal, the high speed driver should make it very clear that the public road is about to become a high speed race track?  Why is it that the shooter 's right to shoot supersedes the children's right to play?

So if I understand this correctly, the law should never be able to prevent risky actions that have a significant chance of injuring others.  It should always be acceptable for an individual to decide by themselves how much risk everyone else can be exposed to?  I should be legally allowed to increase your risk of death as high as I want, and should be punished until/unless I actually injure or kill you?

Most of these accidents occurred at stop lights. Step-brother was hit while stopped, Got whiplash.
I took a left turn, and was hit by a forward moving vehicle coming from a right-turn only lane at about 25mph (He was that fast.)
Father had a man drive a truck into his fender while stopped...
Sister was T-boned by a lady NOT obeying a stop-sign.

So yes, if we had been going slower, all these idiots would have had plenty of time continue plowing their vehicles into my family, because all of these accidents occurred at high speed. Especially the stopped ones.


Already commented on this. See me drive before you go and criticize. My wager is, I am much better at driving and have better control of my vehicle than you. I can (and have) commute to work completely in reverse without hitting anyone. Can you?


500 would probably be enough to deter me. Any form of non-monetary punishment, such as license revocation or jail-time? That would definitely deter me. $146.50? Definitely not enough when I'm caught on average, one time per year and drive in excess of 20,000 miles every year. Less than a penny per mile. God help my wallet.

You make a good point, but in that instance, the accident wouldn't even be the speeder's fault. The speeder was paying attention. The idiot in the other car cut him off. If you honestly think that anyone getting on a highway isn't aware that there are other drivers out there who go faster than the speed limit, you have less brains rattling around in your head than the moron who changes lanes without looking.


There's no superseding going on here. Those rights can (and on public property, must) co-exist. If you would like to prevent all possibility of a shooter doing some target practice, play at a privately owned park. Likewise, if you want to do some target practice without taking the risk of shooting some little kids, go plink at a privately owned gun range.


Remember that risk is a two-way street. There are very few ways you can greatly increase my risk of death without my implicit consent. If I wish to avoid the risk of speeders on the highway, I should stay off the highway. If I would like to avoid the risk of my children getting shot, I should not let them play on (even temporary) shooting ranges.

When pulled over I always reply to "You know why I pulled you over?" with "For driving my vehicle within the manufactures specifications."

If the state frowns on speeding so much then go after the manufactures of vehicles and impose a 70mph governor on all vehicles for public road use. Then go even further than that with sensors and gps to regulate speeds in lower areas. While their at it go a couple steps further and have us punch in or destination on our gps, sit back and enjoy a nap.

The technology is there and would solve many of the problems with our current transportation system.

Technicians solve problems not politicians.

You didn't include that data previously, so obviously I couldn't take it into consideration in my comments.  So far you and your family have been fortunate not to be involved in a high speed accident.  I hope your luck holds out.  Even if you are the best drivers that have ever existed, it doesn't prevent a poor driver from causing an accident while youa re traveling at high speed.

Certainly I can, but generally I prefer not to.  I'm not criticizing, I'm just pointing out that as a general rule people tend to overestimate their driving skill.  They all feel as sure as you do of their own skill, and yet many of them are wrong.  You may very well be right, or you may be one of the many who are overconfident.  I have no way of knowing, and if you are overconfident, then you don't really have any way of knowing either. In the end it doesn't really matter.  You believe in the ability of yourself and your family, and you will continue to drive as you see fit.  It will continue to cost you money in an occasional fine, and it may or may not eventually result in the serious injury or death to yourself or others.

I'd argue that fault lies with both in such a situation.  I don't think that most people aren't aware that some drivers exceed the speed limit, but that doesn't prevent high speed accidents from occurring every day.

I'm impressed with your consistent opinion on the matter and can certainly respect that.  Unfortunately I can't agree with your viewpoint.  I doubt any amount of conversation will ever bring either of us around to the other's point of view on such a matter.  In my opinion, society can collectively own a piece of land, and can through law determine uses for that land that they find acceptable.  Perhaps it needs to be a majority, or a super majority, or 95%, but at some level, the local community should be able to protect intended use.

Again I respect your opinion, but personally disagree.  I feel that it is extreme to say that there are very few ways one person can greatly increase another's risk of death without implicit consent, and even if it is true should I be allowed to choose that level of risk for both of us? Should there be no limit on how much risk I can place you at as long as I'm willing to accept nearly identical risk for myself?

Myrkul,

DannyHamilton's viewpoint is more reasonable. It also results in better control and predictability of one's life. Furthermore, it's pretty much the norm. And finally, the position he takes is mostly inevitable.

You might want to instead argue something more constructive.

In reference to my above post, imagine something as absurd as an inflatable life raft out in the middle of the ocean with five passengers on board where one of the passengers is an aspiring knife juggler. Swimming around the raft are sharks. Are you going to let this knife juggler practice his juggling while on board the raft just because of your principles?

I can't believe what I am reading. 79 mph (126.5 kph) and 'pretty damn fast'? lol

Love that part too:


I didn't expect the land of the muscle cars to be so harsh on public roads' speed limits. If the driving conditions are safe I don't even see problems in driving 120 mph in the center of a city (although there might not be many possibilities, I can often drive at ~80 mph and much more on highways).

Where do you live?  The speed limits absolutely are very harsh here.  I wish the US had its own version of the autobahn...

No, it doesn't. But I think my point is clearly illustrated by the anecdotal evidence presented by Electicbees. Skill and attention plays a large part in it.


But why should even 95% of the population get to enforce their will on the other 5%? Simply because there are more of them? How does their right to use the land supersede the right of the minority?


The problem is the fact that the roads, and other public property, are equally owned by everyone. The speeder has just as much right to do whatever he wants on the road as anyone else. All of this is solved by making roads private property. Then you can place whatever restrictions on their use that you want. In the meantime, don't impede the man's right to use his property as he sees fit, unless he harms someone else.

That would be an opinion, not a fact.  It is as easy to argue that the speeder is responsible for hitting the person who cuts them off, as it is to argue that the shooter is responsible for shooting the person that suddenly steps in front of their bullet.

Why shouldn't they get to?  I can't agree that you should be allowed to turn your home in the middle of a residential community into a high explosives factory.  You may be willing to accept that risk, but you shouldn't be allowed to force that risk on the people who own homes next door to yours.

No, eliminating public property doesn't solve the problem.  As you can see in my example of turning a home into a high explosives factory, you still have to deal with a community being able to control the safety of its residents. Public or private, the fact remains. We live in a world populated by a multitude of people who are not exactly like ourselves.  There is no way to exist peacefully in such a world if everyone chooses to live entirely selfishly.  The only way it works is if there is a system in place to ensure that certain rights of some are not imposed on by others.  It is my opinion, and the opinion of a controlling majority of the population, that a community has to have control over risk management.  The majority will always force their will upon others if enough of them feel that the will of the others increases their risk to an unacceptable level.

Because the two cannot coexist.  Either gunners get to use the playground and force people out of it who would be using it as intended, or laws are put into place for acceptable use of public property.  Either speeders get to user the road and force people off of it who would be using it as intended, or laws are put into place for acceptable use of public property.

To me, it is all about intended usage.  Roadways are built so that people can get from point A to point B, not so that people can use it as a racetrack.  Playgrounds are built so that kids have play structures to play on, not so that gun-wielding people can use it as a shooting range. Gun shooting ranges are built for guns to be shot in, not for kids to play in.  Racetracks are built for races to take place, not for people to get from point A to point B on.  And laws enforcing those proper uses are absolutely legitimate and necessary (in my opinion).  Otherwise, those who wished to use it for its intended purpose will be largely evicted from it via the risk forced upon them by others.

notice something interesting in your examples.  Racetracks are private property.  Gun ranges are private property.

The entire argument hinges on the fact that it's "public" property in the first place.  Public property is a fallacious concept - more than one person cannot simultaneously, fully own any scarce resource.

If a restaurant goes out of business, the first thing you think in your head is "bad management".  If a fatal car crash occurs on the highway, is "management" held accountable in any way?  There is no accountability, because of the huge inherent moral hazard of the bullshit concept of "common" or "public" ownership of a scarce resource.  non-scarce, you can go to town (why Intellectual "property" is absolutely garbage), but with a scarce good that cannot be instantly replicated ad infinitum, you cannot have simultaneous full ownership/control over it. 

The stop gap for this huge moral hazard is mandatory insurance, which just further shifts liability for ACTUAL harm, and then behavior modification for victimless acts with penalties for violation of what can only be completely arbitrary restrictions (since customers cannot have a say over them, in any way whatsoever).  What I'm saying is, I can get a $300 ticket for speeding and harming no one, but then I go out drunk driving and kill someone, and I might get a couple of years in jail and a hefty insurance premium once my privilege suspension has been revoked.

If we had a free market in roads, private property ownership and actual accountability, I would have to pay to feed, shelter, and clothe the family of the guy I just killed because I felt like driving drunk.  Instead, we just play around inside of this stupid gray area where all of the moral lines get changed whenever the consensus changes, and people are robbed at gunpoint and then not held accountable for actual harm caused.  Welcome to socialism and moral fascism.  It's A Wonderful Life....

Yet, you ignored my point: "clearly illustrated by the anecdotal evidence presented by Electicbees. Skill and attention plays a large part in it."


Your own argument was that the shooter's rights shouldn't supersede the playground kids'. By that same argument, what lets the kids' rights supersede the shooter's? The funny thing about statists is that the first argument they use when anarchists complain about taxes is "just move, then," but when property use comes into play, that argument is never brought out.


Yes, it does. The owner can set whatever rules they want, including a speed limit on private roads. Or they can choose not to impose a speed limit, and you can choose to drive on that road or not. Public roads are everyone's property equally, and you don't have the right to dictate how someone else uses their property.

Yep. I definitely ignored that point, because anecdotal evidence has proven itself to be generally unreliable.


What lets the kids rights supersede the shooter's?  I think I've already made that abundantly clear.  The community has a right to determine the intended use of the property.  By designating it a park, they have determined that the shooter does not have the right to use the property in that way.  As I've explained more than once, this is a matter of risk management and a communities right to prevent an individual from imposing their choice of risk level on a group that is not willing to accept that risk.

The owner cannot set whatever rules they want.  Their property will still border the property of others and those others will not be willing to accept certain levels of risk that the private owner is willing to put on them. Calling the property private does not solve the problem of risk management.

Then they can move.

Or they can simply join together as a community and force the offending property owner out, or otherwise impose their will upon him.  Which is what they already do, and so we've come full circle.

Might makes right, huh?

Nope, but the community has a right to defend itself against an individual that would choose to put them at risk.

In other words, Might makes right. The community is not a person. It has no rights. If the individuals who feel they are at risk don't want to move, they can take it up peacefully with the property owner. If they use violence to push him out, they are not defending themselves, they are aggressing against him.

Our opinions differ in this matter. You won't succeed in convincing me, I won't succeed in convincing you. Further discussion will serve no useful purpose.  It has been an interesting discussion nonetheless.

You're probably right that I will not convince you. I know you will not convince me. But consider this:

My way causes risk of harm to the neighbors.

Your way causes definite harm to the property owner.

Risk of harm > definite harm.

Children have boundaries for their own safety as well as to prevent harm to others. Adults aren't really that different. Boundaries for behavior are useful when living within a society. There isn't anything magical about being an adult.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternalism


Comparing adults to children is not the way to win friends. The "something magical" about being adult is that you get to make your own decisions.

We're saving gas for WWII! Don't worry. We got our shit figured out. :P
My car is rated to 110mph, but has a hard time getting to 90. It's got something like, 55KW. Fucking economy cars.

In my state they do you for speeding if you are 1km over the limit. Now speedo error can be +/- 10%. Tell me how one can do the right thing when its technically impossible to do so ?

Demonstrate that C. S. Lewis was against traffic laws.

Not when you endanger others due to irresponsible behavior. You have a habit of twisting around things. Such habits will lead you down paths that will not be fruitful for you, precisely because your views are a twisted version of common sense.

Try to be more constructive.

You're so cute when you try to use logic.

I believe the most likely case here is you don't have your facts straight.

As I said, demonstrate that C. S. Lewis was against traffic laws.

why this is posted here? you bribed the policeman with bitcoins?

Other » Politics & Society » So I got pulled over for speeding...

Because, deep down, I KNEW you guys would make this thread all the fun I wanted it to be.
Seriously, I check back in every few hours, and love everything I read.

This topic hits home.

The fact you cant possibly know your speed to the extent required by law isnt the definition of arbitrary punishment ?

So if I get this straight this is your position.
So as a group we aren't allowed to impose our will on 49% because that would be oppression if we collectively own the road, and that would be wrong. But a single person that owns it could impose his will on +99,9% of the population and that would be fine?

Nobody holds you to a 1km accuracy. That's where you don't have your facts straight.

It's his property. If I came over to your house, what would your opinion of me be if I took a shit on your carpet? Would you let me stick around? Or would you kick me out for it? If you would kick me out, what right gives you the ability to impose your will on everyone else on the planet, preventing them from crapping there?

Right, so if we own this apartment complex together, and you have an apartment there, there's no way the rest of us can stop you from crapping on the floor in the common areas?

 Well, If I've caused you harm by crapping in the common area, then require me to repay the damages. In this case, the cleaning bill. At that point, you may also decide that crapping in the common area was a breach of our original contract when we got together to purchase the building, and if you can prove it, then you can kick me out. This is likely, since I doubt many joint ownership agreements would not include a "don't damage the common areas" clause.

Yeah i was wrong its actually 0km over http://smh.drive.com.au/motor-news/margin-for-error-on-speeding-reduced-to-zero-20110324-1c8kp.html

Note that the design rules allow for a 10% tolerance while speed cameras have none and many people have received fines for being less than 5km over.

So as long as you crap in the driveway, or similar place where no cleaning is required because it will eventually rain, everything is fine. No harm/damage done?
We don't want to kick you out, you contribute in many ways to our apartment complex, we just want you to start using regular toilets. A majority of us residents can not put a rule in place where we fine anyone who craps in our common areas, not because it directly damages anyone, but because we want that behavior to stop?

No, not a majority. Sorry. That's mob rule. Tyranny of the masses is still tyranny. If everyone agreed, beforehand, that such behavior was not OK, and would be punished, then yes, that would be fine. But simply a majority? No.

You know what's funny? During this entire conversation, you never thought about just asking the dude to stop shitting in the common areas. It's always about force with you statists. Making people do things.

AntiCap,

Don't waste your time.  You may not like his opinion, but myrkul is at least consistent in his opinion. He is willing to let a shooter use a public childrens park as a shooting range while children are playing there, and he is willing to let his next door neighbor turn his privately owned home in a residential neighborhood into a high explosive factory. You aren't going to come up with an example that will convince him he is wrong. You aren't going to change his mind on the matter. On public property anyone can do anything they want, and can't be punished until they cause actual harm. On private property the owner can do anything they want. On shared ownership private property the owners can do anything that isn't contractually forbidden among the owners.

On the other hand, if you are beginning to find his point of view persuasive, you may want to continue the conversation.  I feel pretty confident that myrkl, and a few others in this forum, would be interested in continuing your education in the matter.

Do you know what happens if everyone must agree? From wikipedia: Freedom of speech in Poland was far greater than in other European countries. Moreover, any single member of the Polish parliament during the 17th and 18th century had an absolute veto (lat. liberum veto), so that complete consensus—which could be attained only with great difficulty—was required for every issue. Originally, the procedure was used for points of order and similar technical issues, however, it was later abused.
That's right. Nothing gets done.

So in our apartment complex there were no rules beforehand that prevented someone from pooping in public areas, because there was an implicit understanding that this is not something you do. However after a difference of opinion you've just started to do this to annoy me. Everyone but you wants this to stop, but you're having too much fun annoying me. What are we as residents to do about you? You're being extra cautious to make sure you don't overstep any other boundaries to ensure that you can keep doing this for as long as you please.

Obviously the first cause of action is to talk to the parties involved. I thought we talked about what happens when people can't agree. Dealing with pleasurable people are rarely a problem.

And connecting back to the driving part. When a road is built, everyone who uses this road agrees to a specific limit, then someone else starts using the road. Do we need to assemble everyone again and agree to keep the limits as they are, or can they just stay the same?
After constructing a new road in the LA-area, which people should we invite to have a say in what speed limit there should be on it. Everyone affected by or using it? Do you think you'll be able to set a limit on this side of the heat-death of the universe?

If your ownership contract allows for such an action, then yes he can continue for as long as he pleases and you needed to do a better job of creating the contract in the first place. Now that you've gotten yourself into this situation, your option is to sell your share of the ownership and move elsewhere.  Be more careful about joint ownership contracts you sign in the future.

This is why myrkul wants to see private ownership of the roads, then the owner gets to set the rules for how the users use the road.  A new user doesn't matter, because ownership hasn't changed.  In the case of a supposedly publicly owned road, myrkul has already explained that the entire public should have the right to use that road in anyway they like until the moment they cause actual harm to another. One person can choose to use the road as storage for their explosives collection, while another can use it as a high speed test track (although in the case of a collision between the two I'm not sure who is considered responsible for the death of the driver).

1) So that means that one person can effectively hold others ransom and there's nothing they can do about it. Seems like a dream situation for lawyers. All you need to do is to find a loophole where you follow the letter, but not the spirit of the contract.
How is this better?

2) So a dictatorship where one person tells everybody to do it his way or GTFO, is better than an agreement, or as close to an agreement as we can come? How is this an improvement over the current system?

Yes, isn't it horrible how, when you go into a McDonald's, the owner of that business has complete say over what you can and cannot do in his establishment? Such tyranny.

A restaurant is not infrastructure. Try again.
Why did you dodge the other question? Or did you just save it for later?


In your world, when I've bought key roads in a city and impose my whimsical rules on those roads, effectively grid-locking the city, what then? OPP is in the way for construction of new roads, and some people just refuse to sell. 

Other question doesn't matter. Be careful what contracts you sign.

So, let's assume you've bought up the "key roads" through a city in a grand master plan to lose money. You impose "whimsical" rules on those roads to deny yourself traffic. We'll even assume that you cannot be routed around on existing roads. (Seriously, play around with this on Google Maps or OpenStreetMap, see if you can actually block traffic by buying up a few roads.) Those "other people" won't have to sell. They'll build roads themselves, to get around your ridiculous restrictions, and make a little money, to boot. Then, once you've gone out of business, they'll turn those ad hoc roads back into gardens or whatever they were before you decided to waste a bunch of your money.

And that's, of course, assuming this (http://www.terrafugia.com/) (or something like it) doesn't ruin your plan.

Ok. You can just assume that you currently live in an AnCap world where most contracts are implicit and in them there's a clause that says that most disputes that can't be solved by something called a law-book is solved by majority vote. You are free to move anywhere, but be aware that most AnCaps in this world share this view.

Have a look at any major city. An accident in the wrong place locks the place up for hours, even if you can route around the accident. And in in most cities they have these things called "houses". They kind of block they way for new roads.

So AntiCap, are you actually coming around to myrkul's point of view? Or do you personally enjoy banging your head against a brick wall?

I enjoy the headbanging. I find the weird things that myrkuls ideology makes him say hilarious.

I wonder how all those roads got there before government came along ?

They were privately owned and it was a huge mess. When you were traveling you had to stop at gates to pay the owner of the new road that you began your journey on, assuming that you were allowed to go there in the first place as many had restrictions on where you were allowed to go, and you'd have to purchase "passports" to be allowed to travel over their land. You could be locked in a patch of land because your neighbors wouldn't sell you a "passport".
Mind you, this was several hundred years ago.

Then society found a better solution.

1) That would be great, if it remotely resembled anything an AnCap would do...which none of it does. Try again.

2) Right, because houses take up the whole yard, especially the front part by the street. Yes, you can damage traffic flow by blocking certain roads, but you can't stop it completely, and even assuming you want to waste money by doing so, eventually you'll run out, and more sensible people will come into possession of your roads.

1) So you can't have contracts like that? Contracts that says that you can change the rules by majority vote. Or implicit contracts. Or "the spirit of the law" as somebody called it.

2) Who needs to stop it completely? I just need do disrupt it. And who's to say I can't make money out of that. I could have patches of land outside of the city that I'd want to increase the value of.  Or have environmentalists pay me to plant trees there. And to build new roads, even if you find place, you still have to convince every single homeowner that they want a new road on their doorstep. A single "no" would stop any improvement efforts on your part.

So what? That doesn't change anything I have remarked about this statement. That has little to do with leniency. All that is being stated there is that the law is the law. It's like saying: "If we're trying to determine if you're trespassing on someone's land, the cutoff is going to be if you're on their land, not 20 feet into their land."

So they've now made it clear what the law means, which says nothing more than what the speed limit sign already says. After that, however, and this is where you need to show a little more wisdom, the following will occur:

- Allowance for drivers to watch the road, rather then their speedometer continuously. Courts don't want to be fighting cases where the accused demonstrates that there must be an allowance provisioning for safety where the driver cannot always look at the speedometer.

- Allowance for slight inaccuracies in the speedometer.

- Allowance for slight inaccuracies of the police cruiser's speedometer or radar.

- The officer will not want to be known for numerous tickets thrown out.

Factor all those in, and we're back to about ten percent leeway, which is about what you can expect in the U.S. Basically, here in the U.S., you might be able to count on 4 miles per hour over the speed limit. Often you'll get more, if the officer has other priorities, which is often. But that's it.

myrkul... you keep talking about contracts with one or more people.  Why don't you consider the agreement with the government to follow the law a contract?  Isn't that part of being a citizen of a country is about?  Have you renounced your citizenship yet to void that contract?

So, wait, you're saying that all I have to do is renounce a designation that has been arbitrarily placed upon me, without my consent, based on the fact that I was born inside of a certain arbitrarily-selected region of the planet earth?

Well, holy shit.  Can you guarantee that if I do renounce this designation -which I never consented to in the first place, have been able to negotiate on, or address any terms of in any meaningful way - that i won't have men with guns shooting me for no longer accepting the 'benefits' of this designation based on the location of my birth?

Oh, wait.......

Contracts need the following:

offer, acceptance, intention to create legal relations, and consideration.


Was citizenship an offer?  Nope - Imposed at birth without consent.

Did I have the opportunity, or will I have the opportunity, to accept or reject this alleged "contract"?  I can reject it, but then if I attempt to keep going about my life I will be locked in a cage or killed.  So I must "accept" it under threat of violence i.e. under duress.  (consensus ad idem is the absolute foundation for all contracts in order to be valid, for the record)

Consideration essentially means that both parties are bringing something of value to the contract (or one party is limiting himself to the benefit of the counterparty, etc.).  One could make the childish argument that some of the things that violent nation-states do are of "benefit", however the key point of the contract is that consideration must be done by both parties.  I have not received consideration because I have not been able to address the terms or negotiate a counter offer.  Nobody can be forced to accept a contract, only forced to act within the confines of a contract which they have already accepted.

Consideration has to be sufficient, meaning that both parties WANT what is being offered (even if that mean I sell you my house for a penny).  I do not want what is being offered, and did not have any opportunity to express this.

I never intended to engage in legal relations with the counterparty to this alleged contract.


    a party must have capacity to contract;
    the purpose of the contract must be lawful;
    the form of the contract must be legal;
    the parties must intend to create a legal relationship; and
    the parties must consent.

I did not have the capacity to contract at the time, or even to authorize an agent to do so on my behalf.
Under common law, most of the things that are legislated are immoral and unlawful.
"legal" just means whatever those writing the legalese want it to mean, so this can be gotten away with.
Intent must be proven - I could not have had an intent at the time, or authorized anyone to do so on my behalf
I did not consent, do not consent, and will not ever consent.

misrepresentation is a valid defense against the legal binding of a contract - the terms have been changed since I signed the contract, and added to, therefore the contract is null and void even if I did intend to enter into it once upon a time.

Incapacity - including infancy, this is a valid lawful argument, as I was incapable of engaging in any form of contract at the time

Duress - I'll let you figure that one out....


Now, all this to say, anyone who could possibly entertain the modern slavery notion of a "social contract" needs to have their head examined.  Please, do the world a favor and study the history of societies that adopted such "morality".  Even just read the damned body counts.  They are not low.  Statism is the most destructive religion in the history of the human race.  Talk about believing in unicorns (that happen to kill 100 MILLION people in the 20th century)!

Imagine we find you, drunk out of your mind and naked in the streets and when you come to your senses we tell you that we've let you stay in our apartment complex for a the week it took you to recover, rent free, but that we now want you to start paying since you're capable, you still think you have the right to remain even if you don't pay when the time is up?

But we're pretty far from driving now.

1) Sure, you can. There's an implied contract between you and the owner of a restaurant and yourself, that he will feed you, and you will not be an asshole. And you can have contracts where the rules can be changed by majority, but not combined at the same time. Especially when you are given no choice to accept or not the implied contract. If all your neighbors wrote up a contract that said you were the town sperm dumpster, and had to perform fellatio for any and all of them, would you feel like you have accepted a fair contract?

2) As I said, the landowners which surround your roads will not sell, they'll get together and build a road themselves, to capture some of that business that you're rejecting, if not simply to make life easier for themselves. As to making money by doing that, I suppose you could, if you wanted to ruin your reputation. You could probably make much more money by running the roads so as to maximize traffic, and as a bonus, you don't piss off an entire city.

Couldn't resist trolling, look its awesome
http://i49.tinypic.com/dg0v90.png

Obvious fake image is obvious.

1) That's why we have human rights and lawmakers who are supposed to act in the best interest of the people - to protect people against unfair contracts like that.
2) Your plan would introduce vast inefficiencies (way worse than the government) into road building and maintenance.  If people are duplicating roads to compete for lower prices, they are putting in way more capital expenditure than is necessary.  The reason there is a forced monopoly on things like roadways and utilities is because it doesn't make sense financially to have multiple companies competing for the same thing - the recovery of capital outlay would require prices much higher than is seen today.  Instead of me paying $10/month in local taxes to maintain the roadways near me, I might be paying $200 in fees throughout a month of driving on some cobbled-together private road system.

1) "supposed to"... except the very existence of those lawmakers and the system which supports them is an unfair contract like that.

2) Only if someone were to do something like this, blocking off roads, rather than running them for max efficiency. If it didn't make sense for there to be multiple companies competing, there wouldn't be a need for a forced monopoly, one would develop naturally.

1) I disagree.
2) But that's exactly my point - people WOULD block off roads (until paid a handsome sum), or leave the road in a state of disrepair BECAUSE of the local monopoly.  And as soon as they saw another competitor try to build a secondary route, the original road owner would lower their fees and repair their roads so that said competitor may as well not even continue building - it wouldn't end up being profitable for him.  The existing road would be willing to be a temporary loss leader to drive out the competition, then resume the price-hikes and lackluster upkeep until the next competitor tried to enter the market.  Now, if a competitor decided to continue building the second roadway anyhow, then the local market would drive the price down to a reasonable fee close to what we might be paying for road upkeep right now, but spread across two roads.  In other words, each road owner would then only be receiving half of the fees necessary to maintain their roads.

It just wouldn't work, at all.  There is very sound reasoning behind forced utility monopolies with regulated pricing.

1) Then convince me.
2) Why do you assume that people would be paying for roads they don't use?

Actually the most common local road arrangement through the 1800's, apart from the turnpike system (which outpaced government building by over 400%, for the record), was that local business owners would get together and hire people to build amazing, new roads, so that customers could get to their businesses.  Novel idea.

Even a community could do it on a personal level without using violence or coercion.  They could simply ostracize the people who don't want to help.  It's one thing to withold resources that you are entitled to, and another to attempt to extort someone by threatening to lock them in a cage if they don't use the shit you are telling them they HAVE to, without any other options.

I love how it always comes back to roads and cars.  Meanwhile, every single PIECE of a car has a bunch of regulations attached to it (why the basic design hasn't changed in, oh, 80 years or so), and the medium for using a car (roads) has been fully monopolized by the state for 100 years or more.  Look at industries elsewhere that the state raped or monopolized and you see the same thing - changes on the margins, but no new paradigms.  Trash pickup is still done in the EXACT same way as it was in the 1920's.  Recycling is just a money pit that burns up twice the resources it's supposed to save - one of the largest dig-it-fill-it-back-in make-work projects that government has ever imposed on society.  Cars haven't changed, even though the theory of the flying car has been around since the 1930's and it has been attempted multiple times in the past (always shut down by government, or only allowed to essentially be a plane that you can drive to and from the airport, which sort of defeats the point).

The opportunity costs of the Statist religion are immense.  They make me sad, right down to my soul.  We should be saying "Hey, remember roads in cities?  What a waste of space!"

And for everyone who seems to think that human beings couldn't manage to use personal flight devices, you imagine what someone in the 1800's would have thought if you had told them "human beings will travel at over 5 times the speed of the fastest horse, over land, in a machine that they fully control, that weighs over five times as much as a horse carriage, and they will travel in groups of thousands of these machines going every which way."  Probably about the same shit your Statist, religious brain is thinking right now...

The American Quarter Horse has been clocked at speeds up to 55mph (with rider).

And then there's absolute and pure domination: www.youtube.com/watch?v=1u16T05o7JA

And now we return to our regularly programmed bickering and arguing.

Allow me to correct and edit to show "average", then.  As far as road travel goes, I would be surprised if most horse and wagon combos were going faster than 10mph...