So I got pulled over for speeding...

[Electricbees]

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

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.

[Bitcoin Oz]

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. 

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

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.

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.

Or you could argue that increased speed leads to more pollution which harms the environment and thus everybody.

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.

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

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.

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 ?

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

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

[AntiCap]

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.

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?

[FirstAscent]

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. 

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

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.

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.

Or you could argue that increased speed leads to more pollution which harms the environment and thus everybody.

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.

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

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.

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 ?

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

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

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

[myrkul]

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.

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?

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?

[AntiCap]

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.

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?

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?

[myrkul]

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.

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?

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.

[Bitcoin Oz]

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. 

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

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.

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.

Or you could argue that increased speed leads to more pollution which harms the environment and thus everybody.

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.

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

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.

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 ?

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

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

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

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.

[AntiCap]

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.

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?

[myrkul]

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.

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.

[DannyHamilton]

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.

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?

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?

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.

[AntiCap]

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.

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?

[DannyHamilton]

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.

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.

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?

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).

[AntiCap]

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.

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.

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?

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?

[myrkul]

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.

[AntiCap]

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. 

[myrkul]

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 (or something like it) doesn't ruin your plan.

[AntiCap]

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 (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.

[DannyHamilton]

. . . I know you will not convince me . . .

AntiCap, Don't waste your time . . . On the other hand, if you are beginning to find his point of view persuasive, you may want to continue the conversation . . .

Do you know what happens if . . .

1) So that means that . . .

A restaurant is not . . .

Ok. You can just assume . . .

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?

[AntiCap]

. . . I know you will not convince me . . .

AntiCap, Don't waste your time . . . On the other hand, if you are beginning to find his point of view persuasive, you may want to continue the conversation . . .

Do you know what happens if . . .

1) So that means that . . .

A restaurant is not . . .

Ok. You can just assume . . .

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.