Right to endanger?

[nimda]

I see myrkul is against speeding tickets. Because, if nobody gets hurt, no harm done, right? I should have the right to go as fast as I want, so long as nobody gets hurt, right?

Do I have the right to load a single bullet into a revolver, spin the chamber, aim at your head, and pull the trigger?

If the gun doesn't go off, no harm done. But if it does, then it's too late. Punishing me now won't bring you back to life. Therefore, there should be some deterrent against performing the aforementioned Russian Roulette scenario. Perhaps it's even morally wrong to endanger someone's life?

[1715440023]

1715440023

[1715440023]

1715440023

[1715440023]

1715440023

[1715440023]

1715440023

[1715440023]

1715440023

[1715440023]

1715440023

[FirstAscent]

I see myrkul is against speeding tickets. Because, if nobody gets hurt, no harm done, right? I should have the right to go as fast as I want, so long as nobody gets hurt, right?

Do I have the right to load a single bullet into a revolver, spin the chamber, aim at your head, and pull the trigger?

If the gun doesn't go off, no harm done. But if it does, then it's too late. Punishing me now won't bring you back to life. Therefore, there should be some deterrent against performing the aforementioned Russian Roulette scenario. Perhaps it's even morally wrong to endanger someone's life?

I can already hear it already. Myrkul will pull something out of his ass where pulling the trigger is an act which knowingly puts part of the outcome into the hands of chance, where as driving at an excessive speed is an act in which the driver maintains control. Stupid argument to be sure, for a number of obvious reasons, but still that will be his argument (or would have been, except for this post, which will enable us to head him off at the pass).

Think in terms of what the reckless individual doesn't know about his environment, and how the odds increase no matter what the act is. The bottom line is, statistics allow us to place reasonable limits on what people should be allowed to do.

[Lethn]

Why do people like you insist on using such stupid logic, I don't know about Myrkul but my point at least when it comes to this sort of thing is that all these laws are just hysterical overreactions to normally rare occurrences, in the UK we really do have strict speed limits with speed cameras set up in built up areas, does it actually prevent accidents? It's never really been proven that it has, what usually happens with people who want restrictions on things ( Drugs are actually a perfect example of this because the law has been around long enough ) is that they declare victory, go home and never mention all the failures of the system they've created. I would actually argue that it causes you to drive more dangerously because you're worrying more about the speeding than you are keeping an eye on what's going on around you, especially when you're coming up to a roundabout or something like that and they change the damn limit on you very quickly, I actually had to use hazard lights on occasion to warn some guy behind me who wasn't paying attention.

As for guns well, what I'm pissed off about in regards to that is people never look into the cause of what lead these people to grab guns and kill people in the first place, you ever thought that we are perhaps living in what I would argue one of the most stressful times in history? A lot of supposedly powerful countries are on the eve of a great depression, that's going to push people over the edge, you had stock traders committing suicide a lot during the last depression in the U.S, then there's the way the mainstream media seriously manipulate people, as you know I decided to quit the televised version at least so I could think straight and holy crap that had an effect on my stress I didn't expect.

As always though, it's America in particular that decides blaming inanimate objects is the best course of action, first blame violent video games, then blame guns, what next after you ban guns? Knives? I can tell you now that the UK is already at the stage of gun control and they also get suspicious of people carrying knives and I can tell you laws do fuck all. They may mitigate the effects for awhile but eventually people find a way to get round them if they are determined enough and in my previous schools everyone was fucking carrying knives, they were more like gang warfare zones not fucking schools.

Edit: I appreciate you making a thread elsewhere by the way to talk about this type of thing by the way

[justusranvier]

Why do people like you insist on using such stupid logic

Because it's the only way to deliberately obscure and confuse the issue.

[CountSparkle]

I was pretty sure his point was about not needing to build cars that can go over the speed limit, not about speeding tickets.

[Lethn]

The problem is overcrowding not speeding, this is why airplanes don't get speed limits put on them, in fact a lot of problems we're having now can point towards overcrowding the planet and as far as I'm concerned this is all just symptoms of the problem.

[Inaba]

Airplanes do have speed limits on them.  Less than 250 KIAS under 10k MSL.  Breaking this speed limit can lead to very bad things from the FAA.  Although I think you can request a faster airspeed and assuming it's approved you're good to go...

On the other hand, most vehicle speed limits are designed to maximize funding, not increase safety.  I'm not saying there isn't a safety factor there, but the speed limits in cities are typically designed around income.  Highway speed limits are also a result of financial pressure, not safety, although the financial pressure is in the form of the Federal government withholding funding for states that don't adhere to Federal guidelines for speed limits... but in either case it's not about safety so much as it's about money.  

That said, higher speed limits on highways are not the problem.  You could have 100 MPH speed limits and have them be safer than 55 MPH speed limits - the problem is the variable speed of different actors on the road.  If you have one guy going 75 in a 100 MPH zone and another guy going 100 MPH, the 25 MPH difference is what causes the most problems, not the 100 MPH.  The same problem exists with the existing speed limits, but it's not so pronounced at 65 - 75 MPH, as most people will be traveling within 10 MPH of each other.  But you increase that to 100 MPH and you'll still have people driving at 65 MPH and you introduce too many variables and accidents happen.  There's a reason the Autobahn is relatively safe - everyone driving on it knows you get the fuck out of the way and/or don't drive 65 in the 120 MPH lane or you cause an accident.  In America, at least, most people on the road are entitled idiots who don't know how to drive (Left lane is for passing, it's not your personal driving lane and you are not a duly authorized law enforcement officer) and thus you have a higher accident rate regardless of the speed limit.  The 65 - 75 highway speed limit is there to limit the speed difference, not to increase safety from higher speeds.

[Lethn]

lol my mistake on the airplane speed limits then, should have checked that out first, my point still stands though, I think I'll go and research airplane accidents and cars and see how they compare because if I'm right I think we'll see a lot less airplane crashes than car crashes just because airplanes have far more space between them then cars ever will.

[dscotese]

Even if we are safer because of a law, the law presents several problems because of its nature.  A law is essentially a tool one group (government agents) use to leverage their socially-acceptable tendency to threaten people into exhibiting or avoiding certain behaviors.  The social acceptability of such coercion is the root of the problem.  When this tool (the law) makes things better, society generally uses it to justify the coercion.  Once justified, that coercion slowly but surely turns into tyranny.  When the law makes things worse, well, obviously that's undesirable.

Besides justifying coercion (when a law actually helps), laws also replace reason with fear.  Rather than driving slower because they want to be safe from automobile accidents, people will driver slower because they're afraid of getting caught speeding.  This seems harmless on the face of it, but you end up with tremendous waste and suffering when people operate from fear instead of reason.  Fear leads to "fight or flight", a dilemma in which there is no "relax and enjoy life" or "talk it out" or anything remotely similar to the kinds of human behavior that bring joy to our existence.

There are many philosophical treats for those who brave enough to explore anarchy with an open mind.  Perhaps a tantalizing tip of the ice berg is the fact that if you feel someone is endangering you by driving too fast (or in any other way), it makes sense for you to try to get them to change their behavior.  It makes sense, that is, if you do it through education and persuasion, or even community support if the speeder is sensitive to the judgement of others.  It makes a lot less sense when you rely on guns, fines, jails, and the theft that most people call "taxation".  When you do it that way, it has horrible long term effects.

[Lethn]

When the law makes things worse, well, obviously that's undesirable.

When pro-government types make laws that make things worse they go into complete denial mode:

. Strictly regulating the drugs trade has just made things worse and they are fighting a losing battle that's costing them billions

. Spreading 'Democracy' as the Romans tried to spread 'Civilisation' using threats of invasion, killing and subterfuge is failing miserably as we all know in places like Afghanistan the American army is just getting withered down with hit and run tactics and it's costing them billions to keep the army overseas fighting

. People are generally not that violent, you don't actually need laws a lot of the time for people to get along with each other, I suspect gun laws here in the UK have actually neither helped nor hindered gun crime rates because every now and then the BBC will still report a shooter trying to rampage and it's always some lunatic that's been pushed over the edge

. Compulsory education has to be the funniest thing I've ever heard of especially in this country it's a complete joke, the accusations happen almost every year anyway but now there has been definite proof that the regulators in our country have been messing with students' grades, so they ended up scoring lower, I can tell you from my own personal experiences as well that most education is shite, I have only been able to find good education away from the traditional institutions that provide it

I could go on but I think I've made my point, part of me just wants to let the people in America get on with it and establish all the daft and stupid laws they like that way if it fails it will be on them entirely.

[420]

Driving a car is endangering

driving 80 vs 65 is not much difference

pointing an unloaded gun at a person is a big difference from pointing a (partially) loaded gun and pulling the trigger

[EhVedadoOAnonimato]

I see myrkul is against speeding tickets. Because, if nobody gets hurt, no harm done, right? I should have the right to go as fast as I want, so long as nobody gets hurt, right?

- If you own a road, you're free to set up the rules you wish for its usage. I particularly find it better to punish those that do wrong things than to punish innocents, but if you own a road and want to charge your clients for going above a certain speed limit, or even worse rules, just let them know it in advance. If your business thrive, that might mean that such speed limits aren't that bad after all.
- The state doesn't legitimately own anything. Everything it controls, ethically speaking, belongs to nobody, so the only rules that apply in these places is fundamental, objective ethics. And by these rules, you can't attack someone that hasn't attacked nor is threatening to attack anyone. So, yeah, speeding tickets distributed by a mafia are not OK (although I recognize they're far from being the worse things these mafias do).

Do I have the right to load a single bullet into a revolver, spin the chamber, aim at your head, and pull the trigger?

That's a clear, direct threat. A threat is an aggression per se.

Btw, driving totally recklessly, threatening those nearby, may also be considered a threat. For instance, going through a pedestrian street over 70km/h might be enough reason to pull you over and punish you somehow, even if by luck you do not hit anyone.

[420]

Btw, driving totally recklessly, threatening those nearby, may also be considered a threat. For instance, going through a pedestrian street over 70km/h might be enough reason to pull you over and punish you somehow, even if by luck you do not hit anyone.

Specifically because it would be physically impossible for you to stop in time for some pedestrians where pedestrians are a common occurance

freeways; seeing a pedestrian is not a common occurance.

[TheButterZone]

I see myrkul is against speeding tickets. Because, if nobody gets hurt, no harm done, right? I should have the right to go as fast as I want, so long as nobody gets hurt, right?

Do I have the right to load a single bullet into a revolver, spin the chamber, aim at your head, and pull the trigger?

If the gun doesn't go off, no harm done. But if it does, then it's too late. Punishing me now won't bring you back to life. Therefore, there should be some deterrent against performing the aforementioned Russian Roulette scenario. Perhaps it's even morally wrong to endanger someone's life?

There is a deterrent, however infringed into oblivion it might be: the right to self defense. All assembled guns are to be treated as always loaded, and if you point a gun at me, you have only the right to be shot, or if at point blank range (impractical to draw), be disarmed with a knife through your wrist or a broken wrist, and have your gun figuratively shoved up your attempted homicidal ass.

[myrkul]

I see myrkul is against speeding tickets. Because, if nobody gets hurt, no harm done, right? I should have the right to go as fast as I want, so long as nobody gets hurt, right?

Do I have the right to load a single bullet into a revolver, spin the chamber, aim at your head, and pull the trigger?

If the gun doesn't go off, no harm done. But if it does, then it's too late. Punishing me now won't bring you back to life. Therefore, there should be some deterrent against performing the aforementioned Russian Roulette scenario. Perhaps it's even morally wrong to endanger someone's life?

There is a deterrent, however infringed into oblivion it might be: the right to self defense. All assembled guns are to be treated as always loaded, and if you point a gun at me, you have only the right to be shot, or if at point blank range (impractical to draw), be disarmed with a knife through your wrist or a broken wrist, and have your gun figuratively shoved up your attempted homicidal ass.

I don't see a problem with making that literally.

[FirstAscent]

I see myrkul is against speeding tickets. Because, if nobody gets hurt, no harm done, right? I should have the right to go as fast as I want, so long as nobody gets hurt, right?

Do I have the right to load a single bullet into a revolver, spin the chamber, aim at your head, and pull the trigger?

If the gun doesn't go off, no harm done. But if it does, then it's too late. Punishing me now won't bring you back to life. Therefore, there should be some deterrent against performing the aforementioned Russian Roulette scenario. Perhaps it's even morally wrong to endanger someone's life?

There is a deterrent, however infringed into oblivion it might be: the right to self defense. All assembled guns are to be treated as always loaded, and if you point a gun at me, you have only the right to be shot, or if at point blank range (impractical to draw), be disarmed with a knife through your wrist or a broken wrist, and have your gun figuratively shoved up your attempted homicidal ass.

I don't see a problem with making that literally.

And yet you argue vehemently that everyone should have a right to keep their own nuclear bomb, and those that do, shall not be harassed for endangering others. And here's the infamous thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=88184.0

[myrkul]

I see myrkul is against speeding tickets. Because, if nobody gets hurt, no harm done, right? I should have the right to go as fast as I want, so long as nobody gets hurt, right?

Do I have the right to load a single bullet into a revolver, spin the chamber, aim at your head, and pull the trigger?

If the gun doesn't go off, no harm done. But if it does, then it's too late. Punishing me now won't bring you back to life. Therefore, there should be some deterrent against performing the aforementioned Russian Roulette scenario. Perhaps it's even morally wrong to endanger someone's life?

There is a deterrent, however infringed into oblivion it might be: the right to self defense. All assembled guns are to be treated as always loaded, and if you point a gun at me, you have only the right to be shot, or if at point blank range (impractical to draw), be disarmed with a knife through your wrist or a broken wrist, and have your gun figuratively shoved up your attempted homicidal ass.

I don't see a problem with making that literally.

And yet you argue vehemently that everyone should have a right to keep their own nuclear bomb, and those that do, shall not be harassed for endangering others. And here's the infamous thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=88184.0

A holstered pistol, or a disarmed nuke, or a slung rifle, harms nobody. Pull the pistol, arm the nuke, or shoulder the rifle, and you're making a threat.

If you can't reason that through, there really is no hope for you.

[nimda]

Wow OK. I must have a problem with making myself clear. The question had nothing to do with anarchism or airplanes

Let me rephrase: do I have the right to endanger your life? Is it only morally wrong if you actually get hurt?

[myrkul]

Wow OK. I must have a problem with making myself clear. The question had nothing to do with anarchism or airplanes

Let me rephrase: do I have the right to endanger your life? Is it only morally wrong if you actually get hurt?

The example you used was pointing a revolver at a person. That is clearly not endangering someone's life, that is threatening someone's life.

Let me ask you a question: Two identical roads. Absolutely identical; pavement conditions, curves, lane width, everything. The only difference is that one has a sign with "Speed limit: 50" on it, and the other has a sign that says "Speed limit: 70." Is a car going 60 down one road endangering people's lives more than by doing the same on the other?

[justusranvier]

Let me rephrase: do I have the right to endanger your life? Is it only morally wrong if you actually get hurt?

Can the proposed ethical rule, "No one may endanger the life of another person," be applied universally to all people without creating any logical contradictions?

[nimda]

Let me rephrase: do I have the right to endanger your life? Is it only morally wrong if you actually get hurt?

Can the proposed ethical rule, "No one may endanger the life of another person," be applied universally to all people without creating any logical contradictions?

No moral is absolute. But if the only problems we have in the world are gray areas like, "is it OK to lie about your wife's whereabouts if someone wants to kill her?" then we shall hardly need philosophers at all.

[myrkul]

Let me rephrase: do I have the right to endanger your life? Is it only morally wrong if you actually get hurt?

Can the proposed ethical rule, "No one may endanger the life of another person," be applied universally to all people without creating any logical contradictions?

No moral is absolute. But if the only problems we have in the world are gray areas like, "is it OK to lie about your wife's whereabouts if someone wants to kill her?" then we shall hardly need philosophers at all.

So is that a no?

[Dalkore]

Wow OK. I must have a problem with making myself clear. The question had nothing to do with anarchism or airplanes

Let me rephrase: do I have the right to endanger your life? Is it only morally wrong if you actually get hurt?

The example you used was pointing a revolver at a person. That is clearly not endangering someone's life, that is threatening someone's life.

Let me ask you a question: Two identical roads. Absolutely identical; pavement conditions, curves, lane width, everything. The only difference is that one has a sign with "Speed limit: 50" on it, and the other has a sign that says "Speed limit: 70." Is a car going 60 down one road endangering people's lives more than by doing the same on the other?

Yes you would be endangering people on the 50mph road.  The people traveling on the 50mph and assuming they are following the posted limit, are under the assumption that others are as well so if an accident happened with the person traveling 10mph more would statistically cause more harm than two cars traveling at 50mph.

Also if you traveled slower on the 70mph, you would endanger yourself more.

[myrkul]

Wow OK. I must have a problem with making myself clear. The question had nothing to do with anarchism or airplanes

Let me rephrase: do I have the right to endanger your life? Is it only morally wrong if you actually get hurt?

The example you used was pointing a revolver at a person. That is clearly not endangering someone's life, that is threatening someone's life.

Let me ask you a question: Two identical roads. Absolutely identical; pavement conditions, curves, lane width, everything. The only difference is that one has a sign with "Speed limit: 50" on it, and the other has a sign that says "Speed limit: 70." Is a car going 60 down one road endangering people's lives more than by doing the same on the other?

Yes you would be endangering people on the 50mph road.  The people traveling on the 50mph and assuming they are following the posted limit, are under the assumption that others are as well so if an accident happened with the person traveling 10mph more would statistically cause more harm than two cars traveling at 50mph.

Also if you traveled slower on the 70mph, you would endanger yourself more.

So, as was said earlier, the speed difference is the key, not the speed itself.

[Dalkore]

Wow OK. I must have a problem with making myself clear. The question had nothing to do with anarchism or airplanes

Let me rephrase: do I have the right to endanger your life? Is it only morally wrong if you actually get hurt?

The example you used was pointing a revolver at a person. That is clearly not endangering someone's life, that is threatening someone's life.

Let me ask you a question: Two identical roads. Absolutely identical; pavement conditions, curves, lane width, everything. The only difference is that one has a sign with "Speed limit: 50" on it, and the other has a sign that says "Speed limit: 70." Is a car going 60 down one road endangering people's lives more than by doing the same on the other?

Yes you would be endangering people on the 50mph road.  The people traveling on the 50mph and assuming they are following the posted limit, are under the assumption that others are as well so if an accident happened with the person traveling 10mph more would statistically cause more harm than two cars traveling at 50mph.

Also if you traveled slower on the 70mph, you would endanger yourself more.

So, as was said earlier, the speed difference is the key, not the speed itself.

Speed matters as well, did you think it didn't    The faster you go, the probability you will die or kill someone in a crash inches closer to 100%.

[justusranvier]

No moral is absolute. But if the only problems we have in the world are gray areas like, "is it OK to lie about your wife's whereabouts if someone wants to kill her?" then we shall hardly need philosophers at all.

Subjective personal preferences that people dress up as morality in order to bully and control people are not absolute.

[myrkul]

Wow OK. I must have a problem with making myself clear. The question had nothing to do with anarchism or airplanes

Let me rephrase: do I have the right to endanger your life? Is it only morally wrong if you actually get hurt?

The example you used was pointing a revolver at a person. That is clearly not endangering someone's life, that is threatening someone's life.

Let me ask you a question: Two identical roads. Absolutely identical; pavement conditions, curves, lane width, everything. The only difference is that one has a sign with "Speed limit: 50" on it, and the other has a sign that says "Speed limit: 70." Is a car going 60 down one road endangering people's lives more than by doing the same on the other?

Yes you would be endangering people on the 50mph road.  The people traveling on the 50mph and assuming they are following the posted limit, are under the assumption that others are as well so if an accident happened with the person traveling 10mph more would statistically cause more harm than two cars traveling at 50mph.

Also if you traveled slower on the 70mph, you would endanger yourself more.

So, as was said earlier, the speed difference is the key, not the speed itself.

Speed matters as well, did you think it didn't    The faster you go, the probability you will die or kill someone in a crash inches closer to 100%.

But of course, faster accidents are more lethal. But the car in question was traveling at a constant speed, down consistent roadways. You claim that both actions are risking a crash. Yet one action is illegal, and the other legal.

[JoelKatz]

The faster you go, the probability you will die or kill someone in a crash inches closer to 100%.

Per unit time, yes. But the time you spend to travel a given distance goes down. The longer you spend on a road, the higher your chances that some drunk will plow into you.

A road owner has the right to set whatever speed limit they want for their road, assuming they haven't contractually bound themselves otherwise. If the government is going to own and operate roads, then it will have to set the rules for the use of those roads. I think governments have historically done a poor job of setting sensible speed limits. I think this has made roads more dangerous, caused significant disrespect for the law, discouraged technological innovation, and wasted huge amounts of people's time.

Do I have the right to load a single bullet into a revolver, spin the chamber, aim at your head, and pull the trigger?

I think most legal systems would decide that you don't have that right. I don't think any ethical principle compels one decision or the other. Certainly you have the right to endanger people to some extent -- you couldn't do anything if you couldn't endanger people at all. But legal systems have to draw the line somewhere and that certainly seems over the line to me.

Individuals defending themselves and legal systems don't have to wait for harm to be done to act. You don't have to watch your mentally unstable neighbor accumulate a massive hoard of weapons and explosives and wait until he detonates them to act against him.

[myrkul]

The faster you go, the probability you will die or kill someone in a crash inches closer to 100%.

Per unit time, yes. But the time you spend to travel a given distance goes down. The longer you spend on a road, the higher your chances that some drunk will plow into you.

A road owner has the right to set whatever speed limit they want for their road, assuming they haven't contractually bound themselves otherwise. If the government is going to own and operate roads, then it will have to set the rules for the use of those roads. I think governments have historically done a poor job of setting sensible speed limits. I think this has made roads more dangerous, caused significant disrespect for the law, discouraged technological innovation, and wasted huge amounts of people's time.

Because they were answering the wrong question.
http://www.thisistrue.com/blog-asking_the_right_questions.html

[TheButterZone]

Let me rephrase: do I have the right to endanger your life? Is it only morally wrong if you actually get hurt?

Can the proposed ethical rule, "No one may endanger the life of another person," be applied universally to all people without creating any logical contradictions?

No moral is absolute. But if the only problems we have in the world are gray areas like, "is it OK to lie about your wife's whereabouts if someone wants to kill her?" then we shall hardly need philosophers at all.

If someone wants to kill your wife, it's imperative that you lie about her whereabouts to anyone who asks, as that lie is an act of self*-defense. Unless your wife is in a bunker and ready to shoot anyone who tries to storm it to kill her, then I'd follow her directive and not lie about where she is.

*Meaning any innocent human being, not just 'yourself'.

[Dalkore]

Wow OK. I must have a problem with making myself clear. The question had nothing to do with anarchism or airplanes

Let me rephrase: do I have the right to endanger your life? Is it only morally wrong if you actually get hurt?

The example you used was pointing a revolver at a person. That is clearly not endangering someone's life, that is threatening someone's life.

Let me ask you a question: Two identical roads. Absolutely identical; pavement conditions, curves, lane width, everything. The only difference is that one has a sign with "Speed limit: 50" on it, and the other has a sign that says "Speed limit: 70." Is a car going 60 down one road endangering people's lives more than by doing the same on the other?

Yes you would be endangering people on the 50mph road.  The people traveling on the 50mph and assuming they are following the posted limit, are under the assumption that others are as well so if an accident happened with the person traveling 10mph more would statistically cause more harm than two cars traveling at 50mph.

Also if you traveled slower on the 70mph, you would endanger yourself more.

So, as was said earlier, the speed difference is the key, not the speed itself.

Speed matters as well, did you think it didn't    The faster you go, the probability you will die or kill someone in a crash inches closer to 100%.

But of course, faster accidents are more lethal. But the car in question was traveling at a constant speed, down consistent roadways. You claim that both actions are risking a crash. Yet one action is illegal, and the other legal.

I am suggesting that is there is a posted Speed Limit and your exceeding it, you are in fact breaking the law of that locality. 

[Snipes777]

In a society of private ownership, this question becomes irrelevant. A private property owner can limit the speed of anyone on their property as they choose and can forbid you from entering their property if you exceed a speed limit (unless you pay a fine or fee of some kind). Speed limits do not need to be universalized. They only are bullshit because they are not subject to market forces and they do not raise or lower based on people's preferences when evaluating risk of harm weighed against efficiency of travel.

Pointing an empty gun at someone can be a threat if the person doesn't know it's not loaded. Just because the shooter doesn't know if it's loaded as well doesn't make it better. A threat is a threat that cannot be avoided by the victim. Traveling on a road with certain rules as to how you should travel is chosen by the user. When these rules are determined voluntarily, so many of the problems vanish.

[myrkul]

Wow OK. I must have a problem with making myself clear. The question had nothing to do with anarchism or airplanes

Let me rephrase: do I have the right to endanger your life? Is it only morally wrong if you actually get hurt?

The example you used was pointing a revolver at a person. That is clearly not endangering someone's life, that is threatening someone's life.

Let me ask you a question: Two identical roads. Absolutely identical; pavement conditions, curves, lane width, everything. The only difference is that one has a sign with "Speed limit: 50" on it, and the other has a sign that says "Speed limit: 70." Is a car going 60 down one road endangering people's lives more than by doing the same on the other?

Yes you would be endangering people on the 50mph road.  The people traveling on the 50mph and assuming they are following the posted limit, are under the assumption that others are as well so if an accident happened with the person traveling 10mph more would statistically cause more harm than two cars traveling at 50mph.

Also if you traveled slower on the 70mph, you would endanger yourself more.

So, as was said earlier, the speed difference is the key, not the speed itself.

Speed matters as well, did you think it didn't    The faster you go, the probability you will die or kill someone in a crash inches closer to 100%.

But of course, faster accidents are more lethal. But the car in question was traveling at a constant speed, down consistent roadways. You claim that both actions are risking a crash. Yet one action is illegal, and the other legal.

I am suggesting that is there is a posted Speed Limit and your exceeding it, you are in fact breaking the law of that locality. 

And?

What does an arbitrary number on a sign have to do with endangering lives?

[nimda]

No moral is absolute. But if the only problems we have in the world are gray areas like, "is it OK to lie about your wife's whereabouts if someone wants to kill her?" then we shall hardly need philosophers at all.

Subjective personal preferences that people dress up as morality in order to bully and control people are not absolute.

I completely agree; perhaps we've read the same book on the subject. However I challenge you to come up with a general yet universally applicable moral rule.

In general, the more general a rule, the more edge cases and gray areas there are.

Killing is wrong
Killing is wrong except in self defense
Killing its wrong except in self defense, the defense of other people, or in assisted suicide
Killing its wrong except in self defense, the defense of other people, or in assisted suicide, or when there is no hope for the person to awaken from their coma

Or you can start small and generalize

Killing a single person in self defense when the danger they pose is grave and imminent is right
add a defense of multiple other people clause, a cadaver clause, etc

[myrkul]

No moral is absolute. But if the only problems we have in the world are gray areas like, "is it OK to lie about your wife's whereabouts if someone wants to kill her?" then we shall hardly need philosophers at all.

Subjective personal preferences that people dress up as morality in order to bully and control people are not absolute.

I completely agree; perhaps we've read the same book on the subject. However I challenge you to come up with a general yet universally applicable moral rule.

In general, the more general a rule, the more edge cases and gray areas there are.

Killing is wrong
Killing is wrong except in self defense
Killing its wrong except in self defense, the defense of other people, or in assisted suicide
Killing its wrong except in self defense, the defense of other people, or in assisted suicide, or when there is no hope for the person to awaken from their coma

How about this:
Taking another person's life is wrong.
Taking another person's life is wrong, thus justifying self defense.
Taking another person's life is wrong, thus justifying self defense, but of course you can take your own life, even with help.
Taking another person's life is wrong, thus justifying self defense, but of course you can take your own life, even with help, and artificially sustaining another person's life is not required.

Oh look, no exceptions. In fact, attempting to take another person's life against their will might be seen as a particularly wild form of assisted suicide.

[justusranvier]

I completely agree; perhaps we've read the same book on the subject. However I challenge you to come up with a general yet universally applicable moral rule.

The only acceptable use of violence is self defense.

[420]

I completely agree; perhaps we've read the same book on the subject. However I challenge you to come up with a general yet universally applicable moral rule.

The only acceptable use of violence is self defense.

Does this include having rockets in your car and if someone driving like a maniac you can blast them 200ft behind you before they come up close enough to cause an accident with you

[dscotese]

Wow OK. I must have a problem with making myself clear. The question had nothing to do with anarchism or airplanes

Let me rephrase: do I have the right to endanger your life? Is it only morally wrong if you actually get hurt?

Certainly you have the right to endanger people to some extent -- you couldn't do anything if you couldn't endanger people at all. But legal systems have to draw the line somewhere and that certainly seems over the line to me.

I agree with Joel.  Unfortunately, "Legal system" usually means "Control exerted by thugs who enjoy the benefits of a public brainwashed into thinking they need to be ruled."  I would replace "legal systems" with "individuals", and agree that a 1:6 ratio of killing me is "too endangered" for me to accept (a 6-chambered pistol right)?  If you take me skiing (3:4,000,000 or thereabouts), I wouldn't worry.  If you want to box with me (13:1,000,000 or so) I might decline.  But of course I see nothing wrong with you playing Russian Roulette with anyone else who wants to play.  I do see a problem with forcing me to go skiing or have a boxing match.  So life endangerment isn't the foundation of ethics.  The foundation, at least for voluntaryists (as I call myself) is whether or not the "victim" has a choice.

[TECSHARE]

Even if we are safer because of a law, the law presents several problems because of its nature.  A law is essentially a tool one group (government agents) use to leverage their socially-acceptable tendency to threaten people into exhibiting or avoiding certain behaviors.  The social acceptability of such coercion is the root of the problem.  When this tool (the law) makes things better, society generally uses it to justify the coercion.  Once justified, that coercion slowly but surely turns into tyranny.  When the law makes things worse, well, obviously that's undesirable.

Besides justifying coercion (when a law actually helps), laws also replace reason with fear.  Rather than driving slower because they want to be safe from automobile accidents, people will driver slower because they're afraid of getting caught speeding.  This seems harmless on the face of it, but you end up with tremendous waste and suffering when people operate from fear instead of reason.  Fear leads to "fight or flight", a dilemma in which there is no "relax and enjoy life" or "talk it out" or anything remotely similar to the kinds of human behavior that bring joy to our existence.

There are many philosophical treats for those who brave enough to explore anarchy with an open mind.  Perhaps a tantalizing tip of the ice berg is the fact that if you feel someone is endangering you by driving too fast (or in any other way), it makes sense for you to try to get them to change their behavior.  It makes sense, that is, if you do it through education and persuasion, or even community support if the speeder is sensitive to the judgement of others.  It makes a lot less sense when you rely on guns, fines, jails, and the theft that most people call "taxation".  When you do it that way, it has horrible long term effects.

Most intelligent reply to this dense group of regurgitating ass hats I have seen in a long time. The issue is not whether it is morally correct but whether there should be laws regulating it, possibly causing FURTHER harm to society. Just admit you make the assumption that humans can't control themselves without mommy and daddy government dictating to them. It would save all this misdirection about speed limits and seat belts over and over again like fucking parrots.

The truth is you are in fear, and you expect everyone else to bow to satiate YOUR FEARFULNESS. The problem is internal, I suggest you reexamine yourself, because demanding everyone else change to satiate your fear IS IMMORAL.

[myrkul]

I completely agree; perhaps we've read the same book on the subject. However I challenge you to come up with a general yet universally applicable moral rule.

The only acceptable use of violence is self defense.

Does this include having rockets in your car and if someone driving like a maniac you can blast them 200ft behind you before they come up close enough to cause an accident with you

Can you avoid an accident, by, for instance, driving defensively? Has the other vehicle made it clear that the driver's intention is to hit you? Would, in other words, a crash between your two cars actually be an accident, or a malicious act of destruction?

[nimda]

I completely agree; perhaps we've read the same book on the subject. However I challenge you to come up with a general yet universally applicable moral rule.

The only acceptable use of violence is self defense.

Then it's not OK to use violence to defend your family.

[JoelKatz]

I completely agree; perhaps we've read the same book on the subject. However I challenge you to come up with a general yet universally applicable moral rule.

The only acceptable use of violence is self defense.

Then it's not OK to use violence to defend your family.

Sure it is. You might want to look up "self-defense" in a good dictionary. (However, I would still argue that the legitimate uses of violence extend beyond the boundaries of self-defense and include all kinds of retaliatory and defensive uses of force.)

[Beans]

Speeding tickets are at least logical. Although most traffic infractions are just a excuse to check up on you, and of course to suggest that maybe you had a drink today. I got hassled just the other day because the officer though my headlights seemed a little dim. I'm most annoyed with the seat belt laws though. Seat belts kill people as well, we should be free to decide what risks we want to take in life. Especially when it doesn't endanger others or their property.

[myrkul]

I completely agree; perhaps we've read the same book on the subject. However I challenge you to come up with a general yet universally applicable moral rule.

The only acceptable use of violence is self defense.

Then it's not OK to use violence to defend your family.

Self defense is often extended to include others. There are two possible ways to look at it, even without removing the "self" from self defense:
1: You interposed yourself in between your loved ones and the attackers, thus necessitating defending yourself;
2: You could argue that if your loved ones are harmed, you will be harmed, as well. If you dispute this, I invite you to explain your reasoning to the mother of one of the Sandy Hook victims. Under this rationale, it is perfectly reasonable to defend yourself by defending your family.

That said, I typically do not include the "self" in that statement, so it would be more properly said: "The only acceptable use of violence is in defense."

[TheButterZone]

The way I read it, the self in self-defense refers to any innocent human being, not just 'yourself', as much as the auto in autopsy doesn't refer to a medical examiner performing his/her own post-mortem examination after becoming a zombie or posessing someone else's body to figure out their own cause(s) of death. The 'auto' refers to examination of a human being, and a necropsy is of animals.

[nimda]

The way I read it, the self in self-defense refers to any innocent human being, not just 'yourself', as much as the auto in autopsy doesn't refer to a medical examiner performing his/her own post-mortem examination after becoming a zombie or posessing someone else's body to figure out their own cause(s) of death. The 'auto' refers to examination of a human being, and a necropsy is of animals.

I like that explanation

[dscotese]

The way I read it, the self in self-defense refers to any innocent human being, not just 'yourself', as much as the auto in autopsy doesn't refer to a medical examiner performing his/her own post-mortem examination after becoming a zombie or posessing someone else's body to figure out their own cause(s) of death. The 'auto' refers to examination of a human being, and a necropsy is of animals.

I like that explanation

I think of it this way: Your "self" is what you identify with, so naturally, your family's peril is your own.  Likewise other loved ones and friends, and maybe even strangers who appear to hold certain philosophical positions.

[420]

I completely agree; perhaps we've read the same book on the subject. However I challenge you to come up with a general yet universally applicable moral rule.

The only acceptable use of violence is self defense.

Does this include having rockets in your car and if someone driving like a maniac you can blast them 200ft behind you before they come up close enough to cause an accident with you

Can you avoid an accident, by, for instance, driving defensively? Has the other vehicle made it clear that the driver's intention is to hit you? Would, in other words, a crash between your two cars actually be an accident, or a malicious act of destruction?

I'm trying to provoke the criteria and limits to which endangering is a low risk and unintended consequence of behavior and where it becomes a situation where self defense is justified

[myrkul]

I completely agree; perhaps we've read the same book on the subject. However I challenge you to come up with a general yet universally applicable moral rule.

The only acceptable use of violence is self defense.

Does this include having rockets in your car and if someone driving like a maniac you can blast them 200ft behind you before they come up close enough to cause an accident with you

Can you avoid an accident, by, for instance, driving defensively? Has the other vehicle made it clear that the driver's intention is to hit you? Would, in other words, a crash between your two cars actually be an accident, or a malicious act of destruction?

I'm trying to provoke the criteria and limits to which endangering is a low risk and unintended consequence of behavior and where it becomes a situation where self defense is justified

As am I. Answering those questions will do that.

[SgtSpike]

I only want the speed limits to be higher or revoked because I enjoy driving spiritedly. 

[FirstAscent]

The faster you go, the probability you will die or kill someone in a crash inches closer to 100%.

Per unit time, yes. But the time you spend to travel a given distance goes down. The longer you spend on a road, the higher your chances that some drunk will plow into you.

The faster you go, the closer you approach a situation where vehicle handling and reaction time is reduced to such a point that an accident's probability is near 100% in any specified period of time.

[dscotese]

I'm trying to provoke the criteria and limits to which endangering is a low risk and unintended consequence of behavior and where it becomes a situation where self defense is justified

If you think the legally posted speed limit is a good tool, then use your self-defense when people exceed it.  Every individual has the responsibility to decide for himself what criteria and limits apply when endangering others or when being endangered by others.  If your decisions about how much endangerment to tolerate are too high or low, you will adjust.  Everyone does this automatically all the time, depending on the circumstances. 

Anarchists tend to recognize the difference between the danger of getting punished by authorities and the danger of destroying value, and place far more weight on the latter, arguing that the former is immoral and impractical and could and should be reduced to zero.  If your search for "the criteria and limits [at] which endangering ... becomes a situation where self defense is justified" is successful, someone will try to use it as a justification for having authorities (and forcing people to pay for them) who will punish those who exceed the limits.  But one size does not fit all; everyone should make their own criteria and limits given their (driving) skills.

[Inaba]

The faster you go, the probability you will die or kill someone in a crash inches closer to 100%.

Per unit time, yes. But the time you spend to travel a given distance goes down. The longer you spend on a road, the higher your chances that some drunk will plow into you.

The faster you go, the closer you approach a situation where vehicle handling and reaction time is reduced to such a point that an accident's probability is near 100% in any specified period of time.

I don't think you understand probability.  By that logic, anyone driving at 300 MPH would be 100% guarantee an accident.  Since people have driven faster than that without an accident, the logic falls apart.  

Once again: It is not the absolute speed that is the problem.  It is the difference in speed that is a problem.  Two cars traveling at 150 MPH in the same direction are not any more prone to an accident than two cars traveling at 50 MPH in the same direction.  Two cars traveling in the same direction, one at 50 MPH and one at 150 MPH are much more prone to an accident, which is where your reaction time (and to a lesser extent) vehicle handling come into the picture.  Enforcing minimum speed limit and left lane driving laws on highways would do more to reduce accident and injury rates than any other measure currently being considered.

People are always going to speed and break the law.  But forcing people to drive at reasonable speeds on a highway (or take surface roads if you don't want to) and forcing them into the right lane except to pass would go a long way to making the roads safer.

[nimda]

The faster you go, the probability you will die or kill someone in a crash inches closer to 100%.

Per unit time, yes. But the time you spend to travel a given distance goes down. The longer you spend on a road, the higher your chances that some drunk will plow into you.

The faster you go, the closer you approach a situation where vehicle handling and reaction time is reduced to such a point that an accident's probability is near 100% in any specified period of time.

I don't think you understand probability.  By that logic, anyone driving at 300 MPH would be 100% guarantee an accident.  Since people have driven faster than that without an accident, the logic falls apart.  

Once again: It is not the absolute speed that is the problem.  It is the difference in speed that is a problem.  Two cars traveling at 150 MPH in the same direction are not any more prone to an accident than two cars traveling at 50 MPH in the same direction.  Two cars traveling in the same direction, one at 50 MPH and one at 150 MPH are much more prone to an accident, which is where your reaction time (and to a lesser extent) vehicle handling come into the picture.  Enforcing minimum speed limit and left lane driving laws on highways would do more to reduce accident and injury rates than any other measure currently being considered.

People are always going to speed and break the law.  But forcing people to drive at reasonable speeds on a highway (or take surface roads if you don't want to) and forcing them into the right lane except to pass would go a long way to making the roads safer.

Unfortunately, the absolute speed also poses a problem, for a few reasons:
- Human reaction time is fixed
- Stopping time and stopping distance increase with speed
- As speed increases, centripetal force needed to keep the car on the road around a curve increases. Eventually, the centripetal force required exceeds the maximum force of friction that the tires can provide, and you can't make the turn. (mu*g < v*v/r)

[myrkul]

The faster you go, the probability you will die or kill someone in a crash inches closer to 100%.

Per unit time, yes. But the time you spend to travel a given distance goes down. The longer you spend on a road, the higher your chances that some drunk will plow into you.

The faster you go, the closer you approach a situation where vehicle handling and reaction time is reduced to such a point that an accident's probability is near 100% in any specified period of time.

I don't think you understand probability.  By that logic, anyone driving at 300 MPH would be 100% guarantee an accident.  Since people have driven faster than that without an accident, the logic falls apart.  

Once again: It is not the absolute speed that is the problem.  It is the difference in speed that is a problem.  Two cars traveling at 150 MPH in the same direction are not any more prone to an accident than two cars traveling at 50 MPH in the same direction.  Two cars traveling in the same direction, one at 50 MPH and one at 150 MPH are much more prone to an accident, which is where your reaction time (and to a lesser extent) vehicle handling come into the picture.  Enforcing minimum speed limit and left lane driving laws on highways would do more to reduce accident and injury rates than any other measure currently being considered.

People are always going to speed and break the law.  But forcing people to drive at reasonable speeds on a highway (or take surface roads if you don't want to) and forcing them into the right lane except to pass would go a long way to making the roads safer.

Unfortunately, the absolute speed also poses a problem, for a few reasons:
- Human reaction time is fixed
- Stopping time and stopping distance increase with speed
- As speed increases, centripetal force needed to keep the car on the road around a curve increases. Eventually, the centripetal force required exceeds the maximum force of friction that the tires can provide, and you can't make the turn. (mu*g < v*v/r)

Which is why I set my example at a consistent, relatively slow, speed, on identical roadways. Can you give a valid reason why driving 60 in a 50 should be illegal, while driving 60 in a 70 is not? (note: same road conditions, same car, same driver, everything except the number on the sign is identical)

[nimda]

The faster you go, the probability you will die or kill someone in a crash inches closer to 100%.

Per unit time, yes. But the time you spend to travel a given distance goes down. The longer you spend on a road, the higher your chances that some drunk will plow into you.

The faster you go, the closer you approach a situation where vehicle handling and reaction time is reduced to such a point that an accident's probability is near 100% in any specified period of time.

I don't think you understand probability.  By that logic, anyone driving at 300 MPH would be 100% guarantee an accident.  Since people have driven faster than that without an accident, the logic falls apart.  

Once again: It is not the absolute speed that is the problem.  It is the difference in speed that is a problem.  Two cars traveling at 150 MPH in the same direction are not any more prone to an accident than two cars traveling at 50 MPH in the same direction.  Two cars traveling in the same direction, one at 50 MPH and one at 150 MPH are much more prone to an accident, which is where your reaction time (and to a lesser extent) vehicle handling come into the picture.  Enforcing minimum speed limit and left lane driving laws on highways would do more to reduce accident and injury rates than any other measure currently being considered.

People are always going to speed and break the law.  But forcing people to drive at reasonable speeds on a highway (or take surface roads if you don't want to) and forcing them into the right lane except to pass would go a long way to making the roads safer.

Unfortunately, the absolute speed also poses a problem, for a few reasons:
- Human reaction time is fixed
- Stopping time and stopping distance increase with speed
- As speed increases, centripetal force needed to keep the car on the road around a curve increases. Eventually, the centripetal force required exceeds the maximum force of friction that the tires can provide, and you can't make the turn. (mu*g < v*v/r)

Which is why I set my example at a consistent, relatively slow, speed, on identical roadways. Can you give a valid reason why driving 60 in a 50 should be illegal, while driving 60 in a 70 is not? (note: same road conditions, same car, same driver, everything except the number on the sign is identical)

No; roads should be made with speed margins, not speed maximums.

[myrkul]

No; roads should be made with speed margins, not speed maximums.

Ah, progress. Care to explain this concept in more detail? I believe I understand what you mean, but certainty is always preferable to belief.

[Richy_T]

I can already hear it already. Myrkul will pull something out of his ass where pulling the trigger is an act which knowingly puts part of the outcome into the hands of chance, where as driving at an excessive speed is an act in which the driver maintains control. Stupid argument to be sure, for a number of obvious reasons, but still that will be his argument (or would have been, except for this post, which will enable us to head him off at the pass).

Begging the question once more, I see.

[Richy_T]

Which is why I set my example at a consistent, relatively slow, speed, on identical roadways. Can you give a valid reason why driving 60 in a 50 should be illegal, while driving 60 in a 70 is not? (note: same road conditions, same car, same driver, everything except the number on the sign is identical)

One reason could be that some vehicles are not capable of that speed and the roads are there for them as well. Though in this state there is a law that if you are travelling slower than 10mph under the speed limit and you have three vehicles behind you, you're supposed to get out of the way. Never enforced of course.

[myrkul]

Which is why I set my example at a consistent, relatively slow, speed, on identical roadways. Can you give a valid reason why driving 60 in a 50 should be illegal, while driving 60 in a 70 is not? (note: same road conditions, same car, same driver, everything except the number on the sign is identical)

One reason could be that some vehicles are not capable of that speed and the roads are there for them as well. Though in this state there is a law that if you are travelling slower than 10mph under the speed limit and you have three vehicles behind you, you're supposed to get out of the way. Never enforced of course.

I got a great idea for a law:
Don't cause a crash. If you do cause a crash, you have to pay for all the damages you caused. Sound good?

[420]

I think our problem is enforcement

probably only 1% of laws are enforced

[myrkul]

I think our problem is enforcement

probably only 1% of laws are enforced

No, the problem is that criminals don't follow laws.

[420]

I think our problem is enforcement

probably only 1% of laws are enforced

No, the problem is that criminals don't follow laws.

I mean in our discussion here

[Richy_T]

I got a great idea for a law:
Don't cause a crash. If you do cause a crash, you have to pay for all the damages you caused. Sound good?

50% there. If you also privatise the roads, you'll contract to use them and agree to terms. Speed limits will be set according to safety and efficiency rather than to enrich local municipalities. Rules will be enforced likewise and not just because it's easy to sit at the side of the road and read numbers off of a display.

Course, that whole corporate limited liability thing will need to go too.

[myrkul]

I got a great idea for a law:
Don't cause a crash. If you do cause a crash, you have to pay for all the damages you caused. Sound good?

50% there. If you also privatise the roads, you'll contract to use them and agree to terms. Speed limits will be set according to safety and efficiency rather than to enrich local municipalities. Rules will be enforced likewise and not just because it's easy to sit at the side of the road and read numbers off of a display.

Course, that whole corporate limited liability thing will need to go too.

Well, without all that, what do you even need a government for?

[420]

I got a great idea for a law:
Don't cause a crash. If you do cause a crash, you have to pay for all the damages you caused. Sound good?

me likey

wait...who determine 'cause' ? just mutually accepted arbitrage?

[nimda]

No; roads should be made with speed margins, not speed maximums.

Ah, progress. Care to explain this concept in more detail? I believe I understand what you mean, but certainty is always preferable to belief.

Simply that each road should have both a speed minimum and a speed maximum, and violating either is cause for punishment.

Which is why I set my example at a consistent, relatively slow, speed, on identical roadways. Can you give a valid reason why driving 60 in a 50 should be illegal, while driving 60 in a 70 is not? (note: same road conditions, same car, same driver, everything except the number on the sign is identical)

One reason could be that some vehicles are not capable of that speed and the roads are there for them as well. Though in this state there is a law that if you are travelling slower than 10mph under the speed limit and you have three vehicles behind you, you're supposed to get out of the way. Never enforced of course.

I got a great idea for a law:
Don't cause a crash. If you do cause a crash, you have to pay for all the damages you caused. Sound good?

Here's the "right to endanger" thing again. Let me distill it:
You are in a room with two buttons. One of the buttons will kill a person; the other will do nothing. You know this. Is it immoral to press a button? Or is it only immoral if the person dies?

[420]

what if cars run by sophisticated computer programs

[nimda]

what if cars run by sophisticated computer programs

We're getting there. In some states a computer-driven car can get a license.

[420]

what if cars run by sophisticated computer programs

We're getting there. In some states a computer-driven car can get a license.

if i drank coffee i'd spit it out about now

You mean peole with computer programmed cars can have their CAR tested to get a license?

which state(s)

[yogi]

[Richy_T]

Here's the "right to endanger" thing again. Let me distill it:
You are in a room with two buttons. One of the buttons will kill a person; the other will do nothing. You know this. Is it immoral to press a button? Or is it only immoral if the person dies?

But a twist... That person is Adolf Hitler

But he's rescuing orphans...

One of whom would grow up to be Stalin

Another one, Einstein...

Just what do you do, man???

[myrkul]

No; roads should be made with speed margins, not speed maximums.

Ah, progress. Care to explain this concept in more detail? I believe I understand what you mean, but certainty is always preferable to belief.

Simply that each road should have both a speed minimum and a speed maximum, and violating either is cause for punishment.

And if road conditions require that to drive safely, you break the lower limit?

Which is why I set my example at a consistent, relatively slow, speed, on identical roadways. Can you give a valid reason why driving 60 in a 50 should be illegal, while driving 60 in a 70 is not? (note: same road conditions, same car, same driver, everything except the number on the sign is identical)

One reason could be that some vehicles are not capable of that speed and the roads are there for them as well. Though in this state there is a law that if you are travelling slower than 10mph under the speed limit and you have three vehicles behind you, you're supposed to get out of the way. Never enforced of course.

I got a great idea for a law:
Don't cause a crash. If you do cause a crash, you have to pay for all the damages you caused. Sound good?

Here's the "right to endanger" thing again. Let me distill it:
You are in a room with two buttons. One of the buttons will kill a person; the other will do nothing. You know this. Is it immoral to press a button? Or is it only immoral if the person dies?

I flip a coin. If it lands tails, I shoot you. If it lands heads, I don't. Which is the immoral decision, to pull the trigger, or to flip the coin?

If you're deadly serious about pulling the trigger if the coin lands tails, then I would argue flipping the coin is. Just like pressing either of those buttons.

But you can't compare either of these situations to anything in the real world (well, unless your name is Harvey Dent). Driving fast (even over the posted speed limit) isn't the same as pushing a button which has a 50% chance of killing someone. If you know what you're doing, you can drive safely at much greater speeds than allowed on any US roadway. As vehicular technology has improved, that speed, and the speed at which you can survive an accident, has increased.

Every sane person knows that driving is risky. Even if you follow all the traffic laws, and drive carefully, some drunk might plow into you while you're stopped at a light. Or you might lose control due to mechanical failure or road conditions. Shit happens. The question is how to reduce the likelihood of shit happening. Do we do it by setting an arbitrary speed that you "should" drive, or do we hold accountable those who cause shit to happen, encouraging them to drive carefully?

wait...who determine 'cause' ? just mutually accepted arbitrage?

I don't think making money on the price differences between two exchanges will help here. Anyway, determining "fault" in an accident is a well established science.

[Richy_T]

This is a little tangental but interesting.

http://www.brake.org.uk/facts/naked-roads.htm

The essence is that by tightly regulating the roads, a false sense of security is engendered. When responsibility is put back of the driver, speeds drop in dangerous areas and safety is improved. Certainly I know of a couple of places where it would be possible to get in trouble from over-confidence in signs and markings.

To the question originally asked, I think the subject is somewhat muddied and is getting conflated with other issues. I think myrkul touches on this when he refers to threatening behavior but I don't think that's the whole story. Certainly it's possible to deliberately endanger people in ways that would not be considered breaking the law if there was no adverse outcome.

[nimda]

What about driving drunk, myrkul?

[myrkul]

What about driving drunk, myrkul?

My grandfather's truck drove him home for nearly 20 years (It couldn't have been him, you see, he was stone drunk.), and he never even got a ticket. Never even parked bad, for that matter.

If you were to have an accident while intoxicated, I'd say that is certainly strong evidence that said accident was your fault. Is it a certainty that driving drunk causes accidents? I'd say my grandfather is evidence to the contrary. I'm not recommending it. It's not a good idea. But if there's no accident as a result, where's the harm? And if there's no harm, where's the crime?

[stochastic]

My grandfather's truck drove him home for nearly 20 years

Why is everyone arguing about speed limits?  They will be obsolete in 10-20 years.  With self driving cars the car's computer will only allow the car to go at a set speed, which will be determined by the safe road speed, the weather conditions, and by the other cars around.  Good bye revenue for speed trap towns.

[Richy_T]

My grandfather's truck drove him home for nearly 20 years

Why is everyone arguing about speed limits?  They will be obsolete in 10-20 years.  With self driving cars the car's computer will only allow the car to go at a set speed, which will be determined by the safe road speed, the weather conditions, and by the other cars around.  Good bye revenue for speed trap towns.

True. And I look forward to that day. Hopefully the daily commute will be obsolete for many also. I find it hard to believe all the fuss being made about the green agenda when no one seems to be pushing for the most obvious energy saving measure of all - removing the need to use a ton of steel to move a couple of hundred pounds of flesh around (let alone the human cost of it all).

[myrkul]

My grandfather's truck drove him home for nearly 20 years

Why is everyone arguing about speed limits?  They will be obsolete in 10-20 years.  With self driving cars the car's computer will only allow the car to go at a set speed, which will be determined by the safe road speed, the weather conditions, and by the other cars around.  Good bye revenue for speed trap towns.

Maybe. People have been prophesying self-driving cars for decades. If it happens, it will make pretty much all traffic laws obsolete. Considering how much of local government's revenue comes in through these sorts of violations, I expect heavy resistance.

[stochastic]

My grandfather's truck drove him home for nearly 20 years

Why is everyone arguing about speed limits?  They will be obsolete in 10-20 years.  With self driving cars the car's computer will only allow the car to go at a set speed, which will be determined by the safe road speed, the weather conditions, and by the other cars around.  Good bye revenue for speed trap towns.

Maybe. People have been prophesying self-driving cars for decades. If it happens, it will make pretty much all traffic laws obsolete. Considering how much of local government's revenue comes in through these sorts of violations, I expect heavy resistance.

Technology makes the government obsolete again.

[sunnankar]

lol my mistake on the airplane speed limits then, should have checked that out first, my point still stands though, I think I'll go and research airplane accidents and cars and see how they compare because if I'm right I think we'll see a lot less airplane crashes than car crashes just because airplanes have far more space between them then cars ever will.

Do you know what Vne is? Go ahead and breach it, I dare you.

The problem with speed limits is that the State is involved in roads and driving at all. It should all be completely privatized. It would save about 40,000 lives per year in the United States alone. This massive human sacrifice is a great tragedy of having the State.

[hazek]

I see myrkul is against speeding tickets. Because, if nobody gets hurt, no harm done, right? I should have the right to go as fast as I want, so long as nobody gets hurt, right?

Do I have the right to load a single bullet into a revolver, spin the chamber, aim at your head, and pull the trigger?

If the gun doesn't go off, no harm done. But if it does, then it's too late. Punishing me now won't bring you back to life. Therefore, there should be some deterrent against performing the aforementioned Russian Roulette scenario. Perhaps it's even morally wrong to endanger someone's life?

You don't want to make me think you're threatening the safety of my well-being or the well-being of my family with your actions cause things would get pretty ugly if you did and didn't stop upon my warning, no matter how you did it.

Also you assume the road would have no owners and therefor no one making rules and enforcing those rules which I never conceded making your OP a fallacy of begging the question.

[nimda]

what if cars run by sophisticated computer programs

We're getting there. In some states a computer-driven car can get a license.

if i drank coffee i'd spit it out about now

You mean peole with computer programmed cars can have their CAR tested to get a license?

which state(s)

Nevada, California

[Anon136]

I see myrkul is against speeding tickets. Because, if nobody gets hurt, no harm done, right? I should have the right to go as fast as I want, so long as nobody gets hurt, right?

Do I have the right to load a single bullet into a revolver, spin the chamber, aim at your head, and pull the trigger?

If the gun doesn't go off, no harm done. But if it does, then it's too late. Punishing me now won't bring you back to life. Therefore, there should be some deterrent against performing the aforementioned Russian Roulette scenario. Perhaps it's even morally wrong to endanger someone's life?

The thing is you can sufficiently disincentivize these sorts of behavior with out controlling the specific behavior. i.e. if you speed and get in no accident than you are not reprimanded but if you do happen to get into a collision and you were being much more careless and driving much faster than the other car that the liability will be on you. This will both incentivize people to drive at a reasonable speed while simultaneously pretecting the rights of the individual who has technically caused no harm.

Similarly if a person drives drunk and collides with no one than there is no need to punish him so long as the law stipulates that should a drunk person kill another person while driving that he will be charged with first degree murder instead of manslaughter. This way the drunks right to drive while intoxicated can be preserved while by-standards are simultaneously afforded a measure of protection against drunk drivers (since such a legal system makes it in the interest of people to not drive while intoxicated).

[FirstAscent]

I see myrkul is against speeding tickets. Because, if nobody gets hurt, no harm done, right? I should have the right to go as fast as I want, so long as nobody gets hurt, right?

Do I have the right to load a single bullet into a revolver, spin the chamber, aim at your head, and pull the trigger?

If the gun doesn't go off, no harm done. But if it does, then it's too late. Punishing me now won't bring you back to life. Therefore, there should be some deterrent against performing the aforementioned Russian Roulette scenario. Perhaps it's even morally wrong to endanger someone's life?

The thing is you can sufficiently disincentivize these sorts of behavior with out controlling the specific behavior. i.e. if you speed and get in no accident than you are not reprimanded but if you do happen to get into a collision and you were being much more careless and driving much faster than the other car that the liability will be on you. This will both incentivize people to drive at a reasonable speed while simultaneously pretecting the rights of the individual who has technically caused no harm.

Similarly if a person drives drunk and collides with no one than there is no need to punish him so long as the law stipulates that should a drunk person kill another person while driving that he will be charged with first degree murder instead of manslaughter. This way the drunks right to drive while intoxicated can be preserved while by-standards are simultaneously afforded a measure of protection against drunk drivers (since such a legal system makes it in the interest of people to not drive while intoxicated).

Do you not see how disgusting this is?

[myrkul]

I see myrkul is against speeding tickets. Because, if nobody gets hurt, no harm done, right? I should have the right to go as fast as I want, so long as nobody gets hurt, right?

Do I have the right to load a single bullet into a revolver, spin the chamber, aim at your head, and pull the trigger?

If the gun doesn't go off, no harm done. But if it does, then it's too late. Punishing me now won't bring you back to life. Therefore, there should be some deterrent against performing the aforementioned Russian Roulette scenario. Perhaps it's even morally wrong to endanger someone's life?

The thing is you can sufficiently disincentivize these sorts of behavior with out controlling the specific behavior. i.e. if you speed and get in no accident than you are not reprimanded but if you do happen to get into a collision and you were being much more careless and driving much faster than the other car that the liability will be on you. This will both incentivize people to drive at a reasonable speed while simultaneously pretecting the rights of the individual who has technically caused no harm.

Similarly if a person drives drunk and collides with no one than there is no need to punish him so long as the law stipulates that should a drunk person kill another person while driving that he will be charged with first degree murder instead of manslaughter. This way the drunks right to drive while intoxicated can be preserved while by-standards are simultaneously afforded a measure of protection against drunk drivers (since such a legal system makes it in the interest of people to not drive while intoxicated).

This is far too rational a sysrem for use by government, especially when local ones get so much revenue from speeding tickets. It's in their interest to keep those arbitrary numbers on the signs.

It might get used on a private road system, though, since it requires far less expenditure to enforce than a speed iimit.

[FirstAscent]

I see myrkul is against speeding tickets. Because, if nobody gets hurt, no harm done, right? I should have the right to go as fast as I want, so long as nobody gets hurt, right?

Do I have the right to load a single bullet into a revolver, spin the chamber, aim at your head, and pull the trigger?

If the gun doesn't go off, no harm done. But if it does, then it's too late. Punishing me now won't bring you back to life. Therefore, there should be some deterrent against performing the aforementioned Russian Roulette scenario. Perhaps it's even morally wrong to endanger someone's life?

The thing is you can sufficiently disincentivize these sorts of behavior with out controlling the specific behavior. i.e. if you speed and get in no accident than you are not reprimanded but if you do happen to get into a collision and you were being much more careless and driving much faster than the other car that the liability will be on you. This will both incentivize people to drive at a reasonable speed while simultaneously pretecting the rights of the individual who has technically caused no harm.

Similarly if a person drives drunk and collides with no one than there is no need to punish him so long as the law stipulates that should a drunk person kill another person while driving that he will be charged with first degree murder instead of manslaughter. This way the drunks right to drive while intoxicated can be preserved while by-standards are simultaneously afforded a measure of protection against drunk drivers (since such a legal system makes it in the interest of people to not drive while intoxicated).

This is far too rational a sysrem for use by government, especially when local ones get so much revenue from speeding tickets. It's in their interest to keep those arbitrary numbers on the signs.

It might get used on a private road system, though, since it requires far less expenditure to enforce than a speed iimit.

As predicted, you don't see how disgusting it is either.

[nimda]

Drivers with alcohol in their blood are seven times more
likely to cause a fatal crash; legally drunk drivers pose a risk 13 times
greater than sober drivers. The externality per mile driven by a drunk
driver is at least 30 cents.
Source: pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/LevittPorterHowDangerousAre2001.pdf

In 2011, alcohol-related deaths were 33% of the total traffic deaths, nearly the same as in 2007, 2008 and 2009. In 2009, all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico made it illegal to drive with a BAC of .08 or higher. Of the 10,839 people who died in an alcohol-related crash, 7,281 (67 percent) had drivers with BACs above the legal limit.
Source: http://www.edgarsnyder.com/drunk-driving/drunk-driving-statistics.html

Regardless of myrkul's anecdotal grandfather, driving drunk does in fact increase the risk of a collision.

When you drive while intoxicated, you put other people's lives at an increased risk. Is this scenario morally different? Is it only immoral if someone gets hurt?
Punishment for killing another driver is out of the question when you're both dead.

[myrkul]

When you drive while intoxicated, you put other people's lives at an increased risk. Is this scenario morally different? Is it only immoral if someone gets hurt?
Punishment for killing another driver is out of the question when you're both dead.

Interestingly, when drunk drivers get into an accident, they very rarely are killed by it. It happens, to be sure, but it's actually less likely than if they were sober, at the same speeds. The reason is pretty obvious, if you think about it: being drunk, they're very "loose" when they get into the crash, and thus suffer less damage. Sort of a perverse benefit.

What this boils down to is a question of whether or not it is morally to force someone not to increase another's risk.

You getting in the car and driving at all increases my risk, if I'm out on the road. Is it morally correct to prevent you from driving while I'm out on the road?

[nimda]

When you drive while intoxicated, you put other people's lives at an increased risk. Is this scenario morally different? Is it only immoral if someone gets hurt?
Punishment for killing another driver is out of the question when you're both dead.

Interestingly, when drunk drivers get into an accident, they very rarely are killed by it. It happens, to be sure, but it's actually less likely than if they were sober, at the same speeds. The reason is pretty obvious, if you think about it: being drunk, they're very "loose" when they get into the crash, and thus suffer less damage. Sort of a perverse benefit.

If the subject matter were lighter, I'd be chuckling.

What this boils down to is a question of whether or not it is morally to force someone not to increase another's risk.

Perhaps it qualifies as defense. I'd argue that it's moral to force someone to not push any of the buttons we mentioned earlier.

You getting in the car and driving at all increases my risk, if I'm out on the road. Is it morally correct to prevent you from driving while I'm out on the road?

As was said by someone earlier, there must be a line. Just about anything I do increases your risk by some amount, especially if we live near each other. Pressing the button is immoral, building a house is moral, pressing one button out of 3 is immoral, driving on the same road as you is moral, driving drunk is...?

Because driving drunk is a preventable cause of other people's deaths, and the risk to other people is rather high, I believe it's immoral. Driving drunk is not an essential part of your livelihood, while driving sober may well be.

[myrkul]

You getting in the car and driving at all increases my risk, if I'm out on the road. Is it morally correct to prevent you from driving while I'm out on the road?

As was said by someone earlier, there must be a line. Just about anything I do increases your risk by some amount, especially if we live near each other. Pressing the button is immoral, building a house is moral, pressing one button out of 3 is immoral, driving on the same road as you is moral, driving drunk is...?

Because driving drunk is a preventable cause of other people's deaths, and the risk to other people is rather high, I believe it's immoral. Driving drunk is not an essential part of your livelihood, while driving sober may well be.

Driving drunk is a preventable increased risk of killing someone, just as is you driving at all. As you point out, just about anything you do increases my risk. If it is morally right to reduce my risk from you by force, then I can do so whether you are driving drunk, or simply driving near me. Pressing the button that might kill someone is not morally the same as driving drunk, or driving at all, because you are not increasing the risk that someone will die, you are introducing that risk. If you don't push any button, there is a 0% chance they will die. A person driving alone on an empty road still has some risk of accident and death.

[FirstAscent]

When you drive while intoxicated, you put other people's lives at an increased risk. Is this scenario morally different? Is it only immoral if someone gets hurt?
Punishment for killing another driver is out of the question when you're both dead.

Interestingly, when drunk drivers get into an accident, they very rarely are killed by it. It happens, to be sure, but it's actually less likely than if they were sober, at the same speeds. The reason is pretty obvious, if you think about it: being drunk, they're very "loose" when they get into the crash, and thus suffer less damage. Sort of a perverse benefit.

Which only weakens your point. Do you not think it's bad thing that who the drunk hit ended up dead?

[myrkul]

When you drive while intoxicated, you put other people's lives at an increased risk. Is this scenario morally different? Is it only immoral if someone gets hurt?
Punishment for killing another driver is out of the question when you're both dead.

Interestingly, when drunk drivers get into an accident, they very rarely are killed by it. It happens, to be sure, but it's actually less likely than if they were sober, at the same speeds. The reason is pretty obvious, if you think about it: being drunk, they're very "loose" when they get into the crash, and thus suffer less damage. Sort of a perverse benefit.

Which only weakens your point. Do you not think it's bad thing that who the drunk hit ended up dead?

It hardly weakens my argument. The drunk, by virtue of surviving the accident, can pay restitution. Of course, if he didn't, it could have been taken from his estate, but that's neither really here nor there.

Of course it's a bad thing that the person the drunk hit ended up dead. I just don't see why punishing the victim's survivors by forcing them to pay for the drunk's (and so many other drunk's) room and board is a valid option. Especially when so many of those other drunks did not harm anyone.

You're imposing an unnecessary social cost, you who are so concerned with externalities. Now that's irony.

[FirstAscent]

When you drive while intoxicated, you put other people's lives at an increased risk. Is this scenario morally different? Is it only immoral if someone gets hurt?
Punishment for killing another driver is out of the question when you're both dead.

Interestingly, when drunk drivers get into an accident, they very rarely are killed by it. It happens, to be sure, but it's actually less likely than if they were sober, at the same speeds. The reason is pretty obvious, if you think about it: being drunk, they're very "loose" when they get into the crash, and thus suffer less damage. Sort of a perverse benefit.

Which only weakens your point. Do you not think it's bad thing that who the drunk hit ended up dead?

It hardly weakens my argument. The drunk, by virtue of surviving the accident, can pay restitution. Of course, if he didn't, it could have been taken from his estate, but that's neither really here nor there.

Sometimes you say things that are just mind boggling. This wins the 'sick post of the year' award.

[myrkul]

When you drive while intoxicated, you put other people's lives at an increased risk. Is this scenario morally different? Is it only immoral if someone gets hurt?
Punishment for killing another driver is out of the question when you're both dead.

Interestingly, when drunk drivers get into an accident, they very rarely are killed by it. It happens, to be sure, but it's actually less likely than if they were sober, at the same speeds. The reason is pretty obvious, if you think about it: being drunk, they're very "loose" when they get into the crash, and thus suffer less damage. Sort of a perverse benefit.

Which only weakens your point. Do you not think it's bad thing that who the drunk hit ended up dead?

It hardly weakens my argument. The drunk, by virtue of surviving the accident, can pay restitution. Of course, if he didn't, it could have been taken from his estate, but that's neither really here nor there.

Sometimes you say things that are just mind boggling. This wins the 'sick post of the year' award.

I don't expect such a stunted mind as yours to understand reality. Just go back to your Japanese Sci-Fi, and let the rest of us do the big thinking.

[BitBlitz]

I see myrkul is against speeding tickets. Because, if nobody gets hurt, no harm done, right? I should have the right to go as fast as I want, so long as nobody gets hurt, right?

Do I have the right to load a single bullet into a revolver, spin the chamber, aim at your head, and pull the trigger?

If the gun doesn't go off, no harm done. But if it does, then it's too late. Punishing me now won't bring you back to life. Therefore, there should be some deterrent against performing the aforementioned Russian Roulette scenario. Perhaps it's even morally wrong to endanger someone's life?

Simply put; In many cases you can own things that can endanger others (cars, guns (for now), swords, etc), but that does not give you the right to use them in a way that endangers others.  In my state, the laws clearly allow anyone to counter a real threat against someone's life, including a 3rd party, with deadly force to stop it.  None of that waiting for the bad guy to shoot you first, crap.

Back to speeding... Near and dear to me, because 1) I instruct types of high performance driving and have seen how badly people can f-up when faced with handling a car beyond its limits, and 2) I live where Janet Napolitano's legacy includes shoehorning 78 speed cameras into the state budget as revenue generating tools.  Thank goodness the latter was repealed, but speeding enforcement was a hot topic for a few years, here.

Speed limits include a lot of factors.  The one that is usually absent from forum discussions are how drivers react to situations that they need to stop, slow, or change direction suddenly.  The US, like many countries, does not require drivers to prove they can handle cars with any slip angle on the tires.  In almost every situation I've seen a driver on the road start to slide tires, they wind up losing control.  I lost track of how many cars I've seen stuffed into highway guardrails because the driver grabbed the brakes as soon as the tires started to slide.  Speed limits are kept artificially low to avoid putting drivers in situations where they need to control a car at/beyond the limit.  I admire countries like Finland where getting a license requires driving your car beyond the limits on slippery surfaces while maintaining control.  (Probably why so many top race car drivers come from Finland.)  I'd say that any complaints about low speed limits should be directed towards either the average drivers, or the lack of training required for them to get a license.

[TheButterZone]

FirstAscent still using the Newspeak dictionary, I see (in quotes).

[FirstAscent]

When you drive while intoxicated, you put other people's lives at an increased risk. Is this scenario morally different? Is it only immoral if someone gets hurt?
Punishment for killing another driver is out of the question when you're both dead.

Interestingly, when drunk drivers get into an accident, they very rarely are killed by it. It happens, to be sure, but it's actually less likely than if they were sober, at the same speeds. The reason is pretty obvious, if you think about it: being drunk, they're very "loose" when they get into the crash, and thus suffer less damage. Sort of a perverse benefit.

Which only weakens your point. Do you not think it's bad thing that who the drunk hit ended up dead?

It hardly weakens my argument. The drunk, by virtue of surviving the accident, can pay restitution. Of course, if he didn't, it could have been taken from his estate, but that's neither really here nor there.

Sometimes you say things that are just mind boggling. This wins the 'sick post of the year' award.

I don't expect such a stunted mind as yours to understand reality. Just go back to your Japanese Sci-Fi, and let the rest of us do the big thinking.

You're rather uncultured, and dare I say, stunted, by virtue of both your black and white and callous view on life, and your misconception of movie genres. It's Japanese melodrama (or Hong Kong or Taiwanese) for the most part - movies that have been voted the greatest films ever made - as in:

1. Tokyo Story (Ozu)
15. Late Spring (Ozu)
24. In the Mood for Love (Wong Kar-Wai)
50. Ugetsu (Mizoguchi)
59. Sansho the Bailiff (Mizoguchi)
84. A Brighter Summer Day (Yang)
93. Yi Yi (Yang)

The funniest thing of all - your attitude has you deliberately missing some of the most powerful, poignant and most revered films ever made. And I warned you - if you mention films negatively, you're going to get lectured on your own ignorance on the subject.

[Richy_T]

What is crazy is that drunk driving does increase risk for everyone and that there are laws about it yet those who cause drunk driving accidents are typically repeat offenders either because punishments are too low or they simply drive illegally. Government is simply not in a good position to administer access to the roads. They can't simply consider safety and efficiency but there are many other competing considerations and some hurdles based on (quite sound) legal restrictions on what government can actually do (those drunk-driving road blocks are a travesty

The driving test here in Tennessee is a joke also.

[myrkul]

I'd say that any complaints about low speed limits should be directed towards either the average drivers, or the lack of training required for them to get a license.

This goes back to the question libertarians and anarchists always end up asking: Is it better to know your limits, and stay within them, or to allow an external authority to set limits for you?

For instance, I know I would probably not be able to get a license in Finland, at least not at my current level of skill. With enough practice, I could probably do it.

Speed limits encourage reliance on external authority, in addition to garnering revenue for the locality they're in. They encourage "average drivers," rather than skilled ones who know their limits.

[dscotese]

I noticed some ad hominem attacks and wanted to suggest that refraining from them strengthens everything else you say because it demonstrates an ability to address what's important and ignore what isn't.  That isn't enough for me, though:  I also feel the need to imagine the other readers who see me ignore and fail to return an ad hominem attack, imagining also that my silence will be a shining example to them.

This goes back to the question libertarians and anarchists always end up asking: Is it better to know your limits, and stay within them, or to allow an external authority to set limits for you?

I love that question - never seen it before, not stated that way.  I think the answer for those who have an ego to defend on the pro-law side will be something like "Not everyone knows their limits, so we have to provide them with some through a government," as if the provision of law is necessitated by ignorance.  It is difficult to shake that assumption once you hold it, so I offer this to help:

The best way to find your limits is to be allowed and encouraged to explore them in a safe environment.  When it is illegal to operate near your own personal limit, you have no (legal) way to test and expand it, nor can anyone benefit from your ability to operate beyond that legal limit.  If you read this thinking about driving fast, read it again thinking about doing anything the law touches.  This is a big part of why I am an anarchist.

The thing is you can sufficiently disincentivize these sorts of behavior with out controlling the specific behavior. i.e. if you speed and get in no accident than you are not reprimanded but if you do happen to get into a collision and you were being much more careless and driving much faster than the other car that the liability will be on you. This will both incentivize people to drive at a reasonable speed while simultaneously pretecting the rights of the individual who has technically caused no harm.

Similarly if a person drives drunk and collides with no one than there is no need to punish him so long as the law stipulates that should a drunk person kill another person while driving that he will be charged with first degree murder instead of manslaughter. This way the drunks right to drive while intoxicated can be preserved while by-standards are simultaneously afforded a measure of protection against drunk drivers (since such a legal system makes it in the interest of people to not drive while intoxicated).

Do you not see how disgusting this is?

Disgusting is such a subjective term.  Do you really mean something more like foolish, dangerous, or immoral?  I would submit that sex is pretty disgusting too, but we still have kids.

[myrkul]

This goes back to the question libertarians and anarchists always end up asking: Is it better to know your limits, and stay within them, or to allow an external authority to set limits for you?

I love that question - never seen it before, not stated that way. 

It's almost never stated flat out like that, but it's always asked in one way or another.

[Richy_T]

This goes back to the question libertarians and anarchists always end up asking: Is it better to know your limits, and stay within them, or to allow an external authority to set limits for you?

I love that question - never seen it before, not stated that way. 

It's almost never stated flat out like that, but it's always asked in one way or another.

It's scary when the training wheels come off for some.

[Inaba]

lol my mistake on the airplane speed limits then, should have checked that out first, my point still stands though, I think I'll go and research airplane accidents and cars and see how they compare because if I'm right I think we'll see a lot less airplane crashes than car crashes just because airplanes have far more space between them then cars ever will.

Do you know what Vne is? Go ahead and breach it, I dare you.

The problem with speed limits is that the State is involved in roads and driving at all. It should all be completely privatized. It would save about 40,000 lives per year in the United States alone. This massive human sacrifice is a great tragedy of having the State.

Vne is not a speed limit, it's a structural limit.  You are free to exceed it at your peril and the FAA doesn't care (until your flaming hole in the ground causes property damage of course, but that's another story.)

[FirstAscent]

Aircraft are subject to altitude, flight path, and speed limits, both regulatory, and performance limited. Great circles often define the most economical route, and they are adhered to, but subject to airspace regulations. Range is limited by fuel as well. Direction of travel also affects the chosen altitude (think in terms of lanes). Altitude also affects speed, especially with regard to what is on the ground below. And finally, there are restrictions with regard to the sound barrier.

The notion of freedom in the sky is a fantasy.

[FirstAscent]

I noticed some ad hominem attacks and wanted to suggest that refraining from them strengthens everything else you say because it demonstrates an ability to address what's important and ignore what isn't.  That isn't enough for me, though:  I also feel the need to imagine the other readers who see me ignore and fail to return an ad hominem attack, imagining also that my silence will be a shining example to them.

This goes back to the question libertarians and anarchists always end up asking: Is it better to know your limits, and stay within them, or to allow an external authority to set limits for you?

I love that question - never seen it before, not stated that way.  I think the answer for those who have an ego to defend on the pro-law side will be something like "Not everyone knows their limits, so we have to provide them with some through a government," as if the provision of law is necessitated by ignorance.  It is difficult to shake that assumption once you hold it, so I offer this to help:

The best way to find your limits is to be allowed and encouraged to explore them in a safe environment.  When it is illegal to operate near your own personal limit, you have no (legal) way to test and expand it, nor can anyone benefit from your ability to operate beyond that legal limit.  If you read this thinking about driving fast, read it again thinking about doing anything the law touches.  This is a big part of why I am an anarchist.

The thing is you can sufficiently disincentivize these sorts of behavior with out controlling the specific behavior. i.e. if you speed and get in no accident than you are not reprimanded but if you do happen to get into a collision and you were being much more careless and driving much faster than the other car that the liability will be on you. This will both incentivize people to drive at a reasonable speed while simultaneously pretecting the rights of the individual who has technically caused no harm.

Similarly if a person drives drunk and collides with no one than there is no need to punish him so long as the law stipulates that should a drunk person kill another person while driving that he will be charged with first degree murder instead of manslaughter. This way the drunks right to drive while intoxicated can be preserved while by-standards are simultaneously afforded a measure of protection against drunk drivers (since such a legal system makes it in the interest of people to not drive while intoxicated).

Do you not see how disgusting this is?

Disgusting is such a subjective term.  Do you really mean something more like foolish, dangerous, or immoral?  I would submit that sex is pretty disgusting too, but we still have kids.

Nope. I meant disgusting. It fits the bill perfectly: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/disgusting

[the joint]

An ethics question...fun.

The Golden Rule (i.e. 'Do unto others as you would have done unto you") exists for a good reason, namely that it's likely how justice unfolds in the Universe.

The Golden Rule is beautiful because it is both objective and subjective.  It applies to everyone (objective) and obviously allows for individual interpretation (subjective).  

Syndiffeonesis (sameness-in-difference) is the logical principle that any two relands x and y are fundamentally similar, for even if one were to say x is absolutely different from y, then both x and y are still the same in that they share inclusion within the medium of absolute difference.  This logical principle has serious implications on the objective-vs.-subjective debate, and it shows that objectivity and subjectivity are simultaneously the same and different.

So, do people have the right to endanger the lives of others?  Is it OK for me to drive 120 mph in a 55 mph zone?  Is it OK for me to aim a gun loaded with a single bullet at your head and pull the trigger?  Well, what do you think?  One person may answer 'yes,' the other may answer 'no,' and both can still be correct if they abide by the Golden Rule.  Statistical analysis of endangerment does nothing to suggest one way or the other whether something is 'wrong' or not, it only suggests the likelihood of endangerment.  

[dscotese]

Aircraft are subject to altitude, flight path, and speed limits, both regulatory, and performance limited. Great circles often define the most economical route, and they are adhered to, but subject to airspace regulations. Range is limited by fuel as well. Direction of travel also affects the chosen altitude (think in terms of lanes). Altitude also affects speed, especially with regard to what is on the ground below. And finally, there are restrictions with regard to the sound barrier.

The notion of freedom in the sky is a fantasy.

I don't think anyone would use "freedom" to describe the impossible condition of being able to exceed limits imposed on us by physics ("performance limited", as you wrote).  It usually refers to an absence of regulation.  In that sense, the notion of freedom is a fantasy, in the sky or not, but fantasies can come true.  They are more likely as more people understand what it takes to make them a reality.  Flying in the sky (regulations or not) was once a fantasy for humans, and now millions do it every day.  Flying in the sky without regulations ("freedom in the sky" as you put it) was once the norm, but then the government got involved.  Likewise motorized travel - first pure fantasy, then reality without regulations, and now we don't have freedom on our roads because of regulations like the speed limit.

Would you like the state to create regulations about posting to bitcointalk.org?  Or about how you use your toothbrush?  What you eat?  What parts of your house you can sleep in?  Which side of the walkway you use in a park or a mall?  Or would you rather have the freedom to explore the options on your own and make your own decisions about what limits you will set for yourself in these areas? 

I can guess that you'd rather have the freedom in all the areas I mentioned, but not in your car on the road, so how do you decide in what areas you want to be ruled and in what areas you'd rather have freedom?  Does it make any difference whether the limits the state creates apply only to you, to everyone but you, or to everyone including you?

[FirstAscent]

Aircraft are subject to altitude, flight path, and speed limits, both regulatory, and performance limited. Great circles often define the most economical route, and they are adhered to, but subject to airspace regulations. Range is limited by fuel as well. Direction of travel also affects the chosen altitude (think in terms of lanes). Altitude also affects speed, especially with regard to what is on the ground below. And finally, there are restrictions with regard to the sound barrier.

The notion of freedom in the sky is a fantasy.

I don't think anyone would use "freedom" to describe the impossible condition of being able to exceed limits imposed on us by physics ("performance limited", as you wrote).  It usually refers to an absence of regulation.  In that sense, the notion of freedom is a fantasy, in the sky or not, but fantasies can come true.  They are more likely as more people understand what it takes to make them a reality.  Flying in the sky (regulations or not) was once a fantasy for humans, and now millions do it every day.  Flying in the sky without regulations ("freedom in the sky" as you put it) was once the norm, but then the government got involved.  Likewise motorized travel - first pure fantasy, then reality without regulations, and now we don't have freedom on our roads because of regulations like the speed limit.

Would you like the state to create regulations about posting to bitcointalk.org?  Or about how you use your toothbrush?  What you eat?  What parts of your house you can sleep in?  Which side of the walkway you use in a park or a mall?  Or would you rather have the freedom to explore the options on your own and make your own decisions about what limits you will set for yourself in these areas? 

I can guess that you'd rather have the freedom in all the areas I mentioned, but not in your car on the road, so how do you decide in what areas you want to be ruled and in what areas you'd rather have freedom?  Does it make any difference whether the limits the state creates apply only to you, to everyone but you, or to everyone including you?

Spoken like a pontificating philosopher who doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground. Lot of words from you, without understanding the simplicity of it all.

Let me help you out. This isn't the romantic age of the Great Gatsby's roaring '20s. There's a shitload of aircraft in the sky these days. Regulations are necessary. Unless, of course, in your fantasizing mind, complete with all it's ignorance of aviation, you can derive a solution that will enable safe air travel. If not, please shut the fuck up with your aviation philosophies.

[dscotese]

I can guess that you'd rather have the freedom in all the areas I mentioned, but not in your car on the road, so how do you decide in what areas you want to be ruled and in what areas you'd rather have freedom?  Does it make any difference whether the limits the state creates apply only to you, to everyone but you, or to everyone including you?

Spoken like a pontificating philosopher who doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground. Lot of words from you, without understanding the simplicity of it all.

Let me help you out. This isn't the romantic age of the Great Gatsby's roaring '20s. There's a shitload of aircraft in the sky these days. Regulations are necessary. Unless, of course, in your fantasizing mind, complete with all it's ignorance of aviation, you can derive a solution that will enable safe air travel. If not, please shut the fuck up with your aviation philosophies.

They are honest questions.  I didn't mean to upset you.  As for the sky being so full of aircraft, I don't see any relation between participant density and the need for regulations.  I think higher density requires more freedom so people can find ways to cooperate without worrying about breaking laws.

[BitBlitz]

I noticed some ad hominem attacks and wanted to suggest that refraining from them strengthens everything else you say because it demonstrates an ability to address what's important and ignore what isn't. 

Whoa, whoa, whoa!  These are Internet forums you're talking about here.  Ad hominem attacks *and* straw man arguments is what you were looking for 

The best way to find your limits is to be allowed and encouraged to explore them in a safe environment.  When it is illegal to operate near your own personal limit, you have no (legal) way to test and expand it, nor can anyone benefit from your ability to operate beyond that legal limit.  If you read this thinking about driving fast, read it again thinking about doing anything the law touches.  This is a big part of why I am an anarchist.

Sorry to burst this bubble for 'ya, but for $20-30, you can take any car to a local autocross event and see what you're capable of.  So, you're allowed and encouraged.  It just isn't free. 

Is the "big part of why [you're] an anarchist" because you want to be 'free' to drive how you want?  I, personally, don't want to be on the road with every over-confident Fast and Furious fan free-for-all racing their lowered Honda, with a fart can, and blown shocks, thinking it is a supercar,  This is where I love having conversations with staunch anarchists.  I have to ask, "how would that work?"  Could you get affordable insurance if you drove like a maniac?  Is insurance against the anarchist's view?  If so, how does an anarchist pay for damages?  Is there a debtor's prison for anarchists?

[BitBlitz]

Vne is not a speed limit, it's a structural limit.  You are free to exceed it at your peril and the FAA doesn't care (until your flaming hole in the ground causes property damage of course, but that's another story.)

Interesting.. I know it is a bit off topic, but how can Vne be a flat speed for all altitudes?  Or does the number change with altitude?  I have experience in supersonic rocket flight characteristics, and we have a similar term called Max-Q, which is dependent on air density.  1000 mph at 5K feet has significantly higher aerodynamic load than 1000 mph at 50K feet.

[myrkul]

I have to ask, "how would that work?"  Could you get affordable insurance if you drove like a maniac?  Is insurance against the anarchist's view?  If so, how does an anarchist pay for damages?  Is there a debtor's prison for anarchists?

These are great questions. I'll answer them in reverse order:

Is there a debtor's prison for anarchists?
No. Detainment might be required for violent offenders who survived their violent encounter and are awaiting an arbitration hearing, but it would be an unnecessary expense for someone who simply owed some money, unless it was a truly tremendous amount, and the debtor had some skill which could earn a great deal of money from captivity.

Is insurance against the anarchist's view?
No, in fact insurance agencies would be a fairly crucial part of the social structure in the AnCap system. Liability insurance already covers this sort of thing. It would just expand to cover more things. If you're liable for something, your insurance company pays the victim's insurance company (who have already paid the victim), and then your premiums go up.

Could you get affordable insurance if you drove like a maniac?
No, probably not, because your premiums would quickly climb through the roof.

[TheButterZone]

I, personally, don't want to be on the road with every over-confident Fast and Furious fan free-for-all racing their lowered Honda, with a fart can, and blown shocks, thinking it is a supercar

You already are, BAKA. My brother was broadsided during his protected left turn by one of those Fast and Furious fans. Said Fast and Furious fan suffered hardly any punishment nor paid hardly any compensation, when he was this_close to being guilty of homicide. It's called Security and Justice Theater; complete fiction.

In an anarchist society, first thing: his name could/would be spread far and wide so that if you give him a vehicle, you're knowingly giving someone a deadly weapon, someone who has proven they can't be trusted to operate one safely, making YOU a scumbag. Then he and his family would lose everything to pay for his victims' medical bills.

[Inaba]

Vne is not a speed limit, it's a structural limit.  You are free to exceed it at your peril and the FAA doesn't care (until your flaming hole in the ground causes property damage of course, but that's another story.)

Interesting.. I know it is a bit off topic, but how can Vne be a flat speed for all altitudes?  Or does the number change with altitude?  I have experience in supersonic rocket flight characteristics, and we have a similar term called Max-Q, which is dependent on air density.  1000 mph at 5K feet has significantly higher aerodynamic load than 1000 mph at 50K feet.

Vne is calculated against  IAS, so it's related to altitude but altitude is functionally irrelevant for calculation purposes as the altimeter handles the conversion factor by default due to air pressure.  I'm not sure if this applies as you approach mach 1 or maybe even much sooner.  I also suspect (but have no firsthand knowledge) it would depend on what is driving the Vne limit.  If it's airframe or prop or something else... well then I suppose the answer would differ.

[myrkul]

Vne is not a speed limit, it's a structural limit.  You are free to exceed it at your peril and the FAA doesn't care (until your flaming hole in the ground causes property damage of course, but that's another story.)

Interesting.. I know it is a bit off topic, but how can Vne be a flat speed for all altitudes?  Or does the number change with altitude?  I have experience in supersonic rocket flight characteristics, and we have a similar term called Max-Q, which is dependent on air density.  1000 mph at 5K feet has significantly higher aerodynamic load than 1000 mph at 50K feet.

Vne is calculated against  IAS, so it's related to altitude but altitude is functionally irrelevant for calculation purposes as the altimeter handles the conversion factor by default due to air pressure.  I'm not sure if this applies as you approach mach 1 or maybe even much sooner.  I also suspect (but have no firsthand knowledge) it would depend on what is driving the Vne limit.  If it's airframe or prop or something else... well then I suppose the answer would differ.

Would Vne be different for a biplane than it would be for a F-15 at the same altitude? What happens when you exceed Vne? Does the plane shake itself apart? Burst into flame from air friction? Can technology push back Vne for a specific altitude?

I'm not a pilot or aeronautical engineer, so this is all new info. Google failed to bring up any good explanatory links, or I likely wouldn't be asking these questions. Feel free to answer them with such a link.

[Inaba]

Typically Vne just denotes a structural failure point at or exceeding that speed.  You can usually exceed Vne in calm, smooth air without incident... but if you hit turbulence you are in for a potential world of hurt as structural load could potentially be exceeded by a wide margin almost instantly and your plane comes apart.  All V speeds are unique to a given model of plane, so yes a biplane is different than an F15.    For example, a newer model Cessna 170 will have a Vne somewhere around 160 KIAS and an older Cessna 150 will be somewhere around 150 KIAS if I recall.  An F15 probably has a Vne around 700 KIAS I would imagine, possibly more.  I'm just pulling that out of thin air, but it's got to be around or above mach 1.  The space shuttle has a Vne around mach 7 I think (in atmosphere), which is about 4500 KIAS.  

There was a dumbass flying back from Tampa I think a couple years ago in a nice new plane and he had his whole family with him.  He was traveling around 220 KIAS, right at redline.  Being the invincible type, he flew at max speed into a cloud layer and the plane broke up in the air and went crashing to the ground.  Bad things happen when you try to break the laws of physics.

[myrkul]

Typically Vne just denotes a structural failure point at or exceeding that speed. 

Well, there you go. (thanks, btw) So, aside from the structural limitations of your vehicle, this is the only real speed limit:

[hazek]

I find it amusing how everyone ignored my post.

[Anon136]

I see myrkul is against speeding tickets. Because, if nobody gets hurt, no harm done, right? I should have the right to go as fast as I want, so long as nobody gets hurt, right?

Do I have the right to load a single bullet into a revolver, spin the chamber, aim at your head, and pull the trigger?

If the gun doesn't go off, no harm done. But if it does, then it's too late. Punishing me now won't bring you back to life. Therefore, there should be some deterrent against performing the aforementioned Russian Roulette scenario. Perhaps it's even morally wrong to endanger someone's life?

The thing is you can sufficiently disincentivize these sorts of behavior with out controlling the specific behavior. i.e. if you speed and get in no accident than you are not reprimanded but if you do happen to get into a collision and you were being much more careless and driving much faster than the other car that the liability will be on you. This will both incentivize people to drive at a reasonable speed while simultaneously pretecting the rights of the individual who has technically caused no harm.

Similarly if a person drives drunk and collides with no one than there is no need to punish him so long as the law stipulates that should a drunk person kill another person while driving that he will be charged with first degree murder instead of manslaughter. This way the drunks right to drive while intoxicated can be preserved while by-standards are simultaneously afforded a measure of protection against drunk drivers (since such a legal system makes it in the interest of people to not drive while intoxicated).

Do you not see how disgusting this is?

i do not. Please explain why it is disgusting. I simply want to preserve as many peoples rights as possible, that of course includes the rights of people to not be killed by drunk drivers and if possible the rights of people to drive drunk. im not here to judge right and wrong because any statement i may make on the matter would necessarily be my opinion and not objectively valid in any way. If it was not possible to preserve the rights of both people than of course i would lean in the direction of preserving the rights of the person who is not intoxicated but since it is possible to preserve both peoples rights simultaneously i see no reason not to.

of course i am very open to the possibility that i am wrong on this one it certainly isn't something i feel strongly about, its more of an interesting thought experiment to me than anything else.

[myrkul]

A relevant article on the subject:
http://lfb.org/blog/the-drunk-driving-question/

With laws against DUI, what’s being criminalized? Not wreckless driving as such. Not aggression against anyone. What’s being criminalized is the chemical make up of the blood in your body. That itself should be no crime. To make having a certain blood content illegal is essentially totalitarian.

[Richy_T]

A relevant article on the subject:
http://lfb.org/blog/the-drunk-driving-question/

With laws against DUI, what’s being criminalized? Not wreckless driving as such. Not aggression against anyone. What’s being criminalized is the chemical make up of the blood in your body. That itself should be no crime. To make having a certain blood content illegal is essentially totalitarian.

A little bit disingenuous as quoted as what's being criminalized is not UI but DUI.

There's an oft quoted phrase "Your right to swing your fist ends at the end of my nose". I've always felt a little uncomfortable with this as there are quite a few things that could go wrong that would end up with fist and nose coming into violent contact. It would also be interesting to see what would happen in an ancap society to a person who went around swinging their fist just short of people's noses.

Usually when things seem woolly like this issue, I usually find it means that the argument has not been thought through to first principles and insufficient information about the circumstances have been given. Government laws, for example, usually attempt to treat the circumstances and not the cause and are typically poorly thought out even for that.

[myrkul]

A relevant article on the subject:
http://lfb.org/blog/the-drunk-driving-question/

With laws against DUI, what’s being criminalized? Not wreckless driving as such. Not aggression against anyone. What’s being criminalized is the chemical make up of the blood in your body. That itself should be no crime. To make having a certain blood content illegal is essentially totalitarian.

A little bit disingenuous as quoted as what's being criminalized is not UI but DUI.

Don't judge the article based solely on the paragraph I quoted. He goes much more in depth than that.

The real question is what should be criminalized: Should it be swerving into other people's lanes, or having an arbitrary (and not necessarily impairing - or worse, far greater than needed to impair) amount of a chemical in your blood? If you're going to punish behavior that endangers others, you should punish the behavior that actually endangers others - regardless of the cause.

[FirstAscent]

A relevant article on the subject:
http://lfb.org/blog/the-drunk-driving-question/

With laws against DUI, what’s being criminalized? Not wreckless driving as such. Not aggression against anyone. What’s being criminalized is the chemical make up of the blood in your body. That itself should be no crime. To make having a certain blood content illegal is essentially totalitarian.

A little bit disingenuous as quoted as what's being criminalized is not UI but DUI.

Don't judge the article based solely on the paragraph I quoted. He goes much more in depth than that.

The real question is what should be criminalized: Should it be swerving into other people's lanes, or having an arbitrary (and not necessarily impairing - or worse, far greater than needed to impair) amount of a chemical in your blood? If you're going to punish behavior that endangers others, you should punish the behavior that actually endangers others - regardless of the cause.

They are free to walk a line and touch their nose instead. Better that than putting them back on the road and watch them swerve into another lane or run a red light and kill someone. No?

[myrkul]

A relevant article on the subject:
http://lfb.org/blog/the-drunk-driving-question/

With laws against DUI, what’s being criminalized? Not wreckless driving as such. Not aggression against anyone. What’s being criminalized is the chemical make up of the blood in your body. That itself should be no crime. To make having a certain blood content illegal is essentially totalitarian.

A little bit disingenuous as quoted as what's being criminalized is not UI but DUI.

Don't judge the article based solely on the paragraph I quoted. He goes much more in depth than that.

The real question is what should be criminalized: Should it be swerving into other people's lanes, or having an arbitrary (and not necessarily impairing - or worse, far greater than needed to impair) amount of a chemical in your blood? If you're going to punish behavior that endangers others, you should punish the behavior that actually endangers others - regardless of the cause.

They are free to walk a line and touch their nose instead. Better that than putting them back on the road and watch them swerve into another lane or run a red light and kill someone. No?

Impairment testing is all well and good. But singling out one cause of impairment is rather pointless, isn't it?

[FirstAscent]

A relevant article on the subject:
http://lfb.org/blog/the-drunk-driving-question/

With laws against DUI, what’s being criminalized? Not wreckless driving as such. Not aggression against anyone. What’s being criminalized is the chemical make up of the blood in your body. That itself should be no crime. To make having a certain blood content illegal is essentially totalitarian.

A little bit disingenuous as quoted as what's being criminalized is not UI but DUI.

Don't judge the article based solely on the paragraph I quoted. He goes much more in depth than that.

The real question is what should be criminalized: Should it be swerving into other people's lanes, or having an arbitrary (and not necessarily impairing - or worse, far greater than needed to impair) amount of a chemical in your blood? If you're going to punish behavior that endangers others, you should punish the behavior that actually endangers others - regardless of the cause.

They are free to walk a line and touch their nose instead. Better that than putting them back on the road and watch them swerve into another lane or run a red light and kill someone. No?

Impairment testing is all well and good.

Glad you agree. So can we put to rest the whole notion that it's a not a good idea to keep drunks off the road before they kill someone?

But singling out one cause of impairment is rather pointless, isn't it?

And how do we test for other temporary causes of impairment, such as a fainting, sleeping or strokes? Better to at least catch drunk drivers because it is detectable. Or do you advocate letting the drunks kill because we can't tell that someone might faint in the next thirty minutes?

[grondilu]

IIRC, there is no speed limit on german highways.

[myrkul]

A relevant article on the subject:
http://lfb.org/blog/the-drunk-driving-question/

With laws against DUI, what’s being criminalized? Not wreckless driving as such. Not aggression against anyone. What’s being criminalized is the chemical make up of the blood in your body. That itself should be no crime. To make having a certain blood content illegal is essentially totalitarian.

A little bit disingenuous as quoted as what's being criminalized is not UI but DUI.

Don't judge the article based solely on the paragraph I quoted. He goes much more in depth than that.

The real question is what should be criminalized: Should it be swerving into other people's lanes, or having an arbitrary (and not necessarily impairing - or worse, far greater than needed to impair) amount of a chemical in your blood? If you're going to punish behavior that endangers others, you should punish the behavior that actually endangers others - regardless of the cause.

They are free to walk a line and touch their nose instead. Better that than putting them back on the road and watch them swerve into another lane or run a red light and kill someone. No?

Impairment testing is all well and good.

Glad you agree. So can we put to rest the whole notion that it's a not a good idea to keep drunks off the road before they kill someone?

But singling out one cause of impairment is rather pointless, isn't it?

And how do we test for other temporary causes of impairment, such as a fainting, sleeping or strokes? Better to at least catch drunk drivers because it is detectable. Or do you advocate letting the drunks kill because we can't tell that someone might faint in the next thirty minutes?

Do you not think that sleepiness is detectable in impairment testing? Fainting and strokes are one-time events, and should not be punished, due to their unpredictable nature. But if you're going to punish someone before they harm someone, it should be for the actions which actually endanger people - the reckless driving - regardless of cause.

[FirstAscent]

IIRC, there is no speed limit on german highways.

Not all segments allow for unlimited speed. If you think they're discussing freeways like one might find in Los Angeles or the Bay Area of California, then forget it. Furthermore, you will get pulled over for reckless endangerment (see thread title) of others depending on traffic density, weaving, weather, etc.

[Richy_T]

Impairment testing is all well and good. But singling out one cause of impairment is rather pointless, isn't it?

I agree. There are many other possible causes of impairment including prescription drugs, incapacity due to age and just plain not being skilled at driving. A proper driving test and periodic re-qualification would do wonders for road safety.

Fortunately, this is likely to become moot in what will seem like a surprisingly short period of time. It wont be without its downsides though.

[benjamindees]

I haven't read this thread but since we're on the topic, has anyone touched on whether it's prudent to let women or Asians drive?