Right to endanger?

[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.