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?

[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?