Right to endanger?

[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?