Subject:
|
Re: Ticket prices going up
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 21 Jan 2003 20:18:37 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
586 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> I also appreciate the effort of folks so they don't get bogged down into the
> quagmire, where there will be 'weeping and gnashing of teeth'. That said,
> if there is a legitimate debate, or things you want to say, say it. Say it
> or do away with ot-d. When folks are scared or apprehensive about posting
> in here, what's the point of having the group at all?
I'm not scared, I'm not apprehensive, I'm just busy. Not SO busy that I
wasn't willing to toss one post in, but busy enough that I wanted to keep it
short. It's a large topic, it's been visited before, etc.
As for doing away with ot-d, I wouldn't equate terseness with wanting to see
the group abolished. I made my aspirations and desires w.r.t. ot-d (and for
all of LUGNET(tm), for that matter) clear in this post:
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=18612
and if you look at how discussion on it went, especially that one REALLY
long branch in the tree, the points I made that were questioned in the
beginning of the thread were sort of self proven by the end, wouldn't you say?
On the topic at hand, though, to the point of whether traffic laws are laws
or not ("infractions" vs. misdemeanors vs. felonies, if you like), there are
those (including most traffic court administrators and judges) that argue
that driving is a privilege, not a right, and that infractions are code
violations, not law violations, and that traffic court is contractually
administering your privilege and thus much of the thinking on the normal
rights one expects to have (including due process, presumption of innocence,
evidence proving things beyond a shadow of a doubt, right to face accusers
and the like) doesn't apply.
I'm quite familiar with that argument, since in my younger days I heard it a
fair bit while facing those very judges in court! (1)
But unfortunately for the state, if one buys into that argument that the
state makes for its convenience in not messing around with messy old due
process, then speeding regulations are indeed not laws, and you are not a
law breaker if you flout them. You are merely a contract violator.
(completely demolishing your argument about the need to comply... only civil
penalties apply.)
However since the state has a (state granted, that is, self granted and
enforced via force) monopoly on the building of roads, and the issuance of
permits for conveyances to be on them and the issuance of permits for
operators to operate these conveyances... I find that argument spurious. The
state is trying to have their cake and eat it too, they act like it's law
when it is convenient and like it isn't when it isn't. I hold it to be law
that the state is imposing, not contracts that they are administering, and
if they deny it to be law and deny that you have legal rights in their
imposition, it makes for a particularly pernicious form of tyranny.
Given that we (I mean we USians, not you Canadians or Brits, you don't have
rights explicitly as we do) have a right to peacably assemble and a right of
free movement, isn't the state monopoly on roads and the monopoly on
regulation thereof a bit worrisome? At least to those that mistrust the
state's motives and intent, anyway? If we can be denied the ability to drive
and also the ability to walk alongside a public road, how are we to exercise
that right of free movement? It's one thing for a landowner not to allow me
to cross his land, but when it's the state hemming me in and preventing me
from using a road (public property, mind you) that I in part paid for, I get
a lot more worried. (2)
1 - As an aside, we could discuss what the fastest one had ever gone while
in a car on a public road was, if there was interest... not sure there is
though. Let me say this, the trip through rural Germany on narrow two lane
roads at 225 kph that Ben and his co-conspirator Torsten took me on when I
visited them was nowhere near the top speed for me....
2 - so much for being too busy to post further. My requirements doc is now
farther behind and it's YOUR fault. No weight is to be given to the notion
that I chose to do this instead of writing technical prose... none. It's all
about you. :-)
++Lar
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Ticket prices going up
|
| (...) Now I remember why I appreciate you in .debate (as if I'd ever forget...) ;) Not to give you a way of procrastinating... The fastest I've ever driven myself was 190 kph. It was in my new (then) 1986 Honda Prelude, and it was going down the (...) (21 years ago, 21-Jan-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Ticket prices going up
|
| (...) Now that is one of the most enlightening points of view on this subject I have heard in years! :) I must add though, that if driving is just a privilege (as you and so many law enforcers have said), then what would the state do if no one (...) (21 years ago, 21-Jan-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | ironic [Re: Ticket prices going up]
|
| (...) Has the "end" been reached? ;) I expect I’m not alone in finding your comments rather ironic. Much of the discussion I am having with David has centred on whether or not I give adequate justification for statements I make. Lets look at your (...) (21 years ago, 22-Jan-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Ticket prices going up
|
| (...) And again, I would concur with you, Richard--systems should not 'rule' the individual, and Justice should not be left up to machines. But two of the most vocal folks on the side of 'science' are doing away with science when science interferes (...) (21 years ago, 21-Jan-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
23 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
