Subject:
|
Re: Ticket prices going up
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 21 Jan 2003 20:55:59 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
665 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> 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
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 Skyway Bridge, with the wind
behind me. I was never so scared in my entire life, but 21 year olds seem
to think they can do these things and get away with them.
I am of the opinion that traffic violations are in the realm of any other
law. I also believe that the punishment for breaking laws should suit the
crime--as in if you're breaking traffic laws, you should suffer with regards
to your licence, your car insurance premiums, etc. But since that is what
already happens, I'm pretty much content. I do say, as stated at the
beginning of this thread, that raising the price of tickets is something I
support totally, but that's just me.
The bottom line is that there are rules. Yes sometimes rules are meant to
be bent and/or broken. However there's a proper time/place/per rule for
these bends/breaks to happen. Doing 160 in a 100 zone is not doing your
civic duty to get an unjust law' overturned, it's just you driving fast and
breaking the law.
I'll go to sit-ins, marches, demonstrations if I feel a law is unjust and
work with all the power I can to overturn said unjust law. No rational
person believes that removing speed limits from roads is either safe or
just--it's just selfish and unsafe to others on the roadways. Whether the
limit should be raised or lowered is another issue all together.
As to the gov't monopoly and withholding your right to free movement if they
take away your licence, as posted, your legs are not shackled--your free
movement is not limited. If the gov't takes away your right to walk on
public walkways, then I'll be the first to start the sit-ins and protests.
If an officer pulled me over when I was doing that 190 on the Skyway, I
would have lost my licence and would have had to pay a very hefty fine,
deservedly so, for I broke the law. As it stands, I got away with it (don't
feel too good about it but not bad enuf to turn myself in...) and lived to
face another day (miracle in itself) and life goes on.
Take care,
Dave
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Ticket prices going up
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
