Subject:
|
Re: Speeding: Prima facie negligence?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 13 Sep 1999 15:58:19 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
LPIENIAZEK@NOVERAavoidspam.COM
|
Viewed:
|
1396 times
|
| |
|
|
<37D8033D.108EF440@voyager.net> <FHvs28.ELu@lugnet.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Moz (Chris Moseley) wrote:
>
> Larry Pieniazek <lar@voyager.net> wrote
> > I think I want to drill into this one a bit more. Let's be clear... are
> > you saying
> > that to break any law whatsoever is to act in a negligent manner? That
> > is, if your jurisdiction passed a law requiring that you spit on and
> > kick the shins of any left handers you happen to encounter, that not to
> > do so would be negligent?
>
> You've switched immediately from laws which are codified conventions to
> laws which attempt to enforce possibly immoral behaviour. What happens
> to a society where only half the members behave as you describe? Can
> it still function? What about a society where only half the members
> drive on the left hand side of the road?
Sure. I did switch because I wanted to make a point. I think we all
agree that some set of conventions is necessary for safe operation of
traffic, as it is in so many other areas (for example, the pinouts on a
serial port are standardized). What I do not agree with is the notion
that laws are the only way to enforce them. If one had a system of
private roads one could have contract clauses that specified how things
operate.
I don't want to go too far down this path as I am not advocating
privatization of roads until and unless a LOT of other, far easier to
privatize things, have already been done. You need a mindset of "how can
we make this work" which you only get when people see a lot of other
things successfully privatized. We're not there yet.
But I would posit that the railroads in the US, which compete fiercely,
still have a standard set of rules and operational procedures that are
NOT codified by law. Everyone just agreed among themselves (via the
mechanism of the AAR, a private organization) how to do things.
Where am I going with this? Some sort of orderly system of conventions
is needed. Roads need to have posted advisory speeds, (and advice about
curves, hills, corners, congestion, pedestrian crossings etc. etc. etc)
and disregarding that advice is evidence of negligence.
But driving 70, on a road designed for 70, when conditions allow it,
which just happens to have a posted limit of 45, may be breaking the
law, but it is not negligence.
Engaging in sodomy in Georgia where all the engagers are consenting
adults may be breaking the law but it is not immoral.
Using pot to alleviate the nausea associated with chemo, under doctor
supervision, may be breaking the law but it is not negligent and it is
not immoral.
Hosting a card game at your house where wagers are placed may be
breaking the law but it is not immoral. Now, that one fails your "moral
repugnance" test so I assume you would honor that law. But I would not.
>
> My answer to the law requiring me to behave reprehensibly is that unless
> it is morally repugnant then yes, I must obey it. While attempting to
> get it changed, of course.
I just don't agree. I will not go along with laws that are silly. I am
prepared to accept the consequences if I am caught out.
> > This is a major philosophical difference I have with many people. I
> > posit that morals are internal. The fact that something is legal does
> > not make it morally correct (the spit and kick law I gave above), and
> > conversely, the fact that something is illegal does not make it morally
> > incorrect.
>
> While I agree with you, I also believe that it is your duty as a citizen
> to change those laws, not to ignore them.
But I *do* both work to change and ignore... However I prefer to work
for change in a more sweeping manner. Instead of getting one silly law
removed (and we have millions of laws) at a time while the politicios
create 3 or 30 or 300 or 3000 new ones, I am working to get a party in
power that would sunset most of the laws and start over with only the
good ones. Much more effective to remove laws wholesale than retail.
> And speaking which, I've hurried through this because I have to go make
> protesting noises at our government over the East Timor debacle. Looks
> like the ozzies are finally going to stop offering military support to
> the Indonesians! I have no words to describe the depth of my feelings
> about this. I pay taxes to people who are militarily and financially
> supporting a regime that *right now* is attempting genocide. You
> want to talk about immoral laws, let's think about East Timor.
I'm with you there. Both the OZ and US governments have some blood on
their hands there. That's why I'm saying that it should be OK to give
money pr arms to groups that fight against that sort of thing. That's
why I am saying it's best not to have entangling alliances.
--
Larry Pieniazek larryp@novera.com http://my.voyager.net/lar
- - - Web Application Integration! http://www.novera.com
fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ Member ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to
lugnet.
NOTE: I have left CTP, effective 18 June 99, and my CTP email
will not work after then. Please switch to my Novera ID.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Speeding: Prima facie negligence?
|
| Larry Pieniazek <lar@voyager.net> wrote (...) One measure of a democracy is whether you can vote for the revolution, I suppose. While I don't want the outcome you want, I'm inclined to agree that you deserve points for trying. But not many, since I (...) (25 years ago, 14-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
277 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- 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
|
|
|
|
