United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Why Punish People for “Speeding”?
Source:
Eric Peters Autos
URL Source: http://ericpetersautos.com/2015/07/ ... y-punish-people-for-speeding/
Published: Jul 21, 2015
Author: Eric
Post Date: 2015-07-22 07:28:12 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 757
Comments: 18
Why should anyone be subject to punishment merely for driving “x” speed? Is it not of a piece with punishing someone for merely consuming alcohol? The justification usually given is that “speeding” might cause harm. Ok, sure. The same is true about drinking beer. Someone (generally) might drink beer and beat his wife. But we do not presume (for now) that everyone who drinks beer will beat his wife – and thus, drinking beer must be forbidden. And violators of this policy punished. What about punishing (hold onto that thought) people when – and only if – they actually do cause harm? Not before – and not because they might. Or because “someone” else has. It’s a crazy idea, I realize. Imagine: You’d only have to sweat cops or face a judge if you (and not some other person you never even met) could plausibly be charged with having caused harm to an actual victim or damaged the actual property of someone else. Mark that. A flesh and blood victim would have to be presented. And it would be the obligation of the courts to prove that harm was done to establish guilt before requiring restitution (much preferable to punishing people, which smacks of house training a puppy). There would be an end to this business of people being put through the system who’ve harmed no one. Who are punished for manufactured offenses against the state. Can the state be a victim? Is the Tooth Fairy real? It’s absurd – and vicious. Do you feel guilty of wrongdoing when pulled over by a cop for not wearing a seatbelt? Who have you harmed? What justification – other than “it’s the law” – is there for punishing you? How about driving faster than an arbitrary number plastered on a sign? You get pulled out from a crowd of others doing the same thing; none of you harming anyone or even plausibly threatening it. It’s merely your unlucky day. Your time to pay. As the cop slides in behind you, does your internal monologue run along the lines of, “well, yeah… I did a bad thing… I deserve this.” Or do you feel disgust, anger – and resentment? Of course. This has serious implications. Laws without a moral basis are just arbitrary rules. They have no moral force – and that makes people subjected to them feel abused. Which they have been. Meanwhile, it also makes it more difficult to deal with the relatively small number of people in society who actually do cause harm to others. If you doubt this, take a drive into a “bad” neighborhood; where are all the cops? They’re manning radar traps and safety checkpoints in the “nice” neighborhoods! Remember the “Drive 55" idiocy that lasted from about 1974 to 1995? Overnight – and for the next 20 years – it became illegal “speeding” to drive 70 when the day before it had been legal to do that and – presumably (being legal) “safe.” How does it become “unsafe” to drive 70 on the same road today that it was (apparently) “safe” to drive 70 on yesterday? What was it Bob Dooole used to say? You know it, I know it, the American people know it. Millions of people were simply ripped off – had their money stolen from them under color of law. The contempt and corruption this bred is incalculable. It festers to this day. Because while “Drive 55" is history, the same rigmarole exists on secondary roads. Every day, thousands of people are pulled over and literally robbed. Issued what amount to ransom notes – state-sanctioned extortion – for driving at reasonable and prudent velocities that happen to have been codified as illegal “speeding.” The fact that virtually every one “speeds” – this includes cops – is the clearest, most inarguable proof that the laws are absurd. And their enforcement a sort of low-rent sadism that also happens to be very profitable. What’s the solution? Speed limits as such ought to be thrown in the woods. They are arbitrary, morally indefensible – and most of all, one-size-fits-all. People are individuals and some people are better at certain things than others. This includes driving. Tony Stewart is a better driver than I am. But I am a much better driver than my mother-in-law. Why should Tony Stewart be dumbed-down to my level? And why should I be dumbed-down to my mother-in-law’s? Imposing arbitrary, one-size-fits-all limits on anyone for anything is by definition unfair. Arbitrary man-made “speeding” laws based on a dumbed-down/least-common-denominator standard amount to ugly and stupid people punishing the good-looking and smart ones. The people who support such laws support anticipatory and pre-emptive punishment. That is, laws that assume something bad will happen if “x” is not punished. And which punish the “offender” as if something bad had actually happened. Even if it never did. Innocence of having caused harm is (currently) no defense. It’s not necessary for the government to produce a victim. All that’s necessary, legally speaking, is for the state to prove that “the law” was violated. Comrade Stalin would approve. Cue the keening wail that, absent speed limits, people will drive excessively fast and lose control. Yet they do exactly that already – speed limits notwithstanding. Just as people still drive soused (and senile, too). The difference between the harm-caused/actual victim approach – and the “it’s the law” approach – is that the former only holds those who actually do lose control – for whatever reason – accountable. Everyone else is free to go about their business. To live as adults – rather than be treated as presumptively unintelligent children. What a concept! Speed advisories would be fine. For example a sign letting you know that there is a sharp curve ahead and maybe reducing speed would be good. Drivers unfamiliar with that road – and never having driven that curve before – may find this information helpful. But why should the local who is familiar with that road – and who drives that curve everyday – be subject to punishment for taking the curve at a higher speed? Assuming, of course, that he does so competently, without causing harm to anyone in the process? That was once the American Way. Not “do as you please” – the dishonest, demagogic bleat of Clovers. But rather, do as you please… so long as you don’t cause harm to others. The false choice offered by Clovers is total control in exchange for total safety – the “risk free” world. But this is a quixotic quest that can never end, because risk cannot be removed from this life. We all get sick – and die eventually. Entropy happens. What can be excised, however, is the risk to our liberties, our peace of mind, our enjoyment of life – presented by random and arbitrary interferences and punishments based not on what we’ve done, but on what “someone” might do.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Deckard (#0)
What a great idea. Also if someone runs a red light. They shouldn't be punished either, unless they hit someone. Driving while drinking should be ok too. I mean one beer wouldn't hurth. Heck some people can drink 2 or 12 and still make it home. That shouldn't be illegal either. Unless they hit someone then you can charge them.
Because it's a cash cow for the state. And the state needs the money. There are three kinds of people in the world: those that can add and those that can't
"Most" of the time it's not speeders that cause the problems it's people who shouldn't have a drivers license in the first place that cause all the problems. It used to be the left lane was for passing now it seems to be the perfect haven for people going under the speed limit, BSing on the phone, texting, doing makeup and I've actually seen people readings books. “Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
You're probably too young to know this, but there was a time when you could drink a beer or two and not be arrested for DUI. Then activist groups like MADD came along and complained until the legal limit became .08. Their ultimate goal is zero tolerance for alcohol while driving. I can see by your post that you are a nanny-state supporter who doesn't understand the concept that "Laws without a moral basis are just arbitrary rules. They have no moral force..." Oh, BTW sparky - it used to be in some states that you could drink WHILE driving, and I can remember drive-up liquor stores that would sell you ready to go mixed drinks. But, that was back when this was a free country. I bet you are a big fan of other revenue enhancement scams like ticketing someone for not wearing a seat belt and red light cameras. Did you know that red light cameras have caused MORE accidents then they have prevented and cities have actually shortened yellow light times to catch more people running red lights? Despite Spike in Accidents Officials Accept Bribe from Traffic Camera Vendor to Keep Program Alive You are naive if you believe that any of these so called safety measures are designed for anything but scamming citizens out of their hard earned cash. And one more thing - How does it become “unsafe” to drive 70 on the same road today that it was (apparently) “safe” to drive 70 on yesterday? You seem to be taking the same view as misterwhite, Gatlin and the other canary clan statists at this site. In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much I remember back in Texas my dad regularly drove with a beer.
That just means you don't have much insight. I don't care if you go a few miles over the speed limit. But no speed limit means going 75 in a 25. I guess a nanny stater like me shouldn't have drove without a license for about 12 years.
Was he committing a "crime" in your opinion? In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much Seemed quite normal to me.
No one is advocating that at all. I get the impression that you read the headline of the story and formed your opinion from that alone. In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much Well, I have no doubt that if speed limits were removed, the herd would be thinned. It would be a boom for the funeral business.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
No. I read the first few paragraphs.
If I were King, the speed limits would go, the drug laws would go, prisons would go also. People who killed people would be put to death. Other violent criminals and thieves would be indentured and would work at wages, and have their wages garnished, leaving them in the projects but working, until restitution and punitive damages were reached or 7 years, whichever came first. Violent criminals would be agricultural workers for six years. They would be microchipped and tracked if they escaped. The list of laws would be short, and regulatory agencies would be a thing of the past. Oh, and as a result, the economy would - for a time - shrink by about 50% and have to grow back organically. Because the fact is that the massive regulatory and police state, and government control of everything, allows a lot of otherwise unprofitable economic activity to exist and thrive, and through the multiplicative effect of money spent in the economy, to grow the economy beyond what it would otherwise be. The velocity of welfare money is extremely high.
Mark of the Beast type stuff.
Like all good laws government bureaucrats find a way to milk money out of it. Speeding laws are there for a reason. Someone do 85 in a 50 is going to get someone hurt or killed. Government turns good laws into cash cows to pay for things like more police because people are speeding and they need to catch them even though government keeps lowering the speed limits because its such a cash revenue for them. The biggest problem with government is politicians and lazy voters.
The mark of the beast pertained to buying and selling. A microchip to prevent the escape of a prisoner sentenced to labor to repay crime is the equivalent of a chain and a cage, but less galling.
A better idea would be to tattoo a number on their arm, Mein Fuhrer.
The Libertarian "harm" principle holds that the actions of individuals should only be limited to prevent harm to other individuals. They use this as justification for the legalization of drugs, gambling, prostitution, porn and suicide. My argument for years has been that this principle would also mean the elimination of drunk driving laws and speed limits. First time I've read an article actually proposing this.
That's permanent. Once the restitution is paid, you take out the microchip and let them go free. On the Jubilee, you wipe clean and destroy all criminal records, retaining no copies. At that point, men are completely free to start over. Because the Jubilee corresponds to the debt sabattical, one leaves the Jubilee debt free and criminal blemish free, a complete restart. Men need this. And God provided it. Men don't want to let men off the hook. If I were King, I would make them by proclaiming the Jubilee
#2. To: Deckard (#0)
Why Punish People for “Speeding”?
#3. To: Deckard (#0)
#4. To: A K A Stone (#1)
(Edited)
Driving while drinking should be ok too. I mean one beer wouldn't hurth.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#5. To: Deckard (#4)
You're probably too young to know this, but there was a time when you could drink a beer or two and not be arrested for DUI.
#6. To: Deckard (#4)
I can see by your post that you are a nanny-state supporter who doesn't understand the concept that "Laws without a moral basis are just arbitrary rules. They have no moral force..."
#7. To: A K A Stone (#5)
I remember back in Texas my dad regularly drove with a beer.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#8. To: Deckard (#7)
#9. To: A K A Stone (#6)
But no speed limit means going 75 in a 25.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#10. To: Deckard (#0)
#11. To: Deckard (#9)
#12. To: Deckard (#0)
#13. To: Vicomte13 (#12)
They would be microchipped and tracked if they escaped.
#14. To: Deckard (#0)
#15. To: A K A Stone (#13)
Mark of the Beast type stuff.
#16. To: Vicomte13 (#12)
"They would be microchipped and tracked if they escaped."
#17. To: A K A Stone (#1)
"Also if someone runs a red light. They shouldn't be punished either, unless they hit someone."
#18. To: misterwhite (#16)
A better idea would be to tattoo a number on their arm, Mein Fuhrer.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]