Should certain "safety" laws be abolished?

There is an intersection before getting into my neighborhood, folks come off the highway to a stop sign and have to cross 5 lanes of traffic when turning left into town. I watch them run that stop sign DAILY and they don't even look for traffic going across their path to the neighborhoods on the other side. Yet, if you put a police officer at that intersection there, no problems, no one runs that stop sign, and I don't have to break for all the idiots that I almost t-bone. These people could drive safe, but they actively CHOOSE not to unless forced to do so by the law AND can actually see a person who can enforce said laws.

As much as I'd like to just "trust" everyone to have their (*)(*)(*)(*) under control on the roads so we could all have the freedom to drive however we are able, I know they don't. I watch people every single day driving like idiots, they actively CHOOSE to take risks with other peoples lives for no reason other than THEY are in a hurry. This is why I find little reason NOT to support speed limits and other traffic law "infringements."

If you don't speed, the gov makes NO money so I don't think it's a money making scheme at all... It's also not that hard to follow the laws. I'm pushing 40 and I've gotten one traffic ticket in my entire life; my speedometer was broken so I was keeping speed with everyone around me on the way to get it fixed - I got the gauge fixed and paid no fee even though I WAS actually speeding (so was everyone around me with working speedometers.) My husband is 45, he has NEVER gotten a traffic violation ticket, he drives 100miles a day, 365 days a year and has been doing so for 18+ years now.




As far as the war on drugs, if the Gov wanted to make money they'd legalize, regulate, and sin tax the (*)(*)(*)(*) out of it like everything else that's "socially unacceptable." I doubt the war on drugs makes ANY money for the gov at all, more likely it costs money to jail them all...

 

You have made good and reasonable points. I agree with all you've said. People should not be overly-controlled, but it is just foolish to think/say that certain things should not be controlled or regulated; human nature proves that wrong.

 

One could argue that alcohol has far more costs on non users then drugs, especially as more people drink then do hard drugs.

Also one has to realize that the war on drugs has definite costs as well. Think of the inner city gangs that essentially exist to protect drug trade and other legalized things such as prostitution and gambling. I would argue the monetary costs involved with police work, holding non violent drug users in prison and creating a black market the promotes violence is far more expensive to us then the costs if it was legalized. Especially when revenues from its sales roll in.

 

Annndddd the whole problem with ALL of what you just said, is that The Police State is NOT trying to protect your safety or anyone's safety with these laws. They are trying to create revenue by them.

If it were all about safety, roads would be designed with tracks or something where you couldn't swerve over anywhere at any time, or something similar; roads would be designed safer.

 

Riiiggghhhtttt..... Germany also has a very intensive and expensive licensing system.

That probably has a lot more to do with it than anything else.

 

Deathstar:

It is rare to see such a stupid argument that immediately labels the speaker as a delusional fool.

The problem for you deafstar, is that you are not an island by any stretch of the imagination and that simple fact destroys your argument totally and completely.

Take the internet for example. The computer and the internet are full of "rules" and laws - we call them technical standards. If you with to connect to the internet, you buy complying equipment and follow the rules or you don't get connected.

Same with the road laws. They have been determined by the community to be the system that provides the acceptable tradeoff by the whole community between constraints on individual freedom (ie speed limits) with the risk and consequences of colllision to the community.


If you don't like it, then build and drive on your own *&*ing roads.

To put that another way, you are perfectly free to kill yourself by ignoring safety standards and rules, but you are not entitled to hurt someone else, nor foist what remains of your grieving wife and kids on the charity of the community.

I guess I could provide a more academic explanation, and talk about externalities and community costs, but you probably wouldn't understand it.

 

So you want to force me to pay for a safety net whether or not I benefit from it (and I don't at all benefit from it), so that the Thieving Nanny Police State can continue to grow and live by leeching off of us?

How pathetic. It's sad that you lack the creativity and ingenuity to come up with better solutions than a forced ROBBING nanny and police state.

 

Deathstar:

Of course you benefit from it. You can thank it for safe food and water to drink. The fact that there was an education available to you and the fact that you weren't wiped out on the road today. Who do you think provided the internet? The tooth fairy?

 

Limiting speeds on highways is far removed from a "police state". My god. I do not see officers executing people on the side of the road for speeding.

They do it for profit, so what? It limits other peoples speed and gives them a guideline for what speed is acceptable in a particular area. Makes me safer, makes you safer, makes everyone safer.

Facts are facts. I would abandon anarcho-capitalism before it is too late.

 

Negative, the gov is "enforcing laws" through "financial penalty." If one simply follows said laws, there is zero money given to the state - aka NOT a revenue program. The state tax on gasoline and the registration fees of vehicles are examples of revenue programs.

As for your track idea, get it on a ballot and we can vote on it. However, I personally do not have any problem following traffic laws (which means I am able to avoid the financial burden of tickets) so I would not be very likely to vote for the tax burden required to fund your track idea.

 

If no one broke any laws ever, the state would simply create new, and idiotic, laws that restrain freedom even more, so they could keep legally ROBBING us. Why do you think marijuana is still illegal?

'nuff said.

 

Mystriss has it right. Obey the laws - pay no fines.

 

Yes. If the law is that you have to jump off a cliff every year or else pay a fine and go to prison, then we "should" still obey the laws or pay the fines and go to prison or get tortured or whatever the Big Police State wants to do to us.

We don't deserve to not be violently attacked by random organized criminals that have some of us fooled into thinking that they're out there to "help" us.

*rolling my (*)(*)(*)(*)ing eyes*

 

If there was such a law requiring us to "jump off a cliff" as you said, then I would join you to stand against such law. However, we are not talking about such ridiculousness, we are talking about traffic laws, totally different animals there.


As far as the "war on drugs", I do not actually think these two issues relate to each other as you are lumping them. One is the total BAN on the usage of marijuana, the other is regulation of usage of a car on public roads.

That said however, I personally think they should legalize pot, and I'd even go so far as to say all drugs, with regulation to protect others from the dangers - much as they regulate drinking and I suppose smoking cigarettes as well. I personally fail to see the distinction between pot and tobacco, or pot and alcohol.

Marijuana was legal in Alaska until like 1989... maybe it was 1992 don't remember; anyway just about every one smoked it and it was really a non-issue up here. Most of us "out grew it" eventually, much like the 20-somethings out grow "clubbing" as they get older. My group of around 30 "buddies" quit pot while we were still in high-school (before it even became illegal.) Tight knit groups of us just decided it was kind of a waste of money and because we all hung out together, everyone eventually ended up quitting to do other stuff with their money.

In any event, the Fed informed us that if we did not make pot illegal in compliance with their "war on drugs" they would cripple our state by withholding road funding. One negative side effect of this forced compliance was that since pot was made illegal harder drugs have been able to come into the state, crack etc. and more recently, within the past 10 years, drug gangs have started to appear. We had a huge cocaine bust just the other day actually, largest ever in the state, some 50kilos or something like that.

Thing is, when I was growing up no one used the "harder" drugs and THOSE folks who wanted to "step it up" were actually shunned because we were not stupid, we saw what those harder drugs DID to their lives. Us "stoners" were extremely picky about our pot, I remember one "dealer" who'd laced some of our highly prized 4th generation MTF (Matanuska Thunder (*)(*)(*)(*)) with acid - he was driven out of "business" as it disturbed the pristine taste of the MTF we "consumers" sought, in fact we were so "angry" about it even his promise not to do it again was not enough to bring him back into favor. We also tended to "shun" pot shipped up here from the lower 48, our local grown stuff was much preferred as it supported our local "economy."

Personally, I think the Fed over stepped their bounds on this particular issue, and in fact in a way HARMED Alaska. We as a state had the situation "under control" and there were no "undo" problems with the usage of pot up here, it was like a self-controlled issue I guess. The Fed not only had no idea how pot was in a way "restraining" dangerous drug use in Alaska, they also did ZERO investigating of the safety vs rights issues specific to Alaska in their media frenzy war down there.

In a nutshell, I believe drug regulation/law should be a city by city, or at MOST a state by state, issue rather than a federal issue. I see this issue to be very similar to prohibition; on a national level it just doesn't work, it should be a voluntary city/state vote decision. For example, in Alaska we have "dry" villages, those who do not agree with the law (aka the ones who were out voted) move to another village where drinking is allowed, and those who agree with the Prohibition move INTO those dry villages. And everyone is happy, yay!


Unfortunately for your argument here OP, I would also support the regulation of such legal drugs with common sense laws that you seem to feel would be an infringement upon your freedom...

 

I didn't even read the rest of your post because you're making it more complicated than it is due to runaway moral relativism. It's wrong to violate our essential freedoms in such blatant ways, period, no debate, no discussion, simple as that.

Done.

 

Ah, so ya started this thread, not to discuss the issue, but to simply state your opinon and demand that everyone else in the thread agree with you...

Check.

 

The war on drugs is the most idiotic thing we do. Prohibition CREATES black markets, which CREATES crime. The only reason there is a drug war is because we create one. Speed limit laws are different, because excessive speeding can put others in danger. Things like seat belt laws though ARE unconstitutional. Not wearing a seat belt only hurts yourself, and that should be a decision you can make for yourself (unless perhaps you are a minor)

 

Agreed completely.

My problem is not the fact that well-meaning people like you want safety. The problem is the fact that The Police State ROBS you in order to achieve this goal. That is true greediness. It's also (*)(*)(*)(*)ing unnecessary. There are ways to achieve safety other than outright destroying freedom and taking away peoples' HARD EARNED PROPERTY from them, violently.

 

It's just that most people are moronic about this issue. Again:


"My problem is not the fact that well-meaning people like you want safety. The problem is the fact that The Police State ROBS you in order to achieve this goal. That is true greediness. It's also (*)(*)(*)(*)ing unnecessary. There are ways to achieve safety other than outright destroying freedom and taking away peoples' HARD EARNED PROPERTY from them, violently."

If you want to live in a violent corrupt police nanny state, fine. Don't FORCE that on me.

 

I figured the seatbelt thing was a "for your own good" law, turns out its a state affair as well. New Hampshire it seems has NO seatbelt law nor fines for adults not wearing them - so it "could" happen... Also of note, in 17 states the police can't pull you over simply for not wearing your seatbelt, you'd have to break another law in order to get fined for failing to click it.


Anyway, gather up your state peeps and overturn them. I would both sign a petition for a vote, AND vote to ditch them if it came up in Alaska, especially if presented the "personal injury not harming anyone else" vs "constitutional right to free choice / personal responsibility" argument.

Unfortunately, if you can't rally enough "give a (*)(*)(*)(*)" in your state peeps on the issue you're S.O.L. I know exactly how it feels to be on the losing end of that "majority wins" stick, it stings for a bit but all you can do is get over it and move on...

 

No. I will not be your beotch. We could form a bloody revolution or violently terrorize you (*)(*)(*)(*)ers till you do what's right. I think soon, that might be the only possible solution.

I'm not in it to make friends. I'm in it for ME.

 

I think you are exaggerating. I think a fine system is fine. It is the perfect way to punish people is by removing something from them. Thats how punishment works. I don't think getting rid of speeding laws is a libertarian principle, because speeding can be VERY VERY DANGEROUS. That is actually more anarchy than libertarian, so I cannot agree to it.

 

Then at least raise the speed limit on highways/long stretches; I can't drive 55 nor do I wanna nor should I HAVE to. That's just stupid.

Edit: let's continue that logic, however. After age 70, no one should be allowed to drive. 70 or older and you're more likely to have vision problems, hand-eye coordination slows down, etc. You should also not be allowed to drive under age 25 because you're more likely to be risky and less cautious. You should also not be allowed to drive if you have ADHD. Etc.

WHERE DOES ARBITRARY POWER END????????

 

I have severe ADHD and I have a perfect driving record.

 

They have worn you down. Now you are accepting conditions to your first stance. Worse you are proposing laws restricting freedom that have not yet been considered. Individual rights are always suppressed by the majority. If most people believe something should be a law it will be.