Homesteading Forum banner
41 - 60 of 72 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,757 Posts
Those dirty potheads, causing all those accidents in which no one is injured and the car is still operable.
Two of the worst fatal auto accidents I ever worked were caused by potheads. The driver of one of them didn't even know he had been in an accident. I am happy to say that he got thirty years for a double vehicle homicide.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,172 Posts
Screw it! Why have any traffic laws at all? Let's just careen down the road as fast as we want to go with nothing but a few feet of distance and a yellow line (maybe) between us.
My goals, when I’m on the road, are to not harm anyone else or their property, and neither me nor my property be harmed by anyone else. How fast they’re going or what color the lines between us are is of no concern to me.

Why does it bother you so much?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
43,395 Posts
I have been threatened more by drivers hooked on phones than drivers hooked on pot or alcohol.

I cannot make up my mind if I buy the @GunMonkeyIntl argument. Everything you read says drinking increases the odds of an accident, but everything written by media and government is a lie.
 

·
Voice of Reason
Joined
·
50,897 Posts
I have been threatened more by drivers hooked on phones than drivers hooked on pot or alcohol.
Some states are cracking down on impaired and distracted driving by making them felonies. It's reached a point where driving tired is as serious pf a crime as driving drunk in some jurisdictions. .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,172 Posts
I have been threatened more by drivers hooked on phones than drivers hooked on pot or alcohol.

I cannot make up my mind if I buy the @GunMonkeyIntl argument. Everything you read says drinking increases the odds of an accident, but everything written by media and government is a lie.
I’m not saying that drunk driving doesn’t increase the odds of an accident. I’m certain that it does. My point is that attempting to legislate away the likelihood of an undesirable event occurring is incongruous with Liberty.

The logic that was used restrict us from having the choice to drink a beer while driving is the same logic that was used to demand that firearms in the home be stored unloaded and locked up. It’s the same logic that will be used someday to put restrictions of freedom on males, in order to reduce the likelihood of crime.

I don’t drink and drive because I accept the seriousness of the potential outcomes of that behavior. The closest I come to drinking and driving is that getting to one of my barns requires me driving about 400y to the end of my dead end road. Occasionally, the cup holder of my tractor or buggy will have a beer in it when I go there. The odds of me harming someone or their property while doing that are even lower than the odds of me getting stopped and facing legal jeopardy for it. The fact that there’s even a chance that I could face criminal penalty for it are proof, in my opinion, that our legislation on the matter is improperly aimed.

Criminal legislation should be reserved for direct redress of the specific events that we want to prevent, not the things that someone decides may increase the likelihood of those events occurring. That is a recipe for the erosion of Liberty, all in the name of our own good.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,355 Posts
If we really want to follow statistics, shouldn't it be illegal to drive for anyone that is not between the age of 25 and 40, free from health problems, not in possession of a cellphone, after at least 8 hours of sleep?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,355 Posts
Two of the worst fatal auto accidents I ever worked were caused by potheads. The driver of one of them didn't even know he had been in an accident. I am happy to say that he got thirty years for a double vehicle homicide.
There was an old guy that had a garage right on the edge of the road near here. He backed out into the road and a state trooper going about a hundred hit him broad side. Killed him and his wife. They were going to church, state trooper was going to a wreck, had been at somebody's old ladies house. The worst fatal accident that old man and woman ever saw was caused by a state trooper. State trooper didn't get anything out of it. Everyone makes bad judgement calls. Some of them live through it, and sometimes there are repercussions, depending on prevailing societal conditioning.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
43,395 Posts
attempting to legislate away the likelihood of an undesirable event occurring is incongruous with Liberty.
It is. So are license to do this and that. So are permits. I could go on. You get the idea.

There is a line that some liberty is spent on the idea of a civil society. I'd like to think a battle rages to keep us on the libertous side of the line. Sadly there is not.

Someday soon will will all wear helmets, bubble wrap suits and hold hands as we walk about because some politician got elected to make it happen. Her campaign will be funded by the helmet and bubble wrap industries. The regulatory agency responsible for implementing the law will make the helmets the size of large pumpkins and the bubble wrap density so high we can barely move. The regulation will become more stringent each election cycle. Karens will record tictoks and scream at those not in proper gear.
 
  • Like
Reactions: muleskinner2

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,172 Posts
There is a line that some liberty is spent on the idea of a civil society. I'd like to think a battle rages to keep us on the libertous side of the line. Sadly there is not.
I agree with that 100%, but I think that line needs to be objective and clear. That’s precisely why I’m a devotee of Liberty, but pay no more credence to anarchy than I do to Marxism.

Marxism and anarchy are adjacent ends of a circular spectrum in the same way that communism and fascism are. Left to their ultimate devices, they both end up in the same place.

Law and order are necessary, but law and order come at a cost of Liberty, and Liberty is no cheap commodity. When a law is proposed, its cost in Liberty should be honestly and soberly considered, with deference always going to Liberty. If a proposed restriction addresses anything other than, directly, the outcomes we wish to curtail, then it shouldn’t pass scrutiny and should be summarily rejected in preference of a restriction, if one such can be found, that does directly address the undesirable outcome.

The legislation of indirect, allegedly statically-contributing causes is the guaranteed path to tyranny.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
43,395 Posts
@GunMonkeyIntl You are confusing Anarcho-capitalism, a type of Individualist voluntaryism and Anarcho-socialism, an oxymoron fantasy.
I had to look them up

Anarcho-capitalism is an anti-statist, libertarian, and anti-political philosophy and economic theory that seeks to abolish centralized states in favor of stateless societies with systems of private property enforced by private agencies, the non-aggression principle, free markets and the right-libertarian interpretation of self-ownership, which extends the concept to include control of private property as part of the self.

Libertarian socialism, also referred to as anarcho-socialism, anarchist socialism, free socialism, stateless socialism, socialist anarchism and socialist libertarianism, is a set of anti-authoritarian, anti-statist and libertarian political philosophies within the socialist movement which rejects the conception of socialism as a form where the state retains centralized control of the economy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
43,395 Posts
@GunMonkeyIntl You are confusing Anarcho-capitalism, a type of Individualist voluntaryism and Anarcho-socialism, an oxymoron fantasy.
Can you and I play 20 questions. I'd like to understand the mindset of the system you advocate?

Question #1 - Would there be such a thing as a national (Army, Navy, etc., as we know it today) defense force in your world?
 

·
I love boobies
Joined
·
828 Posts
Discussion Starter · #56 ·

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,172 Posts
Marxism and anarchy are adjacent ends of a circular spectrum in the same way that communism and fascism are. Left to their ultimate devices, they both end up in the same place.
@GunMonkeyIntl You are confusing Anarcho-capitalism, a type of Individualist voluntaryism and Anarcho-socialism, an oxymoron fantasy.
No, I’m not.

If one draws a circular spectrum, with Marxism on one side and anarcho-capitalism on the other, they appear to be very different on the diametric opposition. On one side, the individual has no rights, with everything being doled out with theoretical equity. On the other side, the individual is free to do whatever they like with results playing out according to free inputs and outputs.

Taken to their logical, only possible, outcome, though, they become exactly the same thing. He who is strongest has whatever he wants, and everyone else has only what that strongest member decides he can do without and leaves for them.

In anarcho-capitalism, so-called justice is doled out according to the means of the one seeking justice. His right to property is only guaranteed by his ability to defend it. He who gathers the most wealth, therefore, has not only more property, but a stronger right to keep that property.

The first half of that is as it should be, and that’s because the right to property is one of the sacred rights. It doesn’t matter how wealthy or poor you are, or how strong or weak you are. Everyone’s right to their property is equal.

That’s how the rule of law tempers capitalism. Gather what you will, the accumulation of wealth and power should not weaken the claims that the less wealthy have to their property. Our system of law, flawed as it is, gives the weak a vehicle for fair recourse against the powerful.

Government is a risky contract to sign, but there has to be some minimum contract in place- with that best contract being the least… but not nothing.
 
41 - 60 of 72 Posts
Top