Amish Men Jailed After Refusing To Pay Fines For Not Installing Safety Signs On Buggies

[speciallyblend]

they should require all deer to have safety lights!!

 

[quezkittel]

Guys arguing for no regulations: Should 4 year olds be allowed to drive? Should 10 year olds? How about really really intoxicated people, or for that matter intoxicated animals trained to drive cars?

Roads are one of the few things that local governments *should* be allowed to regulate- they/we built the things, so they/we can regulate them as they/we see fit. We live in a republic, that's how these issues work. If the legal intoxication limit seems too low, people argue against it and it can be changed in the state legislature. It's about as close to perfect governance as we can get, but over and underreactions to danger will always happen. Exactly how much risk people should be allowed to take is a matter for local bodies who actually built and maintain the roads.

If this is really risky (I've lived in an area with buggies as well- crashes do happen and are sometimes tragic), local government should decide appropriate steps about who and what they will allow on the roads. If we study it and see that the regulation isn't useful enough, we should talk to our representatives!

The only way to avoid this is to privatize infrastructure, which I do not see happening anytime soon.

 

[Revolution9]

Really? What do you think should happen to them?

Nothing. No lights on a boat seems trivial. I live by lake Blue Ridge and it wouldn't mean a damned thing one way or another here.

Rev9

 

[Revolution9]

And, you can't see them even with high beams, especially in a snowstorm. They have a responsibility as much as I do.

Let's examine this knee jerk statement. Buggies would be use county roads and not highways most probably. High beams in good weather can give you up to a half mile of visibility ahead of you. In a snowstorm this can be cut excessively. The rule of thumb I was taught was if following a car give a count of three to pass where the car in front just passed to allow enough room to brake. In foul weather give a five count for the area of least visibility to pass you to give enough time to stop. If you are exceeding these you probably are not driving safe and if you plowed into the back of a buggy you didn't see I would assume it was your fault for not dealing properly with the safety conditions and the weather at the time. I have come across buggies. They are easy to spot.

Rev9

 

[Dr.3D]

I know I don't want some dead Amish person coming through my windshield. If you ever saw what happens to a car when it hits a horse, you would understand why all vehicles need some kind of reflector or light.

 

[AGRP]

I was thinking about this the other day:

Its quite interesting how were legally required to do certain things when driving such as use a turn signal when the golden rule is to be a "defensive driver." Using a turn signal is an offensive act.

 

[Vessol]

I know I don't want some dead Amish person coming through my windshield. If you ever saw what happens to a car when it hits a horse, you would understand why all vehicles need some kind of reflector or light.

Yes. But would you rather prefer pointing a gun and threatening the Amish person to put such a thing on his car? Because, as I state for the umpteenth time, that is what it comes down to.

If you threaten to fine them for not putting reflectors on their buggys or w/e, then there must be some consequence for not paying the fine, otherwise no one would pay the fine.

And what happens if someone does not pay the fine? Most likely, they will be arrested. And if they resist arrest, they will be injured or even possibly killed.

 

[Dr.3D]

Yep, everybody should be able to do anything they want and if it kills somebody, it was good, because they were doing their own thing.

 

[Vessol]

Yep, everybody should be able to do anything they want and if it kills somebody, it was good, because they were doing their own thing.

So you are saying that you agree with using violence and coercion against the Amish in order to make them comply?

 

[AGRP]

So you are saying that you agree with using violence and coercion against the Amish in order to make them comply?

Good to see the the trend of murder by the state in debates

It's so much easier and effective to debate in person with it as well!

 

[Dr.3D]

So you are saying that you agree with using violence and coercion against the Amish in order to make them comply?

Sure! It's either that, or they not be allowed to drive an unlighted vehicle on the road.

Are you saying everybody should be able to drive on the road and keep their lights off?

 

[TexMac]

Arguments on a libertarian board always devolve into this kind of meaningless standoff. You always have a faction that gets all sef-righteous about applying libertarian theory to a problem that's obviously caused by the state. This problem is not solvable with libertarian principles because the roads are public and built and run by the state.

If I owned those roads, those buggies would be lit up like Christmas trees. If they didn't like it, they could stay the hell off my road.

As it is, I'd like to know what the hell makes them so special that we all have to creep around watching for them so they can drive all black buggies around whenever they want. Oh, yeah, we can all go 10 mph, so their religious sensibilities aren't offended.

 

[Revolution9]

If I owned those roads, those buggies would be lit up like Christmas trees. If they didn't like it, they could stay the hell off my road.

As it is, I'd like to know what the hell makes them so special that we all have to creep around watching for them so they can drive all black buggies around whenever they want. Oh, yeah, we can all go 10 mph, so their religious sensibilities aren't offended.

First error is the idea they are your roads and the Amish do not have a similar ownership in it. The second mistake is assuming the right to travel to be a privelege. It is not. It is a natural right. Third is that neither the buggy nor horse are state property as a motorized vehicle is. Fourth is that they stand firmly on religious principle as is their right in this case. Fifth is the strawman scenario painted wherein because a buggy may be out on a road somewhere we have to proceed at ten miles an hour. This is bogus and you know it. There may be a car with a blown gasket and shorted taillights around the bend too..or a two car pile-up..or a tree fallen across the road...if ya want to push scenarios. You gonna drive your ass into those too?

Rev9

 

[TexMac]

Nice game, twist my words. I said IF the road was MINE.

Since when is a motorized vehicle state property? And if a motorized vehicle is state property - your words- why isn't a buggy?


Natural accidents are unpreventable, black buggies at night are out there by human intention. They have their kids in there, too. Often it's kids that are driving them.

Did you ever wonder what they do when they want to go somewhere out of horse and buggy range?

Anyway, yeah, you the baddest libertarian ever sticking up for buggies on roads no matter what.

 

[Revolution9]

Nice game, twist my words. I said IF the road was MINE.

Since when is a motorized vehicle state property? And if a motorized vehicle is state property - your words- why isn't a buggy?


Natural accidents are unpreventable, black buggies at night are out there by human intention. They have their kids in there, too. Often it's kids that are driving them.

Did you ever wonder what they do when they want to go somewhere out of horse and buggy range?

Anyway, yeah, you the baddest libertarian ever sticking up for buggies on roads no matter what.

Yer a heap and a half of bluster. I ain't libertarian. So now yer trying to tell me that black buggies navigate at night in areas of total darkness..no street lamps or whatever? I don't believe it. I live in the country and you can't see your hand in front of you face most nights. As for your motor vehicle belonging to the state..Yes..you have a title to it but it is registered to the state. Their buggy may have been built by themselves and is not a motor conveyance but an ancient form of horse powered transportation whose right on the roads of the world supercedes your motored conveyance by at least several thousand years. As well their religious rights extend back into the mists of time..yet you, with your modern man hubris think that your arrogance will suffice when making such arguments against these ancient rights, and not only turn them into priveleges under statute and liable to force to comply with, but to act as though their existence is a very grievous annoyance in your life. The way they think is that they are under the divine protection of their maker and need no man made idols or sigils to protect them. The triangle in audacious orange is a magickal talisman to them and apparently to you too. You think somehow this can avert fate. Can it really?

Rev9

 

[fj45lvr]

I bet most the accidents associated with the buggies are impatient people that do reckless stuff trying to pass them!! but I could be wrong....

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Really? What do you think should happen to them?

Nothing should "happen" to them.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Guys arguing for no regulations: Should 4 year olds be allowed to drive? Should 10 year olds? How about really really intoxicated people, or for that matter intoxicated animals trained to drive cars?

What sane person would allow their 4 year old to drive? Is there a sub-current of parents out there who are just longing for the day when the under-16 prohibition on driving is gone so they can set their toddlers loose on the highways? Do you really think that the law is what keeps 4 year olds off the roads?

Really intoxicated people already do drive.

As far as I know, none of the indigeonous animal species of North America have evolved opposable thumbs, so I think we are safe on both the intoxicated point, and the driving point.

Roads are one of the few things that local governments *should* be allowed to regulate- they/we built the things, so they/we can regulate them as they/we see fit. We live in a republic, that's how these issues work. If the legal intoxication limit seems too low, people argue against it and it can be changed in the state legislature. It's about as close to perfect governance as we can get, but over and underreactions to danger will always happen. Exactly how much risk people should be allowed to take is a matter for local bodies who actually built and maintain the roads.

In this discussion, I'm highlighting the danger and folly of regulation, since it is somehow missed by those who have no problem with Amishmen being thrown in prison for refusing to adorn their buggies with state-sanctioned paraphrenalia.

If this is really risky (I've lived in an area with buggies as well- crashes do happen and are sometimes tragic), local government should decide appropriate steps about who and what they will allow on the roads. If we study it and see that the regulation isn't useful enough, we should talk to our representatives!

My neighbors are Amish, and accidents do happen. Auto-to-auto accidents also happen all the time, far more frequently, in fact.

Again, you cannot legislate danger away. At some point - and I think throwing Amishmen into cages is well after that point - you stop protecting people and start oppressing them.

 

[Kludge]

Assuming I didn't miss it being said, why hasn't anyone brought up the most brightly glaring problem with legislating against the Amish? They don't care about your laws. They won't abide by your laws. They'll resist penalization. They won't pay fees. They'll need to be dragged to jail, just like those in the OP.

That's right -- some people just don't give a fuck about your government, and there's nothing you can do about it except kidnap & detain, or execute. The illegal immigrants don't care, the drug cartels don't care, the Amish don't care, and the tax evaders don't care.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Arguments on a libertarian board always devolve into this kind of meaningless standoff. You always have a faction that gets all sef-righteous about applying libertarian theory to a problem that's obviously caused by the state. This problem is not solvable with libertarian principles because the roads are public and built and run by the state.

I just responded to a post wherein the member asked the question, "should 4 year olds be allowed to drive?" Yeah, there's definitely some meaningless - and absurd - things being said.

As it is, I'd like to know what the hell makes them so special that we all have to creep around watching for them so they can drive all black buggies around whenever they want. Oh, yeah, we can all go 10 mph, so their religious sensibilities aren't offended.

Their religious sensibilities are to be respected, as are everyone else's.

What makes them "so special" is that they are not living their life just like you, driving in a nice, safe, government-regulated automobile. This seems to make you so inexplicably mad that you want to force them to conform to your standard, and if they don't throw them into a cage.

Driving in Amish country means paying a little extra attention. I have no problem with people who peacefully live different lifestyles than I, and I'm happy to co-exist with them. In fact I GREATLY benefit from having Amish neighbors, and I would never think of advocating they be forced to do something to make my life a little more "convenient".