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

[Rael]

We have freedom of religion in this country and bright colors run contrary to their religion.

So what? If your religion calls for female circumcision I suppose we should allow that too.

Your rights for religious freedom end when they begin to violate the rights of others.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

So what? If your religion calls for female circumcision I suppose we should allow that too.

Your rights for religious freedom end when they begin to violate the rights of others.

What's your point? These folks aren't violating your rights by refusing to be strong-armed by the jack-boots.

 

[Revolution9]

So what? If your religion calls for female circumcision I suppose we should allow that too.

Your rights for religious freedom end when they begin to violate the rights of others.

Apparently the state religion mandates fire orange illuminati sigil amulets. No other warning will do. Reject their belief this makes you safe and you fall foul of their statute and must sit in a cell and are charged and they want current-see.. An electronic set-up or something else like time banditing based on circuits.. How religiously fundamental is that? They even have the ghawd in the batwing robe to do the dirty deed of acting at the altar of judgement and bringing punishment from on high..like they have the right to impersonate or speak in judgement for such..heh

Rev9

 

[AFPVet]

So the Amish gave the Judge a certainly reasonable alternative, yet the Judge ruled against them?

 

[Pericles]

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....

That would be my guess - have yet to see a buggy on an Interstate highway.

 

[XNavyNuke]

So what? If your religion calls for female circumcision I suppose we should allow that too.

Your rights for religious freedom end when they begin to violate the rights of others.

Admittedly, I am no legal scholar. I know where to find the "Right" to the free exercise of religion clause, I'm not aware of where to go look for the free exercise of motor vehicles. Indeed the State would have a much stronger legal position if they were to adopt statutory language to limit speed limits on rural highways to 10 miles per hour, as this would decrease collisions between automobiles and both farm equipment and buggies.

Red herring taste best pickled. Maybe horseback riders and bicyclists on rural roads should be required to display metalized reflective orange triangles of the same size too.

XNN

 

[Vessol]

So what? If your religion calls for female circumcision I suppose we should allow that too.

Your rights for religious freedom end when they begin to violate the rights of others.

Except that female(and male) circumcision is the initiation of force against someone else(in this case, removing a body part that does not grow back).

However, me driving a buggy without some orange crap on it is not violating the rights of others nor is it initiating force.

Essentially, this whole case takes the same logic as seat belt laws.

 

[Wesker1982]

There's a scary thought.

A private corporation in charge of a vital piece of infrastructure, with limited abilities to create more (and therefore create competition), and the right to make up whatever tyrannical and nonsensical laws it wants while charging whatever fees it wants.

Are you making any distinction between government protected/sponsored corporations, and a genuine free market? If you want the government to provide roads because they are so vital, why not have to government produce food and water?

Nothing but respect TT, but this is an idea I see kicked around quite a bit, and one that I am not fond of at all.

Why are you not fond of a voluntary market? I am not asking why you don't favor government protected private companies, I am asking why you are not fond of voluntary trade.

It was the taking of private land for railroads in the 19th century that turned eminent domain on it's head and directly led to the atrocious Kelo decision.

Who legalized this theft? A private individual or group of individuals using the force of the government to protect their business or steal from people, resembles nothing of what happens in voluntary markets. Without government protection, businesses on the free market fail or succeed depending on the level of satisfaction they provide to the consumers.

And if corporate America today is any indication, privately owned roads would cost a dollar a mile, you could never exceed 25 MPH, and you and your passengers would be required to wear helmets, safety goggles, safety shoes, and be fully swaddled in bubble wrap and duct tape.

This would only be possible if the road owners used the government to impose a monopoly.

Who would buy a house or build a business with no road access? And who would frequent a business or buy a home where the rules for road use are undesirable? Maybe a few crazies, but without a government protected monopoly, the people who desire roads without stupid laws would have their desires fulfilled by other road owners, etc.

Again, if you want the government to monopolize roads, why not food production, etc? Why advocate a free market at all?

 

[oyarde]

So the Amish gave the Judge a certainly reasonable alternative, yet the Judge ruled against them?

In Ontario , the reflective tape ( any type / color) that can be seen for 150 meters . Looks like the Ohio code has an alternative reflective matl. Best I can tell , the Indiana code only requires the emblem on highways . Want to see something really crazy ? Check out chapter 165 slow moving vehicle emblem , Pennsylvania . It has specs / minimum requirements that you would expect to see in a new multi billion dollar military weapons system for an orange sign.

 

[roho76]

I'd like to know what their alternative proposal is. Speaking as a person who's almost hit a buggy at night in a snowstorm.

Slow down and use your headlights. There is no excuse for hitting anything with your car if you have control of it and the only way to loose control of your car is if it breaks and you loose control (which no orange sign can stop) or your driving irresponsibly (which no orange sign can stop). Either way orange signs do nothing except cost people time and money to maintain compliance.

 

[Xenophage]

The Amish are a fairly easy group to make fun of on an internet message board

My question is, what the hell do they have against electricity?

 

[00_Pete]

The Amish are a fairly easy group to make fun of on an internet message board

My question is, what the hell do they have against electricity?

If the "Final Battle" happens and Civilization goes back to the Stone Age you will feel like a complete ass for asking that question...the Amish will be OK and laughing at the loudmouths that were previously laughing at them.

 

[Rael]

If the "Final Battle" happens and Civilization goes back to the Stone Age you will feel like a complete ass for asking that question...the Amish will be OK and laughing at the loudmouths that were previously laughing at them.

In the meantime, I will continue to laugh at them while playing video games in my air conditioned house.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Who legalized this theft? A private individual or group of individuals using the force of the government to protect their business or steal from people, resembles nothing of what happens in voluntary markets. Without government protection, businesses on the free market fail or succeed depending on the level of satisfaction they provide to the consumers.

This would only be possible if the road owners used the government to impose a monopoly.

Who would buy a house or build a business with no road access? And who would frequent a business or buy a home where the rules for road use are undesirable? Maybe a few crazies, but without a government protected monopoly, the people who desire roads without stupid laws would have their desires fulfilled by other road owners, etc.

Sadly, the power to steal property owners land for such projects as roads, canals, bridges, rail lines and so forth are the only way they can be built within any sort of reasonable budget.

The costs involved in building a road, bridge, canal, or rail line by buying up the property of every person along the route, or moving it every time someone refuses to sell, would make it so costly that nobody would ever build such a thing. That's why the railroads used the power of government to kick people off their lands in the 19th century.

That is not the case with any other business.

That is why the Bill of Rights specifically addresses this, why the Anti Federalists wrote it into the Fifth Amendment, that private property can only be taken for public use, never for private gain.

 

[Wesker1982]

Sadly, the power to steal property owners land for such projects as roads, canals, bridges, rail lines and so forth are the only way they can be built within any sort of reasonable budget.

First, the "power to steal" is power granted by the government, this is not a result of voluntary exchanges. Second, no one can know what a "reasonable budget" or price is when something is monopolized. Something tells me that when the government builds a highway, because of its monopolistic nature, it does not do it in the most cost effective and profitable manner. The voluntary market, with competition and profit, would do a much better job providing roads than a coercive monopoly.

The calculation problem also applies to road socialism.

The costs involved in building a road, bridge, canal, or rail line by buying up the property of every person along the route, or moving it every time someone refuses to sell, would make it so costly that nobody would ever build such a thing.

Again, without market prices, there is no rational way to calculate costs. It is impossible to predict what the market price would be, but it would certainly be lower than a price set by a monopoly. Competition between property owners would lower costs, etc.

Walter Block refutes these objections in more detail here: Chapter 12

That is why the Bill of Rights specifically addresses this, why the Anti Federalists wrote it into the Fifth Amendment, that private property can only be taken for public use, never for private gain.

Tyranny by majority is still tyranny.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Are you honestly trying to tell me that the market will deliver 20 or 30 highways to choose from, each with their own set of safety standards, costs, and speed limits that will not have to rely on government coercion to throw people in the way of the road off their land?

When the market cannot deliver on a TV that meets my specifications?

The tyranny of the majority is the market. It is nothing if not 100 percent purely democratic.

I am all about maximum individual liberty. I am not "anti" market.

However I realize, and just a cursory reading of history will make anybody else realize, that an oligarchy of corporate interests can tyrannize a population just as quickly and just as effectively as a government can.

One is bad, so is the other.

We are now living in the worst of both worlds, where we suffer under both, working in an unholy alliance against the people.

There is a name for that type of economic system, it's called fascism.

First, the "power to steal" is power granted by the government, this is not a result of voluntary exchanges. Second, no one can know what a "reasonable budget" or price is when something is monopolized. Something tells me that when the government builds a highway, because of its monopolistic nature, it does not do it in the most cost effective and profitable manner. The voluntary market, with competition and profit, would do a much better job providing roads than a coercive monopoly.

The calculation problem also applies to road socialism.




Again, without market prices, there is no rational way to calculate costs. It is impossible to predict what the market price would be, but it would certainly be lower than a price set by a monopoly. Competition between property owners would lower costs, etc.

Walter Block refutes these objections in more detail here: Chapter 12



Tyranny by majority is still tyranny.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Are you honestly trying to tell me that the market will deliver 20 or 30 highways to choose from, each with their own set of safety standards, costs, and speed limits that will not have to rely on government coercion to throw people in the way of the road off their land?

Private companies already negotiate right-of-ways with land owners all over the country. Power lines, gas transmission lines, well sites, turbine sites and access roads... I don't see any reason a company could not negotiate right-of-ways for roads, as well.

We can't assume that what the free market would deliver would be the same product that governments deliver. It may not be that what it wanted and needed would be these massive interstate highways. Keep in mind that these routes, while in many ways convenient, also were intended to be able to move the military of a global superpower around the country, and were made necessary by the advent and eventual subsidization of low end-cost petroleum products.

When the market cannot deliver on a TV that meets my specifications?

Go into either the road or TV business, then, and make one that does meet your standards. But seriously, that IS the beauty of free and competitive markets.

The tyranny of the majority is the market. It is nothing if not 100 percent purely democratic.

Except the market doesn't enjoy the socially-sanctioned monopoly on force.

I am all about maximum individual liberty. I am not "anti" market.

However I realize, and just a cursory reading of history will make anybody else realize, that an oligarchy of corporate interests can tyrannize a population just as quickly and just as effectively as a government can.

One is bad, so is the other.

We are now living in the worst of both worlds, where we suffer under both, working in an unholy alliance against the people.

There is a name for that type of economic system, it's called fascism.

:thumbs:

 

[00_Pete]

In the meantime, I will continue to laugh at them while playing video games in my air conditioned house.

They don't want your video games and AC unit...so why should you care? Ohhh i know, media/entertainment "told" you to pick on them.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

In the meantime, I will continue to laugh at them while playing video games in my air conditioned house.

Right. You laugh at them as you're sitting in front of your television playing make believe, while they're actually out in the world living life like a real human being should.

I ain't you, and I ain't them. But if I'm laughing at anyone, it's you.

 

[Revolution9]

The Amish are a fairly easy group to make fun of on an internet message board

My question is, what the hell do they have against electricity?

Polarity.

HTH
Rev9