CCTelander
Member
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2007
- Messages
- 9,173
That's the sales pitch. It's a lie, plain and simple.
There's never been a single example, in all of recorded history, of a government that's lived up to this kind of hype. Never.
What governments are designed for is, in fact, what they actually do. They exist for the simple purpose of stealing from the many for the benefit of an elite few.
Actually, I can. See below.
There's that irrational fear again.
Actually the idea has a very sound basis in both practical experience and philosophy.
It's actually been tried, in real life, in a good number of cities across Europe and in other places. In every single instance where it's been done, the same results have been achieved.
Fewer overall accidents.
Fewer accidents involving fatalities of either drivers or pedestrians.
The accidents that do occur are much less serious.
Traffic flows more smoothly and efficiently, and people get to where they're going safely and more quickly.
As the British guy said in the Stossel video posted earlier, as long as the general driving population is informed right up front that they are expected to be responsible for their actions while driving, things have so far always gone extremely well. That's because people always tend to live up to the expectations placed upon them.
I won't bother citing the various studies and real life experiences that support the whole concept since I don't really expect facts to have much impact on the irrational fear that's being displayed by some in this thread. Being irrational, it's beyond the ability of reason to influence it.
As far as the philosophical merits, see AED's post to which I originally replied, and below.
Again, that's the sales pitch. It's simply not true.
Originally, that may even have been the intent. The fact remains that it doesn't deliver on the promise.
Nowadays, the reason for traffic laws has nothing whatever to do with public safety. They exist for the sole purpose of generating revenue, of stealing from the masses for the benefit of that elite few I mentioned above.
And, if they actually cause a damage, they most certainly should make restitution.
But punishing the many for the irresponsible actions of a few is not only counterproductive, it's flat out immoral.
What is this, Kindergarten? “All right children, Johnny was irresponsible and ran too fast and didn't pay attention to where he was going and fell down and hurt Suzie, so no one is allowed to run anymore.”
That's one of the problems with socialistic measures of all types. They always seek to infantilize the people affected by them.
Well I, for one, am not an infant. I refuse to be held responsible for the irresponsible actions of others, under any circumstances.
Whether that means being prevented from buying a gun, getting fleeced by a government thug because I was driving at a speed greater than some arbitrary limit or facing the prospect of being thrown in a cage and having my property stolen because I happened to have a couple of glasses of wine with dinner makes absolutely no difference in principle. It's all prior restraint and it's all wrong. Period.
If you want to deal with irresponsible people, deal with irresponsible people, SPECIFICALLY. Don't arbitrarily include myself or the vast majority of other people who are NOT irresponsible in your schemes.
You're relying on the exact same arguments that victim disarmament advocates use to try to ban guns. See AED's previous post for more on that.
Yes, because tyranny at the state level is so much more tolerable than tyranny at the federal level.
This is one of the major flaws in the “state's rights” position, and the CONstitution itself.
Tyranny at ANY level is evil. I'm not interested in trading federal tyranny for the state variety.
See above.
I see. So, because the idea is beyond your personal experience, and you're personally not well-informed on the subject, it's simply to be dismissed out of hand? Ridiculous.
Do some research on the subject. Inform yourself. Then maybe you'll be capable of making a rational decision.
