I'm sorry but Ron Paul "c@n't" win

[Carehn]

 

[Sweman]

Do I have to see this thread title everyday? Change it now.

 

[limequat]

You do not have the right to infringe on the rights of others.

And what right is infringed by speeding?

Speeding is dangerous as proven by science, and by doing so you put others at risk.

You know what else is dangerous? Driving. Carrying guns. Swimming pools.
The entire concept of creating laws to minimize risk is antithetical to liberty. I shouldn't have to explain this on this forum.

I'm glad you support Ron Paul and we probably agree on many things. We owe it to ourselves to quarrel over those things we don't agree on. I think we agree Ron Paul would bring the power of freedom back to the mind of the USA and the world. I am excited that he seems to be gaining some traction and hope he does become a legitimate candidate.

Cheers.

 

[jds8288]

And what right is infringed by speeding?

If you are driving recklessly (excessive speeding is driving recklessly) you are making the roadway more dangerous for others (and yourself but that's your decision of course). If we could for a moment, model this as a business, we are all "customers" of the roadway. Obviously customers want to be secure/safe. They don't want to have other customers infringing on their safety. Hence the legitimate need for rules (do not do things that will put the other customers at risk) and enforcement of these rules (you want to be a rouge and create an unsafe environment for the other customers? Here's a fine. Don't do it again).

I understand that we're all narcissists when it comes to driving. I am too. But you must think of others.

Let me say that I like ignoring speed limits to a certain extent as much as the next guy. And if it's at night in a rural area and you're the only person around (ergo you can't affect the safety of others because there is nobody else) and you want to be a dumbass and drive 125 mph and risk misjudging a curve or hitting a deer, I see nothing wrong with that.

In rural Montana I think it makes sense to have no particular speed limit because you're usually the only car around you anyway. In Chicago you need traffic rules to help keep order and protect the safety of Other People.

 

[asurfaholic]

I know the thread has been derailed and everything. But I had to comment that the OP has a great point. I have often considered what people mean when they say Ron Paul Cant get elected. Its not so much that he isn't capable of winning the hearts of america - the problem is that he is a threat to everything that is wrong in this country. That makes him a scary prospect. Ron Paul CANT win, then the too big to fail banksters will lose. You can't make bad investments day in and day out and never eat the dirt.

Back to the bickering of whether or not the roads cry ouch if someone goes to fast on them....

 

[limequat]

If you are driving recklessly (excessive speeding is driving recklessly)

Did you ignore my prior post? Driving is inherently dangerous, as is almost anything else worth doing. You have no right to safety. You have no right to security. Need I raise that oft-used Franklin quote? I'm astounded that there are people on this board that would argue for safety over liberty.

I know the thread has been derailed and everything. But I had to comment that the OP has a great point. I have often considered what people mean when they say Ron Paul Cant get elected. Its not so much that he isn't capable of winning the hearts of america - the problem is that he is a threat to everything that is wrong in this country. That makes him a scary prospect. Ron Paul CANT win, then the too big to fail banksters will lose. You can't make bad investments day in and day out and never eat the dirt.

Back to the bickering of whether or not the roads cry ouch if someone goes to fast on them....

Lol, thanks.

 

[Shane Harris]

security shouldnt supercede liberty i agree but are you saying we shouldnt have a police force at all? the government ought to enforce its laws and protect our liberties. i think that you have a right to your life, and it is partially the role of government to protect your life if someone tries to or does take that right away from you. right? if someone is tryign to kill you doesnt the government have an obligation to intervene? or is it every man for himself in the most literal sense? anarchism is not libertarianism. the founders were not anarchists.

in other words cant our right to life be seen as a right to basic safety in some way? i am NOT arguing for a police state or whatever, just myself curious as to the role of government in this area.

 

[jds8288]

Did you ignore my prior post? Driving is inherently dangerous, as is almost anything else worth doing. You have no right to safety. You have no right to security. Need I raise that oft-used Franklin quote? I'm astounded that there are people on this board that would argue for safety over liberty.

Of course it's very dangerous. And of course liberty says you should be able to do anything reasonable as long as it doesn't inflict bad things on others.

The point is it doesn't sound like you're thinking of the other "customers"

What I'm hearing is: "Man, I own this road just as much as anybody else and I'm gonna use it however the hell I feel like."

What I expect is:"Oh, there are other people doing this too. I should do my part to make sure my actions help ensure a good experience for others too."

Liberty, as I'm sure you know, is about being free to make win-win decisions without someone hanging over your head saying "thou shalt..." Mutual respect is a fundamental part. I'd say rules are for the rouges who choose not to be respectful customers.

It could also be said "my house my rules" where the house is any entity that owns a road.

 

[osan]

If you are driving recklessly (excessive speeding is driving recklessly) you are making the roadway more dangerous for others

Statistically, probably true. In any given case,however, one cannot likely make quite so certain a declaration. A question that arises, then, is whether one set of population can legitimately dictate to the rest how they may behave based on a statistical statement. I would contend that they cannot.

But you must think of others.

Actually, one does not. I am free to arm up, go to town, and shoot anyone I please. Others are also free to hold me accountable.

Written law means nothing, in and of itself.

In rural Montana I think it makes sense to have no particular speed limit because you're usually the only car around you anyway. In Chicago you need traffic rules to help keep order and protect the safety of Other People.

I strongly disagree. Differences in degree (population in this case) does not dictate rules. This is a commonly applied fallacy of the "liberal" to justify tyrannical governance of people who are inherently free beings.

I will contend that having no such rules, while holding people strictly accountable for the results of their choices, is far and away the superior way of governing because it governs ONLY those who fail to govern themselves. If I drive 100 mph down the road and bring harm to nobody, I should suffer no punishment. One ought not be punished for "almost" harming someone. This method, which is in common use worldwide, is idiotic on its face.

For example, if a mugger jumps at me with a knife and I respond with two gunshots, the first of which misses and narrowly misses an innocent bystander, while the second kills the mugger, there are some prosecutors who would press charges against me for "reckless endangerment". But what if I missed not by 2 inches but 2 feet? 2 yards? 20 yards? Where is the line between "reckless endangerment" and not? Justice should not be subject to the arbitrary, but rather solidly in real world events. That is why I feel the US "government" went way off the rails when so-called "conspiracy" laws were passed. If two guys get together to plan a bank robbery but choose not to execute, where is the crime? Declaring "conspiracy" a crime does not make it one. Unless harm can be concretely established, no crime has occurred. Why are we putting people into prison for "conspiracy"? It is not a crime.

What we need is to respond to results, which is to say, actual crime. Prosecuting "almost" makes no sense whatsoever because it is wholly arbitrary and therefore cannot be trusted. Law should be small, simple, and intuitively obvious in its service to people and to the cause of justice. As we know it today, law is anything but that.

 

[owlbug]

And what right is infringed by speeding?

I and a majority of road users want the road to be reasonably safe. The value of the road is reduced if we do not impose repurcussions for driving recklessly. We who wish to commute safely will impose this as a society and because we are the majority you will be held accountable. That is an inconvenience of society and if you don't like it start your own.

It is also very inconvenient for those of us who must clear the road even when you just kill yourself driving like a fool. You inconvenience the motoring public by blocking the road with your dumb bloody carcass.

You know what else is dangerous? Driving. Carrying guns. Swimming pools.

You have more freedom in your own swimming pool than in a community swimming pool. If you swim with reckless abandon and capsize infants and weaklings, I support someone getting slap happy with your dumb ass.

The entire concept of creating laws to minimize risk is antithetical to liberty. I shouldn't have to explain this on this forum.

Truly, I desire only the most reasonable of driving regulations and am always open to more reasonable guidelines. Our current society is fairly reasonable when it comes to these guidelines, and while we do have to contend with the unneccesary inforcement of some arbitrary guidelines, in all our freedom is reasonably maintained. As a member of society, some freedoms must be reduced. We must always strive to minimize that reduction, but you are mostly free in this country to start a commune to minimize that reduction even further.

That's not to say that there aren't areas where our freedom isn't overly impinged upon. It is our responsibility to ourselves, our families, and our society to fight and minimize the reduction of our freedom, but it is not reasonable to expect zero reduction. We live in a finite, imperfect world where there exists friction, immorality, and social obligations. Short of reclusive living, the only unfettered domicile of freedom is in one's mind.

 

[raiha]

Your right about ownership. Might makes Right.

By that same principal: I don't respect or adhere to laws that I do not agree with or that are not in my personal intrests.

In other words: I only respect the speed limit when I feel it is wise to, or when I feel like it, or when a cop is in visible sight.

I have never been in a car accident.

Maybe you have been lucky. I'm a good driver too but have had some close speeding calls which i am not proud of.
I think we are moving into the realm of ethics...natural morality v. conventional morality. Trouble is we often think we know best and oftentimes we don't.
What happens when you are going fast and turn the corner to meet a mob of sheep? (Real ones that is!)

 

[jds8288]

Actually, one does not. I am free to arm up, go to town, and shoot anyone I please. Others are also free to hold me accountable.

I disagree. The purpose of freedom and liberty is to be able to do things on your own terms as long as you: do all you've agreed to do and do not infringe on the rights of others. This is good, of course. It does NOT allow you to be UNCIVILIZED. If you are not civilized you are the rouge to be dealt with by the consequences of society.


This is an excellent reason, if not THE reason, for why rules exist (at least "societal rules"). So we don't have to go and spend the time and effort to decide what's civilized and what's Not civilized (harming others) every single time it's not clear. Living in the confines of civil behavior does not mean you are living in a tyranny.

This is why when you say

I will contend that having no such rules, while holding people strictly accountable for the results of their choices, is far and away the superior way of governing because it governs ONLY those who fail to govern themselves.

I agree. However, the rules we've been talking about are for people who: don't "govern themselves", don't have a moral sense of direction and don't have a sense of civil behavior.
And it certainly makes sense to have rules and consequences defined so we can have some consistency and efficiency when dealing with the "misbehaving parties".

 

[tangent4ronpaul]

Remember to Be Wise About Thread Titles...

Ummmm... well, I did do the "Ron Paul hates puppies" thread..... but yeah - I gave this poster -rep for their post.

 

[cdc482]

If Ron Paul wins...

How will we maintain the military industrial complex?
How will we fund record spending through the Federal Reserve?
How will continue the brick-by-brick building of the police state?
How will we maintain the status quo, uphold the establishment?

Ron Paul c@n't win!


I just realized I've been hearing it wrong all this time. They're not saying that RP is incapable of winning. They're saying the prospect is so terrifying, that it can't even be considered. It's not allowed. Like a cop telling you that you can't speed. Or you can't smoke marijuana.

Well, you goddamned, bottom feeding, mindless wastes of flesh... you can't tell me how fast to drive, what to put in my body, or what to think. I drove 85 mph on the way to work today and you don't even want to know what I'm thinking now.

Ron Paul has won, is winning, and will continue to win. RPFTW.

Ummm...speeding isn't something you should be complaining about. Those laws are there to protect others. Not you.

 

[acptulsa]

What happens when you are going fast and turn the corner to meet a mob of sheep? (Real ones that is!)

lulz.

Um, we really don't run into that problem much (excuse the pun). One of these days we're going to have to introduce y'all to the wonders of cattle guards and barbed wire. Very civilized stuff, that...

 

[osan]

Actually, one does not. I am free to arm up, go to town, and shoot anyone I please. Others are also free to hold me accountable.

I disagree. The purpose of freedom and liberty is to be able to do things on your own terms as long as you: do all you've agreed to do and do not infringe on the rights of others. This is good, of course. It does NOT allow you to be UNCIVILIZED. If you are not civilized you are the rouge to be dealt with by the consequences of society.

Agreed. I used "free" incorrectly here - pardon me please. I meant to say that I am able to do such a thing precisely because I am free. I can act up to the point I commit a criminal act. Prior to that, I am not subject to governance of any form from any source. Any such prior restraint is inherently immoral. There is, however, the grayish area of perceived danger. If I walk aggressively toward you with a knife, you are probably well within reason to conclude a clear and present danger exists and kick my ass. Lesson there: be careful how you proceed through your day because carelessness in demeanor may be reasonably taken as a physical threat.

This is an excellent reason, if not THE reason, for why rules exist (at least "societal rules"). So we don't have to go and spend the time and effort to decide what's civilized and what's Not civilized (harming others) every single time it's not clear.

Fair enough, but this is not the central issue. What is of concern here is the precise makeup of those rules. There is really only one rule by which crime predicates: whether anyone been harmed. As for time and effort - that is precisely what is required every time because someone's freedom hangs in the balance and that must never be treated lightly.

Living in the confines of civil behavior does not mean you are living in a tyranny.

Completely agreed.

I agree. However, the rules we've been talking about are for people who: don't "govern themselves",

In some cases yes, in most, no. There are hundreds of thousands of laws on the books that are completely arbitrary, seek to control and punish non-criminal acts, and thereby attempt to govern those upon whom such governance cannot be justified. Drug laws, as well as those prohibiting prostitution are two prime examples of this sort of arbitrary regulation by which no man is morally bound yet by which he must abide under a threat of physical violence.

I see the disconnect here was my failure to clearly articulate the difference between legitimate and illegitimate rules. Rules based in fundamental principles are valid. The rest is bull-knocky.

 

[brushfire]

The title of this thread does suck...