Law vs Freedom

[Neverfly]

(yes neverfly, i did read through most of them..)

Well presented bit of research.

See? You CAN do it.

I think you are missing the point of laws. We live in a society that produces our great standard of living as opposed to living naked in caves or the trees worried about the next meal or predator looking to make us a meal. But why should I have to put up with you being uninsured if you insist on driving a car?

Because you are justifying control for the sake of safety and security of your OWN.
Yes, our current society offers us to not live in a cave, The problem is that they enforce it, as well. The laws on the books forbid us to live in a cave. Zoning and housing requirements are standard and have been for over 50 years.
I grew up around Mountain Lions. We went most places armed with either a rifle or sidearm and usually had a shotgun in reach for rattlesnakes, as well.
Incidents of "Predators" were low- WE were the "predators."
Only in that "Safe" society you speak of, where people run around unarmed, are "predators" a problem.

This does not make you wrong. It makes you a person of a different desire, different living standard opinion. And for me, that is perfectly fine.
What is NOT Fine, however, is when you push and enforce your living standard opinion onto ME.
If you don't want to protect yourself, fine. Don't demand that I cannot.
If you want the law to tell you that you have to, fine.
But don't demand for laws that tell the rest of us that we Have to. It's our right to choose- we fought for it, won it, will fight to keep it.

If you cause an accident with no insurance and no way to cover your financial responsibility. Where does that leave the injured party and if you are injured, where does that leave the people that care about you? You need to find a way to be insured or continue to be a bad citizen.

Nonsense. Full coverage insurance policy is FULL COVERAGE. Incidentally, the entire insurance laws need to be re-worked. As they are now, while insurance may help in alleviating costs after an accident, they pushed for the very laws that enable them to get out of paying out.
So what good does this almighty insurance do if they don't pay out on claims anyway? Good for lawyers, I suppose, who delved into the booming business of ambulance chasing.
Let's examine customer reviews:
Here's mine- Allstate.
http://www.customerservicescoreboard.com/Allstate
Wow, 97 negative and um...6 positive... Ouch.
Feel free to enter your own insurance company in there and see what you get.
Not only are the insurance companies suckling every last dime they can out of average Knucklehead, they are not just getting away with it- They are protected by the law which enforces their ability to milk us mad.

Laws concerning kids are for their protection. Laws like that don't get passed without a good reason, whether your aware of those reasons or not.

Nor whether you are aware of the reason, but accepted that they were passed "for good reason" at face value, whether they were- or not.

Where does my freedom to do as I want interfere with your freedom not to be victimized? Guess we need a law to resolve that problem don't we?

The fact is, ANY freedom you have can always be claimed to interfere with others.
Any freedom, any choice, any action. All of it. There is not one freedom for any person living in this country that another person cannot justify interferes with the rest of us.

Because of this, laws are constantly being proposed for the books. And there is little to justify not adding them.
After all, what's personal responsibility and personal accountability when there's money to be made?

 

[KilljoyKlown]

Because you are justify control for the sake of safety and security of your OWN.
Yes, our current society offers us to not live in a cave, The problem is that they enforce it, as well. The laws on the books forbid us to live in a cave. Zoning and housing requirements are standard and have been for over 50 years.
I grew up around Mountain Lions. We went most places armed with either a rifle or sidearm and usually had a shotgun in reach for rattlesnakes, as well.
Incidents of "Predators" were low- WE were the "predators."
Only in that "Safe" society you speak of, where people run around unarmed, are "predators" a problem.

How wrong you are. Lot's of people are killed in gun accidents every year, many of them children. There is very little need for the average person to have a gun around. Mostly they don't know how to really use them and anybody else that knows they have a gun may decide to steal it for easy drug money. If you want to live out in the country I have no problem with you having and using a gun. However, people in a city don't have any business having a gun.

This does not make you wrong. It makes you a person of a different desire, different living standard opinion. And for me, that is perfectly fine.
What is NOT Fine, however, is when you push and enforce your living standard opinion onto ME.
If you don't want to protect yourself, fine. Don't demand that I cannot.
If you want the law to tell you that you have to, fine.
But don't demand for laws that tell the rest of us that we Have to. It's our right to choose- we fought for it, won it, will fight to keep it.

Again you are wrong. You are a part of the society that makes laws to live by. If you don't like a law you have the same option as any citizen to change it. Nothing is ever won forever, you have to keep fighting for what you believe in. Influencing others to believe as you do is hard work, and usually feels very thankless for the effort required.

Nonsense. Full coverage insurance policy is FULL COVERAGE. Incidentally, the entire insurance laws need to be re-worked. As they are now, while insurance may help in alleviating costs after an accident, they pushed for the very laws that enable them to get out of paying out.
So what good does this almighty insurance do if they don't pay out on claims anyway? Good for lawyers, I suppose, who delved into the booming business of ambulance chasing.
Let's examine customer reviews:
Here's mine- Allstate.
http://www.customerservicescoreboard.com/Allstate
Wow, 97 negative and um...6 positive... Ouch.
Feel free to enter your own insurance company in there and see what you get.
Not only are the insurance companies suckling every last dime they can out of average Knucklehead, they are not just getting away with it- They are protected by the law which enforces their ability to milk us mad.

I know all about Allstate (somebody has to pay for all that advertizing). I said it before and I'll say it again. The required liability insurance should be paid for at the gas pump or the electric charging station and be based on units of fuel used. Right now I only drive 2000 to 3000 miles per year. Why should my insurance cost as much as someone else driving 20,000 miles a year? Why should my insurance cost more because of uninsured motorist? Paying at the pump solves that problem very nicely.

Nor whether you are aware of the reason, but accepted that they were passed "for good reason" at face value, whether they were- or not.

Sorry I don't have any kids so don't really give it much thought.

The fact is, ANY freedom you have can always be claimed to interfere with others.
Any freedom, any choice, any action. All of it. There is not one freedom for any person living in this country that another person cannot justify interferes with the rest of us.

Because of this, laws are constantly being proposed for the books. And there is little to justify not adding them.
After all, what's personal responsibility and personal accountability when there's money to be made?

I won't disagree with that, because I know that not all laws are good laws. Also, no laws ever get changed without lots of lawbreakers taking their chances.

For instance I'm very opposed to drug lords and dealers making all the money because we have the laws against drugs. I don't disagree that drugs are bad for society, but the laws against them has only made matters a whole lot worse. We can't win that war unless we can take the money out of the equation. More laws against drugs makes more money for the bad guys and more criminals out of good citizens.

 

[Neverfly]

How wrong you are. Lot's of people are killed in gun accidents every year, many of them children. There is very little need for the average person to have a gun around. Mostly they don't know how to really use them and anybody else that knows they have a gun may decide to steal it for easy drug money. If you want to live out in the country I have no problem with you having and using a gun. However, people in a city don't have any business having a gun.

Perhaps YOU do not have any desire nor business to. Perhaps you believe that criminally minded people should not- or inept parents should not.
Belief is not law. And you cannot evade that you are imposing your beliefs, trying to enforce your standards and your desires onto others- for a Life Choice.

Your statement about accidents is a bit absurd. How many children and adults die in vehicle accidents every year? Currently, not only is that figure much, much, much higher than firearms, it's higher than deliberate murders, other accidents and all other transportation accidents combined.
Including children that take over vehicles playing in them. Well, Most families in cities have one or more cars!

The solution you must therefor offer by your logic is: People in cities have no business having a car.

Again you are wrong. You are a part of the society that makes laws to live by. If you don't like a law you have the same option as any citizen to change it. Nothing is ever won forever, you have to keep fighting for what you believe in. Influencing others to believe as you do is hard work, and usually feels very thankless for the effort required.

This is true, to a degree.
My nation was founded on certain concepts lined out in the Constitution of the nation. This premise fundamental to the governing of the nation and without it- the nation no longer is governed by that government.

I know all about Allstate (somebody has to pay for all that advertizing). I said it before and I'll say it again. The required liability insurance should be paid for at the gas pump or the electric charging station and be based on units of fuel used. Right now I only drive 2000 to 3000 miles per year. Why should my insurance cost as much as someone else driving 20,000 miles a year? Why should my insurance cost more because of uninsured motorist? Paying at the pump solves that problem very nicely.

Not a bad idea, really and I'm glad to see you proposing alternatives.
This demonstrates that "laws" may be either good or bad- but a more effective method is a law that enables freedom without enabling hardship.

I won't disagree with that, because I know that not all laws are good laws. Also, no laws ever get changed without lots of lawbreakers taking their chances.

For instance I'm very opposed to drug lords and dealers making all the money because we have the laws against drugs. I don't disagree that drugs are bad for society, but the laws against them has only made matters a whole lot worse. We can't win that war unless we can take the money out of the equation. More laws against drugs makes more money for the bad guys and more criminals out of good citizens.

Well put.

 

[NMSquirrel]

I think you are missing the point of laws. We live in a society that produces our great standard of living as opposed to living naked in caves or the trees worried about the next meal or predator looking to make us a meal. But why should I have to put up with you being uninsured if you insist on driving a car? If you cause an accident with no insurance and no way to cover your financial responsibility. Where does that leave the injured party and if you are injured, where does that leave the people that care about you? You need to find a way to be insured or continue to be a bad citizen.

this is where the discretion should be..I have been driving since i was 16 and i have only had two accidents..one only involved myself and a telephone pole(well not an actual telephone pole, but same material used to reinforce a hill from landslides), the other was to avoid a dog..
the first totaled my car and i did have insurance so i got a new car out of it (although not the same make and model i had)
the second i did not have insurance and the owner of the parked car i hit was understandable and the damage was minimal so he didn't pursue financial compensation.
My point being that as a good driver, my risk of getting in an accident are pretty low, thereby i should be able to use my own judgement as to whether i should carry insurance or not..

PLUS Insurance law are fundamental discriminatory against those that are financially challenged...(poor) and the penalty twice as biased..

I do like your idea about pay at the pump..unfortunately i don't see it happening as those that would oppose it would capitalize on the fear factor of rising gas prices..
(which the fear factor is what i believe to be most of the problems of new laws getting passed)

Laws concerning kids are for their protection. Laws like that don't get passed without a good reason, whether your aware of those reasons or not. You have access to the Internet and should be able to do some research on specific laws. Take a look first and then if you still feel like complaining you will be doing it from a more knowledgeable position.

again reasonability HAS to be factored in..and not fear..there is no law that would prevent a kid from being stolen, if someone so desired to steal a kid.
just like there is no lock that could prevent a person from getting into your house if they really wanted to..

again my position is that of reasonability and of discretion, and against blind obedience, as the cops are required to do.

Where does my freedom to do as I want interfere with your freedom not to be victimized? Guess we need a law to resolve that problem don't we?

I agree with neverfly on his point that ANY freedom can be made to interfere with another..so i don't buy that as an argument.
especially with those that scream victim when they are not..(see over-litigation)

 

[Neverfly]

My point being that as a good driver, my risk of getting in an accident are pretty low, thereby i should be able to use my own judgement as to whether i should carry insurance or not...

An insurance company does promote better rates fro lower risk drivers...

I still have a problem with this sentence itself.

The problem with the statement is that while your risk may well be lower than some peoples, no one gets into an accident on purpose. Anyone will reasonably avoid one as best they are able. Yet they still happen. It's the nature of playing the odds.

So that statement does not support the conclusion.

 

[Asguard]

Firstly If the cop wanted to book you with ANYTHING he wouldnt have let you off with a warning the first time

Secondly If you hadnt done anything wrong it doesnt MATTER how long the cops follow you they wont find anything

Thirdly The courts found you guilty, THEY obviously didnt think it was harrasment.

Once again, i love how people try to blame the police for there own stupidity, if you dont want to get booked DONT COMMIT CRIMES and in this case DONT ACT LIKE A RETARD

 

[NMSquirrel]

Secondly If you hadnt done anything wrong it doesnt MATTER how long the cops follow you they wont find anything

tell me that your life is impervious to scrutiny, and i will call you a liar..

Thirdly The courts found you guilty, THEY obviously didnt think it was harrasment.

the courts did not find me guilty..this wasn't a trial..
I pled guilty because i did not have a car seat..i admitted my own responsibility.

Once again, i love how people try to blame the police for there own stupidity, if you dont want to get booked DONT COMMIT CRIMES and in this case DONT ACT LIKE A RETARD

once again i love how ppl refuse to listen to truth and only to their own stupid opinions..(you started it..)
like you say..DON'T ACT LIKE A RETARD!
pay attention to what is said..
(see how that works neverfly? he started it..)

 

[NMSquirrel]

An insurance company does promote better rates fro lower risk drivers...

i'm not so sure i believe that anymore..besides..just cause i don't get in accidents, doesn't mean i don't get tickets..

no one gets into an accident on purpose.

True enough..

So that statement does not support the conclusion.

revisit:
"My point being that as a good driver, [I[my risk of getting in an accident are pretty low, thereby[/I] I should be able to use my own judgement as to whether i should carry insurance or not."

i don't see a problem with it..bold can stand alone without the prerequisite.
many prerequisites can apply..
how about using 'since this is a free country' before the bold..or how about 'since i am an adult' before the bold..or even delete the italicized part..it is still a valid opinion.


If i had gotten into alot of accidents, then it does make sense to have insurance as i would go broke with the repair bills..(both self ,car and others)

That would be a reasonable law..IE If a person gets into more than X amount of accidents within X amount of time, then they HAVE to have insurance..

 

[Neverfly]

Firstly If the cop wanted to book you with ANYTHING he wouldnt have let you off with a warning the first time

Not sure how it is where you live; but where i live an officer must have Probable Cause to stop you.
They must have "reasonable cause" to think that a crime has been committed, is in the process of being committed or a crime is about to be committed.
Kinda gray...

Any officer has the option of issuing a citation- which is a bond, really. A P.R. bond. It's a promise to appear in court.

An officer can, if he feels that the option of a citation will end in dismal failure, haul a person in to jail to await appearing in court.

Squirrel.
Much better without the "Because I'm a good driver."

 

[iceaura]

There's an old brainteaser about painting a wall, goes like this:

Bob has this big wall, and it has spots of discoloration on it - subtle, but the big ones are noticeable; they stand out. He wants to remove the irritation, but not waste paint on the whole wall, so he thinks to himself that he will just paint out the bigger, irritating spots - the ones that stand out.

He does this.

But then there are still a few spots bigger than the rest, that stand out now that the very biggest have been painted. So he paints them. But then the next level of bigger spots stands out - - - -

What should he do?

The traditional answer is that he should paint the big spots down to the size of the smaller ones, until there are too many about the same size for any to stand out. But that won't work here:

We have so reduced the standard perceived dangers and hazards of childhood that a car accident while being driven down a local street to the park stands out; the risks attendant on a ten year old walking a block from the bus stop in the afternoon stand out; the extra hazards of swimming off a dock instead of shallow water stand out; the risks of unhelmeted vs helmeted bike mishap stand out; and so forth. And we are obsessed with eliminating all risks that stand out.

We are missing a consideration: there are real risks in raising children in a swaddled, cosseted, helmeted, padded, slow speed, shallow water, fenced yard, no tree climbing allowed world. And these are not just the kinds of behaviors that attract bored monkeys who have been prevented from monkeying around (fight club, anyone?) - they are also the foregoing of competencies and developments, physical courage and injury tolerance not the least, that we are quite possibly inflicting on the next generation of adults; they are also the absence of memories of risks faced, dangerous things done, thrills had, and simple fun. What an adulthood will be whose only childhood thrill memories are of things like achieving some high level of thumb twiddling on a game console, I don't know - but there's an odd sadness to childhood now. Kids don't even get to screw around in the back seat on the way to church.

Meanwhile the adults are being bureaucratically encircled as well; and here the beneficiaries have more venal and cynical motives: for example, as a reasonable person driving to work, I must perforce buy insurance for the vanity and profligate folly of people who by appearances have way more money than is good for them and the automotive judgment of a magpie decorating its nest. Look - one of the reasons I don't own a 70,000 dollar car is that I don't want to pay for such nonsense. How these rich fucks got a law passed putting me at risk for damages to whatever small-dick compensation and conspicuous consumption fantasy they feel like wheeling out into traffic I don't know, but it's damn irritating to write that check to that multistory glass walled executive mound every six months.

And leave us not get started on air bags and ABS brakes, mandatory seat belt usage and its concomitant impositions (among them, the impossibility of getting a decent seat belt stock in a car), helmet laws and random stops and commercial driver drug testing. Feh.

 

[NMSquirrel]

Not sure how it is where you live; but where i live an officer must have Probable Cause to stop you.

so when is it gonna be that the excuse of 'it is probable that any given person is committing a violation of the law at any given time'
will be justification for 'probable cause'..

 

[Asguard]

Not sure how it is where you live; but where i live an officer must have Probable Cause to stop you.
They must have "reasonable cause" to think that a crime has been committed, is in the process of being committed or a crime is about to be committed.
Kinda gray...

Any officer has the option of issuing a citation- which is a bond, really. A P.R. bond. It's a promise to appear in court.

An officer can, if he feels that the option of a citation will end in dismal failure, haul a person in to jail to await appearing in court.

Squirrel.
Much better without the "Because I'm a good driver."

I live in Australia and for the record the fact that your in a car is enough "probable cause" under the trafic act for the police to stop you, breath test you, Drug test you (never actually had one of these done, probably because it takes longer than the 10 seconds for a breath test), check your all wearing seat belts, check the car is in working safely. No they cant search the car for drugs or severed heads unless they can see them openly but not having a car seat falls under the trafic act and they dont NEED probable cause to check that. You ever herd of random breath testing? one of the best weapons against the road toll (you DO realise you are MUCH more likly to die in a car crash than to be murdered right?) and here it happens all the time. Hell on a Friday or Sat night in Melbourne they will some times block off the whole Easten Freeway and test every single car that passes. On the way in to work they will sit there a) checking to make sure there are multiple people in the cars on the transit lane and b) checking to make sure everyone is wearing seat belts (and speed of course)

 

[KilljoyKlown]

I live in Australia and for the record the fact that your in a car is enough "probable cause" under the trafic act for the police to stop you, breath test you, Drug test you (never actually had one of these done, probably because it takes longer than the 10 seconds for a breath test), check your all wearing seat belts, check the car is in working safely. No they cant search the car for drugs or severed heads unless they can see them openly but not having a car seat falls under the trafic act and they dont NEED probable cause to check that. You ever herd of random breath testing? one of the best weapons against the road toll (you DO realise you are MUCH more likly to die in a car crash than to be murdered right?) and here it happens all the time. Hell on a Friday or Sat night in Melbourne they will some times block off the whole Easten Freeway and test every single car that passes. On the way in to work they will sit there a) checking to make sure there are multiple people in the cars on the transit lane and b) checking to make sure everyone is wearing seat belts (and speed of course)

As far as keeping the drunks off the road, hows that working for you. Also, is it true that in Australia your considered drunk if you blow a .05? It's .08 for us here in the U.S.

 

[Asguard]

As far as keeping the drunks off the road, hows that working for you. Also, is it true that in Australia your considered drunk if you blow a .05? It's .08 for us here in the U.S.

Quite well actually, and yes.

I found this with a quick search

http://www.caradvice.com.au/156631/australias-road-toll-lowest-since-1946/
http://www.theage.com.au/national/how-low-can-we-go-20090709-depn.html

In 1970 (from memory) the road toll for victoria ALONE reached 1034 which lead to a massive campain by the government "Declare war on 1034" Now the 5 year average for victoria up to 2011 was 121. Now FR will jump in at this point and say "ah but cars are safer now" and he is right to a point but not compleatly. Its not ALL a matter of car saftey (if your interested i can point you to a section of Monash Uni which resurches road saftey and they have alot of infomation about this sort of stuff), alot of it is driver attitudes and enforcement. Speed traps, random breath testing, these are the sorts of things which make a HUGE difference and as the head of the major crash squad in victoria said at a lecture he gave for a scout group i was at "we would rather pick you up at a random breath test than scrape you up 100m down the road".

 

[KilljoyKlown]

Quite well actually, and yes.

I found this with a quick search

http://www.caradvice.com.au/156631/australias-road-toll-lowest-since-1946/
http://www.theage.com.au/national/how-low-can-we-go-20090709-depn.html

In 1970 (from memory) the road toll for Victoria ALONE reached 1034 which lead to a massive campaign by the government "Declare war on 1034" Now the 5 year average for Victoria up to 2011 was 121. Now FR will jump in at this point and say "ah but cars are safer now" and he is right to a point but not completely. Its not ALL a matter of car safety (if your interested i can point you to a section of Monash Uni which researches road safety and they have a lot of information about this sort of stuff), a lot of it is driver attitudes and enforcement. Speed traps, random breath testing, these are the sorts of things which make a HUGE difference and as the head of the major crash squad in Victoria said at a lecture he gave for a scout group i was at "we would rather pick you up at a random breath test than scrape you up 100m down the road".

Yes it does look better. They do checks here once in a while, not very consistent about it though. .05 is very low, but not the lowest. In Japan any amount of alcohol in the system will get you busted with an immediate 1 year suspension of your drivers license.

 

[Asguard]

when your on your L's and P's its zero and i have never understood 0.08, when you look at crash data rates of crashes are reasonably steady up to 0.05 but go up expoentually above 0.05, even between .05 and .08

 

[KilljoyKlown]

when your on your L's and P's its zero and i have never understood 0.08, when you look at crash data rates of crashes are reasonably steady up to 0.05 but go up exponentially above 0.05, even between .05 and .08

It used to be .1 and they played hell trying to get it down to .08. I'm sure they would be afraid of being voted out of office if they pushed for it to be lowered to .05. But then they also let just about anybody have a hand gun, no training required.

 

[iceaura]

Speed traps, random breath testing, these are the sorts of things which make a HUGE difference and as the head of the major crash squad in victoria said at a lecture he gave for a scout group i was at "we would rather pick you up at a random breath test than scrape you up 100m down the road".

Tyranny is always for your own good.

The benevolence of the State, the comparative triviality of one's personal concerns about time, inconvenience, privacy - all common themes.

 

[KilljoyKlown]

Tyranny is always for your own good.

The benevolence of the State, the comparative triviality of one's personal concerns about time, inconvenience, privacy - all common themes.

Sorry but if your drunk, I don't want you driving on the same road as me and I'm willing to suffer a little inconvenience if that's what it takes to get you off the road.

 

[gmilam]

"My point being that as a good driver, my risk of getting in an accident are pretty low,

The odds of winning the lotto are pretty low too, yet people still buy tickets.

All it takes is a dog running out in front of you on a rainy day and the next thing you know, you've smashed into a little old lady's Cadillac. :shrug: