To Protect and to Serve...

Status
Not open for further replies.
#2,001
#2,001
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
Will it bring the other people he killed back to life? No it won't. He will have to make amends to the family of the victims. Be it financially or what have you.

Remember that book I offered you? It explained all this.
Click to expand...

I can't agree. Sorry, but if your reckless behavior takes the lives of others, financial restitution just doesn't cut it.

I do believe there is a difference in a no fault accident situation where lives are lost that your system would work. But in a situation where the driver was negligent to the point of taking another life a court and jury of their peers should be able to decide whether or not the person sees jail time.
 
#2,003
#2,003
Grand Vol said:
I can't agree. Sorry, but if your reckless behavior takes the lives of others, financial restitution just doesn't cut it.

I do believe there is a difference in a no fault accident situation where lives are lost that your system would work. But in a situation where the driver was negligent to the point of taking another life a court and jury of their peers should be able to decide whether or not the person sees jail time.
Click to expand...
How does this fix anything though? Locking the guy up at the expense of taxpayers?

Keep in mind, I'm speaking as a man who lost a family member to a horrid car accident.

What does locking the guy up do? It stops him from making restitution is what it does and makes him beholden to the state, when he should be beholden to the family.
 
#2,004
#2,004
hog88 said:
No problem. I still detest the guys who make it hard on those who actually keep this country moving. I do have a soft spot.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with places like Texas that set lower limits for truckers and/or nighttime speed limits. I think it creates more hazards on the roadways.

You're probably up to speed more on the DOT side of things than I'll ever be. But I do know there's practically an encyclopedia of rules and regulations on the trucking industry.
 
#2,005
#2,005
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
How does this fix anything though? Locking the guy up at the expense of taxpayers?

Keep in mind, I'm speaking as a man who lost a family member to a horrid car accident.

What does locking the guy up do? It stops him from making restitution is what it does and makes him beholden to the state, when he should be beholden to the family.
Click to expand...

Families will still get the restitution as you prefer from the insurance companies. (providing said individual has insurance) But there is a debt to society that should be paid as well.

I'm still on the hook to testify at a trial for a person that killed two people by being reckless. It's a point that hits home with me.
 
#2,006
#2,006
Grand Vol said:
Families will still get the restitution as you prefer from the insurance companies. (providing said individual has insurance) But there is a debt to society that should be paid as well.

I'm still on the hook to testify at a trial for a person that killed two people by being reckless. It's a point that hits home with me.
Click to expand...
Debt to society? Is that kinda like the common good? Hmmm GV that's some very socialist terms you're using, careful there.

I guess my question to you would be, who owns you? Do you own yourself?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,009
#2,009
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
Is anything really rational anymore in this country? But for argument sake, yeah.
Click to expand...

I can't disagree with the first part.

But rationally, you can link the "common good" to a debt to society in a case like this without it being socialist in nature. This case I'm (still) involved in, even being retired as I am, did help the common good by removing a dangerous driver from the roadway that killed two people and walked away from the accident. Now without controls on his freedom, he would have been able to go back out and repeat the process again if he desired. And knowing said individual, likely would have. Remember what I was saying about common sense earlier? Complete lack thereof. Now that's his right to be an idiot. But when his idiocy puts others at risk, yes, lawful controls should be put in place to restrict said idiocy. And repeat idiocy should not be rewarded by allowing him to continue to repeat the act(s) again. And yes, there was repeat idiocy there.

Who owns me? Nobody. I know what you're getting at, but at the same time, individual actions sometimes must be judged from a societal standpoint, a jury specifically.
 
#2,010
#2,010
So in essence what you are saying is, it's the states job to save us from ourselves or other people? By threat of a gun or a cage. I cannot argue the fact that some people are born stupid, I live in Birmingham after all. I will argue the fact that the state only hinders the ability of a injured party of receiving "just compensation"

Driving is by far the most dangerous activity we undertake everyday. No argument from me there, but the regulation can and should be handled privately. Are accidents an emotional event when lives are lost? Of course it is, how does locking someone up for a traffic accident heal the injured party? It doesn't.
You'll say, it keeps others safe. But, Isn't that pre crime we're getting into? To punish someone for perceived future crimes is wrong.
 
#2,011
#2,011
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
So in essence what you are saying is, it's the states job to save us from ourselves or other people? By threat of a gun or a cage. I cannot argue the fact that some people are born stupid, I live in Birmingham after all. I will argue the fact that the state only hinders the ability of a injured party of receiving "just compensation"

Driving is by far the most dangerous activity we undertake everyday. No argument from me there, but the regulation can and should be handled privately. Are accidents an emotional event when lives are lost? Of course it is, how does locking someone up for a traffic accident heal the injured party? It doesn't.
You'll say, it keeps others safe. But, Isn't that pre crime we're getting into? To punish someone for perceived future crimes is wrong.
Click to expand...

So the question I'll pose to you to ponder as I depart for the evening will be this...

At what point does it become a matter for society to judge? After the first time? Second? Third? Say a person is a habitual offender and kills someone every time they get into an accident. When does society step in and say "enough?" Or should the person continue to be allowed to go out and do it again with the hopes it won't happen again?

Putting it into a different way that will seem socialist in nature, but is not and is entirely correct. When do the needs for the safety of the many outweigh the needs of the one? Your libertarian side will say never, but there does need to be a point in time that such actions cannot be tolerated any longer as a person that continues to be a threat to the public must be dealt with by that same public.
 
#2,012
#2,012
At what point should society judge? They shouldn't unless they've been injured in the event/crime.

I will give an example though. Say we have a mad murderer running around, killing folks left and right. Everyone this chap sees he kills.
In the Rothbardian tradition of libertarianism this man would be made to answer to the family of the victims. Opinions differ, some believe in public caning, others believe in marking the offender. (Kinda like the scarlet letter) I would say. Some even believe in making the man a slave to the victims family. Some believe in the death penalty for murderers.

Some believe in absolute shunning. Feeling this man should not be able to be a member of the community for the danger he poses to them.
All would be acceptable if approved by the victims family, or if the victim left a will explaining the punishment to be rendered in the case of his/her murder.

Mr. Rothbard does a far better job explaining how this would work than I ever could.

Punishment and Proportionality by Murray N. Rothbard

Keep in mind, this is all philosophy and opinions differ greatly even in anarchist/libertarian circles.
Cheers and Go Vols!
 
#2,013
#2,013
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
At what point should society judge? They shouldn't unless they've been injured in the event/crime.

I will give an example though. Say we have a mad murderer running around, killing folks left and right. Everyone this chap sees he kills.
In the Rothbardian tradition of libertarianism this man would be made to answer to the family of the victims. Opinions differ, some believe in public caning, others believe in marking the offender. (Kinda like the scarlet letter) I would say. Some even believe in making the man a slave to the victims family. Some believe in the death penalty for murderers.

Some believe in absolute shunning. Feeling this man should not be able to be a member of the community for the danger he poses to them.
All would be acceptable if approved by the victims family, or if the victim left a will explaining the punishment to be rendered in the case of his/her murder.

Mr. Rothbard does a far better job explaining how this would work than I ever could.

Punishment and Proportionality by Murray N. Rothbard

Keep in mind, this is all philosophy and opinions differ greatly even in anarchist/libertarian circles.
Cheers and Go Vols!
Click to expand...

And the problem we have in this situation is the individual is still able to go forth and do it again in some instances. If you put everything on the family, there is no continuity, no prevention of crime and no accountability for those that commit same. Even among libertarians, there is a do no harm mentality that would allow said individual to be able to do said crime yet again on someone else. And being that anyone can be threatened, it is a societal issue at this point. Like it or not, there is a point in time if a person is allowed to continue roaming free after multiple incidents that society must step in if individuals refuse to act. So my question is entirely valid of when it stops being an individual issue and society must step in to prevent further harm on future victims.
 
#2,014
#2,014
Did you read the link? Better yet, it has a mp3 link in the article so you can listen to it instead.
 
Last edited:
#2,016
#2,016
Perhaps you'll give it a read or listen. It pretty much addresses every instance of how law would be used in a libertarian society.

I work the night shift so it's bedtime for me.
 
#2,017
#2,017
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
Perhaps you'll give it a read or listen. It pretty much addresses every instance of how law would be used in a libertarian society.

I work the night shift so it's bedtime for me.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, my day is just beginning. I get to deal with OSU Cowboy fans all day.
 
#2,018
#2,018
#2,019
#2,019
n_huffhines said:
My Bro-in-law is from 1000 oaks.

There was an article recently based on FBI statistics that concluded 4 of the 5 safest cities with populations over 500k were in border states (Phoenix*, El Paso, Austin, and San Diego).

*Gilbert is a suburb of Phoenix, and #4 in your article.
Click to expand...

Very interesting considering all the panic about the border.

Question for you, how do you feel about nationalism?
 
#2,021
#2,021
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
Very interesting considering all the panic about the border.

Question for you, how do you feel about nationalism?
Click to expand...

I think it's great to have a collective national identity that we take pride in, especially one based around the idea of being a melting pot. I think a strong sense of community is helpful to the success of any community.

That being said, you probably mean nationalism in terms of an us vs them mentality on the world stage. Or the idea that we are "better" than other countries. I hate that. I can be honest and say our economy kicks ass, but I'm uncomfortable with broad and subjective statements you might hear, like "America is the greatest country in the world." I wouldn't want to live in many other places, so in a sense, I agree, but just cause it's true for me doesn't mean it's true. Strong senses of national pride make people easy to manipulate, IMO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#2,022
#2,022
n_huffhines said:
I think it's great to have a collective national identity that we take pride in, especially one based around the idea of being a melting pot. I think a strong sense of community is helpful to the success of any community.

That being said, you probably mean nationalism in terms of an us vs them mentality on the world stage. Or the idea that we are "better" than other countries. I hate that. I can be honest and say our economy kicks ass, but I'm uncomfortable with broad and subjective statements you might hear, like "America is the greatest country in the world." I wouldn't want to live in many other places, so in a sense, I agree, but just cause it's true for me doesn't mean it's true. Strong senses of national pride make people easy to manipulate, IMO.
Click to expand...

Congrats Huff, you earned your first like from me in this thread.
 
#2,023
#2,023
n_huffhines said:
I think it's great to have a collective national identity that we take pride in, especially one based around the idea of being a melting pot. I think a strong sense of community is helpful to the success of any community.

That being said, you probably mean nationalism in terms of an us vs them mentality on the world stage. Or the idea that we are "better" than other countries. I hate that. I can be honest and say our economy kicks ass, but I'm uncomfortable with broad and subjective statements you might hear, like "America is the greatest country in the world." I wouldn't want to live in many other places, so in a sense, I agree, but just cause it's true for me doesn't mean it's true. Strong senses of national pride make people easy to manipulate, IMO.
Click to expand...

Agree 100% about a strong sense of national pride making people easy to manipulate. See the aftermath of 9/11 and the implementation of the "patriot act" for proof.

Statements like "we're the best country in the world" are very short sighted, and very self serving considering all the interventions we are involved in across the world.

I personally love this country and it's people, it's the government and their central planners that need to go away.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#2,024
#2,024
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
Agree 100% about a strong sense of national pride making people easy to manipulate. See the aftermath of 9/11 and the implementation of the "patriot act" for proof.
Click to expand...

I'll disagree with national pride being used for the Patriot Act. Fear is far easier to manipulate into what you want. And fear was used to get the PA passed because the people demanded it.
 
#2,025
#2,025
Grand Vol said:
I'll disagree with national pride being used for the Patriot Act. Fear is far easier to manipulate into what you want. And fear was used to get the PA passed because the people demanded it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and it's said that liberty will die to the sound of applause.

So you don't remember the entire congress being on the steps of the Capitol singing god bless America? The propaganda that went on up to the invasion of Afghanistan was sickening. All the talk of "hidden cells" of terrorists inside this country. Yet the CIA knew exactly where all these guys were the whole time. Collectivism and statism are religions in this country.

I'm still confounded about 9/11 and the results. 19 hijackers, 4 planes, 3 hit their targets. The majority of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, yet we invade Afghanistan. Please note that the Taliban had almost erased poppy production in Afghanistan. What happens after we invade? We start guarding poppy fields. Afghanistan once again becomes the worlds source for poppy. Yet, we have a war on drugs here in the states. God Bless the USA.

We won't even discuss the cf that is Iraq here.
I know, I'll never convince you so, it is what it is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
New posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement





Back
Top