keduh@hogpd.UUCP (D.HUDEK) (11/08/84)
<<||>> I'm not really sure if this belongs in net.auto AND net.legal AND net.politics, but that's where the discussion has been going so... >>> [stuff about laws such as prohibition, 55mph speed limit, rules >>> against cursing under penalty of dismissal, etc. ED] >>> It seems to me that a law which is broken so much of the time is in >>> some fundamental way sick, and should be re-thought. Just a thought... above from charm!mam > >You have a very sick and short sighted view of society. It is human >nature to push the limits. We feel we need to show our independence. >But we still need safeguards to protect the rights and safety of >our friends, our neighbors, and our loved ones. If you don't give a >shit about them, who do you care for. Perhaps you don't care and >there is no law against that but it tends to reduce the number of >friends, neighbors, and loved ones. > the above paragraph is from aluxe!2141smh Whoa Nelly !!! If I read this right, Mx. charm!mam was observing that there are a lot of rather silly and restrictive laws that a great many people ignore [in his original article I believe he mentioned Prohibition and the 55-mph speed limit] and questioned whether or not there was something wrong with such laws. [I mean, after all, if so many people obviously disagree with them and disobey them, there must be something wrong with them, no?] But then Mx. 2141smh violently disagrees and insults Mx. charm!mam. [now, this is between smh and mam, but I happen to agree with mam, so smh has just insulted me, so...] Excuse me, but I certainly do not need any more Big Brother than I've already got. You appear to have the attitude that most people are just these poor little incompetent dilly-bops who don't know what's best for them [how cute, they're trying to show some independence]... so let's make a law and *force* them to do what *you* think's best for them!!!! [what's that line about the tyranny of the majority?] And when someone disagrees.... well, it's the LAW! Besides, you need safeguards. Gimme a break! We're not talking about laws that most everyone agrees with [such as making murder a punishable offense], but stupid and restrictive laws that a great many people disregard. I most strongly disagree with the attitude that a law is sacred in and of itself; if you have such a poor regard for people and their judgment, remember that the laws in question were thought up by people, bad judgment and all. Also remember, you may be setting up a precedent you will later regret. If you can force me to do some silly thing or prevent me from doing what I want [here I'm assuming that what I want to do affects mainly myself and has a minimal affect on others], be careful that the tables never become turned.... I might just pass a law that would force you to jog 10 miles every day or prevent you from eating french fries.... after all, it's for your own good; you really don't know what's best for you; and LAW is sacred !!! Geez... after reading this, I think I'm starting to think like a d*mn libertarian.... not wanting other people to encroach upon my "rights" and all.... :-[ ;-) ihnp4!hogpd!keduh p.s. I just couldn't resist.... I haven't flamed in weeks... :-) from smh: "If you don't give a shit about them, who do you care for?" I don't understand... Why should he give excrement [human, animal,...?] about someone.... about them? on either side? Is he supposed to deposit excrement all around them.... how close to them?.... or is he supposed to offer it to some kind of official excrement collector??? Gee.... I'm confused. What does waste material have to do with caring for someone ? :-) Hey... I was just kidding !!! OUCH! stop!! stop!! I'm sorry!! OUCH! stop that!! I was only kidding !!! :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
alien@gcc-opus.ARPA (Alien Wells) (11/12/84)
>>>> [stuff about laws such as prohibition, 55mph speed limit, rules >>>> against cursing under penalty of dismissal, etc. ED] > >>You have a very sick and short sighted view of society. It is human >>nature to push the limits. We feel we need to show our independence. >>But we still need safeguards to protect the rights and safety of >>our friends, our neighbors, and our loved ones. May I point out that 55 was not instituted as a safety measure, but an oil conservation measure after the embargo (and a temporary measure at that). May I also point out that one of Reagan's campaign promises in 1980 was to eliminate this restriction on the federal level, and go back to letting each state choose for itself (he gave this up after an outroar started from Nader and Democrats, he figured cutting spending was more important to use his brownie points on). May I finally point out that the statistics have consistently shown that 55 has indeed saved lives, but very few of them on interstates. The interstates are, and always have been, the safest highways in the world. Almost all of the safety increase came from state highways, much more dangerous roads that often had speed limits of 75 (or even none). Well over 50% of the deaths on interstates are caused by drunk driving. The vast majority of interstate accidents involve only a single car. I don't think that 55 on interstates can be justified on the basis of safety. The roads were designed for 80 with 1960's American station wagons, the speed limits were being kept artificially low due to a conservative fear of the new technology, even before 55. As long as they are by far the safest roads we have, we should encourage their use by making them more convienient and faster. This would also cut down on congestion (as anyone understanding queuing theory would see). To those who say 'saving a single life would be worth the lower speed limit', I reply 'lower it to 25 and strictly enforce it!'. Not only would drunks be driving too slow to kill themselves, but people would take the back roads and avoid the interstates! This would do wonders for the interstate death toll!! ( :-{) ) Of course, everyone knows the real reason 55 is being currently supported is that it is a very large cash source for the state governments. Rhode Island now has a law giving a $100 fine and a mandantory court appearance for anything 65 or over. They also stiff you for another $200 since you have to post $200 bail to get out of the state, and, face it, you aren't likely to come back for the court date. Alien PS: Sorry to multiply post this, but all of the original messages were multiply posted ...