|
automan
blasted chipmunk
Registered: 09/18/03
Posts: 8,272
|
fundamental question
#2449433 - 03/18/04 09:47 PM (20 years, 14 days ago) |
|
|
does anyone believe that the government should have the power to enact a law banning an action that violates the rights of no one?
-------------------- No, no, you're not thinking, you're just being logical. ~ Niels Bohr
|
trendal
J♠
Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada
|
Re: fundamental question [Re: automan]
#2449451 - 03/18/04 09:51 PM (20 years, 14 days ago) |
|
|
No, definately not.
--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: fundamental question [Re: automan]
#2449463 - 03/18/04 09:54 PM (20 years, 14 days ago) |
|
|
My first response is no. But there might be some examples someone could give that might change my mind about that.
-------------------- "It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
automan
blasted chipmunk
Registered: 09/18/03
Posts: 8,272
|
Re: fundamental question [Re: trendal]
#2449471 - 03/18/04 09:56 PM (20 years, 14 days ago) |
|
|
what about the regulation of certain services and products (need a doctor's script, foods, etc)
-------------------- No, no, you're not thinking, you're just being logical. ~ Niels Bohr
|
Learyfan
It's the psychedelic movement!
Registered: 04/20/01
Posts: 34,184
Loc: High pride!
Last seen: 4 hours, 19 minutes
|
Re: fundamental question [Re: automan]
#2449473 - 03/18/04 09:56 PM (20 years, 14 days ago) |
|
|
Absolutely not.
-------------------- -------------------------------- Mp3 of the month: Sons Of Adam - Feathered Fish
|
automan
blasted chipmunk
Registered: 09/18/03
Posts: 8,272
|
Re: fundamental question [Re: trendal]
#2449474 - 03/18/04 09:56 PM (20 years, 14 days ago) |
|
|
so, no drugs are illegal, all prostitution is legal, there are no seat belt laws, and there is no such thing as a D.U.I.?
-------------------- No, no, you're not thinking, you're just being logical. ~ Niels Bohr
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: fundamental question [Re: automan]
#2449486 - 03/18/04 10:00 PM (20 years, 14 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
automan said: so, no drugs are illegal, all prostitution is legal, there are no seat belt laws, and there is no such thing as a D.U.I.?
DUI's violate people's right to be safe on the road.
-------------------- "It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
trendal
J♠
Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada
|
Re: fundamental question [Re: automan]
#2449495 - 03/18/04 10:02 PM (20 years, 14 days ago) |
|
|
I would not make DUI itself illegal...but any case where a person is injured or killed by a person who is DUI would have a MUCH more severe penalty than if alcohol/drugs is not involved.
I have nothing wrong with prostitution as long as all parties are consenting. Actually here in Canada prostitution isn't illegal (only public solicitation of sex is).
If you don't want to wear your seat belt...that's your stupid mistake to make. When you are ejected from your car in an accident, there is no one to blame but yourself.
And I don't think any drugs should be illegal. It's a personal choice, and as long as your use doesn't harm anyone else I see no problem with it.
--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.
|
trendal
J♠
Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada
|
Re: fundamental question [Re: trendal]
#2449503 - 03/18/04 10:04 PM (20 years, 14 days ago) |
|
|
Criminal law is a very blunt tool, and I think time and time again it has been shown to be innefective at curbing society's problems. Instead I would focus on education as to why DUI is not a good thing, and then use the severe punishment of anyone who injurs another while DUI as the criminal portion.
--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.
|
BleaK
paradox
Registered: 06/23/02
Posts: 1,583
Last seen: 10 years, 3 months
|
Re: fundamental question [Re: trendal]
#2449514 - 03/18/04 10:06 PM (20 years, 14 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
automan said: so, no drugs are illegal, all prostitution is legal, there are no seat belt laws, and there is no such thing as a D.U.I.?
silversoul7 said: DUI's violate people's right to be safe on the road. *
DUI's dont violate peoples right to be safe. accidents happen regaurdless of what drugs people are on. there may be alot of accidents supposedly atributed to alcohol, but how many of them would have happened anyway?
-------------------- "You cannot trust in law, unless you can trust in people. If you can trust in people, you don't need law." -J. Mumma
|
trendal
J♠
Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada
|
Re: fundamental question [Re: BleaK]
#2449517 - 03/18/04 10:07 PM (20 years, 14 days ago) |
|
|
I think anyone who gets in an accident while DUI and kills someone in the accident should be charged with 1st degree murder.
--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.
|
automan
blasted chipmunk
Registered: 09/18/03
Posts: 8,272
|
Re: fundamental question [Re: silversoul7]
#2449523 - 03/18/04 10:09 PM (20 years, 14 days ago) |
|
|
there would be no DUI in my world. just wreckless driving, etc. you cant put someone in jail for what they might do.... but.... the penalties for hurting someone would be VERY VERY stiff.
-------------------- No, no, you're not thinking, you're just being logical. ~ Niels Bohr
|
trendal
J♠
Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada
|
Re: fundamental question [Re: automan]
#2449538 - 03/18/04 10:11 PM (20 years, 14 days ago) |
|
|
I think we've got the same dreams here, automan
--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole
Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 9 months
|
Re: fundamental question [Re: trendal]
#2451140 - 03/19/04 09:23 AM (20 years, 13 days ago) |
|
|
Do you have a right not to be defrauded, or should every individual be required to perform his own due diligence in regard to all consumer products?
The DUI thing could be regarded as prior restraint, but is it reasonable to expect a modicum of competence from a driver? Or, put another way, should you be allowed to take the driver's test drunk or stoned and if you pass get a special endorsement that allows you to legally drive "while impaired?" And should you have to get a separate stamp for each substance?
What if the person who was DUI in an accident was stopped at an intersection, hit from behind and driven into the intersection where someone plowed him in a Prius and was killed? Is he a murderer?
I vote for wreckless driving too
--------------------
|
Gijith
Daisy Chain Eater
Registered: 12/04/03
Posts: 2,400
Loc: New York
|
Re: fundamental question [Re: automan]
#2451195 - 03/19/04 09:52 AM (20 years, 13 days ago) |
|
|
I'm gonna answer yes... ... I don't know why. But it seems there must be a few examples where banning such actions would be necessary in order to have a functional society. I think severely addictive drugs need to at least be regulated. And killing endangered species. I'm sure there's more.
|
phi1618
old hand
Registered: 02/14/04
Posts: 4,102
Last seen: 13 years, 10 months
|
Re: fundamental question [Re: automan]
#2451240 - 03/19/04 10:24 AM (20 years, 13 days ago) |
|
|
DUI should be illegal. from http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/drving.htm : During 2002, 17,419 people in the U.S. died in alcohol-related motor vehicle crashes, representing 41% of all traffic-related deaths (NHTSA 2003a).
Unless about 33% of the people on the road are drunk at any given time, this indicates that drunk drivers are much more likely to get into accidents.
Some people believe that they can drive safely under the influence from personal experience, but ... even if you can recite the alphebet backwards and walk a straight line drunk, your reactions are impaired. By driving drunk (I've done it a few times myself), you endanger other drivers. Now, like SS7 said, this might be a violation of another drivers right to be as safe as possible on the road, but this is a matter of interpretation.
Also, should companies/individuals be able to sell potentially harmfull products advertised with misleading information? Might preventing this be an infraction of the right to free speech?
Or how about regulations and laws pertaining to the use of common resources? Environmental laws, spectrum regulation, traffic laws and transit regulation, etc...
I am not happy that possesion of most recreational drugs is criminal, because it creates a very expensive, taxpayer financed system of enforcement and inprisonment, because it results in violations of privacy and liberty by government agents, because penalties for drug use and dealing are rediculously out of proportion with their moral heinousness and social cost, and, not least, because I find myself regularly in violation of the law for actions that I don't think are wrong.
However, I don't think that the stated criterion for "banning an action that violates the rights of no one" is clear or useful.
|
Learyfan
It's the psychedelic movement!
Registered: 04/20/01
Posts: 34,184
Loc: High pride!
Last seen: 4 hours, 19 minutes
|
Re: fundamental question [Re: phi1618]
#2451286 - 03/19/04 10:45 AM (20 years, 13 days ago) |
|
|
Change the definition of "DUI". The legal limit is way too low no matter what state you live in. It should NEVER be less than .10
-------------------- -------------------------------- Mp3 of the month: Sons Of Adam - Feathered Fish
|
automan
blasted chipmunk
Registered: 09/18/03
Posts: 8,272
|
Re: fundamental question [Re: phi1618]
#2451866 - 03/19/04 02:32 PM (20 years, 13 days ago) |
|
|
phi1618, i am very familiar with the statistics. my grandfather, the guy that raised me half the year from birth to age 10 was killed by a drunk driver. the guy got 8 years and only served 5. if he would be facing life in prison for such an action, i doubt he would have done it. if he still drove drunk knowing that it could mean the rest of his life for ending someone else's life and wound up killing someone, he would deserve to get the time.
less regulation with stiffer penalties would work far better than the system we have in place now. i bet that kid that spray-painted that car in singapore will never vandalize anything in that country ever again.
-------------------- No, no, you're not thinking, you're just being logical. ~ Niels Bohr
|
|