Massachusetts: One year in jail and $500 fine for driving after 4pm curfew

[level.eleven]

I don't know who gets the final say on libertarian values, but I would include 'the right to travel' if my petulant vote counts.

I have no issue if the governor strongly recommended that people stay home. But making it an arrestable offense to pull out of your driveway onto any road in the state - snow or no snow? By way of executive order?

Are you taking action in Indiana to rescind the governors ability to issue a state of emergency? Perhaps you could throw your hat in the ring and run on that principle. That has the potential for a fun filled presser. Do you think you could answer the questions flung your way and win the election? Do you think you could hang with sociologists and emergency personnel who devote their careers to discovering the best solution to natural disasters that strike dense population centers of 1 million plus? They may have some strong arguments against anarchy, you know.

 

[steveh_131]

So all precautionary governance is off the table until an actual tragedy occurs? Is that the best way to handle a city with 1 million people and limited resources? In the above stroke scenario, you would sue the person blocking the the ambulance, correct? So then, since government isn't the avenue to address irresponsible behavior, what entity does? Also, not to be bossy, but you skipped the first question. I contend that it doesn't run counter to libertarian values if you aren't an anarchist. Ensuring a smooth running society in times of natural disasters, protecting those who otherwise can't protect themselves, is a legitimate function of government.

Once irresponsible behavior results in actual damage to another, then it becomes a legitimate function of the government to enforce restitution.

That's my opinion. And that's not anything even close to anarchy.

 

[steveh_131]

Are you taking action in Indiana to rescind the governors ability to issue a state of emergency? Perhaps you could throw your hat in the ring and run on that principle. That has the potential for a fun filled presser. Do you think you could answer the questions flung your way and win the election? Do you think you could hang with sociologists and emergency personnel who devote their careers to discovering the best solution to natural disasters that strike dense population centers of 1 million plus? They may have some strong arguments against anarchy, you know.

The poll up at the top seems to indicate otherwise.

 

[bart2278]

Possibly the worst blizzard in history is bearing down. Governor issues order to stay off of roads and declares state of emergency. Gets compared to Stalin.

How did conservatives get to this point?

I think it was a joke...as I laughed when I personally saw it. Going to jail for being on the road is a bit much in my opinion. I think a more appropriate thing to do would have been to warn those that go out that they would not receive help if they were to become stuck, or something along those lines.

 

[level.eleven]

Once irresponsible behavior results in actual damage to another, then it becomes a legitimate function of the government to enforce restitution.

That's my opinion. And that's not anything even close to anarchy.

So any precautionary governance is off the table. Speed limits. Water quality standards. You can't sue until you have the cancer. Correct? Conspiracy to commit murder. No longer illegal, just hope it isn't yourself...I guess. Government only handles dispute resolution and does nothing for public safety, correct?

 

[steveh_131]

So any precautionary governance is off the table. Speed limits. Water quality standards. You can't sue until you have the cancer. Correct? Conspiracy to commit murder. No longer illegal, just hope it isn't yourself...I guess. Government only handles dispute resolution and does nothing for public safety, correct?

Pollution that affects your neighbor's property could qualify as an initiation of force, so possibly.

Speed limits, no.

Haven't thought about conspiracy to commit murder enough to comment.

 

[level.eleven]

Pollution that affects your neighbor's property could qualify as an initiation of force, so possibly.

This goes straight back to the beam of light example I posted the last time people were struggling with NAP.

Conspiracy charges should be easy. Why do you have to think? Where is the harm? Where is the sacred NAP violation?

So, for a third time, all precautionary or proactive governance should be abolished, correct?

 

[steveh_131]

This goes straight back to the beam of light example I posted the last time people were struggling with NAP.

Conspiracy charges would be easy? Why do you have to think? Where is the harm?

So, for a third time, all precautionary or proactive governance should be abolished, correct?

I'm not going to say 'all'. I am willing to discuss particular examples, and am willing to admit that I haven't given thought to each and every possibility.

 

[level.eleven]

I'm not going to say 'all'. I am willing to discuss particular examples, and am willing to admit that I haven't given thought to each and every possibility.

Have you ever thought that maybe, just maybe, other people have? Perhaps even people with more knowledge on each topic than you or I. Maybe this has been going for thousands of years. In conclusion, a governor declaring a state of emergency isn't the grand infringement self styled libertarians make it out to be. It is a necessary measure to ensure the best results for all involved and to restore normalcy as soon as possible. Sometimes, it isn't all about you. Make it all about you too much, and pretty soon you won't have a society in which to be yourself.

 

[steveh_131]

Have you ever thought that maybe, just maybe, other people have? Perhaps even people with more knowledge on each topic than you or I. Maybe this has been going for thousands of years. In conclusion, a governor declaring a state of emergency isn't the grand infringement self styled libertarians make it out to be. It is a necessary measure to ensure the best results for all involved and to restore normalcy as soon as possible. Sometimes, it isn't all about you. Make it all about you too much, and pretty soon you won't have a society in which to be yourself.

I would imagine that plenty of tyrannical dictators thought the same thing.

It's all for the greater good.

 

[level.eleven]

I would imagine that plenty of tyrannical dictators thought the same thing.

It's all for the greater good.

Every comment to honest inquiry, in this thread, has lead to a fallacy. Telling.

 

[steveh_131]

Every comment to honest inquiry, in this thread, has lead to a fallacy. Telling.

It is not a fallacy. They are two different principles to base governance upon.

Yours relies on the greater good of the collective. This has a very frightening history.

Mine relies on the principle of liberty, limited by the initiation of force.

Both have their pros and cons. But I think that liberty is superior, overall.

ETA: And I never said this was a 'grand infringement'. I will say that it is unnecessary. Prohibitions are never effective at decreasing irresponsible behaviors.

 

[Glocker 400]

I can't believe the governor actually declared a state of emergency with enforcement provisions, just because of a little snow.

Next think you know, he will be ordering drone strikes on stranded motorists and rounding up those who escape to be placed in Amtrak facilities with razor wire topped fences. With the razor wire tilted inward! What does that tell you?

This wouldn't be happening if we didn't kick God out of schools.


Am I doing INGO right?

 

[Bunnykid68]

I can't believe the governor actually declared a state of emergency with enforcement provisions, just because of a little snow.

Next think you know, he will be ordering drone strikes on stranded motorists and rounding up those who escape to be placed in Amtrak facilities with razor wire topped fences. With the razor wire tilted inward! What does that tell you?

This wouldn't be happening if we didn't kick God out of schools.


Am I doing INGO right?

Just so you know, razor wire on the inside of the fence makes it harder for someone outside of the fence to cut it.

 

[level.eleven]

It is not a fallacy. They are two different principles to base governance upon.

Yours relies on the greater good of the collective. This has a very frightening history.

Mine relies on the principle of liberty, limited by the initiation of force.

Both have their pros and cons. But I think that liberty is superior, overall.

ETA: And I never said this was a 'grand infringement'. I will say that it is unnecessary. Prohibitions are never effective at decreasing irresponsible behaviors.

Strictly speaking, this is a fallacy as well, although informal. False dilemma. There are more than two theories of governance. Within our own constitution you will find phrases like common defence, domestic tranquility, and general Welfare, as well as liberty and posterity.

And I never said this was a 'grand infringement'. I will say that it is unnecessary. Prohibitions are never effective at decreasing irresponsible behaviors.

How do you reconcile this your spiritual beliefs? If law isn't effective at decreasing irresponsible behavior, how has it endured for thousands of years? Why does it live in on ancient texts?

 

[Glocker 400]

Strictly speaking, this is a fallacy as well, although informal. False dilemma. There are more than two theories of governance. Within our own constitution you will find phrases like common defence, domestic tranquility, and general Welfare, as well as liberty and posterity.

And I never said this was a 'grand infringement'. I will say that it is unnecessary. Prohibitions are never effective at decreasing irresponsible behaviors.

How do you reconcile this your spiritual beliefs? If law isn't effective at decreasing irresponsible behavior, how has it endured for thousands of years? Why does it live in on ancient texts?

Romans 13:1 would make some peoples' heads explode on this forum. That is, until they thought about how to explain it away as a parable or allegory.

 

[level.eleven]

Romans 13:1 would make some peoples' heads explode on this forum. That is, until they thought about how to explain it away as a parable or allegory.

I don't intend to get that specific as the concept..

law>inducement>violation>punishment

...isn't unique to any single form of dogma. Steve claims this doesn't work and offers a solution of removing law and hoping for the best. You can always bring a suit after you have cancer.

 

[cobber]

Isn't the concept of "precautionary governance" exactly the same fallacy that gun-controllers employ?

I love this term, "precautionary governance". It sounds so benevolent! It's for our own good.

Don't want people driving, putting others at risk. Don't want people shooting, putting others at risk. Because of course without the government's help no one is capable of being responsible.

If only we had.one.more.law!!!

But, but...citizens with sense won't go out driving. Those with no sense, who generally pay no attention to laws, will. Or?

I am beginning to see the point...

 

[Giddaltti]

Another perspective is some companies will not allow employees to call out and miss work due to poor weather, this gives folks a reason to stay home without adverse action. I disagree with the rule/governer however, at some point we all pay out of pocket for the resources used to rescue folks.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Another perspective is some companies will not allow employees to call out and miss work due to poor weather, this gives folks a reason to stay home without adverse action. I disagree with the rule/governer however, at some point we all pay out of pocket for the resources used to rescue folks.

My point exactly, do not hazard the weather, lose your job