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

[Lex Concord]

I just want to know if driving your car during a declared emergency, getting it stuck, and hampering emergency crews, is an initiation of force?

No.

 

[Regnar]

I have so many conflicting thoughts on this.....If you have a vehicle capable of safely traversing the streets in this storm, then no big deal. If you don't have such a vehicle, and you get stranded, you would probably expect emergency services to rescue you. If you are a taxpayer, you pay for those services. It IS Massachusetts, after all. People are idiots. People are idiots as a result of years of government nanny-ism.

I guess the bottom line for me is, if you take the risk, and get stuck, you are on your own, and the government should not use this as yet another excuse to criminalize idiots. The governor should go on TV and instruct people to not be idiots, and leave it at that.

 

[jamil]

I just want to know if driving your car during a declared emergency, getting it stuck, and hampering emergency crews, is an initiation of force?

 

[bft131]

As a first responder I am all for fines for jack wagons that block roads then abandon their vehicles so they can go out for smokes, beer and booze..

 

[Bunnykid68]

As a first responder I am all for fines for jack wagons that block roads then abandon their vehicles so they can go out for smokes, beer and booze..

How do you determine why they were out?

 

[88GT]

Nearly all governments trend toward tyranny; when the people have a voice, it usually moves slower, but that's the direction it nearly always moves, at least until a sea-change event occurs, which often results in a new government.

Granted. But not exactly on topic.

People have a right to live under tyranny if they so choose; they do not have the right to erect a tyranny around those who do not wish it.

See, this is where I have a problem. Let's dispense with the notion that pie-in-the-sky utopias are a possibility. Libertarianism will never be the political philosophy of this nation as long as the democratic process remains in place.

So, with that in mind, let's discuss this with the view towards reality. If I choose to live in Metropolis, I do so with the knowledge that others who also live in Metropolis may vote differently and my vote preferences may be in the minority. At which point, the kind/type of government I get is not what I want, but was legally installed. My choice to remain in Metropolis is an acceptance of that government. There is no foisting of tyranny on people who don't want it.

As long as I am free to move, vote with my feet as the saying goes, there has been no tyranny forced upon me.*

What if all the other alternatives for residence have enacted similarly undesirable (by my standard) laws, you ask? Tough titty. Like it or not, we still operate on a majority rules basis. Lots of people don't get what they want when the votes are tallied. Democracy (the process, not the form of government) necessarily means at least one group is going to be disappointed.

Obviously, the discussion takes a different route when we consider the federal government. But I'd argue that the discussion is entirely different because the movement toward tyranny is done in violation of the limits placed on the government. Still, there's a process to amend those limits and rules. And it's asinine to say that it can't be done, regardless of the direction, simply because one group would oppose it.

One might argue that the "losers" simply didn't do enough to maintain their liberties and, therefore, deserve the government they get, good and hard.

No, I'd say that the "losers" are a minority and the majority don't want the same thing.

Also, what do we call it when the losers are the anti-freedom crowd? Is it still wrong to give them a government they don't want even when it means more freedom for them?

In the meantime, here's an interesting bit he penned on anarchy.

I stopped reading at the first sentence. The biggest obstacle to living without a political government is not fear of liberty. It is the absolute chaos that will ensue. I really hate to use the word, but it would be nothing short of anarchy.

Oh, yes, I know the tired rebuttal that anarchy is a lack of government, not a lack of laws. Spare the lecture. Just how long do you think it would take someone to realize that it was the government that embodied the authority and power to enforce the laws and the consequences for their violations? When it becomes obvious that the only response to breaking a law (or any other societal norm) is going to come from the wronged party, it will be an immediate and violent "might makes right" movement.

You simply cannot have laws without government.

article discussing panarchy.

Honestly, I rank this up there with the socialists who think human nature is compatible with Marxian theory. IOW, completely out in left field.

From the article:

Panarchists are aiming for each and every person to get out from under a government that is not of their choice.

Yes, I abhor the laws and zoning ordinances of Marion Co and am going to secede from it. My little .6 acre plot of land becomes a [STRIKE]nation[/STRIKE] [STRIKE]county[/STRIKE] [STRIKE]town[/STRIKE] ?????? unto myself.

Am I still subject to the laws of the State of Indiana? Or the U.S.?

Also from the article:

Panarchists point out that territory is the heart of the matter. Territory is the device by means of which governments inflict uniformity of law when what is required for full freedom is non-uniformity of law within a given land. One person’s government may wish to forbid drugs for its subscribers, but another person’s government may not. One person’s government may wish to coerce everyone into a health insurance policy while another person’s may not. One person’s government may wish to tax its subjects, arm some of them and attack Libya while another person’s government may not. A high degree of freedom in a land or country cannot occur when government is government by territory and when that government possesses power over many facets of life and living.

We agree on one point: physical land is the heart of matter. But I am immensely curious how this parsing of governments would look. Just how does a person who wants a different government do so? Does my neighborhood of 154 homes get to have 154 governments?

The whole idea is just ridiculous. Frankly, I think the philosophies that take the idea of individualism and individual liberty to this extreme are missing a few cards in the deck. The mere existence of society negates the assumption of supremacy of the individual in all aspects. One cannot have the level of individualism (with its associated freedom) expressed in these philosophies and live in the collective/society. That's kind of what the whole social contract theory is. The individual subordinates a level of his sovereignty for the benefits of living within the collective/society.

This is innate to human nature. Governments have always ruled the individual. By choice.

*That today the individual no longer has a means of escaping to territory that has not been claimed only slightly changes the the discussion. It is a matter of fact that even when the land was "free" for the taking, it was only kept when the holder was strong enough to ward off the assaults. So let's say you left the society and found an unclaimed bit of land. Three weeks later someone else decides they want it.....And we're back to square one.

And an afterthought before I punch the submit button: it has occurred to me that size and homogeneity of the territory under discussion are factors in this. No discussion would be completely without some level of inclusion for these issues.

 

[femurphy77]

The right to travel has been revoked due to weather in Massachusetts.


Gov. Patrick declares state of emergency, bans cars from road as of 4 p.m. as Mass. hunkers down ahead of blizzard

Land of the free?

 

[johnny45]

Threat of jail and the problem inherent to the notion that it is the prerogative of government to 'protect' people from themselves. It amazes me how the same people who embrace Darwinism with religious zeal refuse to allow it to work, and insist on legislating the entire population according to the lowest common denominator. This way of thinking and governing has nothing in common with the concepts of liberty and limited government. Next thing you know, the government will determine that salt is bad for you, hence illegal. Oh, wait. New York already bans salt from tables in restaurants.

^^^^^THIS!!!^^^^^^