Article: Man caught at 234km/h

Nicodeamus said:
wow he speeded, didn't kill anyone now he should be raped in jail? Isn't that fair.....
Click to expand...

I still don't understand this reasoning. You know what the law is. You know what will happen if you get caught. When you get caught are you going to whine and say it isn't fair? Sorry, but that's not how life works.
 
DrJohnZoidberg said:
I still don't understand this reasoning. You know what the law is. You know what will happen if you get caught. When you get caught are you going to whine and say it isn't fair? Sorry, but that's not how life works.
Click to expand...

Just because it is a 'law' does not make it ' right'. Slavery and apartheid were also laws..

If you can't question the morality behind a law then you're a zombie.
 
Last edited:
Nicodeamus said:
Just because it is a 'law' does not make it ' right'. Slavery and apartheid were also laws..
Click to expand...

Yes I agree that laws are not always right, but if these laws help save peoples lives without having any downsides than I don't see what the problem is. I am just crazy or does that sounds perfectly logical?
 
DrJohnZoidberg said:
Yes I agree that laws are not always right, but if these laws help save peoples lives without having any downsides than I don't see what the problem is. I am just crazy or does that sounds perfectly logical?
Click to expand...

I'm sure all 'laws' that were passed claimed to help the greedy, needy and the best in society....

These laws currently are only used so that government can milk the populace for more money, the seatbelt law is another example. The laws are also not preventative, people ignore them...and the old anti doing 100km in a 80 is the one getting the fines.

The law should not be "you speeded, you should go to jail because you 'could have killed someone'' rather you killed someone therefore you go to jail because 'you did kill someone'. Laws should not direct behaviour, this is where the concept of negative rights come into play.
 
Last edited:
Nicodeamus said:
I'm sure all 'laws' that were passed claimed to help the greedy, needy and the best in society....

These laws currently are only used so that government can milk the populace for more money, the seatbelt law is another example. The laws are also not preventative, people ignore them...and the old anti doing 100km in a 80 is the one getting the fines.
Click to expand...

So stick it to the man and don't break the rules and get fined! Easiest way to stop giving them all this money them damn greed mongers.
 
Nicodeamus said:
but why is there a fine? I'm of the opinion that positive rights are 'dumb' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights#In_medicine, in some circumstances (like a downhill) I should be allowed to do 100km in an 80 zone. It is also not going to make much of a difference.
Click to expand...

We come back to the argument that everybody has a different idea where that line should be drawn, so what makes your definition of "safe" maybe completely different to somebody else. This is not a fair system and the easiest way to ensure a fair system is to enforce laws equally amongst the entire population. If you are not happy with these laws than petition to the government or move to a country that is more accommodating of your views.
 
DrJohnZoidberg said:
We come back to the argument that everybody has a different idea where that line should be drawn, so what makes your definition of "safe" maybe completely different to somebody else. This is not a fair system and the easiest way to ensure a fair system is to enforce laws equally amongst the entire population. If you are not happy with these laws than petition to the government or move to a country that is more accommodating of your views.
Click to expand...

but laws cannot be enforced equally, there are exceptional situations, so your 'equal system' is simply inconceivable. Also why should I move to a country if I don't like the laws, should all the whites move out of SA if they do not like AA for example? That is just plain wrong. A law should not prohibit behaviour it should protect liberties..

We already have the negative right of not killing someone, and not stealing someone's property or breaking it so why exactly do we need to prohibit someone's behaviour on the roads even further despite preventative laws not having any success whatsoever?

Now yes everyone has a 'different' idea of where the line should be drawn, (although I'm sure everyone will agree hat killing someone is an obvious line), but why is the line of 'the law' written by 'someone (a legislator or parliamentarian) all of a sudden better than my line or yours?

Who exactly decides on the law? (I guarantee you that they have never done any traffic analysis). Government deciding what is good and bad for you is a very slippery slope.
 
Last edited:
Nicodeamus said:
the seatbelt law is another example.
Click to expand...

Example of what ?
You don't agree that seat-belts save lives ?

The law should not be "you speeded, you should go to jail because you 'could have killed someone'' rather you killed someone therefore you go to jail because 'you did kill someone'. Laws should not direct behaviour, this is where the concept of negative rights come into play.
Click to expand...

Seriously ? So, you kill someone so it's okay to get punishment - but it's not preferable to have possibly avoided killing someone by keeping to the speed limit ?

Selfish much ?
 
Nicodeamus said:
wow he speeded, didn't kill anyone now he should be raped in jail? Isn't that fair.....
Click to expand...

No. Your attitude shows a blatant disregard for other users on the road. It's not speeding for an emergency, it merely "because I can and I beleive that no-one will catch me and that no-one will get hurt". It's attitudes like that, that fills coffins.
 
Nicodeamus said:
Who exactly decides on the law? (I guarantee you that they have never done any traffic analysis). Government deciding what is good and bad for you is a very slippery slope.
Click to expand...

You live in a society. Society decides the law ie: democracy. If you don't like the law, challenge it, object to it, take it to court and argue your case, don't put others in danger unnecesarily.
 
Kosmik said:
You live in a society. Society decides the law ie: democracy. If you don't like the law, challenge it, object to it, take it to court and argue your case, don't put others in danger unnecesarily.
Click to expand...

no society does not decide the law, the politicians, the regulators and the legislators decided the laws, unless you're going to convince me that our society somehow decides the laws that the ANC pass (because it doesn't).

It is also just cheaper to bribe the cop than going to court....
 
Nicodeamus said:
but laws cannot be enforced equally, there are exceptional situations, so your 'equal system' is simply inconceivable. Also why should I move to a country if I don't like the laws, should all the whites move out of SA if they do not like AA for example? That is just plain wrong. A law should not prohibit behaviour it should protect liberties..

We already have the negative right of not killing someone, and not stealing someone's property or breaking it so why exactly do we need to prohibit someone's behaviour on the roads even further despite preventative laws not having any success whatsoever?

Now yes everyone has a 'different' idea of where the line should be drawn, (although I'm sure everyone will agree hat killing someone is an obvious line), but why is the line of 'the law' written by 'someone (a legislator or parliamentarian) all of a sudden better than my line or yours?

Who exactly decides on the law? (I guarantee you that they have never done any traffic analysis). Government deciding what is good and bad for you is a very slippery slope.
Click to expand...

Yes, laws cannot be enforced equally in certain circumstance, that is why we have courts and judges to decide these things. I also never said you must move out of the country, I merely offered it as an alternative. I actually first mentioned the most logical thing to do if you believe there are inequalities in the law, you get supporters of your idea behind you and bring this forward to the courts.

There also is no perfect government but I can guarantee you that in most cases an imperfect government is better than no government at all. Believe it or not politicians have been around for a very long time and some of them actually know what they are talking about. Laws are not just passed willy nilly, no matter how it sometimes looks like it, there are always reasons behind it.

If you say why should they fine you for breaking the law, what else do you think should be a deterrent? They have already implemented the points system which I think is brilliant, but I have no qualms with them fining me if I do something stupid.
 
Nicodeamus said:
no society does not decide the law, the politicians, the regulators and the legislators decided the laws, unless you're going to convince me that our society somehow decides the laws that the ANC pass (because it doesn't).
Click to expand...

Actually yes it does. Etolls, secrecy bill etc etc, if it was only goverment, those would have been enacted long ago.


Nicodeamus said:
It is also just cheaper to bribe the cop than going to court....
Click to expand...

Regular little rebel aren't you. How can you moan about the lawmakers and yet publically admit to supporting corruption?
 
DrJohnZoidberg said:
Yes, laws cannot be enforced equally in certain circumstance, that is why we have courts and judges to decide these things. I also never said you must move out of the country, I merely offered it as an alternative. I actually first mentioned the most logical thing to do if you believe there are inequalities in the law, you get supporters of your idea behind you and bring this forward to the courts.


There also is no perfect government but I can guarantee you that in most cases an imperfect government is better than no government at all.
Click to expand...
yet in all cases in society where government doesn't intervene we seem to have spontaneous order.

Believe it or not politicians have been around for a very long time and some of them actually know what they are talking about.
Click to expand...
I bet I know more about traffic analysis than any politician currently in charge of the department of traffic... and my knowledge is only on introduction level.. Our current minister of transport didn't know what she was talking about when she wanted to reduce the traffic limit

But since when do you believe that a politician knows what is best for you and how it is best to control your live and your behaviour? I don't trust them to do any of that, I don't even trust you to do that..

Laws are not just passed willy nilly, no matter how it sometimes looks like it, there are always reasons behind it.
Click to expand...
usually they favour one group over another or it is another way of government to tax people (which is legalized theft).

If you say why should they fine you for breaking the law, what else do you think should be a deterrent? They have already implemented the points system which I think is brilliant, but I have no qualms with them fining me if I do something stupid.
Click to expand...

who decides what is stupid and what is not? the points system will be a disaster, it will only result in more illegal licences on the road. Every law also has an unintended consequences, which you seem to ignore. In the case of traffic fines, it will cost more money to enforce unnecessary laws, which is just a waste of resources and taxpayer's money.
 
Kosmik said:
Actually yes it does. Etolls, secrecy bill etc etc, if it was only goverment, those would have been enacted long ago.
Click to expand...
government seems to be the problem...
What did reagan say"? "government is not the solution to our problems, government is the problem"

Regular little rebel aren't you. How can you moan about the lawmakers and yet publically admit to supporting corruption?
Click to expand...

pft, the lawmaker uses the law for his own benefit or the benefit of a special interest group, why should I pay his cost? What you can also just do is ignore the traffic fine, in most cases it somehow gets lost in the system...
 
Nicodeamus said:
yet in all cases in society where government doesn't intervene we seem to have spontaneous order.

I bet I know more about traffic analysis than any politician currently in charge of the department of traffic... and my knowledge is only on introduction level.. Our current minister of transport didn't know what she was talking about when she wanted to reduce the traffic limit

But since when do you believe that a politician knows what is best for you and how it is best to control your live and your behaviour? I don't trust them to do any of that, I don't even trust you to do that..

usually they favour one group over another or it is another way of government to tax people (which is legalized theft).



who decides what is stupid and what is not? the points system will be a disaster, it will only result in more illegal licences on the road. Every law also has an unintended consequences, which you seem to ignore. In the case of traffic fines, it will cost more money to enforce unnecessary laws, which is just a waste of resources and taxpayer's money.
Click to expand...

Okay you know what, we have gotten so far off course here and I don't know enough about politics to be debating on how governments should be formed.

It all boils down to the fact that you think it's okay to speed and drive drunk. If you seriously think this way then it really scares me to think how many other people share your sentiments that I must share the roads with. I thought I only had taxis to worry about, I was obviously mistaken.
 
DrJohnZoidberg said:
Okay you know what, we have gotten so far off course here and I don't know enough about politics to be debating on how governments should be formed.

It all boils down to the fact that you think it's okay to speed and drive drunk. If you seriously think this way then it really scares me to think how many other people share your sentiments that I must share the roads with. I thought I only had taxis to worry about, I was obviously mistaken.
Click to expand...

yeah budge out of the conversation and go back to points that I addressed( earlier then conclude with an ad hominen fallacy...(this is usually how it goes).

It is okay to speed and drive drunk, because that is better than government putting you in jail, letting you be raped, having the police torture you, fining you afterwards and then locking you up after you have speed and driven drunk.

You think it is okay for government to dictate what is good and bad for you and regulate your behaviour...

Fascism is a radical and authoritarian nationalist political ideology. Fascists seek to organize a nation according to corporatist perspectives, values, and systems, including the political system and the economy. ...
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

yes I did goodwin's law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X