Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Presumably one where he can drive to a bar, get sozzled in it and then get back in his car and drive home, hopefully without hitting anybody on the way back.
Personal Freedom vs. Public Welfare
- Thread starter chair
- Start date
Presumably one where he can drive to a bar, get sozzled in it and then get back in his car and drive home, hopefully without hitting anybody on the way back.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
All laws should be designed to be just. The quality of justness should take primacy when designing a law.
If it can't achieve that while being just then it's poorly designed.
:yawn: strawman
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Fair enough. Any dipstick who decides to drive home while drunk should face the full force of the law, have their license revoked, be made to pay restitution for the endangerment they've posed to other people and an additional fine for whining about it.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
I drove home drunk last night, carefully and cautiously, and arrived safely having encountered no other cars or pedestrians, having inconvenienced nobody else on the road.
Who was harmed by my decision to drive drunk last night?
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Oh, so you do this repeatedly then? Drive somewhere, get drunk and then drive back home do you? Your parameters of "carefully and cautiously" are already affected by your being drunk so you're not being responsible in any of this, you do realize that, right? Supposing you had encountered other cars or pedestrians on the road last night and your reaction times were reduced whereby you'd caused an accident?
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Well, you if you claim to be indwelt with the Holy Spirit if nobody else. Would the Holy Spirit endorse such reckless behaviour whereby somebody else could be hurt or killed by such irresponsible behaviour on your part? Why are you even getting drunk before getting behind the wheel of a car in the first place if you claim to have such indwelling?
If your argument is predicated solely on "Hey, I got home safe" then wow, good for you. So responsible.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
OK, so we have an answer from Arthur Brain - me
artie believes that I was harmed by my decision to drive home drunk last night
In what way was I harmed artie, by my decision to drive home drunk last night?
And would you agree that nobody else was harmed by my decision to drive home drunk last night?
chair
1. You did not hurt anybody driving home drunk last night. Will you tomorrow night?- I don't know.
2. it is not a strawman. you have insisted that current traffic laws are unjust, and even compared the thinking behind them to Nazi thinking. So what is your alternative? A real answer, this time, if you have one.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
exactly!
The answer to my question "who was harmed" is "NOBODY"
Now, will you agree that a law that seeks to punish me for engaging in a behavior/action from which no one is harmed is unjust?
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
This line of dialog on my part is and always has been an attempt to directly address the questions YOU asked in the OP.
The limitations ought to be when the laws/regulations are unjust.
One draws the line at laws that are unjust.
Last edited:
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Um, no, I didn't say you were harmed or that anybody else was either. That you irresponsibly choose to break the law and put yourself and others at risk doesn't automatically result in you or anyone else being hurt but it exponentially increases the risk of such coming about.
There's no excuse for that. If you were pulled over by the cops and were over the limit then you would deserve to have the full force of the law thrown at you.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
My alternative is laws that achieve the desired effect of ensuring public safety while also being inherently just.
And how are you going to do that without unjust laws like "stop at a red light", "you have to have working brake lights", "drive on the right side of the road", "don't drive while drunk"?
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
doser asks:
artie responds:
doser repeats what artie has said:
and then, inexplicably:
:idunno:
artie responds:
doser repeats what artie has said:
and then, inexplicably:
:idunno:
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
By first recognizing that any law that seeks to punish me for engaging in a behavior or action from which no one is harmed is inherently unjust
in short- you have no answer. Thank you for clarifying.