[Drew]

sorry, i see nothing "reasonable" about creating a special class of people that get to boss you around at the point of a gun. it is clear to me that, while some may consider what the cop did legal, that it can also be "wrong".

i think it's important to remember that morality and legality aren't equivalent.

I agree 100%.

 

[Drew]

How does someone walking along the side of the road put you in danger? Are you not staying on the road when you're driving?

 

[Drew]

One person? Probably none.
Two people? A little more.
A parade of people migrating from one town to another using the interstate because that's the most direct route? More than you might imagine.

Why, if we allow pedestrians on the interstate, not allow bicyclists as well?

Right, if you allow people to talk on the side of the interstate it will suddenly be flooded with all of the people who have just been itching to walk down the interstate. So like maybe two. Regardless, I still fail to see how people walking alongside the road endangers you.

 

[Drew]

There are plenty of hard surfaced roads in neighborhoods and arterial roads between built up areas.
Why do you feel that there shouldn't be restrictions on pedestrians on high speed roadways?

Should they be allowed to walk upon railway tracks as well since there's no way they'll knock a train off its wheels?

Someone walking on the side of the interstate does not harm anyone else or their property. End of story as far as I'm concerned.

I still don't see how it endangers you.

 

[Drew]

I say we grant special permits to any person whom can walk, jog, run, or cycle at a minimum of 40 mph without falling below that pace access limited user access freeways. Such persons will also have to have proper lighting, signals, and have paid their taxes to use such road and display payment of tax in the form of a current state issued tag.

Would you tell the owner of a private tollway that prohibits pedestrians that you are responsible for your own safety? Would you tell the owner of a private tollway that you do not have to have safety equipment to use their tollway if they require it of you?

Are we talking about private tollways?

 

[Drew]

Stop molesting me, you pervert!!
Tossing dynamite is illegal.
Shooting at passing motorists is illegal.
... and walking on limited access roadways or riding a bicycle, tricycle, pair of rollerblades, and horse drawn carts is illegal.

Just because something is illegal doesn't mean it should be illegal. That's a silly argument.

 

[Drew]

But in this case, it's not illegal just because its illegal, it's illegal for a very good reason - safety of pedestrians and motorists.
One may note that pedestrians, bicyclists, handcarts, horse drawn carts, horses, and scooters are allowed on surface streets but not limited access ones, care to give it a thought as to why?

The only good reason for anything to be illegal is because it directly harms someone or their property. Walking along the side of the interstate does neither. The fact that a pedestrian could possibly decide to just throw themselves into traffic is no different than the fact that you could decide to just jerk the steering wheel and smash into the car next to you. The pedestrian is facing far greater danger. The government should not be in the business of protecting people from themselves.

 

[Drew]

By your reasoning then, there should be no laws mandating that cars only drive on the right side of the roadway as no one is being 'harmed' unless and until two cars crash into each other. But that's not the way it works, is it? Nope.
By your reasoning, there's no reason that boats should be prohibited inside the orange buoy's at Lake Lanier's dam because no one's being 'hurt' by their presence there.
By your reasoning, there's no reason why pedestrians shouldn't occupy the entire land of a roadway instead of being forced to walk on sidewalks on on the verge.
By your reasoning, there's no reason to obtain a driving license, nor a private pilot's license because 'no one's being hurt' by your driving or piloting unless you decide to just smash into oncoming traffic or aircraft.

I'm not sure how to break this to you, but there are plenty of laws passed by the people (as represented by their government) with the sole purpose of keeping people from harming themselves. The lack of court decisions rescinding said laws says plenty about their Constitutionality and the role of government.

Tell me this though, if "the government should not be in the business of protecting people from themselves" does the same also apply to manufacturers?
Should there be a warning not to use pistol powders when loading shotgun shells?
Should there warnings that high voltage wires are behind certain doors?
Should there be warnings that some lakes and inland waters in Florida harbor alligators?
.... or should it be left up to the consumer as it's 'not someone's place'?

Right, those laws shouldn't exist either. Do you need a law to tell you which side of the road to drive on? If traffic laws ceased to exist today, would you start driving on the left side of the road? People don't need the law to tell them how to live every little aspect of their lives. People would not just lose their minds and start acting irrationally in the absence of law.

The "that's the way it's always been" argument doesn't make it right or mean that's how it should be. I could care less what is Constitutional and what isn't. The Constitution is just a piece of paper as far as I'm concerned. We don't need a Constitution to tell us not to harm people and their property. All the Constitution does is give far too much power to government.

As far as your point about manufacturers, they should be able to do whatever the heck they want to do. If they're putting out dangerous products and misleading people they're not going to be in business very long. They have a natural incentive to protect their customers, otherwise they're going to run out of customers fast.

 

[Drew]

Should people be able to walk/bike/jog/drive on airport runways?

Same as above. My answer will be the same no matter what ridiculous example you give. People don't need the law to tell them how to live every aspect of their lives. The airport will not be flooded with joggers just because they won't get arrested for doing so.

 

[Drew]

Why not? Ain't no law against it, is there?

Because you wouldn't want to die.

 

[Drew]

Why not? Ain't no law against it, is there?

There aren't any laws preventing you from jumping off a cliff. By your logic you should've already jumped off.

 

[Drew]

Some people do, Drew, or they really do not care all that much, or they are reckless. You make a lot of naive assumptions that are really false premises, leading you to a false conclusion.

Faulty logic. Faulty fantasy dream world.

I'm not saying it would never happen. Just that it would happen no more than it already does.

 

[Drew]

I can jump off a 5 ft cliff, or even a 40' if there's enough water beneath, but if I jump off a 50' cliff with the intention of committing suicide... well, there's laws against that.

As for driving on the 'wrong side of the road'... who's to say it's the wrong side? There's no law saying that and there aren't any legal repercussions if I decided to.

I'm curious though, if there should be no laws to 'protect you from yourself', does that include not putting warnings on dangerous chemicals? Should the government mandate what you can or cannot use to clean your toilet? Should there a law that makes a mfg. put a warning that rotating fan belts can grab loose clothing when it's a danger or should you be the one to make the decision on what style clothing you want to wear since it's your life?

Once again, the answer is the same. Suicide hasn't been illegal for a long time. No one has to say it's the wrong side of the road. Everyone just knows to drive on the right side of the road because that's the side everyone drives on. No one needs a law to tell them that. It's like you think everyone will completely forget how to drive if traffic laws disappeared. Order can still exist in the absence of law.

We don't need government to do ANY of those things. I've already answered that once, you just keep listing different examples for which the answer is still the same. It will be the same for any more ridiculous examples you come up with.

 

[Drew]

:bsflag:
A couple million citizens of the United Kingdom, India, Japan, Australia, South Africa, Ireland, Malta and Cyprus would take issue with your "everyone" statement.

Who IS going to tell them that, and with what authority if they believe otherwise?
Is there any penalty for a driving school in the USA to teach it's patrons to drive on the left side of the road if there's no law saying to?

If there is no government to back up the wishes of the citizenry (such as what side of the road to drive on) then what penalty can there be for someone not wishing to obey that non-law?

If pedestrians should be allowed on the sides of the interstate should horses? Should hand drawn carts be allowed? Farm equipment? Riding lawnmowers? Bicycles?

Where if anywhere does Drew draw his proverbial 'line in the sand'?

Are we talking about any of those countries? The point is people will continue to drive on the same side of the road in the absence of laws. You won't see people driving on the wrong side of the road any more than you do today. Every once in a while I see it now - and they don't always get caught! How is this possible?? Shouldn't the law prevent it??

Why do you think people NEED someone to tell them which side of the road to drive on? Not getting hit by an oncoming vehicle is enough incentive to keep most people driving in the same lane they've always driven in.

There would be no need for penalties unless actual damage is done. If someone lives in the middle of nowhere and wants to drive down the middle of the road, then so what? If there's no traffic then there's no harm. You won't see anyone driving down the wrong side of the interstate in Atlanta, laws or not.

There is no "line in the sand" when it comes to activities that don't directly harm someone! The line is direct harm, and that's it.

 

[Drew]

I'm not avoiding anything, I just consider it nonsense not worth my time, but... since you insist....
A) I don't have any authority, that's a matter for the police and the courts. They are the ones who will arrest, and later convict you for transgressions of the law.

B) I never said anything was a 'pre-crime', but there are many instances of things being prohibited even though there is no direct harm from the act itself.

I don't mean to be rude, but we could have a much more productive conversation if you could possibly avoid putting words into my mouth, so to speak.

That's exactly what a pre-crime is. So yes, you did say that.

 

[Drew]

I'm going to be frank with you, Drew, and ERJ. A lot of people, myself included, have become very weary of every single thread devolving into a long lecture on why government has no authority and anarchy is the one true God.

We get it, you're a believer. Now can we please talk about something else?

As long as that something else doesn't involve law, government, or politics. So you're saying any political perspective other than anarchy is acceptable?