Virginia legislature passes bill preventing cops from stopping cars with no headlights, brake lights, etc

[Darth]

If someone was engaging in activity that was so reckless that it was more likely than not to cause an injury to a bystander, then it would be reasonable to arrest them.

I like the wording.

Now THAT is the voice of reason.

 

[spat]

reckless driving is a victimless crime.

How reckless does it have to be ?

Who gets to make that call ?

If there were a single quantifiable legal criteria then I could see it. But that's not what we are taking about.

Things with very low risk are called "reckless" and things with much higher risk are considered acceptable.

In my mind, you set a criteria and that's it. "anything with demonstrably more than a 1 in 1000 chance of serious injury or death is reckless" I could get behind.


But the current criteria of "whatever gets some bureaucrats panties in a wad" is unacceptable.

 

[pjzwtl]

I see even more stupid from government. I'd rather take my chances with society.

I’d rather take my chances far from both but my wife won’t let me

 

[Blimey]

How reckless does it have to be ?

Who gets to make that call ?

If there were a single quantifiable legal criteria then I could see it. But that's not what we are taking about.

Things with very low risk are called "reckless" and things with much higher risk are considered acceptable.

In my mind, you set a criteria and that's it. "anything with demonstrably more than a 1 in 1000 chance of serious injury or death is reckless" I could get behind.


But the current criteria of "whatever gets some bureaucrats panties in a wad" is unacceptable.

Much in life cannot be quantified. That’s how it is and always will be...

 

[Darth]

Much in life cannot be quantified. That’s how it is and always will be...

Sure, but the answer to that is not "well then let's just continue with this awful system until enough people get sick of it."

 

[spat]

Much in life cannot be quantified. That’s how it is and always will be...

If it's going to be a law, it should have to be.

"We know it when we see it" is a dead giveaway.

Might as well put up a "Tyranny ahead" sign.

 

[Airborneguy]

The cameras are already here. Those public spaces are absolutely overflowing with them. Every traffic infraction is probably caught from a dozen angles *right now*.

I'm not advocating for adding anything new.

In fact I want to get the government a whole lot *less* involved in the whole process.

The founders certainly would not have objected to private citizens recording events they were witnessing, there were eyes on every street corner even back then. The only difference was the ability to record.

What I am saying is that instead of wasting all the resources spent on that *now* we crowd source it.

There is no end to the number of "Karens" out there who would like nothing more than to catch a traffic violation on their dash cam and mail in a report. Let then and free up the tax money for real crimefighting.

You seem to act like I am advocating for a loss of privacy. I am not. The privacy you think you are defending doesn't exist any longer. I am just advocating that we stop pretending it does and we at least make use of what we have now.

Or are *you* saying we need to outlaw cameras in public spaces ?

You can't be serious with this.

To limit citizen interactions with cops, you want to increase and effectively deputize, well, everyone basically to engage in free, enforceable, surveillance for the government.

 

[spat]

I’d rather take my chances far from both but my wife won’t let me

My wife is well on board with that plan.

It's why we're moving to a mountaintop in Arizona.

 

[spat]

You can't be serious with this.

To limit citizen interactions with cops, you want to increase and effectively deputize, well, everyone basically to engage in free, enforceable, surveillance for the government.

Why not ?

The ultimate goal would be for *no* interaction with police until there is a citizen complaint, about anything. Sit in your station eating chili till you get a call like the firemen.

If the citizen can provide sufficient video evidence and it isn’t an arrestable offense, why even leave the station ?

It would probably cut down on road rage a lot.


Instead of tryong to smash the other guys car, the enraged driver would be "wait till I get home and upload this dash cam footage, he'll regret cutting me off then...."

 

[Jezman]

Correct.

So the law says speeding is wrong. So you get caught speeding and your logic is no one was a victim so therfore you are not quilty because no one was injured. So someone goes to your home when you are not there and burns it to the ground so they are not quilty because noone was a victim. A person gets murder and no body is found but evidence of a crime is all over, so no one should be charged?

Hmm you should be a judge.

 

[Airborneguy]

Our system is definitely fucked, but there's a reason libertarian thought has never caught on. Give it some time and reasonable minds come to understand it's not amenable to widespread implementation. If only the Tsars had defeated communism, it would be spoken of in the same terms.

 

[spat]

So the law says speeding is wrong. So you get caught speeding and your logic is no one was a victim so therfore you are not quilty because no one was injured. So someone goes to your home when you are not there and burns it to the ground so they are not quilts because noone was a victim.

Hmm you should be a judge.

If someone burns your house to the ground, you do not have to be home to be the victim LOL.

It's not that you aren’t guilty of speeding if nobody was hurt.

It's that speeding shouldn't be a crime, because on it's own it doesn't harm anyone.

Now an accident caused by excessive speed would be a different matter entirely. Even if you just knock down someone's mailbox. Even if they aren’t home at the time. You have still damaged their property (i.e. hurt them).

A victim need not be physically harmed to be a victim. They just need to have their rights or interest damaged.

 

[spat]

Our system is definitely fucked, but there's a reason libertarian thought has never caught on. Give it some time and reasonable minds come to understand it's not amenable to widespread implementation. If only the Tsars had defeated communism, it would be spoken of in the same terms.

Libertarian thought was tried once about 250 years ago. It worked pretty well. Built the greatest country the world has ever seen.

Turns out it has a weakness to creeping totalitarianism though if the electorate doesn't work tirelessly keeping it in check.

 

[holdover]

Correct.

Do you dream up these wild hypotheticals as a hobby or is it strictly business?

Just a hobby, Im planning on going pro one day , but Im procrastinating.



No, its not correct. This is where philosophy and reality diverge. For instance, Can you demonstrate any society which has/Had absolute freedom?

There are rules even among family's , You cannot have some type of society without some type of rule or laws . If theres ten people on an Island it is in their own best interest of survival to work with others . Rules have to be made to avoid confrontations that will no doubt occur constantly.

Because Saturday is jimmy's turn to get the coconuts and Its my day to fish. and when when we come back to camp we agree to share it with those had to get wood for the fire , or make something . No rules no society.

 

[Darth]

Just a hobby, Im planning on going pro one day , but Im procrastinating.



No, its not correct. This is where philosophy and reality diverge. For instance, Can you demonstrate any society which has/Had absolute freedom?

There are rules even among family's , You cannot have some type of society without some type of rule or laws . If theres ten people on an Island it is in their own best interest of survival to work with others . Rules have to be made to avoid confrontations that will no doubt occur constantly.

Because Saturday is jimmy's turn to get the coconuts and Its my day to fish. and when when we come back to camp we agree to share it with those had to get wood for the fire , or make something . No rules no society.

What do "rules" have to do with anything?

Have you not seen the countless threads where I've said something along the lines of "their business, their rules?"

 

[Darth]

So the law says speeding is wrong. So you get caught speeding and your logic is no one was a victim so therfore you are not quilty because no one was injured.

Nobody ever said "injured", but should speeding laws exist? No.

So someone goes to your home when you are not there and burns it to the ground so they are not quilty because noone was a victim. A person gets murder and no body is found but evidence of a crime is all over, so no one should be charged?

Hmm you should be a judge.

And you should be a student in English class.

What in the world are you on about with those 2 "examples?"

 

[Darth]

Libertarian thought was tried once about 250 years ago. It worked pretty well. Built the greatest country the world has ever seen.

Turns out it has a weakness to creeping totalitarianism though if the electorate doesn't work tirelessly keeping it in check.

The founders of this country were just some wackos with crazy ideals that the government had gotten a little too big for it's own good as well.

 

[fresch]

From each to each ... communist blah.
I see cops break the laws all the time, I know they are on duty, only no lights, siren, speeding, cutting people off, on the phone, etc..
Judges drunk getting rides home, you know things we don't get away with.
So yes the cop looking for vehicle tickets, most people who drive pay the bill, are only filling the coffers when they could be stopping real crime. Only we don't in the Syracuse area because there's no money in it.

 

[Airborneguy]

Libertarian thought was tried once about 250 years ago. It worked pretty well. Built the greatest country the world has ever seen.

Turns out it has a weakness to creeping totalitarianism though if the electorate doesn't work tirelessly keeping it in check.

Considering TJ implemented the hydrometer to collect taxes on whiskey and rum, and the original GW's earliest act was to put down a rebellion over taxes, I beg to differ.

Oh and let's not forget Johnny A creating the sedition act.

The Revolution was a creation of classic liberalism, not libertarianism.

I'd expect you to know this. The other one doesn't surprise me in the least.

 

[holdover]

What do "rules" have to do with anything?

Have you not seen the countless threads where I've said something along the lines of "their business, their rules?"

Rules are predecessors of law, rules are required to have a functioning society, the smaller society's had rules , they needed them to survive. . larger society have laws, they need them to function. The nature of society is to have rules or laws . You cannot have one without them . In other words absolute freedom does not, nor ever did exist in a society . with the exception of hermit type characters like yourself Rules and laws are necessary for society.

 

[Darth]

Rules are predecessors of law, rules are required to have a functioning society, the smaller society's had rules , they needed them to survive. . larger society have laws, they need them to function. The nature of society is to have rules or laws . You cannot have one without them . In other words absolute freedom does not, nor ever did exist in a society . with the exception of hermit type characters like yourself

The difference being of course who implements the "laws" vs. "rules."

If you want to join a commune that bans alcohol, have at it. Just leave me out of it. (And again, I don't even drink.)

 

[Jezman]

Nobody ever said "injured", but should speeding laws exist? No.


And you should be a student in English class.

What in the world are you on about with those 2 "examples?"

Just trying to understand your logic. You said no victim no crime not me.

 

[Darth]

Just trying to understand your logic. You said no victim no crime not me.

And then you went on to post 2 crimes with blatant victims. A loss of property and a loss of life.

 

[holdover]

The difference being of course who implements the "laws" vs. "rules."

If you want to join a commune that bans alcohol, have at it. Just leave me out of it. (And again, I don't even drink.)

I would ban ya anyways. for violation rule # 16 no smart asses on the island.

 

[Darth]

I would ban ya anyways. for violation rule # 16 no smart asses on the island.

I'll drink to that.

 

[holdover]

The difference being of course who implements the "laws" vs. "rules."

,
No, the point is, no rules no society , thats reality verses philosophy .

 

[Darth]

,
No, the point is, no rules no society , thats reality verses philosophy .

And the point also is, as stated above, "rules" are not nor have they ever been the issue.

 

[spat]

Considering TJ implemented the hydrometer to collect taxes on whiskey and rum, and the original GW's earliest act was to put down a rebellion over taxes, I beg to differ.

Oh and let's not forget Johnny A creating the sedition act.

The Revolution was an act of classic liberalism, not libertarianism.

Compared with where they were coming from it was a massive leap.

Nobody outside the anarchists thinks you can do away with government entirely.

The founders knew that government is inevitable, and if the one you build isn’t strong enough to prevent another from taking over you could end up with anything. They learned this lesson with the articles of confederation.

But the goal is to have as little government as possible.

Their revolutionary notion was that the aristocracy doesn’t know best.

We have allowed a new aristocracy to flourish, and they have convinced most people that without their divine guidance we will fall to anarchy.

We won’t. You would be surprised how little government is actually necessary.

 

[Darth]

You would be surprised how little government is actually necessary.

I'm hoping this pandemic hoax steers more people in the right direction though.

 

[holdover]

Yes they are, rules are nothing but more than a type of law. Rules are the predecessors of law in society's which don't have the capacity for law .

There is no historical precedent for a truly free society, Even in Platos day . True freedom is a myth. Even if you lived in a 17th century German farm up in the mountains on your land .