Ebola and Libertarianism

And just with attempted murder it’s too little too late. You won’t know if the other person has ebola until you get sick and find yourself dying.

By the same reasoning it ought then not be a criminal offence for someone with HIV or AIDS to infect someone. That person just want sex but the disease transmission was an ancillary act of nature.

Again, Clover, you refuse to debate what I actually wrote – that it is not government’s place (that is, other people’s place) to dictate to others their course of action. That people – all people – have a right to decide for themselves what action to take.

Having carefully explained this to you several times now, it is certain you’re not dumb – just dishonest. You can’t or won’t debate the principle at issue – so you “debate” one of your own choosing.

Pathetic.

Let me try – oh god – one more time, Clover.

If we had free association (and freedom, generally), I – as a restaurant owner, say – could decide to temporarily close my doors; or require that patrons wear masks. Or deny service to any person I felt looked sketchy. It’s my restaurant, after all – and it’s my life. Conversely, I could not force anyone to enter my restaurant, nor interact with me or my staff. They would be free to decide for themselves whether my restaurant and the people in it seemed ok to them. Any risks assumed would be assumed freely.

Contrast this with your approach. Some guy – just another person, not am omniscient god – but wielding the coercive power of the state – simply dictates to me that I will close my doors. Or that I will keep them open. That I must serve anyone who enters my establishment, whether they appear to be ill to me or not.

Now, in the first case, if someone gets sick, it is sad – but they have the comfort of knowing it did not occur as the result of coercion; of some other person (a complete stranger) forcibly playing the odds with their life. Whereas in the case of the latter, if a person becomes ill, they are not only sick – they know it happened because some arrogant, know-it-all control freak did play dice with their lives.

That’s the difference between people like you and me, Clover.

I accept that there are risks in life. But I do not presume to manage other people’s lives.

You do.

Well-said, Eric!

Imagine if we were free, and thus did not have to hire or serve those with various diseases; or those who belong to high-risk groups!

Clover is in favor of trading liberty for security; but even if such a trade could indeed provide that security, it would not be worth it- much less, when (as it is now) liberty is traded for a false security, which in reality actually hinders one’s ability to protect themselves, while dictating policies which force people to engage in behavior which is actually detrimental to their security and that of their neighbor.

So apparently you believe if you go to a restaurant and get sick you can’t do a thing about it? Your lost time from work and lost pay amount to nothing because you paid for a service, a service was provided and your only recourse is not to go back there as well as to warn others. Likewise someone you care about is gravely because someone else was carrying a deadly disease. You have no recourse because disease is an act of nature and you can’t charge them with a crime. Had the other person gravely injured your loved one via a physical weapon even accidently then you would have a recourse but that’s totally different.

Clover, you’re an imbecile. I give up.

Yeah, Eric, I don’t think we’ll ever have a true libertarian society or Galt’s Gulch anywhere on this earth, as long as there exists even a few power-hungry people and a bunch of others who are willing to take up arms to carry out their orders.

But in practical terms, for the remainder of our lifetimes, there are still places where one can be essentially left alone.

I think we are to the point now, where even in some of the socialist countries to which I would never go, one can now actually live freer and be less interfered with than here in the US. -only because it has gotten so over-the-top here.

I mean, it’s gotten to the point where even many Europeans are lambasting the behavior of our pigs, and the level of gov’t interference that we are suffering.

For instance: A guy from It-Lee(Italy) was once telling me that you’ll virtually never get a traffic ticket there, unless you are in an accident. Of course, I wouldn’t recommend living in It-Lee….but I think that is illustrative of the way things are in many other places- even in rather Orwellian EU countries. It seems that the people in the English-speaking countries are willing to tolerate a total police-state, but in many other countries, other than in economics, one can be a good deal freer these days than we.

I’ve heard of some Americans actually taking up residence in RUSSIA so they can homeschool their children, without the hassles and persecutions they often experience here.

By-the-way, didja get the MO? (Sure hope so- it’d been so long since i used one, I think I forgottedid to tear off the receipt!)

Eric – you keep waiting for that FTL drive. I’m holding out for a tardis.

Good stuff, Eight!

My ancestors came from Switzerland – another instinctively independent country and people. Maybe Cloverism is in the genes also?

Dear David, RE: “Most people over 40 that I know wouldn’t agree with you, Eric.”

Those people are known to us over 40 folks as: Dweebs, suck ups, and ass kissers. You know, the teacher’s Pet.

They make good narks, snitches, and tattle-tales. It’s most likely they were doing so since the third grade or before.

The majority of us back in the Day, or so it seems, looked down upon those poor lost souls. The funny thing is, today they occupy positions of power like the head of Uber-Homeland Security.

Hmph, suddenly I think know how Humpty Dumpty made it onto The Wall. …The people got old and forgot. ?

Hi David,

It appears that in each demographic, there is a small cohort of awake/liberty-minded folk. It is encouraging that there are any people in your age group who aren’t utter Clovers.

Yes Eric you are awake/liberty-minded also. I do have to laugh at you. You say it is a stupid clover that says it is OK to strap in a child in a car. Back in the days when people did not strap in the child we did not have the news access that we have today. If we did, we would hear about all the kids flying through the front windshields in those days. It did happen way to often . I remember back in those days where a guy said if he got into an accident he would hold his arm out to stop his kid from flying through the windshield. Yes there were stupid people even in those days and thousands of dead kids to show for it. I know Eric if you were to strap a kid of yours in if you had one it would probably be to your front bumper.

Clover, the issue is not the merits (or lack thereof) of child “safety” seats. It is whether you – or anyone else – has the right to force others to use them.

It’s the same thing, over and over.

My personal safety (or the safety of someone else’s child) is none of your business.

And you just don’t get it. Or, rather, refuse to discuss the matter openly. That is – your desire to threaten others with violence to keep them “safe” (or to “help”) them.

You are a violent control freak who hates the idea of liberty, of a free society.

Which makes you un-American.

Why don’t you move to Europe, Clover? Or better yet, North Korea?

Instead of working to turn America into North Korea?

You know, Mr. 2 & 1/2 Leaf Clover, even if it weren’t “the law”, you (and everyone else) would still be free to restrain your brats; and to use your own discretion and determine the level of risk under varying circumstances, that you are willing to accept for your self and your fambly. And without mandatory insurance or the prospect of free “healthcare”, I have a feeling that even a relatively unconcerned parent would choose to exercise caution and do what they feel best to ensure their kid’s safety- probably more so than they would today.

If it’s mere safety that you’re after, then why not ban children from riding in cars at all? Better yet, you could prevent 40,000 deaths a year if you banned driving entirely. Would you like to see that? Oh, no, because you are willing to accept a certain level of risk in order to have fast convenient transportation- just as those who ride motorcicles are willing to accept a higher risk for the enjoyment of such. But you seem to think that it is O-K for others to use economic raps on the knuckles and violence to dictate the level of risk that strangers can take or not take.

Now we are to the point where it is a “crime” to leave your kid sitting in your parked car alone for 5 minutes, while you run into the store. In one case in NJ, (a state which now has a $1000 fine for not “buckling up your cat or dog) a woman was ARRESTED for leaving her kid unattended in a stroller for a few minutes outside of a store that she zipped into.

If you think that having an Orwellian Naziistic state usurping all of our rights and the very ability to live our own lives and make our own decisions is somehow a good trade-off for “safety” I ask what gives YOU the right to impose such tactics on others via your “elected representatives”?

You are right Eric. I do not get your right to endanger others including children. Enough said because that says it all.

Clover, I feel you might be endangering children. It is entirely possible you have one locked up in your basement. Anyone might be endangering children. Someone certainly is. It could be you.

So, let’s conduct random stops at people’s houses. Cops will knock at your door, just to ask a few quick questions, maybe have a peek inside. Whenever they like, at random.

Because someone might be in danger….

Yes Eric you say it is your right as a parent to declare a possible death sentence or permanent injury to a child if you get into a minor accident just because of your stubborn stupidity to not easily prevent it. Like I said before Eric that you are stupid and have a mental problem.

Like I said Eric, I do not understand why a person has the right to endanger others. Why is that Eric? I thought the libertarian theme was to do whatever the hell you felt like if it did not harm others. You are willing to harm others.

Clover,

There is a difference – a huge one – between overt/deliberate reckless endangerment (example: giving a six-year-old a bag of heroin) and a minor/marginal and entirely theoretical “risk” (such as driving a six-year-old in a car without a saaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaafety seat).

In any case, it is not your place to decide for others – to micromanage their lives – because their lives are not yours.

Are you the parent of your next door neighbor’s children? Who gave you the right to parent them?

What you are, Clover, is a pushy, obnoxious busybody.

And – as I have pointed out before – a coward.

Why don’t you go around tapping people on the back, demanding that they do this (or not do that) yourself?

If your ideas are so wholesome and commonsensical and right?

You know why.

Because people would tell you to fuck off and MYOB.

And you can’t stand that.

So you use government to do your dirty work – like the whiny little kid at school who runs to teacher.

Hey Clover,

Does your kid sleep in a fireproof room?
Does he use a safety harness when using the stairs?
Does he ever eat out of those dangerous ceramic dishes or drink out of glass glasses, which could mutilate him/sever his jugular vein if broken?
Are the edges of your pillow cases thoroughly secured, so as to prevent them from becoming a suffocation hazard?
Has he ever ridden one of those two-wheeled human-powered vehicles, in which one is precariously balanced on two thin wheels, just looking for a reduced-traction situation to send them hurtling to the hard concrete?

If not, what gives you the right to determine the level of risk that the offspring of your reproductive system should be exposed to?

Oh…because the state hasn’t mandated those things yet? But when they do, I’m sure you’ll be fine with it.

Darn it Clover – don’t you how Libertarians view children? They believe children are their own private property until a child is old to choose to leave their parents to seek other guardians or hit the streets and live on their own.

No, Clover. Libertarians do not consider other people’s kids the property of the state. That is, of other people not their parents.

Moleman it is all about risk based changes. Thousands of kids each year used to fly through windshields and slam against dashboards and hit the car roof with even minor accidents. There are now easy solutions to prevent it. It all comes down to a libertarian is willing to endanger others. If you tell me that thousands of kids are killed by certain types of glasses that are designed for kids then yes they are taken off the market. Yes the government can not control everything. They are not in your home to tell the idiot not to give a 2 year old an easily breakable glass. Toys are removed from sale when found to kill innocent children by poor design. Tell me why a libertarian is willing to change the oil in their car as a preventive solution when they are not even willing to do something simple to save a child? Is that libertarian priorities?
Eric some of the brightest people in our country went to public school. Then there are people like you. It is obvious that you learned nothing in public school. You are willing to change the oil in a vehicle to save an engine but unwilling to do a simple thing to save a child. That fact tells me that you learned nothing in public school. That fact goes against everything I thought that libertarians believed in. Eric if you want to drive a hundred miles per hour on a winding mountain roadway then I have no problem with it if you can guarantee me there will be no other cars or bikers or walkers around that you very well might hit.

Clover, what gives you the right to risk-manage other people’s lives? I have pointed out before the fact that air bags can and have injured and killed people. Don’t people have a right to weigh risks for themselves?

Your oil change argument doesn’t fly. Here’s why:

If you do not change the oil and filter, you will have mechanical problems. It is certain.

If I do not wear a seat belt, it is possible I may be more injured if I have an accident.

Can you understand the difference?

And more to the point: If I don’t change the oil in my car, well… it’s my car. It’s not your car.

Similarly, it’s my life. If I choose to “risk” it (as you see it) by not wearing a seat belt, that’s my right – because it’s my life, not yours. You are not my parent, nor my owner.

Child “safety” seats are no different. As Mole pointed out, there are innumerable things that could result in harm to a child. That does not give you the right to forcibly intervene.

Only when a child is actually harmed – or when it is obvious that imminent harm will result – does one have any right to forcibly intervene.

Letting a six-year old ride in a car unbuckled does not rise to that standard, Clover.

And if you disagree – if you insist that because they might be harmed, it’s right to forcibly intervene – then there is no limit to the forcible interference that could be justified. Not in principle. And so, ultimately, in practice.

This is what I object to, Clover. Your busybody control freak society. In which no aspect of your life is sacrosanct. No limit set down to the potential of others intruding into your life.

For whatever reason, you cannot or will not understand this. You believe some “balance” is possible, even as the scales obviously tilt in the direction of an absolute authoritarian state.

It is astonishing.

Exactly, Libertarians parents see their children not others’ property but their own property until the child has formed an individual conscious in which they can choose to live with their parents, seek other guardians who might raise them into adulthood or leave outright and seek child employment.

Back in the old days children were expected to earn their keep from around four or five years of age. Back then if a parent didn’t want to raise a child, esp. an lazy ingrate, then they were free to abandon them even if the child might die fro non-care without facing legal repercussions. And, of course, children would enter adulthood (as in had their own job and took care of themselves) at a much earlier age than today (usually around 13 to 15 years old).

No, Clover. Jesus! How many times…?

Libertarians do not consider other people’s kids their property – or the property of the state.

Can you get that through your head?

Clover,

So what is wrong with people who are concerned about their child’s safety being free to strap them in or do whatever they want/think they should to ensure their safety?

Or maybe someone is driving in bayou country or similar, and feels that under their circumstances, being unbelted would be safer, as going off the road and ending up in the drink is a more present danger than crashing into a fixed object [Does the fixed object then become broken?] and they feel that the ability to get free and not be trapped in a submerged car is more important/relevant?

I don’t know many people, but I know 3 different people who survived accidents [none involving water; all involving extreme intrusion of the passenger compartment] only because they weren’t belted, and were thrown free!

You’re always mentioning kids flying through windshields in MINOR accidents- but what about major accidents? I was sitting on my mother’s lap who was a passenger in a 1950’s car when I was 5- and we got into an accident. Guess what? I didn’t fly through the windshield! I banged my mouth on the metal dashboard; cried a little; and we all went home.

So you want some strangers whom I’ve never even met, to rule my life based on statistics, rather than allowing me to make my own decisions based on actual circumstances and the present risks?

And guess what? Most people are convinced of the benefits of seatbelts, and would have their kids wear them. Those who don’t care, likely expose themselves and their famblies to other risks in many areas of life anyway, so what is the point? You can’t make them good parents and see that their kids are well-cared for by enacting legislation- although that is what you try to do.

It’s like drugs: Even if you manage to deprive a drug user of access to drugs of any type, guess what? The person who would injest a substance that may cause them serious harm, just to get high, is a person who is willing to take a much higher level of risk than I. Merely curtailing his access to drugs is not in any way shape or form going to prevent him from taking bad risks in other areas of life- be it smoking in bad, or crossing the street without looking; and thus, curtailing his access to drugs will not somehow make him a better parent and suddenly make every other aspect of his kids life safer.

But the biggest thing is, in order to ensure the freedom and basic human rights of the good and innocent, you have to be willing to tolerate things that you may not agree with/may perceive as bad- and let everyone run their own lives and have dominion over that which is their own- which should be easy to do, since those things do not affect/involve you in any way.

Funny, Gil: You all worry about the safety of 3 year-olds and 13 year-olds so much, oh, God-forbid that a person whom you’ve never met should expose their child to real life….and yet the very mechanism which you count on to legislate “the safety of all” is the same entity which enables, propagates and funds the killing of babies in the womb.

Hmmm…little contradiction there? So, somehow, after the kid is born, it is a ward of the state, and must be strapped into car seats and not left alone in the car for 2 minutes or smoked in front of….but while he is in the womb, it is perfectly fine to kill him; and the Orwellian Safety Organization will even pay for it, with money they extorted from me.

It belongs to the parent when it’s in the womb; but somehow becomes the property of the state once it is sprung….

I am a libertarian. Although I believe that abortion is murder, and therefore wrong…..I would ENCOURAGE all who want one to have one! I think it’s GREAT that such people would destroy their children, rather than filling the world with more dysfunctional delinquents; it’s not my concern! It’s their life; their child; their property. I have no say in the matter- nor should I.

Why does it suddenly become my concern once the child is sprung? [It doesn’t. People like you just think it does]

How are the parents not the owners of the child? Everything the child has and is came from the parents. Until the child attains self-awareness and can make his or her own choices then that child has to belong to someone. A baby is not a self-capable being thus has to be reliant on people until he or she grows old enough. Whoever the baby’s guardians are have the say on how the baby is raised and for that time are effectively the owners of that baby.

There is a big difference, Clover, between being a parent or guardian and an owner.

And the state (that is, other people – merely other people invested with special titles and costumes and, of course, organized violence) has no (legitimate) ownership claim over anyone.

What I keep asking the Clovers of the world, but they can never seem to answer, is WHAT GIVES THEM THE LEGAL RIGHT to interfere with MY life; MY children; MY property; MY money; etc.?

Legally speaking, this country was established under a Constitution which gives gov’t very limited specific powers- mainly to operate over itself and some physical aspects of the nation as hole[sic :D]; and to secure and uphold our rights, as defined in that Constitution.

NOWHERE is it authorized to interfere in the minute details of everyone’s lives, in order to force them to practice “safety” nor any other artificially-imposed standard.

These same Clovers would be incensed if some church or religion were authoring legislation that dictated the conduct of individuals and how they maintained what was their own; but yet, they will fully support and even demand legislation which effects and amounts to the very same thing, as long as it is not done in the name of a deity.

What difference does it make, if someone is forcing you to do something against your wishes, because they think that is wah tGod wants you to do; or whether they are doing the same thing because it is what THEY want you to do? The machinations; purposes; outcopme and consequences are identical- the only difference is in semantics.

These people reject religious tyranny- as they should- but then they hypocritically and enthusiastically accept humanistic tyranny.

They are too stupid to realize that there is no difference! They both amount to the exact same thing!

Moleman I guess the government should include an IQ test to the parents of a newborn and take the kid away from them if they are as dumb as you are. Tell me how many Gs would there be if a mother is holding a small child and hits another car or solid object at even 45 mph? When you go from 45 mph to 0 mph in less than a second there would be a dead kid.
Eric a new car MAY be able to go the lifetime of the vehicle without the engine failing because of no oil changes. Why change the oil?
Eric you say that some people were killed by air bags but Eric 100s of thousands were killed without them. Drinking too much water can kill you. Why would you drink any? Eric you may be able to write but it is all garbage.

Clover, you’ve demonstrated once more your inability to comprehend a principle and apply that to a particular. The principle in this case being: If “risk” – however slight – is sufficient justification to endow you or any other stranger with rightful power to impose controls and punishments on other people and their kids, then there is effectively nothing beyond your reach.

And: Air bags have not saved hundreds of thousands of lives – or anything close to it. And even if they had Clover, you have no right to decide life or death questions for other people.

Arrogant control freak prick.

Clover, you’ve already failed the IQ test. It doesn’t matter how many G’s there are at 45MPH- I’m not trying to prevent you from using seatbelts. We are not arguing about the effectiveness of seatbelts, but rather the morality; legality; and practicality of FORCING people to use them.

Of course, I expect this from you, because your position is otherwise indefensible.

YOU are the one seeking to restrict the freedom of others.
YOU are the one advocating that a committee/statistics should determine what people do, rather than their own judgment under the specific circumstances they are in at any given monent.

And of course, you could not answer the questions I posed/refute the things which I said.

FORCE is all you have on your side.

People of low intelligence who like to exert force on others, and who are not ashamed to keep coming back for more, even after their premises have been thoroughly rebuffed, are usually donut-eating swine.

So are you a porker?

Ya gotta love it, Eric! These turds gladly advocate having heavily armed goons interfere with and molest us; and steal our money, because we won’t exercise what THEY consider to be the proper level of “safety” in our own lives.
If one is concerned about their neighbor’s safety, then I’d suggest that they not randomly toss lawn darts over their neighbors yard while the kids are out playing; Not drive down the street while they’re blotto; not shoot off a Roman candle indiscriminately pointed…. in short, our responsibility/obligation to protect our neighbors extends only as far as OUR OWN CONDUCT.
Once we cross the line and decide to dictate how anyone else must conduct themselves in their own affairs; or what level of risk they may and may not accept; and even decree punishments for transgressing the bounds that someone else has set for them (because of what “might happen” in a hypothetical situation) WE become a far greater menace to our neighbors than anything we might be seeking to “protect” them from.

Moleman there need be no force. You either treat others with a safe travel either it be in your car or outside you car or never get on the road. It is pretty simple. If you get on the road and I see that you have in effect handed a child a revolver with one or two bullets in it then yes force to take that loaded gun from the child is in my view and millions of others the correct thing to do. That is pretty much what you are doing if you let a child ride in your car without any restraints. What is it that libertarians are fighting to give a young child a loaded gun pointed at their head?
If you say it is your right to endanger others then as Eric says what is next the right to kill others? Do libertarians feel they are justified to kill others when they did nothing to you?

Clover:

When people are forced to use (and pay) for roads, they have every right to use them. More deeply, there is a fundamental right to travel.

And you have no right to forcibly interpose yourself over a perceived “risk” that is in no way analogous to giving a child a loaded weapon to play with.

Virtually everyone drives – or rides. Yet the vast majority will never be involved in a major accident. Whether they are wearing a seat belt or strapped into a “safety” seat is therefore irrelevant. It is certainly none of your business.

Or rather, it is no more your business than whether I am 20 pounds overweight and don’t exercise “enough” to sufficiently reduce my “risk” of an early death from a heart attack.

Who appointed you everyone else’s Mom?

Clover, I know someone, who as a kid in the 1950’s used to carry a .22 rifle around on his bicycle while on his paper route, and shoot at crows- in California, no less! This was perfectly normal and acceptable behavior. So I have absoloutely no problem with a child being given a loaded gun- he has not endangered anyone until and if such time as shoots someone. Just being in possession of the gun does not somehow mean that a shooting is inevitable. If he does shoot someone/something, then his parents must bear the cost.

By contrast, in the world that people like yourself have created, people are insulated from their own/their children’s actions by various schemes which limit liability; while other innocent people are deprived of their rights in order to potentially “prevent crime”.

Laws can be punitive or preventative. The USA was founded on PUNITIVE laws- in which you are only guilty of having committed a crime when you actually commit one; and then must bear the cost of the crime if you commit one.

By contrast, preventative laws just seek to limit and control everyone in order to prevent them from ever having the opportunity to commit a crime.

The difference between the two philosophies is the difference between freedom and a police state; Individual liberty and unlimited liability vs. deprivation of rights in exchange for limited liability, in which all are forced to pay for potential crimes even if they never commit them; and those who actually do commit crimes are protected from the full brunt of the consequences of their actions.

But your analogy holds no water, anyway, because a child or anyone else not wearing a seatbelt, poses no risk to others whatsoever. Again, it comes down to the individual’s right to determine their own (and their children’s) acceptable level of risk; and their right to choose what they feel is the best course of action under any given circumstance; and a matter of who “owns” one’s children- the parents from whose bodies they sprang; or some group of criminals and pedophiles whom you voted for.

Back to your child with a loaded gun analogy: So you think it is endangering others for a child to merely possess a loaded gun; but you don’t see it as a danger when armed goons pursue a vehicle and interfere with the flow of traffic and detain and interact with a person and extort money from them in the name of the state, merely because they are not practicing the acceptable level of risk in their own life that the state deems they should?

Talk about bass ackwards…..

Moleman and Eric, I can see it now, the libertarian has his small kid in the car and has a minor accident. Years later the older kid and his father are in the car speeding and are stopped by the police. The older kid says to the cop, look at me, my father showed you didn’t he. The kid now has no nose or eye, he has scars all over his face and is missing an arm.
That says it all about your libertarian ideals. I hope your are proud.

Clover,

Try to understand: A possible – and very slight – risk that someone might be injured if he doesn’t wear a seatbelt or sit in a child safety seat does not give you the right to threaten that person with violence to force him to wear a seat belt or sit in a child safety seat.

Just as you have no right to demand that other people exercise, or “get out” more. Or eat a certain diet you approve of because it’s “healthy” and will “lower risk.” It may do just that. But it’s not your place to dictate such things to other people.

Electing to not wear a seat belt (or use a child safety seat) is not the same thing – not even remotely – as you witnessing (as an example) a parent beating his kid to a pulp and stepping in to stop the beating.

Do you see?

No, of course not.

You see yourself as a good person, no doubt. The great risk-mitigator. The practical problem with that is you’re not omniscient. You can’t say that (as an example) in every case, seat belts save lives. Because it’s a fact that in some cases, wearing a seat belt means death – or a serious injury that might not have occurred. Yes, the risk is less. But that is beside the point. Who are you to make those decisions for other people?

That’s the moral argument.

You don’t own other people, Clover. They have a right to weigh risks and take action – or not – according to their own judgment.

You only have the right to raise your paw when someone else’s actions directly threaten to cause you harm.

Otherwise, mind your own business.

Clover, tell me: Are you in favor of out-lawing motorcicles?

You are right Eric I do not understand. I do not understand your right to add risk to others. Eric I could care less if you endanger yourself but endangering others I do not understand. Thousands of kids were needlessly injured or killed each year without any child restraints decades ago. We have cut that back significantly. The last figure I heard was that there are 2 million accidents a year. Do you think it is your right to endanger 100s of thousands of kids? I know Eric, you want more people to die so that you have an open road in front of you.

Clearly, Clover, you do not understand. Because it’s not a question of ” I do not understand your right to add risk to others.” The question is whether you have any right to decide for others what an appropriate level of “risk” is.

Life is risk, Clover. There is potential danger almost everywhere. It’s my right – and your right – to decide for ourselves whether a given “risk” is significant enough to warrant preventative action. You believe the risk of being injured in a crash is great enough that wearing a seatbelt is important. I believe that hitting the gym every day is important to avoid the risks associated with being sedentary and out of shape. Neither of us has the right to decide for the other whether the “risk” at issue is serious enough to warrant countermeasures. Because your life is yours – and mine is mine.

You do have the right to act in self defense when I am directly threatening you with harm. It should be obvious – even to you – that my decision to not wear a seatbelt poses no danger to anyone except myself, so it’s my business and not anyone else’s.

And child “safety” seats? Yes, it’s possible that a kid not strapped into one of these might be hurt if there is an accident. Notice the mights and ifs? And, moreover, the kid might still be hurt even if in a seat.

Just as a kid might be at greater risk of developing diabetes if he’s overweight. Do you want to regulate that, too?

How many kids are injured while playing sports? Should sports be banned? Because you – or some other “concerned mom” are “concerned”? Don’t the people directly involved have a greater right to determine how to live their lives than you?

I know I’ll never get through. I respond only to make the point for the benefit of others who might be reading.

You are a “Little Stalin.” You believe you know best how others should live – and in your right to force them to live that way. You cannot abide free choices made by others that do not comport with your views. You want uniformity – in accordance with your beliefs.

You may not even appreciate this. May believe you’re simply a common sense gal, advocating the greater good. Too dim to see where this inevitably leads. What will happen, eventually, when the principle that individuals do not own themselves but rather are “community property” is accepted by a majority.

I’d pity you, if you weren’t so contemptible.

Eric I know you do not understand because you have never been a parent. Most every animal on earth protects their young to the best of their ability but not you Eric. You are willing to give other people additional risk. You are willing to give another person the chance to live a lifetime being handicapped or even dead. Eric you say that I do not have the right to say how much risk another person has but why do you have the right to give someone more risk? Tell me why a libertarian has more rights than anyone else?

Sheesh, Clover! Really?

I am not “giving risk” to anyone. I am merely disputing your right to decide whether a given thing is “risky” for others.

Notice that there’s no coercion underlying my position. I am not “giving” anyone anything. I am respecting their right to decide for themselves. You want to wear a seat belt? Do so. I will not interfere.

You, on the other hand, want to tell me – force me – to wear a seat belt.

Maybe I ought to force you to do a couple hundred crunches every day. After all, it’s “risky” to not have a strong core….

I just love the oft-repeated “1000’s of kids were needlessly injured or killed”! -As if no one would ever use a seatbelt again if not forced to!

It also presumes that everyone who doesn’t use a seatbelt is going to be involved in an accident.

It also presumes a right for someone else to determine what level of risk you must take, and what is the best course of action in a given situation.

Guess what Clover? If we were free, people would have to more realistically foot the bill for the consequences of their own actions. No Medicaid; no mandatory insurance; and those who would choose to carry insurance would pay a more realistic premium without the goobermint skewing the market- so those with a good record of safety would pay very little; and those with a history of higher risk would pay much more- which means that people would have even more reason to be safety-conscious- ‘cuz if little Billy goes sailing through the windshield, Mommy & daddy might have to sell their house to pay the $40K hospi’l bill…or be refused treatment; or have to beg from a private charity; or see their insurance go sky-high if they carry such.

Funny thing, back in the 80’s I used to live near this single mama with 5 kids from 4 different men- and they were on the dole, of course. Miss Baby-Mama got a job at one point (got kicked off the dole for cheating)- and guess what? Suddenly, this family who never gave a thought to their own safety, and who used to call an amblinse[sic] for a trip to the ER for every little bump and bruise….suddenly had the mother [I actually heard her say this on several occasions] saying “Don’t do that!.;..Be careful! I gotta pay now when you go to the doctor!!!”.

Funny, how this woman who would never even discipline her kids; smoked 4 packs of unfiltered cigs a day; drove a $200 filthy car with bald tires and trash 6 inches deep on the entire floor….suddenly started becoming safety-conscious, not because she cared about her and her kid’s health; not because every aspect of her life was being monitored for some potential violation….but merely from realizing the possibility of having to actually foot the bill for any potential consequences and/or not having anyone else who would be forced to “make it better” if and when something happened.

So tell me, Clover, are you working on a campaign to out-law access to McDonald’s for those under 18? I mean, C’mon! What right do you have as a parent to “expose others [your children] to the potential risks of diabetes; obesity; clogged arteries; etc.? [I could see your objection to such a law though- McD’s business would seriously decline, and they might reduce the royalties you get for letting them use your image].

So buckle-up those kids when ya drive ’em to Mickey D’s! Gotta keep ’em safe, ya know! And remember to ask for ID from every 40 year-old who wants to buy a pack of cigarettes, because we all know that it’s the store clerk who is responsible for your kid if he smokes; after all, the poor parent can’t actually be expected to keep tabs on his kid’s whereabouts and actions!

You know, transferring liability and responsibility, and redistributing wealth….that’s what America is all about*!

[*=according to Barracks Obammer]

You are right about one thing Eric. The world would be better off if you never wore a seat belt. Anyone who does not have a clue what a no passing zone is for does not need to be making the decision on how much risk another person or child should have.
Eric I think you need to go our and drive your motorcycle as fast as you can this afternoon and see what happens.

But Clover – Jesus! – I am not looking to be the one “making the decision on how much risk another person or child should have. ”

That’s what you advocate.

Reading comprehension is not one of your strengths, is it?

Eric every day you are on the road you make the decision for someone else how much they are endangered and how much risk they are given. You want other persons to do the same. Eric if no one else is no the road I could care less if you drive 150 mph. If you try to do the same in traffic or where there could be another person then you are making the decision for others how much danger and risk you want them to be in. If you think a parent has the right to put their child in a known risky position that could EASILY kill or injure their child then they would be making the decision to possibly injure the child for life or kill them. Our country says that parents should be smart enough not to do that but if they are not then police should stop them.

Unless one is forced to assume a risk, Clover, one is not “given” anything. One assumes the risk (assuming there is one) or not, according to one’s judgment. Not your judgment.

Where does your busybody-ism end?

Clover, I hit 150 MPH a couple times a month (except during the winter) and have done so for years. No “risk” was “given” to anyone.

But yesterday, in my area, an old coot – driving the speed limit (55 MPH) wandered across the double yellow and struck another car head-on, killing both its occupants.

The old coot was not “speeding” yet imposed all kinds of “risk” on others.

I hereby propose that all children and any mentally-deficient adults shall have to be leashed. After all, we can’t have them possibly running out into traffic and endangering others and themselves! If their parents/guardians aren’t *smart* enough to do this voluntarily, we will have to use the police to see that they do.

The only question that remains, is whether Clover wants a leather, nylon, or studded collar.

I think we have covered the subject. To sum it up, I said there are around 2 million accidents a year. That means there are a lot of cars with kids in them that have accidents each year. Eric you are willing to take the chance or should I say you are willing to sacrifice the kid in the name of your libertarian ideals. It is really too bad that all kids are not old enough to make their own decision not to be injured or killed needlessly.

Clover – you have it upside down and backwards. I’m not imposing my beliefs on anyone. That’s your department. If you want to be a neurotic ninny as regards your life – frantically attempting to avoid (or limit) the “risks” you see and fear – I will not presume to interfere. But do not presume to interfere with other people’s lives.

Your argument is as defective as your argument that because some people get into accidents driving “x” speed “x” speed must be made illegal across the board – even when no harm has been caused to anyone.

Again: It is immoral to threaten others with aggressive violence. That’s what you advocate. You can wheeze and prattle and sputter all you like, but that’s the bottom line. You believe your presumptive, busybody notions of “safety” entitle you to defile the safety of others by threatening them with violence. That, on the basis of some hypothetical/generalized “what if?” you’re entitled to actually harm people – or threaten to harm them. All of them, in every case. (As opposed to the mere possibility that some people might get hurt if “x.”)

Who gave you that right?

Are you the Great Law Giver? The Massa on the Plantation? By what right, Clover?

The only right you have, you foul creature, is the right to not be attacked or threatened with attack by other people, provided you are peaceful and do not aggress against others. This is the universal right that all human beings enjoy.

A child sitting beside his Dad in the front seat of the family car is not being attacked or threatened with attack. His dad is not beating him up.

That you are fearful for the child’s “safety” because he’s not buckled up or strapped into a “safety” seat is no more justification for doing violence to the child’s parent than it would be for some other neurotic busybody to demand (per Moleman) that all children be required by law to be on leash when outside their homes. Countless thousands of kids are injured and killed “off leash” in America every year. Why not require they be leashed at all times, Clover?

The sick and sad thing is your mind’s so crippled you can’t even begin to see the logic of my position – and the illogic of yours.

You are purely a stimulus-response sort of animal, trained effectively to respond predictably.

Eric you say that “Again: It is immoral to threaten others with aggressive violence.”

Eric a person that does not take any safety measure in their car when they are taking their kids with them then they are in effect threatening the kid with aggressive violence. Your driving in an aggressive way that increases the chance of an accident is threatening others with aggressive violence. So the government requires you to drive safely around others and you say you have the right to threaten others with injury or death. Tell me which is worse? I would say that you are. I would very much prefer the government position on this than your position because you can kill others and it happens every day that people that drive like you do kills others and injures hundreds of thousands each year. It also delays my travels by hours each year.

Ok, Clover. Perhaps then you can explain why a parent who allows their child off-leash is not also “in effect” threatening the kid with aggressive violence since it is just as possible said kid could get hurt/killed as a result of not being “safely” tethered to mom and dad.

Sure – for “safety” – all kids should be required to wear leashes. And any parent who does not leash their child, or lets them “run around” off leash ought to be punished.

Right?

Is it not also – using your standard “in effect” aggressive violence to allow a kid to drink soda? After all, drinking soda/sugary drinks is definitely correlated with a higher risk of obesity and diabetes and cancer.

How many kids are “at risk” because they’re overweight and sedentary, Clover?

I can understand your not understanding such things Eric. Anyone with a zero sense of business I am sure would not understand anything so simple. In business you spend your time and money on things with the best return on investment. Using child restraints in vehicles is the easiest bang for the buck at reducing injury and death to young kids. Your little mental abilities can not figure out something so simple.

When one can’t argue, one insults… right, Clover?

“Bang for the buck” is not the issue. It’s whether you have the right to control others using violence in the name of lowering what you perceive to be their “risk”.

And if “bang for the buck” was the deciding factor, Clover, a leash is a lot less expensive than a “safety” seat. And it’s a fact that ordinary childhood injuries (such as falling down) are far more common – and hence the “risk” is greater” – than the “risk” of a child (someone else’s child) being hurt because they were not strapped in to a “safety” seat.

As to the rest:

Your “business” is collecting a government check.

Clover, why the F are you so worried about other people’s kids? Huh?

If you want to worry about them, then worry- but that does not give you or anyone else the right to enforce your standards of acceptable and non-acceptable risk management on them; any more so than it entitles you to declare that they must wear a helmet when walking down a city street, because something may fall out of a window and hit them on the head!

If you have kids, then do whatever you feel is best concerning their safety; or nothing at all. You’re the parent; they’re your kids; do what you want; but do not impose your beliefs on child-rearing/safety/risk management on anyone else!

Other people’s children do not belong to you, nor the state. They belong to their parents; their safety is their parents concern, and no one else’s!

Personally, I think it is foolhardy when I see a parent riding their kid as a passenger on a motorcycle. I would never do it. I, however, would not presume to prevent others for doing it or punish them for doing it!

Your concern about others should be how YOUR actions may affect them. People like you are the reason that tens of thousands of kids are ripped from their parents each year, and put into the hands of people who are often of dubious character, including pedophiles in the “foster care system”.

So you think you’re saving a few kids from going through the windshield? And for everyone you “save” 10 more are torn from their families and suffering, or seeing their family torn apart by the state and their punitive actions by the Orwellian boondoggle that you and your kind have created!

Whether your motives are good and just ignorant; or merely a disguise for power over the lives of others, either way it is the same- you have created a monster!

‘Business’ Clover? Some of us are motivated more to do things that we love; or things which provide us independence; and/or things which are beneficial to others, rather than the things which would merely make us the most money.

I suspect that many here, including Eric and myself, could easily be doing things that would earn us scads of money [and tax obligations] if mere money was our motive.

Sounds to me like Eric has a fine understanding of business, and merely hopes for a little compensation to keep one of his endeavors sustainable, from those who appreciate it’s existence, with the benefit that people like you can have a free ride.

Eric you say that police threaten you with violence if you do not have a kid in a safety seat in a car? Do they beat the parent? Maybe you should bring that parent on and ask them what happened? While you are at it bring on the thousands of parents that lost kids because they were following your values.
If a parent can do anything they please with their kid then is slavery OK? Is selling them for sex OK? Tell me where the libertarian limit is?
Moleman and Eric if you feel you have the right to treat others worse than an animal then go for it. You show me how sick libertarians really are.

What is violence, Clover?

Define it.

If a man with a gun orders me to stop – and I am not free to ignore him because if I do ignore him, he will use force to make me stop, make me obey him… what would you call that?

This has been explained to you before. Or rather, pointed out. Your grotesque assertion is that the government isn’t violent. Just obey its orders and no harm will come to you!

Next, you lie – grotesquely.

Did I argue that parents could “do anything they please” to their kids? No. I specifically noted, in fact, that parents do not have the right to beat their kids. And so on.

But those things – physical assaults – are not the same or even remotely similar to not “buckling up.”

Only a Clover would assert otherwise.

So Eric you are saying the police are threatening violence because they carry a gun? But you say that all people should be carrying guns. Are all people threatening violence then? Eric name me one person that has had violence placed on them when they failed to strap in a kid and what violence was that? If you are stopped and you run, it is not the lack of strapping in that will get you your violence. Eric if you go down the what if road then the ultimate in your mind would be that if you get on the road then you WILL be shot by the police.

So Eric you say that doing harm to a kid is bad but if you do nothing to help a kid that is OK? It is OK to not feed them? It is OK to keep them outside all winter with a bale of straw to keep them warm? It is OK to not strap them in and cause them permanent disabilities. Eric every day you show me how stupid libertarians are.

Cops do threaten people, Clover. It is not a possibility. It is policy. Their “job.” They have legal sanction to threaten people with aggressive violence, to make them “comply.”

An ordinary citizen carrying a gun might use that gun to commit a violent act – but he has no legal authority to point it at you. No legal authority to act as an enforcer. He may use his gun for self defense only.

You can’t legally ignore a cop. And if you defend yourself against his aggressive violence, it’s a “crime.”

Is it possible you’re this stupid?

Really, Clover?

Are you actually incapable of appreciating that there is a difference between an action that will absolutely cause harm and which, moreover, is intended to cause harm (e.g., “not feeding” a child) and something that – at most – entails a slight possibility of risk and which has no malice behind it?

Really?

OK Eric. If you say that police use violence on people I would guess that is a good thing. They do not use violence on me or anyone that I know or have ever met. I guess if they do it on the bad guys I do not have a problem with it. Eric if you take a swing at them or try to run them over with your car then I have no problem with them using violence on you.
Tell me Eric why I should be afraid of something that will never happen to me? Eric you are a thousand times more likely to commit a serious accident before I would have to worry about police using violence on me. Do police use violence on all of your friends? If they do then that shows me what kind of friends you hang around with.

Clover, everything a cop does relies on violence. Because everyone is well-aware what will happen if they ignore the cop or disobey his orders. If a person cannot say, “no thanks” (or “leave me alone”) and go about his business (his peaceful, minding his own business business) without being assaulted, he is being coerced by the threat of violence. The “safety” checks you love are a case in point. What happens, Clover, if one refuses to roll down the window and speak with the armed man in the special outfit? You know perfectly well. But since you obey – and don’t object to obeying – you feel no violence has been done.

There were many Aryan Germans who also felt secure, were happy that “law and order” had been restored to the fatherland.

You might read Martin Niemoller sometime.

Yeah, Clover, the Nazis never used violence either! Just don’t hide any Jews in your house, and do what they say, and you were fine!

Idiot!

You are right Eric. I have no problem rolling my window down and saying hi. Guess what Eric? I lived through your so called violent encounter. I have seen Dom at a stop point. Yes he did act like a jerk and tried his very best to get violence pointed at him so he could get it on video. Eric if you have a problem talking to a cop, act like a jerk and take a swing at a cop then Eric I could care less what happens to you. I just hope the cop gets it all on video so he has it when you go to court.

Who’s the one seeking to impose his views on others using violence, Clover? Whatever I believe – or do – I keep it to myself. I don’t want your money; I don’t seek to control your life.

You, on the other hand…

Eric you do seek to control others. Eric we live in a society. When you live in a society you life by those rules in that society. The same way that any animal that lives in a pack does. If you do not want to follow the will and rules of the society then you have the option to leave or have violence placed on you by someone talking to you. That is the same as in your own household. If your wife does not want to live with your ignorance then she has the right to leave .
Just because you want to pass in blind areas on the road, act like a jerk, take swings at police etc. does not mean it is acceptable in our society. Why don’t you leave because your way of life will kill and injure millions of people.

I had the TV on this morning. They were talking about Ebola. They mentioned that they tried it your way and let guys like the doctor from New York to self monitor and at the same time the doctor was traveling around the city. As they said on TV if a doctor is not responsible enough to do the right thing they said is the government then responsible to quarantine people who travel?

That all sound familiar. Drunks are not responsible to not drive. Drivers are not responsible to not drive fast and endanger others, drivers are not responsible to not tailgate and weave through traffic. If people are not responsible, and it has been shown that they are not, then shouldn’t our government try to make them responsible?

> I live a better life than any of my ancestors.”<

Only because the zoo rejected you for being a substandard representative of your species (whatever that is).

Government doesn’t make people responsible. The government you love has killed more innocent people than all of the individual irresponsible actors in history combined.

Clover, your government failed you.

All the things that people like you fear in a libertarian system exist in the statist system. The idea that government protects you from anything is an illusion.

Government protection is like mafia protection. If you pay them so maybe they won’t harm you. And maybe if some other criminal harms you they’ll punish that criminal. Not because it benefits you or anyone else but because they can’t have competition or someone disrespecting their territory.

Well-said Ancap!

If anything, the gov’t limits the liability of some [Have 5 kids when you’re not even married? No problemo- the gov’t will play husband/daddy/provider….], while shifting liabilities to others who whose actions have not incurred such liabilities [Work hard; save money; have a kid when you have a spouse and some money in the bank…and your own kid can not fully benefit from the fruits of your labor, because your money is stolen and given to the welfare queen]

Same thing with AIDS (hah! That is more appropriate to this topic!)- Wanna take it up the poopchute? No problemo- the gov’t will enact laws to prevent others from “discriminating” against you; and pay for your treatment and support you for life on disability, at the expense of monogamous heterosexuals……

They redistribute liability like they redistribute wealth.

Ah Moleman. Now your’e discriminating against the gay race. People who do things to themselves and are rejected by their peers have no choice but to force hateful people like yourself to provide them sustenance.

It’s called society. The definition of society being: a group of slackers, losers, unproductives and other such “disabled” people who refuse to take responsibility for their own lives and actions who have carte blanche to steal shit from those who aren’t like them, via government.

We have to pay the price for civilized society, Moleman…… We have to. If you don’t like it then move to Somalia. Bwahahahaha

SHhhhh!, Ancap! You’re going to give Clover a stiffy- he’ll think you’re serious! 😀

ancap, that’s what I do to statists now when they complain about some tax or some government program or the other. I tell them ‘it’s the social contract’ or ‘the price of living in society’ and so on. They don’t like it much.

And it’s useful because there is always something they don’t like that’s forced upon them, they just lack principles and consistency not to to do the same to others.

Here is to the idiots: Yes our country is not perfect but with your world it would be unlivable.
Drunks on the road, no problem you say.
Airbags and seat-belts, we do not need those things because there is room in our hospitals for thousands more and the undertakers can probably keep up?
Fuel usage restrictions? I am sure that I will do fine without it. I plan on opening a bar next to all the people waiting in gas lines.
Terrorists on planes? I am sure a few planes will survive. It will cut down on road congestion also since thousands will no longer be alive to drive.
Reckless drivers? I guess I will just buy a tank to drive around in.
Slow clover drivers in front of you? Just blow them away with your 50 caliber mounted in front of your car or tank.
Roads? We do not need those because there will be no money for them. You are not putting a road on my property!
Electricity? That will be gone because you are not putting up electric towers on my property.
Cell phones? They will be unusable because multiple companies will be using the same spectrum.
That is just a start. There are hundreds of others. Libertarian world a utopia? I think not. Rather, I know not.

Clover,

“Drunks on the road” is not the issue – and Libertarians do not defend “drunk” driving. Never have – and you know it, because it’s been carefully explained literally dozens of times. You choose to ignore this – and argue about something no Libertarian I know (certainly not me) has ever defended (i.e., “drunk” driving).

So, one more time – not for your benefit, but for the benefit of new people here, who may not yet have caught on to your deliberate, egregious lies:

Libertarians oppose treating drivers as presumptive drunks. For the same reason we’d oppose treating people at random as presumptive rapists or murderers. I assume you’re opposed to that? You’d object to being randomly interviewed by cops and forced to demonstrate that you hadn’t been raping or murdering anyone recently?

No Libertarian argues roads are not “needed.” Just that it’s not necessary to force people to pay for them, for the same reason it is not necessary to force people to pay for any other thing they actually do need – which people will pay for freely.

It’s sad that you think in such limited, rote authoritarian terms.

And your outright lying is despicable.

I didn’t know it was possible for humans– if Clover is such–to be pooped out when they are born. I guess I have learned something new.

His last post is so ridiculous, there is no point in responding point by point. After writing his latest bullshit, it’s obvious any response is a fruitless endeavor……..but all of us are “idiots”.

At least I can rest assured under our current soviet system that there are no drunks on the road

Clóver,

You are more ignorant than a wet mop and as subtle as a bull in a china shop.

Your straw-man positions are vacuous.

When you come back from de Nial try to make a better reasoned argument.

I don’t know Mith. Clover makes an excellent point about having no power, no roads and people killing those they don’t like driving on the non-roads with tanks.

I recall a certain tyrant, James J. Hill who illegitimately traded peacefully with and purchased property and easements from the plains Indians. Everyone knows that it was a lot better to operate like Union and Central Pacific and send government troops out to murder the Indians in the way of the rail lines. Omnipotent government at its finest. God bless their hearts.

I think that is why they TRY so hard to justify the evils of the tyrannical state. To admit that it was wrong at any time, would be to admit the illegitimacy of the present system which they enjoy so much (Because it absolves them of most responsibility and liability) and would also mean they’d have to admit that daddy wasn’t fighting for “democracy” in Vietnam; and that grandpappy wasn’t making the world safe for democracy in WWII. So they maintain the illusion (to themselves) of the legitimacy of all that was done in the past (Except for slavery- but it’s O-K to disavow that, since it has been officially deprecated), because they will not face the fact that our empirical system is wrong, just like all the other world empires throughout history. They can’t face the fact that all they believe in is wrong; they can’t face the fact that daddy and grandpappy were just tools of bankers and politicians; and most of all, they can’t face the prospect of a world in which they would be fully responsible for themselves and their families- and might have to actually do something for which others would voluntarily pay; and cooperate with their neighbors and barter and work as a commuinity, instead of just letting the gov’t handle it all, in return for half of their wages……

Good point, Moleman.

It’s a die.

Everything gets stamped according to the die.

What’s an android to do if the die is wrong?

“Let all the poisons, which lurk in the mud, hatch out.”

Yes Eric your way of dealing with drunk drivers is punish them when they kill someone. Eric you do more to changing the oil in your car than to discourage drunk drivers.
Eric you are talking about rapists now. Yes Eric if it was easy as talking to someone for 10 seconds to see if they are a rapist then I would be all for it. The last I heard though it was not possible.
If it stops the killing of thousands and the injuries of 100s of thousands and the property damage of billions of dollars then I am willing to talk to someone for 10 seconds. Not you Eric. The more dead and injured there are then the roads are less crowded for you.
Eric police to not treat you as a drunk unless you are drunk. I have been stopped a couple of times. I was not treated as a drunk.
Eric if you say it is not OK to stop you to see if you are a safe driver then I guess you do not believe in getting a drivers license. Why not let 10 year old kids drive the interstate until they kill someone and then tell them they should not be driving.

Clover writes that my “way of dealing with drunk drivers is punish them when they kill someone. ”

Well, Clover – and leaving aside your hysteria – we do wait until someone has actually killed someone to pursue a murder investigation. And people do not have to prove they’re not thieves. Or rapists.

Not yet.

But you think it’s ok to require that people prove they’re not “drunks.”

It’s an interesting intellectual disconnect – and a moral abomination.

Eric I have no problem having the police talk to me to see that I am fit to be on a PUBLIC road with hundreds or thousands of other people. If you want to drive under the influence of something in your own back yard then go for it. My right to be on a safe road overrides your right to not speak to someone for 10 seconds.
The supreme court agreed with me. You keep talking about your rights but what about mine and millions of others?

Clover,

One’s rights are not vitiated by dint of screeching “public” (that is, government-owned) property. Your rights – and mine – are immutable.

One such right is the right to travel freely – without having to submit to violent arrests (whatever their duration) and probable cause-free searches (however politely attempted).

Do you understand what a principle is, Clover? That if it is not unreasonable to stop and search drivers at random, without even the assertion of individualized suspicion, it is also not unreasonable to randomly stop and search people who are merely walking down the street, or watching TV in their own homes (in their private property). Can your Gamma machine-minder mind grasp that a principle, once accepted, necessarily entails broader application because there is no longer any reason to object?

No, of course you do not.

Because you have no principles.

Or rather, your principle is: If Clover believes it will enhance “safety” – as defined by Clover – then people must accept the rescinding of their rights. In particular, their right to not be hassled by cops until they give said cop a better reason than “someone” might be “drunk.”

Well, Clover, “someone” might be sexually abusing a child right now. It might be happening in anyone’s basement. Therefore – to “save thousands and thousands of kids” – we must accept having cops show up for random inspections of our basements at any time. Everyone must be presumed a child molester – until proven otherwise.

No?

Why – in principle – not?

Clover writes:

“Eric I have no problem having the police talk to me to see that I am fit to be on a PUBLIC road with hundreds or thousands of other people. ”

Clover just doesn’t get it. At any level. Eric has already covered the “pre-crime” aspect. I’ll cover another.

Clover, don’t you realize that the creation of “PUBLIC” roadways already involved human rights violations? That brute force coercion was required to fund them.

You really don’t have the mental faculties to connect all the dots do you?

Yes Eric I believe in principles. I believe it is not violent as you say to talk to someone in a nice manner. Your definition of violence and mine is drastically different. I believe it is violence to allow people under the influence is to be on the road with me or my family. You say you think they should not be on the road either but your solution of kissing their asses until they kill someone is in no way a deterrent.
Then you come up with your what ifs as usual. Eric how about the what if that the police will kill you tonight in your bed. If that is something you believe as very possible then why worry about anything as minor as talking to you?

” I believe it is not violent as you say to talk to someone in a nice manner. ”

You’re either incredibly dishonest – or incredibly stupid. Which is it, Clover?

It’s not some “nice” man walking up to you in public and politely asking you a quick question – one you’re free to not answer (and asked by a man you’re free to ignore and walk away from).

Your “nice man” is an armed enforcer of the state. No matter how superficially friendly his tone may be, the fact is you’re forced to interact with him. To stop your vehicle, roll down your window and submit to an interrogation and search. It is conducted “nicely” – as long as you comply.

This is violence, Clover.

No different than if I “nicely” “ask” you to let me in your house… you knowing full well I am armed, and will use force to make you let me in no matter what.

Time for some Larken Rose

“If you imagine cops to be a civilizing influence, and a force that makes society non-violent and allows for peaceful coexistence, watch this. ”
— Larken Rose

The Great Escalators
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PT5ycft_YU&list=UUFeK8ZdHbCqAq3gekWs8aEQ

Clover,

Regardless of the amount of tyranny or liberty in a society, there are going to be those who don’t care about how the consequences of their actions impact others. Even in Soviet-era Russia and communist Red China, there are drunk drivers- so no matter what one does, it is not going to stop all drunk driving. The question is: How much do we molest the innocent to *try* and stop the guilty? (Just like the “war on drugs” which has had far more impact on all of society, and yet has not done a thing to stop those who desire to use drugs).

In a Libertarian society, where you are only molested and punished for harm that you actually cause; and then bear the full brunt of what you did, because there would be no limitation of liability, there would be MORE of a deterent to drunk driving, because without free medical treatment; without schemes that make one essentially judgment-proof; without the state protecting the causers of harm from the consequences of their actions in exchange for $$$, and with REAL punishment for those who actually cause harm (Instead of free room and board for a few months in the barred hotel), causing serious harm (serious property damage; injury; death…) would ruin the life of the perpetrator- and THAT would be far more of a deterrent to others, than the mere consequence of a fine/lawyers fees/a brief stay in the can; and yet those who do not cause any harm would not have to be molested or treated the same as those who actually cause harm.

Either way, there are going to be drunks. The question is, do we make those who cause harm pay for the consequences of their actions, or do we spread the liability around, and make the innocent pay; and relieve them of their rights to privacy and to be left alone, just so we can make people like you feel better, even though it does nothing to allieviate the real problem?

Hi Mole,

Clover will never grok that – because Clover is damaged goods; he (based on all his posts) is incapable of reasoning, of conceptual thinking. He reacts in an almost-animal fashion – stimulus/response conditioning.

He’s hopeless. But it’s worth dissecting his “thoughts” for the benefit of those who are not beyond hope.

UHHGGggg, I know, Eric. Why do I let myself be drawn in?! I’d say “For the benefit of others in Cloverland”- but they’re all the same as Clover; had all the conditioned responses beat into them since they were three. If they can’t see that all their cloverism isn’t working; and is in-fact destroying Western civilization, just by looking around them- I guess they are hopeless- and no argument is going to help them.

Eric if you believe it is violence to be stopped then I guess you have never stopped at a stop sign or stop light. Eric 100s of thousands of drivers have been stopped by police with no violence placed on them. We have seen Dom stopped and the only jerk in the film was Dom. The only one talking in a threatening manner was Dom. The only one asking for a fight was Dom.
Then there are those that worship “Larken Rose”. Hitler was a nice guy compared to him. Larken is the one asking for a bloodbath. I will no longer respond to people who worship Larken. Those people are absolute idiots.

Yes, Clover – I do “believe” it is violence to be forced to stop by armed men, then forced to roll down my window and forced to submit to an interrogation and search.

Because it’s a fact that when a person is forced to do something – either directly forced or compelled by the threat of force if one fails to obey – then violence has been used to compel submission and obedience.

Do you deny that force is involved in all the above? Do you seriously claim that I am free to not stop? To decline to roll down my window? To elect not to speak with the armed men? What will happen to me, Clover, if I peacefully turn around and attempt to drive away? Or even decline to answer their questions? Having done nothing, I hasten to add, to indicate I am “drunk”?

Can you at least once be honest and admit that what you advocate involves threatening people with force in order to compel their submission?

And are you really so obtuse as to deny that force – its actuality or its threat – is violence?

If so, then I suppose you won’t mind if I show up at your house and – very nicely – “ask” you to do something… while fingering a pistol.

“I will no longer respond to people who worship Larken. ”

First of all clover, nobody “worships” Larken. Most of us here RESPECT him. The distinction is probably one that eludes you.

Second of all clover, the link was not for you. You don’t have the intellectual capacity to discern what he is saying. The link was for others who do.

Moleman are you really that stupid to believe everything that you say? Libertarians are incapable to look at the truth.
Yes police actions are a deterrent. If it is announced in the media that there will be safety stops on the road a certain night there are far far fewer people that drink and drive. If a person knows that the consequences of getting stopped after they have been drinking will cost them thousands of dollars and lose their license there are fewer drunk drivers. I personally know people that drink and have said those things. Facts are the facts and seeing it first hand backs it up.
Then there came the change where police started doing more checks on the holidays and checks for speeding. The death rate in those states dropped significantly on holidays. You can lie all you want to but the facts are the facts. People like Eric along with people that drink think they are incapable of getting into an accident but 100s of thousands do and kill people. They are not thinking about if they have medical insurance when they are driving. People that drink are like Eric in thinking they are too good even when drunk to get into an accident but when they know there will be police stops they know that it is out of their so called superior abilities and control so they change their behavior. That change of behavior has saved thousands of lives and billions of dollars in savings.

Yes, Clover. Just as it would be a deterrent to accept random cop sweeps of people’s homes. And “your papers, please” checkpoints for pedestrians at every major intersection. Mandatory ankle bracelets for everyone – or “chips” embedded in their bodies. So much easier to monitor and track law breakers… along with everyone else.

The point being, Clover, that in a free society, it should be harder for cops to hassle people – even if it means it’s harder to catch “dangerous drunks.”

You prefer to make it easier (and ever easier) for cops to catch “dangerous drunks” – by catching everyone. Including people who’ve done absolutely nothing to indicate they’ve been drinking.

Why not apply your awful totalitarian premise of presumptive guilt across the board? We’d catch so many more criminals that way. We’d be so much “safer.”

If, of course, you don’t object to being treated as a presumptive criminal at every turn by armed men who will do you violence if you evince the slightest disapproval, much less resist their encroachments.

You seem unable to comprehend the principle that if you may treat an innocent person who’s done nothing to even warrant suspicion as an “offender” until he proves otherwise, then others may apply precisely the same principle to treat you as an “offender” for some arbitrary, random, probable cause-free reason.

You see, Clover, when anyone’s rights are violated all our rights are threatened. Not just in the one isolated instance, either.

But generally.

Because principles matter.

But you’re not bright enough – or thoughtful enough – to understand this.

Which is terribly sad.

So Clover, by your logic, why not have cops pull people over at random and check their cell phones to make sure they weren’t texting while driving? Why not have cops randomly stop people who are on their way into banks and frisk them to make sure they can not rob the bank? Why not randomly interview kids to make sure they are not being abused????

You fail to comprehend that one of the principles this country was founded upon- and a principle which is fundamental to any free society, is that unless there is a factual reason to suspect that one has committed a crime, one is supposed to be unmolested/unhindered by the state.

Even if your way could prevent ALL drunk driving [which, obviously it does not] it should still be rejected, because it is the classic recipe for tyranny.

It’s bad enough that people like you will gladly trade liberty for perceived safety- but it’s not a very good trade, because in reality, we know that that so-called “safety” is just a small percentile reduction in the number of “drunks”- and the ones whom they catch, are virtually always those who have not caused any actual harm; nor even those who are likely to- but rather just those who may’ve had a beer or two and who are declared “drunk” by some arbitrary standard.

And lets face it- any reduction in drunk driving has been more than eclipsed by the number of distracted drivers. How would you propose that the nanny state stop that? What new tyranny would you like to see imposed, to see that people pay attention and keep their eyes on the road?

Again, even in the most tyrannical societies, there are crimes and drunks (usually more so than in a free society!)- so you can make this country into 1984 (I think it’s presently 1983) and all you will accomplish is to destroy our freedom; but you will never eliminate the crimes whose existence you use to justify the tyranny. -just as in Norway, where all innocents are deprived of arms; yet they still had that guy who shot 20-something school kids!

Free society with some drunks and criminals; or tyranny with drunks and criminals? I’ll take the former- and the only real difference between the two is freedom or tyranny.

I don’t condone drunk driving. I don’t drink. As a kid, I had an alcoholic step-father for a while. I would not get into a car with him unless I knew he had not been drinking. Punish those who actually cause harm- not everybody; and not those who *may* cause harm.

I wouldn’t complain if somebody who was swerving all over the road was pulled over- but i do complain when they start erecting checkpoints which affect every person- and the facetious Supreme Court reasoning that stopping every nth person does not constitute “random” shows just how ignorant/malicious they are!

Dear mm,

He wants “safety.” He leaps to the conclusion that if costumed thugs are authorized to coercively check out everyone in advance, then he will be protected from danger.

He just can’t seem to get it through his thick skull that granting costumed thugs such powers itself constitutes a vastly greater danger, one that is all too real and far from imaginary.

To wit, the increasingly frequent outrages reported by Pro Libertate, Cop Block, and Police State USA.

In short, “Stupid is as stupid does.”

Well-said, Bevin!

I could see someone 50 years ago holding Clover’s position- but TODAY? Now that we have been seeing the results of tyranny, all around us?

They really grasp at the mythical “protection” they think they are getting from the police-state, with everything they’ve got, till the bitter end, don’t they?

Funny also, how they say they have a “right” to guaranteed safety on public roads [as if there should even be such things]- but yet, the written, codified, constitutional legitimate right to privacy, and no interference from the goobermint, which is supposed to be guaranteed to all citizens, they overlook/could care less about.

People like him/her/it have the mentality of 5 year-olds….”The policeman is your friend!” 😀 (Yeah, maybe he’s your friend if you’re queer, and bend over in front of him….)

What a bunch of idiots. I argued one point and one point only and it has been occurring for many years if not decades and a single of your stupid what ifs has ever happened. Not a single person argued that I was wrong on my point but they are capable of coming up with hundreds of what ifs. If police do a single instance of your other what ifs then we can argue that. Until it happens stay on the subject. Idiots

Clover, you argued that random “safety” and “sobriety” stops do not involve violence. Your argument.

My argument, in reply, was to point out the fatuity of yours.

No “what ifs.” Just facts. The fact that the threat of violence is used to force people to stop and submit to an interrogation and search; the fact that actual violence will be used against anyone who does not comply. The fact that the people stopped/interrogated/searched have done nothing to even warrant individual suspicion of having committed any crime.

Facts.

Which you wish to evade and not discuss – I suspect because you know at some level your position is despicable. Ergo, you must use euphemisms and lies. It’s only a “nice” policeman “asking” a couple of “polite” questions… no big deal. No violence, certainly. That’s your ridiculous position, Clover.

It’s of a piece with claiming that one is a “customer” of the DMV’s, or that one “contributes” to Social Security.

The debate here is simply this: Whether it’s right to use violence against innocent people who’ve done absolutely nothing to warrant individualized suspicion. I argue it is not. You argue that it is – for the sake of “getting dangerous drunks” off the road.

Ok, let’s discuss that.

I argued that if it is acceptable to subject innocent people to random and arbitrary “dragnet” style police investigation for this “good reason” (as you see it) then there is no principled reason why they may not be subjected to it for various other “good reasons.”

For no reason at all, in fact.

Or rather, none having to do with any specific allegation based on supportable individualized suspicion of wrongdoing.

There is no longer, in other words, anything to stop further encroachments – because the “good reasons” are practically limitless.

This is why, Clover, we know live in a country where the government brazenly intercepts and collects our telephone conversations, our e-mails, our web surfing records. In which old ladies, cripples and little kids are forced to endure humiliating personal searches in order to board airplanes and obey the barked orders of cretinous low-lifes who would otherwise be working as Wal Mart “associates.” In which people who’ve not even been formally charged with a crime may be snatched off the street and – literally – tortured. Or murdered, by order of the executive.

All facts, Clover. Can you factually rebut a single thing I have stated?

This is the country you and your kind are building.

Again Eric I have been stopped and no violence was placed on me. Dom showed us a video of him being stopped and no violence was placed on him. Eric if you take a swing at them or try to run them over then I hope they use violence on you because you would then not be an innocent person then would you?
If they do not use violence on me or anyone that I know and only use it on libertarians then what does that say about libertarians? It shows that libertarians use first force because they do not touch innocent people like me.

That’s right, Clover – because you obeyed.

Your position is: Obey – and no violence is necessary.

Except for the violence that compels obedience. You are under compulsion. You must do as ordered. Whether you like it – or not.

Are you truly this dense?

That you don’t mind stopping and are happy to answer the cops’ questions does not change the fact that the interaction is not voluntary.

And the fact that you don’t object does not mean others haven’t got a right to object.

Or do you believe that if I don’t object to cops randomly conducting “checks” of my home (after all, a child might be in danger; there could be elder abuse…) then no violence is used and you also ought not to object to random “checks” of your home?

The issue here, Clover, is rights.

Is it right to subject people who – by the government’s own admission – have done nothing whatsoever to give any reason to suspect they might be “drunk” – to a compulsory investigatory process? To forcibly interrupt their peaceful travel, subject them to an inspection/interrogation (however “nicely” conducted) not on account of anything they’ve done or given reason to suspect they might have done… but because a hypothetical “someone” might have?

If your answer is yes, then there is no rational/principled basis for objecting to any random/arbitrary search/interrogation. Because there is always the chance that “someone” might be guilty of (put “x” here).

Is this really so difficult to understand?

You want to talk “safety,” Clover? There is nothing less “safe” than granting to government random/arbitrary power over people. In your childlike little mind, you see government as this benevolent entity that is wise and trustworthy and which would never abuse such power. And yet, it does. Because idiots such as yourself have signed away not just your rights. But all of our rights.

God have mercy on you, if such a being exists.

Eric wrote to clover:

“Are you truly this dense?”

The scary thing is, clover apparently really is this dense!

Eric you are the one that do not understand. Your house is your property as you say. Police can not randomly come into your house without your permission unless there is some kind of proof that you are doing something wrong. Eric show me where police are randomly searching homes other than looking for a known killer in the area. On a public highway you are governed by those rules. Yes Eric if those rules may injure you in some way then those rules are wrong. Asking you to stop and talk for 10 seconds is in no way injurious to you. It is no worse than stopping at a stop light. You do not have the right to do whatever the hell you feel like on public roads. You say you have the freedom to travel. Yes you do but not the freedom to travel in an automobile and do whatever the hell you feel like. You have the option to walk like they did when the country was formed. If you use an automobile on public roads then you either live by those rules or get them changed if they are injuring you. It is not injuring you by talking to you for 10 seconds. Like I said before if you act like a jerk and use first force as you say you have that option then I could care less if they use violence on you.

Re: clover’s latest “rebuttal.”

Clover really is that dense. He’s not pretending.

The primary key is his inability to assess the reality of his situation.

“Asking you to stop and talk for 10 seconds is in no way injurious to you. ”

Asking??? talk??? 10 seconds???

The secondary key is his illiteracy, evidence of gubmint skool indoctrination.

“Eric you are the one that do [sic!] not understand. ”

“I could care less [sic!] if they use violence on you.”

Hopeless.