3 ms·

Well it is known that criminals don't care about the laws, right? Imagine my shock when I hear that there are stabbings on a daily basis in a country where carr

Well it is known that criminals don't care about the laws, right? Imagine my shock when I hear that there are stabbings on a daily basis in a country where carrying a knife without "good reason" (that the court decides) is illegal! Makes me so confused! I thought these laws work! Regarding safety: alcohol is perfectly legal and I'm sure we can all agree on that it is extremely (more so than other substances) detrimental to health and other members of the society. On the basis of banning things for safety, it should be banned. Fun fact: it isn't. Another fun fact: prohibition wouldn't work. > Speeding is not dangerous in itself, until you actually hit somebody. By your logic there should be no speed limit anywhere but only charges when you hit somebody. Elaborate on how speed limits work or how come they are effective, if they indeed are. Maybe we can work out something. :) I would also like you to point out its relevance to the prohibition of loot crates for the "safety of our kids and vulnerable people". Regarding speed limits, I recommend https://mises.org/library/privatization-roads-and-highways https://mises.org/library/privatization-roads-and-highways. Additionally, I would rather you avoid the use of "by your logic" when in fact it does not conform to my "logic", it conforms to your perceived and false interpretation of what my logic might be, which you extended to an entirely different issue and imagine that it somehow undermines my argument. There is a difference between having speed limits enforced by X and assuming that the majority of people would respect it, and banning loot crates on the premise that it benefits the kids and vulnerable people while depriving "non-vulnerable" or "less vulnerable" adults completely on the same premise.

throwaway-hn123 8y ago
Trolls be trolling.
christofosho 8y ago
Slower speeds can reduce the chances of death on impact.
- GyYZTfWBfQw 8y ago
  Slower speeds can increase the time to get from A to B therefore increasing fatigue which decreases attention which could lead to accidents, albeit they might not be completely fatal. It's a great game, isn't it?
cjslep 8y ago
> "Well it is known that criminals don't care about the laws, right?" Please enlighten us to your alternate proposal to having a functioning society that is not based in a concept of a Code of Laws.
- GyYZTfWBfQw 8y ago
  Do you think criminals care about the laws? Do you disagree with what I've said, or are you trying to be fallacious here and imply that because I don't have a solution, it somehow renders my claim wrong and makes criminals care about the laws? Additionally, I did not claim that a society shouldn't have laws. It's a broad subject, if you want to gain some knowledge, perhaps you could start here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8Z82avLO14 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8Z82avLO14 https://mises.org/library/society-without-state https://mises.org/library/society-without-state https://mises.org/library/anatomy-state https://mises.org/library/anatomy-state https://mises.org/library/lessons-young-economist https://mises.org/library/lessons-young-economist [...]
  - cjslep 8y ago
    You're intelligent and rational. I hope you hold me with the same regard. However, the tone, structure of your arguments (namely, lots of wide assertions with scant evidence), and combative reactions is getting in the way of the points you are trying to make. It makes no matter if a view is the correct (for a certain definition of correct) one if one cannot communicate it effectively. My prior response was a very human one, equally as intellectually worthless as to the non-sequitor it is in reply to. By definition criminals don't follow laws. It's a circular kind of logic. Hence, trying to claim I am fallacious for highlighting this kind of lack of intellectual rigor I find insulting (Edit: Providing sources without commentary and telling me to "get informed" does not make a compelling argument). That I am expected to resolve this circular logic in a way that suits you is ideological entrapment that allows you to weasel out by playing the "I didn't claim that" card which I find boring and lazy and not an argument at all. Hence me trying to immediately resolve the ambiguity and move onto more productive areas of discussion by directly challenging the circular logic, and your predictable response trying to play said "I am being straw-manned". I prefer moving forward together, but cannot do it alone. I need your input. I am sure you have great ideas but please consider working on your delivery.

throwaway-hn123 8y ago

Trolls be trolling.

christofosho 8y ago

Slower speeds can reduce the chances of death on impact.

GyYZTfWBfQw 8y ago
Slower speeds can increase the time to get from A to B therefore increasing fatigue which decreases attention which could lead to accidents, albeit they might not be completely fatal. It's a great game, isn't it?

cjslep 8y ago

> "Well it is known that criminals don't care about the laws, right?" Please enlighten us to your alternate proposal to having a functioning society that is not based in a concept of a Code of Laws.

GyYZTfWBfQw 8y ago
Do you think criminals care about the laws? Do you disagree with what I've said, or are you trying to be fallacious here and imply that because I don't have a solution, it somehow renders my claim wrong and makes criminals care about the laws? Additionally, I did not claim that a society shouldn't have laws. It's a broad subject, if you want to gain some knowledge, perhaps you could start here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8Z82avLO14 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8Z82avLO14 https://mises.org/library/society-without-state https://mises.org/library/society-without-state https://mises.org/library/anatomy-state https://mises.org/library/anatomy-state https://mises.org/library/lessons-young-economist https://mises.org/library/lessons-young-economist [...]
- cjslep 8y ago
  You're intelligent and rational. I hope you hold me with the same regard. However, the tone, structure of your arguments (namely, lots of wide assertions with scant evidence), and combative reactions is getting in the way of the points you are trying to make. It makes no matter if a view is the correct (for a certain definition of correct) one if one cannot communicate it effectively. My prior response was a very human one, equally as intellectually worthless as to the non-sequitor it is in reply to. By definition criminals don't follow laws. It's a circular kind of logic. Hence, trying to claim I am fallacious for highlighting this kind of lack of intellectual rigor I find insulting (Edit: Providing sources without commentary and telling me to "get informed" does not make a compelling argument). That I am expected to resolve this circular logic in a way that suits you is ideological entrapment that allows you to weasel out by playing the "I didn't claim that" card which I find boring and lazy and not an argument at all. Hence me trying to immediately resolve the ambiguity and move onto more productive areas of discussion by directly challenging the circular logic, and your predictable response trying to play said "I am being straw-manned". I prefer moving forward together, but cannot do it alone. I need your input. I am sure you have great ideas but please consider working on your delivery.