3 ms·
I strenuously object to the idea that the government should be able to stop the spreading of publicly available truths in the name of public safety, especially
by solveit 7y ago
I strenuously object to the idea that the government should be able to stop the spreading of publicly available truths in the name of public safety, especially over a justification as flimsy as "encourages reckless driving". I would be willing to revisit this debate when somebody figures out how to build nuclear weapons in their garage, not so much before that.
- paggle 7y agoHow do you feel about government setting up speed cameras at all of these side streets and issuing citations to all speeders, even those 1mph over the limit, through dragnet surveillance?
- thrower123 7y agoThey'd have to collect a lot of tickets to justify the cost. Are there really not more important things the legal system could be using it's resources to combat? There are child molesters and drug dealers out there.
- paggle 7y agoThe government is big and can do multiple things at once. Ensuring safe streets is an important responsibility. Vehicles kill many more people than child molesters and drug dealers combined.
- thrower123 7y agoOpiods are giving car fatalities a run for their money.
- solveit 7y agoI don't see anything fundamentally wrong with enforcing the speed limit in such a way. Perhaps one could question its efficiency, or the fact that many laws and regulations are enforced inconsistently based on the whims of whoever happens to be in charge. But those seem like small evils, relatively speaking.