11 ms·

I assume you're also against seatbelt and helmet laws. What about those laws applying to children? What about smoking laws? The US already has numerous laws th

I assume you're also against seatbelt and helmet laws. What about those laws applying to children? What about smoking laws? The US already has numerous laws that few people complain about because they've come to recognize them as necessary for the public good. But that was only after they were passed and enforced.

vorpalhex 6y ago
I have no innate right to use government roads. Likewise, kids do not have rights the same way an adult does. The government can compel education until you're 18 (thankfully). We do not have laws because they are good. It is the case that some laws are good, but we have laws because the goal of governments is to govern the people. The difference between a democracy and an oligarch is the source of that right. I have no special rights over you. I am not any better, I am not empowered by any god or special bloodline. I, if elected in a democracy, can pass laws but I can't limit your rights. I can't compel you to worship somebody, limit what you say or take your property - even if I have a good reason.
- kilroy_jones 6y ago
  Well, being good and for the public good are separate concepts in my mind. That aside, you never addressed the smoking, seatbelt or helmet laws with regard to adults. Permissible or not?
  - vorpalhex 6y ago
    Smoking laws are restrictions. You can't smoke within 30ft of an eating establishment or in a car with a child. You want to go home and chain smoke yourself to cancer? Have fun. Likewise, you couldn't restrict smoking at home typically. Seatbelt and helmet laws are a condition of using property that isn't yours (the road). Likewise for drivers licenses and minimum road hours. A good case here is the Texas anti-sodomy law (Lawrence v Texas) that was struck down in 2006(!) after being used to go after gay men. Here Texas made claims it was acting for the public good, SC ruled the state had no presence on a private matter outside the public eye.
    - BubRoss 6y ago
      What about wearing pants? Is wearing pants a compelled action?
      - vorpalhex 6y ago
        Would you be running around naked unless someone required otherwise? Some of us just enjoy wearing comfy pants.
        fzeroracer 6y ago
        You seem to be changing the argument rather than answering the question. Do you believe public decency laws are the result of the state overextending its hand?
        BubRoss 6y ago
        You are doging the question, maybe because you realize that you can't answer it without lying or contradicting yourself. Do you agree with the fact that you are compelled to wear clothes? After all a mask is essentially clothing.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
      > Seatbelt and helmet laws are a condition of using property that isn't yours (the road). "Mask laws" are a condition of using property that isn't yours (the road, the town square, the park, the trail). Nobody is going to force you to wear on mask on your own property.
      - vorpalhex 6y ago
        The government doesn't own public property. The public does. This is a subtle point. Now, can Wholefoods (to pick a private business) force you to wear a mask as a condition of using their store? Absolutely. Can your friend demand you wear a mask before you hang out and use their pool? Sure. Can the government demand you use a mask on non-government owned land? No. Can the government demand you wear a mask before entering a courthouse? Well, that becomes a whole thing and the answer is "maybe?".
- pdonis 6y ago
  > I have no innate right to use government roads. Yes, you do, if you're a member of the public and a taxpayer.
  - vorpalhex 6y ago
    Can you drive without a license or insurance? Can you legally walk down a highway?
    - pdonis 6y ago
      > Can you drive without a license or insurance? Current law does not allow you to do this, yes. But current law also allows you to be ticketed if you exceed the speed limit. So obviously not all of current law is consistent with the basic principle I have stated. The application of the basic principle I stated to these cases should be obvious. (Btw, it seems a little odd for you to be saying, on the one hand, that certain current laws are wrong--such as the 65 mph speed limit--and on the other hand to be relying on other current laws for your understanding of what "rights" you have. Surely you should apply the same principles to all of the laws?) > Can you legally walk down a highway? I actually don't know what the law is on this one. The application of the basic principle I stated to this case, as to the ones above, should be obvious.
      - dragonwriter 6y ago
        > > Can you drive without a license or insurance? > Current law does not allow you to do this, yes. Current law in much of the US absolutely allows this, as long as you aren't on a public road or private property where the owner has opted-in to the rules generally applicable to public roads. Of course, most of the interesting trips a person might want to take by car involve traversing public roads.
  - tomrod 6y ago
    Nobody checks these conditions when I use the roads. I could be a tax avoider and my use of the roads is unimpeded. Arrest of my use of the roads is consequent to being arrested for tax noncompliance, but I am not expressly forbidden from use of the roads. Indeed, I could go live under a bridge and never pay taxes, and I would still be able to access and use roads.
pdonis 6y ago
> I assume you're also against seatbelt and helmet laws. Laws that allow you to be fined or punished simply for not wearing a seat belt or a helmet? Yes, those are wrong. Laws that impose extra liability on you if you are in an accident and cause harm (including harm to yourself) and aren't wearing a seatbelt or a helmet? Those would be fine. Indeed, people would probably be more likely to wear seatbelts and helmets under such a regime than they are now. Now they're just risking a fine. Under that regime they'd be risking, for example, not having their medical insurance cover the costs of treating them.
- jdkee 6y ago
  "Laws that allow you to be fined or punished simply for not wearing a seat belt or a helmet? Yes, those are wrong." Why should I have to pay, through increased insurance and other societal costs, for your increased economic burden if you are paralyzed or run up huge medical bills because you could not be bothered to wear a seatbelt?
  - pdonis 6y ago
    > Why should I have to pay, through increased insurance and other societal costs, for your increased economic burden if you are paralyzed or run up huge medical bills because you could not be bothered to wear a seatbelt? Go back and read the second part of my post, which you failed to quote, which addresses exactly this issue.
- Dylan16807 6y ago
  > Indeed, people would probably be more likely to wear seatbelts and helmets under such a regime than they are now. Now they're just risking a fine. Under that regime they'd be risking, for example, not having their medical insurance cover the costs of treating them. That is not how people work. They never think it will happen to them.
pdonis 6y ago
> What about smoking laws? I don't think the government should be able to make smoking outright illegal (except on government property like government buildings), but I think owners of individual homes and businesses and public spaces (e.g., malls) should have the right to prohibit it, with violations of the owner's prohibition being punishable by law (similar to how, say, trespassing would be handled).

vorpalhex 6y ago

I have no innate right to use government roads. Likewise, kids do not have rights the same way an adult does. The government can compel education until you're 18 (thankfully). We do not have laws because they are good. It is the case that some laws are good, but we have laws because the goal of governments is to govern the people. The difference between a democracy and an oligarch is the source of that right. I have no special rights over you. I am not any better, I am not empowered by any god or special bloodline. I, if elected in a democracy, can pass laws but I can't limit your rights. I can't compel you to worship somebody, limit what you say or take your property - even if I have a good reason.

kilroy_jones 6y ago
Well, being good and for the public good are separate concepts in my mind. That aside, you never addressed the smoking, seatbelt or helmet laws with regard to adults. Permissible or not?
- vorpalhex 6y ago
  Smoking laws are restrictions. You can't smoke within 30ft of an eating establishment or in a car with a child. You want to go home and chain smoke yourself to cancer? Have fun. Likewise, you couldn't restrict smoking at home typically. Seatbelt and helmet laws are a condition of using property that isn't yours (the road). Likewise for drivers licenses and minimum road hours. A good case here is the Texas anti-sodomy law (Lawrence v Texas) that was struck down in 2006(!) after being used to go after gay men. Here Texas made claims it was acting for the public good, SC ruled the state had no presence on a private matter outside the public eye.
  - BubRoss 6y ago
    What about wearing pants? Is wearing pants a compelled action?
    - vorpalhex 6y ago
      Would you be running around naked unless someone required otherwise? Some of us just enjoy wearing comfy pants.
      - fzeroracer 6y ago
        You seem to be changing the argument rather than answering the question. Do you believe public decency laws are the result of the state overextending its hand?
      - BubRoss 6y ago
        You are doging the question, maybe because you realize that you can't answer it without lying or contradicting yourself. Do you agree with the fact that you are compelled to wear clothes? After all a mask is essentially clothing.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
    > Seatbelt and helmet laws are a condition of using property that isn't yours (the road). "Mask laws" are a condition of using property that isn't yours (the road, the town square, the park, the trail). Nobody is going to force you to wear on mask on your own property.
    - vorpalhex 6y ago
      The government doesn't own public property. The public does. This is a subtle point. Now, can Wholefoods (to pick a private business) force you to wear a mask as a condition of using their store? Absolutely. Can your friend demand you wear a mask before you hang out and use their pool? Sure. Can the government demand you use a mask on non-government owned land? No. Can the government demand you wear a mask before entering a courthouse? Well, that becomes a whole thing and the answer is "maybe?".
pdonis 6y ago
> I have no innate right to use government roads. Yes, you do, if you're a member of the public and a taxpayer.
- vorpalhex 6y ago
  Can you drive without a license or insurance? Can you legally walk down a highway?
  - pdonis 6y ago
    > Can you drive without a license or insurance? Current law does not allow you to do this, yes. But current law also allows you to be ticketed if you exceed the speed limit. So obviously not all of current law is consistent with the basic principle I have stated. The application of the basic principle I stated to these cases should be obvious. (Btw, it seems a little odd for you to be saying, on the one hand, that certain current laws are wrong--such as the 65 mph speed limit--and on the other hand to be relying on other current laws for your understanding of what "rights" you have. Surely you should apply the same principles to all of the laws?) > Can you legally walk down a highway? I actually don't know what the law is on this one. The application of the basic principle I stated to this case, as to the ones above, should be obvious.
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > > Can you drive without a license or insurance? > Current law does not allow you to do this, yes. Current law in much of the US absolutely allows this, as long as you aren't on a public road or private property where the owner has opted-in to the rules generally applicable to public roads. Of course, most of the interesting trips a person might want to take by car involve traversing public roads.
- tomrod 6y ago
  Nobody checks these conditions when I use the roads. I could be a tax avoider and my use of the roads is unimpeded. Arrest of my use of the roads is consequent to being arrested for tax noncompliance, but I am not expressly forbidden from use of the roads. Indeed, I could go live under a bridge and never pay taxes, and I would still be able to access and use roads.

pdonis 6y ago

> I assume you're also against seatbelt and helmet laws. Laws that allow you to be fined or punished simply for not wearing a seat belt or a helmet? Yes, those are wrong. Laws that impose extra liability on you if you are in an accident and cause harm (including harm to yourself) and aren't wearing a seatbelt or a helmet? Those would be fine. Indeed, people would probably be more likely to wear seatbelts and helmets under such a regime than they are now. Now they're just risking a fine. Under that regime they'd be risking, for example, not having their medical insurance cover the costs of treating them.

jdkee 6y ago
"Laws that allow you to be fined or punished simply for not wearing a seat belt or a helmet? Yes, those are wrong." Why should I have to pay, through increased insurance and other societal costs, for your increased economic burden if you are paralyzed or run up huge medical bills because you could not be bothered to wear a seatbelt?
- pdonis 6y ago
  > Why should I have to pay, through increased insurance and other societal costs, for your increased economic burden if you are paralyzed or run up huge medical bills because you could not be bothered to wear a seatbelt? Go back and read the second part of my post, which you failed to quote, which addresses exactly this issue.
Dylan16807 6y ago
> Indeed, people would probably be more likely to wear seatbelts and helmets under such a regime than they are now. Now they're just risking a fine. Under that regime they'd be risking, for example, not having their medical insurance cover the costs of treating them. That is not how people work. They never think it will happen to them.

pdonis 6y ago

> What about smoking laws? I don't think the government should be able to make smoking outright illegal (except on government property like government buildings), but I think owners of individual homes and businesses and public spaces (e.g., malls) should have the right to prohibit it, with violations of the owner's prohibition being punishable by law (similar to how, say, trespassing would be handled).