5 ms·
Sounds like a good reason to create protected “no turn on red” crosswalks. The state’s monopoly on violence should be used judiciously and sparingly to secure
by teakettle42 4y ago
Sounds like a good reason to create protected “no turn on red” crosswalks.
The state’s monopoly on violence should be used judiciously and sparingly to secure our individual rights, not as a catch-all tool for coercing (or outright forcing) people into making the choices you want them to.
- undersuit 4y agoI think it's OK for the government to ban vehicles from their roads.
- Dig1t 4y agoThis is very well stated and honestly completely sums up most of the political divide between left and right.
- CorrectHorseBat 4y agoIf by individuals you mean white men, that is.
- piperswe 4y agoThen the state should stop building roads. Until that happens, they're free to regulate what vehicles can drive on those roads.
- splistud 4y ago
- WorldMaker 4y agoThey can also enforce existing laws better. Don't forget that most states have had truck laws for a very long time. We know there is a direct linkage between vehicle weight and road maintenance costs. We've had laws that required vehicles to be weighed. We've had laws that taxed vehicles that exceeded certain weights on given roads. We've had laws banning vehicles of certain weights from certain roads. We could turn those laws "back on", get back to enforcing them better, adjust their fines and penalties to match a decade or three of inflation. (For instance, Hummers are allegedly already technically illegal by weight on California residential streets. When was the last time that was enforced? When was the last time an owner paid fines on that?)
- beowulfey 4y agoI live in a state with many “no right turn on red” intersections, and I can tell you for sure that people very often ignore those signs and do it anyway.
- rpmisms 4y ago> The state’s monopoly on violence should be used judiciously and sparingly to secure our individual rights, not as a catch-all tool for coercing (or outright forcing) people into making the choices you want them to. May I steal this, please? I know a few people who don't get my political philosophy, and I want to help them understand.
- teakettle42 4y ago> May I steal this, please? Of course. Glad it was cogent enough to be useful.
- rpmisms 4y agoSuccinct is probably the best word. You've essentially described the Non-Aggression Principle as it applies to government.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- dredmorbius 4y agoThe state's monopoly, qua Max Weber, is on the legitimate use of violence. That is, the right and legitimacy of that right, is restricted to the state. Absent this, one of three conditions exist; 1. There is no monopoly. In which case violence is widespread, and there is no state. 2. There is no legitimacy. In which case violence is capricious. This is your condition of tyranny (unaccountable power). 3. Some non-state power or agent assumes the monopoly on legitimate violence. In which case it becomes, by definition the State. The state's claim is to legitimacy. A capricious exercise would be an abrogation of legitimacy Weber, Max (1978). Roth, Guenther; Wittich, Claus (eds.). Economy and Society. Berkeley: U. California P. p. 54. https://archive.org/details/economysociety00webe/page/54/mode/1up?view=theater https://archive.org/details/economysociety00webe/page/54/mod... There's an excellent explanation of the common misunderstanding in this episode of the Talking Politics podcast: https://play.acast.com/s/history-of-ideas/weberonleadership https://play.acast.com/s/history-of-ideas/weberonleadership The misleading and abbreviated form that's frequently found online seems to have originated with Rothbard, and was further popularised by Nozick.
- TheCoelacanth 4y agoHow about securing my right not to get killed by a dangerously large vehicle?
- 6510 4y agohttps://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2012/10/electric-velomobiles.html https://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2012/10/electric-velomobiles... This old article mentions a lot of advantages of electric velomobiles vs cars like doing average commutes in roughly the same time, dramatic increase in road capacity, tiny power consumption if everyone was to switch etc etc But write-ups hardly ever mention how hard it is to damage a pedestrian with it. Crashes involving just velomobiles usually leave little more than a scratch.
- corrral 4y agoStrongly agree that you ought to be able to drive most anything you like on roads that you build and maintain on your own property.
- teakettle42 4y agoThe roads we mutually pay for belong to us collectively, too.
- corrral 4y agoYep! That's why our government sets rules for their use.
- stefan_ 4y agoYes, first and foremost the right to bodily integrity, since rights are no good if you are dead. The two biggest killers of people in the US who are otherwise many many years from dying are guns and cars, and in both cases a large number of those dead had neither a gun nor a car in the moment. If the state is going to use its monopoly on anything, it should obviously be those two.
- teakettle42 4y agoThe state’s job isn’t to enforce prior restraint on others who have done nothing to violate your rights.
- tadfisher 4y agoThe state's job is whatever we tell them it is. This is a democracy, not a want ad.
- teakettle42 4y agoIf that’s the kind of tyrannical state and use of a monopoly on violence you aspire to, sure.
- abenga 4y agoAnd here we are discussing individual pedestrians' rights to safety on the roads, no?