5 ms·

C.S. Lewis said it best: “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims will be the most oppressive. It would be better to live u

C.S. Lewis said it best: “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims will be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

cozzyd 3y ago
Let me guess, speeding tickets are also tyranny? Fine, cars can let you speed but you get automatically fined, is that better?
- explodes 3y ago
  What if you're speeding because of legitimate emergencies? On your own rural property? Race tracks? It gets trickier when you need to draw these lines no matter how you draw them. Defaulting to creating laws or enforcement that takes away your personal autonomy is tyranny. Getting rights back will always be harder than losing them.
  - cozzyd 3y ago
    Your rural property or a racetrack would not have a speed limit so there's no issue there. A simple governor is not so useful anyway, the most dangerous speeding is in densely populated areas (e.g. going 40 in a 25). Having an emergency button is a great idea. Lights could flash to let people know they should get out of the way...
medler 3y ago
I don’t think that quote applies to this situation. Lewis is talking about forcing people to do things for their own benefit. But speed limits are not mainly for your own benefit as the driver. They’re to protect others from the driver’s dangerous decisions. Some laws I could see falling under the scope of the Lewis quote might be laws against birth control, homosexuality/sodomy, or maybe even gambling. But speeding and driving recklessly are not victimless crimes stochastically.
- marcusverus 3y ago
  You think he opposed being tormented for his own good, but would have happily endured it for some other (purely hypothetical) person? Is this your reading of Lewis, or a projection of your own collectivist ethos? > But speeding and driving recklessly are not victimless crimes Speeding is, by definition, a victimless crime. > …stochastically. The implied syllogism is deeply authoritarian. Few acts victimless stochastically.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - medler 3y ago
    > You think he opposed being tormented for his own good, but would have happily endured it for some other (purely hypothetical) person? He was against moral legislation, such as laws against homosexuality and laws promoting marriage, but, again, speeding laws are not moral legislation. They are there for public safety, not public morality. That said, putting aside the law, he was a believer in morality, and I’m confident he would have opposed putting others’ lives at risk for one’s own selfish reasons. > Speeding is, by definition, a victimless crime. Over 10,000 people in the US die in speeding-related accidents every year.
    - marcusverus 3y ago
      > He was against moral legislation, such as laws against homosexuality and laws promoting marriage, but, again, speeding laws are not moral legislation. They are there for public safety, not public morality. He was, more or less, a classical liberal. He may well have supported some common sense speed limits (as do I), but he would have been appalled at the idea of the government having the ability to remotely enforce speed limits in individual cars. > Over 10,000 people in the US die in speeding-related accidents every year. Millions of people exceed the speed limit every day without harming anyone. They are not responsible for deaths caused by other people, hence their speeding is a victimless crime. Attempting to blame all of society for the crimes of a feckless few is nonsensical.
  - 3y ago

cozzyd 3y ago

Let me guess, speeding tickets are also tyranny? Fine, cars can let you speed but you get automatically fined, is that better?

explodes 3y ago
What if you're speeding because of legitimate emergencies? On your own rural property? Race tracks? It gets trickier when you need to draw these lines no matter how you draw them. Defaulting to creating laws or enforcement that takes away your personal autonomy is tyranny. Getting rights back will always be harder than losing them.
- cozzyd 3y ago
  Your rural property or a racetrack would not have a speed limit so there's no issue there. A simple governor is not so useful anyway, the most dangerous speeding is in densely populated areas (e.g. going 40 in a 25). Having an emergency button is a great idea. Lights could flash to let people know they should get out of the way...

medler 3y ago

I don’t think that quote applies to this situation. Lewis is talking about forcing people to do things for their own benefit. But speed limits are not mainly for your own benefit as the driver. They’re to protect others from the driver’s dangerous decisions. Some laws I could see falling under the scope of the Lewis quote might be laws against birth control, homosexuality/sodomy, or maybe even gambling. But speeding and driving recklessly are not victimless crimes stochastically.

marcusverus 3y ago
You think he opposed being tormented for his own good, but would have happily endured it for some other (purely hypothetical) person? Is this your reading of Lewis, or a projection of your own collectivist ethos? > But speeding and driving recklessly are not victimless crimes Speeding is, by definition, a victimless crime. > …stochastically. The implied syllogism is deeply authoritarian. Few acts victimless stochastically.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- medler 3y ago
  > You think he opposed being tormented for his own good, but would have happily endured it for some other (purely hypothetical) person? He was against moral legislation, such as laws against homosexuality and laws promoting marriage, but, again, speeding laws are not moral legislation. They are there for public safety, not public morality. That said, putting aside the law, he was a believer in morality, and I’m confident he would have opposed putting others’ lives at risk for one’s own selfish reasons. > Speeding is, by definition, a victimless crime. Over 10,000 people in the US die in speeding-related accidents every year.
  - marcusverus 3y ago
    > He was against moral legislation, such as laws against homosexuality and laws promoting marriage, but, again, speeding laws are not moral legislation. They are there for public safety, not public morality. He was, more or less, a classical liberal. He may well have supported some common sense speed limits (as do I), but he would have been appalled at the idea of the government having the ability to remotely enforce speed limits in individual cars. > Over 10,000 people in the US die in speeding-related accidents every year. Millions of people exceed the speed limit every day without harming anyone. They are not responsible for deaths caused by other people, hence their speeding is a victimless crime. Attempting to blame all of society for the crimes of a feckless few is nonsensical.
- 3y ago