3 ms·
> 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 le
by 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.