Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
We are about to have a Texting while driving law
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="henschman" data-source="post: 2741861" data-attributes="member: 4235"><p>Texting while driving is one of those things you can do without infringing on anyone else's rights or aggressing against anyone in any way. This means a flat prohibition on it is overbroad... and if the government makes enough overbroad threats of force, it can significantly reduce the overall liberty in a society (take a look around you). </p><p></p><p>Now I'm not even taking such a limited view of defensive force as to say that "my right to swing my arm ends at your nose," or that people should only be threatened for engaging in conduct that actually causes damage to someone's body or property... I think the old English magistrates pretty much got it right 1000 years or so ago when they made "reasonable fear of imminent harm" the standard for defensive force. You don't have to wait until the other guy's fist (or bullet, or car) hits you before you are justified in taking action to stop him, when it becomes readily apparent what is about to happen. But where the wigged old farts got it wrong is only applying that rule to individuals, and not to groups of people calling themselves "governments" and claiming mastery over other men. Certainly no group of people has any more rights than any individual among them. </p><p></p><p>Laws like this one on texting and driving give the State the power to threaten and use force against people under circumstances where no individual would be justified in using force himself, because some of the prohibited conduct can be done without putting anyone in reasonable fear of imminent harm. That is the issue I take with it. Narrow it's application to situations where there was actual harm or someone had to take evasive action to avoid it, and I wouldn't have such a problem with it.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="henschman, post: 2741861, member: 4235"] Texting while driving is one of those things you can do without infringing on anyone else's rights or aggressing against anyone in any way. This means a flat prohibition on it is overbroad... and if the government makes enough overbroad threats of force, it can significantly reduce the overall liberty in a society (take a look around you). Now I'm not even taking such a limited view of defensive force as to say that "my right to swing my arm ends at your nose," or that people should only be threatened for engaging in conduct that actually causes damage to someone's body or property... I think the old English magistrates pretty much got it right 1000 years or so ago when they made "reasonable fear of imminent harm" the standard for defensive force. You don't have to wait until the other guy's fist (or bullet, or car) hits you before you are justified in taking action to stop him, when it becomes readily apparent what is about to happen. But where the wigged old farts got it wrong is only applying that rule to individuals, and not to groups of people calling themselves "governments" and claiming mastery over other men. Certainly no group of people has any more rights than any individual among them. Laws like this one on texting and driving give the State the power to threaten and use force against people under circumstances where no individual would be justified in using force himself, because some of the prohibited conduct can be done without putting anyone in reasonable fear of imminent harm. That is the issue I take with it. Narrow it's application to situations where there was actual harm or someone had to take evasive action to avoid it, and I wouldn't have such a problem with it. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
We are about to have a Texting while driving law
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom