reply to post by aching_knuckles
Disingenuous? You refuse to answer point blank questions about your ideology and then you call me disingenuous? LOL When you attack the messenger and
not his message, eh JPZ?
This is not at all true. You did not ask me a "point blank question about my ideology". This is actually what you did ask:
JPZ, quick question for you: You say that we all have the inalieable right to drive, without needing a license from a governmental agency. Does these
mean that one also has no obligation to follow posted speed or yield signs, stop signs, red lights? Does a person have the freedom to drive drunk or
under the influence of drugs?
I answered you simply and stated that if it causes no harm than it is done by right and outside of defense, what causes harm is not a right. This is
a very basic and simple concept and yet you followed up with this question:
I dont understand your answer....does that mean I can run a stop sign as long as I dont kill anyone? As long as no one gets harmed, I should be able
to drive drunk?
These are not "point blank questions about my ideology", they are specific questions about specific issues, and I maintain the answer to your
question above is perfectly clear. Your problem, and if you are truly confused, your confusion lies in your presumption that running stop signs and
driving drunk does not cause harm if "no one gets harmed", but both are acts of recklessness rooted in a profound disregard for other people's
rights.
You have the right to keep and bear arms, but you do not have the right to stand in a crowd of people and point your gun straight up into the air and
shoot it. It is a reckless action that may not cause a death or injury, but is still a harm. Parking your car behind another car in a shopping mall,
or blocking someones driveway is a harm. You have no right to obstruct the right of others to freely travel, and even if your action of blocking the
other is unaware of your thoughtless crime it does not remove it from the category of a criminal action.
No one should have to explain this to you, or have to explain to you that driving drunk, or running stop signs is an act of recklessness that causes
harm. This does not vindicate arbitrary acts of legislation that place some sort of standard number on what constitutes "drunk", but if I, or you,
or a law enforcement officer witnesses someone veering off the road, then back on, and driving in a reckless way, and once stopped and questioned it
becomes clear that person is "drunk", then harm has been established.
Rape is an ancient concept too, that doesnt mean it is a good one.
Rape is a demonstrable harm. The principle of ignorantia juris non-excusat does not cause any harm at all. Are you suggesting that the principle of
ignorance of the law is no excuse is a bad "conception"?
You may fool a lot of people around here, but not me; your argument has obvious valid flaws that you refuse to acknowledge, then just type a bunch of
horse hockey up here in an attempt to sound smart with backhanded insults and insinuations.
What, pray tell, is a "valid flaw"? Sounds like horse hockey.
Let's be clear here about your accusation of "backhanded" insults. This accusation is just not true. You are offended because I have informed you
that ignorance of the law is no excuse. If you are feigning ignorance this makes your accusation all the more reprehensible. It is absurd for you to
claim I have offended you by simply informing you of the law.
What I am asking you, YOU, is if you believe there should be stop signs...yes or no?
Yes.
Why do we have to go into discussions about dead languages?
We don't and I never imposed this upon you. I merely pointed out that the legal principle of ignorance of the law is no excuse is found in dead
languages to emphasize how ancient this well established and accepted legal principle is. You chose to have a discussion on dead languages.
I understand you hate a "nanny state", but do you honestly think things would be better if there were no rules, a la Mad Max?
You are using a fallacious argument of excluded middle, or false dichotomy. Mad Max dystopias are not the only alternative to nanny states.
The entire point of society is to have rules and laws that allow us to be civilized, and by extension, have a civilization. You dont want this.
On the contrary, civilization is precisely what I want. If you want to know the level of insanity of any nation, just look at the number of laws they
have on the books. A cluster of insane people does not a civilization make.
Where does it end?
Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose.
