Virginia legislature passes bill preventing cops from stopping cars with no headlights, brake lights, etc

[Blimey]

This thread feels like what happens when a person goes really far down the rabbit hole of libertarian thought.

 

[Airborneguy]

This thread feels like what happens when a person goes really far down the rabbit hole of libertarian thought.

Well that and admin-endorsed trolling.

 

[Vapor]

This thread feels like what happens when a person goes really far down the rabbit hole of libertarian thought.

But without taxes, how do we pay for muh roads!

The life of man in the state of nature is nasty, brutish, and short...that's why he need a leviathan to rule him and keep order...



Or in the state of nature, the family unit, or micro republic-democracy forms, possibly along with a social contract.

It really depends on how much you can trust your fellow man and the native culture. Our founders leaned more towards the Locke style of philosophy.

Regrettably forces in our country have brain washed people to both accept less personal responsibility, and to accept greater statism. I've seen this nurtured in my short 35 years on this earth.


This is not a commentary on police, but American culture in general.

 

[spat]

So because we lost a battle we should concede the war? If the founders could've conceptualized the concept of constant passive surveillance, they most certainly would've created an amendment about it. We don't have "privacy" in public because the Constitution couldn't have possibly addressed such a thing. The closest example would've been agents of the government posted on every corner, and they most certainly were against such intrusions.

Cops driving around or posted in random spots cannot possibly observe every infraction. This is a fact. No matter how good I think I was, an array of modern cameras will beat me every time, on every corner, building, intersection, pole, tree, whatever. You're seriously advocating for that over human interaction which can be and has been contested effectively in court for generations?

I find this position to be highly antithetical to everything I've seen you post for years.

The cameras are already here. Those public spaces are absolutely overflowing with them. Every traffic infraction is probably caught from a dozen angles *right now*.

I'm not advocating for adding anything new.

In fact I want to get the government a whole lot *less* involved in the whole process.

The founders certainly would not have objected to private citizens recording events they were witnessing, there were eyes on every street corner even back then. The only difference was the ability to record.

What I am saying is that instead of wasting all the resources spent on that *now* we crowd source it.

There is no end to the number of "Karens" out there who would like nothing more than to catch a traffic violation on their dash cam and mail in a report. Let then and free up the tax money for real crimefighting.

You seem to act like I am advocating for a loss of privacy. I am not. The privacy you think you are defending doesn't exist any longer. I am just advocating that we stop pretending it does and we at least make use of what we have now.

Or are *you* saying we need to outlaw cameras in public spaces ?

 

[dwa12479]

Ok, serious question regarding the "victimless" argument.

Is engaging in behavior that is inherently dangerous and has a very high probability of causing someone harm still acceptable then?

If for instance I was to wander around a crowded shopping mall with rifle, round chambered, safety off, finger on the trigger, and muzzle covering everyone , it's a victimless crime until I stumble and have an ND and someone gets shot. But the action in the first place should not be allowed simply because there's no victim. No different than driving 100 mph through a residential neighborhood, driving while seriously impaired by drugs or alcohol. These actions have a HIGH probability of causing harm.

 

[GOPerfect]

Ok, serious question regarding the "victimless" argument.

Is engaging in behavior that is inherently dangerous and has a very high probability of causing someone harm still acceptable then?

If for instance I was to wander around a crowded shopping mall with rifle, round chambered, safety off, finger on the trigger, and muzzle covering everyone , it's a victimless crime until I stumble and have an ND and someone gets shot. But the action in the first place should not be allowed simply because there's no victim. No different than driving 100 mph through a residential neighborhood, driving while seriously impaired by drugs or alcohol. These actions have a HIGH probability of causing harm.

Voice of reason thank you

 

[Vapor]

It's a hard line to draw.

A victimless crime to me is getting piss drunk at home.

Doing drugs at home, provided the person doesn't become violent.

I think once things change into the public realm it gets messy.

Which is why I want 200 acres and a sign that says fuck off enforced by Barrett.

 

[holdover]

Why do they have to have been hurt?

Isn't hurting or killing others, and I know this may blow the mind of some, already a crime?

yes. But there are crimes of intent , and then there are crimes of negligence and contempt for human life.

Should people have the right to target shoot thier 308 in the yard if they live in the city? You know 2nd Amendment.

 

[spat]

This thread feels like what happens when a person goes really far down the rabbit hole of libertarian thought.

Except these concepts are in active practice some places and the world doesn't end.

It has been proven that the apocalypse predicted without the nanny state dictating our every move doesn't occur.

The statists all say "without this law everyone will drive 200mph and everyone will die" Then the libertarians point out that some places *don't* have speed limits, and people manage to find a reasonable speed to drive all on their own anyway. And the statists just ignore the giant 800 lb gorilla of a counter example and go on about how we'll all die without FUAC dictating every detail of our lives.

I remember a discussion on the old forum with some NYC cop that was only around for a month or so.

He said "you think people should be able to have tanks and fighter planes ? Imagine all the damage they could do ?"

I linked to a website showing actual fully functional tanks for sale, and showed him the number of FAA registered MIG fighter jets in private hands in the US and said "We've got lots that now, they're not hurting anyone".

He was unable to accept the idea that it was possible for people to act responsibly without government involved in every aspect.

IIRC his response was something along the lines of "tanks and fighter jets, you guys are nuts" despite the clear evidence right in front of his face to the contrary.

 

[spat]

Ok, serious question regarding the "victimless" argument.

Is engaging in behavior that is inherently dangerous and has a very high probability of causing someone harm still acceptable then?

If for instance I was to wander around a crowded shopping mall with rifle, round chambered, safety off, finger on the trigger, and muzzle covering everyone , it's a victimless crime until I stumble and have an ND and someone gets shot. But the action in the first place should not be allowed simply because there's no victim. No different than driving 100 mph through a residential neighborhood, driving while seriously impaired by drugs or alcohol. These actions have a HIGH probability of causing harm.

Is walking around that shopping mall unvaccinated and without your mask risking everyone's life ?

Who gets to decide what's "too risky" ?

If someone does as you say and nothing happens, what was the harm ?

If he has an ND and puts a round through the ceiling (or a passerby) then you have proof that he was being reckless and he can be prosecuted harshly.

Until then it's just an opinion. I do not trust bureaucrats to form reasonable opinions. They have proven quite incapable of it.

 

[spat]

yes. But there are crimes of intent , and then there are crimes of negligence and contempt for human life.

Should people have the right to target shoot thier 308 in the yard if they live in the city? You know 2nd Amendment.

Can they do it without the round leaving their property and without violating a noise ordinance ?

Since the noise *does* leave the property it is within the pervue of the government to regulate that.

It's been proven time and again that government cannot be trusted to make reasonable judgements about what is "too risky". They will ban kinder eggs and then tell soldiers to burn toxic waste in an open pit. They cannot be trusted.

 

[Jezman]

Good.

Victimless crimes are victimless.

"But muh safe roads."

Some states don't even have inspections. Nor should they.

So crimes are not crimes unless they have a victim

 

[Darth]

yes. But there are crimes of intent , and then there are crimes of negligence and contempt for human life.

Should people have the right to target shoot thier 308 in the yard if they live in the city? You know 2nd Amendment.

Ok, serious question regarding the "victimless" argument.

Is engaging in behavior that is inherently dangerous and has a very high probability of causing someone harm still acceptable then?

If for instance I was to wander around a crowded shopping mall with rifle, round chambered, safety off, finger on the trigger, and muzzle covering everyone , it's a victimless crime until I stumble and have an ND and someone gets shot. But the action in the first place should not be allowed simply because there's no victim. No different than driving 100 mph through a residential neighborhood, driving while seriously impaired by drugs or alcohol. These actions have a HIGH probability of causing harm.

A better "gotcha" argument would be "can you shoot a gun into a crowd of people, as long as you don't hit anyone. No victim right!?"

No, that's not the case. And when you understand why, then that's an honest discussion we can have.

Woah, it's almost like I've heard this before.

Now, that said, I'd absolutely be open to a discussion on what constitutes putting people in direct danger. For example, firing a gun into a crowd would. Driving drunk on a back road would not.

I think reckless driving, for whatever reason (being tired impairs you more than alcohol) should be a crime. How do I define reckless driving? Driving that immediately and directly puts others in direct danger. Where is that line? That I'm happy do debate.

 

[Darth]

So crimes are not crimes unless they have a victim

Correct.

 

[holdover]

Can they do it without the round leaving their property and without violating a noise ordinance ?

Since the noise *does* leave the property it is within the pervue of the government to regulate that.

It's been proven time and again that government cannot be trusted to make reasonable judgements about what is "too risky". They will ban kinder eggs and then tell soldiers to burn toxic waste in an open pit. They cannot be trusted.

Your splitting hairs , I would imagine that a self contained range within specs could be allowed . There are multiple variations of killing/murder in the law , from self defense to negligence to homicide , Generally speaking firing a high powered rifle in a heavily populated is against the law because it does endanger people. For that reason it is against the law. The law protects the innocent from stupid people. The DUI law protects people from being hurt or killed. headlights protect people in the same way .

We can never know how many deaths were actually prevented because the police arrested a drunk driver or forced someone to get his lights fixed in 3 days.

the absolutism of freedom cannot exist within a society , any society , even the American Indians lived by tribal laws . The libertarian view of absolute freedom creates a lot of unforeseen problems . In this case the abolishment of certain traffic laws restricts the ability of officers to enforce laws and stop criminals , many times in progress or just after the fact . The results become obvious after the criminals become aware of the loopholes and use them against the system.

 

[holdover]

Correct.

so terrorists plotting to attack a target in which they have not harmed anyone is OK .

 

[Darth]

so terrorists plotting to attack a target in which they have not harmed anyone is OK .

Correct.

Do you dream up these wild hypotheticals as a hobby or is it strictly business?

 

[Jchrisls]

Except these concepts are in active practice some places and the world doesn't end.

It has been proven that the apocalypse predicted without the nanny state dictating our every move doesn't occur.

The statists all say "without this law everyone will drive 200mph and everyone will die" Then the libertarians point out that some places *don't* have speed limits, and people manage to find a reasonable speed to drive all on their own anyway. And the statists just ignore the giant 800 lb gorilla of a counter example and go on about how we'll all die without FUAC dictating every detail of our lives.

I remember a discussion on the old forum with some NYC cop that was only around for a month or so.

He said "you think people should be able to have tanks and fighter planes ? Imagine all the damage they could do ?"

I linked to a website showing actual fully functional tanks for sale, and showed him the number of FAA registered MIG fighter jets in private hands in the US and said "We've got lots that now, they're not hurting anyone".

He was unable to accept the idea that it was possible for people to act responsibly without government involved in every aspect.

IIRC his response was something along the lines of "tanks and fighter jets, you guys are nuts" despite the clear evidence right in front of his face to the contrary.

On a tangent, but he was a cop from NYC, indoctrinated into the belief that even a simple handgun in the hands of the public would be apocalyptic. We know that simply isn't true.

 

[Darth]

On a tangent, but he was a cop from NYC, indoctrinated into the belief that even a simple handgun in the hands of the public would be apocalyptic. We know that simply isn't true.

People get so confused with "Libertarians going off the deep end" and "How can anyone not be against X"

For me at least it has very little to do with DUI laws. I don't partake in alcohol at all, so it doesn't affect me, but what I DO partake in is living in a state that point blank, in your face, no 2 ways about it shows everyone what even a taste of government power does.

And they do it every single time.

 

[pjzwtl]

Is walking around that shopping mall unvaccinated and without your mask risking everyone's life ?

only to those who also choose not to be vaccinated and even that depends on what said vaccine is for. Either way highly unlikely to really be a danger to anyone. In contrast walking around in public locked, loaded with safety off and finger on boom boom switch does have a high probability of harm

 

[Darth]

only to those who also choose not to be vaccinated and even that depends on what said vaccine is for

Negative.

Specifically with the mask thing people are comparing it with drunk driving. YOU ARE PUTTING EVERYONE ELSE IN DANGER! :O

 

[spat]

only to those who also choose not to be vaccinated and even that depends on what said vaccine is for. Either way highly unlikely to really be a danger to anyone. In contrast walking around in public locked, loaded with safety off and finger on boom boom switch does have a high probability of harm

NYS would disagree. If we don’t all wear masks "we're all gonna die" don't 'ya know.

My point is that you cannot trust them to draw that line.

 

[pjzwtl]

NYS would disagree. If we don’t all wear masks "we're all gonna die" don't 'ya know.

My point is that you cannot trust them to draw that line.

Masks lol ok got me on that one but unfortunately I see to much stupid and blatant disregard for others every day to trust society in general

 

[Blimey]

Woah, it's almost like I've heard this before.

Now, that said, I'd absolutely be open to a discussion on what constitutes putting people in direct danger. For example, firing a gun into a crowd would. Driving drunk on a back road would not.

I think reckless driving, for whatever reason (being tired impairs you more than alcohol) should be a crime. How do I define reckless driving? Driving that immediately and directly puts others in direct danger. Where is that line? That I'm happy do debate.

reckless driving is a victimless crime.

 

[spat]

so terrorists plotting to attack a target in which they have not harmed anyone is OK .

Depends. The laws about conspiracy are a bit messy.

If it's just talk, then no. If they start actually preparing to execute the plan that's another matter.

You do not have to wait until someone actually fires at you to defend yourself.

But you do need to demonstrate that they have the ability *and intent*.

If someone was engaging in activity that was so reckless that it was more likely than not to cause an injury to a bystander, then it would be reasonable to arrest them.

But our government has proven that it can't be trusted to make that determination. They will take something that has a million to one odds and call it "too dangerous" and outlaw it.

 

[Blimey]

so terrorists plotting to attack a target in which they have not harmed anyone is OK .

i have a better one. Allow anybody who owns a gun within immediate vicinity of the president. Allow homemade bombs on planes, too. After all the person may just really want to show his brother in another state the bomb be made.

 

[spat]

Masks lol ok got me on that one but unfortunately I see to much stupid and blatant disregard for others every day to trust society in general

I see even more stupid from government. I'd rather take my chances with society.

 

[spat]

i have a better one. Allow anybody who owns a gun within immediate vicinity of the president. Allow homemade bombs on planes, too. After all the person may just really want to show his brother in another state the bomb be made.

You *can* legally build a bomb now. Pay the $200 tax and you're good.

And you *can* legally bring it on a private plane to show your brother if you want too.

How many suicide bombers do you actually think are dissuaded by the current rules and security theater ?

 

[Darth]

reckless driving is a victimless crime.

In some cases it is. No argument there.

 

[Darth]

i have a better one. Allow anybody who owns a gun within immediate vicinity of the president. Allow homemade bombs on planes, too. After all the person may just really want to show his brother in another state the bomb be made.

The fact that you can't have your guns around the president SHOULD be deeply concerning to you btw...

And yes, I feel you should be able to obviously.