Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: 'Moral violation', Speed limits, immigration, and the duty to obey law. Ilya Somim

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,166

    'Moral violation', Speed limits, immigration, and the duty to obey law. Ilya Somim

    "In a response to my post arguing that illegal immigrants are often justified in morally violating, law professor Michael Rappaport questions my use of the example of speed limit laws. I pointed out that most people believe that they are morally justified in violating the speed limit, so long as they do not significantly endanger other drivers or pedestrians. In such cases, they believe that the inconvenience of following the law outweighs any duty we might have to obey. Michael, however, argues that the duty to obey the speed limit is a special case because the government usually doesn’t enforce speed limits against moderate violations:[more]"

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/v...-obey-the-law/

    Link URL from the original http://www.threefelonies.com/
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Williamsburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    74
    I would not be able to support the claim that most people feel morally justified in speeding. They may speed and accept the risk of being caught but without any belief they are morally justified.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

  3. #3
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by youngck View Post
    I would not be able to support the claim that most people feel morally justified in speeding. They may speed and accept the risk of being caught but without any belief they are morally justified.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
    Breaking a law is only immoral when the law based on real law not man made rules.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  4. #4
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,274
    Speed limits, for privately owned passenger vehicles, on freeways, is anti-liberty. Speed limits on the privately owned passenger vehicles is nothing but a revenue stream for the state/municipality.

    http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/809915.pdf

    Old data, but it is not too far off I suspect.

    Note the speed data on the last page. >55 = bad, <55 = not so bad. Speed limits 60 thru 75 are killing folks, yet those speeds are "legal."

    Speed limits on the privately owned passenger vehicles is nothing but a revenue stream for the state/municipality.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  5. #5
    Regular Member MurrayRothbard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    70
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Speed limits, for privately owned passenger vehicles, on freeways, is anti-liberty.
    If I owned a 30 mile stretch of interstate, wouldn't I be justified (via my ownership of property rights) in establishing the maximum speed allowed on my roads? Would this also be considered anti-liberty or are you speaking currently of the socialist roads/speed limits?

  6. #6
    Regular Member Black_water's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    On The Border in AZ
    Posts
    152
    Not even to broach the "morality" aspect, but no one does anything unless they feel they can get some "positive" for themselves. Whether it be smoking crack or robbing banks, there is always some (twisted) good or positive in it for the person doing it.

    Sure, people come here illegally to better their lot in lot, but that is the same reason people rob banks.

    This is the type of minutia we encounter when people want add variables into equations in order to differentiate one from another. So if I go to a store and steal a bunch of clothing for my kids because I cannot afford them otherwise, do I get a pass too?
    Last edited by Black_water; 04-18-2014 at 09:39 AM.

  7. #7
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    "Michael, however, argues that the duty to obey the speed limit is a special case because the government usually doesn’t enforce speed limits against moderate violations"

    Michael, then, is a special case. It really pisses me off when people say stuff like that. "Oh, it's rarely enforced" WTF difference does that make?

    Both current immigration laws and speed limit laws are unjust. When I see people who still support laws like the prohibition of marijuana and closing the borders, I can't help but think they do not yet understand liberty on a fundamental level. Many know it exists, and they've found cases where it's violated, and they oppose those violations, but they don't yet get it as a fundamental concept.
    Last edited by stealthyeliminator; 04-18-2014 at 09:59 AM.
    Advocate freedom please

  8. #8
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,274
    Quote Originally Posted by MurrayRothbard View Post
    If I owned a 30 mile stretch of interstate, wouldn't I be justified (via my ownership of property rights) in establishing the maximum speed allowed on my roads? Would this also be considered anti-liberty or are you speaking currently of the socialist roads/speed limits?
    If you owned? False premise and a distraction.

    You may, on your private property, dictate the terms of use.

    There are very few private roads and as such the remainder are public roads. I speak specifically to freeways (interstates and some US highways) where access to them is via on and off ramps, not intersections controlled by lights or signs. These roads are designed for higher speeds. The data included in the link I provided seems to indicate that speeding does not indicate that more people are involved in crashes.
    Note the speed data on the last page. >55 = bad, <55 = not so bad. Speed limits 60 thru 75 are killing folks, yet those speeds are "legal."
    It is obvious, to me anyway, that arbitrary speed limits do not reduce crashes, good drivers reduce (mitigate) crashes. Arbitrary speed limits are in effect to generate revenue for the state/municipalities.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  9. #9
    Regular Member MurrayRothbard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    70
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    If you owned? False premise and a distraction.

    You may, on your private property, dictate the terms of use.

    There are very few private roads and as such the remainder are public roads. I speak specifically to freeways (interstates and some US highways) where access to them is via on and off ramps, not intersections controlled by lights or signs. These roads are designed for higher speeds. The data included in the link I provided seems to indicate that speeding does not indicate that more people are involved in crashes.
    It is obvious, to me anyway, that arbitrary speed limits do not reduce crashes, good drivers reduce (mitigate) crashes. Arbitrary speed limits are in effect to generate revenue for the state/municipalities.
    What I meant was, if we didn't have socialist roads, and all roads were private, would you respect the property rights or not?

  10. #10
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,274
    Quote Originally Posted by MurrayRothbard View Post
    What I meant was, if we didn't have socialist roads, and all roads were private, would you respect the property rights or not?
    Please refer to the post immediately preceding your post.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    OP needs to note:

    1 is criminal
    2nd is civil (in most states)

    In a civil action, an injured party must be present.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by MurrayRothbard View Post
    If I owned a 30 mile stretch of interstate, wouldn't I be justified (via my ownership of property rights) in establishing the maximum speed allowed on my roads? Would this also be considered anti-liberty or are you speaking currently of the socialist roads/speed limits?
    That a silly question. How about simply make whatever point you're trying to make . I'm interested to see how it's relevant to the post you refer to or even this thread.
    Last edited by georg jetson; 04-18-2014 at 09:25 PM.

  13. #13
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    He misunderstood the post. Simple as that. Move on. Stop trying to pick a fight.

    I really don't see how any of you could so egregiously misunderstand murrayrothbards post except intentionally
    Last edited by stealthyeliminator; 04-18-2014 at 09:43 PM.
    Advocate freedom please

  14. #14
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator View Post
    He misunderstood the post. Simple as that. Move on. Stop trying to pick a fight.

    I really don't see how any of you could so egregiously misunderstand murrayrothbards post except intentionally
    Or haven't read Rothbard.....
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •