| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Toll tags in Texas (OT)Toll tags in Texas (OT)Posted Jun 10, 2008 11:52 UTC (Tue) by ekj (subscriber, #1524)In reply to: Toll tags in Texas (OT) by drag Parent article: Stallman attacks Oyster's 'unethical' use of Linux (ZDNet)
We do have -general- laws in society, despite the fact that individual circumstances are always different. You need to be (16|18|whatever) to be allowed to drive a car -- despite the fact that some 15-year-olds could and would do it perfectly safely, and some 20-year-olds cant or won't. There's an age-of-consent, despite the fact that people are different, some have a perfectly normal sexual relationship at 14 and suffer no damages from it, others aren't able to take responsibility for themselves at 20. I don't think it's a good cure to remove all speed-limits. On the very best roads it could be reasonable though. Germany has no speed-limits on their best roads, and accidents aren't infact any higher than comparable roads in other countries.
(Log in to post comments)
Toll tags in Texas (OT) Posted Jun 12, 2008 5:57 UTC (Thu) by lysse (guest, #3190) [Link] > We do have -general- laws in society, despite the fact that individual circumstances are always different. Yes, and the willingness of people to hide behind what the statute book says, rather than actually do their own thinking about whether it's just or not, has caused more evil in the world than any intentional act. There's a reason for preferring one's politicians cynical. People who have come to terms with their cynicism tend to at least minimise the harm they cause; no such self-inhibition guides the pure of motive, sometimes with appalling consequences.
Toll tags in Texas (OT) Posted Jun 13, 2008 17:58 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] the willingness of people to hide behind what the statute book says, rather than actually do their own thinking about whether it's just or not, has caused more evil in the world than any intentional act. Really? I'm not sure it even counts as "evil" if it wasn't the result of a person's intentional act. And I don't know what problem you're thinking of because the phrase "hide behind the statute" normally applies to a person who applies his own judgement, then finds a statute that backs up that judgement, and applies it. He hides behind the statute when he refuses to acquiesce to someone else's conflicting judgement, defend his judgement, etc. In speed limit terms, a cop sees a car go whizzing by at a speed he believes is antisocial, and also exceeds the posted limit. He tickets the driver and the driver argues that in this particular case there's nothing unsafe about that speed. Rather than debate him, the cop just points to the sign.
Toll tags in Texas (OT) Posted Jun 14, 2008 13:18 UTC (Sat) by lysse (guest, #3190) [Link] Does the phrase "I was only following orders" clarify my position at all?
Toll tags in Texas (OT) Posted Jun 14, 2008 17:07 UTC (Sat) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] Does the phrase "I was only following orders" clarify my position at all? Yes, it does. And we're all familiar with the arguments in favor of other people following orders. In the case of highway speed control, I'm much more comfortable having cops and judges following specific blanket orders from my legislator than using their own judgement.
|
|
||||||||||||