Liberty and Rights

Sep 2019
1,086
432
Texas
Laws are the rules set by a society to protect its citizens from the behaviour of those that threaten their welfare. It doesn't matter if there was no actual harm caused, by committing these acts they endanger/hinder the welfare of their fellow citizens, something all modern societies consider unacceptable.
Then all modern societies are fortune tellers- mind readers- and don't mind punishing the many for the actions of the few- the Great American Exceptionalism- Liberty be damned.
 
Sep 2019
1,086
432
Texas
I have come to th econclusion you are nothing but a troll, an dwill be ignored in the future. When you asked "How is driving without gov't permission a crime? Who was harmed? What harm has been caused by running a Stop Sign? Or driving over the Speed Limit? " you ignore the basis for such a law, and try to justify your own version of "liberty" by then suggesting that there are certain "qualifications" that need be determined, but the history of such incidents making a law a requirement is to be ignored.
LOL- I justify Liberty- you and others try to justify dwill- and you justified your answers with excuses- which is pretty typical of those who hate Liberty.
 
Apr 2015
2,069
2,329
Stockport, Cheshire. UK
Then all modern societies are fortune tellers- mind readers- and don't mind punishing the many for the actions of the few- the Great American Exceptionalism- Liberty be damned.
There is no fortune telling required, in my country, the UK, there were 7,000 people killed in motor accidents in 1930, a time when there were just over 2 million cars and trucks in use, and was no such thing as a driving license, there were minimal traffic laws and no rules involving car safety features.
In 2018 despite there now being over 32 million vehicles on the roads, the death toll from motor accidents was 1,782.
Traffic laws save lives.
 
Sep 2019
1,086
432
Texas
There is no fortune telling required, in my country, the UK, there were 7,000 people killed in motor accidents in 1930, a time when there were just over 2 million cars and trucks in use, and was no such thing as a driving license, there were minimal traffic laws and no rules involving car safety features.
In 2018 despite there now being over 32 million vehicles on the roads, the death toll from motor accidents was 1,782.
Traffic laws save lives.
This isn't the UK- FYI- the US was founded on the principle of Liberty- exercising it requires personal responsibility- making criminals of those who have caused no harm isn't exercising Liberty- politicians in this Country act as absolvers of personal responsibility- the results speak for themselves- people acting irresponsibly in mass- none the less making a criminal of someone who didn't do anything to harm another is unconscionable- except to control freaks- when politicians (and cops) break the rules, with regularity, and act irresponsibly with regularity they have no moral standing to make others criminal for it- regardless of their Party or Country-
And, there are many who break the rules, by the minute, and cause no harm- usually in cars- so, how do we compare- we don't- we assume-



Address the message-

Liberty
 
Dec 2018
3,977
1,135
New England
Nowhere did I say what was a criterion for law-
Um, yes, you did. Your words: "what crime has been committed if no one was harmed?" The intent of that question is clear; you're asking how can something be a crime if no one was harmed. QED: you're attempting to establish harm as a criterion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Clara007
Dec 2018
3,977
1,135
New England
With your analogy, there should be a test for president of the U.S. and we wouldn't have the incompetence We the People have been experiencing with Bush and Trump!
We have a test. It's called an election, and it's one that Trump most recently passed and Hillary most recently failed. Them's the breaks.
 
Sep 2019
1,086
432
Texas
Um, yes, you did. Your words: "what crime has been committed if no one was harmed?" The intent of that question is clear; you're asking how can something be a crime if no one was harmed. QED: you're attempting to establish harm as a criterion.
Harm is criminal- that was established a long time before I was born-
 
  • Like
Reactions: YoursTruly
Sep 2019
995
585
Here
Harm need not be proven. Creating a risk of harm is enough. For example, just because no one was hurt in the mad rush out of the theater that wasn't on fire, you're not off the legal hook for knowingly, falsely yelling "fire!" and starting the stampede.




To my point above, an unqualified driver presents a risk to others. The need to eliminate that risk creates the compelling interest to curb the liberty of driving unlicensed. This is also true for most of the rest of the questions you raise. They proceed from the false premise that laws are only just when they address actual harm done. That is not the only criterion for law, and it never has been.

What you and @Old Trapper are describing are pre-crimes. Most of those laws are written by insurance companies to protect their profits. NOT "we the people." You may agree with those laws. But the point still stands. If no one is hurt, then no one's liberties should be affected.

But with that said, states have the authority to create their own laws. Same as counties and cities. That comes from the (IIRC) the 10th Amendment. Although one can argue that state, county and city laws should not over ride the BoR. A good example of this is Texas as well as any other state that's created their own permits for carrying certain firearms. Shall not be infringed is pretty specific. But that doesn't stop states from squashing peoples liberties.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gdjjr