Mike Irwin
Staff
Ehenz,
Well, obviously, there is vigilantism...
Well, obviously, there is vigilantism...
Do you owe a ticket in Phoenix?
- Thread starter John/az2
- Start date
Bastiat,
Did you make those Flash movies? I really like them! The transitions between the 2nd and the 1st were very well done, especially in the first one with the time line.
They appear to be designed to lead the viewer in with the premise that any gun grabber would love and then to zing them with the parallel to the 1st Amendment.
There was only one thing I did not like, and that was the pop-ups. If they are your's and you would like a non-pop-up home for them, let me know.
I'm serious!
Did you make those Flash movies? I really like them! The transitions between the 2nd and the 1st were very well done, especially in the first one with the time line.
They appear to be designed to lead the viewer in with the premise that any gun grabber would love and then to zing them with the parallel to the 1st Amendment.
There was only one thing I did not like, and that was the pop-ups. If they are your's and you would like a non-pop-up home for them, let me know.
I'm serious!
There's another flaw in your argument. There is no defense from drunk drivers. You can not merely see a drunk driver coming towards you and ram his car as an act of self defense. It's not a game of bumper cars.
The great majority of the time the other driver never sees it coming. So other the police and other drivers have to look for those who are driving erratically. That is their tipoff. The last I heard miss cleo doesn't do drunken driving ridealongs. Drunk drivers are usually caught after A) they crash or B) the exhibit erratic driving behavior that drew the attention of cops to them.
Unless you think swerving in and out of traffic or other non-standard driving techniques to be acceptable on a freeway, the police have cause to pull them over. So what do they do when they pull them over? Give them milk and cookies and send them on their way? Call them a cab? Tell them they're "very dissapointed" in them? In either of those three non-fine / non arrest options, they receive no punishment. No punishment means no disincentive to repeat their behavior. Repeated drunk driving means eventually they're going to lose to the odds and hurt or kill themselves (I wouldn't mind that) or somebody else (I really mind that).
Maybe it ishould be acceptable to swerve in and out of traffic, drive at whatever speed you feel like no matter the road, and drive drunk. Who needs standards to follow? Everyone can just do their own thing and use their psychic abilities to determine what the hundreds of other drivers, who are all following their own standards, will do at any given second. No one could possibly get hurt in a system like that.
Why, maybe we should even apply that to the Internet. Scrap the who TCP/IP structure and start sending out our packets of information in any old way we feel like it. Have a server? Send information to the client out with bad headers! Packet flood all you want! Who needs to follow a commonly accepted standards in a publicly used, high traffic environment??? Things will work out just grand that way!!!!
Bastiat,
Looks like I hit a sore spot.
Anyway...
Did you make those Flash movies? I really like them! The transitions between the 2nd and the 1st were very well done, especially in the first one with the time line.
They appear to be designed to lead the viewer in with the premise that any gun grabber would love and then to zing them with the parallel to the 1st Amendment.
There was only one thing I did not like, and that was the pop-ups. If they are your's and you would like a non-pop-up home for them, let me know.
I'm serious!
Looks like I hit a sore spot.
Anyway...
Did you make those Flash movies? I really like them! The transitions between the 2nd and the 1st were very well done, especially in the first one with the time line.
They appear to be designed to lead the viewer in with the premise that any gun grabber would love and then to zing them with the parallel to the 1st Amendment.
There was only one thing I did not like, and that was the pop-ups. If they are your's and you would like a non-pop-up home for them, let me know.
I'm serious!
John, yes I did do them. The ads come with the free site, unfortunately. They pop up less if you use IE with stricter security settings. When you use netscape, it just goes nuts.
Anyway, to the parking tickets. There's the problem: How to determine who is harmed.
Say you have public parking at a meter. A driver parks for two hours. Meter's up. He doesn't pay. He doesn't move. He just sits there and parks.
Do you:
A) Fine him
or
B) Not fine him, letting him sit there as long as he wants - no punishment = no change in actions
Say you are driving to the courthouse because you have to pay a jaywalking ticket (which I certainly agree is one of the stupidest tickets police can give out). You go to park but find all the spaces are full - the parking scofflaws are permanently camped there during business hours - because it's cheaper than the $15/day parking garage across the street. Why is it cheaper? Because they park there and never pay, and they never pay because there's no fine.
Now you're left without a place to park, because all the street parking is taken up. You drive to the parking garage and pay your $15. You are harmed - you had to pay an excess amount because someone has broken the law (and doesn't get punished for it).
Now we get to the harm part. If the police policy were to only issue tickets when they received an actual complaint, you could then call them. They could come out and issue the fine - while you But what about the other people, who instead of calling, just paid for the garage parking? Or didn't call because they didn't have the time to waste while the police responded (remember, we have to have an actually harm connection established). Or maybe they parked a mile away and had to walk because of the jerk that thought it was his right to park however he pleases. Or maybe they just didn't even bother stopping, instead having to come back another day - they made a wasted trip.
All those people would have been cause some type of harm. But without calling, the police wouldn't have known of the direct harm. Instead, we have the government regularly check for parking infractions, to prevent these unreported harms from happening in the first place. They issue a fine to get the jerks incentive not to be jerks.
Anyway, to the parking tickets. There's the problem: How to determine who is harmed.
Say you have public parking at a meter. A driver parks for two hours. Meter's up. He doesn't pay. He doesn't move. He just sits there and parks.
Do you:
A) Fine him
or
B) Not fine him, letting him sit there as long as he wants - no punishment = no change in actions
Say you are driving to the courthouse because you have to pay a jaywalking ticket (which I certainly agree is one of the stupidest tickets police can give out). You go to park but find all the spaces are full - the parking scofflaws are permanently camped there during business hours - because it's cheaper than the $15/day parking garage across the street. Why is it cheaper? Because they park there and never pay, and they never pay because there's no fine.
Now you're left without a place to park, because all the street parking is taken up. You drive to the parking garage and pay your $15. You are harmed - you had to pay an excess amount because someone has broken the law (and doesn't get punished for it).
Now we get to the harm part. If the police policy were to only issue tickets when they received an actual complaint, you could then call them. They could come out and issue the fine - while you But what about the other people, who instead of calling, just paid for the garage parking? Or didn't call because they didn't have the time to waste while the police responded (remember, we have to have an actually harm connection established). Or maybe they parked a mile away and had to walk because of the jerk that thought it was his right to park however he pleases. Or maybe they just didn't even bother stopping, instead having to come back another day - they made a wasted trip.
All those people would have been cause some type of harm. But without calling, the police wouldn't have known of the direct harm. Instead, we have the government regularly check for parking infractions, to prevent these unreported harms from happening in the first place. They issue a fine to get the jerks incentive not to be jerks.