A reactionary post, I guess.

[DonFerrari]

JWeinCom said:

DonFerrari said:

Gotcha. Yes the defense of mandatory mask is easier to defend as really very few people have a legitimate reason to oppose using and really needs to be in crowded spaces. Since I don't leave in anyone else body can't say for sure, but several people put that they really can't breath decently with the mask and I can't say it is a lie just because I breath easily (unless I have sweat a lot or took rain... once I took a lot of rain and the mask was soaked, it was almost a drowing training, was like 1min to reach home so I didn't remove the mask to see the results, well I was very short of breath).

I'm in favor of prohibiting reckless driving not exactly of speed limits, not really because of the prohibition but on what is done (hidden cameras to give you fines instead of very exposed ones and other engineering methods to allow you to see and reduce speed). Forced taxation is something I'm against again because it mostly go to fill out the pockets of politicians and their friends (incoming tax is one that is a little more logical than our very complex variable tax system).

Basic stuff is easily defendable of demanding from people like I put reckless driving, killing, stealing, things that directly harm other (not indirectly or potentially).

I'm not sure what you're advocating for in terms of driving. Setting aside intoxicated driving, how would you define driving recklessly if not by a particular speed.

You are arguing I think for essentially what would be an ultraminimal state. Basically the most extreme version of libertarianism before you hit anarchy. You could read some of the work of the philosopher Nozick who takes a similar view. That being the case, I think we're just really far apart on what we think government should be, and don't think we're going to get to an agreement on this. We have to get to a general agreement on what the purpose of government is before we can really get into any particular situation, and it'd just take too much time.

You can drive safely at 100mph and unsafely at 60mph on the same road. How is the weather, your own skills, is it straight, do you keep your line? For me reckless driving is driving in a way that put others at real risk not just "it could happen". But as I said my issue with speed limit isn't really on the speed itself, but on the use of speed traps not in the way of increasing safety but increasing government pockets. If a certain corner is more dangerous or there is more pedestrian traffic what do you think works best, a hidden camera for the person to think "there may be a camera" or a very easy to see speed portal that the person notices and reduce speed to avoid the fine? At least here with the hidden cameras it isn't uncommon for you to receive a ticket for being 66mph at a 60mph limit road, and who can say while driving safely and attentive you may not notice that your speed gone a little over the limit?

We do have an agreement, that we see the need and purpose of government in a different manner and at least in my case I think it is totally fine and while the majority of population accepts the current level of government power (which I don't like) I respect it because at least so far it haven't gone over a limit I can't live with.