A reactionary post, I guess.

[JWeinCom]

DonFerrari said:

JWeinCom said:

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.

I don't think your way of measuring reckless driving is enforceable. And, there's also a problem that drivers going at different speeds is fundamentally less safe. Traffic cameras can work, but there still needs a standard. 

As for the underlying issue, I'm not sure we have an agreement. I think the government's purpose extends far beyond protection from direct physical harm or property damage/theft. Do you agree with that?