From Each, According To His Ability

[Mystech]

Use of public roads=Socialism? Ha!

I'm guessing you made an F in poly-sci.

Do you mean to assert that use of public goods is capitalistic? I'm afraid that a public road and highway system is indeed a socialistic idea 'else we'd all be driving on privately owned roads, and likely paying a fee per-mile driven on them. It may be that you've grown so accustomed to the idea that you hardly think of it anymore, but it's certainly a stain of socialism in your purely free market paradise.

 

[Xev]

15ofthe19:

Use of public roads=Socialism? Ha!

I never claimed it to be socialism. It is socialistic - the government is regulating commerce and transportation. For that matter, a case can be made that any governmental regulation of business is borderline socialistic and definitely Keynsian.

But that's not the point.

 

[15ofthe19]

It's increasingly disappointing to see so many on this forum using semantics as a bail-out strategy to avoid having to engage in a real debate about something. You obviously are smart enough to know that supporting a common military, or taxes to fund public roads are not akin to supporting a Finnish model of Socialism, but yet instead of acknowledging that irrefutable fact, you took the cheap and easy way out. You're certainly not unique in doing that.

 

[Xev]

Have you ever considered meeting a criticism head-on?

Or is it easier to jump up and down yowling that "socialism is a crutch for the weak!" rather than actually thinking things through?

Ooops, dumb question.

 

[jps]

The law and its punishment should concern the crime, never the criminal.

Justice is blind. It sees no distinction between rich and poor; it weighs and knows only the crime committed.

So the age of the criminal, number of repeat offenses, etc. should have no bearing on the punishment? A little kid who takes something from a store not knowing any better should recieve the same punishment as someone who's already been caught doing it 50 times?

The punishment must fit the damage done to society, not the purse of the perpetrator.
Fines exist so that criminals may repay society. They exist for only this.

Speeding in and of itself does no damage to society, its the possible results that are damaging. Fines are given to deter people from speeding in order to prevent that damage from occuring. Given this, its only reasonable to set up the fines in such a way that they will actually function as a deterrent.

If fines existed solely for the purpose of repaying society, then they might as well just sell licences to those who can afford them, exempting them from all traffic laws.

 

[15ofthe19]

When you level a criticism head-on, I will be happy to meet it.

The story about the speeding ticket is analagous to the rednecks who slip and fall in Wal-Mart, and then hope that they can hit the jackpot by winning a big settlement in a lawsuit. Lazy. Sorry. Indefensible are these people. The Finnish govt is engaging in exactly the same behavior, only it's more criminal because it's government sanctioned fraud.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Another disgusting aspect of this type of law, that should be obvious to all who understand law, is the ease with which profiling can occur. If the cops want to they can very easily only pull over speeders driving new, expensive vehicles, while letting the speeders driving less expensive cars skate on past. Now if you want to make the argument that there is nothing inherently wrong in profiling by LEA, then you must make it across the spectrum. You cannot pick and choose which types of profiling are wrong. So I guess if you agree with this law, you obviously support racial profiling too. Racist bastards.

Finish police must be the least corrupt police force in the world.

The guy wasn't forced to speed.

And although americans think some pigs are created more equal than others I would say, fuck that. He knows the law. He can afford to hire a professional driver if he feels he cannot stay within the current speed limits. Fins drive fast and it is dangerous. Do we really want a situation that rich people are allowed to be dangerous because they have money? Do you think that they drive safer because their car is more expensive? HAHA.

 

[15ofthe19]

I would say that you need to go back to pretending to be a PhD. You're much better at playing in the pretend than the real world. You aren't ready for prime-time my friend. Pull a Clapton. It worked for him. Otherwise, you just embarass yourself.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

I would say that you need to go back to pretending to be a PhD. You're much better at playing in the pretend than the real world. You aren't ready for prime-time my friend. Pull a Clapton. It worked for him. Otherwise, you just embarass yourself.

Huh? what are you talking about?

 

[Mystech]

Huh? what are you talking about?

I believe what he means to say is that he doesn't know how to form a logical argument, and ad homonym is all he's got. That’s what it sounded like to me, at any rate.

 

[P. M. Thorne]

I think some of you guys are making a lot of sense. Sometimes, however, one's own personal experiences poses a slanted view of justice. PMT

 

[zanket]

If a man starts a business on his own, busts his ass for seventy hours a week to build his enterprise, sacrifices security and pleasure to build toward a larger future, and at the end of the first fiscal year has made $1,000 of profit, that $1,000 is his gold. Ten years later, through patience and careful money management, he has turned that $1,000 in to $1,000,0000, is that first $1,000 any less valuable to him? Did he work any less hard for it?

The fine is based on income, not assets.

 

[Rappaccini]

Firstly, zanket, if someone has gained that much, he or she has done it by increasing his or her income considerably. Assets typically don't sky-rocket until income already has.
I would think we should operate on the assumption that that any rich guy like this sausage bozo is netting quite a load of cash.


Secondly, Xev, government provision and regulation, salutary for the public in general, is NOT socialism.

The public works, the federal grants, the bureaucracies, the iron triangles, the Cabinet departments, the Federal Reserve, the Interstate Commerce Commision, Civil Rights... they're all examples of Federalism at work, not to be construed as socialism.

The only thing I see as socialistic in the U.S. at this point is the dole.


Thirdly, jps, I think that the damage done to society is, in the case of a traffic violation, the potential disaster posed by a transgressor's misbehavior.
I never really thought of it as a deterrant...
... but you do have a point concerning the multiple-offence punishments, as in the theft example... :m:

 

[jps]

Thirdly, jps, I think that the damage done to society is, in the case of a traffic violation, the potential disaster posed by a transgressor's misbehavior.
I never really thought of it as a deterrant...
:m:

I suppose repayment is part of it, and in practice I know some towns that treat speeding tickets as a source of income, lowring speed limits and increasing enforcement when funds are low. However, if it was the intent of speed limits(and other traffic laws) soley to recoup damgages, warnings would not be given and licences would not be taken away on repeat offenses. Speeding tickets are, and should be, a deterrent because the possible results of speeding include people being killed. This is why it would not make sense to sell speeding licences to rich people allowing them to drive however they wish, and why speeding tickets should be for an amount that will actually deter their recipient.