Massachusetts: One year in jail and $500 fine for driving after 4pm curfew

[IndyDave1776]

Romans 13:1 would make some peoples' heads explode on this forum. That is, until they thought about how to explain it away as a parable or allegory.

Last time I checked, the Constitution is the governing authority over the republic to which all laws and leaders are subject.

Never a dull moment. I leave for a few hours and never know what I will find next!

 

[level.eleven]

Isn't the concept of "precautionary governance" exactly the same fallacy that gun-controllers employ?

I love this term, "precautionary governance". It sounds so benevolent! It's for our own good.

Don't want people driving, putting others at risk. Don't want people shooting, putting others at risk. Because of course without the government's help no one is capable of being responsible.

If only we had.one.more.law!!!

But, but...citizens with sense won't go out driving. Those with no sense, who generally pay no attention to laws, will. Or?

I am beginning to see the point...

Or you know, precautionary laws against turning your suburban back yard into a shooting range. Brandishing to intimidate. Yep. Precautionary governance. I would rather my neighbors not be allowed to turn their backyard into a range before a stray shot or a ricochet strikes my child. You may not understand scale though if you are confused about Boston vs. Bismark. You see, in cities, people live closer together than they do on the plains. In Steve's world, and I assume yours, someone has to be shot first. More fallacies from you. Koolaide, indeed.

 

[88GT]

The state has every right to mandate public education if it is going to be expected to support people who can't get jobs.

Of course. But since government education is the best option because parents can't parent, then by the transitive properties of parallel examples, it's perfectly rational that the governor can slam the iron doors shut on someone simply for driving on the streets while it snows.

I really don't see what the uproar is about.


(Though if the government is just going to give them money for food and shelter, why bother spending money on an education. Seems like a luxury expense to me. Most people get an education in order to get a job, the compensation from which is used to pay for food and shelter, and other stuff. If the end result is achieved through government largesse, why do we have to educate them? You'd think that would be a dangerous proposition for the government.)

The government can easily make the statement "if you drive and ecounter problems, the state will not bail you out!"

Sarcasm. My post.

 

[jamil]

Or you know, precautionary laws against turning your suburban back yard into a shooting range. Brandishing to intimidate. Yep. Precautionary governance. I would rather my neighbors not be allowed to turn their backyard into a range before a stray shot or a ricochet strikes my child. You may not understand scale though if you are confused about Boston vs. Bismark. You see, in cities, people live closer together than they do on the plains. In Steve's world, and I assume yours, someone has to be shot first. More fallacies from you. Koolaide, indeed.

Oh jeez.

As much real "precautionary governance" as we have in this country, the best you can come up with is back yard shooting ranges and brandishing? Surely there are better examples that demonstrate the need. You know, like restricting the drink size restaurants can provide. That's good precautionary governance.

 

[Joq867]

You know, we have snow storms here, and the government posts travel advisories. Tells people to stay off the roads, emergency travel only, and such. One year my brother in law was on his way to work and got pulled over and told to go back home, the police wouldn't let him go to work. But the threat of fines and incarceration are overstepping the bounds of personal freedom. I have driven many miles through blizzard conditions on closed interstates because there was no place to park my truck safely. It can be done safely.

 

[Hawkeye]

Possibly the worst blizzard in history is bearing down. Governor issues order to stay off of roads and declares state of emergency. Gets compared to Stalin.

How did conservatives get to this point?

Think about it. I've got someone who works for me in MA who could go into labor during this ban. So Gov Devil should make her husband a felon if he needs to get her to the hospital?

 

[steveh_131]

Strictly speaking, this is a fallacy as well, although informal. False dilemma. There are more than two theories of governance. Within our own constitution you will find phrases like common defence, domestic tranquility, and general Welfare, as well as liberty and posterity.

I disagree that there are more than two theories. I think that every theory falls somewhere on a spectrum. On the one end is personal liberty and personal responsibility. On the other is government control and government responsibility. Our constitution lies pretty well on the side of liberty, but I think if the writers had known the things we would do with phrases like 'general welfare', they would have left some of those things out.

I look at it from a practical standpoint. Let's look at a related analogy. There are two sides to the spectrum of economic systems. Pure communism on one end and pure capitalism on the other. We seem to all agree that capitalism is superior. Why? Because it leverages the part of human nature and allows it to work in our favor: Greed. And this encourages us to work hard. Communism encourages a different part of our human nature, which works against us: Laziness.

Similarly, the political spectrum brings out different parts of our nature as well. Statism allows our desire to control each other to flourish. I think this works against us. Liberty leverages our desire to be free and encourages us to respect this desire in others.

How do you reconcile this your spiritual beliefs? If law isn't effective at decreasing irresponsible behavior, how has it endured for thousands of years? Why does it live in on ancient texts?

This is a much larger discussion, but I'll try to be brief with my two cents on it.

The purpose of the law in ancient texts wasn't to decrease irresponsible behavior. It wasn't meant to be applied, by force, to the entire world. It is meant to show us the right way to live, and show us our need for someone to free us from our sin. It is all about freedom and liberty, just not in the way you probably imagine.

Romans 13:1 would make some peoples' heads explode on this forum. That is, until they thought about how to explain it away as a parable or allegory.

Christians are not necessarily dumb. None that I know who have been Christians for more than a short time have failed to consider the implications of that passage. We are to submit to our authorities, but this does not mean agreeing or failing to voice disagreements. There are also limitations. The commands given to us by the scripture take priority over those of a government. Things like honesty, charity, defense of the weak and many others are not optional, regardless of what a government authority tells us.

Or you know, precautionary laws against turning your suburban back yard into a shooting range. Brandishing to intimidate. Yep. Precautionary governance. I would rather my neighbors not be allowed to turn their backyard into a range before a stray shot or a ricochet strikes my child. You may not understand scale though if you are confused about Boston vs. Bismark. You see, in cities, people live closer together than they do on the plains. In Steve's world, and I assume yours, someone has to be shot first. More fallacies from you. Koolaide, indeed.

This hinges on the belief that the only thing keeping people from turning their urban backyard into an unsafe shooting range is a law. Or that the only thing that keeps people from driving unsafely is a speed limit sign.

I think that's silly. The consequences of irresponsible behavior are evident to those who care. To those who don't, a silly law isn't going to make a difference.

 

[Popacap]

Sad, Sad

Just because a governor declares it, doesn't make it right! What amazes me even more, is how the people put up with the nanny state (this being part of it)! What a difference a state makes. I lived on the front range of the Rocky Mountains in Colorado for 15 yrs., it makes LOL at the thought of the governor making such an annoucement. It would never happen. The local sherrif might make an announcement about everyone should stay at home, but never a threat of jail time and fine.

 

[Popacap]

Sad, Sad

Just because a governor declares it, doesn't make it right! What amazes me even more, is how the people put up with the nanny state (this being part of it)! What a difference a state makes. I lived on the front range of the Rocky Mountains in Colorado for 15 yrs., it makes LOL at the thought of the governor making such an annoucement. It would never happen. The local sherrif might make an announcement about everyone should stay at home, but never a threat of jail time and fine.

 

[level.eleven]

Oh jeez.

As much real "precautionary governance" as we have in this country, the best you can come up with is back yard shooting ranges and brandishing? Surely there are better examples that demonstrate the need. You know, like restricting the drink size restaurants can provide. That's good precautionary governance.

No, it is easily argued that a drink size restriction isn't good governance. It is personal consumption that is highly unlikely to effect others outside of your potential health care costs. Much different than declaring a state of emergency during the worst blizzard in history. Much different than allowing residentialy zoned real estate in densely populated suburban neighbors to be turned into rifle ranges. Much different than pointing your firearm at a waiter because you disagree with the bill. I was simply relating the scenario to firearms ownership since apparently agreeing with a governor who declared a state of emergency during the worst blizzard in history is akin to gun banning politicians. Never mind the fact that countless conservative governors have done the exact same thing for a 100 years. I simply disagree with this idea that the only protection offered by a government comes after you have been harmed, after you have been hit by a range stray, or after you have cancer.

 

[level.eleven]

Think about it. I've got someone who works for me in MA who could go into labor during this ban. So Gov Devil should make her husband a felon if he needs to get her to the hospital?

There are emergency safeguards in any of these scenarios. If you wife is in labor you aren't going to jail for a year. Think about it, indeed.

 

[level.eleven]

I disagree that there are more than two theories. I think that every theory falls somewhere on a spectrum. On the one end is personal liberty and personal responsibility. On the other is government control and government responsibility. Our constitution lies pretty well on the side of liberty, but I think if the writers had known the things we would do with phrases like 'general welfare', they would have left some of those things out.

I look at it from a practical standpoint. Let's look at a related analogy. There are two sides to the spectrum of economic systems. Pure communism on one end and pure capitalism on the other. We seem to all agree that capitalism is superior. Why? Because it leverages the part of human nature and allows it to work in our favor: Greed. And this encourages us to work hard. Communism encourages a different part of our human nature, which works against us: Laziness.

Similarly, the political spectrum brings out different parts of our nature as well. Statism allows our desire to control each other to flourish. I think this works against us. Liberty leverages our desire to be free and encourages us to respect this desire in others.



This is a much larger discussion, but I'll try to be brief with my two cents on it.

The purpose of the law in ancient texts wasn't to decrease irresponsible behavior. It wasn't meant to be applied, by force, to the entire world. It is meant to show us the right way to live, and show us our need for someone to free us from our sin. It is all about freedom and liberty, just not in the way you probably imagine.



Christians are not necessarily dumb. None that I know who have been Christians for more than a short time have failed to consider the implications of that passage. We are to submit to our authorities, but this does not mean agreeing or failing to voice disagreements. There are also limitations. The commands given to us by the scripture take priority over those of a government. Things like honesty, charity, defense of the weak and many others are not optional, regardless of what a government authority tells us.



This hinges on the belief that the only thing keeping people from turning their urban backyard into an unsafe shooting range is a law. Or that the only thing that keeps people from driving unsafely is a speed limit sign.

I think that's silly. The consequences of irresponsible behavior are evident to those who care. To those who don't, a silly law isn't going to make a difference.

The sliding scale spectrum is popular amongst libertarians. I've seen the video as well. I remember Glenn Beck using it on his chalkboard . Anarchy on one end. Total state control on the other. The problem is the countless mixed societies that have evolved over the past centuries. We currently live in one. So does Europe and Canada. So does the rest of the industrialized world. Trying to fit every current and future act of governance against a black and white scale simply doesn't work. Scenarios arise where the state has to hit the accelerator. Suppose, the worst blizzard in the history of your state is bearing down on a population center of 1 million people. There are scenarios where the state has to pump the breaks. Recently, Colorado and Washington come to mind. Maybe you could get some sort of support together to repeal the Governors ability to declare a state of emergency. You might not get much support, in say, Henryville.

Oh, and your communism/capitalism analogy isn't very strong either. The only difference in the pure application of the two would be who owns the capital. Being that you have a strong anti-state lean, in a pure communist society there is no state. In a pure capitalist society, the state is more necessary than ever to check the robber barons. Being a coal miner in the 1800's would have been unpleasant at best. Being watched over by a Pinkerton-like private militia, being paid in company dollars, no safety, no restrictions on work hours. But hey, if they don't like it they can just leave. Surely they have enough money to relocate. Surely the train depot will take their company dollars.

The purpose of the law in ancient texts wasn't to decrease irresponsible behavior. It wasn't meant to be applied, by force, to the entire world. It is meant to show us the right way to live, and show us our need for someone to free us from our sin. It is all about freedom and liberty, just not in the way you probably imagine.

This is one of those, where to begin?, type of responses. I can probably predict most of your answers to question I have or points I can make, there isn't much original spin now days. We can start with all of the suggested law, the farming, treatment of women and slaves (complete with inducement and punishment). Again, discuss the inducements and punishments listed in the Decalog (all 4 versions) - the foundation for the establishment of a fundamentalist Jewish state. Spare the rod and spoil the child! Entirely included to dissuade irresponsible behavior. Again, I don't understand how you can claim that law does not work.

This hinges on the belief that the only thing keeping people from turning their urban backyard into an unsafe shooting range is a law. Or that the only thing that keeps people from driving unsafely is a speed limit sign.

I think that's silly. The consequences of irresponsible behavior are evident to those who care. To those who don't, a silly law isn't going to make a difference.

No, it doesn't. Obviously there will be violation of the law. Man discovered this many centuries ago. This is why we have enforcement and punishment systems. Jail isn't a fresh concept. There will be people who endanger others by their actions. We can either prohibit or restrict those actions, or wait for someone to be injured. Man has learned to scale these scenarios justly. To say that law doesn't work, throws centuries of human development out the window. Yes, sometimes avoiding societal failures infringe on your absolute individual rights. Declaring a state of emergency for a day, restricting unecessary travel during the worst blizzard in history, could be, and has been, deemed necessary to ensure a smooth running society that allows you to wake up the next morning with plowed roads, power, and a night of unobstructed emergency personnel - ones that you might have needed, mind you. Why have a government at all if these measures cannot be pursued? Isn't this the definition of citizen? I know that word freaks a lot of the anarchists/an-cap/libertarian types out. Exchanging some absolute individual rights for protection.

 

[rambone]

level.eleven, do you consider yourself utilitarian?

Basically whatever produces the greatest happiness for the greatest number is good. Rights are a construct of society, and discarded if they are not producing the greatest good for the collective. This is why you countered a reference to an "individual right to travel" with a post about sociologists determining what is good for society.

 

[Survivalcookie]

This is a good example of what happens when a society refuses to take responsibility for themselves.

The government is implementing a curfew because irresponsible jackwagons will tie up their resources calling in because they're stranded.

The public accepts this infringement on their liberty, because the alternative would be for the government to tell the citizens that anyone out traveling in this, will have to take responsibility for themselves and the government will likely not be able to respond.

People will not tolerate the second option and refuse to take responsibility for themselves, so we all have our liberty infringed as a result.

You a re exactly right...I think the government should not set curfews...but tell people they are on their own, that they will not risk the lives of the cops and firemen to rescue them...that is what they tell people when they refuse to evacuate during a hurricanes.

 

[Survivalcookie]

Is the blizzard going to be worse than anything they have in North Dakota every year? I wonder if the governor of ND issues such Diktats.

The Coasts ought to get over themselves. Life is harder in flyover country, and we don't constantly whine about our lot.

The people in N D most likely are use to this amount of snow...they are less populated and I am sure they don't don't go out in blizzards if they don't have to.

 

[Classic]

The punishment seems a bit out of proportion to the "crime". I like informing potential travelers they are on their own and letting it go at that.

 

[Classic]

If we were to get 21" of snow here in Indy I doubt it would make national news.

 

[Survivalcookie]

It is well after 4 and traffic is looking bad up there now and people are still trying to get to the store. What about the people who do not get off work until 8,9,10......? Do they have to stay at work with no food and water or are they allowed to try and get home?

Being prepared makes the difference....a bug out bag at work and in your car...extra food during time when blizzards are possible, in your car and at work. Two weeks supply of food in your home at all times...seems silly when you talk about this stuff in the summer.

 

[Survivalcookie]

How are these people supposed to get home from work without violating the martial law?

I would guess most employers let people off early.

 

[Survivalcookie]

Think about it. I've got someone who works for me in MA who could go into labor during this ban. So Gov Devil should make her husband a felon if he needs to get her to the hospital?

Actually there is a provision for that, call 911 and usually an ambulance will meet you..but if I was that close to delivering and was not near a hospital or did not think I could make it I would go stay with someone near a hospital or fire department.