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

[level.eleven]

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.

You have to step into reality if you want to have this conversation and realize that a governor responsible for the well being of over 1 million people has to make decisions. We can predict weather and know when a natural disaster is bearing down. Disregarding information, inaction, would be negligent. Yes, we have information, data, on how people react to situations like extended periods without power or fuel. Wise leaders consume this data and have plans in place in the event that conditions go south. This isn't a grand scheme to strip you of your rights. It is a measure to ensure those rights by avoiding chaotic situations where it actually does become every man for themselves. Most people don't fantasize about shooting looters from their roof tops. They realize that attempts to quell disorder during disasters benefits them in the long run. So yes, sometimes I am. Every leader is. Of course the root of classical utilitarianism, I think you are referring more towards consequetialism, is hedonism. Hop on over to the Paul thread for a dose of that from the great one.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

"But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed." - James, 1:25

 

[Glocker 400]

"But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed." - James, 1:25

"Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God." - Romans 13:1

It's obvious to me that this curfew is God's will.

 

[cobber]

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

If there were an Iranian nuclear strike on Indiana it would probably be page 2 news in the NYT. Nothing really important happens west of the Hudson. As gun and Bible-hugging hillbillies, we're expendible in the greater scheme of things.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

"Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God." - Romans 13:1

It's obvious to me that this curfew is God's will.

Your anti-religious attitude and attempt at mockery aside, liberty is far and away preferable to tyranny, indisputably.
I would hope you are more respectful of others' beliefs when you're not sitting behind a screen.

Welcome to

 

[KJQ6945]

You have to step into reality if you want to have this conversation and realize that a governor responsible for the well being of over 1 million people has to make decisions. We can predict weather and know when a natural disaster is bearing down. Disregarding information, inaction, would be negligent. Yes, we have information, data, on how people react to situations like extended periods without power or fuel. Wise leaders consume this data and have plans in place in the event that conditions go south. This isn't a grand scheme to strip you of your rights. It is a measure to ensure those rights by avoiding chaotic situations where it actually does become every man for themselves. Most people don't fantasize about shooting looters from their roof tops. They realize that attempts to quell disorder during disasters benefits them in the long run. So yes, sometimes I am. Every leader is. Of course the root of classical utilitarianism, I think you are referring more towards consequetialism, is hedonism. Hop on over to the Paul thread for a dose of that from the great one.

3,600+ posts, and have you ever ventured outside of politics? Do you even own a gun? Why do you troll a gun thread? This is INdiana Gun Owners. You bash gun owning, god fearing, conservatives at every possible opportunity, and I'm just curious why. Obviously, we are not YOUR kind of people, so why do you troll? Are you a gun loving liberal, or are you just here to stir ****?
Just curious.

 

[Liberty1911]

"Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God." - Romans 13:1

It's obvious to me that this curfew is God's will.

Welcome back Solitaire

 

[level.eleven]

"But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed." - James, 1:25

This is scripture about sin. It has nothing to do with actual liberty. Liberty as used in the past couple centuries. I am not sure why it is here.

 

[Lex Concord]

Because every act of governance is an infringement, doncha know.

I think the state has every right to make such mandates if it is going to be expected to bail out the stupid people.

That's the crux of the problem...gov't essentially has a god complex. It can save your life, take your life, or ruin your life; why not run it?

I think some premises need to be reexamined.

 

[Lex Concord]

All those brave snowplowers, putting their lives on the line for us.

I like to call it the 'thin, salty line'.

Great. Now I'm craving a Margarita.

 

[jamil]

You have to step into reality if you want to have this conversation and realize that a governor responsible for the well being of over 1 million people has to make decisions. We can predict weather and know when a natural disaster is bearing down. Disregarding information, inaction, would be negligent. Yes, we have information, data, on how people react to situations like extended periods without power or fuel. Wise leaders consume this data and have plans in place in the event that conditions go south. This isn't a grand scheme to strip you of your rights. It is a measure to ensure those rights by avoiding chaotic situations where it actually does become every man for themselves. Most people don't fantasize about shooting looters from their roof tops. They realize that attempts to quell disorder during disasters benefits them in the long run. So yes, sometimes I am. Every leader is. Of course the root of classical utilitarianism, I think you are referring more towards consequetialism, is hedonism. Hop on over to the Paul thread for a dose of that from the great one.

I'll advocate that government has the power to declare a state of emergency. I won't advocate that governments get to impose whatever they want during. Surely you don't think states of emergencies grant governments unlimited power. So 1 year jail time if you're caught out beyond curfew? Why just a year? Why not 10? Precautionary governance my ass.

And don't you think it's a bit melodramatic to hype it up with worst blizzard in history? It's not like this is the first time a major metro area has seen two feet of snow. I grew up in Michigan, not exactly devoid of large metro areas (though more so now than then). It's is freaking Massachusetts we're talking about here for crying out loud. It's ****ing cold and snowy there too! Jeez.

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

I voted no but with one caveat , if your dumb*** goes out and gets stranded , you get NO EMS HELP .

You should be forced to live or die by your decisions .

 

[Glocker 400]

Your anti-religious attitude and attempt at mockery aside, liberty is far and away preferable to tyranny, indisputably.
I would hope you are more respectful of others' beliefs when you're not sitting behind a screen.

Welcome to

It's not an attempt at mockery. Does the passage mean what it says, or does it not?

Of course liberty is preferable to tyranny. Trouble with that is, everyone has their own brand of "liberty." I see people railing about religious freedom all the time, as an argument in favor of forcing state sponsored prayer in schools. They are blind to their own hypocrisy.

Ideas do not automatically deserve respect. Such a notion is ludicrous.

 

[88GT]

Welcome back Solitaire

 

[88GT]

That's the crux of the problem...gov't essentially has a god complex. It can save your life, take your life, or ruin your life; why not run it?

I think some premises need to be reexamined.

I agree. But we're back to the same conundrum that always seems to stymie the libertarians: do the people get the freedom to install a tyrannical government?

I would question the premise that the government is responsible for bailing out the stupid. But if the people want it, it is their government, after all. Can government tell it's people 'no?'

Where do we go if it can?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Well, looks like cleanup efforts, efforts to restore power, and response of emergency services are now being hampered by all of the abandoned vehicles on the roadway. Just like the last time.

The community will be impacted longer, people will be out of their homes longer, and emergency and routine services will be impacted longer simply because people chose to ignore the travel ban, got stuck, and abandoned their cars on the roadway. But its facism to not let people drive in emergency conditions, right? Screw the impact on everyone else, if they want to risk their own lives like fools, let them in the name of freedom!

Lots of people here are very vocal about any hint of infringement on their rights, but seem to completely forget their responsibilities. As Benjamin Franklin pointed out, you must maintain both to keep a free Republic functioning.

 

[steveh_131]

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.

I don't get it. They still all fall somewhere on that scale, right? I prefer the liberty side of the scale and my decisions to support or disagree with a government action will tilt in that direction.

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.

I'm not sure that I follow your point. Are you saying that with a limited government that protects property rights and civil rights and prevents the initiation of force, 'robber barons' would take over and become the government?

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.

'Spare the rod and spoil the child' doesn't appear anywhere in there, that I am aware of.

I didn't say there was no law. I disagreed about the purpose of the law, and who it should apply to. Honestly, this is a much more advanced biblical concept. It's not allowed in this forum, but we can discuss it in P.M.'s if you want.

Suffice it to say that I probably know every verse that you're going to try to use. And we could discuss it, except understanding it would require a knowledge of the context, history, and much larger picture of the scriptures that you don't have. Nor do you have any desire to learn.

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.

I didn't say that systems of punishment or restitution don't work. I think they do.

Example. All of the research I've read shows that speed limits don't make people drive safer. Why? Wouldn't people drive slower under the threats of fines and jail time? Turns out they don't. The responsible ones adjust their driving to be safe depending on the conditions. The irresponsible ones cause accidents either way.

For whatever reason, the roads were safer with higher speed limits.

Montana: No Speed Limit Safety Paradox

"Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God." - Romans 13:1

It's obvious to me that this curfew is God's will.

This dives into a much deeper discussion of Calvinism and predestination and the like, and again, is not allowed on this forum.

I already responded to this, and my head didn't explode in stupidity.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Well, looks like cleanup efforts, efforts to restore power, and response of emergency services are now being hampered by all of the abandoned vehicles on the roadway. Just like the last time.

The community will be impacted longer, people will be out of their homes longer, and emergency and routine services will be impacted longer simply because people chose to ignore the travel ban, got stuck, and abandoned their cars on the roadway. But its facism to not let people drive in emergency conditions, right? Screw the impact on everyone else, if they want to risk their own lives like fools, let them in the name of freedom!

Lots of people here are very vocal about any hint of infringement on their rights, but seem to completely forget their responsibilities. As Benjamin Franklin pointed out, you must maintain both to keep a free Republic functioning.

Or people got trapped on the roads simply trying to get home from work

 

[Liberty1911]

I just want to know if driving your car during a declared emergency, getting it stuck, and hampering emergency crews, is an initiation of force?

 

[Lex Concord]

I agree. But we're back to the same conundrum that always seems to stymie the libertarians: do the people get the freedom to install a tyrannical government?

I would question the premise that the government is responsible for bailing out the stupid. But if the people want it, it is their government, after all. Can government tell it's people 'no?'

Where do we go if it can?

Nearly all governments trend toward tyranny; when the people have a voice, it usually moves slower, but that's the direction it nearly always moves, at least until a sea-change event occurs, which often results in a new government.

People have a right to live under tyranny if they so choose; they do not have the right to erect a tyranny around those who do not wish it. One might argue that the "losers" simply didn't do enough to maintain their liberties and, therefore, deserve the government they get, good and hard.

Michael Rozeff addressed this question and suggested [STRIKE]polyarchy[/STRIKE] panarch as a potentially workable solution. I doubt it could ever be put in practice, but there are some interesting thoughts in there. I'll try to track it down for everyone's reading pleasure.

In the meantime, here's an interesting bit he penned on anarchy.

Edit: Here is the article discussing panarchy.