Black Lives Matter

[Niall_Quinn]

Lefties. I'm pretty sure that was supposed to be a dig but I'm sure I'm not that. Does it mean you are a righty?. I'm assuming I've got you all figured out now but in truth the world is much more complicated than that and you know it.

Well, I agree with that. But we also seem to agree it's complicated. A thousand moving parts which, if you look at any in isolation, can be entirely misleading. And that's what know as the mainstream media.

No, I'm not a righty, I'm a libertarian in the true (non-diluted, non-apologetic) sense. I'm 100% for live and let live, but never, ever, tell me how to live. Unless I'm doing something that impacts your life. In which case you have the right to self defence. That is my entire political philosophy. I will criticise anyone who tries to tell me how I should live my life, and I will viciously attack anyone who tries to enforce demands on how I should live my life.

[Xhaka Can’t]

Will you strike them down with furious anger?

[Niall_Quinn]

Will you strike them down with furious anger?

No, probably just kick them in the bollocks if they are female or swipe their handbag and bash them with it if they are male.

[The Wengerbabies]

This only makes your case more pathetic

What case?

I was merely stating that all those "evil white" things in the quoted picture are the basis for the most egalitarian, civilised society none to man. I did not make the race connection nor did I even consider race, I never do.

It's the radical left that associate all those things with "whiteness", I just associate them with a decent society regardless if they were derived from cultures that historically have been predominately white or not.

[The Wengerbabies]

Well, I agree with that. But we also seem to agree it's complicated. A thousand moving parts which, if you look at any in isolation, can be entirely misleading. And that's what know as the mainstream media.

No, I'm not a righty, I'm a libertarian in the true (non-diluted, non-apologetic) sense. I'm 100% for live and let live, but never, ever, tell me how to live. Unless I'm doing something that impacts your life. In which case you have the right to self defence. That is my entire political philosophy. I will criticise anyone who tries to tell me how I should live my life, and I will viciously attack anyone who tries to enforce demands on how I should live my life.

See this right there. That should be common sense for everyone, you live your life I'll live mine.

It really is the right way to live. Why should anything anyone else does bother you if it doesn't impact your life?

Seriously libertarianism should be more popular.

The reason it is not is because most people are stupid and controlled by the few sycophants who seek to impose their world order and by the very nature of the "live and let live" outlook libertarians are never extreme enough to do anything about it.

Meanwhile you have the faux left and right divisions manufactured to keep people divided and the lemmings duly oblige.

[Letters]

But the "Unless I'm doing something that impacts your life". We live in a very interconnected, complex society.
It's actually really hard to do things which don't affect anyone else at all. Most of us agree to live with certain constraints, that's the price of living in a society.
"It's none of your business if I drive like an idiot and kill myself, mind your own!" - that doesn't work, because you drive like an idiot and you might kill someone else. Like most things in life, it's about balance. People need to be free enough to live their lives, but there have to be some constraints to stop people running amok and being dicks.

[Niall_Quinn]

Yet some people drive like idiots despite being told not to, seemingly ignoring instructions issued by others attempting to govern their behaviour. Almost as if the order itself was somehow deficient. Then there will be other people who don't need to be told, but are ordered by third parties anyway, third parties who wear costumes and have titles assigned so they can legally (though of course not lawfully) break the law themselves. Why is it necessary to order people who already know it's a bad idea to drive like a manic? And what's the point in ordering around people who ignore the orders? Seems like the whole ordering about thing fails at every level. I guess it might make those doing the ordering around feel important by comparison to those being so ordered. Seems silly to me.

[Letters]

Why is it necessary to order people who already know it's a bad idea to drive like a manic?

It isn't.

And what's the point in ordering around people who ignore the orders?

The point is there's a consequence (in theory) if they do not.

The issue is, how do you tell the people who will drive sensibly from those who won't? There's a test, sure, but even the most irresponsible driver can drive responsibly in a one off test. So you make some rules which apply to everyone. The people who are already sensible aren't affected by those rules, they would have been sensible anyway. The people who are idiots have to abide by the rules and if they won't then there is a consequence - ultimately that consequence may be they are no longer allowed to drive.

But the point of having some rules is that cars are, potentially, dangerous. So it's probably a good idea if we have some rules around how people use them. That is also why there's a test and an age limit for being able to drive. You can argue about whether the rules are fit for purpose, but it's hard to argue that there shouldn't be any.

[Niall_Quinn]

It isn't.

The point is there's a consequence (in theory) if they do not.

The issue is, how do you tell the people who will drive sensibly from those who won't? There's a test, sure, but even the most irresponsible driver can drive responsibly in a one off test. So you make some rules which apply to everyone. The people who are already sensible aren't affected by those rules, they would have been sensible anyway. The people who are idiots have to abide by the rules and if they won't then there is a consequence - ultimately that consequence may be they are no longer allowed to drive.

But the point of having some rules is that cars are, potentially, dangerous. So it's probably a good idea if we have some rules around how people use them. That is also why there's a test and an age limit for being able to drive. You can argue about whether the rules are fit for purpose, but it's hard to argue that there shouldn't be any.

How can there legitimately be "consequences" of rule breaking if there's no victim? If I drive at 150mph down an empty motorway why should I be punished for that? Where's the logic and what gives anyone the right to tell me what to do if there's no harm to others? There's potentially harm in every action we take, slipping in the bath, should we have inspectors coming around to test you on bathing safety standards, with the penalty for failure being a bathtime ban? How long should the ban last? Should bans get longer for repeat offences? What should the fine be? Actually, forget I mentioned it because we live in crazy times.

This whole business (which is what it is) of abusing the law to extract money for pre-crimes that probably won't even occur is quite obviously a shakedown. Thousands of pages of rules imposed on people with the vast majority of sanctions involving the extraction of money with menaces. Absolutely illegal under the standards we're supposed to live by, but supposedly legal for a tiny minority.

However, imposing sanctions on people who cause premeditated harm to others is perfectly moral in a society that agrees these rules in advance. Where a crime has actually been committed, as opposed to a pre-crime collections racket, the perpetrator relinquishes his rights if he takes away or harms the rights of others, or damages their property. That's fair. If you drive like a loon and you are otherwise sane then you know the risks in advance and should be prepared to face stiff sanctions should your actions cause harm. That's the purpose of criminal law, to protect rights, not to legally steal from your fellow citizens or issue an avalanche of rules and regulations limiting liberty.

Unfortunately people have fallen into the habit of demanding to be "protected" from everything. And the crooks in the legal profession have happily obliged them.

[Letters]

How can there legitimately be "consequences" of rule breaking if there's no victim?

Just going to assume that's a serious question. It's because the rules are there to mitigate consequences.
So you drove 150mph down the motorway and happened not to hit anyone or anything. Well, good for you.

But the point is, the so obvious I really shouldn't need to explain it point, is that you could have hit someone or something. And at that speed you'd probably have killed them. So there's a speed limit. Now, obviously you're probably going to kill someone if you hit them at 70mph too. In this instance the speed limit isn't designed to mitigate the risk of you hitting someone who runs out on to the road like it is in town. It's there to mitigate the risk of other accidents. At 70mph you're going around 30 meters a second and your stopping distance is just under 100m. If you see an incident in front of you then you have some chance of stopping or at least slowing to a reasonable speed. If you're going at 150mpm you're going over 60 meters a second and your stopping distance is nearly 400m. You have no chance of reacting or slowing enough in time.

Yes, there's always the potential for harm, the risk can never be 0. But that doesn't mean no attempt should be made to mitigate risk at all. You can argue that the speed limit on motorways is too slow - and I'd agree, the limit was set at a time when cars weren't as safe. I think it should be reviewed. But it's a silly argument that people should be able to go as fast as they like because there's always some risk so you shouldn't do anything to try and mitigate it. So no, people shouldn't be allowed to drive like bloody idiots with no consequence because they are doing something which puts other people in danger.