Black Lives Matter

[The Wengerbabies]

Autobahns in Germany (thanks Hitler), you drive as fast as you are comfortable doing.

[Letters]

Autobahns in Germany (thanks Hitler), you drive as fast as you are comfortable doing.

Correct. Each country has its own rules. And I'm not saying that our rules are good ones.
But NQ is arguing there shouldn't be any at all, or there should only be consequence if you actually harm someone.
I've explained why I regard that as a silly attitude.

[Niall_Quinn]

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.

I was discussing principles and the intent of law as opposed to the technical details of the national speed limit. Okay, so you seem to claim sanctioning individuals for a crime they might commit (or are more likely to commit based on riskier behaviour) by robbing them or threatening them with kidnapping and detention is an acceptable practice. This is where we disagree. I say it's a serious crime. If you look at almost all legal argument concerning robbery you'll find contravenes the common law. So I wonder, from where do select individuals derive the authority to break the law with impunity? You may say it is through the ballot box, but has anyone ever specifically voted to have their liberties curtailed or to be made subject to robbery without recourse based on mere decree as and when it suits? Hasn't the authority of the citizenry also been abused by these tax collectors masquerading as men of law? It seems like it.

And for those who have never voted or endorsed any individual, thereby refusing to consent to extending the rights of some while removing the rights of others, it must follow that all law over and above the common law is an unwanted imposition yet is enforced anyway. I wonder then, what's the problem with slavery? If the greater part of the mob give me authority to issue decrees that restrict the rights of citizens even when they are in compliance with the common law, why couldn't I then raise such a decree and restrict all rights for certain individuals, to the extent I fully own them? Or should the principle again be ignored in favour of the finer details of whatever particular tyranny is being defended?

[Niall_Quinn]

Correct. Each country has its own rules. And I'm not saying that our rules are good ones.
But NQ is arguing there shouldn't be any at all, or there should only be consequence if you actually harm someone.
I've explained why I regard that as a silly attitude.

It's not an attitude, it's a moral argument.

[Letters]

I was discussing principles and the intent of law as opposed to the technical details of the national speed limit. Okay, so you seem to claim sanctioning individuals for a crime they might commit (or are more likely to commit based on riskier behaviour) by robbing them or threatening them with kidnapping and detention is an acceptable practice. This is where we disagree.

It's an interesting one. I remember talking to a solicitor (no-one I knew, friend of a friend or something) on some night out years ago. We were having a discussion in this area. Let's imagine you're driving down a 30mph road at 40. Not the worst crime known to humanity. Three scenarios.

1) No accident, but there is a speed camera which clocks you and sends you a fine.
2) Someone steps out in front of you, a young healthy person who is injured but later recovers. You'd probably be done for reckless driving, probably wouldn't get time but maybe suspended or community service, certainly a much bigger find than in '1'.
3) You hit an old granny who subsequently dies - you're probably looking at manslaughter and could well go to jail.

In all those scenarios you have done the exact same thing - something I have done, apart from the getting caught bit - but the consequences for you and other people are very different. My comment to this solicitor was that it seems unfair that you could do the exact same thing but face very different consequences because of the actions of someone else. I think the response was something along the lines of "but you shouldn't have been doing it in the first place, you took the risk". Fair enough.

I just think that the price of living in a society is following certain rules. And I don't think breaking those rules should only have consequence if you doing so harms someone else. If you're doing something which is obviously dangerous then fine, you might have got away with it this time but keep doing it and one day you probably will harm someone. You're right in that you didn't vote directly for those rules but you can't vote over every piddling thing in a complicated society when there are whole books written about quite small areas of law. And you not voting at all doesn't mean you are not subject to them. That's one of the reasons you should vote. Sure, you still have very little influence on what rules are imposed on you but it's the only tiny bit of control you have.

[WMUG]

Look at you two, you're having a civil discussion and acknowledging each other's views whilst respectfully disagreeing!

I didn't think that was possible any more.

[Letters]

Look at you two, you're having a civil discussion and acknowledging each other's views whilst respectfully disagreeing!

I didn't think that was possible any more.

Hey! Fuck you, buddy

[Niall_Quinn]

It's an interesting one. I remember talking to a solicitor (no-one I knew, friend of a friend or something) on some night out years ago. We were having a discussion in this area. Let's imagine you're driving down a 30mph road at 40. Not the worst crime known to humanity. Three scenarios.

1) No accident, but there is a speed camera which clocks you and sends you a fine.
2) Someone steps out in front of you, a young healthy person who is injured but later recovers. You'd probably be done for reckless driving, probably wouldn't get time but maybe suspended or community service, certainly a much bigger find than in '1'.
3) You hit an old granny who subsequently dies - you're probably looking at manslaughter and could well go to jail.

In all those scenarios you have done the exact same thing - something I have done, apart from the getting caught bit - but the consequences for you and other people are very different. My comment to this solicitor was that it seems unfair that you could do the exact same thing but face very different consequences because of the actions of someone else. I think the response was something along the lines of "but you shouldn't have been doing it in the first place, you took the risk". Fair enough.

I just think that the price of living in a society is following certain rules. And I don't think breaking those rules should only have consequence if you doing so harms someone else. If you're doing something which is obviously dangerous then fine, you might have got away with it this time but keep doing it and one day you probably will harm someone. You're right in that you didn't vote directly for those rules but you can't vote over every piddling thing in a complicated society when there are whole books written about quite small areas of law. And you not voting at all doesn't mean you are not subject to them. That's one of the reasons you should vote. Sure, you still have very little influence on what rules are imposed on you but it's the only tiny bit of control you have.

Discussion and thought surrounding these issues is a good and necessary thing. We should always be testing the law and comparing the findings against its intended purpose, and avoiding complacency that comes with familiarity. All sorts of abuses can become acceptable over time if not challenged. Particularly now, when there are increasing numbers of people who demand certain types of behaviour, speech and even thought from the rest of us - accompanied by censorship and cancel culture that dissuades legitimate debate and writes it off as immoral and wrongheaded. It leads back to the question, from where do these people derive the authority? If the state agrees, and the media agrees, and a segment of society agrees, does this consensus become moral and just based on numbers alone, like the priests and their fearful flock who humiliated Galileo?

Right now we have a government that has no hesitation in issuing decrees and making draconian demands under threat of punishment for non-compliance. There is a dangerous disease going around, they claim, and we all must relinquish liberty for our own safety. And the media agrees and pushes the proclamation relentlessly. A large body of the population agrees (either through ignorance or fear, or both), despite all evidence to the contrary. In fact, the evidence to the contrary may not be stated. It will be purged from any platform that attracts a meaningful audience.

Look also at the racist BLM movement. Politicians support it. The media falls over itself to support it. Corporations support it. A large body of the population accepts it. And underlying the movement is the idea that whites should be discriminated against because they, in the distant past, discriminated against blacks. This is naked racism, though it is unfashionable and unsafe to call it out as such.

These two issues demonstrate how far we can move from reason and liberty in a very short timespan. The hysteria of the mob. Blind acceptance based on brute force and backed by the authority of those who can never explain why they allege to have more rights than the rest of us. Look at the mes they can create if left unchallenged and unchecked. And why the censorship and fear and cancel culture? Because their arguments can't stand debate and the evidence is against them, as was the case with the priests who wisely nodded in agreement as they forced a free thinker to denounce his own wisdom and truth.

So you can keep going and ask, what else has seeped into the commonplace that is detrimental to liberty? Tracking, tracing, thievery under the authority of the Crown, invasion of privacy, the destruction of science, abuse of the law. How far will it go before there's no liberty worth mentioning?

I'm of a mind to reverse the trend. Get rid of "laws" that decree the state has a right to commit crimes against the individual in cases where there is no third party victim. Liberate the society from all this bullshit. It will be a more dangerous society, in some respects, but liberty has costs as well as benefits. But it has something in addition that tyranny and authoritarianism can never have - dignity. People ought to be able to live their lives as they see fit, provided they aren't infringing on the rights of others. There's a dignity in that course. Black, white, brown, yellow, male, female or whatever you want to call yourself. But leave me alone and don't make demands of me based on some privilege that has been conjured out of thin air and called the law. Because it's not the law, it's tyranny masquerading as the common good.

There will always be good people in society and bad people. Doesn't matter what "laws" you decree, there will still be bad people. We have thousands of decrees issued by people who are more equal than the rest of us. We still have real crime. Yet the police won't even come out if your property is robbed. Real crime, ignored. Fake law enforced to the letter though - pay up! It's quite easy to see right through it if you take the time to look. There will always be bad people, but removing the liberties of good people won't solve that.

Most people tend to go along to get along, so they'll grumble and pay their fines for the victimless "crimes". While the real criminal laughs his arse off and goes about his business unhindered. And I don't just mean petty criminals on the street.

If we're reviewing all of western civilisation, then let's review the law and the legal system while we are at it. And let's have a discussion about liberty in the "free world".

[Niall_Quinn]

Talking of which, just got back from the local supermarket where a copper was talking to the manager advising him the staff were to be responsible for enforcing mask "laws" and they could call the cops if things "turned nasty". Unless they've made up even more law on the hoof, wasn't it meant to be the cops who had to enforce this as the retail unions refused to have their workers do it? Regardless, the police in my area at least have decided not to get involved and are just leaving it for one citizen to enforce it on another. Government gets the cash either way.

[Letters]

I don't have much to add tbh so we'll leave that one there. Don't entirely disagree with you though. But I do want to rant about someone else.
One of my FB friends (she's white, married to a black dude) posted some video on FB, someone sharing how her and her daughter had suffered racist abuse.
I watched the start of the video and it was an older brother shouting at a younger brother to get away from them in the park.
Now, he used the phrase "get away from those brown people", which is somewhat clumsy language, but he's a kid.
Point being it's pretty clear that the older kid was shouting to remind the younger kid about social distancing.
Show me the evidence that the kid wouldn't have shouted had the younger one been playing with another white kid.

Now, we can debate whether kids should be social distancing (for my money no they shouldn't, and most parents I see in playgrounds seem to have taken the same attitude, I've not seen any parents trying to keep their kids away from others), but the intent of the older kid seems pretty clear. Not "get away from them, they're brown", but "get away from them, you're supposed to keep away from people". But, of course, but the older kid used clumsy language and because the person was "of colour" that makes it horrible racism.

I really feel like commenting but I know it would just start an argument. Because you can't have a sensible debate about this sort of thing. It's not allowed. No dissenting voices allowed. A "person of colour" had a negative experience and that experience can only have been because of the colour of their skin...even if there is a perfectly reasonable and likely alternative.