It is now commonplace for people to be charged with crimes where there are no victims. A car is speeding, maybe 10 miles over the posted speed limit, but maintains complete control of their vehicle. A cop pulls the car over and issues a ticket, which then results in either a payment from the 'offender' or that person showing up in court and wasting time and money. Who is harmed? Who is the victim? The only victim in this example is the police officer's pride (and of course the driver).
Let's say there is a person who likes to go home at night and smoke some marijuana, never leaving their home, where they live alone. Some police walk by on the sidewalk, and smell a funny odor coming from the house. Fearing destruction of evidence, they break down the door (without a warrant), and arrest the homeowner. Who is harmed? Who is the victim?
Hopefully you're with me so far. What about someone who is driving drunk? Let's say that a person enjoyed enough adult beverages to put themselves over the stated legal limit. While driving, they are obeying all traffic signals and give no indication of being incapable of driving. At a DUI Checkpoint, the police determine the driver is over the legal limit, though shows no signs of being drunk. The driver is arrested, the car is towed and the license is suspended. After a court hearing, classes are mandated. Who is harmed? Who is the victim?
But wait, you say, aren't these behaviors we want to discourage? No, I say. I have no problem with anyone's actions as long as they do not harm anybody else. If somebody wants to smoke crack and lose all their teeth and worse, go for it, have fun. If a young boy wants to go to school in a dress, go for it, have fun. None of these things bother me. What bothers me is our police force and court system taking it into their hands to punish people who might cause harm. You either cause harm or you don't, you can't be somewhere in the middle.
Ok, so if we get rid of all the preventative laws what happens to the person who drinks and drives and kills somebody? Instead of preventative laws, we need a tiered punishment for existings laws where harm is involved. If somebody drove drunk and killed someone, the punishment would be in a higher tier than somebody who wasn't drunk, just for an example. If you were speeding and hit another car, your punishment might be 10% more severe than someone driving the speed limit, and so on. The tiers could be linked to how many miles over the speed limit they were traveling or how many points over the "legal limit" they were.
Preventative laws only prevent one thing: freedom. They do little to deter those who would push the limits to the point of harming others. More severe penalties for those who lose control of themselves would be a great deterant, and even better, it would allow for the maximum freedom to be enjoyed by the population. As a society, we can't punish people for what they might do, even if what they are doing seems wrong to bystanders. As long as they are harming nobody but themselves, I say they should be free to pursue whatever happiness they desire.
Showing posts with label police officer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label police officer. Show all posts
Monday, June 27, 2011
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
No Left Turn On Red
*Note: In this blog, I am referring to roundabouts meaning the circular traffic junctions, not the method used by politicians to compose arguments.*
There is absolutely no need for a red left-turn arrow. We've all seen them. You're waiting to make a left turn, and the green arrow turns to yellow, and then instead of giving you the "Left turn yield on green," it goes right to a red arrow. So you sit and wait as there is no oncoming traffic for the next 3 minutes. You seriously consider turning, but you know, deep down, that the second you do, a police officer will whip out and pull you over.
What started this train of thought, and why I'm writing about it in a political blog, is that I was bemoaning the red turn arrow to a coworker, and eventually we got on the topic of roundabouts. He hates roundabouts, while I love them. He said that roundabouts are communist/socialist because everybody else has to sacrifice so that one car can make a left turn. I said that roundabouts where individualist because you were left to your own ability to make your turn. Stoplights are more socialist than roundabouts. You have to sit at a stoplight waiting for everybody else to go, while you wait for the government to change your light back to green.
OK, so Uncle Sam isn't sitting there with a switch to change the stoplights, but someone in the government had to figure out how to regulate that intersection, and install the device to change the lights. At the micro-level, the government regulates our travel everyday with stoplights. How do they get away with it? Under the guise of public safety. Now, I'm not trying to say there shouldn't be any rules of the road. If that were the case, we'd have to go back to walking everywhere.
The problem with 4-way stops is that most people who happen upon a 4-way stop are too dumb to figure out what to do after they've stopped. This gets exponentially more complicated with an increase in the number of lanes being forced to stop. Since I paid attention in driver's ed, and since I don't drive a Prius (or another variety of small car), I know when to go, and if it's not my turn, well, my SUV clears the way pretty fast. Naturally, the 4-way stop is the preferred system of the government. They want to force everyone to be equal, so everybody should have to stop at the intersection before proceeding on with their journey. Although if they had it completely their way, only white males would have to stop at a 4-way stop and the rest of the population would have a special bypass lane.
When the 4-way stop fails, the next step is to put in some very simple stoplights. Theoretically, everyone is still equal, because on a long enough timeline, everyone will have an equal experience with catching a green light, or a red light. But then you have people who think yellow is the same as green, so the government really can't allow that to happen, so then the stoplights become more complicated. Soon they'll have lights on there that tell you when you can blow your nose. The same is true of the auto industry. They make cars that will tell you when you're falling asleep, when you're drifting out of your lane, and cars that will even stop for you.
Think of that. A car that will stop when it senses an obstacle in your path. Your first thought might be, "Well that sounds awesome." But really think about it. What if you're in a parking lot and somebody is trying to rob you? You hop in your car, and they're right in front of you. Normally you'd drive right through them, but now you can't, because your car won't let you. It's that very simple difference, between safety and control. It could be as simple as a red turn arrow that doesn't allow you to make a turn you deem to be safe, or it could be a car that takes your driving control out of your hands and leaves you a sitting duck for thugs. Of course it's all marketed as the newest, coolest technology that will help make the world a safer place, but is a world controlled by the government a safer place?
I believe that a world run by individuals is the safest place, individuals who look out for their own interests first. That's why I like to see a roundabout, because it feels like a small victory for the individual. A roundabout, to me, is the government acknowledging that the best way to control that intersection is to leave it in the hands of the individuals. No green lights allowing some to drive, no red lights forbidding others to drive, and most importantly, no red left turn signals.
© Nate Phillipps 2010
There is absolutely no need for a red left-turn arrow. We've all seen them. You're waiting to make a left turn, and the green arrow turns to yellow, and then instead of giving you the "Left turn yield on green," it goes right to a red arrow. So you sit and wait as there is no oncoming traffic for the next 3 minutes. You seriously consider turning, but you know, deep down, that the second you do, a police officer will whip out and pull you over.
What started this train of thought, and why I'm writing about it in a political blog, is that I was bemoaning the red turn arrow to a coworker, and eventually we got on the topic of roundabouts. He hates roundabouts, while I love them. He said that roundabouts are communist/socialist because everybody else has to sacrifice so that one car can make a left turn. I said that roundabouts where individualist because you were left to your own ability to make your turn. Stoplights are more socialist than roundabouts. You have to sit at a stoplight waiting for everybody else to go, while you wait for the government to change your light back to green.
OK, so Uncle Sam isn't sitting there with a switch to change the stoplights, but someone in the government had to figure out how to regulate that intersection, and install the device to change the lights. At the micro-level, the government regulates our travel everyday with stoplights. How do they get away with it? Under the guise of public safety. Now, I'm not trying to say there shouldn't be any rules of the road. If that were the case, we'd have to go back to walking everywhere.
The problem with 4-way stops is that most people who happen upon a 4-way stop are too dumb to figure out what to do after they've stopped. This gets exponentially more complicated with an increase in the number of lanes being forced to stop. Since I paid attention in driver's ed, and since I don't drive a Prius (or another variety of small car), I know when to go, and if it's not my turn, well, my SUV clears the way pretty fast. Naturally, the 4-way stop is the preferred system of the government. They want to force everyone to be equal, so everybody should have to stop at the intersection before proceeding on with their journey. Although if they had it completely their way, only white males would have to stop at a 4-way stop and the rest of the population would have a special bypass lane.
When the 4-way stop fails, the next step is to put in some very simple stoplights. Theoretically, everyone is still equal, because on a long enough timeline, everyone will have an equal experience with catching a green light, or a red light. But then you have people who think yellow is the same as green, so the government really can't allow that to happen, so then the stoplights become more complicated. Soon they'll have lights on there that tell you when you can blow your nose. The same is true of the auto industry. They make cars that will tell you when you're falling asleep, when you're drifting out of your lane, and cars that will even stop for you.
Think of that. A car that will stop when it senses an obstacle in your path. Your first thought might be, "Well that sounds awesome." But really think about it. What if you're in a parking lot and somebody is trying to rob you? You hop in your car, and they're right in front of you. Normally you'd drive right through them, but now you can't, because your car won't let you. It's that very simple difference, between safety and control. It could be as simple as a red turn arrow that doesn't allow you to make a turn you deem to be safe, or it could be a car that takes your driving control out of your hands and leaves you a sitting duck for thugs. Of course it's all marketed as the newest, coolest technology that will help make the world a safer place, but is a world controlled by the government a safer place?
I believe that a world run by individuals is the safest place, individuals who look out for their own interests first. That's why I like to see a roundabout, because it feels like a small victory for the individual. A roundabout, to me, is the government acknowledging that the best way to control that intersection is to leave it in the hands of the individuals. No green lights allowing some to drive, no red lights forbidding others to drive, and most importantly, no red left turn signals.
© Nate Phillipps 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)