Rochester resident arrested for firing a gun in his yard

[tracysaboe]

Tracy, I don't mean to be a dick here, just throwing something out there.  But do you think the "police state" mentality on roads would be even worse if they were private, depending on the owners, of course?  Do you think that the surveillance camera issue would be even worse if roads were private?

If I spent a $1B on a road.. I would certainly have cameras on it and probably force people to have something like a fastlane transponder.

1) Under a free enterprise system roads wouldn't cost anywheres near what it costs the state to build them. We all know the state waists a good 70% of it's income, and most of the decissions to spend the rest -- yes even when it comes to where to lay down roads -- are spent for political not economic reasons. Conpairable example Great Northern Railroad, vs. Government subsidized railroads that weaved tracks 3 times as long.

2) Million Dollar malls do have security and survailence, but it actually IS for their custamers protection because it'is only acted upon if somebody IS actively shoplifting or being violent to peacefull custamers.

3) their's a big difference between private survailence and government survailence. Private companies actually do use it to make their custamers lives better and help them out. -- The only covet here is that many turn information over to the government because they don't want to make waves. Other companies -- like Google -- would refuse to comply with government demands -- at least with-out a warrent. You could choose which companies were better in this respect regarding selling out to the feds when you chose which roads to drive on.

4) If you don't like survailence. Drive on a cheeply made road that doesn't have any. Or, it's quite possible that in a free market road system their could be public roads that weren't government owned, in which their's little or no security whatsoever competing along side the privetly owned roads.

Bottom line, when I drive on those quasi government roads called turn-pikes, I don't get harrassed near as much has I do by cops on government roads.

Tracy

[Mark]

As far as the cops are conserned, yes.

BTW if drunk driving wasn't illegal it's likely most drunks would drive slower.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/crovelli5.html

Absolutely. The drunk drivers are such a responsible crew that we can be pretty confident that they would drive slowly while shitfaced.

You talk as if you didn't even read the article.

Tracy

I read the article. It read like an undergrad frat boy's term paper. It was ridiculous. My sarcastic response pointed out just one major hole in the author's logic. The assumption that drunk drivers would take the safest course of action if given the choice is proven wrong by the very fact that they are driving drunk, which is inherently less safe than driving sober.

As for your friend who drove better when drunk - If this is true he should do us all a favor and throw his keys in the river. My guess is that the alcohol made him dumb enough to think he drove better while drunk.

[MaineShark]

Other companies -- like Google -- would refuse to comply with government demands -- at least with-out a warrent. You could choose which companies were better in this respect regarding selling out to the feds when you chose which roads to drive on.

Uh, I wouldn't use Google as an example of stalwart opposition to government.  They sold out to the Chinese government to censor the Internet for their citizens, and I believe I heard that some people have actually been executed based on evidence that Google willingly shared.

Other than that, good post

Joe

[Lloyd Danforth]

As far as the cops are conserned, yes.

BTW if drunk driving wasn't illegal it's likely most drunks would drive slower.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/crovelli5.html

Absolutely. The drunk drivers are such a responsible crew that we can be pretty confident that they would drive slowly while shitfaced.

You talk as if you didn't even read the article.

Tracy

I read the article. It read like an undergrad frat boy's term paper. It was ridiculous. My sarcastic response pointed out just one major hole in the author's logic. The assumption that drunk drivers would take the safest course of action if given the choice is proven wrong by the very fact that they are driving drunk, which is inherently less safe than driving sober.

He could still take the safest course of action under the circumstances.  I assume we are talking 'legally drunk' here.  The result of some, arbitrary number.  Ignoring that the same percentage of alcohol effects different people differently, just the fact that they lower the acceptable percentage, making something illegal, that was legal the day before show how arbitrary this is.

There can be a difference between driving legally drunk, and, shitfaced.

Personally, Although I have done neither for several years, I'd rather drive 'tripping' than shitfaced drunk.

[MaineShark]

He could still take the safest course of action under the circumstances.  I assume we are talking 'legally drunk' here.  The result of some, arbitrary number.  Ignoring that the same percentage of alcohol effects different people differently, just the fact that they lower the acceptable percentage, making something illegal, that was legal the day before show how arbitrary this is.

There can be a difference between driving legally drunk, and, shitfaced.

Indeed.  The DWI laws are based on the State's arbitrary notion of what makes you "unsafe," not science.  Different body chemistry can cause two different people to react in different ways to alcohol at different concentrations.  A blood-alcohol level that puts one person under the table may have no measurable effect on another.

If the State was actually interested in testing people for safe driving under such circumstances, they'd use a reaction-time meter, not a breathalyzer.  The reaction-time meter would show whether you are actually impaired, while the breathalyzer only shows if you have violated the arbitrary rules set by the legislature.

Joe

[tracysaboe]

Other companies -- like Google -- would refuse to comply with government demands -- at least with-out a warrent. You could choose which companies were better in this respect regarding selling out to the feds when you chose which roads to drive on.

Uh, I wouldn't use Google as an example of stalwart opposition to government.  They sold out to the Chinese government to censor the Internet for their citizens, and I believe I heard that some people have actually been executed based on evidence that Google willingly shared.

Other than that, good post

Joe

Obviously, it's difficult to find a completely clean company these days.
They sold out to the Chinese by sensoring their Chinese version on the search engine, evan though most chinese can still use the .com top level domains. I don't really fault them for that. China likely wouldn't have had google at all if they hadn't. I do know that here in the US though they refused to let the FBI look at their records. That's why I thought of them. Their were also several wireless companies who refused to let the NSA tap into their phones, and others who roled over and played lapdog. There was a list of which was which circling the internet awhile back.

Tracy

[higheye]

I know this man...apparently he was asleep inside his house and someone was in the act of breaking into his house when he grabbed his shot gun and headed out the front door and fired a single shot into the air...

not the brightest thing to do...but invaders were attempting to siege his castle

[MaineShark]

I know this man...apparently he was asleep inside his house and someone was in the act of breaking into his house when he grabbed his shot gun and headed out the front door and fired a single shot into the air...

not the brightest thing to do...but invaders were attempting to siege his castle

That's a little beyond "not the brightest thing to do."  Those pellets have to come back down...

Joe

[money dollars]

that is what blanks are for.

[Crocuta]

that is what blanks are for.

Rock salt.