Link of the Day: LIBERTY 101

Posted on February 9, 2014 6:00 pm

[High Praise! to Walking Dead of Nuking Politics]

LIBERTY 101

[Think you have a link that's IMAO-worthy? Send it to harvolson@gmail.com. If I use your link, you will receive High Praise! (assuming you remember to put your name in the email)]

Send to Kindle
1 Star (Hated it)2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (Awesome) (2 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)

11 Responses to “Link of the Day: LIBERTY 101”

  1. AT says:

    #4 Unattended Orange Cones

    I frequently see orange cones blocking off a lane, or a shortcut through a parking lot, or otherwise preventing travel through a certain area. Look around. If there’s nobody there to enforce the cone, and no apparent danger being cordoned off by the cones – ignore them! Polite people may stop and move them; less than polite people may just knock them over with their car bumper. Either way – an orange cone is not a man with a badge and a gun. It’s not even a guy in a reflective vest. It’s an inanimate object without a will to which you must bend. Drive right through if it makes you happy.

    Stop signs are also optional, provided there’s no one around for whom you need to stop and give right of way.

  2. jw says:

    @1 AT

    i’ve decided, after prolonged consideration, that, this being a satire site, you don’t really mean your post.

    so i erased my response.

    but please, stop for the stop signs, i have seen too many broken bodies.

  3. AT says:

    Obviously I’m not encouraging the careless running down of pedestrians or of smacking into other cars (tort liability, yo!). But the minute I let an inanimate sign start dictating my actions…

    Do you stop because the sign says stop? Or do you stop because your individual desire to preserve the safety of yourself and others compels you to do so?

    As I hope I’m one day coined for saying, “I’ve never met a rule I couldn’t ignore.” Rules are always optional, and always depend on the sanction of those following them.

  4. jw says:

    well, i wish then that i had let my original post stand. sometimes you follow the rules because it is the only way to make society work. if you don’t agree with them, change them. 11 people died today in two well publicized car accidents because two idiots thought that rules are always optional.

  5. AT says:

    The loss of life is always tragic – but it’s something we have a pretty significant degree of acceptance for in exchange for great liberty. Accepting liberty means accepting the fact that someone else’s exercise of it might deprive you of yours. That’s why we created a judiciary – to remedy such deprivations because of another’s negligent behavior.

    Fat lot of good that does when we’re talking in terms of lives, of course – but, that’s the trade-off we accept when we choose to accept liberty. (Survivors, of course, get a wrongful death cause of action.)

    It’s also why I think DUI shouldn’t be a crime – it should be a sentencing/liability factor. And I say that having personally seen the corpses of children run down by a drunk first hand. Horrific, of course – but the alternative is compromising liberty in the name of some undefined “greater good.” Which is never a good thing. Liberty is a risky thing – mainly because we let other people have it. You never know what other people are going to do. That’s the price of a free society.

    I’m actually genuinely curious as to your original post. Not because I think we need to argue about the subject – but because it’s always the people I generally agree with who offer the best arguments in the occasions where there’s disagreement.

  6. Tater Salad says:

    People attending law school used to be taught that civilized society established rules/laws based on two principles: malum in se and malum prohibitum.

    The first applies to those things deemed “evil/wrong in itself”. Murder, rape, child abuse…for examples.

    The second applies to that which is “evil/wrong because society decided to prohibit the thing”. Traffic laws, curfews, alcohol consumption, or the symbolic instructive weight of the traffic cone, for instances.

    Traffic control, seemingly an early-20th century creation, originates because people cede personal responsibility for control of their vehicles as they embrace that good ol’ me first attitude. It’s the whole “I’m gonna drive as fast as I want, text while driving, drive while stoned, so hey, asshat, you best watch out for me!”

    Screw ‘em, the other guy’s got brakes, right?

  7. AT says:

    And a slam-dunk civil case.

  8. jw says:

    just what we need, a self-rightous sociopath.

  9. Tater Salad says:

    @ #8

    If you were under 20 years of age, Canadian, undereducated, with millions of US dollars burning a hole in your pocket from schmucks having bought your crappy, Autotuned songs, wouldn’t you want to drive your rented Lamborghini as fast as possible down the streets of Miami while high as a kite and texting some silicone-injected, Eastern European stripperpole cowgal?

    C’mon now, you’re a rich, androgynous, spoiled, wanna-be wigger, pop star…rules do not apply.

    No wonder you and Obama get on so well, there’s so much in common.

  10. jw says:

    @9

    “No wonder you and Obama get on so well, there’s so much in common.”

    i’m hoping that you mean beiber, not me.

  11. Tater Salad says:

    “i’m hoping that you mean beiber, not me.”

    Of course.

    Unless you happen to be a doped-up, Canuck pop singer.

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>