people are too fucking stupid to think for themselves while driving. The average idiot can't even figure out how a 4-way stop works. But, on the subject of overstepping boundaries, how bout the fact that the police can pull me over and make me give the state $200 because I didn't have a plastic strap over my chest?
If you'd pay for the cost up front for the man-hours and resources needed to clean up and possibly attempt to save you, then I'm sure the states would be willing to write you off to not wear one. They'd also want the losses in taxes, profits from whatever business/trade you do, etc. I dunno how everyone in America expects everything to be free monetarily and be able to do whatever they want...it doesn't work like that. Everything has a price, and if you don't want to pay sky-high taxes for things, then follow the god damn rules. There's a reason these laws are in place, and its mostly because lawmakers are trying to save money on stupid things we can easily fix like seatbelts, stopsigns, speed limits, headlights... I'm sure you'd all love to not have to put headlights in your cars too...
If we weren't worried about imperialism, we might not have to tax our citizens to death. just a wild thought...
Yeah but the taxes are just there to help pay for things you can't afford by yourself. We share these resources and we all pay for sharing it. I know taxes are ridiculously high but we actually get a lot for our taxes. I just feel like people misunderstand the cost-benefit of taxes all too often. While it sucks to pay them, you would be paying even more to privately get everything you have now done. It's like an HOA... I dunno I feel like the government should always have their hand in the necessities of life. And by have their hand in, I mean reasonably regulate and oversee. So shelter, food, water, health, etc... Those basic needs for survival is what the government should provide, at a reasonable no-profit cost and everything else can be free market because its not necessary. Safety is included, they should be allowed to fully regulate activities where fatalities prevail; marijuana not included :-D. I dunno where I'm going but I just feel like the government needs to step back and realize what they should control, and the people need to step back and realize what the government does for us, aside from all the bad things. They keep us safe, provide us with ample diversity in storefronts and businesses, allow us to be free to do as we please (even if something is against the law we can still do it... the means are always provided and that is a great thing), provide us with jobs, support an amazing infrastructure... I dunno, the government isn't all that bad. I think people forget all the good stuff it does for us. That's my point I guess. Everyone needs to step back and stop complaining about stupid shit that they are just trying to help us with, and when something really unreasonable comes up, like MJ legislation, we can step up and fight the cause because another great thing about America is that people have a choice here, and we can make a difference... EDIT: Talk about getting off topic... It sounds like I'm a government employee or something but I'm not, I just feel like there is a reasonable side to everything and every reason and most Americans are narrow-minded and only think of themselves. This is a country everyone is a part of, its like being in a tribe. We all provide for each other and look out for each other. That's the way it was meant, speaking of the founding fathers, and that's the way it should continue.
I believe you are oversimplifying a very complex relationship. Maybe abusive governments have operated under the philosophy that they need to "get people to behave properly" but that's not what I think government is for at least; I feel that the role of government is to take on tasks the likes of which only a collected body of citizens - whose sole occupation is the work of these tasks - could possibly hope to tackle and find success. Aside from treaties, trade-agreements and other international issues, a people would be benefited by a government that sought to right market failures; bare-bones economic motivation (i.e free market capitalism) does not always lead to the best result. Take the issue of pollution: it is almost never in a company's financial best interest to clean up after itself. You can argue that 'Oh, if company X pollutes in the local river, some asshole will make a documentary exposing them, they will lose business, etc; pollution is bad for business', but things rarely play out like that. Disregarding the fact that large corporations have the clout necessary to suppress a lot of negative press, consumers have imperfect access to information as it is. Journalism should not be relied upon as a stand-in for government oversight. I cannot say that I think human beings are inherently virtuous, but I can certainly agree that they try to be virtuous; people do what they think is right, what they think is in their best interest. Think of a lot of the racism towards blacks in the early-mid 20th century South; this was carried out by and large by poor southern whites. Rather than focus their energy on gaining some semblance of economic power for themselves, they allowed their energies to be diverted towards racism by rich whites who were so eager to avoid class antagonism - the racial solidarity kept real economic change at bay. Government intervention a la the Civil Rights Act helped begin to realign the South into a more harmonious equilibrium. Looking over this post I believe I've only weakly expressed what I was trying to get at... Essentially I believe that although man tries to be virtuous and do what's in his interest, he does not always have enough facts at his disposal/he can be hoodwinked and manipulated into unwisely latching upon a scheme or platform that will fail to benefit him as much as another. Now I'm not saying that government automatically knows what's best, what actually provides a citizen the most benefit, but I believe that professional legislators have access to the best big-picture information and have the potential to be relied upon for the most prudent decisions, if only because they have significantly more time than a regular working American to ponder these issues. I hope you don't take my post to imply that I think the current incarnation of our government represents one of these producers of best-possible-solution legislation, but I'm just trying to say that there's nothing inherently bad about government. If humans are really naturally virtuous like you say they are, then I fail to see how putting a group of citizens together, supplying them with the most information, taking away incentives for abuse of power and actually paying them to think things out could result in a bad situation.
Shit, the government can be evil all they want. Just keep those loans, and welfare and EBT money coming baaaaaaaaaaaabbbby! Seriously, while our system is actually bad it is alright compared to everything else. Get pissy if you want, but it's almost common knowledge. And while I agree with Kylesa that little to no government is needed, it would never work at this day in age because people in general are evil, trifling and stupid. So until we reach that point, I'm going to continue to root for smaller government.
The Solution. First step: Legalize pot. Second step: Mandatory mushrooms. Third Step: Giggle and realize. Fourth Step: What the fuck was I talking about?
The reason you can't is because of how subjective this whole statement is. Even with anarchism you will still have a large mass of populace who are unhappy and wish they had a government because they're sheep or need some way to exert their will onto others to be happy (e.g. You can't abort that baby because I think it's wrong/You can't execute that person because I think it's wrong). I just think it's silly to pose such a challenge.
I didn't ignore it, I'm just saying you don't have to be an anarchist to think government is a necessary evil.
You ignored the second part of my post about how, very soon after getting rid of traffic laws, there would become a market for items to help you avoid/survive a collision. Like maybe someone would come up with a GPS type device that tells you if another car is approaching the intersection. Then it's up to you to decide if you are going to yield to you, or him to you. Or maybe that company could even do the job of deciding who stops and who gets to go based on traffic flow on the two intersecting streets. Your GPS would tell you if there was traffic coming and whether to stop or not. That would do away with those oppressive, fascist, red (read Communist) octagons, but still have people stopping. Nobody would ever be cited for running a stop sign again, but people would still be stopping... hopefully... But since it's a private company doing it, it would be more efficient. And those people who can afford to, could even get "VIP" traffic control subscriptions that makes all the traffic stop for them. While the peons, have to stop at every other intersection. It would be like tiered driving privileges. The more you can pay for your subscription, the less traffic you have to deal with. And those who cannot afford the traffic control system, or the subscription? Well, they better stop at every fucking intersection, right? Or better yet take the bus. And the Traffic Control Service Company could run the bus line on the profits from subscription services, so maybe buses would be free to those too poor/lazy/fearful to drive. So see, it's even environmentally friendly because it promotes mass transit. That would be sweet... if you could afford that VIP unit... Imagine the jobs this could create. And how much smaller Government would be if we didn't have to pay for traffic control and enforcement. If we would just let the free market take care of it. I read an article years ago about a State Senator who, while in office, got all the directions of the stop signs on his daily commute turned around and got traffic light times adjusted. So like people on busier streets had to stop, but he didn't. And intersecting roads got shorter greens and longer reds so he had a better chance of not getting caught at lights. That kind of corruption is rampant in politics. If we let a private company do it, there would be no corruption like that. If you can afford it, you can do the same thing as that corrupt Senator. Success in life should have it's advantages. Traffic immunity should be one of them. Green lights to the highest bidder!
omg you're a brilliant satirist! Anyways, back to derailing this thread by making legitimate points. I was thinking the other day about traffic laws that could be passed under the guise of cutting back CO2 emissions: 1. Legalize rolling stops, especially at certain times. 2. Incorporate more right turn yields and traffic circles 3. Make drivers licenses really hard to get. 4. Switch traffic lights to blinking reds and yellows after 10:00PM any other ideas?