The original Clover – the self-named (and appropriately named) poster-heckler who inadvertently provided me with a wonderful term to describe Statist Americanus – has returned. And he has learned nothing, as you’ll see by reading his latest post, which is only new in a superficial sense, since he’s just regurgitating the same old hackneyed, package-dealing, oppression-justifying cliches that typify the Clover Hive Mind. But, in the interests of science, it is worth presenting this for general viewing. Masks on, now… .
“Since it harms no one, usually, then it is OK walking around with a loaded gun pointing it at someone”
Poor ol’ Clover… doesn’t understand that pointing a loaded gun at people is threatening them with lethal violence, which any Libertarian – any sane person – would rightly call criminal. But merely walking around with a loaded gun… as such … presents no threat, no harm, implied or overt … hence, no crime. But Clover is trying to delegitimize carrying a gun – a reasonable, lawful thing – by implying (by package-dealing) that doing so amounts to threatening people with lethal violence. Hence, it should be illegal for anyone to possess a gun. Amazingly, people fall for this line of “thought” . . . if it can be called that.
“It is OK to drive drunk and we should be fine with it until they kill a bunch of others and then put them in jail.”
I’ve already patiently tried to explain this to you literally dozens of times now. What is “drunk”? Whatever a politician decrees it to be? Is it merely the presence of an arbitrary amount of alcohol in one’s system – even if one’s actual driving has given no reason to suggest actual impairment? Why? Many people over 80 are as or more objectively “impaired” than a 30 year old with a few beers in him, in terms of diminished reflexes and so on. Yet we do not lock people up merely for Driving While Old. (Usually, they have to actually do something to show impairment – such as drive the wrong way down the Interstate). Why not lock over-80 drivers up merely because they are over 80? Is it not the same thing as locking up 30-year-olds merely because they have “x” amount of alcohol in their systems? No? Explain the difference, then.
But Clover, there is no such thing as a “group decision. There are only individuals deciding, claiming that they act on behalf of the group, or the majority. What makes a group wiser or more morally righteous than an individual – or more competent to make the correct decision? We are individuals, Clover – and we have individually different abilities, moral sense and so on. Some of us are much better at some things (and others much worse). What gives you (or anyone else) the right to decide for me or anyone else what is the “best” way – as you define it – to do something? The right to force me to do what you believe to be the “best” way to do something? Who the heck are you? Wouldn’t it be better to leave it up to each individual to exercise judgment – and then be responsible for his own decisions – rather than chain each of us to decisions made by others that may or may not be appropriate or necessary? Which may, indeed, by inappropriate and unnecessary? Pearls before swine, I know.
“You say that things like speeding is OK. You are right most of the time. Thousands of times throughout the year that is not true though. Excessive speeding does often kill. You say it does not do it all the time so it is fine. Yes driving 50 thousand miles on an oil change may be fine also once in a while but it can significantly increase the chances of an early death to your engine”
No, Clover. I have said that speeding is a technical infraction, a violation of administrative law – and so morally neutral. It may be illegal to drive 75 in a 55. But is it wrong to do so in the moral sense? Of course not. So, why should a person who is not causing any problems (other violating an administrative decree) be hassled by the cops?
And more, it is not “speed” that “kills,” in that tedious, decrepit and totally discredited formulation. It is driver error – which can be further distilled to such things as inappropriate speed for conditions, failure to maintain control, inattentiveness – etc. Your response – the Cloveronian reflex – is to fixate on some arbitrary group standard rather than deal with individual drivers who cause actual problems as a result of their poor driving (whether too slow or too fast or too inept).
Oh no, oh Cloveroni. It comes down to what can be demonstrated to cause harm. If there is no harm, if there is no victim, then there is no crime – morally (and reasonably) speaking. This is an ancient concept that dates back to Magna Carta and before, to the dawn of human civilization. It offends the moral sense to punish someone when no demonstrable harm has been caused (or threatened). Yet, as a result of the spread of Cloverism, the principle has been upended and we now have a system that is based on prosecuting victimless crimes – of which “speeding” is merely the most common.
Unfortunately – for the sake of liberty – we have Cloverism and it is spreading, in the same way and for the same reasons that bad money pushes out the good – in a kind of moral-ethical permutation of Gresham’s Law.
What’s the solution? I wish I knew. Reason does not reach these people. They “believe” and they “feel.” It is like trying to argue with a barking dog.
Throw it in the Woods?