"Reasonable basis" means wha??

[Gyno Rhino]

Read last paragraph about "reasonable basis". Terrific.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050804/ts_nm/security_force_dc

[MixmasterNash]

"reasonable basis" == "sucks to be a brown person"

[Hockey66]

Anyone driving around in white Chevy vans are toast.

[HahnB]

That's insane. I'm in favor of profiling to a certain extent but that is taking things too far. I guess if you give them an inch they take a mile.

[Gyno Rhino]

Profiling???

Is shooting someone in the head profiling? That's the part that disturbed me.

[HahnB]

Profiling???

Is shooting someone in the head profiling? That's the part that disturbed me.

No, I meant that they are profiling people, then shooting them based on their profile and other things listed in that article. Profiling should go as far as stopping the person and searching them, unless you can clearly see a bomb then they should use deadly force. Of course at that point it's most likely too late. Point being is in 99% of most scenarios it's impossible to stop a suicide bomber.

[meltedtime]

According to the newspaper, the guide recommends that if lethal force is needed to stop someone who fits a certain behavioral profile, the officer should "aim for the head." The intent is to kill the suspect instantly so the person could not set off a bomb if one is strapped to the person's chest, the newspaper said

Taken from Israeli tactics when dealing with bomb strapped terrorists. The old method, like in the U.S., is two shots to the body. This could still allow detonation time. Two to the head=dead.

As far as the criteria goes for when they can shoot, seems a little loose to me.


Among signs to look for listed in the police organization's behavioral profile are wearing a heavy coat in warm weather, carrying a backpack with protrusions or visible wires, nervousness, excessive sweating or an unwillingness to make eye contact, the Post said.

Hopefully you need to be brown and meet 5/6 to get two to the head. Otherwise every stoned teenager with a backpack and trenchcoat will be a target.

[Songsangnim]

They do say "If lethal force is needed to stop someone.." Sounds like someone who wouldn't stop when asked by police .

Police are just not going to be whipping out their guns and shooting everyone who looks a little nervous and happens to be carrying a backpack. That just isn't going to happen. "Reasonable bias" likely means considerably more than just acting suspicious. Otherwise the number of lawsuits would tie up the courts for decades.

This very likely means if they decide to stop or search someone, and that person instead of stopping decides to run.

In that case I have no sympathy. If you run from people who are armed (and moreover who have a right to ask for ID) you are asking to be shot. Especially in this enviroment.

They (the police) are not going to simply say "Oh look there is a brown guy in a overcoat and carrying a backpack. He looks a little nervous. Let's shoot him just to be sure."

It isn't going to happen people. Much more likely they would call the guy over to ask some questions. Then if the suspect runs that's when they can use lethal force. So simply do what you are told by a uniformed police officer and you will be okay. Note here that I do not necessarily agree with this policy, but that's the way it is.

[mrelwooddowd]

yeah..didn't that guy RUN AWAY?!?

[HahnB]

They are going to end up shooting people with a joint in their pocket if they kill anyone who avoids them.

[Sensei]

They are going to end up shooting people with a joint in their pocket if they kill anyone who avoids them.

Exactly, a lot of innocent fools will be killed. I think for most people, it's almost automatic to want to run away from people who approach you with a gun... I guess in an airport or train station, we can start to expect martial law w. dire consequences for not following proper procedures...

[rdkraus]

Reasonable basis in this context would probably mean, given the totality of all of the circumstances, there are a set of articulable reasons to believe that a threat is imminent.

For example, a mideastern looking man leaves a known terrorist headquarters/living area, wearing a very heavy coat in 90 degree weather, proceeds to a crowded subway and flees by jumping over a turnstile and running away when asked by police to stop and show ID. If the man had a history of terrorist ties, that would greatly add to the mix.

[Canadian Crippler]

The only people who would run away from a police officer are those who have commited or are commiting a crime. So basically, don't commit crimes and you're good to go :).

[MixmasterNash]

The only people who would run away from a police officer are those who have commited or are commiting a crime. So basically, don't commit crimes and you're good to go :).

No wonder fascism took hold so easily.

Obey the government! Don't suspect a friend, report them! Suspicion Breeds Confidence!

[Canadian Crippler]

Way to take my comments way out of context. You make it sound like another edition of The Giver.

I'd like an example of a law you think is justifiably broken which would cause someone to run away from the police.

[Paul Stagg]

Well, the guy they executed (which is what they did - he was subdued when they put 5 in his skull) had not committed any crime that anyone is aware of.

He did not know he was running from police. They did not identify themselves to him.

But hey - he ran from the police.

That attitude is what destroys freedom. "If you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about, Comrades." So cameras, checkpoints, random searches, home searches, tracking devices are all just fine, since if you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about.

So you'll be cool when there is a police monitored camera in your bedroom to ensure you are properly executing your sexual acts (consent, protection, hygene, position)? Cause that's what you want to open the door on.

[Paul Stagg]

BTW, The brits doen't have the same due process guarantees as those of us in the US, do they?

[Jorge Sanchez]

The problem with this idea, whether you agree with it or not, is that the decision as to what makes up "reasonable basis" at any given time is going to be up to the discretion of one police officer. So if you have a police officer who is particularly racist, or particularly paranoid, they might not wait for someone to run.

[Wierz]

That attitude is what destroys freedom. "If you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about, Comrades." So cameras, checkpoints, random searches, home searches, tracking devices are all just fine, since if you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about.

It's a delicate balance. One that is hard to maintain. Too much freedom leads to abuses of that freedom, such is the case with suicide bombers being able to perform the attacks in london, 9/11, etc. It's hard to know where to draw the line where safety vs freedome is concerned.

I agree it's a hard choice. Since the government is in charge and held accountable for safety in situations like that, I am not suprised they react the way they do. All I know is, if my family and I are getting on a plane and the only way the airport security can guarantee my safety (and the safety of those on the plane) is by performing a full body x-ray (extreme I know) then I'd submit to it for safety's sake. I am confident in how I live my life and what I've done. If my life needs to be put under the magnifying glass for the safety of my family or those close to me, then that's something I'm willing to deal with.

Every day I enjoy the freedoms this country does provide. Plenty of food, water, electricity, medical care, roads, indoor plumbing, protection, enforcement of laws, the right to vote and speak my mind in government. I don't take those things for granted and I believe a measure of control is needed to maintain order. I choose to live in this country. Are there things that go on that I don't agree with? Sure. But just because of that I can't blatantly ignore the freedoms that this country does provide. Freedoms that sometimes others don't have.

[YungLifter]

**** they killed one of my peoples!!! Poor brazilian didn't even do nothing=(

[MixmasterNash]

It's a delicate balance. One that is hard to maintain. Too much freedom leads to abuses of that freedom, such is the case with suicide bombers being able to perform the attacks in london, 9/11, etc. It's hard to know where to draw the line where safety vs freedome is concerned.
Security is basically inversely proportional to freedom. Terrorists can't do ANYTHING to reduce our freedom, they can only effect our safety. The government can effect our security, positively or negatively, AND our freedom.



my life needs to be put under the magnifying glass for the safety of my family or those close to me, then that's something I'm willing to deal with.
Well, since we know that airport security is a total farce, what's the point? But more to the point, you're accepting short term security yet sacrificing freedom and long term security.

[Paul Stagg]

Diminishing your liberty doesn't make you safer.

What is 'too much freedom', anyway?

[Wierz]

Well, since we know that airport security is a total farce, what's the point? But more to the point, you're accepting short term security yet sacrificing freedom and long term security.

I should have stated it differently. I'm willing to give up personal privacy in order to keep people close to me safe.

And explain what you mean by accepting short term security yet sacrificing freedom and long term security.

Are you equating freedom with privacy? What if I told you when I say "freedom" I mean freedom from worrying if my family is going to die on a plane flight they take? I feel, if absolute safety is what we want, that we are giving the government (or those who are in charge of it) an impossible task. We want them to provide safety. That safety is acheived by searches, profiling, and attempting to maintain order through security. But at the same time, when they attempt to maintain that order by doing these things, people scream their rights are being violated and they aren't truly free.

[ShockBoxer]

When your 'freedom' allows you to freely injure or impede upon the freedoms or rights of others without reprecussion you have too much.

That said... I don't like where the 'free' world is wandering with this. It seems a little Orwellian ... actually, it seems a little like the government from Vertigo comics "V for Vendetta" (a movie soon, I heard).

I can see how having to wait for someone to set off a bomb and blow a checkpoint to pieces is stupid... but how else are you supposed to be sure someone is carrying?

[Wierz]

Diminishing your liberty doesn't make you safer.

What is 'too much freedom', anyway?


When I said too much freedom, I should have said too much liberty. This is what someone kind of stated above. It allows people who want to, to abuse this liberty and harm others for their own personal vendetta, gains, etc. If you don't want this to happen, the only solution I see is to give up some of your liberty.

Does anyone else have a different/better solution?

Yes.

Protecting property rights doesn't reduce liberty. I can not harm you, and that doesn't effect my liberty.

What the government is doing is WAY over and above that. Checking to see what books I read IS harming my liberty, and it doesn't have anything to do with me violating someone elses rights.

[ShockBoxer]

That safety is acheived by searches, profiling, and attempting to maintain order through security. But at the same time, when they attempt to maintain that order by doing these things, people scream their rights are being violated and they aren't truly free.

And when they announce that bodybuilders are to be profiled because they pose a threat to public safety on account that they have physical advantages over the average member of population?

Or make camping trips illegal because you could start a fire and destroy an urban area?

Both are ludicrous... but profiling, monitoring, and the rest lead to a very, very slippery slope.

[David]

Diminishing your liberty doesn't make you safer.

What is 'too much freedom', anyway?

Uncle Paul I would like to kindly disagree with you. As usual, you’ve had good points all through this discussion.

However, I do think that people in America have way too much freedom.

To begin with, look at the minimum age kids are allowed to drive here. It’s 16. We all know that teenagers cause the most accidents, besides senior citizens but they drive like 25mph in any zone so you can always just drive past them, so why not bump the minimum age to 18 or 21?

Those of you from Europe you’re probably aware of the stricter rules they have for driving and it seems to be working for them.

They even have age restrictions on how big of an engine you can have regarding motorcycles.

One more thing.

Has anyone else noticed that in America you can drive a car that is falling apart, a complete piece of **** and yet it is legal. In Europe that would be illegal.

So the answer to “What is 'too much freedom', anyway?” it is people making poor decisions because they have too much choice.

Choice, the problem is choice.

Call me crazy but I think that rules and regulations help people make better choices.

[Wierz]

And when they announce that bodybuilders are to be profiled because they pose a threat to public safety on account that they have physical advantages over the average member of population?

Or make camping trips illegal because you could start a fire and destroy an urban area?

Both are ludicrous... but profiling, monitoring, and the rest lead to a very, very slippery slope.


You're absolutely right, which is why I said it was a hard decision and a delicate balance.

[ShockBoxer]

You're absolutely right, which is why I said it was a hard decision and a delicate balance.

And you trust your leaders to make such a hard decision and maintain such a delicate balance?

The decision and balance must be the PEOPLE'S. It's too big a decision to leave to elected representites *of* the people.

[Paul Stagg]

Uncle Paul I would like to kindly disagree with you. As usual, you’ve had good points all through this discussion.

However, I do think that people in America have way too much freedom.

That's upsetting, but not suprising.


To begin with, look at the minimum age kids are allowed to drive here. It’s 16. We all know that teenagers cause the most accidents, besides senior citizens but they drive like 25mph in any zone so you can always just drive past them, so why not bump the minimum age to 18 or 21?
Why not hold peopel responsible criminally for violating others property rights, instead of assuming everyone WILL do something wrong? Hold the teen (or the parents) criminally responsible, just like you would if they waved a gun around and shot someone by accident. I don't need a permission slip from the government to drive a car.


Those of you from Europe you’re probably aware of the stricter rules they have for driving and it seems to be working for them.


They even have age restrictions on how big of an engine you can have regarding motorcycles.
But the govenrment isn't necessary for any of this. What happens in the US? Use motorcycles as an example.


One more thing.

Has anyone else noticed that in America you can drive a car that is falling apart, a complete piece of **** and yet it is legal. In Europe that would be illegal.

So the answer to “What is 'too much freedom', anyway?” it is people making poor decisions because they have too much choice.

Choice, the problem is choice.

So you get to choose for everyone, because you know better? What happens when the people who know better decide you sholdn't be allowed to have children, because you make poor choices?



Call me crazy but I think that rules and regulations help people make better choices.
There is a link to an essay by FA Hayek about knowledge on my blog. Read it.

[Paul Stagg]

I should have stated it differently. I'm willing to give up personal privacy in order to keep people close to me safe.

And explain what you mean by accepting short term security yet sacrificing freedom and long term security.

Are you equating freedom with privacy? What if I told you when I say "freedom" I mean freedom from worrying if my family is going to die on a plane flight they take? I feel, if absolute safety is what we want, that we are giving the government (or those who are in charge of it) an impossible task. We want them to provide safety. That safety is acheived by searches, profiling, and attempting to maintain order through security. But at the same time, when they attempt to maintain that order by doing these things, people scream their rights are being violated and they aren't truly free.

Then you feel free to volunteer.

It is none of the government's business what is in my pocket, and I have a right not ot tell ANYONE. We did not give that right up to the government (yet). If you don't want that right any longer, feel free.

You'll enjoy being a subject.

[Wierz]

And you trust your leaders to make such a hard decision and maintain such a delicate balance?

The decision and balance must be the PEOPLE'S. It's too big a decision to leave to elected representites *of* the people.

The country is run by majority rule. No matter what decision is being made, and who is voting, unless everyone agrees to decide the same way, there will always be people who are in the minority and will feel their decision and desires aren't being respected.

You're also assuming that I trust the average person more than I trust those we chose to lead for us. That isn't the case.

[MixmasterNash]

I should have stated it differently. I'm willing to give up personal privacy in order to keep people close to me safe.

And explain what you mean by accepting short term security yet sacrificing freedom and long term security.

Are you equating freedom with privacy?

You don't equate privacy with freedom? You don't think you should be secure in your person, house, papers, and effects? Protection from unreasonable violation of privacy is a cornerstone of our freedoms, explictly proscribed in the Bill of Rights. If you don't think privacy is protected, then does that mean the government can go and read our papers as long as they don't take them?

Accepting increases in security may (or may not) provide for improved safety in the short run, but once government acquires enough power and can violate our rights (Constitution, God given, human-, whatever your formulation) in the name of safety, then your security is compromised by the government, not the external threat, which is far more dangerous.

Far more people have been killed by their own governments, than by enemy forces, especially in the past century.

[Paul Stagg]

The country is run by majority rule. No matter what decision is being made, and who is voting, unless everyone agrees to decide the same way, there will always be people who are in the minority and will feel their decision and desires aren't being respected.

This is incorrect. I suggest you learn a little more about the government, history, and perhaps read the Constitution.


You're also assuming that I trust the average person more than I trust those we chose to lead for us. That isn't the case.

Figures. You will be far better off, then, when the government is making your choices for you. Good luck.

[MixmasterNash]

The country is run by majority rule. No matter what decision is being made, and who is voting, unless everyone agrees to decide the same way, there will always be people who are in the minority and will feel their decision and desires aren't being respected.

You're also assuming that I trust the average person more than I trust those we chose to lead for us. That isn't the case.

Absolutely incorrect. We are citizens in a constitutional republic, with explict anti-majoritarian protections for the rights of individuals. We are not a classical democracy, we only employ democratic principles to some degree in electing representatives and passing some propositions. Furthermore, the court system is inherently anti-majority rule in that it can overturn laws supported by a majority of the population.

I trust the average of the people, not the average person, in matters of making law.

Edit: Damnit, I'm slow, but at least I done 'splained it.

[Wierz]

Then you feel free to volunteer.

It is none of the government's business what is in my pocket, and I have a right not ot tell ANYONE. We did not give that right up to the government (yet). If you don't want that right any longer, feel free.

You'll enjoy being a subject.

Then can we talk about a hypthetical situation? You take your parents, wife, immediate family, and those close to you to the airport and see them off while they get on a plane. An unknown terrorist is behind them in line and has an explosive in his pocket. According to you, security (and anyone for that matter) doesn't have a right to know that explosive is in his pocket. He boards the plane and while you watch it take off on the runway it explodes, crashes, and kills everyone in the plane. But they didn't have a right to know that explosive was in his pocket so nothing could or should have been done.

Is it more important to you that the terrorists rights and liberty are protected, sacrificing those of those close to you? Or is it more important that the rights and liberty of those close to you are protected by violating the terrorists rights and liberty?

I'm not saying which is better or which you should do. I'm simply saying we're putting those in charge of this in an impossible situation. Do you see a way around this? I'm asking honestly because I do agree with some of your points, but not all.

[Paul Stagg]

If the majority decide that people named Sam can no longer eat crackers, would that be OK? Wiers thinks so.

Do the Sams have a right to eat crackers? Wiers thinks not.

What about all the crumbs?

[MixmasterNash]

Then can we talk about a hypthetical situation? You take your parents, wife, immediate family, and those close to you to the airport and see them off while they get on a plane. An unknown terrorist is behind them in line and has an explosive in his pocket. According to you, security (and anyone for that matter) doesn't have a right to know that explosive is in his pocket. He boards the plane and while you watch it take off on the runway it explodes, crashes, and kills everyone in the plane. But they didn't have a right to know that explosive was in his pocket so nothing could or should have been done.

The commercial entity that you are contracting with (and yes, you are entering into a legally enforcable contract with terms and conditions) when you fly can impose requirements as necessary.

[Paul Stagg]

Then can we talk about a hypthetical situation? You take your parents, wife, immediate family, and those close to you to the airport and see them off while they get on a plane. An unknown terrorist is behind them in line and has an explosive in his pocket. According to you, security (and anyone for that matter) doesn't have a right to know that explosive is in his pocket. He boards the plane and while you watch it take off on the runway it explodes, crashes, and kills everyone in the plane. But they didn't have a right to know that explosive was in his pocket so nothing could or should have been done.

Is it more important to you that the terrorists rights and liberty are protected, sacrificing those of those close to you? Or is it more important that the rights and liberty of those close to you are protected by violating the terrorists rights and liberty?


Liberty is paramount. If there is no reason for the government to search the terrorist, then there should be no search. We take risks like this every day. In order to remove them, we must sacrifice virtually all of our Liberty to the government. That's bad, and has never worked out well.

[Paul Stagg]

The commercial entity that you are contracting with (and yes, you are entering into a legally enforcable contract with terms and conditions) when you fly can impose requirements as necessary.
Indeed.

The airline can search whomever they wish.

Twice.

[Wierz]

Absolutely incorrect. We are citizens in a constitutional republic, with explict anti-majoritarian protections for the rights of individuals. We are not a classical democracy, we only employ democratic principles to some degree in electing representatives and passing some propositions. Furthermore, the court system is inherently anti-majority rule in that it can overturn laws supported by a majority of the population.

I trust the average of the people, not the average person, in matters of making law.

Edit: Damnit, I'm slow, but at least I done 'splained it.

This is slightly different than what we're talking about but when I say "the country is run" I mean the laws that are passed, propositions that are voted on - we use majority to decide if they pass or not. If they pass they become something that is enforced and in that case dictate how the country is run. I agree that individual court cases can overturn majority, but the rights those court cases use to decide right/wrong were determined by a group of people coming together and collectively agreeing on them. Isn't that the case? I think you know more about this than me so correct me if I'm wrong.

[Songsangnim]

This is incorrect. I suggest you learn a little more about the government, history, and perhaps read the Constitution.


Figures. You will be far better off, then, when the government is making your choices for you. Good luck.


But any well-run society does need laws and regulations. And as for choices, the government makes many of those for us (and enforces them) each day. Think of the simple act of driving a car. I could list at least ten things about it, that the government makes the choices for. You must have a driver's license, you must wear a seatbelt, you must drive on the left side (right if you are Brit).....and so on and so forth. I could decide that these things violate my freedom, but would be likely to be subjected to a big fine and possibly jail time depending what laws I violated and how repeatedly.

Anyway the point I am trying to make is that a society in order to function must have some laws and regulations. The question then becomes one of quantity and quality, which leads us to another one. Who decides the quantity and quality of said laws? You? Me? Him? Them? In the end it becomes something of a compromise. We accept living in a certain country even though we feel that certain laws are stifling, because we like the benefits that this country has to offer.

[MixmasterNash]

This is slightly different than what we're talking about but when I say "the country is run" I mean the laws that are passed, propositions that are voted on - we use majority to decide if they pass or not. If they pass they become something that is enforced and in that case dictate how the country is run. I agree that individual court cases can overturn majority, but the rights those court cases use to decide right/wrong were determined by a group of people coming together and collectively agreeing on them. Isn't that the case? I think you know more about this than me so correct me if I'm wrong.

Even the passage of laws is not entirely democratic. Legislatures have fillibusters, committee procedures, chamber procedures, etc. that are all anti-democratic. And furthermore, they (in this country, at least) are representatives, a fundamentally anti-democratic but practical notion.

This ain't ancient Athens where all of the (Greek, male, land owning or solider class) citizens get together and vote on everything.

[MixmasterNash]

But any well-run society does need laws and regulations. And as for choices, the government makes many of those for us (and enforces them) each day. Think of the simple act of driving a car. I could list at least ten things about it, that the government makes the choices for. You must have a driver's license, you must wear a seatbelt, you must drive on the left side (right if you are Brit).....and so on and so forth. I could decide that these things violate my freedom, but would be likely to be subjected to a big fine and possibly jail time depending what laws I violated and how repeatedly.

You'll note that you can do all of these things, and more, on private property.

I was ripping around in a Jeep Wagoneer at age 14 while working at a summer camp.

[Wierz]

I can see where this is going and lots of assumptions are being made about me and when I'll be "better off" so I'm widthdrawing from this conversation before it escalates into personal insults.

I should have known better.

[Paul Stagg]

But any well-run society does need laws and regulations. And as for choices, the government makes many of those for us (and enforces them) each day. Think of the simple act of driving a car. I could list at least ten things about it, that the government makes the choices for. You must have a driver's license, you must wear a seatbelt, you must drive on the left side (right if you are Brit).....and so on and so forth. I could decide that these things violate my freedom, but would be likely to be subjected to a big fine and possibly jail time depending what laws I violated and how repeatedly.
In my opinion, this is an excellent example of the overreaching of the government into your choices. You don't violate anyon's property rights if you don't wear a seatbelt, yet the government has decided they know better than you do. What's to stop them, then, from picking your mate, or telling you what food to eat?

So it's not OK.


Anyway the point I am trying to make is that a society in order to function must have some laws and regulations. The question then becomes one of quantity and quality, which leads us to another one. Who decides the quantity and quality of said laws? You? Me? Him? Them? In the end it becomes something of a compromise. We accept living in a certain country even though we feel that certain laws are stifling, because we like the benefits that this country has to offer.
We live in the most free nation-state on the planet, that's for sure.

The Contitution clearly sets up what the boundaries are. And we regularly ignore it. But even putting that aside - you are correct, there have to be rules. And those rules should be based on property rights. It isn't ok to take my stuff, it isn't ok to hurt me. But if you want to do something stupid that doesn't hurt me, go right ahead. If you want to do something stupid that *might* hurt me, go right ahead, but understand that there are severe ramifications to hurting me.

Simple.

[ShockBoxer]

Plato speculated that the largest population that would be feasible for (true democracy) is 3000.

There are high schools with higher populations than that, now.

[Songsangnim]

Well, the guy they executed (which is what they did - he was subdued when they put 5 in his skull) had not committed any crime that anyone is aware of.

He did not know he was running from police. They did not identify themselves to him.

But hey - he ran from the police.

That attitude is what destroys freedom. "If you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about, Comrades." So cameras, checkpoints, random searches, home searches, tracking devices are all just fine, since if you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about.

So you'll be cool when there is a police monitored camera in your bedroom to ensure you are properly executing your sexual acts (consent, protection, hygene, position)? Cause that's what you want to open the door on.

Thing is though we already have the above. Cameras (at least in Canada) are installed at various points along the highway to catch speeders. Checkpoints and random searchs are done at airports. Home searchs are generally performed by cops if they have reasonable cause to suspect say a drug operation is taking place there and have a search warrant (more on this later) and tracking devices such as electronic bracelets are placed on certain types of criminals after they leave prison. These all have been part of society for a number of years, and do not seem to have led to more of a police state.

However there are checks and balances to ensure that these things do not go too far. Reasonable cause and a search warrant are some of these checking and balancing measures when it comes to house searchs.

As for a police-monitored camera in one's bedroom, I should think the cost of installing, monitoring and maintaining tabs on some 300 million Americans would bankrupt even the deepest-pocketed government. Even the former U.S.S.R. and China were/are not capable of this.

[MixmasterNash]

In my opinion, this is an excellent example of the overreaching of the government into your choices. You don't violate anyon's property rights if you don't wear a seatbelt, yet the government has decided they know better than you do. What's to stop them, then, from picking your mate, or telling you what food to eat?

Moreover, I think there are "rights-neutral" formulations of many current regulations or restrictions that make them entirely justified. Seatbelts laws are an obvious example of a non-rights-neutral restriction, but seatbelt requirement for children may be justified as are any child endangerment laws. Similarly, requiring safety devices on new automobiles is no infringement if they are produced by corporations. Also, emissions regulations are entirely justified because pollution is a direct violation of other's rights.

On the other hand, it seems to me that aftermarket modifications should be given more leeway if done by an individual. Maybe I just like tuning cars too much. Indeed, on the road behaviors as well. I can see a clear reason to prevent driving on the wrong side of the road, but arbitrarily low speed limits are totally bogus. And don't even get me started on that totalitarian DUI checkpoint pieces of crap.

[Paul Stagg]

Forcing corporations to include things on products, though, is just as totalitarian, IMO.

I'm on the fence re; requirements for children. I just read something that indicated the NHTSB pushed through the child seat requirements ignoring research that showed they were no safer than reagular old seatbelts (unfortunately, there is not an ant-car seat lobby donating millions to politicians).

I think you should be able to do whatever you want to your car. I think speed limits are silly, and I think DUI checkpoints are a turning point in the citizens of the US becoming subjects of the US.

But then, I also think everyone has a right to eat crackers.

[MixmasterNash]

Forcing corporations to include things on products, though, is just as totalitarian, IMO.

Ah, we've found the difference! It's as simple as this for me: If corporations are a legally recognized limited liability entity, then they can be subject to any restriction that society deems fit. If they use an alternate legal structure, where liability is entirely held by the top management, then I see little reason to be able to impose regulations. E.g, if a faulty Ford vehicle kills me, the CEO is help liable for murder. Until they are willing to accept this condition, they should not have the rights of a citizen (though they do, but none of the responsibility).


I'm on the fence re; requirements for children. I just read something that indicated the NHTSB pushed through the child seat requirements ignoring research that showed they were no safer than reagular old seatbelts (unfortunately, there is not an ant-car seat lobby donating millions to politicians).

A technical note: this was specifically found for only for toddlers, not babies, for whom it has been repeatedly proven that car seats are far safer. Now, I completely agree that certain laws, while perhaps constitutional, should be rejected for reasons of simple stupidity.

[Paul Stagg]

Ah, we've found the difference! It's as simple as this for me: If corporations are a legally recognized limited liability entity, then they can be subject to any restriction that society deems fit. If they use an alternate legal structure, where liability is entirely held by the top management, then I see little reason to be able to impose regulations. E.g, if a faulty Ford vehicle kills me, the CEO is help liable for murder. Until they are willing to accept this condition, they should not have the rights of a citizen (though they do, but none of the responsibility).
My issue is more with individual rights. We aren't just talking about product liability (which if it is based on property rights, I'm fine with), we are talking about the requirement to provide a product or features on a product without alternative because the government knows better. And the ends don't justify the means - sometimes good things come of this, but that doesn't make it right.

An example: I think you should be allowed to purchase a car without airbags and seatbelts. You can't. The government has taken that choice away from you in order to protect you.

I'm not saying that if someone puts poison in cheerios they shouldn't be held accountable - they should.

[rdkraus]

Interesting new facts coming out about the London shooting, ie. no heavy coat, did not jump turnstile, was just hurrying to catch train to work.

I hope people will not argue that "running to catch your train for work" is reasonable cause to shoot you in the head.

And where did the initial dis-information come from?

[MixmasterNash]

And where did the initial dis-information come from?

The police, obviously.

[Shane]

http://www.itn.co.uk/news/1677571.html