Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Did I wrong this person?

Rate this topic


BRG253

Recommended Posts

If there is enough of a market for alternatives A versus B, then it would be impossible to reach a rational conclusion as to what things "would be like". In a free society, the owner might decide to impose rule C, for whatever reason, and as the owner, he has the right to use his judgment.

One has to be wary of the notion that "if this were private, the owner would make this particular rule (the one that I think he ought to make)". [...] A private owner will not make all rules the way I like them and a private owner may not even have only good and logical rules at any point in time.

The fact that the government does something that it should not do does not negate the fact that the government does own the roads and it is the government, not the individual student, errh, driver, who decides what the rules "really" are.

Points noted, but I haven't meant to imply that one should go "willy-nilly" on the road because the government, which shouldn't own them, is making the rules. For one thing, from the law's POV, the government literally can make you follow its rules (this is the extent to which I agree with you, David, on the government making the rules) if you get caught breaking them, so one should at least keep that in mind. Secondly, one is morally obligated to one's self to try to be as civilized as possible, since, even under this current government ownership, the roads always involve fellow citizens and, as David pointed out, to be a citizen means to be civilized.

[...]let me quote from CUI's "The Cashing-In: The Student 'Rebellion'", where the topic is doing bad thing on state university property.

"In any undertaking or establishment involving more than one man, it is the owner or owners who set the rules and terms of appropriate conduct; the rest of the participants are free to go elsewhere and seek different terms, if they do not agree. There can be no such thing as the right to act on whim, to be exercised by some participants at the expense of others."

Concerning this quote, it is not possible to go elsewhere and seek different terms because the government owns all of the roads.

Here is an analogy. The government has built and continues to fund universities through taxation, and taxation is clearly improper. That fact does not legitimize open season by way of forgiving all sorts of immoral behavior -- theft, forgery, cheating on exams -- by appeal to the fact that it is a government university. You cannot legitimize plagiarism by saying "I'm not bound by these arbitrary rules that I don't agree with, because they might not exist in a purely laissez-faire society". You cannot legitimize forging a diploma which you did not earn (because you did not complete the requirements) on the grounds that "I disagree with these degree requirements, and because this is a government institution, I don't have to do anything that I don't agree with since the university has no right to impose rules, which is because the state has no right to tax citizens".

The system is already in failure and disarry. With the university analogy, we can see how legitimate a degree has become under government funding. As a student, I would try to get as much value out of the education as possible, but it is already corrupt to the degree that the government is involved or has influence. On roads, I do not trust the government rules to keep me safe, but instead use my own. Sometimes those align, often they don't.

The reasons for license suspension typically include drunk driving, reckless driving or a half-dozen speeding tickets. IMO these are the type of conditions under which a person would rationally be physically barred from entering a private road. They do not include anything like "guilty of insider trading", "driving without a tie" or "tax evasion" which would not be rationally related to driving. Thus in principle, one should follow these rules, since they are established by the owner, they are not irrational ("I don't like it" doesn't render a rule irrational), and in a civilized society, interactions between individuals follow principles (known as rules)

I don't think the principle follows here. On one hand you are saying that the rules may be rational and so one should follow them, but that you need to decide for yourself, and I agree. On the other hand (previously), you are saying that because the government owns the roads, all rules should be followed on principle. I don't agree with that. For one, there is a major monetary conflict of interest which would not otherwise exist. Before that, however, government roads should not exist and cannot be avoided, and there is no proper standard to judge their rules against besides your own judgement, even if one says that the very same rules might exist under private roads

.

(i.e. you having violated some other important law or broken more minor ones enough times to make the state believe that you are not fit to operate a vehicle, which can easily harm other individuals with improper use, until you learn to get it together).

The state is primarily concerned with ticket revenue, not road safety.

He has the right to agree or disagree with it. However he clearly acted against his own rational self-interest in this endeavor, multiple times. If he felt that the punishments placed on him for a law he disagreed with were inappropriate, then he should have challenged it in court.

"Challenge in court" doesn't apply to traffic tickets. The process is completely corrupt, everyone at that level of government knows that tickets are a significant source of revenue, and to challenge that would be political career suicide. I asked a cop about ticket quotas, and he said there is constant, heavy pressure to issue tickets. They get "talked to" if they go a day without issuing a ticket. You can choose to "legitimately" oppose the system with probable failure, or you can try to avoid the system altogether on your own terms. If you get community service, my advice is to do what the OP tried to do. My community service was through a direct government road cleaning crew out of the courthouse itself, and half of the days consisted of being driven around on personal errands for the government supervisors, such as to Rite Aid, or flat out sitting for hours hidden at the "recycle" hut, instead of doing any work at all. It's corrupt all the way around.

The solution to this narrow problem does not depend on whether the way we came to need a solution was right or wrong. It was wrong, but that doesn't change the fact that we need a solution, at least for the time being. So we might as well forget what caused the problem, and (to even better crystallize what the problem is) imagine nothing caused it. Let's imagine roads are a naturally occurring phenomenon, and they have no owner. For some naturally occurring reason they are impossible to own.

In that situation (which is our situation, since it is, at least for the time being, a given that we cannot have privately owned roads), the US as a nation needs a solution. And that solution can only be a legal one, through a government which must pass laws to save lives. They are, in this narrow context, legitimate laws, since they are aimed at protecting people's right to life. The alternative (not having them) would be awful.

It is not right to ignore what caused the problem, as that is the whole context. Why would we follow the rules imposed upon us by the problem itself?

Also, I pointed out earlier that other laws would cover otherwise illegal activity on the roads under private ownership, but those laws already exist under government ownership now.

Edited by JASKN
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On roads, I do not trust the government rules to keep me safe, but instead use my own. Sometimes those align, often they don't.
I'm curious then what government rules of the road you think are inadequate w.r.t. your safety? It is true that people do some things biking that pose a risk to my safety yet which are not illegal (the damn bikes spring to mind immediately, also the practice of driving while clueless, idem texting while driving in certain locations). If anything, traffic rules err on the side of excess concern for safety.
On the other hand (previously), you are saying that because the government owns the roads, all rules should be followed on principle. I don't agree with that. For one, there is a major monetary conflict of interest which would not otherwise exist. Before that, however, government roads should not exist and cannot be avoided, and there is no proper standard to judge their rules against besides your own judgement, even if one says that the very same rules might exist under private roads.
The issue here seems to be whether & when to follow the rules (and I mean that in a broad context, not just limited to government roads, but all social interactions). One possible principle is "if and only if you judge the rule to be in your best interest". That cannot be correct, because it reduces to the absurdity that you can ignore a "no trespassing" sign on a man's property in case you conclude that you can trespass with doing him any actual harm, and trespassing shortens your trip substantially. Another possible principle is "if and only if you judge the rule to be in your best interest and the rule pertains to property where you face a real alternative between 'providers'". That could set government roads apart from government universities, but it would also mean that one needn't follow the rules established by a private power company, in those cases where there is no alternative -- my neighborhood (electricity is not a legislated monopoly and real alternatives actually exist, in some areas -- a block away from us).

I don't understand how you get from a monetary conflict of interest (you have to explain what this conflict is) plus the fact that governments should not run roads of levy taxes to the conclusion that one needn't follow the rules established by the owner. I'm proposing a simple principle, that one should follow the rules. You're countering with something more complicated, but I don't understand what. I know you're not saying "Don't follow the rules, follow your own judgment"; but I don't get what you are saying. In fact, it seems to me that one (you) could equally well accept my principle, and posit a principle that the government should not make rules, when it comes to roads (not literally just roads, but in those cases where you reject the legitimacy of governmentally-set rules).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason for the suspension was repeated moving violations, one of which was a reckless driving conviction (the conviction itself did not cause the license suspesion, the conviction in conjunction with several tickets did). I sincerely regret the reckless driving act.

Edited by BRG253
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I sincerely regret the reckless driving act.

Then why didn't you prove that you regretted it? Am I missing something here??

The state is primarily concerned with ticket revenue, not road safety.

Am I misinterpreting your position or are you appealing to pragmatism in your last post. The system is corrupt so to hell with it?

Edited by CapitalistSwine
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joint-use property, like roads, require cooperation, driving on the right side, for instance. The roads are safe only because people know of and follow the rules. While there are bad rules, recognizing even those may be important, because they set the expectations of others on the road as to how your vehicle can be expected to behave.

Obviously, then, if you make up and follow your own, assuming they violate the established ones, you are creating risk, even if your rules would, if instituted, be better.

Most people are too casual about the rules of grammar, thinking that in the present case, a comma, for example, won't make any difference. But grammar, which is crucial to thought and language, is just rules and conventions we set. If we don't also follow them, they are eroded, and everyone's ability to communicate, and even their ability to reason, is eroded. There is nothing but the combined effect of individuals' following or violating grammar to cause grammar to exist.

Justice is a man-made thing. Most people are concerned with justice only when it is coming their way. They are more or less indifferent to being the source and cause of justice. But justice only happens if someone makes it happen, out of regard for it on principle.

Degenerate cultures disregard their own structures and values. They cut corners, indulge in any excess, and license provocative abuses of value and virtue. They flaunt the rules in order to feel superior. And ours is, of course, a degenerating culture.

One can always find excuses for breaking rules. Slip-shod thinking will let you believe something someone does but shouldn't means you are exempt from what you find it inconvenient to follow. Maturity consists, in large part, of achieving the broad perspective on civilization/society/culture such that you recognize legitimate rules as such. Honorable men are those who act on principles, who are not just willing to act on principles, but desire to do so. They are eager to put justice in the world, to make the effort to speak and write clearly, to act in public so as to foster cooperative use of public spaces, etc. (and, if those were private, they would be the ones who were scrupulous in adhering to the contractual rules.)

I learned from Objectivism to understand, and value, the man-made. The Objectivist view of man's life is an affirmation of his efficacy. The Objectivist view of living is that it is purposeful. A hero doesn't regard himself as involved in a struggle against society, but as progressing towards achieving his purpose. He doesn't look at others as powerful and pernicious. He doesn't think of Toohey at all. He is preoccupied with his purposes. He knows that his happiness depends on himself. He knows that living remains to him even if he is reduced to cutting stone in a quarry.

Mindy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...