Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (26246)	9/7/2001 5:36:35 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Don't tell me they can't afford it. I won't. That's not the problem. The problem is that any police activity brings traffic to a stop and there is a public cost to that. Also, many of the highways around here no longer have shoulders, which have been converted into traffic lanes, so there's no place to pull anyone over. They have emergency numbers you can call if you see a really reckless driver, like maybe weaving in and out at 120, which I see every couple of trips, and they will enter the highway to find him. Anything less than that is considered safe enough, I guess. I don't think they have a real choice to ticket people like me who are just trying to go with the flow and keep out of trouble. I don't fault them for their policy. I only wish they would raise the speed limit so that respect for the law wouldn't be compromised. Karen

To: The Philosopher who wrote (26246)	9/7/2001 5:39:16 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 82486

but to insist that government enforce even the small laws to engender respect for law generally. If the government enforces unjust, or even merely grossly stupid laws with greater efficency it would not increase my respect for the law. It would however be likely to decrease my breaking of the law which is probably your main aim. In this case there other other laws, even other traffic laws, that I think call out for stronger enforcement a lot more then the 55mph speed limit. Laws against tailgaiting, or going through red lights come to mind. Its not dangerous to drive 56mph or even 76mph on a reasonably open interestate, but tailgaiting and running red lights is. Don't tell me they can't afford it... could bring in $2,700. That's enough to pay his salary, the judge's salary, the cost of the cop car, the cost of the jail and courtroom and all the other ancillary costs, and leave plenty left over for funding vastly underfunded social programs. Everybody wins except the law breakers, and they deserve to lose. 1 - Some going a few miles over the speed limit on an interstate doesn't "deserve to lose". 2 - If all the investments in new cops and judges actually does deter speeders then the revenue declines and these extra law enforcement costs have to either be paid for by general taxes or the cops and judges have to be laid off the extra equipment sold (for whatever it will bring) ect. If the speeders are not detered then you just have a new tax, a tax on speeders where the majority of the proceeds go to the insurance companies. 3 - Everybody doesn't win even after exludeing the speeders (and the speeders are 90% of the drivers in many areas so your not just exludeing a few) you have more resources going to the government and less being under private control. I don't consider that a win except perhaps in cases where you only have a very minimal government and this minimal government has had problems raising enough cash for the most basic government functions. We haven't had a very limited government in the US for a very long time. Tim