🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <33B15226.20CA@earthlink.net>,
Daniel Modlin  <dmodlin@earthlink.net> wrote:
>mark carroll wrote:
>> In article <33B0408A.6BCA@earthlink.net>,
>> Daniel Modlin  <dmodlin@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> (snip)
>> >Your forgetting about unjust laws,the better that police get at
>> >enforcing privacy invasive laws, the more our privacy will be invaded.
>> (snip)
>> 
>> You're against photographing criminals-in-the-act as evidence because
>> of an invasion of privacy?!? 
>
>It depends on the "criminal" and the "crime"he commits.  There are many
>unjust laws out there that i dont care to see enforced.

That's fine, but the way to deal with it is _not_ to cheer when
they're broken. You can't go allowing people to ignore laws they don't
agree with - if laws aren't enforced, you have anarchy. If you think a
law's unjust, lobby to get it repealed. Ultimately, the people control
what laws are made, and if most people think that a law is needed then
just maybe you're wrong in thinking it's unjust? If it truly were
unjust, there'd be more politicians elected who were in favour
of abolishing it.

(snip)
>I wasn't talking about laws regarding red lights,and as for speeding
>laws,hooray for Montana for repealing their ineffectual speed limit.

Well, I just mentioned the red-light laws because I wondered if you'd
construe that photographing as an invasion of privacy too. It's a
similar situation: driving in a manner that's unreasonably likely to
cause injury or death.

Why are speed limits unjust, then? If you remove them, mortality rates
on the roads go up significantly (at least they seem to in Germany,
ISTR) - is enforcing speed limits to keep mortality rates down unjust?
Surely people have the right to relatively safe travel?

-- Mark