If you like driving, something to consider....

[Mojochi]

Oh no, not at all. I was just using "ban" because you were talking about the government potentially banning certain activities, not to imply that you had to stop talking about this. I largely disagree with your opinion on this issue, but you've made your point in a completely civil manner, so no issues there. Please, carry on.

That's a relief. Thank you. I'd rather not annoy anyone lol

I honestly don't think in terms of slippery slope arguments, as in "If we let them do this... they'll do this worse thing next"

I'm only citing what seems to me like similar examples (Which I know are debatable) or using analogies of what we wouldn't do, to make a comparison to the subject at hand

 

[MacLeod]

It's saying "You can only do the thing you're doing, if done the way we tell you, as was decided is in your best interest". I'll decide what's in my best interest. That's personal agency, & it's the only thing that matters in a free society, imho
You don't legally require reasonable precautions. Exercising every day is a reasonable precaution. We would never require that by law, & my suggesting that we shouldn't is in no way advocating its abandonment in practice. I do exercise every day. I do wear a motorcycle helmet. I don't think it's the government's place to mandate that I do, on the grounds that it's in my best interest. I'm not a ward of the state

If I seem ridiculous, it's only because it's a ridiculous world. Most of what you quoted of mine, drugs, alcohol, prostitution, have already had bans on them, & now a push for one on firearms. There's even local ordinances on how much unhealthy dietary choices you can purchase. I'm just following a thread here, & there's folks in this one suggesting a ban on manually operated motor vehicles, were there to be a viable automated variant.

It's not a slippery slope argument, if you're already sliding on it, Dude. It's just... other examples. I realize you're a mod here. Is this your way of saying I should pack it up now? I've said my piece, & am more than willing to do so. I'm not trying to cause disruption

Depends on where you live though for example Prostitution is legal in the UK though activities related to it such as solicitation, kerb crawling, keeping a brothel, pimping etc.. are illegal as is forced prostitution. In fact in most of Northern, central and Southern Europe it is legal to some degree.

But if you are making the argument for personal freedom, then surely you would have no objection to prostitution being made legal in the USA as surely it should be up to the individual to decide if they want to engage in such activities.

Alcohol doesn't really have bans on it has restrictions such as what age you can legally purchase it (which varies from country to country) and times it can be sold which can vary from shop to shop never mind country to country.

And I won't even touch the gun debate.

Sometimes governments need to regulate, enlightened self interests aren't always what is in the best of interests of society as a whole. Take seat belt laws mandating their use, would fewer or more people use them if use was not mandatory?

 

[Mojochi]

Alcohol doesn't really have bans on it

It did at one time in U.S. history.

But if you are making the argument for personal freedom, then surely you would have no objection to prostitution being made legal in the USA as surely it should be up to the individual to decide if they want to engage in such activities.

Yes, I'm for prostitution being legal, here in the U.S. where it's almost exclusively not

I am for the freedom to take as much of any drug you want, freedom to own & operate firearms, to abort unwanted pregnancies, up to the point where it's determined that a person is a person. It's interesting to note that I'm an atheist who exercises absolutely none of the above, but support the right to do so, just as I do the right to observe any religion, make any statement, & be secure in my person.

I am for banning an individual from doing nothing, unless it is provably causing active harm to others, by its mere presence, not to be confused with poses a potential harm, by people doing wrong with it. I am for as much individual liberty as is utterly feasible, in all matters, including choosing when & how to die

I respect everyone's freedom to do even those things that I don't like or want them doing, & people's fears are not an acceptable justification for denying such, imho

Now that that's said, I don't want to detract too much from the subject at hand lol

 

[Marynator]

Oh dear I'm so terribly sorry, I really don't want to derail this thread at all, but I'm a little upset at one place this conversation is going, I'm just going to say one thing and then I won't discuss further. Prostitution is rape, it's economic coercion, which is as valid a type of force as physical coercion. She doesn't want to have sex with you, she's only doing so because of pressure because she needs that money, which you'll only give her if she does sexual acts she wouldn't do with you otherwise. You can't have true consent where coercion's involved, I'm sorry, I know I'm going to be hated, but I have to say it, it really touches a nerve? It's such a very patriarchal construct, an idea you can "buy" women, it's exploitative and shouldn't be legal any more than indentured servitude contracts should be.

Okies I'm so very sorry, rant over, I just had to say something because I feel people might not have perspective, I promise I won't talk about it further in this thread, I don't want it to be closed?

I do totally understand @Mojochi's libertarian views, and I sort of agree in personal liberty and bodily autonomy, but I feel also we have to think of society as a whole, because each person living in our culture isn't on his own private island, right? Your actions and decisions even when only directly for yourself do affect other people? I feel too sometimes you have to protect people from exploitation, if I'm making sense? I'm not really a big fan of saying "People can make their choice to do something dangerous or stupid", well I totally disagree with that, because someone's profiting off of your lack of understanding and maybe even killing you, like with cigarettes as an example, or selling unhealthy food to children. I feel I'd agree with Mojochi so much more if we weren't a money based society, because then you wouldn't have unscrupulous people benefiting from taking advantage of others, I mean sometimes it's overt like Vikings pillaging and raping, and sometimes more subvert, like corporations pushing dangerous products? I feel one role of government is to protect its people, even sometimes from themselves, right?

lol oh dear, so in conclusion what I feel I'm saying is when we get to a point where if autonomous vehicles are proven safe enough and readily available, I don't have a problem banning manual cars from public roads. I mean, you could still drive on private property for sport, I feel it'll become like horse back riding, you know? Totally not mainstream anymore but something enthusiasts can still do?

 

[MacLeod]

People in general don't like to give away too much control or at least a sense of control.

Which would people prefer

Fully automated vehicles
Automated vehicles but the user can still take manual control whenever they please
Fully manually operated cars.

I suspect many would say the latter with the first option being the least preferred at this point in time.

 

[Mojochi]

It's not a case of wanting to drive for sport. It's a case of deserving autonomy in how I'm to travel. Offering automated options is terrific, denying my choice to do otherwise isn't. Flying my own plane is dangerous, a boat, a bike, etc... If I'm proven license worthy, to operate it in public, that is all the regulation that should ever be required of me by the government. I should still be allowed to use a horse & buggy

No one should hate you for having an opinion @Marynator

 

[Locutus of Bored]

I am for banning an individual from doing nothing, unless it is provably causing active harm to others, by its mere presence, not to be confused with poses a potential harm, by people doing wrong with it.

You can be a great driver, follow all the rules of the road, not drive impaired or infirm, be attentive of your surroundings, keep your car well-maintained, and still be in a car accident with another conscientious driver given the sheer numbers of other cars on the road and weather conditions. It's an inherently dangerous practice, and will only get worse as more and more people crowd urban areas and climate change causes more extreme weather conditions, so taking steps to mitigate that is essential, as well as having the byproduct of improving energy efficiency and traffic flow and reducing pollution.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

People in general don't like to give away too much control or at least a sense of control.

Which would people prefer

Fully automated vehicles
Automated vehicles but the user can still take manual control whenever they please
Fully manually operated cars.

I suspect many would say the latter with the first option being the least preferred at this point in time.

There is a Philip K. Dick novel called Dr. Futurity which mentions something like this (in passing). In one scene a character is on his way to work and he turns his car over to the "guide beam" which pilots the car for him. It's implied that this is something drivers can turn off or on whenever they want.

 

[Mojochi]

It's an inherently dangerous practice.

I agree. So is owning a gun, or taking drugs/alcohol, becoming a professional fighter. If you're doing those (& much more) you are willfully accepting the involved risk. Freedom, real freedom, is to accept that people are endowed with the autonomy to endanger themselves if they wish it, for whatever reason, imho, up to and including the option to end their own life

 

[Locutus of Bored]

The point is that is doesn't just affect you, though, unless you're only driving on your own property (and you have no family). The moment you take that car out onto the streets, other drivers, riders, bicyclists, pedestrians, and animals are brought into the equation with you, and you can't just cavalierly make the decision for them and say that it's all about personal freedom.

 

[Mojochi]

The point is that is doesn't just affect you, though, unless you're only driving on your own property (and you have no family). The moment you take that car out onto the streets, other drivers, riders, bicyclists, pedestrians, and animals are brought into the equation with you, and you can't just cavalierly make the decision for them.

The road. The road is the place we accept the risk. If you're on it, you are accepting it. The world will never not be dangerous

 

[MacLeod]

The road. The road is the place we accept the risk. If you're on it, you are accepting it. The world will never not be dangerous

True, which is why we regulate it with things like

Speed Limits
Signage
Safety feature in cars
Annual Health check for cars (in certain countries)

To reduce the danger.

Your freedom to endanger your life ends where those activities endanger other lives.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

The road. The road is the place we accept the risk. If you're on it, you are accepting it. The world will never not be dangerous

But if there was a mass implementation of driverless cars than that would mean that they are not accepting of that risk, or at least, of not drastically mitigating that risk. You would then be the outlier imposing your will on others and denying their freedom to get to their destination in one piece.

It was like your freedom to refuse childhood vaccination argument earlier (and yes, I know you said you are personally in favor of them). If people refuse to get their children vaccinated, that doesn't just affect them, it reduces herd immunity and increases the odds of previously defeated or drastically reduced diseases coming back. It's already happened and is getting worse, because of selfish assholes on the left and right (for different but equally stupid reasons) placing their personal freedoms above the good of the society they live in.

If people want to go live in some extreme libertarian "paradise" en masse that would most likely quickly devolve into Mad Max with an extra seasoning of measles for flavor, so be it; do whatever you want, unrestricted freedom for everyone. There's a reason why attempts at starting new libertarian nations are always small, isolated affairs, many of which end up folding fairly quickly.

But you're taking advantage of living in a vast society with rules and regulations to protect the public safety while arguing for a system that is inherently in conflict with that society. You can't say "anything goes" in a society where not everyone has agreed to that social contract. Which is not to say you should swing too far in any one direction. Personal freedoms should be respected wherever possible so you don't get situations where the government is listening to people's phone conversations without a warrant in the interest of preventing terrorism.

There is definitely the potential for abuse in how far you are willing to go in the name of safety. I just don't think regulating or limiting a privilege like driving, which we do extensively already, qualifies.

 

[Kor]

There is a Philip K. Dick novel called Dr. Futurity which mentions something like this (in passing). In one scene a character is on his way to work and he turns his car over to the "guide beam" which pilots the car for him. It's implied that this is something drivers can turn off or on whenever they want.

Somehow this calls to mind stories I've heard of drivers turning on the cruise control so they can go to sleep, because they think it's auto pilot.

Kor

 

[Locutus of Bored]

Somehow this calls to mind stories I've heard of drivers turning on the cruise control so they can go to sleep, because they think it's auto pilot.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Mojochi]

True, which is why we regulate it with things like

Speed Limits
Signage
Safety feature in cars
Annual Health check for cars (in certain countries)

To reduce the danger.

Your freedom to endanger your life ends where those activities endanger other lives.

Right, & I've said nothing about objecting to increases in regulation, or even to increased penalties for wrong doing, were there to eventually be an automated option that is somehow provably safer than manual. You can do all manner of things to increase safety or even discourage the use of manual motor vehicles, but what you don't do, what you never do, is ban something, just because you don't want someone doing it, on the basis that something wrong might occur. Something wrong might occur if I fly a plane or sail a boat, or whatever. You are born, things go right, things go wrong, & you die. That's life, but you don't dictate to the individual what they do on the basis of what might happen. If you do, you elevate the state of your society over that of the individual, & thereby make it pointless.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

It's not what might happen. It demonstrably happens, all the time, and there is endless research data on it. You don't have to wait for every individual to experience something to build a statistical model on it.

 

[Mojochi]

It's not what might happen. It demonstrably happens, all the time, and there is endless research data on it. You don't have to wait for every individual to experience something to build a statistical model on it.

In terms of an individual living their life, it is a potential happening. Another thing that demonstrably happens is rape, but it would be untenable to suggest that the statistically more likely to rape ought to be banned from being around the statistically more likely to be raped

 

[Locutus of Bored]

Holy terrible analogy, Batman!

 

[MacLeod]

.If you do, you elevate the state of your society over that of the individual, & thereby make it pointless.

We don't live an island by our self we live in a society and as such enter into a social contract to live in that society. Ideally the rights of society as a whole and individual rights should be equal.

Peoples rights to do as they please end when they start to impact others.