[kring]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

But in the US it is the encroachment on freedom of choice...

No Government can save you from yourself.

Freedom of choice is a joke and dangerous. This ain’t the wild wild west where you can just shoot someone cause you feel like it. There are many many choices you are simply not going to be allowed to make, and that is necessary, fair and good.

If you actually read the article… it’s LOADED with choice at no point does it say anyone is forced to do anything against their will.

[pikkagtr]

Originally Posted by kring

Freedom of choice is a joke and dangerous. This ain’t the wild wild west where you can just shoot someone cause you feel like it. There are many many choices you are simply not going to be allowed to make, and that is necessary, fair and good.

If you actually read the article… it’s LOADED with choice at no point does it say anyone is forced to do anything against their will.

Slippery slope there buddy
Who gets to determine whether the choices I am "ALLOWED" to make are "necessary, fair and good" choices ?
Governments are like vampires, they need permission to enter your life, but once they're in they suck you dry

[H2O_Doc]

Originally Posted by pikkagtr

Slippery slope there buddy
Who gets to determine whether the choices I am "ALLOWED" to make are "necessary, fair and good" choices ?
Governments are like vampires, they need permission to enter your life, but once they're in they suck you dry

Humans are the most social species on the planet and social norms are part of our nature. As societies grew social norms necessarily grew into law, policies, and formal government, but we've always had something like that and it has been key to human progress.

Getting the size and reach of government IS IMPORTANT, but without governments we'd not have made it far. Not all governments are bad and nor is every act of a government bad.

[pikkagtr]

Originally Posted by H2O_Doc

Humans are the most social species on the planet and social norms are part of our nature. As societies grew social norms necessarily grew into law, policies, and formal government, but we've always had something like that and it has been key to human progress.

Getting the size and reach of government IS IMPORTANT, but without governments we'd not have made it far. Not all governments are bad and nor is every act of a government bad.

I would tend to agree
However less government is always better than more government
The reason why the 2nd exists is to protect us from people who want to protect us from ourselves
I would argue governments have held us back more so than advancing us forward
Remember when practicing science was blasphemy?
Remember when free thinking women were burned at the stake
Remember when the world was flat?
Remember WW2? When the government decides what was good for the people's Deutschland?
Yea I'd rather have ME decide for myself

[RM7]

Your freedom ends at my freedom.

[BMWILUVU]

I bet parliament has a switch to bypass this while the rest of us will have to live with it.

[H2O_Doc]

Originally Posted by RM7

Your freedom ends at my freedom.

There's a lot of details wrapped up in that for sure.

[RM7]

Originally Posted by H2O_Doc

There's a lot of details wrapped up in that for sure.

It can be simplified. We both compromise.

[pikkagtr]

Originally Posted by RM7

Your freedom ends at my freedom.

Your freedom actually ends at my right to privacy
just don't get onto my property without proper notice
lead doesn't distinguish friend from foe

[RM7]

Originally Posted by pikkagtr

Your freedom actually ends at my right to privacy
just don't get onto my property without proper notice
lead doesn't distinguish friend from foe

lolwut? You are saying you would kill someone who gets confused and gets on your property by mistake? That's exactly why your freedom to kill people interferes with other people's right to not be killed. There are circumstances where you can take deadly action, like in some states defending property or when necessary for self defense...but just because someone is "on your property"...that is sick. That's exactly why we have to have laws, lawyers, police, etc. Living in a civilized society is all about compromising so two or more parties both get something they can live with.

[pikkagtr]

Originally Posted by RM7

lolwut? You are saying you would kill someone who gets confused and gets on your property by mistake? That's exactly why your freedom to kill people interferes with other people's right to not be killed. There are circumstances where you can take deadly action, like in some states defending property or when necessary for self defense...but just because someone is "on your property"...that is sick. That's exactly why we have to have laws, lawyers, police, etc. Living in a civilized society is all about compromising so two or more parties both get something they can live with.

How would I know the difference? Is the onus on the property owner or the trespasser ?
I'd rather be judged by a jury of 12 than be carried by 6

[RM7]

Originally Posted by pikkagtr

How would I know the difference? Is the onus on the property owner or the trespasser ?
I'd rather be judged by a jury of 12 than be carried by 6

Lets take that to the conclusion, the person that may be injured, confused or looking for help that wandered onto property should just shoot the property owner first, you know, to be safe.

[pikkagtr]

Originally Posted by RM7

Lets take that to the conclusion, the person that may be injured, confused or looking for help that wandered onto property should just shoot the property owner first, you know, to be safe.

I trust my aim over a confused, injured and armed intruder
I'll be fine
thanks for your concern

[GuidoK]

Some big words here from the keyboard warriers...
Luckily IRL most people are different...

[KevinGS]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

The whole thread just went stupid...

Lol.

Someone mentioned this being posted before, but that thread got shut down. Now we see why...

[RM7]

Some people can’t see that compromise is necessary so everyone can have a reasonable amount of freedom. We can debate to what extent that should exist and what it constitutes, but to argue absolutes (“I have absolute freedom!”) is ridiculous and any sane person knows that cannot exist outside of owning your own private nation-island. So when it comes to a law like this European one, it may go too far, but the idea that you can just do whatever you want at any time is equally flawed, because your freedom ends at my freedom, or privacy, you don’t have an absolute right to total privacy.

[RM7]

Originally Posted by pikkagtr

I trust my aim over a confused, injured and armed intruder
I'll be fine
thanks for your concern

So better to kill someone that’s not a threat to your life or property?

[Quadruple VANOS]

West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency ruling by SCOTUS requires regulations like this to go through legislative process so they're accountable to voters. That's effectively a death nail for this type of crap in the United States. Americans won't stand for it.

[OkieSnuffBox]

Originally Posted by pikkagtr

I would tend to agree
However less government is always better than more government
The reason why the 2nd exists is to protect us from people who want to protect us from ourselves
I would argue governments have held us back more so than advancing us forward
Remember when practicing science was blasphemy?
Remember when free thinking women were burned at the stake
Remember when the world was flat?
Remember WW2? When the government decides what was good for the people's Deutschland?
Yea I'd rather have ME decide for myself

Remember when the Cuyahoga river regularly caught on fire until a government agency was created to stop companies from dumping waste in an irresponsible manner just because it was cheaper/easier?

That's why people are for reasonable regulation, this all or nothing attitude shows a profound lack of nuance.

Originally Posted by Quadruple VANOS

West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency ruling by SCOTUS requires regulations like this to go through legislative process so they're accountable to voters. That's effectively a death nail for this type of crap in the United States. Americans won't stand for it.

What? That case was about carbon dioxide emissions from existing coal and natural gas fired power plants.

It has literally nothing to do with vehicles.



The amount of frittata in this thread is quite amazing.

[Quadruple VANOS]

Originally Posted by OkieSnuffBox

What? That case was about carbon dioxide emissions from existing coal and natural gas fired power plants.

It has literally nothing to do with vehicles.



The amount of frittata in this thread is quite amazing.

Your limited understanding of the situation is very clear.

The impact of the prevailing opinion is regulations that impact society broadly need to go through the legislative process so they're accountable to voters.

Yes, the case involved the EPA attempting to regulate coal-fired power generation out of existence; and how they don't have the power to do so without a clear directive from the peoples representatives. This legal precedent would ABSOLUTELY apply to say, the DOT regulating mandatory speed limiting technology. Because society changing regulations like speed limiting technology would have to win the approval of voters, it will never happen in the United States.

West Virginia v EPA was a HUGE win for democracy and reigning in out of control bureaucracy.

Anyone that's interested can find the judgement at the link below.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...-1530_n758.pdf

[pikkagtr]

Originally Posted by OkieSnuffBox

Remember when the Cuyahoga river regularly caught on fire until a government agency was created to stop companies from dumping waste in an irresponsible manner just because it was cheaper/easier?

That's why people are for reasonable regulation, this all or nothing attitude shows a profound lack of nuance.



What? That case was about carbon dioxide emissions from existing coal and natural gas fired power plants.

It has literally nothing to do with vehicles.



The amount of frittata in this thread is quite amazing.

Sure thing the government should do their job and protect me from corporate scum that poison the water ways
NOT how fast I am ALLOWED to drive on a deserted road
Also we need to bring back dueling
If 2 consenting adults can shoot each other to settle a dispute , our freedoms have been eroded