Ok, so some things in the golden era were not too cool...

There was a 35 MPH speed limit during WW2. It was not hard to enforce when everyone was driving on bald tires and rationed to 3 gallons a week.

We're in for some BIG changes in this regard, I suspect. Just a few years ago I believed the self-driving car was coming, but I doubted it was coming so quickly for me to live long enough to see anything but the most rudimentary experimental versions. Now I'm not so sure.

tonyb said:

In that hallway was a poster showing a photo of a thoroughly mangled motorcycle and a caption reading "Buy Your Son a Motorcycle for His Last Birthday."

To the larger issue, VL, the consequences of individual choices are rarely limited to that individual. I like to be left to my own devices as well. And I like to think that my own judgment can be trusted. Don't we all? But unless we live as hermits, we all see people making poor decisions that negatively affect others. I see it every day. That's among the reasons I am not so absolutist as I once was. There's something to be said for most any political perspective, and there's something to be said against it. Reality does not bend to any person's vision of how things ought to be.

Click to expand...

That poster helps nobody. Instead of painting motorcycles as death traps, they should be trying to raise awareness that cars and trucks are very heavy, very large projectiles which are capable of very high speeds. Lizzie has mentioned before about how cars these days are equipped with cup holders, aux inputs, TV screens, and any manner of distractions. I know a few people who can leave these gadgets to their appropriate time, and many more who can't. Too many people simply drive like morons. I went with my Aunt to test drive a Harley Nightster she wants to get. On the way, she rode every vehicle in front of her and said "if they would just speed up I wouldn't have to follow so close". She never planned ahead, and always hit the brakes at the last second. I got ****** and told her she would kill herself if she rode a motorcycle like that, and that she doesn't "have" to do anything. Eventually, she pulled over and I drove the rest of the day. That is the mentality for allot of drivers today, and while laws can't change that, simply not tolerating it as a people will do wonders.

DWI is a major problem here too. The law clearly says it is illegal, but judges have let some people off upwards of ten proven DWIs. There are billboards everywhere with "enDWI" on them, and violent commercials on the TV too. They do nothing. What has stopped DWIs is when I throw the keys of an attempted drunk driver on a roof then break their nose. Harsh? Maybe, but turning a car unto a loose wrecking ball which kills through incompetence is more harsh.

I don't dream of a society of grumpy anti-social hermits, I dream of a society where people aren't forced to do anything. I'm not against charity, some of my family say I give too much to the homeless in my area. What I am against is the kind of "charity" where you are forced to give with a gun in your ribs. Live and let live. How much of a negative effect do a person's choices have? Is it inconveniencing you as much to avoid that persons actions as it would be for them to be forced to stop? Think of smoking bans. True, it is nice for many people to not have to inhale smoke when they enter a smoking building, but is the inconvenience of simply not going to that place or putting a filtering mask on equal to having to go outside in the sweltering heat or freezing cold to smoke? What if the smokers said the non smokers could go outside, and had the larger numbers? Make a law either way and the owner of the property loses the choice of whether to allow smoking or not, and if he can no longer choose to allow smoking on his property, does he really own the place in the traditional sense of ownership?

LizzieMaine said:

I got cut off at an intersection the other day in my '41 Dodge by some clown in a vintage British sportscar doing about 70 in a 40mph zone. *And we were the only two cars on the road.*

My passenger pointed out that he yelled something at me as he passed, but fortunately the roar of my own 85 hp engine drowned him out.

When I'm dictator guys like that will be sentenced to drive a '48 Crosley, painted pink.

Click to expand...

Had to Google the Crosley. The headlights and front end, reminded me of a Blackpool Tram.

Who or what do you intend to paint pink? The guy or the car?

Vintage lover said:

...

I don't dream of a society of grumpy anti-social hermits, I dream of a society where people aren't forced to do anything. I'm not against charity, some of my family say I give too much to the homeless in my area. What I am against is the kind of "charity" where you are forced to give with a gun in your ribs. Live and let live. How much of a negative effect do a person's choices have? Is it inconveniencing you as much to avoid that persons actions as it would be for them to be forced to stop? Think of smoking bans. True, it is nice for many people to not have to inhale smoke when they enter a smoking building, but is the inconvenience of simply not going to that place or putting a filtering mask on equal to having to go outside in the sweltering heat or freezing cold to smoke? What if the smokers said the non smokers could go outside, and had the larger numbers? Make a law either way and the owner of the property loses the choice of whether to allow smoking or not, and if he can no longer choose to allow smoking on his property, does he really own the place in the traditional sense of ownership?

Click to expand...

Are you serious? In your world, would it be legal for a private business owner -- a restaurateur, say -- to deny service to short people? Or persons of color? Just let the free market deal with it? Ask southern black folks how well those market forces worked for them prior to the laws "imposed" upon those "whites only" business owners by that overbearing federal government.

The irony is that in the libertarian absolutist's world, there would be no laws against slavery, because, well, that might violate the slaveholder's property rights.

Vintage lover said:

This is the kind of thing I had in mind when I used the word cruel. For some reason, somebody referring to me as an "organ donor" makes me a bit angry. There are a whole lot more car and truck drivers on the road who are unfit to adequately operate their two ton projectiles then there are unfit riders. I'll bet they are a bigger danger too...

Click to expand...

Although I have no evidence to support this, I believe the "organ donor" and "donor cycle" jokes are the result of the number of injured motorcyclists that Emergency Room caregivers treat and the severity of their injuries, not a commentary on the capabilities of those patients with regards to the operation of their preferred choice of vehicle. On any given day I see a number of motorcyclists who ride safely and responsibly, and a number who ride foolishly, but I can also say the same of people driving vehicles with four or more tires.

Vintage lover said:

...Laws won't make anybody stop doing anything or suddenly create responsibility; only good parenting can do that...

Click to expand...

Speaking from personal experience, even the best parenting, societal influences, and/or laws won't and can't stop an individual who is bent on self-destruction regardless of what their "poison of choice" might be.

It doesn't matter that there are more incompetent car drivers than incompetent motorcycle riders, even if that is true. The car always has the advantage in terms of stability, kinetic energy, etc. Unless you can change the laws of physics, and you can't, there will always be a higher proportion of organ donors among motorcyclists. Whether the doctors should make "jokes" about an observed reality is another issue.

(Side note to LizzieM: You're more Hobbes than Calvin - I'm more Calvin than Hobbes - perhaps we should team up. )

rjb1 said:

...Whether the doctors should make "jokes" about an observed reality is another issue...

Click to expand...

In most respects healthcare is no different from any other profession. In every occupation I've had there were any number of inside jokes that would likely have offended someone if they were to become public knowledge, so I can't begrudge doctors and nurses for doing the same. Besides, most people in the medical and mortuary professions use humor as a means of protecting themselves psychologically from the things they often experience in their careers--things most of us don't want to hear or know about--so I'm willing to cut them a little slack.

tonyb said:

Are you serious? In your world, would it be legal for a private business owner -- a restaurateur, say -- to deny service to short people? Or persons of color? Just let the free market deal with it? Ask southern black folks how well those market forces worked for them prior to the laws "imposed" upon those "whites only" business owners by that overbearing federal government.

The irony is that in the libertarian absolutist's world, there would be no laws against slavery, because, well, that might violate the slaveholder's property rights.

Click to expand...

Slavery is a despicable system which completely disregards the individual's rights as a whole. In a libertarian society, there would be major laws against slavery; among them being laws against kidnapping, false imprisonment, forced labor, assault, and many others. As for the south in the 1960's and back, segregation was not a free market decision; it was the law. Granted, there was an undeniable racist atmosphere during that time, but if anyone decided to attempt integration, the police would step in. Racist segregation was the official policy of the military for a long time as well. Eventually Truman threw that policy in the trash with Executive Order 9981 which finally desegregated the armed forces.

I would argue that the efforts of Dr. Martin Luther King and the greater movement he was part of did more to truly integrate races in the United States than the 1964 Civil Rights Act ever did. The civil rights movement didn't stop in the courts but extended to the hearts and souls of Americans which is where the real change started and continued. Sit downs, strikes, marches, and protests tend to be bad for business, as they should be.

Sent from my XT1030 using Tapatalk

So you don't favor the Civil Rights Act, then?

You have given me no reason to think you are racist, or anything but a fair-minded person. But those sit-ins you allude to? They were clearly a violation of the shopkeeper's property rights. To which we would say, with benefit of hindsight: too effing bad. What do you expect people to do, put up with this gross unfairness indefinitely?

The question remains: Would you favor a legal system that allowed a restaurant owner to refuse service to that hypothetical short person? Or a person of color? If not, then it would appear there are limits to your position. I would take that as a good sign, just as I take as a good sign your limiting property rights not to include owning persons.

Seeing how you are concerned for "the individual's rights as a whole," well, does that extend to his or her right to equal access to, say, a meal in a restaurant? Or to employment opportunities? Or should a would-be employer be free not to hire a person for whatever reason he pleases? (Some people do indeed take that position, by the way.)

Thing is, there are considerations other than "individual" rights, and sometimes those other considerations trump. Me, I'm a big believer in individual rights, too, but I'm nowhere near so strident about it as I once was.

Vintage lover said:

...

I don't dream of a society of grumpy anti-social hermits, I dream of a society where people aren't forced to do anything. ..

Click to expand...

All laws force people to do (or not do) something. All laws restrict freedom. So you are left to reconcile your above statement with your assertion that ...

"In a libertarian society, there would be major laws against slavery; among them being laws against kidnapping, false imprisonment, forced labor, assault, and many others."

Those "major laws" would have enforcement mechanisms, right? They would have to, to be effective, wouldn't they? Wouldn't that make them forceful?

LizzieMaine said:

In any case, never mind "iegal" or "illegal." I think what's more important is for intoxication of any kind to be culturally and socially unacceptable. The damage drugs have caused in modern society is even worse.

Click to expand...

If you can figure out a way to convince society as a whole that intoxication is culturally and socially unacceptable, I would applaud your efforts and be on board with you 100%. Not saying it would be wholly possible, but we have managed to do that to a great extent with cigarettes. So who knows? However, I think the problem you point out with drugs in modern society stands as proof positive that simply outlawing something does not work.

LizzieMaine said:

It's always amused me how vigorously some people on this forum will condemn others for wearing a baseball cap to church, or in a restaurant, something which is, deep down, of absolutely no lasting harm or consequence to anyone -- but will find all sorts of ways of rationalizing or even defending practices which cause real, substantial harm to millions of people every day.

Click to expand...

Why do I feel that is at least partially addressed at me? Just because I'm against outlawing something, does not mean I support that behavior. What I support is the individual's freedom to make their own choices. I'm against draconian and overreaching laws that have little to no real effect on the problems they seek to address. But as you say, change society's mind. Therein is the key, then there's no need to depend on a law. That's a great cop out on the government's part: See a problem? Throw another law on the books. Arrest more people and further tax our already overburdened court and penal systems. Much easier than addressing the real issue behind the problem.

Make no mistake, I find those who seek their happiness in any form of intoxication to be very weak-minded individuals. I say that as someone who grew up in a household where both parents smoked tobacco, and both my paternal and (real) maternal grandfather were alcoholics. But I have never smoked cigarettes, and have never taken more than a very occasional social drink. Yes, I might have smoked a joint or two in my younger years, but have always found those who depend on it to get through their day to be absolutely pathetic. I consider myself a very ordinary person, so if I can refrain from making any of those things a daily crutch, so can anybody. Like I said, weak individuals.

Lastly, here is a thought that I have just now considered: That the rise of the drug culture has pretty much gone hand-in-hand with the casualization of American fashions. So, maybe there is more of a correlation between intoxication and wearing a baseball to church than you might think.

tonyb said:

All laws force people to do (or not do) something. All laws restrict freedom. So you are left to reconcile your above statement with your assertion that ...
"In a libertarian society, there would be major laws against slavery; among them being laws against kidnapping, false imprisonment, forced labor, assault, and many others."
Those "major laws" would have enforcement mechanisms, right? They would have to, to be effective, wouldn't they? Wouldn't that make them forceful?

Click to expand...

There is an old saying: "Your freedom ends where my nose begins." Libertarianism is about personal freedoms - for people to be free to make their own choices in their own lives, their own bodies, their own well-being and their pursuit of happiness - freedoms that do not directly or adversely affect another's right to do the same. I think we can all agree that would not include the freedom to rob, rape, or murder someone else, nor to own a slave. I believe that owning a slave would start to encroach on someone else's freedom.

Those who do not believe some laws are necessary are not Libertarians, they are Anarchists.

Matt Crunk said:

...

Lastly, here is a thought that I have just now considered: That the rise of the drug culture has pretty much gone hand-in-hand with the casualization of American fashions. So, maybe there is more of a correlation between intoxication and wearing a baseball to church than you might think.

Click to expand...

Surely you know that correlation is not causation. The decline in cigarette smoking has occurred more or less simultaneously with the "casualization of American fashions" too.

Matt Crunk said:

There is an old saying: "Your freedom ends where my nose begins." Libertarianism is about personal freedoms - for people to be free to make their own choices in their own lives, their own bodies, their own well-being and their pursuit of happiness - freedoms that do not directly or adversely affect other's right to do the same. I think we can all agree that would not include the freedom to rob, rape, or murder someone else, nor to own a slave.

Click to expand...

Of course. But does it also mean that when the neighbor's pursuit of happiness involves loud late night parties and a fleet of inoperable vehicles in his yard that my rights -- to peaceful enjoyment of my own life, and to undiminished property values -- aren't being violated?

The consideration has always been where one's nose begins. And how "directly or adversely" another's rights are violated. A violation may well be "indirect" but still quite profound.

I have been refused service in restaurants because I showed up on a motorcycle. Had no problem with that, the restaurant is private property, they can do as they please.

Have also been refused access to certain parts of this web site thanks to my sexual orientation (male) which seems even more bizarre, but again, this is private property and if I don't like it, I can go elsewhere.

Really? Was it because you showed up on a motorcycle? Or did your motorcycling attire not meet the restaurant's dress code?

tonyb said:

Surely you know that correlation is not causation. The decline in cigarette smoking has occurred more or less simultaneously with the "casualization of American fashions" too.

Click to expand...

I don't know about that, Man. You start to smoke a little dope and before you know it that weekly haircut doesn't seem so important anymore. Pretty soon you've traded your suit and tie for a tie-dye tee shirt and jeans, your wingtips for birkenstocks, and your old-spice for patchouli oil.

You seriously don't think drugs played a part in the terminal casualization of American society? It all started with the '60s counter-culture, of which of course drugs played no small part.

tonyb said:

Really? Was it because you showed up on a motorcycle? Or did your motorcycling attire not meet the restaurant's dress code?

Click to expand...

This was in the seventies. I was in my twenties, clean shaven, short hair (by the standards of the times) dressed in jeans, plaid shirt and suede jacket and carrying a Bell helmet. Dressed at least as well as the other patrons. Riding a perfectly stock BSA 650 twin. They would have served me without question if I showed up in a car. This happened more than once.

One time I was accompanied by a 70 year old man, also on a motorcycle, and it was the same story. This was at a time when the Hell's Angels and Satan's Choice were getting a lot of press and motorcycles were not popular.

Oddly enough, in those days I never had any trouble with the cops who were civil and professional. These days they all seem to be of sub normal intelligence and addicted to Rambo movies and a lot harder to deal with.