Quote from: myrkul on August 21, 2012, 01:42:57 PM

So, all this boils down to "he disobeyed words on paper, so he should be fined"

If I wrote down words on paper that you had to give fellatio to anyone who demanded, would you do it? What if I got all your neighbors to agree that you should give fellatio to anyone who demanded it? What if I got all your neighbors to agree that you should give fellatio to anyone who demanded, or be shot?

Following rules because they are the rules is no different from following orders because they are orders.

"I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do."
Robert A. Heinlein

Quote from: DannyHamilton on August 21, 2012, 01:24:35 PM

2) So if I have this straight, someone can fire their rifle into a public park full of children repeatedly, and as long as they don't actually hit any child they should be allowed to continue? Sure there is a risk that they could hit a child, but risk is not harm.

3) I don't think he was saying that the fine defrays costs of increased pollution. I think he was saying that increased pollution is a harm that is caused by speeding, and that the fine is intended to be a deterrent. For a deterrent to be successful it must be significantly higher than the associated costs. This would be the difference between a fee and a fine, wouldn't it?

2) No, because it can be reasonably assumed that you are trying to hit a kid. In fact, it would be silly to assume otherwise. However, it cannot be assumed that a speeder is trying to have an accident by speeding. If he wanted to have an accident, it's trivial to twitch the wheel and plow into oncoming traffic, or veer the other direction and start mowing down pedestrians.

3) Well, if he's harmed people by forcing them to breathe air that is more polluted, then they should receive the compensation for that, shouldn't they? The state, in collecting the fine, is stealing from the victims, in that case.

We as a society have defined an acceptable level of risk that he decided to go above, so he should be fined. Yes.

Good quote. I like that. Morally responsible. And willing to take the consequences for breaking the rules I assume.

Why can that be reasonably assumed? Hitting a kid that is? Because it would be hard to defend your "risk != harm" position otherwise?

Who's to say they're not being compensated, by enforcement officers that try to protect them from harm, just to give an example.