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.
2) And if the shooter was aiming at targets that he set up on the opposite side of the park and successfully hitting the targets, then it becomes acceptable? Since it can no longer be assumed that the shooter is
3) Perhaps. Perhaps not. It doesn't change the fact that the fine is intended to be a deterrent against the causing of cause harm.