Quote from: myrkul on August 21, 2012, 10:39:39 PM

Quote from: DannyHamilton on August 21, 2012, 09:45:37 PM

I'd argue that fault lies with both in such a situation. I don't think that most people aren't aware that some drivers exceed the speed limit, but that doesn't prevent high speed accidents from occurring every day.

No, it doesn't. . .

That would be an opinion, not a fact. It is as easy to argue that the speeder is responsible for hitting the person who cuts them off, as it is to argue that the shooter is responsible for shooting the person that suddenly steps in front of their bullet.

Quote from: myrkul on August 21, 2012, 10:39:39 PM

Quote from: DannyHamilton on August 21, 2012, 09:45:37 PM

I'm impressed with your consistent opinion on the matter and can certainly respect that. Unfortunately I can't agree with your viewpoint. I doubt any amount of conversation will ever bring either of us around to the other's point of view on such a matter. In my opinion, society can collectively own a piece of land, and can through law determine uses for that land that they find acceptable. Perhaps it needs to be a majority, or a super majority, or 95%, but at some level, the local community should be able to protect intended use.

But why should even 95% of the population get to enforce their will on the other 5%?

Why shouldn't they get to? I can't agree that you should be allowed to turn your home in the middle of a residential community into a high explosives factory. You may be willing to accept that risk, but you shouldn't be allowed to force that risk on the people who own homes next door to yours.

Quote from: myrkul on August 21, 2012, 10:39:39 PM

The problem is the fact that the roads, and other public property, are equally owned by everyone. The speeder has just as much right to do whatever he wants on the road as anyone else. All of this is solved by making roads private property. Then you can place whatever restrictions on their use that you want. In the meantime, don't impede the man's right to use his property as he sees fit, unless he harms someone else.

No, eliminating public property doesn't solve the problem. As you can see in my example of turning a home into a high explosives factory, you still have to deal with a community being able to control the safety of its residents. Public or private, the fact remains. We live in a world populated by a multitude of people who are not exactly like ourselves. There is no way to exist peacefully in such a world if everyone chooses to live entirely selfishly. The only way it works is if there is a system in place to ensure that certain rights of some are not imposed on by others. It is my opinion, and the opinion of a controlling majority of the population, that a community has to have control over risk management. The majority will always force their will upon others if enough of them feel that the will of the others increases their risk to an unacceptable level.