Quote from: SgtSpike on August 21, 2012, 11:00:25 PM

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

But why should even 95% of the population get to enforce their will on the other 5%? Simply because there are more of them? How does their right to use the land supersede the right of the minority?

Because the two cannot coexist. Either gunners get to use the playground and force people out of it who would be using it as intended, or laws are put into place for acceptable use of public property. Either speeders get to user the road and force people off of it who would be using it as intended, or laws are put into place for acceptable use of public property.

To me, it is all about intended usage. Roadways are built so that people can get from point A to point B, not so that people can use it as a racetrack. Playgrounds are built so that kids have play structures to play on, not so that gun-wielding people can use it as a shooting range. Gun shooting ranges are built for guns to be shot in, not for kids to play in. Racetracks are built for races to take place, not for people to get from point A to point B on. And laws enforcing those proper uses are absolutely legitimate and necessary (in my opinion). Otherwise, those who wished to use it for its intended purpose will be largely evicted from it via the risk forced upon them by others.

notice something interesting in your examples. Racetracks are private property. Gun ranges are private property.

The entire argument hinges on the fact that it's "public" property in the first place. Public property is a fallacious concept - more than one person cannot simultaneously, fully own any scarce resource.

If a restaurant goes out of business, the first thing you think in your head is "bad management". If a fatal car crash occurs on the highway, is "management" held accountable in any way? There is no accountability, because of the huge inherent moral hazard of the bullshit concept of "common" or "public" ownership of a scarce resource. non-scarce, you can go to town (why Intellectual "property" is absolutely garbage), but with a scarce good that cannot be instantly replicated ad infinitum, you cannot have simultaneous full ownership/control over it.

The stop gap for this huge moral hazard is mandatory insurance, which just further shifts liability for ACTUAL harm, and then behavior modification for victimless acts with penalties for violation of what can only be completely arbitrary restrictions (since customers cannot have a say over them, in any way whatsoever). What I'm saying is, I can get a $300 ticket for speeding and harming no one, but then I go out drunk driving and kill someone, and I might get a couple of years in jail and a hefty insurance premium once my privilege suspension has been revoked.

If we had a free market in roads, private property ownership and actual accountability, I would have to pay to feed, shelter, and clothe the family of the guy I just killed because I felt like driving drunk. Instead, we just play around inside of this stupid gray area where all of the moral lines get changed whenever the consensus changes, and people are robbed at gunpoint and then not held accountable for actual harm caused. Welcome to socialism and moral fascism. It's A Wonderful Life....