[Wolfman]

To be fair squirrel, the real issue is how public roads shouldn't exist in the first place.

Only a Libertarian....

Still, cops are jerks.

No they aren't.

If we got rid of the jerk attitude in general, none of this would have happened.

Impossible. Humans are assholes. End of discussion.

The OP probably wouldn't even have been driving, driving a friend who smokes, or smoking himself.

That's a hell of a leap of.... well, you're a Libertarian, so I shouldn't be surprised.

[grassroots1]

It's pretty reasonable to say that one shouldn't drive high. The height of reasonableness, even.

I don't really think it's that big a deal. Driving drunk is far worse, and I'd even argue that driving high doesn't really increase your risk of accident. I've done it many times, and if anything it has made me overly cautious.

[Wolfman]

Drunk drivers probably say the same thing.

[grassroots1]

Drunk drivers think drunk driving is worse than high driving? Probably.

[Wolfman]

I don't really think it's that big a deal. Driving stoned is far worse, and I'd even argue that driving drunk doesn't really increase your risk of accident. I've done it many times, and if anything it has made me overly cautious.

[SecretSquirrel]

To be fair squirrel, the real issue is how public roads shouldn't exist in the first place.

From one libertarian to another: This statement is absolutely ignorant.

There is absolutely no reason why a voluntary community should not have public roads or lands or buildings if that is what they want. I am beginning to think that you don't quite grasp the essence of liberty, between statements like this and your prescriptive philosophical ramblings elsewhere.

Besides; the public roads exist and there are legitimate restrictions on what can be done on them. Whether or not the roads should be public is neither here nor there when it comes to the debate surrounding this particular retard pothead.

[grassroots1]

Thanks Wolfman I understood what you were trying to say.

[Wolfman]

Just making sure you were being obtuse instead of being stupid.

[Daktoria]

From one libertarian to another: This statement is absolutely ignorant.

There is absolutely no reason why a voluntary community should not have public roads or lands or buildings if that is what they want. I am beginning to think that you don't quite grasp the essence of liberty, between statements like this and your prescriptive philosophical ramblings elsewhere.

Besides; the public roads exist and there are legitimate restrictions on what can be done on them. Whether or not the roads should be public is neither here nor there when it comes to the debate surrounding this particular retard pothead.

Well the key to your argument is "voluntary," but yea, as I first posted (even before your response to Lightman) he was driving on public roads.

Take note when I say, ":-P". It's a sign of... half sarcasm.

[Sceptic]

Animals have the right to be delicious

Driving a massive metal vehicle at high speeds on public land where there are pedestrians and animals and other vehicles while intoxicated on mind-altering substances is...downright evil. It's like playing with fire in an orphanage.

I thought you didn't care?

Also, what do you think would stop this, except perhaps the ruling of the private landlord (which depends on wherever you happen to be driving), in a free market anarchy, out of interest?

If we got rid of the jerk attitude in general, none of this would have happened. The OP probably wouldn't even have been driving, driving a friend who smokes, or smoking himself.

Wait so, do you think the political circumstances surrounding the individual will forge his personal attributes? Do you think people will be better in a stateless society, that they won't be jerks anymore?

[Daktoria]

I think we have to teach our children complete epistemological attitudes before graduating them into adulthood. Anyone who refuses to grasp epistemology completely should be held back until doing so. The rule of law itself depends upon epistemological comprehension, so it wouldn't be fair to graduate children until we're sure they understand the law anyway.

Holding them back would entail not having a right to vote, drive, drink, work, etc.

It isn't that political circumstances necessarily forge personal attributes, but that 1) there's a duty of care for a self-respecting society, and 2) they do influence the possibility production frontier. For example, taxes and subsidies can crowd out private enterprise and adjust optimal rates of consumption and savings.

[Sceptic]

I think we have to teach our children complete epistemological attitudes before graduating them into adulthood. Anyone who refuses to grasp epistemology completely should be held back until doing so. The rule of law itself depends upon epistemological comprehension, so it wouldn't be fair to graduate children until we're sure they understand the law anyway.

Holding them back would entail not having a right to vote, drive, drink, work, etc.

It isn't that political circumstances necessarily forge personal attributes, but that 1) there's a duty of care for a self-respecting society, and 2) they do influence the possibility production frontier. For example, taxes and subsidies can crowd out private enterprise and adjust optimal rates of consumption and savings.

Would they be immune from prosecution if they do not understand epistemology

[Daktoria]

Would they be immune from prosecution if they do not understand epistemology :?:

This is a very difficult issue because it goes deeper.

If a child commits a crime, the parents should be held liable because they took the risk of introducing someone into society, so they're responsible for that child's socialization. If that child never grows up, then the parents could be indefinitely liable for the child. In the case that the parents die before the child grows up, society's liability to the child would end as well. If the child wishes to continue its education, it would be liable to afford the cost of education first when graduating as an adult, but the child would have to show perpetual improvement so we know society isn't wasting resources in the mean time.

However, if the child never grows up, it shouldn't have more than minimal access to public infrastructure, so I'm not sure how far it could go to perform crimes in the first place. In the worst case scenario, there could indeed come a point where the child is exiled from society and treated as an outlaw, but it would take a tremendously rigorous procedure to get to this point (except in the most heinous of crimes).

In short, those who understand epistemology are not required to be vulnerable to those who do not. If we do make them vulnerable, it defeats the purpose of discovering what it is to be a law abiding citizen (unless we admit the rule of law's purpose is to intimidate and manipulate).