|
|
|
|
|
|
by errantmind
1680 days ago
|
|
|
Your argument could be applied to anything you don't like. I'm sure free speech sometimes has a negative impact on family members and communities, that doesn't mean it should be limited outside where it presents a clear and present danger to others. As you acknowledge, the same goes for your speed limit example. It directly affects others and it could be argued it is necessary to protect their safety. Even though I acknowledge that, I don't think speed limits save lives over longer periods of time and could be removed. There would likely be a spike in accidents shortly after the transition but would normalize after. Having lived in several countries around the world, some with de facto no speed limits, people just avoided the left lane where the super fast people drove. I didn't see accidents everywhere. |
|
|
But isn't that specifically the challenge, in defining what's a "clear and present danger to others?"
> There would likely be a spike in accidents shortly after the transition but would normalize after.
I agree that many things do normalize over time. We create informal rules on how to interact, embedded within morals, ethics, or just expectations of how one should behave in a society. I also think sometimes rules don't informally coalesce, that we don't always resolve conflict without outside guidance and more formal negotiation.
> Having lived in several countries around the world, some with de facto no speed limits, people just avoided the left lane where the super fast people drove.
From my (cursory) understanding of at least German law, while there may not be a speed limit on some roads, those roads often have very strict laws about passing on the right, and one might get their licensed removed for doing so.