[card_zero]

Some kind of exoskeletons to control people just walking around in public, too. Stop them doing bad things.

Wait, no, that's an excessively extreme level of control, while seatbelt laws are an acceptable level of control because, actually I don't know why, but anyway speed limiters are somewhere between these two levels of control, and therefore acceptable. Or not. One of those.

[alexb_]

This is complete nonsense. You could say this for literally any law.

Yes, we have laws that exist to control people's behavior. We have systems which exist to control people's behavior. This is intended and completely necessary to live in a society with other people. For an example that causes no controversy to anyone on this board - we have laws that control people's ability to take open-source code and use it without sharing.

You're pretending like this is completely crazy by inventing a position nobody has taken, claiming "speed limiters in cars for repeat speed offenders" is the same as that insane position you just invented, and then pretending to be an idiot so that you don't have to do the work of actually justifying yourself. You should try practicing some actual thinking instead of resorting to pretending the people you disagree with are stupid.

[card_zero]

Your idea is that there is a reasonable "level of infringement" of rights which is higher in public places. So, I gave you a range options that might be too high, or not high enough, in order to get you to do the work of establishing why. The component of why was missing from the assertion.

It's true that I didn't want to do this work myself, but then, I don't know how. It's your idea.

Society is based on coercion. Coercion is awful. Society is awful. We prefer it to the alternative. So we continually argue and wrangle and split hairs about how best to arrange the appalling system of controlling people. Shrug