Are Depraved Indifference Laws Wrong?

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AI68 wrote:

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is no law that forces anyone to drive at any certain speed. The law forbids driving above a certain speed. There is a huge difference.

Forbidding an action is different from forcing an action.

Forbidding an action may or may not be oppressive.

Forcing an action is slavery by definition.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



So you're game to drive 55, but you find stop signs objectionable?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Good point. And one I should have thought of when I made the post.

I should have said that there is no law that forces anyone to drive on public roads, period. All public roads are built on property that some local, state, or federal gov't bought and paid for. Or at least paid for the right of way. That right of way includes the right to make traffic laws.

If I build a road on my own property and let someone drive on it, then I can make the rules. And I could take away that person's "license" to drive on it. And they are still not being "forced" to stop at my stop signs, since they were never "forced" to drive on my road.

[/ QUOTE ]
Roads are just one example of this type of law, but to run with the example, here's another: you are forced to pay taxes to build and maintain the roads, even if you elect not to use them. You could of course argue that nobody forces you to work (and thus pay taxes), but the quality of life issues that would result from lack of work make it a practical necessity.

If you don't feel that society passing tax laws is inherently onerous, what's the issue with a law requiring someone to put forth minor effort to save a stranger's life? Again, a law that "forces" someone to save another person's life at little or no cost to the reluctant hero is pretty clearly +EV relative to any number of extant laws that force us to do things (like pay taxes to build roads we may not use, or fund public education when we are childless) that we accept without a second thought.

Personally, I find it far more disturbing that we (apparently) need "forced samaritan" laws in the first place.

[willie24]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is that true? In any case its a more interesting argument if the sacrifice is a tad less trivial. Something you would pay $10 to avoid.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does the law really need to stand up to logic or ethics as long as it is obviously in the best interest for the society as a whole?

[/ QUOTE ]

go back to russia, commie!

[Al68]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AI68 wrote:

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is no law that forces anyone to drive at any certain speed. The law forbids driving above a certain speed. There is a huge difference.

Forbidding an action is different from forcing an action.

Forbidding an action may or may not be oppressive.

Forcing an action is slavery by definition.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



So you're game to drive 55, but you find stop signs objectionable?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Good point. And one I should have thought of when I made the post.

I should have said that there is no law that forces anyone to drive on public roads, period. All public roads are built on property that some local, state, or federal gov't bought and paid for. Or at least paid for the right of way. That right of way includes the right to make traffic laws.

If I build a road on my own property and let someone drive on it, then I can make the rules. And I could take away that person's "license" to drive on it. And they are still not being "forced" to stop at my stop signs, since they were never "forced" to drive on my road.

[/ QUOTE ]
Roads are just one example of this type of law, but to run with the example, here's another: you are forced to pay taxes to build and maintain the roads, even if you elect not to use them. You could of course argue that nobody forces you to work (and thus pay taxes), but the quality of life issues that would result from lack of work make it a practical necessity.


[/ QUOTE ]
This is simply not true. At least not in the U.S.
Since all public roads are built with revenues from gasoline taxes, I would say that if you don't buy gas, you didn't pay for the roads. And, approximately, the more you drive, and the bigger your vehicle, the more you paid to use the roads. The gas/road tax is one of the few current uses of taxation that isn't onerous. And you can even get tax free fuel, and/or get a rebate, if you are using the fuel off road. Like for a bulldozer for example. So, your premise is incorrect. If I don't drive on public roads, I don't pay for them.

But there was a 5 cent per gallon gas tax increase when Clinton was president that was used to supplement general revenues, and not for roads. That was theft, plain and simple. To pay a gas tax to fix the roads, then have to drive through potholes because the money was used for pork.

[ QUOTE ]

If you don't feel that society passing tax laws is inherently onerous, what's the issue with a law requiring someone to put forth minor effort to save a stranger's life? Again, a law that "forces" someone to save another person's life at little or no cost to the reluctant hero is pretty clearly +EV relative to any number of extant laws that force us to do things (like pay taxes to build roads we may not use, or fund public education when we are childless) that we accept without a second thought.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe in using force against another person just because it's "+EV".

[ QUOTE ]

Personally, I find it far more disturbing that we (apparently) need "forced samaritan" laws in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]

Me, too. But, for example, I doubt if there are many people that would refuse to throw their life preserver to a drowning man because he didn't want it to get wet. I don't think there is really an issue with people doing trivial things to save someone's life. And, like I said before, I don't think I have the right to use force against someone, or imprison them, because they didn't go out of their way to help a stranger. Even if I think they should have. And even if I think they are despicable pieces of crap. People just don't have the right to use offensive force against people to get their way, even if it is "+EV", or "for the common good".

[jogger08152]

You're focusing on the specific example but missing the point. Even if gasoline tax is the only money that funds roads (which I doubt), the government collects taxes from pacifists to maintain a standing army of dubious constitutionality (but eminent practicality), funds "the arts", whatever those might be, builds enormous prisons to imprison marijuana users, and tells us that, if we cut the tag off the mattress, we're going to prison. And if those examples don't get there for you, there are 10,000 more.

The point is this: "forced samaritan" laws are nothing new philosophically. If your objection to these laws is that "we shouldn't force people to do things they don't want to do", you must also object to virtually all law, state, local, federal and international. Do you?

[Al68]

[ QUOTE ]
You're focusing on the specific example but missing the point. Even if gasoline tax is the only money that funds roads (which I doubt), the government collects taxes from pacifists to maintain a standing army of dubious constitutionality (but eminent practicality), funds "the arts", whatever those might be, builds enormous prisons to imprison marijuana users, and tells us that, if we cut the tag off the mattress, we're going to prison. And if those examples don't get there for you, there are 10,000 more.

The point is this: "forced samaritan" laws are nothing new philosophically. If your objection to these laws is that "we shouldn't force people to do things they don't want to do", you must also object to virtually all law, state, local, federal and international. Do you?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, not all of them, just some of them. I don't object to all laws that don't "force people to do things they don't want to do".

Your example of the gas tax was not one I object to, because the roads in the U.S. are fully funded by gas taxes. The road/gas tax is one that was set up before U.S. politicians started massively using their taxation authority for theft.

I don't object to laws that protect people from force and fraud. That's what government is for.

But I do object to most of the laws given as examples here, like imprisoning marijuana users. But even those laws are not the subject of this thread.

This thread was about forcing a person to be a "good samaritan", which I do object to. Just because I don't believe in involuntary servitude. And the current U.S. constitution specifically forbids it. Of course it is nothing new philosophically, few things are.

Not all laws "force people to do things they don't want to do". Historically in the U.S. laws did not do this, generally speaking (there are a few examples to the contrary, especially with local governments). Laws were intended to forbid an action, not force one. And the premise was that all government power was from the people, and people only have the right to use force against other people defensively, not offensively.

[tipperdog]

[ QUOTE ]
Is that true? In any case its a more interesting argument if the sacrifice is a tad less trivial. Something you would pay $10 to avoid.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. It is not true.

[SeattleJake]

You should have the right of inaction, just as you should have the right of action. Should you be sued for saving a "drowning victim", who was really trying to commit suicide? Should you be charged with not saving a drowning victim, because you're afraid of water?

[Megenoita]

Yes. All laws which communicate love your neighbor as yourself are good ones.

[adverseselection]

there are plenty of laws that enforce action...like enforcing the payment of taxes...even if the language is negative pertaining to the penalties for not paying

[sahaguje]

If you use a simple conception of justice as reciprocity, then a group of reasonable people deciding which laws to pass would certainly try to find a way to prevent extremely selfish acts like this one. Making it a crime is the simplest answer, but a lot of reciprocal engagements without the intervention of the state can be thought of.

I for example would not consider as a fellow citizen, towards whom I would feel having a common destiny, someone who consciously refuse to pay a little fee to directly save another (wo)man's life (or increase his/her happiness).