Plenty of reasons, but no GOOD reasons. Here's an idea -- don't speed, don't run red lights, and you won't get tickets. Road owners can and should impose rules for road users. Including speed limits. And can and should use technology to encourage users to follow the rules, and to catch and deal with users who don't.
I'm not necessarily in disagreement with your comment, excepting your first sentence. Your assertion is not backed up with any reasoning, so I can't say much other than your mind seems really corrupted with statist/collectivist ideology. Here's hoping that will change someday.
Complaints of a comment not backed up by any reasoning from a guy who's entire argument is presented in the form of a headline? No wonder libertarianism has been so successful in America. The reasoning, speaking generally, is provided in the other sentences. Specifically speaking, I say again that plenty of reasons for banning them have been presented, but not any GOOD reasons. And by that I mean that the arguments, even if they are believed, appear to be specific to Murfreesboro, wherever the hell that might be. Using those complaints as arguments to "ban government red light cameras" in general seems, to me at least, to be very weak. I could suggest that such thinking might be the sign of a corrupt mind, but surely that would be considered rude.
from a guy who's entire argument is presented in the form of a headline?"
False: they are presented in the linked article. You have asserted that none of those arguments are good, yet have buttressed this with exactly zero supporting arguments.
Apparently what you mean is that I haven't refuted the arguments presented in this article you've linked to. That's true. Instead, I've explained why I think they're not very good reasons for banning red light cameras. Since I don't think they're very good reasons, I don't see any point in wasting my time refuting them.
You couldn't be bothered to come up with your own arguments, so you just linked to somebody else's. And whoever wrote that crap couldn't be bothered to provide any evidence to back up their claims. If somebody had bothered to show, point by point, why those reason for banning red light cameras weren't GOOD reasons, I'd be happy to link to it. Otherwise, I see no reason to go to any more effort than you or the Murphreesboro whiners have.
Plenty of reasons, but no GOOD reasons. Here's an idea -- don't speed, don't run red lights, and you won't get tickets. Road owners can and should impose rules for road users. Including speed limits. And can and should use technology to encourage users to follow the rules, and to catch and deal with users who don't.
ReplyDeleteI'm not necessarily in disagreement with your comment, excepting your first sentence. Your assertion is not backed up with any reasoning, so I can't say much other than your mind seems really corrupted with statist/collectivist ideology. Here's hoping that will change someday.
DeleteComplaints of a comment not backed up by any reasoning from a guy who's entire argument is presented in the form of a headline? No wonder libertarianism has been so successful in America. The reasoning, speaking generally, is provided in the other sentences. Specifically speaking, I say again that plenty of reasons for banning them have been presented, but not any GOOD reasons. And by that I mean that the arguments, even if they are believed, appear to be specific to Murfreesboro, wherever the hell that might be. Using those complaints as arguments to "ban government red light cameras" in general seems, to me at least, to be very weak. I could suggest that such thinking might be the sign of a corrupt mind, but surely that would be considered rude.
ReplyDeletefrom a guy who's entire argument is presented in the form of a headline?"
DeleteFalse: they are presented in the linked article. You have asserted that none of those arguments are good, yet have buttressed this with exactly zero supporting arguments.
Apparently what you mean is that I haven't refuted the arguments presented in this article you've linked to. That's true. Instead, I've explained why I think they're not very good reasons for banning red light cameras. Since I don't think they're very good reasons, I don't see any point in wasting my time refuting them.
ReplyDeleteYou couldn't be bothered to come up with your own arguments, so you just linked to somebody else's. And whoever wrote that crap couldn't be bothered to provide any evidence to back up their claims. If somebody had bothered to show, point by point, why those reason for banning red light cameras weren't GOOD reasons, I'd be happy to link to it. Otherwise, I see no reason to go to any more effort than you or the Murphreesboro whiners have.