Replies

I'm starting to think you can't comprehend. I never said that I supported speed limits, in fact, I stated they were openly admitted to be mere revenue enhancement. Instead, I mentioned reckless driving once, and "excessive speeding" once, both of which should be up to the police and/or judges to determine on a case-by-case basis under the prevailing conditions of traffic and weather.

So you prefer subjective rule by a few to uniform laws. Well that indeed is an answer. An incredibly unworkable idea full of selective enforcement and unknowable limits, but an answer. You shouldn't be allowed to run a taco stand, let alone set the laws of the land.

Is the sky blue in your world?

Per your being against speed limits Instead, I mentioned reckless driving once, and "excessive speeding" once, both of which should be up to the police and/or judges to determine on a case-by-case basis under the prevailing conditions of traffic and weather.

Started out that you thought that this was a bad analogy. I guess now you are feeling pressured into trying to be consistent. Luckily, you took the bait, but that's the point of analogies, it forces a person to admit the errors of their logic OR in your case, make really absurd assertions in order to be consistent. You did a fine job so far.

What other violations should be left up to a policeman and a judge to decide on a case-by-case basis?

I still can't believe you are actually advocating breaking the country up into legal fiefdoms. You whine that the laws on pot smoking and speeding just exist to harass people, and then you want to reinstate the Sheriff of Nottingham system. I'll take a uniform law that applies to everyone equally. I forget does that make me a tyrant or a bigot in your world?

Truly now, is the sky blue there?