Where does "individual liberty" end and "public good" start?
- Thread starter ceetee
- Start date
- Status
It's not a Communist idea, it's a totalitarian/authoritarian idea, used by just about every such type of government, including communists.
More or less, if anyone says "it's for the public good" I automatically figure they want to do something that will hurt innocent individuals who make up "the public", unless there's a damn good reason otherwise.
feedthehogs
Member
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2003
- Messages
- 1,801
First NASCAR, now this.
(Homer voice)Damn them Toyotans!
(Homer voice)Damn them Toyotans!
Individual liberty and private property rights mean a business can't make useful innovations? If someone knows they make bad decisions when they're drunk, they may want something like this.
You can't blame technology for government abusiveness, especially when that technology can be used in a non-abusive manner. For example, I shudder at the idea of government-mandated RFID chips, but I applaud RFID development because it has so much potential for good. Same thing here.
On the other hand, you have developments like firing pin microstamping. I can't think of any reason why someone would want something like that and so that sort of innovation can only be geared toward government mandated use. The market wouldn't demand it otherwise.
You can't blame technology for government abusiveness, especially when that technology can be used in a non-abusive manner. For example, I shudder at the idea of government-mandated RFID chips, but I applaud RFID development because it has so much potential for good. Same thing here.
On the other hand, you have developments like firing pin microstamping. I can't think of any reason why someone would want something like that and so that sort of innovation can only be geared toward government mandated use. The market wouldn't demand it otherwise.
ChiefThunderstick
Member
The kind of stuff dreams are made of
-------------
-------------
Last edited:
Fun Scenario:
You are visiting friends in Chicago and take a wrong exit off the highway ending up in a VERY bad neighborhood. Some gangbanger throws a pint of whiskey at your car that shatters and manages to sprinkle your steering wheel with alchohol...
You are visiting friends in Chicago and take a wrong exit off the highway ending up in a VERY bad neighborhood. Some gangbanger throws a pint of whiskey at your car that shatters and manages to sprinkle your steering wheel with alchohol...
Stevie-Ray
Member
I sincerely hope so.
ConstitutionCowboy
member
Crazy
We blend alcohol into a lot of our gasoline. Get some on your hands and you won't be able to leave the gas station! Follow too close behind a car with a loose gas cap, and the version that "sniffs" the alcohol will shut down right in the middle of the road.
I smell some really big lawsuits if these cars get on the market here and someone gets killed because their car stopped in the middle of a highway and the 18 wheeler comin' 'round the bend couldn't stop in time...
Woody
"Freedom is good for the individual, good for the human condition, and good for society as well. It is the only way individual accountability can be valid, for a person who is not free to do as he sees fit cannot be blamed... or genuinely rewarded." K.L.Dimond
We blend alcohol into a lot of our gasoline. Get some on your hands and you won't be able to leave the gas station! Follow too close behind a car with a loose gas cap, and the version that "sniffs" the alcohol will shut down right in the middle of the road.
I smell some really big lawsuits if these cars get on the market here and someone gets killed because their car stopped in the middle of a highway and the 18 wheeler comin' 'round the bend couldn't stop in time...
Woody
"Freedom is good for the individual, good for the human condition, and good for society as well. It is the only way individual accountability can be valid, for a person who is not free to do as he sees fit cannot be blamed... or genuinely rewarded." K.L.Dimond
grampster
Member
If my memory serves me, The Common Good was an ethical and moral concept adopted by the U.S. which is based in English law. Our concept of laws rather than men, was based in the notion of the The Common Good.
It's a difficult concept today. It's like "fairness". What is fair? One man's castle is another man's prison. Today it seems we drift between some who propose Libertarianism and others who are Statists. I'd be more comfortable with the debate of these two concepts if our two political parties were more defined.
I'd like it much better if the Republican Party changed it's name to Conservative Party and the Democrat Party changed its name to Socialist Party and the members of each grasped tightly to planks associated with those concepts. Then we could have a reasonable debate, secure in what we were supporting.
It's a difficult concept today. It's like "fairness". What is fair? One man's castle is another man's prison. Today it seems we drift between some who propose Libertarianism and others who are Statists. I'd be more comfortable with the debate of these two concepts if our two political parties were more defined.
I'd like it much better if the Republican Party changed it's name to Conservative Party and the Democrat Party changed its name to Socialist Party and the members of each grasped tightly to planks associated with those concepts. Then we could have a reasonable debate, secure in what we were supporting.
ConstitutionCowboy
member
It's The Constitution
You all need to remember where the real middle is. It is the Constitution. The Constitution is the biggest compromise - the best compromise - ever written. It is where distribution of power and security of the common good meets with the protection of rights, freedom, and personal sovereignty. B.E.Wood
Woody
You all need to remember where the real middle is. It is the Constitution. The Constitution is the biggest compromise - the best compromise - ever written. It is where distribution of power and security of the common good meets with the protection of rights, freedom, and personal sovereignty. B.E.Wood
Woody
cassandrasdaddy
Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2006
- Messages
- 4,206
do any of those
railing about this, the latest assault on personal freedom(sic), realize they are apparently unwilling to allow folks that want this feature the freedom to buy it?
thereby mounting an attack on their freedom to chose to take advantage of a device that might keep their kid from exercising his time honored right to drink and drive. or as i mentioned earlier allow a spouse to be less afraid of the so driving drunk. i could see a guy using owning one of these as a persuasive argument for regaining his license.
one sad thing i saw was a guy with his 10 year old daughter driving drinking using her to blow in the machine the court made him install. i dimed him felt bad about his daughter seeing him handcuffed but was unwilling to read about them getting killed. and to forestall you "libertarians" this moron was on verge of kneewalking.and this was a guy who had already done time for killing his own brother driving drunk
railing about this, the latest assault on personal freedom(sic), realize they are apparently unwilling to allow folks that want this feature the freedom to buy it?
thereby mounting an attack on their freedom to chose to take advantage of a device that might keep their kid from exercising his time honored right to drink and drive. or as i mentioned earlier allow a spouse to be less afraid of the so driving drunk. i could see a guy using owning one of these as a persuasive argument for regaining his license.
one sad thing i saw was a guy with his 10 year old daughter driving drinking using her to blow in the machine the court made him install. i dimed him felt bad about his daughter seeing him handcuffed but was unwilling to read about them getting killed. and to forestall you "libertarians" this moron was on verge of kneewalking.and this was a guy who had already done time for killing his own brother driving drunk
grampster
Member
To be honest, I wouldn't mind climbing in my car and verbally telling the 'puter to take me to xyz, and it does, with no grief. I could be on my WIFI laptop dinking around talking to you Keepers of the Vision while I'm being delivered to my destination. So that is wrong? (cynic voice begins announcement) Let's do away with the Post Office, phones, and the internet. Then nobody can spy on us. (Cynic voice hopes that those that can hear also have a sense of humor and is not buried in paranoia)
That's why we have guns my friends. If the oppression becomes unbearable by a substantial minority, we have succor. It is expected of us, or it would not have been written in.
Defend the 2nd and you defend the whole.
That's why we have guns my friends. If the oppression becomes unbearable by a substantial minority, we have succor. It is expected of us, or it would not have been written in.
Defend the 2nd and you defend the whole.
Smurfslayer
Member
blame
You know, that's an interesting statement. I agree in part, disagree in part.
This device has reasonably a direct tie to a safe driving environment. We may consider it intrusive, abusive, not for us; whatever, but it's not a .gov development.
I draw an analogy to radar guns. Do we really think that the developer(s) of the first radar guns could not envision speed traps, abusive speed enforcement, damage to the 4th Amendment cause by overzealous searches, and judges all to willing to carve out their own laws. Are these people who developed technology solely for .gov use not partially to blame for all the damage they've caused?
So, in that aspect, should Toyota look into the corporate crystal ball and attempt to forsee what will come in legislative form as a result of this technology? As this becomes generally available, how long do we think it will be before at least one state incorporates it into some form of legislation?
You know, that's an interesting statement. I agree in part, disagree in part.
This device has reasonably a direct tie to a safe driving environment. We may consider it intrusive, abusive, not for us; whatever, but it's not a .gov development.
I draw an analogy to radar guns. Do we really think that the developer(s) of the first radar guns could not envision speed traps, abusive speed enforcement, damage to the 4th Amendment cause by overzealous searches, and judges all to willing to carve out their own laws. Are these people who developed technology solely for .gov use not partially to blame for all the damage they've caused?
So, in that aspect, should Toyota look into the corporate crystal ball and attempt to forsee what will come in legislative form as a result of this technology? As this becomes generally available, how long do we think it will be before at least one state incorporates it into some form of legislation?
Henry the Eighth
Member
If they offered it as on option, fine, If they make it into every car they produce or the government mandates it in all cars, I have a fundamental problem.
Also, it might surprise some of you, as it did me, to find out all of the breathalysers do not measure alcohol, they measure methyls. This means you can be charged with DUI after painting you living room or filling up your tank. The breathalysers also depend on a fixed ratio of air to chemicals in your lungs and are notoriously inaccurate. The ratio is different for everyone and changes throughout the day, so to depend on these flawed machines is shear lunacy.
Also, it might surprise some of you, as it did me, to find out all of the breathalysers do not measure alcohol, they measure methyls. This means you can be charged with DUI after painting you living room or filling up your tank. The breathalysers also depend on a fixed ratio of air to chemicals in your lungs and are notoriously inaccurate. The ratio is different for everyone and changes throughout the day, so to depend on these flawed machines is shear lunacy.
From a practical standpoint, I wouldn't trust the thing.
We had one of those god-awful Ralph Nader cars in the '70s. You couldn't start it unless you sat in the seat and fastened the seatbelt, first. However, if you sat in the seat "wrong" when you got into the car, it wouldn't trip the switch, so you'd have to start over. Damn thing wouldn't start half the time, without unhooking the seatbelt, bouncing on the seat a couple times, then re-buckling -- made doubly hard by the way the seatbelt would lock up half the time when you tried to pull it across you to buckle it.
I can't imagine a sensor that is designed to pick up something so subtle as alcohol vapor from sweat glands could possibly be more reliable than a couple of microswitches, can you?
We had one of those god-awful Ralph Nader cars in the '70s. You couldn't start it unless you sat in the seat and fastened the seatbelt, first. However, if you sat in the seat "wrong" when you got into the car, it wouldn't trip the switch, so you'd have to start over. Damn thing wouldn't start half the time, without unhooking the seatbelt, bouncing on the seat a couple times, then re-buckling -- made doubly hard by the way the seatbelt would lock up half the time when you tried to pull it across you to buckle it.
I can't imagine a sensor that is designed to pick up something so subtle as alcohol vapor from sweat glands could possibly be more reliable than a couple of microswitches, can you?
How can a car judge the difference between a drunk driver and a slightly winding road? Not to mention the liability if trying to escape from a carjacking shuts down the car, or if it shuts down in the middle of a freeway when a driver tries to avoid junk that fell off the back of a truck.
If the car knows what is and isn't appropriate driving, why doesn't *it* drive?
Given the prevalence of alcohols in common household products, I hope that the alcohol-detection system is specific to ethanol.
If the car knows what is and isn't appropriate driving, why doesn't *it* drive?
Given the prevalence of alcohols in common household products, I hope that the alcohol-detection system is specific to ethanol.
Henry the Eighth
Member
Sorry Grampster, but your memory doesn't serve. No such thing as the common, public, national, whatever good. Concept born out of the statist desire to control people.
GunnySkox
Member
I predict that within six minutes of so-equipped cars entering the market, parts and equipment for disabling the system will be available for a reasonable fee.
I don't care if Toyota makes a car with a bunch of crap in it to make MADD squeal like a band of teenagers at a Backstreet Boys concert, I just won't buy a Toyota; there are plenty of cars on the market that _don't_ include irrelevant crap, and if I'm drunk I just won't drive those cars.
It's when shady BS like this is made mandatory that I get my hackles up, but that's a discussion for another day.
~GnSx
I don't care if Toyota makes a car with a bunch of crap in it to make MADD squeal like a band of teenagers at a Backstreet Boys concert, I just won't buy a Toyota; there are plenty of cars on the market that _don't_ include irrelevant crap, and if I'm drunk I just won't drive those cars.
It's when shady BS like this is made mandatory that I get my hackles up, but that's a discussion for another day.
~GnSx
Keith Wheeler
Member
I guess the guys who wrote this were statist totalitarian thugs:
ZeSpectre
Member
I've got it!
I'm going to sell a device to bars that lets you lock up your keys in a little mini-vault and in order to get your keys back you need to use your thumbprint and pass the breathalyzer. Sure you could get around it by having a buddy "blow" for you but at least it'd be a voluntary measure.
I'll either make millions or be the laughingstock of the industry.
I'm going to sell a device to bars that lets you lock up your keys in a little mini-vault and in order to get your keys back you need to use your thumbprint and pass the breathalyzer. Sure you could get around it by having a buddy "blow" for you but at least it'd be a voluntary measure.
I'll either make millions or be the laughingstock of the industry.
Henry the Eighth
Member
Promote the general welfare in the preamble of a document setting up a LIMITED government is a far cry from passing draconian laws in the name of the public good. Do please try to follow along.
A case can be made that they were fine with unlimited power, as long as they were the ones controlling it. Look no further than the whiskey rebellion and the trail of tears. But this is a topic for another day.
A case can be made that they were fine with unlimited power, as long as they were the ones controlling it. Look no further than the whiskey rebellion and the trail of tears. But this is a topic for another day.
Ryder
Member
Could be a problem for all of us when people who need mouthwash are forced to quit using it. 
Keith Wheeler
Member
Henry the Eighth said:
Henry the Eighth said:
Another example of mindless rhetoric. "There's NO such thing as common good, it's just used to control people" and then when shown a classic example of a phrase meaning the same thing as "common good", back-tracking and redefining. Either there is "no such thing" as the "general welfare" (or common good if you prefer modern terminology) or there is such a thing that can be abused by "statists".
You and ArmedBear have both stated that the concept of "common good" is a "Concept born out of the statist desire to control people." I merely pointed out a reference to that concept by some gentlemen who were most assuredly not of the statist/controlling type, much the same as grampster did.
I'm sorry if the facts don't quite mesh with your world view.
- Status
