The argument there is that people tend overreact to their own threat level or that some would make up some bullshit case to do harm to others in the name of safety. People have no choice but to deal with a small % of threat in all matters of life - see Israel Gaza.

But this is a Sklansky thread where the numbers are set in stone, and it still doesn't stop people from taking bullshit positions that they actually wouldn't take in real life but only do so for ideological reasons or to win an argument on the internet.

It's just the way people communicate now.

i don't think you are correct at least when you talk about me. I don't think it's bullshit to legalize running over people blocking highways or bridges intentionally and that is something I discussed IRL as well *and most people tend to agree*.

and it doesn't require probability estimates or imminent risk of life, just the consideration that we have to create a society when no one consider those actions legitimate and no one even tries to do that anymore. there is no scenario where it's sensible to block highways , it is incredible anyone even attempted that, and it would stop after some of them are run over and the state sends them to jail if they survive and a medal to the people running over.

If it's Just Stop Oil then I'd be indifferent if my brake lines had been cut

I think expressing this sort of situation in terms of mathematical probabilities is reductive and the fact that the human beings blocking your path happen to be protestors shouldn't matter.

In fact if these kinds of things weigh on your decision, you'd be better to just ask your Mom in the passenger seat what to do. If you have a decent one she'll answer very quickly and without a calculator.

with zero repercussions, i would run over any idiot standing in the middle of a freeway, even if i were just late for a date.

well, this isn't really true. perhaps the guy is disoriented or something so i guess i wouldn't. however if he were holding a sign that said "save the planet," then i'm gonna clip him.

only way to keep these idiots at bay is to make the repercussions serious enough so they dont do it anymore.

With the current criminal and civil liability laws, our lawmakers clearly realize that only way to keep these idiots at bay is to make the repercussions serious enough so that the idiots just talk tough about it.

I am surprised at how many people like sublime and chillrob are in favor of the death penalty for deliberately obstructing traffic.

Does that apply to motorists who "block the box" or to people who illegally double park in order to deliver furniture, etc., or is this rule limited to pedestrians?

What if a stunningly beautiful person induces rubbernecking by walking nude along the side of the highway? Straight to the gallows?

Is the right to kill limited to the motorist who is being delayed? Or should I be allowed to snipe a political protester if I correctly judge that he is impeding you as a motorist?

Allowing violence to fix the occurring problem isn't the same as "the death penalty". For example if you run over them and they don't die we aren't asking for the state to finish the job later on.

And if they know we can run over them with full impunity *they won't block streets anymore* lol, after they verify the law is applied the death and maiming of protestors blocking roads stop, because they stop blocking roads.

I ask these questions even though, when I am driving, I find people who block traffic to be infuriating (just as most people do).

This is an all-purpose argument in favor of any type of vigilantism. Sure, we could authorize citizens to slit the throats of teenagers who jump turnstiles to avoid paying for the subway. That would be a terrible rule, but it probably would reduce turnstile jumping.

Also, I was using "death penalty" euphemistically. I obviously understand that sublime was advocating for civilians (not the state) to have the right to deliberately kill people who block traffic.

I'm not sure why you would prohibit the state from imposing the punishment that you would gladly allow citizens to levy in the moment regardless of whether they are in harm's way, but whatever I guess.

Mowing down protesters sounds like political violence to me. You must be a leftist.

In addition, the logic of sublime and luciom is bad reason to intentionally block traffic = good reason to cause bodily harm to the person blocking traffic is complete nonsense.

What if someone intentionally blocks traffic for the safety of others ahead? Or intentionally block traffic for the safety and benefit of the driver because of danger ahead? What if the blocking isn’t even political.

This is just another example of Lucioms “leftist marxists are sub human and I should be able to be violent against them” tirade that has grown so weary over his rise to cuepee level maniac posting. Sublime is just along for the ride to troll.

I assume that Luciom would say that it is fine to block traffic because of legitimate safety concerns (e.g., a sinkhole just opened in the highway, the bridge collapsed, etc.).

But if someone is intentionally blocking traffic for a non-political, but frivolous, reason (e.g., an exhibitionist blocks traffic because he wants to be on the evening news), I assume that Luciom would say that is fine to run that person over. I don't know if he actually believes that, but he knows how politically dystopian it would sound to argue that you could run over the political protester but not the exhibitionist, so I assume he would favor running both of them over to avoid creating any problems for his argument.

yes, people simply shouldn't block traffic to make any sort of statement, or joke, or whatever, i don't understand how that is complicated.

Why do you want to give tiny minorities so much power over everyone else?

jijo is people against corporate taxation (something i very much agree with) block traffic, i would be in favor of you running over them

Because it's not punishment, rather what is needed to fix the problem. If you run over they might just move (jump, whatever) with minimal damage for example, that's not "death penalty". That's simply you can fully disregard the health of that person when trying to overcome the illegal violent block of the street.

And that generalizes for me: the moment someone is committing an illegal act you should be legally allowed to fully disregard his wellbeing when fixing the situation. The in flagrante criminal loses any right to wellbeing until he stops basically

It's the same as allowing you (or law enforcement) to shoot someone who threatens you, that's not "death penalty for threats" either. You can shoot a kidnapper to free hostages even if kidnapping doesn't have the death penalty in your jurisdiction for ex.

It's what's needed to guarantee your safety/restore property right/guarantee other people safety from violent aggressors.

Btw kidnapping isn't a random example: blocking traffic is kidnapping. That you imprison people agains their will for a small amount of time doesn't disqualify the charges, because it's a lot of people.

Blocking 1k people in traffic for an hour is like kidnapping a single person for 40 days.

Correct. I just want to arrest the exhibitionist, not run him over with a car. Crazy, I know.

Yeah. In terms of the terror you inflict, it's exactly the same.

I want to solve the problem for the victims of the violence, with a complete disregard for the problem originator.

Allowing people to run over him is part of the solution, and any cost incurred by the troublemakers aren't social costs, i just disregard them.

How far do we take this? If I see that a moving van is double parked and delaying you as a motorist, should I, as a good Samaritan, be allowed (or encouraged) to slit the throat of the driver of the moving van?

I am not even making that up as a completly radical theory, SF DA charged some of the road blockers with false imprisonment

https://apnews.com/article/san-franc...c8291210fd1a92

Seventeen people appeared in court on Monday to face charges of false imprisonment, refusing to comply with a peace officer, unlawful public assembly, refusing to disperse and obstruction of street, sidewalk or other place open to public. Their arraignments were continued to February.

So ok let's say false imprisonment given you have that in the USA (we don't afaik in Italy? not 100% sure), not kidnapping, in USA jurisdictions, i stand corrected.

And victims of false imprisonment have a right to self defense i hope?

not sure what a moving van means, is it a van with the driver inside, parked while someone is inside? slittting the throat doesn't move the van out of blocking the street i don't understand your hypothesis. throwing him off the van and driving it away does.

You jest, but imagine if the person kidnapped for 40 days was chillrob. He may actually enjoy the fact that the universe is finally providing him with the punishment he feels he rightfully deserves as a member of the human race.

Easily much less terror and anguish than I'd feel stuck in one spot on the freeway for a full hour.

Running over the exhibitionist isn't an immediate solution to the traffic problem either. Now you have a dead body in the road, which means the police are involved. It's probably a bigger delay.

The benefits presumably are long term. We have to teach these people a lesson because it will deter future lawbreakers from delaying people like you.

I don't know what the confusion is about my moving van example, but I'll provide more details. The driver and his helper are in the back of the van. The driver has the keys. I am passing by. I say to the driver, "I think that you are blocking cars from getting by." He responds by saying, "****'em. They can wait until I get this sofa out of the van and into that apartment."

In your world, am I allowed to attack the driver with my Bowie knife if that's what it takes to get his keys and move the van?

What if a police station is one block away?