How Russians and Montanans became governmentally dependent.
I just couldn't grasp that concept. It was soooo alien to me. How could the people not understand how to act? How to start a business? Look for work, find a job? Buy something? Then it happened. The US Federal government abolished the national 55 MPH speed limit and "allowed" the states to set their own limits. Montana decided to go back to their previous standard: "Reasonable and Prudent". The people screamed. "I don't know how fast I should drive" "How do we know what Reasonable and Prudent is?" "What if the cop thinks I'm going too fast, but I don't" and on and on. For many years before, the speed limit had been exactly the same standard, and had worked just fine. If a cop thought you were behaving recklessly, you got a ticket and you paid your fine or you fought it and a judge would decide who was right. But the point is this: the people had lost -in just a few years- the ability to behave on their own without the government telling them exactly what to do. Just have a look at this... The government telling the government how to calculate a speed limit. Just scroll down and breeze by it. http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/speedmgt/ref ... wasa10001/ Why does the government have to tell us these things? Why do we need to be told these things? Why can't the government just put up a sign to let us know there is a dangerous situation ahead? How do YOU want to live? How do you want your children and grandchildren to live? Being told what to do every second of the day? How fast to drive, what light bulbs to buy? Which solar panels are best? What insurance should be? What hat is OK on sunny days? What school teachers should be retained? What school standards should be? Invade your privacy to determine if you're wearing your seatbelt or not? Or do you want to be left alone more, and fight back and take back some of the decisions that are being made in Washington that used to be made by your town? IT WON'T BE EASY to figure out how fast we should drive without someone telling us, but we can do it. Of course we can. We can take back our own responsibilities, and the country will be stronger for it. |
|
|
| The reason Montana ditched the "Reasonable and Prudent" speed limit was because people were coming from all over the U.S. and Canada with their high performance cars doing top speed runs on Montana highways. I never heard of any reports of people not knowing how fast to drive. And that link is just an engineering study. It describes how a person or entity would go about calculating a speed limit. It's not ordering a government to implement a speed limit. It's a guideline, devised by engineers, to help governments calculate speed limits. I think you've read a little too much into that report/study. I'm not sure that report was the item you should be hanging your "personal responsibility" hat on. There's a reason why we have laws & regulations. People and companies would do whatever the hell they wanted. There has to be a sense of order and laws and regulations provide that. |
| I didn't read anything into the study. I don't doubt it's exactly what you say it is. That's not the point. It is exactly how the government suggests that they go about determining speed limits on roads. Rather than saying, "ask your people to drive safely" and "blind turn ahead." Where did you come up with that about people coming from all over the country to run high speed cars? That's just ridiculous. They wouldn't be driving prudently and reasonably and they'd be subject to the exact same penalties as in their home state(s). I *REMEMBER* the TV interviews and articles about it at the time, it made a huge impact on me and my thinking. Do you remember scenes of carnage or contemporaneous reports of the out-of-staters invading *Montana*? Besides, I don't care why they went *BACK* again to actually having speed limits, that wasn't the point either. From a quick google* (so this could be completely wrong) it seems it may be that the courts found the term too vague to be constitutional or some such. But it's not the point. It was the point that people lost the ability to self-govern in such a short period of time. *Here's the source for my "assertion." Quote: Background: Despite the fact the law was working and safety had not been compromised, the Montana State Patrol, Attorney General and Governor campaigned relentlessly using false and misleading statements to replace the "reasonable and prudent" law with numerical speed limits, the state legislature steadfastly refused to do so. Not to be deterred by the legislature, the Montana State Patrol set about on its own to enforce an arbitrary de-facto threshold of an 80–90 mph limit depending on roadway type for Reasonable and Prudent enforcement. During a challenge of such a ticket in 1998, the Montana Supreme Court declared the Reasonable and Prudent Speed Limit unconstitutional, on the basis of vagueness. Remember the Governor, Judges, Highway Patrol et al wanted speed limits, rather than ruling the way the MHP was enforcing them was wrong, the Court struck down the law altogether so they would be forced to have speed limits, thereby circumventing the legislature's blocking of their collective efforts. (and yes, I do recognize the tone of that piece) |
| I guess I don't understand what you're trying to say here Ron. At first glance it sounds like you don't like the fact that the federal goverrnment is telling states/counties/cities/municipalities how to run their business. It read like you blamed the feds for imposing a speed limit or at the very least tellling governments how to set & impose a speed limit. But that's not what happened in Montana (according to your source). Yet your last quote says nothing about the feds dictating a speed limit and speaks of just the things you'd like to see; states/municipalities setting their own laws. But then it seems like you are against that, too. (BTW, the guy who was issued the ticket for going 85 MPH and was dismissed by Montana Supreme Court; he was driving a brand new '96 Chevy Camaro. I bet the cop clocked him at MUCH higher than 85 and was just being somewhat kind.) So I think I can gather that you don't like the feds telling states what to do, correct? Do you not like the states telling municipalities what they can & cannot do? Do you object to counties & municipalities telling it's citizens what they can and cannot do? With regards to the study, I didn't read or see anything in there about "how the government suggests that they go about determining speed limits on roads" other than the scientific way to determine speed limits on roads. I know there is a faction of Americans who don't like laws but we can't choose to disregard the laws of physics. The study is pure science/engineering. I didn't see anything political in there at all. Sorry if you don't see it that way. And just how exactly, by your point of view, did the government suggest how to determine speed limits? With regards to people streaming in from Canada & the U.S., we spoke about this quite frequently in all the automotive boards I frequent. When I get more time, I will find links to the stories of people going to Montana to do high speed runs. Hell, I almost went out there for that. Just a little too far away for me. These people WEREN'T driving reasonably and prudent and they WERE getting tickets. I did just find a ton of videos on YouTube of people doing high speed runs on Montana's highways. And I really like this; "ask your people to drive safely". What you consider safely and what I consider safely are probably 2 very different things. That's why we have standardized rules for everyone. I'll tell you what, if you remove all the traffic laws tomorrow, I can promise you that I would be driving 100 mph. I like going fast. The only thing that stops me now is the desire to not receive a traffic ticket. It would be a mess out there if rules of the road were axed, or any law or rule for that matter. You cannot trust the individual to do the "right" thing. And that's especially true when your definition of "right" is different than mine. Maybe if you could put what you're trying to say in this thread in one succinct sentence, that would clear things up. |
| Mark, you're just going way too deep. The premise is in the subject: How the Russians and Montanans became dependent on being told what to do. The subtext is: When the government takes away your responsibility to make your own life choices you lose the ability to be self reliant, you then need the government to tell you what to do. Do you want to be told how to live your life, or do you want to be independent? The examples were to illustrate the point, not to make a point of their own. However, your response perfectly illustrates the point! You said: Quote: What you consider safely and what I consider safely are probably 2 very different things. That's why we have standardized rules for everyone. No, I doubt that they are two very different things, and if they are after a few tickets you'll innately understand what the proper definition is!  Everybody knows what safe and prudent means within some margin of error. If a cop thinks you shouldn't be going more than 75 and you're going 85, you're not likely to get a ticket. 90 or 95 and you're getting the citation. If you feel you were driving in a safe manner, tell it to the judge, but in your own heart, you know that 100 was the wrong thing to be doing. The proof is in the pudding; everything went just fine until the government imposed and then withdrew the 55mph mandate. It was at that point that the people were at sea. I'm not really interested in arguing the merits of speed limits The government made people dependent for guidance, people who were independent until then. The government wants to control everything - do you want it to? Those are the points. The only points. |
| I know I would be totally interested in driving to some state that had no speed limit to give my car a bit of a whirl (nothing too crazy, I have a Subaru WRX, not a Ferrari). In Ontario, we have a draconian speed hammer that comes down hard if you go 50kph (30mph) over the limit anywhere, roadside seizure of your car for 7 days, a massive fine, massive demerit points (and hence big increase to your insurance). So as a result, I have not driven 50 kph/30mph over the limit once, anywhere, under any circumstances in Ontario since it came out. I have a new car, in great shape, with properly-inflated performance tires, suspension etc. Not a Hyundai Accent with bicycle wheels 150 kph on the highway when there's little to no traffic, good visibility, dry roads, in my car, can be safer than 100kph in an overloaded 14 year old Dodge minivan with old worn under-inflated tires. Interestingly, on our way back from Sheepiepalooza, driving through Indiana, the conditions were like those ideal ones described above, and from all the motorcyclists without helmets on (  ) , I figured Indiana was one of those states that leaned a bit more towards personal liberty vs. public saftey. So I admit I very briefly hit 170 kph at one point (just over 100mph), just for a few seconds, then went back to cruising at ~140kph (70-75mph) Just enjoying my car in a way I haven't been able to in Ontario.  However, a big issue, regardless of what country you live in, with the idea of personal liberty vs. government regulations, is as you swing very hard towards personal liberty, you approach anarchism, and there are plenty of Anarchist philosophers and activists out there who really haven't explained (at least to me) how society would really function with virtually no government. Anarchists seem very pie-in-the-sky "everyone just behaves reasonably and with common sense". But one thing that should be obvious after even the most cursory study of human nature, is that "reasonable" and "common sense" are far from common traits. Even more, how does one define "reasonable" and what's "common sense". Back to my driving scenario above, if you removed numerical speed limits, you are guaranteed to have some total idiot who thinks it's "reasonable" to scream down the highway at 150kph in that overloaded 14 year old Dodge minivan with old worn under-inflated "all season" tires with 9 kids in it at night in the winter. And what do you say when his tires blow out and he careens across the median head on into your reasonably-driven well-maintained car with winter tires you're driving at 100 kph? Killing himself, the 9 kids, and you. It's one thing when someone has the personal liberty to do risky things which put themselves but no one else at risk. And when they're using personal liberty to put everyone else at risk, that's a bit trickier. And it wont do much good to sue his pants off after he's already killed you (and himself, and the 9 kids). It's definitely a balancing act. And a necessary one. Personal liberty vs. social constraints enforced by government. A related aside: One thing that I find curious about one important trend in American politics (which seems as old as the Union itself), is state's rights vs. federal government. That's understandable (and we have a similar thing with provincial government vs federal government too), but what I find curious is there's a lot of people, primarily anti-federal government, who seem to be very pro-state. I find that curious, because why do they assume their state's government would be any less run by wasteful buffoons, liars, and cheats than the federal government? Same thing with munincipal government, I find our munincipal government to be the worst of the lot, the biggest idiots.  So I don't see any correlation between "smaller/local" and "better". I also, personally, don't see the benefit of the complete Balkanization of a country as large and populous as the US. If you make almost everything the State responsibility without any federal standards or regulation, you'll end up with a bureaucratic nightmare for individuals, as well as enormous redundancy and cost. I think It would be a complete bureaucratic nightmare to move between different states if everything is a state responsibility. I really like that I can expect certain standards about things in my life where ever I go or live in Canada. Finally, in a fair comparison between countries with a lot of government vs countries with less government, one should also include countries where there is no or virtually no government: Somalia (no government at all), Afghanistan, Democratic Republic of Congo (in parts), some of the worst and most dangerous places to live on Earth. Balance. |
Quote: A related aside: One thing that I find curious about one important trend in American politics (which seems as old as the Union itself), is state's rights vs. federal government. That's understandable (and we have a similar thing with provincial government vs federal government too), but what I find curious is there's a lot of people, primarily anti-federal government, who seem to be very pro-state. I find that curious, because why do they assume their state's government would be any less run by wasteful buffoons, liars, and cheats than the federal government? 50 states= 50 choices in finding a government you agree with. One government= no choice. |
ButtersStotch wrote: Quote: A related aside: One thing that I find curious about one important trend in American politics (which seems as old as the Union itself), is state's rights vs. federal government. That's understandable (and we have a similar thing with provincial government vs federal government too), but what I find curious is there's a lot of people, primarily anti-federal government, who seem to be very pro-state. I find that curious, because why do they assume their state's government would be any less run by wasteful buffoons, liars, and cheats than the federal government? 50 states= 50 choices in finding a government you agree with. One government= no choice. Or possibly 50 choices you don't agree with. But imagine if every state was fully responsible for things like medicare, social security, EI, most taxes etc. etc. I can imagine the it would be a bureaucratic nightmare if you grew up in 1 state, lived and worked in 4 other different states, and retired in a 6th state.But a rhetorical statement like "50 states= 50 choices in finding a government you agree with. One government= no choice." what does that really mean? Would you actually prefer the union to be broken up into 50 truly independent sovereign nations? That's what a literal reading of that sentence implies, to me anyway. I assume you still see the 50 states united, with a federal government? |
| I actually didn't mean to reply to this thread at all, it was just a reflex to when someone asks that question so this will be my last post. I don't think most people would suggest that we essentially break up into 50 tiny countries, but really just to stick with what the 10th amendment called for. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." The federal government is consuming more and more of the governing authority of the states. States are in a better position to reflect the interests of their own citizens. I don't have an anti-federal government attitude but I'm for the Constitution and respecting what it calls for. |
| Ron, I just don't agree with your line of reasoning. I think you're overblowing the idea that people have become too dependent on the government to tell them what to do. We just cannot expect people to make the right or smart choices when it comes to life. Who decides what is right and smart when it comes to decisions anyways? That's the reason we have laws & rules & regulations. And I'm OK with that. And I say that because I don't want some yahoo racing down a city street at 145 mph and taking me or a family member out, for example. And really, what CAN'T I do because of rules & laws? And I'll make it easy for you and ask what REASONABLE thing can't I do because of rules & laws. We have laws & rules & regulations to keep an orderly society. What you're suggesting, like David said, is something akin to anarchy. |
| There are already "driving to endanger" laws in every or almost every state, including Montana I'm sure. Any yahoo who is going to drive recklessly and illegally in Montana is going to be arrested and prosecuted just the same as when they do same in the desert in Arizona. These laws are completely subjective laws just like "reasonable and prudent" and nobody is running around complaining the need exact definitions. If you really wanna go fast, just go to Bonneville, or go to an auto club at a local race track. This whole line of argument is specious. Just remember this: Any authority put together by this administration will be in place for the next administration to use. Just like the Patriot Act which has been totally repealed of course. Not. Think about that as you cheer the Federal Government deciding which health care procedures will and won't be covered, what procedures will be allowed at all or not as a matter of public fiscal policy, and think about how the other party feels about that issue. Quote: We just cannot expect people to make the right or smart choices when it comes to life. Who decides what is right and smart when it comes to decisions anyways? You're kidding, right? You don't own your own life? YOU decide what is right for YOU. That's the basis for this country. If you don't like that, you should work to amend the Constitution as it stands. |
Didn't find exactly what you're looking for? Search again here:
Custom Search
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|