It does not have to happen all at once, we will screw things up, but maybe things can get better over time. I certainly think things are far better in the US than they were in say 1850. I don’t think it happened on accident. I think it is because more people pushed to make things fair and equitable, than those who wanted things to remain the same.
I don’t think the country is as fair as it should be, and I will continue to vote for people and policies that further that goal of making things fair.
Kansas. You said I was a nanny statist for being opposed to raising the speed limit from 70-75. Why is that being a nanny statist?
What should it be?
There will always be someone who thinks things are not fair.
Is there a way to evaluate if they are correct or not? Can fairness be objective? I would argue that society can come up with a standard that could be considered objective.
Interstate and turnpike depending on the location. It went from 70-75. What is the non nanny state speed limit? You seemed shocked that I would oppose people driving from an average of 70-78 to an average of 75-82.
I don’t think that’s nanny state in the least bit. And with Trump trying to raise gas prices safer and more mpg!
I believe 75 is way too low to be a speed limit on Kansas interstates. Three lanes. People wishing to drive slower should have no problem getting into the right lane. Go 100(or 25) and run into someone’s rear-end? There are other ways to punish that.
We don’t have three lanes we have two. Why is it way too low?
Again, right lane if you don’t want to drive.
So what do you think the speed limit should be and why is my view on a slower one nanny state advocating? You don’t save significant time driving faster but you do spend more gas and you increase the likelihood of death.
I don’t think there should be one on Interstates. I think there should be punishment for not yielding(moving over for) to faster traffic if you’re in the left lane. Edit: You want an overprotective government to interfere with personal choices.
I should be able to shoot my rifle wherever I please, right? Drive as drunk as I want, etc. Punishment only comes if I harm someone else in the act?
First I heard of this? Trying to help American oil producers/refiners? It hasn’t been successful so far. I can get gas for $1.39/gal near my house.
That’s what I figured. So with drunk drivers (which you feel don’t need much punishment apparently) and texting we should just bump it up to unlimited? Every 5 miles the fatality rate goes up 8.5 % according to a statistic from google.
To me saying I wish we had stayed at 70 is far less insane than saying anything goes.
No.
It depends upon how you define “harm,” but yes. If you aim your rifle at someone, that person has a right to defend himself by killing you. That person’s right could be transferred to the government to allow the government to deal out punishment.
70 seems insane compared to 7, if you ask me.
But if the rounds I fired today didn’t hurt anyone, nor were intentioned to, why shouldn’t I be allowed to? Shouldn’t it be up to my own discretion where to fire my rifle?
70 seemed to work for a long time. I can’t see significant advantages to raising it to 75 personally. But I’m not flipping out too much over it. No speed limit on the interstate in Kansas is insane to me and I think isn’t advocated by almost anyone with the exception of government always bad crowd.
You possibly should be allowed to. You’re not providing much information here.
No.