Bow down to your rulers, Celphus:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/ocregiste...acramento.html
I don't have much complaints against the fire hydrant laws, though I do think the laws should only regard leaving a vehicle unattended in front of one, but something similar that's even worse are the mandatory handicapped parking spaces.
I can't think of all the times I've gone to a store where the parking lot was full, only to see a few prime handicapped parking spots right in front of the entrance.
Let's say there were 3 empty spots and if you happened to park in one for a short time, what are the odds that 3 people would want to use them, especially considering the parking lot is already full or close to it. And then what's the worse that happens anyway? A single handicapped person had to park normally,
just like things were for close to a century. Most the time, the people that use the handicapped spots don't even seem to be handicapped in any obvious way.
I prefer common sense over the law. Admittedly, we're a country in short supply of common sense though (maybe because we don't spend a lot of time using it).
-------------------------------------------------
So let's say you were in China, where they have a law against having too many children. Would you be one of the people giving the lethal injection to kill the unborn child, like another thread was about?
Quote:
|
I still think we should have a bag limit of 5 stupid people per day. You just have to prove that they were actually being stupid, then you can mow them down.
|
I'll assume that's a yes.
Sure, there's a difference between stopping in front of a fire hydrant and killing someones child, but doesn't that require a common sense judgement? You should be asking what laws should apply to people, or how can we make them better, instead of why some people don't think all laws apply. Could it be that if people used more common sense in applying the law we'd have a country that made more sense?
Maybe here's an even better way to look at it. If our laws are intended to protect or benefit us, then if we find violating a law provides an overall benefit, shouldn't the law be different? Who was harmed in this example? In the example of the person parking to likely pick up their child from school, the streets were already crowded so having a car not part of this backup benefits other people too. You can't claim any personal damage either and I'm going to hazard a guess that it didn't impede any fire services. So how was any damage done, other than to your feelings? Yet you want to make sure people are harmed, simply because they didn't the follow the letter of the law.
It actually makes sense that a police officer was waiting to give someone a ticket there too. Instead of giving a ticket to someone who left their car unattended in front of a fire hydrant in an area that had little need for anyone to park there. So the officer was enforcing one of the most questionable aspects of this law.
Maybe if fire hydrants had the nozzle pointing to the side instead of out to the street we wouldn't even need such a law (or is this already the case?) And how many times do fire trucks just park in the street anyway?