Dear Ludwig,

You need not find yourself in a moral dilemma every time you drive. For one thing, it is dangerous, detracting your attention from the road, so better sit down on your couch, gather the facts, then work it all out in advance.

What, if any, makes driving over a speed-limit immoral?

You are driving on a road that's on a land which is not yours.
If that land is owned by another, then you need their permission to enter.
That permission can be conditional: "you may enter so long as you don't pick up flowers", or "you may enter so long as you don't drive faster than xxK/h".

So first question is: "Does the presumed land-owner (government/state) indeed have ownership over that land?"

If your answer is 'Yes', then the second question is: "Does the land-owner indeed forbid you to drive faster on their land?"

If your answer is 'Yes', then by driving above the speed-limit you are guilty of trespassing, in other words, stealing, which is immoral.

Or you may answer 'No', the land-owner only said that "it is illegal to go over the speed-limit", with the intent that if you drive faster, then they may penalise you, rather than accuse you of trespassing.

Then you have a moral challenge: what if they're not sure and ask you, "how fast did you drive?". Would you tell a lie to escape punishment?

Wouldn't it then be easier to avoid exceeding the speed-limit in order to avoid the risk of lying?
But if you feel strong enough in your conviction that you will either speak the truth or remain silent, come what may, then why not go ahead and drive faster?

The same outcome is reached if you answered 'No' to the first question (as for example every aboriginal would).

So unless you answered 'Yes' to both questions, the morality of driving faster depends on your courage and determination to avoid lying in case you are caught by police.

P.S. incurring impatience from other drivers is not a moral consideration, but merely a matter of convenience.

Yuyutsu
Your criticism of my remarkably fine theory of rights seems to be inconsistent. On the one hand you say it's got meaning but lacks "substance". You didn't say why "nothing on earth could confer that type of ownership", but I presume you meant because it's not enforceable on outer planets. (As I said, this doesn't matter, because it doesn't become an issue until there's a scarcity-based conflict between human beings.)

When I responded that it is enforceable wherever it matters, you criticise if for requiring the consent of governments.

That appears to be self-contradictory. The fact it's enforceable negates your earlier criticism.

Why does my theory lack substance? It applies wherever humans might experience conflict over the use of scarce resources. It does not *require* a State to enforce it, (the owner or his agents can), but on the other hand, if a State does enforce it, that's fine.

As for requiring the consent of States, you could say the same about any theory of rights: the right is overridden in practice if the most powerful party in fact disregards it. That doesn't disprove the theory, it only shows that aggressive violence is a problem, whether it's being done by the mafia or the State.

Ludwig
What would be an example of a restriction on an owner's freedom to use his land, that is not based on infringing the personal or property rights of others.

If the wider community thought it fair and reasonable to criminalise homosexual acts, witchcraft, or a particular religion, would that justify their using force to impose their will?

All
Therefore the only moral principle that could further the moral wellbeing of the nation, consistent with the exercise of power to achieve it, is the principle of liberty.

<< What would be an example of a restriction on an owner's freedom to use his land, that is not based on infringing the personal or property rights of others. >>

Jardine, I can’t think of a single one. Can you?

Every restriction is fundamentally in place because the freedom to undertake unrestricted activities would or could result in the infringement of others’ rights, now or in the future. Maybe well into the future, by way of a degraded environment, for example.

Or possibly there are some restrictions that don’t impinge on human rights at all, but do impinge on the rights of flora and fauna, by way of the protection of rare species, their habitats, and even of common species unless they are pests and their treatment is legal. Although you could say that restrictions of this sort do give us a better quality of environment, which is an important aspect of human rights.

<< If the wider community thought it fair and reasonable to criminalise homosexual acts, witchcraft, or a particular religion, would that justify their using force to impose their will? >>

The will, or the best interests, of the wider community as enshrined in law, obviously needs to be enforced to be meaningful. That may require considerable force in relation to serious matters if the offender keeps ignoring an order to cease and desist.

"Jardine, I can’t think of a single one. Can you?"

No, I can't. Thank you for conceding the general issue.

"The will, or the best interests, of the wider community as enshrined in law, obviously needs to be enforced to be meaningful."

We have just established there is no moral justification for political action, law or policy to override the personal or property rights of others, which is probably why you don't agree with slavery, killing homosexuals or burning witches, do you, *even if* a majority of the wider community were to consider it fair and reasonable.

<< No, I can't. Thank you for conceding the general issue.>>

Not sure what you think I’ve conceded here. But you seem to have conceded that there is a good reason for each and every law (notwithstanding that many are overdone or undercooked and not adequately regulated) and that they are all related to the protection of the common good and the rights of us all therein.

<< We have just established there is no moral justification for political action, law or policy to override the personal or property rights of others… >>

We have??

Sorry you’ve lost me there.

We need political action, law and policy to protect the rights of the majority, to ensure that we all have similar rights, to plan for a healthy future for all of society, to control the ruthless and unscrupulous elements and to stop the tragedy-of-the-commons scenario from playing out, whereby the most aggressive get most of what is going and those who lay back a bit get very little if anything.

Political action, law and policy don’t override personal or property rights. They ensure that we all have these rights.

“Not sure what you think I’ve conceded here.”

You just lost the entire argument.

“But you seem to have conceded that there is a good reason for each and every law (notwithstanding that many are overdone or undercooked and not adequately regulated) and that they are all related to the protection of the common good and the rights of us all therein.

No, that’s just you being confused and going around in circles as usual. You were completely unable to defend what you have just suggested in that paragraph, remember?

“<< We have just established there is no moral justification for political action, law or policy to override the personal or property rights of others… >>

We have??

Sorry you’ve lost me there.”

That’s because you’re too dumb to understand what you’re talking about.

You were unable to find any example of a justification of overriding the principle of liberty, other than to defend the personal or property rights of others. Remember?

*Think* Ludwig. Don’t just yabble-yarp. Actually think of a restriction on an owner's freedom to use his land, that is not based on infringing the personal or property rights of others.

If you can’t, it means you’ve just lost the argument, and everything you just wrote shows either complete intellectual confusion, or complete intellectual dishonesty.

And if you can, what is it?

“We need political action, law and policy to protect the rights of the majority, to ensure that we all have similar rights, to plan for a healthy future for all of society, to control the ruthless and unscrupulous elements and to stop the tragedy-of-the-commons scenario from playing out, whereby the most aggressive get most of what is going and those who lay back a bit get very little if anything.”

The tragedy of the commons is caused by *not* private property, dumbo.

And it’s you who’s in favour of aggression, remember? And when I asked you to justify it other than by the principle of liberty, you couldn’t, remember?

Instead of just garbling on thoughtlessly, why don’t you actually try to understand what you’re talking about?