Reduce the National Speed limit?

Mikeuk · 04-07-2008, 03:24 PM

I move that UKIP should donate £1000 to any patriot who blows up a Nazi speed camera.

Westcountryman · 04-07-2008, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Bear

What's wrong with that?

In any case it would e for ALL our good.

That's a very socialist line to take. I'll decide what's good for me thanks, don't need the government deciding for me!

harryaldridge · 04-07-2008, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Bear

What's wrong with that?

In any case it would e for ALL our good.

Well, why do you care whether somebody is is wasting their money by driving is a manner which reduces their fuel consumption? It is not your problem. If you wanted to do it on environmental grounds then there is a logic to the argument about a collective benefit and a need for a law.

The logic that people should be left to lead their lives as they wish so long as they don't infringe on the liberty of others is perfectly sound and moral. To follow your logic, if you thought red meat was bad for you and so didn't eat it then I should stop eating red meat also. Would you agree? But why should you be telling me what I can and cannot eat?

If it doesn't affect you then you have no right to dictate to others how they should live their lives within the bounds of the law.

Akria · 04-07-2008, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by harryaldridge

Well, why do you care whether somebody is is wasting their money by driving is a manner which reduces their fuel consumption? It is not your problem. If you wanted to do it on environmental grounds then there is a logic to the argument about a collective benefit and a need for a law.

The logic that people should be left to lead their lives as they wish so long as they don't infringe on the liberty of others is perfectly sound and moral. To follow your logic, if you thought red meat was bad for you and so didn't eat it then I should stop eating red meat also. Would you agree? But why should you be telling me what I can and cannot eat?

If it doesn't affect you then you have no right to dictate to others how they should live their lives within the bounds of the law.

By consuming more fuel people impinge on the liberties of others, particularly our descendants.

a swansong 4 europe · 04-07-2008, 06:48 PM

Consuming more of ANYTHING has consequences for our future populations.

I seem to remember that the USA introduced a 55 limit in the 70's to restrict fuel consumption, which I am guessing must have worked on their gas guzzlers.

When they have finished lowering the speed limit, perhaps they could start on restricting the voting population to those who pass a political awareness test or something. Seriously, some of the present electorate should be banned from casting a vote never mind driving too fast.

Akria · 04-07-2008, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by a swansong 4 europe

Consuming more of ANYTHING has consequences for our future populations.

I seem to remember that the USA introduced a 55 limit in the 70's to restrict fuel consumption, which I am guessing must have worked on their gas guzzlers.

When they have finished lowering the speed limit, perhaps they could start on restricting the voting population to those who pass a political awareness test or something. Seriously, some of the present electorate should be banned from casting a vote never mind driving too fast.

Something like that would be repugnant. Who would decide what the population should be aware of?

Westcountryman · 04-07-2008, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Akria

By consuming more fuel people impinge on the liberties of others, particularly our descendants.

On the other hand the world might end tomorrow. Let's not dabble in 'what ifs', people who don't exist yet don't have rights.

a swansong 4 europe · 04-07-2008, 06:55 PM

I was teasing there slightly, more of a frustrated soundbite than an actual agenda. It will take votes to save this country, not reducing the speed limit.

Akria · 04-07-2008, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Westcountryman

On the other hand the world might end tomorrow. Let's not dabble in 'what ifs', people who don't exist yet don't have rights.

If we didn't dabble in 'what ifs' then we would not do anything.
'What ifs' apply even to a few seconds in the future. Why should I eat this bit of fruit when the world might end the next second?

Akria · 04-07-2008, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by a swansong 4 europe

I was teasing there slightly, more of a frustrated soundbite than an actual agenda. It will take votes to save this country, not reducing the speed limit.

Depends on what you're saving it from...

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

04-07-2008, 03:24 PM	#11 (permalink)
Mikeuk Uber Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Fareham Posts: 5,737 Party: Conservatives	I move that UKIP should donate £1000 to any patriot who blows up a Nazi speed camera.

04-07-2008, 06:48 PM	#15 (permalink)
a swansong 4 europe Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 411	Consuming more of ANYTHING has consequences for our future populations. I seem to remember that the USA introduced a 55 limit in the 70's to restrict fuel consumption, which I am guessing must have worked on their gas guzzlers. When they have finished lowering the speed limit, perhaps they could start on restricting the voting population to those who pass a political awareness test or something. Seriously, some of the present electorate should be banned from casting a vote never mind driving too fast.

04-07-2008, 06:55 PM	#18 (permalink)
a swansong 4 europe Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 411	I was teasing there slightly, more of a frustrated soundbite than an actual agenda. It will take votes to save this country, not reducing the speed limit.