• rus
    link
    fedilink
    110 months ago

    @GBU_28 @TDCN this is basically an income adjusted fine for breaking the law in egregious ways. Are you also opposed to fines for other bad behavior?

    I also appreciate that it gets more people thinking about ways to move without a car. that is more doable in Denmark then in the US, but cars are dangerous, and if you put other at risk so casually I have little sympathy.

    • @TDCN
      link
      210 months ago

      It also makes people think twice before lending their car to any random friend

    • @GBU_28@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      210 months ago

      For the sake of conversation, let’s consider some other owned object. I’m grasping here but say you had your computer seized for anti government speech. (I know, not the same as endangering people with a car).

      It wouldn’t be right to lose a multi thousand dollar device simply because the government willed it. Certainly not without compensation.

      • rus
        link
        fedilink
        010 months ago

        @GBU_28 skip any example that doesn’t routinely involve the single biggest cause of child death in the US. There is no reason for a person to be exceeding the speed limit by double. That’s just gambling with others life and limb.

        I think a multi-thousand dollar, income adjusted fine should be the minimum in that case.

        • @GBU_28@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          1
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          The point is I selected an example that had no relation to cars or driving, and no safety context.

          The point of the example was ownership, and dealings with the government.

          Critical thinking 101

          I made clear in earlier comments that I’m aware driving is a privilege and reckless driving is a serious crime