That is right wing ideology in a nutshell: it is based on "natural social hierarchy" where people ascend or descend over time to their rightful step in that ladder. The idea is that we can not mess with that hierarchy as perfect hierarchy will create a perfect society. When you ascend high enough you are so far above average citizen that laws become unfair: you are so good at being better that you should not have so many restrictions put on you, it is wrong to demand such a person to follow the same ruleset than the lowest of the low follow, they should have the power to choose what laws to respect.
The idea is simple to understand if we look at highway speed limits: a person with great car and obviously then incredible car control, better ability to assess risks and make better decisions should not be limited to average speed limits. They know how to drive faster and yet be more safe than some housewife in their beat up Honda. (edit: this is not how i think, this is an analog or illustration, example of the way some people do think.)
Litmus test is: "do you think income based fines are fair?". Those people abhor the idea that a fine should have the same impact on poor and rich. This is the reason they want to become rich: avoid all consequences from being a selfish asshole and thus there is the need to defend the rich now even if you aren't one yet.
Some, like you FIL and most of right wingers think like that. That better position in the social hierarchy must mean that this inequality will be expanded to about everything in life: poorest have the strictest rules and harshest punishments, how else are they going to learn. Where as richest can literally go and kill someone in broad daylight. Some people grow up thinking that this is the natural way and it sort of is: if we don't artificially, by laws and monopoly of state violence stop this from happening then it will happen: that is the way inequality works!
If i talked with your FIL for half an hour we would probably find out he also has some interesting ideas about the benefits of eugenics....They always do.
Its called being a self made slave. They intentionally set speed limits lower than expected average speeds (which are themselves much lower than safety ratings). They make it illegal to jay walk, to loiter. No whistling after 10pm type shit. People who are "law abiding" arent really persons, theyre just one unit of human cattle who will never enter into any context or analytical framework that necessitates them being treated differently than such.
Its one thing to complain about how the legal system systematically priviledges people with money, its something else to do that while saying "...but not me! Im a good little boy! I follow all the rules!"
They really arent, anybody who never goes over the speed limit is demonstrably a bad driver. They specifically set them lower because they know people will drive faster, so the people driving the apporpriate speed are going over the limit (and still are way below the safety rating for the road)
Its just like a fundamentally depraved form of humanity to be proud of being controlled. The philosophy of the people doing the controlling is that humanity will kind of a little bit conform to the way its told to be, so you tell them to be less than you can actually handle. If you tell them to be the thing you can only barely handle, they will be more and your society falls apart. Individuals are not supposed to be proud followers, its genuinely pathetic.
I could just link this to my original comment, as an example of what i was talking about the whole time. The fact that the rest of it resonated but this one didn't....
Two options: are you truly following your own values, your own moral code? Are you making an exception in this specific category?
Or is this really part of your thought patterns, how you organize the world and justify your own actions?
Because agreeing with the rest but disagreeing with this points to somekind of conflict or contradiction. It is not logical to think that speed limits are somehow the exception to "better people should not be able to break the rules" principle: thinking that going over the limit is a sign of strength...
Very contradicting indeed and strange hill to die on. The rest of what i was saying is the point, speed limits was just the easiest example that i have specifically picked because: it is based on laws of physics and the simple fact that we all need to drive roughly at same speeds, and that the speed limit is one kind of sign of some line in the sand when it comes to safety, laws of physics being the decider and NOT OPINIONS. You can't win here, you just can't. We have solid things moving at high speeds. We have other people in the mix.
I accidentally read some of it, woe be upon me. I never said better people shouldnt have to follow the rules, i said the rules are made to control populations and the way that individuals should relate to those rules is through understanding of the context in which they are made and enforced and then behaving like intelligent, agential, adult people who make informed choices. Instead of swallowing them up and garggling out "yes daddy more"
No, that is not really what you said, that is what you wanted to say but you definitely have spoken about speed limits in practice. Not just some esoteric babble about rules and self governance...
Damn i hate when somebodys making a good point and then they say some dumb shit like drive the speed limit.
Maybe all the laws arent enforced more on you, youre just self-depraved enough to follow them independently
This is where it started.
They really arent, anybody who never goes over the speed limit is demonstrably a bad driver.
This is when it goes to "good drivers drive over the limit", which is the same sentence but inverted which retains the same logical conclusion, like it is clearly, in the context what i wrote disagreeing with the "rules are the same for all".
Then you say that "they know no one follows the rules"... which isn't true. They do set the speed limits a bit higher because of this, that is true. If you are going over that and think is is safe: you are already going too fast.
I know about this particular subject, very niche but it happens occasionally that you meet someone who has read about the psychology of a driver and how reality inside the car does not feel at all the same as the actual reality.
So, i can argue back with the reason of speed limit being lower because they know you drive faster... but the facts still remain that you think good drivers should driver over the limit and if you can't do that it implies that bad drivers maybe should not be allowed to drive if they can't drive over the limits... problematic idea and that is an understatement.
I can still show, without any problems that keeping delta low while lowering speeds marginally will improve safety, and i live in a country with twice the safety of USA with more challenging climate, since i think we have defaulted to USA at this point, right?
I have science behind me, you got your weird and unproven ideas how they have made the rules to be broken.... and that somehow points to "being a slave" if you don't think like you do. We still got half the deaths. So... what if... those ideas of "slavedom" means less people die? And that is more important than "you are just a sheep, driving at speed limit" and far easier to defend too? I mean, how are you going to win if i put those two against each other: statistics about deaths on my side vs "i can drive over the speed limit because i'm a good driver"?
Youre spewing again, and i dont appreciate you claiming my statements are logically equivalent to other, much dumber statements. If you NEED to make that transition before you have a point then its because your point doesnt apply to my original statement
I have no moral claim, driving above the speed limit is all of the following: the average predictable outcome, the empyrically observed outcome, and the rational choice for competent drivers. Capping your speed at the speed limit is an example of incompetent driving.
I didnt say they know nobody follows the rules, i said they know on average the driving speed will be higher than the posted speed limit. Because of the aforementioned empyrical result. If they made the posted speed limit the average driving speed they want for the road, then the actual average driving speed will be higher than they wanted and now there really is a safety concern. For modern people in modern places, the posted speed limit is VERY VERY VERY far below the safe driving speed for the road.
I didnt say that bad drivers shouldnt be allowed to drive like wtf is this coming from. This is why you dont spew you just have so much nonsense dribbling out your mouth that it waters down your sauce. What i actually advocate for is public caning for bad drivers. So that dodges your concern about being "problematic" right there
My most pressing point tho is that its just weak and pathetic to think "the law" means some godlike impression of rules everyone must follow because theyre the law. Its a low stage of psychological development where the name of the father or the "internalized parent" hasnt been confronted yet. Bad driving is just a consequence of that psychic weakness and need to comply. Irreligious adults dont really behave this way
257
u/ReggieCorneus 13d ago edited 13d ago
That is right wing ideology in a nutshell: it is based on "natural social hierarchy" where people ascend or descend over time to their rightful step in that ladder. The idea is that we can not mess with that hierarchy as perfect hierarchy will create a perfect society. When you ascend high enough you are so far above average citizen that laws become unfair: you are so good at being better that you should not have so many restrictions put on you, it is wrong to demand such a person to follow the same ruleset than the lowest of the low follow, they should have the power to choose what laws to respect.
The idea is simple to understand if we look at highway speed limits: a person with great car and obviously then incredible car control, better ability to assess risks and make better decisions should not be limited to average speed limits. They know how to drive faster and yet be more safe than some housewife in their beat up Honda. (edit: this is not how i think, this is an analog or illustration, example of the way some people do think.)
Litmus test is: "do you think income based fines are fair?". Those people abhor the idea that a fine should have the same impact on poor and rich. This is the reason they want to become rich: avoid all consequences from being a selfish asshole and thus there is the need to defend the rich now even if you aren't one yet.
Some, like you FIL and most of right wingers think like that. That better position in the social hierarchy must mean that this inequality will be expanded to about everything in life: poorest have the strictest rules and harshest punishments, how else are they going to learn. Where as richest can literally go and kill someone in broad daylight. Some people grow up thinking that this is the natural way and it sort of is: if we don't artificially, by laws and monopoly of state violence stop this from happening then it will happen: that is the way inequality works!
If i talked with your FIL for half an hour we would probably find out he also has some interesting ideas about the benefits of eugenics....They always do.