Is it OK to Probably Injure Traffic Blocking Protester to Possibly Save Life?
Let's be explicit so everyone is on the same page. This is unfortunately not a purely hypothetical question except for the preciseness I am hypothesizing.
You are driving your mother to the hospital along a route that you have every reason to believe is clear. But it's not, because of a protest. A protest that would not legally be allowed to totally block traffic as they are doing. Because of cars stopped behind you, the protest adds 20% to the probability your mother will die. If you slowly plow through the protest, there is an 80% chance that you will injure someone fairly seriously but no chance you will kill somebody. Are you wrong to do that? Should it be illegal? Does it matter what the protest is about?
(I think most of you will say it's OK. To those that did, what if the mother death probability went up by only 5%, the protester death probability went from zero to 70% and the policy being protested was clearly bad?)
@rococo
On days when strikes are held, Trenitalia, Italy's national railway, guarantees minimum transport services. These services are a direct result of an agreement between Trenitalia and the trade unions.
Note for Leonardo Express passengers: You will be guaranteed your connection between Rome Termini and Fiumicino Airport with the "Leonardo Express" service or with replacement buses.
* * *
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT TRAIN STRIKES IN ITALY
Is my train service guaranteed?
If your train is providing local transport during essential services for peak times (from 06:00 to 09:00 and from 18:00 to 21:00 Mon-Sat), these will be guaranteed. Some long-distance trains are also guaranteed on all days, including holidays.
What happens if my train is already traveling (departed at station) when a strike occurs?
Trains that are traveling when a strike begins and are not canceled in advance at their departure station will normally reach their final destination, provided those stations can be reached within one hour from the strike’s start. If trains are not able to make the 1 hour time limit, then they may terminate at the next station, before your stop is reached. In the event that this happens, Trenitalia will assist you with an alternative connection provided there are still trains available on that day to reach your final destination.
What does 'essential services' mean?
Essential services means that Trenitalia has guaranteed transport, but this may not be on the same train type originally booked or at the same time that you originally booked. It just means that we will get you there as soon as possible.
In addition to essential services, Trenitalia provides additional travel support to passengers affected by a strike. Notices about these services, as well as unpredictable changes, for example, a change of route for long-distance trains, can be found at railway stations, at www.trenitalia.com, and through the local Italian media.
@rococo
On days when strikes are held, Trenitalia, Italy's national railway, guarantees minimum transport services. These services are a direct result of an agreement between Trenitalia and the trade unions.
Note for Leonardo Express passengers: You will be guaranteed your connection between Rome Termini and Fiumicino Airport with the "Leonardo Express" service or with replacement buses.
* * *
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT TRAIN STRIKES IN ITALY
Is my train service guaranteed?
If your train is pro
I wasn't aware of this nuance, but in any case, I'm sure you would agree that railway strikes in Italy cause significant disruptions. If you prefer, you can answer with respect to strikes among railway workers in England rather than Italy. For that matter, you could use garbage strikes in NYC, which are a major nuisance and which are certainly undesirable from a public health perspective.
Alleys usually are streets designed for motor vehicles, not pedestrians. In NYC, at least, I don't see why it would be any more legal to throw a ball in the middle of an alley than it would be to throw a ball in the middle of a more heavily used street. So in Luciomtopia, I should get a reward from the state if I run over teenagers who are preventing cars from driving down the alley, right?
I also find it noteworthy that, although you are generally opposed to the government offering handouts to influence private behavior, you are willing to make an exception for this sort of thing.
I wasn't aware of this nuance, but in any case, I'm sure you would agree that railway strikes in Italy cause significant disruptions. If you prefer, you can answer with respect to strikes among railway workers in England rather than Italy. For that matter, you could use garbage strikes in NYC, which are a major nuisance and which are certainly undesirable from a public health perspective.
first of all denying your work isn't the same as violating other people property rights. Private gardners refusing to come and cut your grass aren't violating your property rights the same as someone who invades your garden.
But in general public sector workers shouldn't be allowed to strike clearly, and if they are those strikes should be super regulated.
Striking is part of negative-sum competitions between employer and employees. Makes sense in the private sector. But in the public sector they are literally fighting against *us* lol, why should we allow that? given the employer is the state, they have the political process to deal with any purported grievances with their employer.
Anyway back to your example, if strikers illegally occupy railroads or highways yes , we should be allowed to intervene if law enforcement can't.
Alleys usually are streets designed for motor vehicles, not pedestrians. In NYC, at least, I don't see why it would be any more legal to throw a ball in the middle of an alley than it would be to throw a ball in the middle of a more heavily used street. So in Luciomtopia, I should get a reward from the state if I run over teenagers who are preventing cars from driving down the alley, right?
I also find it noteworthy that, although you are generally opposed to the government offering handouts to
If you start sounding the horn , they stay there and don't move, then yes you should be allowed to run them over.
I am not opposed to the gvmnt rewarding clearly positive behaviour. Like i am not opposed to medals of honor and the like, i am not an anarchist, symbols matter, rewarding societally positive behaviour can work and so on.
Btw it woulnd't be an "handout", rather a compensation for the risks undertaken to do basically law enforcement work in a private capacity.
Here is another question.
For better or worse, jaywalking is relatively common in NYC. People sometimes cross the street other than at the corner. People sometimes cross at corners when they don't have a walk sign. This is indisputably an inconvenience for motorists who just want to use the public roadways in a lawful manner. And even worse, the jaywalkers aren't infringing on the rights of motorists in order to promote any sort of just cause. They are infringing on the rights of motorists just because they can.
In Luciomtopia, would drivers be allowed to intentionally run over these jaywalking scofflaws? Even better, would they receive some sort of government compensation for doing so?
Here is another question.
For better or worse, jaywalking is relatively common in NYC. People sometimes cross the street other than at the corner. People sometimes cross at corners when they don't have a walk sign. This is indisputably an inconvenience for motorists who just want to use the public roadways in a lawful manner. And even worse, the jaywalkers aren't infringing on the rights of motorists in order to promote any sort of just cause. They are infringing on the rights of motorists
We are talking how to use public property which has mixed possible uses (unlike highways). There is no libertarian solution to that, in the sense that you have to decide among owners, in this case voters of the entity that publicly owns those streets.
What i would require is just true federalism there, with every place deciding for itself , no need for residents in colorado to tell new yorkers how to use their streets and viceversa.
It could very well be the case that the owners of that property (the residents of that city, if that's the voting franchise) decide jaywalking isn't a serious offense, it's something compatible to how they want life to be lived in new york public property, or no.
It's the same with public parks, it's not about libertarianism what you allow to do in parks, it's about property rights. You can ban dog or not, and it's not about libertarianism in either case.
For highways though there is no "i was walking there" excuse (unless perhaps your car broke down, which is an exception several countries allow actually depending on details). There is no mixed use. You should treat people blocking highways by walking or sitting there the same you treat a owner of a pickup who starts driving in an urban public park on grass and whatever.
Here is another question.
For better or worse, jaywalking is relatively common in NYC. People sometimes cross the street other than at the corner. People sometimes cross at corners when they don't have a walk sign. This is indisputably an inconvenience for motorists who just want to use the public roadways in a lawful manner. And even worse, the jaywalkers aren't infringing on the rights of motorists in order to promote any sort of just cause. They are infringing on the rights of motorists
In the real world every person crossing the street at non-official points knows that cars can kill them and to not get hit. It's not the responsibility of the drivers to not hit pedestrians but rather the responsibility of pedestrians to make sure that they are not hit by cars.
Luciom,
I wasn't trying to raise questions about federalism or democracy with my jaywalking hypothetical.
But fine, make it local. You live in NYC. There is a referendum on the ballot. If the majority votes yes, motorists will be allowed to intentionally run over jaywalkers. Do you vote yes?
In the real world every person crossing the street at non-official points knows that cars can kill them and to not get hit.
Sure, but that observation is completely irrelevant to my question.
It's not the responsibility of the drivers to not hit pedestrians but rather the responsibility of pedestrians to make sure that they are not hit by cars.
In the U.S., at least, this isn't correct. If you are idling at a red light, and I stand in front of your car in plain view for whatever reason, under existing U.S. law, you are not allowed to intentionally run me over once the light turns green.
I want to know whether Luciom would vote to make this sort of driving behavior legal (and perhaps even encouraged by the government).
2a says I can shoot people who are trying to run me over in their cars ?
Here is another question.
For better or worse, jaywalking is relatively common in NYC. People sometimes cross the street other than at the corner. People sometimes cross at corners when they don't have a walk sign. This is indisputably an inconvenience for motorists who just want to use the public roadways in a lawful manner. And even worse, the jaywalkers aren't infringing on the rights of motorists in order to promote any sort of just cause. They are infringing on the rights of motorists
Your examples are silly. In no situation is a person intentionally trying to block traffic.
As usual, Luciom is coming in with juvenile, one-size-fits-all, solutions to nuanced questions. According to the logic of the bolded, I should get a reward from the state if I intentionally run over teenagers who are throwing a ball back and forth in a lightly travelled public alley.
Are they refusing to get out of the way?
Are they chanting "Death to America"?
Ambulance driver is a better hypothetical than driving your own mother. People aren't going to offer the Spock-like answer that you are looking for if the driver is acting to materially increase the odds of survival for himself or a close family member. (As an aside, if Spock-like answers were what you were looking for, I'm surprised you didn't include information about the age and general health of the mother as compared to the protesters. This is the point that Luckbox was making.)
I also do
You said, "force should be used" but seem averse to saying "the ambulance should run them over if there was no other alternative"? I'm sure you think it should if the patient would otherwise die. So how far from that extreme would you need to go where you think it shouldn't? Did the Golden Gate stoppage qualify?
Hopefully this gets put into law quickly.
Your examples are silly. In no situation is a person intentionally trying to block traffic.
Huh? In the Golden Gate Bridge protest that David keeps referring to, that's exactly what was happening.
Also, you must not have ever been to NYC. Jaywalkers often are intentionally blocking traffic, at least for as long as it takes for them to cross the street. Drivers who "block the box" do so as well.
You said, "force should be used" but seem averse to saying "the ambulance should run them over if there was no other alternative"? I'm sure you think it should if the patient would otherwise die. So how far from that extreme would you need to go where you think it shouldn't? Did the Golden Gate stoppage qualify?
That's correct. In the first instance, I think we should look to other methods to access the hospital rather than private ambulance drivers running people over.
But in the apocalyptic scenario where the only durable solution was for ambulance drivers to run over Proud Boys, I guess you have to do what you have to do.
Huh? In the Golden Gate Bridge protest that David keeps referring to, that's exactly what was happening.
Also, you must not have ever been to NYC. Jaywalkers often are intentionally blocking traffic, at least for as long as it takes for them to cross the street. Drivers who "block the box" do so as well.
I'm talking about your examples with the jay walking and kids in the alley. This is nonsense.
change the question to wife or child (most people here probably hate their parents). still bad? what if it was 50% likely?
bonus points: would you tell your wife or kid to their face that you'd let them die with 50% probability?
im guessing the answer is that if the protestors are Trumpers, left wingers would be ok with it, and if the protestors are leftists, Trumpers would be ok with it, but not vice-versa. after all, in todays political cult culture, the other side of the aisle doesnt qualify as human, and total strangers on the same side of the aisle are worshipped like demigods.
Closest I've came to getting ran over was by a lady on horseback.
I think I was walking down the middle of the street and I dodged left and they dodged left and all of a sudden this horse is now bearing down on me and I had to run fast out of the way. Was scary.
I'm talking about your examples with the jay walking and kids in the alley. This is nonsense.
No one is saying that the world is teeming with people who want to run over jaywalkers or kids throwing a ball in the alley.
Most people would be appalled by such behavior.
That's why I am more than a little confused as to why Luciom seemingly wants to wants to legalize (and perhaps incentivize) such behavior.
Closest I've came to getting ran over was by a lady on horseback.
I think I was walking down the middle of the street and I dodged left and they dodged left and all of a sudden this horse is now bearing down on me and I had to run fast out of the way. Was scary.
Sure. I don't think getting trampled by a horse is much more fun than getting hit by a car.
