The Legend of Seeker Season 1 DVD
Spartacus: Gods of the Arena Season 1 DVD
American Idol DVD

the fact that you never had any problem with horns, is not an objective argument.

It has as much weight, as Mr. Fedako’s arguments of “trust me” and “read so and so”.

Not really sure where you lived in Ohio, because growing up there I never had a problem with horns. Trains were the culprit, but I believe they were there first anyways. (Also, you must be a much lighter sleeper than I, because I eventually got accustomed to most trains as well.)

In your position, I would have invested in a pair of soft foam ear plugs.

Law limits one’s liberty. The repudiation of law upon that basis is anarchism.

Libertarianism assumes a mutual benefit of some legal restriction to liberty.

I await a revelation on the benefit to be conferred through an absence of restriction for car horn use, and look forward to your epiphany in regard to this subject and the related disquisition thereof.

Best Wishes,
Classical Thinker

P.S. – I shall pray that a car horn does not interrupt the epiphany.

“I’m not sure I see a difference between annoyance and aggression. What is it?

It will not be much of a rational discussion if you cannot see the difference between those two word. I’d suggest Webster’s, but you’d likely admonish me again.

There will be no more discussion here.

“trust me” and “read so and so…” carry no weight in a rational discussion.

If you think they do, good luck persuading someone to your point of view.

Your RCMP example reminds me of the theme of the double album “Joe’s Garage” by Frank Zappa. The idea was that the government made music illegal. Since everyone loves music, everyone would then be a criminal, and the government would have an excuse to completely control everyone.

In other words, I don’t think your RCMP radio example is a good argument for why unnecessary laws should exist. I think it’s a good example of how law enforcement personnel abuse law and power, and a good excuse for why such laws shouldn’t exist.

Take the law against marijuana. It used to be illegal mainly as an excuse for picking on Mexicans and blacks. Now billions of dollars a year are wasted, and thousands of peoples’ lives are ruined, because of a law that was an excuse for LEOs to do what they wanted.

“I’m not sure I see a difference between annoyance and aggression. What is it?

Read Rothbard, et al. Good Luck.

I’m not sure I see a difference between annoyance and aggression. What is it?

“You break the law by beaping the horn, not by an act of aggression.”

I see your point and I agree, the law is unnecessary.

“Trust me, no one cares.”

“Trust me” is not a rational argument, it carries exactly zero weight in a rational discussion.

So you still may be a career criminal, not because of breaking the horn-blowing law, but because of annoying your neighbors.

It’d be nice to have more posts here and there about local, particularly city, governments: How do they work on a day-to-day basis? What principles do they seem to be following? Even though city governments are less scrutinized, their decisions can have large negative ramifications, as we saw with the housing boom/bust, which, as Sowell recently argued, was a local phenomenon, even though it was perceived as a national one. Such confusion between local and national events shows that the public could use so more working knowledge about local government.

if the norml article is true, they may lie as bad a marines and abaies and incuabtors stories…i will laugh at the death of the rcmp and the bozos in blue who continue to do their ‘jobs’ while shit like this happens.

having the police get their comuppance isnt being a dick
i would have wired my car to have a horse rattling whistle begin after the radio was pulled….only mistake at birth would laugh at such a thing.

There are many things that my various neighbors do which annoy me. Are you advocating for laws to protect me from all of these minor annoyances?

“As far as: “Your freedom ends where someone else’s freedom begins.” Such clear demarcations of rights exist only in a utopia. Court and/or arbitrators will always be needed.

But, again, this is not an issue of aggression. You break the law by beaping the horn, not by an act of aggression.”

yeah…people fart in elevators. i find that annoying, the rcmp probably like it. horn or annoyances would likley have to be arbitrated. if the annoyance was repetitive of could be shown to affect health of others etc. probably not that difficult.

As I noted above: 1. It is a liberty issue. The law is silent on decibels. No aggression needs to occur. In a libertarian world, your [annoyance] has no legal standing unless you were aggressed. (I changed the quote to fit your response.)

There are many things that my various neighbors do which annoy me. Are you advocating for laws to protect me from all of these minor annoyances?

As far as: “Your freedom ends where someone else’s freedom begins.” Such clear demarcations of rights exist only in a utopia. Court and/or arbitrators will always be needed.

But, again, this is not an issue of aggression. You break the law by beaping the horn, not by an act of aggression.

(note: Keep in mind that I am talking about little toots that are less noisy than banging garbage cans and lawn mowers. Trust me, no one cares. But that really is not the issue here.)

has it crossed your mind that perhaps your horn may be annoying to your neighbors?

Your freedom ends where someone else’s freedom begins.

Then again, I’ve never heard of it being enforced.