A Usenet persona calling itself "- Prof. Jonez©"
Nope. Vigilantism is the practice of pbutting and executing sentence on a purported lawbreaker outside the legal system. Obstructing a criminal's ability to commit a crime is not vigilantism. If I were to force a speeder off the highway, pull him out of his car and beat him to a pulp, THAT would be vigilantism. Merely being in his way is a public service and duty.
Main Entry:an£ar£chy Pronunciation:*a-n*r-k*, -*n*r- Function:noun
Etymology:Medieval Latin anarchia, from Greek, from anarchos having no ruler, from an- + archos ruler — more at ARCH-
1 a : absence of government b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government 2 a : absence or denial of any authority or established order b : absence of order : DISORDER *not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature — Israel Shenker* 3 : ANARCHISM
Strawman.
Ipse dixit, quod erat demonstrandum
Unsurprising.
Or that you don't *think* impart harm to others. Unfortunately, you don't get to make those decisions, which is why you can be penalized for engaging in the conduct.
Wrong.
Nope.
Which I do, as required, in strict compliance with the letter of the law.
Diversion.
I don't. I observe their conduct.
Perhaps, but they will be behind me nonetheless.
Except that by operating strictly within the law, I cannot be held responsible because I am not acting negligently.
Fallacy.
Indeed.
Why should I give them any consideration at all, either affirmatively or negatively? Why should I not simply proceed about my lawful occasions while utterly ignoring them?
Wrong. It's only illegal for me to fail to drive in the right lane under specific circumstances. The "obstructing traffic" law has not changed.
This is true, but irrelevant so long as I have legal justification to be in the left lane.
No, it's "any degree of force, no matter how slight." This means that even attempting to push me aside to escape triggers the "Make My Day" law authority to use deadly physical force.
Indeed. But the point is that the reason I may either obstruct a scofflaw or shoot a violent intruder is that the law permits me to do so.
Of course not.
I might. More likely, I'll just drive at a safe speed and ignore the scofflaws.
Only if it's not "unsafe" to do so. It's child's play to ensure that at all times it is "unsafe" to merge right, and thus I don't have to move right unless and until that condition changes.
Quite right. But then again, as non-scofflaws they have no better right to be in front of me than I do to be in front of them. Thus, I am under no obligation to get out of their way so that they *can* speed unless it is not "unsafe" to do so.
I'm free to make any prediction I wish. So long as I'm driving lawfully, I'm under no obligation to get out of anyone's way (except, of course, authorized emergency vehicles displaying the proper emergency equipment) just because they want me to. I'll do as I please, and they can just wait till I'm done using the public highway in a lawful manner. If that doesn't comport with their schedule, tough poo.
-- Regards, Scott Weiser
"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM
© 2005 Scott Weiser
