Comment: If a blind man kills someone

(See in situ)

If a blind man kills someone

If a blind man kills someone driving a car he's guilty of murder.

It's not complicated. You just make things much worse when you start 'criminalizing' some factor you think may contribute to a problem. The only valid purpose of laws is to deter harm, not behavior we consider problematic or disapprove.

Also there's no problem with speed limits. The problem is with socialized roads and coercive enforcement of speed limits.

In a free society there may well be speed limits on roads, and they would be enforced ultimately by property rights. The road business would be incentivised to maximize customer usage and thus maximize safety. The road firm doesn't care how this is accomplished, and thus the solution to safety and throughput may be speed limits, enforced ultimately by refusal to accept the customer. Intermediate steps would be charging known unsafe drivers more, or more likely by insisting drivers have liability insurance.

The particular solution is not of much import, but the fact that profits depend on it being solved in a non socialized market is important.

Similarly 'licenses'. It may or may not make sense to have some proof of minimal driving competence.

Ultimately the problem with government solutions to problems is that they have to fail, or else the program cannot make a claim against more resources.

No one will give more money to a program that is doing it's job efficiently, or worse actually solving the problem. A government program that solves a problem is committing suicide. They will not commit suicide. Ever.