Replying to Avatar Kendy

Poor phrasing from me. I meant to describe a hypothetical toll booth corporation or entity that profits directly from a known >0 criminals on their tolled roads.

Here’s a thought experiment for your virtues: What percent of criminals of any sort, petty crime to violent offenders, should be permitted to use their toll roads? For example, if criminals are less than 0.2% of all drivers, is that permissible? Is it the burden of that entity to KYC everyone and block any offenders? Should local govts subsidize the toll corps law enforcement budgets?

If you disagree that that petty crime should not be included, where do you draw the line for crime severity? Why is your moral authority superior?

You probably get my point by now.
Avatar
DiGTALDementia 2mo ago

Not poor phrasing , it’s just a poor analogy, period. Citizens are forced to use a toll road to live their lives, no one was forced to use the Silk Road, they chose to because it was “anonymous” and they could use it for purposes they couldn’t use eBay for.

Your thought experiment is also just as irrelevant. So no real point in responding, but the DOT is not the police, they’re also not a corporation, roads are paid for by the tax payers using those roads and traveling them is a permissible for all. If you get pulled over on the road and are found to have illegal substances or have done a crime, then you will be tried for that crime.

Not all of us can be so lucky or possibly bribe corrupt politicians to be pardoned for our crimes. Yet another example of the two tiered justice system.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

No replies yet.