Philosophy Now Forum

bobevenson wrote:They're both exactly the same, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck, and nothing you say can changes that simple fact. ...

It's not a fact, as they are not the same.

And don't come up with that bullshit that it's for different reasons! If you're driving too fast, it's not a fine, it's a luxury tax for speeding.

You sound bitter that you're not rich enough to afford to speed? If this is your complaint then why not lobby for a Swiss or Nordic solution, i.e. fine according to income. As the point is supposed to be deterrence and I can well see that the rich would not be deterred by fixed penalty fines in this matter. If you don't like fines per se then why not just have flogging for speeding and hanging for drink driving, that should do the trick.

bobevenson wrote:

FlashDangerpants wrote:

bobevenson wrote: a traffic fine isn't even pocket change to Donald Trump, but could cause some people who are destitute to blow their brains out.

In Switzerland fines are relative to ability to pay. Some guy in a Ferrari got a speeding fine equivalent to the value of his car for this reason.
Perhaps the AEP should have the same policy.

As I have explained earlier, the only proper form of taxation is a single tax on property, property being defined as anything with intrinsic market value.

Fines still serve a disciplinary purpose. Is your alternative traffic school? Forced unpaid labor such as picking up trash by the highway perhaps?