Legalize Drinking and Driving??

[DougP]

Well there was some more interesting chit chat around the old water cooler today. One of the conversations that stood out was one about legalizing drunk driving. I have to admit the first time I heard of it, I was in shock.:ohmy: This lead of course to me reading a few articles on the subject. I found them to be rather interesting as it brought another perspective on the current laws that went into affect during the Clinton administration. I figured why not bring it up here and see what others have to say on this subject.

Now, the immediate response goes this way: drunk driving has to be illegal because the probability of causing an accident rises dramatically when you drink. The answer is just as simple: government in a free society should not deal in probabilities. The law should deal in actions and actions alone, and only insofar as they damage person or property. Probabilities are something for insurance companies to assess on a competitive and voluntary basis.

This is why the campaign against "racial profiling" has intuitive plausibility to many people: surely a person shouldn’t be hounded solely because some demographic groups have higher crime rates than others. Government should be preventing and punishing crimes themselves, not probabilities and propensities. Neither, then, should we have driver profiling, which assumes that just because a person has quaffed a few he is automatically a danger.

In fact, driver profiling is worse than racial profiling, because the latter only implies that the police are more watchful, not that they criminalize race itself. Despite the propaganda, what’s being criminalized in the case of drunk driving is not the probability that a person driving will get into an accident but the fact of the blood-alcohol content itself. A drunk driver is humiliated and destroyed even when he hasn’t done any harm.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/drunkdriving.html

Another interesting article: The Non-Crime of Drunk Driving
http://www.getmadd.com/theNONcrimeofdrunkdriving.htm

[Odie]

Interesting, I can honestly say I've never thought about this before. I think though that operating a vehicle while under the influence should be punishable by law regardless of wether an accident takes place or not. There exists the concept of negligence and gross negligence with in the law. Most adults are aware that driving under the influence affects your capability to react and increases your chances of getting into an accident, therefore if you drive while drunk you are extremely negligent of your responsabilities as a driver and should be held accountable for your negligence wether or not it happens to kill someone. I would then come to the conclusion that he law isn't only punishing based on possibilities but based on a persons failure to use ordinary care.

In closing I know very little about law and it's applications so feel free to correct me if I am incorrect. :)

[justpassingtime]

Are they serious? Behaviors that recklessly disregard the safety of others should be punishable by law regardless of whether some one ends up dead or not! I feel like turning a blind eye to drunk driving would be like saying its okay to run through a playground during recess firing a weapon as long as you don't shoot anyone. Crazy!

[DougP]

Are they serious? Behaviors that recklessly disregard the safety of others should be punishable by law regardless of whether some one ends up dead or not! I feel like turning a blind eye to drunk driving would be like saying its okay to run through a playground during recess firing a weapon as long as you don't shoot anyone. Crazy!

Not siding with the views of the guys who wrote the articles here but allow me to say this. That line of thinking in theory would make it possible to heavily punish someone who hasn't had enough sleep and is behind the wheel. Statistics have shown that not getting enough sleep is just as dangerous as having a few drinks. So in that sense if during a check point its found out that the driver has only had about 2 hours sleep in the last 48 hours, he/she could be heavily fined and thrown in jail for endangering others. Driving while on the cell phone should carry the same punishment/fine as a DUI. They are both as dangerous in many instances. Talking to passengers, eating something, messing with the radio are all things that lower the reaction time of the driver. So in a sense they are behaviors that recklessly disregard the safety of others and should be punished as well.

[Gadget]

If I'm not mistaken, truckers whose logs show they haven't had enough sleep/rest time can be fined...(they check the logs at inspection/weigh stations)

Although I don't agree with the sue happy atmosphere of the US often, I'd agree that someone who has crashed and injured/killed/caused property damage cause they drove while too tired should be punished severly too

[DougP]

The thing about the truckers is that its their company and contract that dictates how much sleep they need to get. The government hasn't made it illegal to get less than X hours of sleep per night. Should the government step in on this one too?

[DocTurtle]

Making drunk driving legal should be fine...only if that once they cause or are in an accident that they fines are HUGE! Not this slap on the wrist crap that we have now.

[okisteve]

DocT - but wouldn't that just tend to encourage all the hotshot drivers who think they are invulnerable to do more of the same impaired driving? It's bound to increase accidents.

[DocTurtle]

Darwin FTW! Make the penalties HUGE! Cause an accident and you were under the influence? 20 YEARS, take away their license, and give them a big ole fine. Once they have done thier 20 they can re-apply. :)

It's more than obvious that our current system isn't working. Poeple still drive drunk. So punish them! We are too leaniate(sp) right now. We need harsher punishment for it.

[okisteve]

What if the driver dies? Can they do a breath test on a stiff?

[DougP]

blood test.

[okisteve]

Please bleed into this tube, sir.

[DougP]

LMAO :w00t: probably not quite like that.

[Muku]

Darwin FTW! Make the penalties HUGE! Cause an accident and you were under the influence? 20 YEARS, take away their license, and give them a big ole fine. Once they have done thier 20 they can re-apply. :)

It's more than obvious that our current system isn't working. Poeple still drive drunk. So punish them! We are too leaniate(sp) right now. We need harsher punishment for it.
You know I wouldnt be against the death penalty in cases where a drunk driver kills someone.

To me it is premeditated murder, they made the choice to drink and then drive.

Taking away a persons license doesnt matter either, people still drive with expired or revoked one's.

[DocTurtle]

You have a point on the license thing Muku. Hmm...maybe we need to have a system where you have to slide your license through a card reader before you can start your car? Maybe make the breath analyzer mano for all cars?

I also agree on the premeditated murder.

[DougP]

Privatize the road ways. Hmm maybe we could make another thread out of that one.

[Muku]

You have a point on the license thing Muku. Hmm...maybe we need to have a system where you have to slide your license through a card reader before you can start your car? Maybe make the breath analyzer mano for all cars?

I also agree on the premeditated murder.
It's not like the technology isnt there either. Car manufacturers knew about the air bag way back in 1953 but because of the expense manufacters refused to install it.

I usually am against government intervention in daily life, however for safety purposes and the safety of the population in general, because a drunk driving death is usually a random act of violence, the government should institute these two suggestions of yours here.

[DocTurtle]

I agree with you agreeing with me :thumbup:

[DougP]

It's not like the technology isnt there either. Car manufacturers knew about the air bag way back in 1953 but because of the expense manufacters refused to install it.

I usually am against government intervention in daily life, however for safety purposes and the safety of the population in general, because a drunk driving death is usually a random act of violence, the government should institute these two suggestions of yours here.

I think the safety concerns should be brought about by public influence and not by the government. If people are unwilling to purchase a vehicle because it is unsafe then the car manufacturers will have no choice but to make it safer. I wouldn't want the government dictating to me what kind of features my car has to have. I wear my seat belt because I know it makes the drive safer, not because someone is telling me to do so.

[Muku]

I think the safety concerns should be brought about by public influence and not by the government. If people are unwilling to purchase a vehicle because it is unsafe then the car manufacturers will have no choice but to make it safer. I wouldn't want the government dictating to me what kind of features my car has to have. I wear my seat belt because I know it makes the drive safer, not because someone is telling me to do so.

Well Doug, if memory serves me right seat belts became mandatory because of government intervention and the creation of laws making their use mandatory.

So your using them today is thanks largely in part to the government.

[okisteve]

Well Doug, if memory serves me right seat belts became mandatory because of government intervention and the creation of laws making their use mandatory.

So your using them today is thanks largely in part to the government.

The auto mfrs fought against seatbelts because of the cost!

[DougP]

Well Doug, if memory serves me right seat belts became mandatory because of government intervention and the creation of laws making their use mandatory.

So your using them today is thanks largely in part to the government.

Seat belts have been around about as long as the automobile itself. Volvo had the first safety belts in 1849. The idea of making them standard was not soley due to the government alone. In the 1930s several U.S. physicians started equipping their own cars with seat belts. Subsequently they began urging manufacturers to provide them in all new cars. In 1956 Ford and Chrysler offer lap belts in front as option on some models. Auto manufacturers back then were doing large campaigns focusing on safety, with the seat belt being the main feature. Most U.S. automobiles were sold with front seat belts standard in the 1964 model year. Rear seat belts were made standard in 1968.

Actually the US was far behind other countries as far as laws requiring seat belts is concerned. New York State passed the first seat belt law in the US in 1984. So I'd wager that other influences outside the government including the consumers played more of a major role in making seat belts standard in automobiles.

[Muku]

Seat belts have been around about as long as the automobile itself. Volvo had the first safety belts in 1849. The idea of making them standard was not soley due to the government alone. In the 1930s several U.S. physicians started equipping their own cars with seat belts. Subsequently they began urging manufacturers to provide them in all new cars. In 1956 Ford and Chrysler offer lap belts in front as option on some models. Auto manufacturers back then were doing large campaigns focusing on safety, with the seat belt being the main feature. Most U.S. automobiles were sold with front seat belts standard in the 1964 model year. Rear seat belts were made standard in 1968.

Actually the US was far behind other countries as far as laws requiring seat belts is concerned. New York State passed the first seat belt law in the US in 1984. So I'd wager that other influences outside the government including the consumers played more of a major role in making seat belts standard in automobiles.

If the government did not make them mandatory there would still be cars available today I would bet that did not have that safety feature in them.

There was a period of time where they were actually removed when air bags first came about as an alternative to the seat belt, yet once again the government made them mandatory.

Consumer groups influenced the government into action, yet there were still those that were against it, even though they knew it was for their own good.

The point I am making is that the government does play an important part in protecting "us" consumers from ourselves.

It isnt limited to automobiles either, there are tons of manufactured goods that are safer today I would bet, thanks mostly in part to the government creating safety standards.

I do not like the government getting involved anymore than necessary as well.

[DougP]

Actually seat belts were had became standard in most US manufacture cars a while before the government did step in as I pointed out. New York who was the first state to ever issue a law requiring seat belts in 1984, had rejected the proposal for such a messure as far back as the 1960's. These recommendations were not coming from within the government but from outside influences and independent study groups.

Now before hand they had adopted standards. As a mater of fact the US Commerce Dept issued the first seat belt standard in 1965. By this time though, all US manufacturers had began making front seat belts standard. The federal government had not yet made it a law requiring manufacturers to do so and as of 1965 had only issued a standard, not enforced it.

So in truth seat belts had been made standard in all vehicles being produced back then and not because of the government. I believe you are not giving credit where credit is do on the seat belt issue. It is rather clear that the government merely signed off on it decades later and now you and everyone else is under the impression that they are the sole savior in this case. Heck the NHTSA didn't really get on the ball until the 1970s on this issue.

To say that if the government did not make them mandatory there would still be cars available today is rather speculative. Seeing how they were widely standard all the way back in the 60s and safety was a big selling point for auto makers I'd be willing to bet that they'd still be around even without Government intervention.

In reality, governments intervention is what slowed down the arrival of the airbag. One of the big concerns back when talks of legislation were being thrown around was that that instead of legislating for a general protection standard for vehicle occupants laws that required a particular technical approach would rapidly become dated. Auto manufacturers had to concentrate on a particular standard which could not easily be changed. Back in 1969 there were competing designs for lap and 3-point seat belts, inflatable restraints and air bags being developed. Unfortunately as countries started to mandate seat belts auto makers around the world invested in the making and standardized exclusively on seat belts, and ignored other designs like air bags for many decades.

[laughingman]

Muku, so what if there was? (cars avialable without seat belts that is). An Indian (dot, not feather) auto manufacturer recently made a car that cost about 1000 dollars. Of course its likely a saftey nightmare and the driver wouldn't probably survive a collision with a squirl. But so what? Lets say I'm a down on my luck guy that can't get the job I want becuause I have to take the bus everywhere. What if getting a car, albeit a dangerous one, gave me the oportunity to get a better job, improve my circumstances thereby allowing me to get a better car. Whats wrong with that?

The beauty of capitalism is that as long as the government stays the hell out of the way, it offers choices for every mode of life=opportunity. What difference is it to you if the guy next to you is/isn't wearing a seat belt? How does that effect you or violate your rights (which is after all the theoretical justification offered for government)?

By nanny-stating everybody the government has removed opportunities from underpriviledged people that would have given them a chance at bettering their circumstances. Thanks for looking out for us Gov! The descision of what risks are worth taking and which ones aren't should be left to the individual who knows his lot in life better than any politician looking to score points. If a person isn't free to make what you believe to be a bad decision, then they're not free at all.

[jimbob17755]

Well there was some more interesting chit chat around the old water cooler today. One of the conversations that stood out was one about legalizing drunk driving. I have to admit the first time I heard of it, I was in shock.:ohmy: This lead of course to me reading a few articles on the subject. I found them to be rather interesting as it brought another perspective on the current laws that went into affect during the Clinton administration. I figured why not bring it up here and see what others have to say on this subject.


http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/drunkdriving.html

Another interesting article: The Non-Crime of Drunk Driving
http://www.getmadd.com/theNONcrimeofdrunkdriving.htm
It brings to mind the time I was arrested for drunk driving. The judge asked me "why were you driving drunk?" I replied," your honor, I had to drive, I was to drunk to walk!"
HIC-UP, HIC-UP

[Muku]

Muku, so what if there was? (cars avialable without seat belts that is). An Indian (dot, not feather) auto manufacturer recently made a car that cost about 1000 dollars. Of course its likely a saftey nightmare and the driver wouldn't probably survive a collision with a squirl. But so what? Lets say I'm a down on my luck guy that can't get the job I want becuause I have to take the bus everywhere. What if getting a car, albeit a dangerous one, gave me the oportunity to get a better job, improve my circumstances thereby allowing me to get a better car. Whats wrong with that?

The beauty of capitalism is that as long as the government stays the hell out of the way, it offers choices for every mode of life=opportunity. What difference is it to you if the guy next to you is/isn't wearing a seat belt? How does that effect you or violate your rights (which is after all the theoretical justification offered for government)?

By nanny-stating everybody the government has removed opportunities from underpriviledged people that would have given them a chance at bettering their circumstances. Thanks for looking out for us Gov! The descision of what risks are worth taking and which ones aren't should be left to the individual who knows his lot in life better than any politician looking to score points. If a person isn't free to make what you believe to be a bad decision, then they're not free at all.

Well let's look at the costs. Let's for example here only, say an individual chooses not to wear their seat belt and gets into an accident not involving anyone else, hits a patch of oil on the road slides and wraps his car around a telephone pole, tossing him through the front windshield.

Only an example here...

The person in question has zero medical insurance and we the taxpayers are forced to pay his medical costs. He is in a coma and now is on life support and lives for another 50 years. Yet if he had been wearing his seatbelt he would have walked away without a scratch.

How about the person that doesnt wear his, and like here in Okinawa has his infant in the front seat without a belt on either, same accident, but this time the baby gets killed.

Then it becomes our problem as well.


If a person isn't free to make what you believe to be a bad decision, then they're not free at all

It would be anarchy if there were no laws. And yes we are not truly "free".

[Tony Stacks]

How about the person that doesnt wear his, and like here in Okinawa has his infant in the front seat without a belt on either, same accident, but this time the baby gets killed.

Then it becomes our problem as well.
.




It becomes OUR problem? How is that?

[laughingman]

Well let's look at the costs. Let's for example here only, say an individual chooses not to wear their seat belt and gets into an accident not involving anyone else, hits a patch of oil on the road slides and wraps his car around a telephone pole, tossing him through the front windshield.

Only an example here...

The person in question has zero medical insurance and we the taxpayers are forced to pay his medical costs. He is in a coma and now is on life support and lives for another 50 years. Yet if he had been wearing his seatbelt he would have walked away without a scratch.

How about the person that doesnt wear his, and like here in Okinawa has his infant in the front seat without a belt on either, same accident, but this time the baby gets killed.

Then it becomes our problem as well.




It would be anarchy if there were no laws. And yes we are not truly "free".

Hold on now. Pause. Who made it our problem? The driver or the government that decieded to scocialize medical care? Yet again, it is the government that passed on the consequences for others actions to you, the tax payer. The example I give is based upon the assumption that we live a free country (we don't). In a free society we are each responsible for our actions. Can others be effected, yes, but unless those effects violate the rights of others, the shouldn't be illegal. In a free society, the risks are yours to bear.

Should we outlaw extreem sports then because the risk of injury is too high and the medical costs would get passed on to you?

The solution to your problem above is not a new law, but repealing the laws that socialize medical costs.

If you find such an argument absurd or distastfull because it leaves out those without the means to care for themselves, then I would just point out that in the end it is always the most disadvantaged that end up loosing out at the end of socialized medical ploys:

Link to example picture (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/12/EnthanasiePropaganda.jpg)

For those who don't speak german this says, "This person suffering from hereditary defects costs the community 60,000 Reichsmark during his lifetime. Fellow German, that is your money, too." and it is advocating euthinizing him becuase of the burden he places on society. But in reality, it is the government (in this case the Nazi gov) that placed that burden on society. I'm quite certain that this man would happly forgo all public assistance if it meant he would be allowed to continue living.

[Tony Stacks]

Well there was some more interesting chit chat around the old water cooler today. One of the conversations that stood out was one about legalizing drunk driving. I have to admit the first time I heard of it, I was in shock.:ohmy: This lead of course to me reading a few articles on the subject. I found them to be rather interesting as it brought another perspective on the current laws that went into affect during the Clinton administration. I figured why not bring it up here and see what others have to say on this subject.


http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/drunkdriving.html

Another interesting article: The Non-Crime of Drunk Driving
http://www.getmadd.com/theNONcrimeofdrunkdriving.htm



Interesting articles.

[GoochBomber]

The thing about the truckers is that its their company and contract that dictates how much sleep they need to get. The government hasn't made it illegal to get less than X hours of sleep per night. Should the government step in on this one too?

actually im a motor t operator and they do. If you dont get at least 8 hours sleep (or if you drink 8 hours prior to driving) it's an instant NJP. So there are guidelines to it. Im not saying people abide by them, or even that they don't get caught, im just stating they're in place.

[Muku]

It becomes OUR problem? How is that?
Taken out of context Tony. Read it in relation to the rest of the post.:D


Hold on now. Pause. Who made it our problem? The driver or the government that decieded to scocialize medical care? Yet again, it is the government that passed on the consequences for others actions to you, the tax payer. The example I give is based upon the assumption that we live a free country (we don't). In a free society we are each responsible for our actions. Can others be effected, yes, but unless those effects violate the rights of others, the shouldn't be illegal. In a free society, the risks are yours to bear.

Ok so then by your way of thinking are you suggesting that we let people that are injured in the example that I gave just die?

Sorry that isnt fair.

If this discussion is purely about a theoretical society then yes I would agree with you, however in reality no place such as you are describing exists today.

Oh and we created our own problem, we as in the American people, and for any number of reasons mostly, to me anyway, due to apathy and indifference, we created the society that we have.

Should we outlaw extreem sports then because the risk of injury is too high and the medical costs would get passed on to you?

Different example here, sports are something that people choose to do, however driving a car for many is a neccesity.

We outlaw drugs, but should they be outlawed? There is an argument on both sides of that as well. Let people make their own choices....however due to the crimminal element involved society in general agrees with the government that they should be illegal. But there is a section of society that disagrees too.

It is a never ending cycle, with no winners and a whole bunch of losers.

The solution to your problem above is not a new law, but repealing the laws that socialize medical costs.

I disagree but for other reasons. I disagree because then medical insurance would only be available for the wealthy, similar to what it is today. I dont see it as being a solution, your idea here, but aggravating the problem.

For those who don't speak german this says, "This person suffering from hereditary defects costs the community 60,000 Reichsmark during his lifetime. Fellow German, that is your money, too." and it is advocating euthinizing him becuase of the burden he places on society. But in reality, it is the government (in this case the Nazi gov) that placed that burden on society. I'm quite certain that this man would happly forgo all public assistance if it meant he would be allowed to continue living.

However without public assistance how would he live?

To me it sounds like survival of the fittest and wealthiest.

[laughingman]

Ok so then by your way of thinking are you suggesting that we let people that are injured in the example that I gave just die?

Sorry that isnt fair.

Oh, ok. So its not fair that somebody has to take responsibilty for his or her own actions, but it is okay to force other to pay for their decisions?

Different example here, sports are something that people choose to do, however driving a car for many is a neccesity.

All the more reason to outlaw it! Why should I have to pay for the recreational pursuites of somebody else! Raid the X-games! Shut down skater parks!

We outlaw drugs, but should they be outlawed? There is an argument on both sides of that as well. Let people make their own choices....however due to the crimminal element involved society in general agrees with the government that they should be illegal. But there is a section of society that disagrees too.

Ah, I think you've got that the wrong way around Muku. An action is outlawed, then it becomes populated with criminals. Al Capone did come onto the sceen until after the prohibition. And what do ya know, as soon as prohibition was ricinded brewing became a safe and respectable business again. All except for the great Coors vs. Budwiser massacer of 1992. Bloodbath that was.

I disagree but for other reasons. I disagree because then medical insurance would only be available for the wealthy, similar to what it is today. I dont see it as being a solution, your idea here, but aggravating the problem.

However without public assistance how would he live?

To me it sounds like survival of the fittest and wealthiest.

Except that I just gave you an example of a car that is being sold for a thousand bucks. See, capitalism provides even for the poor and downtroden of society. Once upon a time there used to vast armies of doctors that did pro-bono work and free clinics abounded for the less fortunate. With the advent of socialized medicine these are rapidly dissappearing. Instead of genuine charity we now have money stollen from some to pay for the needs of others. Yeah, your right, robbery is much more preferable to charity.

What about food? Certainly food is more important than health coverage? Should we put the gov in charge of food too? Oh wait, the USSR already tried that huh? Bread lines are no fun.

[Muku]

Oh, ok. So its not fair that somebody has to take responsibilty for his or her own actions, but it is okay to force other to pay for their decisions?

I never wrote it was fair. It's the same as people that choose unhealthy lifestyles. We all end up paying.

All the more reason to outlaw it! Why should I have to pay for the recreational pursuites of somebody else! Raid the X-games! Shut down skater parks!

No just have participants provide proof of having adequate health insurance.
Easy solution.

An action is outlawed
Actually both are, the action of using a drug and the drug itself. Just possessing illegal drugs is enough to get you tossed in jail.

Except that I just gave you an example of a car that is being sold for a thousand bucks. See, capitalism provides even for the poor and downtroden of society.
That's India and not the USA, the car you refered to as is would not be "legal" in the USA. So only a section of the poor and downtrodden are being provided for.

Probably had the same discussion when the horse and buggy were matched to each other as well.


What about food? Certainly food is more important than health coverage? Should we put the gov in charge of food too?

USDA.

[Tony Stacks]

actually im a motor t operator and they do. If you dont get at least 8 hours sleep (or if you drink 8 hours prior to driving) it's an instant NJP. So there are guidelines to it. Im not saying people abide by them, or even that they don't get caught, im just stating they're in place.


That's news to me because i don't know too many jobs in the Marine Corps when you get off work early enough to get 8 hours of sleep plus PT days.:army:

[laughingman]

I never wrote it was fair. It's the same as people that choose unhealthy lifestyles. We all end up paying.


No just have participants provide proof of having adequate health insurance.
Easy solution.


Actually both are, the action of using a drug and the drug itself. Just possessing illegal drugs is enough to get you tossed in jail.


That's India and not the USA, the car you refered to as is would not be "legal" in the USA. So only a section of the poor and downtrodden are being provided for.

Probably had the same discussion when the horse and buggy were matched to each other as well.




USDA.

Sometimes I can't tell if you are arguing for or against me, or if you are just unaware of the inherent contradictions in your own aurgument.

For example: you say it is for the better of all that seat belt laws and such are instituted (vehicle regulations) and then I tell you that India has produced a 1000 dollar vehicle that could provide transportation to the poor and needy. Your reponse is that it isn't available to our poor and needy but the reason for that is the afore mentioned government intervention. So who's the villian here?

Another example: You say that without medicaid and ilk, that the poor would no longer be able to afford insureance (thats incorrect for reasons I won't go into just now), but then you say people should not be allowed to participate in high risk behavior unless they can provide proof of adequate insurance...so only the rich should be allowed to take risks that add enjoyment to their life?

If you subsidize risky behavior don't be surprised if you get ever more risky behavior. Conversly, if you require individuals to make choices for themselves and then live with the consequences of those decisions, then individuals might actually think twice before engaging in such behavior. One engenders freedom of choice and the other encroaching totalitarianism.

[Muku]

Sometimes I can't tell if you are arguing for or against me, or if you are just unaware of the inherent contradictions in your own aurgument.

For example: you say it is for the better of all that seat belt laws and such are instituted (vehicle regulations) and then I tell you that India has produced a 1000 dollar vehicle that could provide transportation to the poor and needy. Your reponse is that it isn't available to our poor and needy but the reason for that is the afore mentioned government intervention. So who's the villian here?

Another example: You say that without medicaid and ilk, that the poor would no longer be able to afford insureance (thats incorrect for reasons I won't go into just now), but then you say people should not be allowed to participate in high risk behavior unless they can provide proof of adequate insurance...so only the rich should be allowed to take risks that add enjoyment to their life?

If you subsidize risky behavior don't be surprised if you get ever more risky behavior. Conversly, if you require individuals to make choices for themselves and then live with the consequences of those decisions, then individuals might actually think twice before engaging in such behavior. One engenders freedom of choice and the other encroaching totalitarianism.

I wrote well before here that I am against government involvement for the most part.

I am not 100% on either side, and I have views in agreement with you and against you as well.

You point comes across to me as trying to say that in a perfect world we would be free to choose as we wish.

However I do not see that as being reality.

[okisteve]

Maybe it's true that when some or even most people are left to make their own decisions they will make the best ones for themselves, but there are always a significant minority who will make the wrong ones, and harm themselves AND others accidentally or deliberately. I think that's why we have the laws we have now, to really simplify it. I don't want to go back to dog-eat-dog, raise your own food and fight the Indians, sink or swim.

[laughingman]

I advocate neither utopia nor chaos. I do not suppose that mankind can be transformed into an enlightened super race above crime and vindictiveness. Nor do I wish to see a return to the days of feudalism. I must admit that I am at a loss as to understand what I said that could be interpreted as such. I simply wish for freedom, true freedom.

Nothing I have written suggests that I am against the rule of law, or that law isn't necessary. Nothing I have written suggests that anyone would have to go back to subsistence living. I simply strive to point out the rule of unintended consequences.

Whenever the government passes legislation that criminalize actions that are themselves non-crimes (i.e., drugs, prostitution, drunk driving, seat belts, etc ad infinitum) it makes criminals out of individuals that have harmed nobody. It is of the utmost importance that everybody remember that at the end of every government regulation or law rests the barrel of a gun. Of course, they don't whip it out at the drop of a hat but should you resist such legislation on the grounds that it violates your rights strenuously enough and long enough and believe me, force, lethal force even, will be brought into play.

Are you willing to shoot and kill others because they do not subscribe to your way of life, or views on the world? Even if they haven't violated any of your rights?

Secondly, it must be remembered, "governments are instituted among men". The government can justly do nothing that it is not empowered by the people to do in their name. As such the government can justly wield no power that does not already belong to the people. So the questions you have to ask yourself is, If there were only two people left in the world would you have the right to restrict your neighbor from driving without a seat belt/define marriage for him/dictate what substances he can and cannot consume/ect...? No? Then neither can you empower government to do so for you. Can you defend yourself against the aggression of others? Yes. As such you can empower others to do so on your behalf, although the government is probably the worst possible choice for your defense in this area.

If there is no law dictating that you treat your neighbor kindly (and there isn't) then why do you? Because most people abhor violence and do not need watchers to enforce normal human interaction. As such you live the vast majority of your day in a state of partial anarchy. Can you feel the chaos? Those that do transgress against the rights of their fellow man are right brought before the law (except in the bazaaro world we live in, it is very rare for the victims of such violations to ever receive any kind of compensation. Usually the victims are left with the bill for incarcerating their aggressors)

[Muku]

Whenever the government passes legislation that criminalize actions that are themselves non-crimes (i.e., drugs, prostitution, drunk driving, seat belts, etc ad infinitum) it makes criminals out of individuals that have harmed nobody.
Wait one? Non-crimes? Then what is your definition of crime? You say "they" have harmed noone. Is it safe to say then that your definition of crime is only when someone has been harmed?

Governments, elected by the people have created laws to protect society from itself.

Nothing I have written suggests that I am against the rule of law
Well I think you have here. The current rule of law states that the above examples that you have given are "against the law" and are in fact criminal offenses. You seem to me to be against these laws.

For arguments sake only here I would say that drunk driving in and of itself is probably harmless, if and that is a big if, noone else is on the road, and there exists a 0% chance of harm coming to another human being.

That however is almost impossible, unless of course you live alone on your own island, or you are driving withing the confines of your own property.

However once you start to drive on public roads you are placing others at risk by your actions. And that is where the criminal aspect of drunk driving comes into play.

To me however your argument is similar to those that argue against gun control laws, guns dont kill people, people kill people. So there is no need to have any type of controls on them either.

I simply strive to point out the rule of unintended consequences.


Unintended consquences, interesting way of putting it. Drunk driving since it is against the law would not fall into this category, nor prostitution, nor the purchase or use of illegal recreational drugs either. They all currently for the most part have been deemed to be illegal. Hence anyone that chooses to use or breal these laws are doing so knowing fully well that they are against the law as well.

Are you willing to shoot and kill others because they do not subscribe to your way of life, or views on the world? Even if they haven't violated any of your rights?

No I am not, however there are plenty in the world today that would not think twice about killing someone for what their beliefs are or for that matter just because of the chance location of their birth.

To think otherwise is naive in my opinion.

[laughingman]

Wait one? Non-crimes? Then what is your definition of crime? You say "they" have harmed noone. Is it safe to say then that your definition of crime is only when someone has been harmed?

Governments, elected by the people have created laws to protect society from itself.


Well I think you have here. The current rule of law states that the above examples that you have given are "against the law" and are in fact criminal offenses. You seem to me to be against these laws.

For arguments sake only here I would say that drunk driving in and of itself is probably harmless, if and that is a big if, noone else is on the road, and there exists a 0% chance of harm coming to another human being.

That however is almost impossible, unless of course you live alone on your own island, or you are driving withing the confines of your own property.

However once you start to drive on public roads you are placing others at risk by your actions. And that is where the criminal aspect of drunk driving comes into play.

To me however your argument is similar to those that argue against gun control laws, guns dont kill people, people kill people. So there is no need to have any type of controls on them either.



Unintended consquences, interesting way of putting it. Drunk driving since it is against the law would not fall into this category, nor prostitution, nor the purchase or use of illegal recreational drugs either. They all currently for the most part have been deemed to be illegal. Hence anyone that chooses to use or breal these laws are doing so knowing fully well that they are against the law as well.


No I am not, however there are plenty in the world today that would not think twice about killing someone for what their beliefs are or for that matter just because of the chance location of their birth.

To think otherwise is naive in my opinion.

Honestly Muku, I'm beginning to think we're having two entirely different conversations here. I can only assume that I am writing in such a way as to be poorly understood and take the fault on myself.

How does somebody hiring a prostitute harm you (by which I mean violate your rights)? How does somebody toking up in their house harm you? How does somebody getting drunk and then driving harm you?

Please don't understand me, I'm not suggesting that drunk driving is harmless. I'm not for people drunk driving, you'd be a fool to do so. What I AM saying is that those actions don't constitute crime. They may be precursors to crime, but not necessarily so. The crime is hitting somebody with your car, or reckless driving, etc-those actually violate rights.

You could just as easily argue that viewing pornography is likely to lead to rape or sexual assault and ban all pornography. View pornography, while one may find it inappropriate and distasteful, is not a crime, nor should it be. When you start to go after people for non-crimes because they may lead to crime you treading awfully close to thought control or some sort of "minority report" scenario where you are guilty of pre-crime. Is that the society you want to set up?

And yes, I am for the rule of law, but no, that doesn't mean I must blindly support any stupid law that Congress passes just because they declared it law. Say tomorrow Congress passed legislation outlawing all red heads, and that they must either leave the U.S. or face death. Would you support such a law? Of course not. When I say that I support the rule of law I am saying I support just laws. How do I define just laws? Laws that defend an individuals rights against aggression from another. Thats it. Period. No nanny state, no social engineering, no thought police. I want the law to confine itself to actions that violate the rights of others. It once did, however brief that shinning moment of our history may have been (with the notable exception being the abomination of slavery).

In short I support negative law, or natural rights law. I shun positive law. To criticize me as being anti-law when I object to stupid, or even dangerous laws passed by politicians (poli = latin for many / tics = small blood sucking insects) is to condone blind allegiance to the state. I want my kids to be able to know a stupid law when they see and be able to stand up for their convictions. Image if people in Germany in the 30's and 40's had stood up to Hitler (elected by the people to protect society from itself) and his stupid laws (oh yes, he put all his evil down on paper in laws). Unfortunately, they followed advice similar to yours and followed all the laws dictated to them. Don't ask me to jettison my common sense just because my "leaders" have.

Gun controll, yeah, what huge success that has been huh? Thank God Virginia Tech has gun laws prohibiting people from bringing guns on campus otherwise somebody might go on a killing rampage someday. Oh wait, that already happened. The man intent on killing people ignored the law and had free reign to slaughter in mass all those law abiding citizens who disarmed themselves as per the law and thus left themselves defenseless. All while our "heroes" in blue stood outside hiding behind walls and squad cars. Call 911 and die. Own a gun and know how to use it if you want to live.

As far as the meaning of unintended consequences, I don't really give a damn what our "leaders" deem illegal or not. I never gave up my right to make my own decisions and I don't recognize your belief that you have a right to do so for me on my behalf. If I should ever violate your rights, feel free to come after me, otherwise allow me to live my life in peace the way I choose and I will extend to you the same courtesy.

The history of government intervention in every area not related to the protection of rights has been one of trying to fix the unintended consequences of their last intervention. There's your vicious cycle.

Those people who stand up to unjust laws (even popular ones), no matter how trivial it's impact or how popular it's support are to be admired and lauded, not condemned. Some of America's greatest heroes have been those who practiced civil disobedience. I hope that our nation will always have such people willing to stand for their convictions even if that means breaking a law.

[laughingman]

sadly a lot of people drive better when they are drunk:D

That's actually true, some people recognizing that their reaction time has been affected by alcohol pay greater attention to the road and their driving to compensate, driving better drunk then when they are sober. If such a person manages to get from a bar to their house safely, then what crime have they committed? If police officers observing such a person behind the wheel of a vehicle are unable to tell that they have been drinking then how can they be guilty of a crime?

By all means, if they are swerving about, charge them with reckless endangerment, not for having alcohol in their system.

[laughingman]

:thumbup:
Another thing,when they pull people over at random checkpoints they should take into account that the person has managed to get this far and only has a few more kilometers to go if anything they should escort the person home.:D

Better yet, let's do away with warrant-less checkpoints all together as they violate the fourth amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Where's the warrant? What's their probable cause? May I see your papers please?

[Muku]

How does somebody hiring a prostitute harm you (by which I mean violate your rights)? How does somebody toking up in their house harm you? How does somebody getting drunk and then driving harm you?

You know what, if you read a number of my posts here I am not against you on this one. I personally believe that prostitution should be legal, and have stated that for the record on a number of occasions.

I have also stated here on a number of occasions that I am for less government as well, however when issues of safety arise I am for government regulations that help to protect society as a whole.

Please don't understand me, I'm not suggesting that drunk driving is harmless. I'm not for people drunk driving, you'd be a fool to do so. What I AM saying is that those actions don't constitute crime. They may be precursors to crime, but not necessarily so. The crime is hitting somebody with your car, or reckless driving, etc-those actually violate rights.

I disagree with your 2nd last last sentence here; this, in regards to my position on drunk driving, not in response to any of the rest of your well stated post here.

I am 100% against any and all that drink and drive. If you drink and drive you are knowingly breaking the law and risking others lives. If someone wants to kill themselves fine go ahead and do it, before they get into the car and drive.

How do I define just laws? Laws that defend an individuals rights against aggression from another. Thats it. Period. No nanny state, no social engineering, no thought police.
We are not so far off from each other in how we look at things. I view certain aspects of the government and it's laws as being a necessary evil.

Because I can not totally control everything that occurs in my daily life. I have to rely on the government, in some cases blindly, not that I like it, but I am resigned to the fact that there is little I can do to actually change anything.


Oh and on a personal note, I do not live in the US, and have no plans to do so in the near future either. That also has a lot to do with how I view certain aspects in my life here, and why I wrote what I did in my previous paragraph here.