# Think Tank > Political Philosophy & Government Policy >  Eliminate Drunk Driving laws

## Anti Federalist

Radley Balko at _Reason_ is getting some legs on a recent column of his advocating, rightfully so, the elimination of drunk driving laws.



http://theweek.com/article/index/208...oads-less-safe

http://www.newser.com/story/102893/l...ving-laws.html

*Abolish Drunk Driving Laws
If lawmakers are serious about saving lives, they should focus on impairment, not alcohol.
Radley Balko | October 11, 2010*

http://reason.com/archives/2010/10/1...k-driving-laws

Last week Austin Police Chief Art Acevedo advocated creating a new criminal offense: "driving while ability impaired." The problem with the current Texas law prohibiting "driving while intoxicated" (DWI), Acevedo explained, is that it doesn't allow him to arrest a driver whose blood-alcohol content (BAC) is below 0.08 percent without additional evidence of impairment.

"People sometimes focus on how many drinks they can have before they'll go to jail," Acevedo told the Austin-American Statesman. "It varies.A person may be intoxicated at 0.05, and you don't want them out driving." Acevedo wants to be able to arrest people with BAC levels as low as 0.05 percent, and he may have support for that idea in the state legislature. John Whitmire (D-Houston), chairman of the state Senate's Criminal Justice Committee, told the Statesman Acevedo's plan "might be one way to go," adding, "Some people shouldn't be driving after one drinkprobably below the 0.08 limitand this could address that."

Bill Lewis, head of the Texas chapter of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, agreed. "I don't see how it would hurt," he told the paper. "The level of 0.08 is where we know most people are good and drunk...and there are people who are driving at less than the limit who probably should not be. It might keep some people from driving [drunk] again."

Acevedo, Whitmore, and Lewis are right, although probably not in the way they intended. People do react to alcohol differently. For many people one drink may well be too many, while experienced drinkers can function relatively normally with a BAC at or above the legal threshold for presuming intoxication. A person's impairment may also depend on variables such as the medications he is taking and the amount of sleep he got the night before. Acevedo et al.'s objections to the legal definition of intoxication highlight the absurdity of drawing an arbitrary, breathalyzer-based line between sobriety and criminal intoxication.

The right solution, however, is not to push the artificial line back farther. Instead we should get rid of it entirely by repealing drunk driving laws.

Consider the 2000 federal law that pressured states to lower their BAC standards to 0.08 from 0.10. At the time, the average BAC in alcohol-related fatal accidents was 0.17, and two-thirds of such accidents involved drivers with BACs of 0.14 or higher. In fact, drivers with BACs between 0.01 and 0.03 were involved in more fatal accidents than drivers with BACs between 0.08 and 0.10. (The federal government classifies a fatal accident as "alcohol-related" if it involved a driver, a biker, or a pedestrian with a BAC of 0.01 or more, whether or not drinking actually contributed to the accident.) In 1995 the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration studied traffic data in 30 safety categories from the first five states to adopt the new DWI standard. In 21 of the 30 categories, those states were either no different from or less safe than the rest of the country.

Once the 0.08 standard took effect nationwide in 2000, a curious thing happened: Alcohol-related traffic fatalities increased, following a 20-year decline. Critics of the 0.08 standard predicted this would happen. The problem is that most people with a BAC between 0.08 and 0.10 don't drive erratically enough to be noticed by police officers in patrol cars. So police began setting up roadblocks to catch them. But every cop manning a roadblock aimed at catching motorists violating the new law is a cop not on the highways looking for more seriously impaired motorists. By 2004 alcohol-related fatalities went down again, but only because the decrease in states that don't use roadblocks compensated for a slight but continuing increase in the states that use them.

The roadblocks are also constitutionally problematic. In the 1990 decision Michigan v. Sitz ,the Supreme Court acknowledged that stops at sobriety checkpoints constitute "seizures" under the Fourth Amendment but ruled that the public safety threat posed by drunk driving made them "reasonable." In the years since, the checkpoints have become little more than revenue generators for local governments. When local newspapers inquire about specific roadblocks after the fact, they inevitably find lots of citations for seat belt offenses, broken headlights, driving with an expired license, and other minor infractions. But the checkpoints rarely catch seriously impaired drivers. In 2009, according to a recent study by researchers at the University of California at Berkeley, 1,600 sobriety checkpoints in California generated $40 million in fines, $30 million in overtime pay for cops, 24,000 vehicle confiscations, and just 3,200 arrests for drunk driving. A typical checkpoint would consist of 20 or more cops, yield a dozen or more vehicle confiscations, but around three drunk driving arrests.

Checkpoints are only the beginning of what California DWI attorney Lawrence Taylor calls "the drunk driving exception to the Constitution." The Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination has been turned upside down by state laws that instantly suspend the licenses of drivers who refuse to take roadside breath tests. Those breath tests are also fraught with problems. Most manufacturers of breath test machines have refused to turn over their source code, meaning DWI defendants can't assess the machines' margin of error, which can be a significant factor in a case where the difference between 0.80 and 0.79 for a first offense can be $1,000 or more in fines, mandatory alcohol awareness classes, and loss of driving privileges for up to a year.

Blood tests are far more accurate, but by the time a driver is pulled over, questioned, taken to the nearest hospital, and had his blood drawn, his BAC may be significantly different from what it was when he was driving. Perversely, the time lapse can have the effect of protecting guiltier motorists. Imagine a driver pulled over or stopped at a checkpoint after having "one for the road," knowing his house is a short drive away and the last drink won't kick in until he's sitting on his couch. At the time he is stopped, he is under the legal limit. But his BAC is rising, and it tops 0.08 by the time his blood is drawn at the hospital. By contrast, a driver who is impaired when he's pulled over, but who stopped drinking an hour or so before, benefits from the delay, since his BAC is falling by the time he arrives at the hospital.

Many states have tried to solve this problem by claiming another invasive power: They are now allowing police to forcibly take a blood sample on the side of the road.

These ever-expanding enforcement powers miss the point: The threat posed by drunk driving comes not from drinking per se but from the impairment drinking can cause. That fact has been lost in the rush to demonize people who have even a single drink before getting behind the wheel (exemplified by the shift in the government's message from "Don't Drive Drunk" to "Don't Drink and Drive"). Several studies have found that talking on a cell phone, even with a hands-free device, causes more driver impairment than a 0.08 BAC. A 2001 American Automobile Association study found several other in-car distractions that also caused more impairment, including eating, adjusting a radio or CD player, and having kids in the backseat (for more on such studies, see the 2005 paper I wrote on alcohol policy for the Cato Institute).

If our ultimate goals are to reduce driver impairment and maximize highway safety, we should be punishing reckless driving. It shouldn't matter if it's caused by alcohol, sleep deprivation, prescription medication, text messaging, or road rage. If lawmakers want to stick it to dangerous drivers who threaten everyone else on the road, they can dial up the civil and criminal liability for reckless driving, especially in cases that result in injury or property damage.

Doing away with the specific charge of drunk driving sounds radical at first blush, but it would put the focus back on impairment, where it belongs. It might repair some of the civil-liberties damage done by the invasive powers the government says it needs to catch and convict drunk drivers. If the offense were reckless driving rather than drunk driving, for example, repeated swerving over the median line would be enough to justify the charge. There would be no need for a cop to jam a needle in your arm alongside a busy highway.

Scrapping the DWI offense in favor of better enforcement of reckless driving laws would also bring some logical consistency to our laws, which treat a driver with a BAC of 0.08 much more harshly than, say, a driver distracted by his kids or a cell phone call, despite similar levels of impairment. The punishable act should be violating road rules or causing an accident, not the factors that led to those offenses. Singling out alcohol impairment for extra punishment isn't about making the roads safer. It's about a lingering hostility toward demon rum.

_Radley Balko is a senior editor at Reason magazine._

----------


## FrankRep

Let *one state* try it and we'll see how well it works. 
New Hampshire might be a test subject.

----------


## Wesker1982

Good article.

This one is always worth a repost:

*Drunk-Driving Laws Are Absurd*
http://www.lewrockwell.com/crovelli/crovelli25.html

----------


## HOLLYWOOD

http://www.sacbee.com/2010/10/16/310...ved-fatal.html

*Woman's 5th DUI proved fatal*

               By Kim Minugh
kminugh@sacbee.com 
                               Published: Saturday, Oct. 16, 2010 - 12:00 am


                               Four times in her young life, Rebecca Vela had been punished for driving drunk.
But there she was again the night of April 18, 2009: Drunk to the point of blackout, behind the wheel of a car.
Vela  had never injured anyone before, but on this night, her actions would  have devastating consequences: Speeding at more than 70 mph, she struck  and killed a 54-year-old man driving home from his second job.    
            With a history like hers, how could this be allowed to happen?
Stanley Spaeth Jr.'s family, advocates and others have asked that question throughout the course of Vela's fifth DUI trial, which concluded this week with a 15-years-to-life sentence for her second-degree murder conviction.
The sentiment is understandable, but the answers complicated. Mothers Against Drunk Driving advocates, who have followed the Vela case, hold it up as an example of why California must beef up its DUI penalties.

Vela's attorney, Russell Miller,  argues the case shows the fault in a criminal justice system that  rarely customizes punishment. Long before her fifth offense, Miller  said, a judge should've sent her to an in-custody rehabilitation program  rather than jail.
But most observers agree on one thing: Rebecca Vela  made a choice that night. And as frustratingly simple as that  explanation might be, they said, it goes to the heart of all drunken  driving offenses.

"I think (the case) says more about certain individuals than about DUI laws in California," said Assistant Chief Deputy District Attorney Steve Grippi, who oversees felony prosecution in Sacramento County. "Unfortunately, you cannot legislate personal responsibility, and you can't legislate a sense of morality."
Vela is now 34. Her struggle with alcohol began when she was 13, according to a probation report drafted before her sentencing.
Police first caught her driving drunk in 1994. She was 18 and driving 70 mph in heavy rain. Vela spent 15 days in jail for that offense and received three years of probation.
In  1995 and then 1996, police again arrested her for DUI. Both were  misdemeanors – under state law, DUIs without injury are not felonies  until the fourth offense in 10 years – and she paid fines.

She committed that fourth offense in 2000, and received 365 days in county jail and five years of probation.
Vela agreed to attend a one-year program at Promise House, a Sacramento  treatment center. She completed it and stayed sober for about eight  years, Miller said. But her grandfather died, and then her alcoholic  father, and her long-term relationship with her son's father dissolved.  She relapsed.
On April 18, 2009, she watched a video of her father's funeral, and drank. She had a designated driver, but when he briefly left the car, keys in the ignition, Vela sped off.
She rear-ended Spaeth's motorcycle on East Stockton Boulevard in Elk Grove, and fled the scene, the motorcycle still wedged under the car. She struck a sound wall and came to a stop in a backyard.

Silas Miers, a program specialist for MADD California, applauded the District Attorney's Office  for pursuing a second-degree murder conviction rather than  manslaughter. But he said the system needs to come down on DUI drivers  sooner.
"We need to push harder against repeat offenders," Miers  said. "She knew what the dangers were, but she continued the behavior  anyway."
There are other efforts to curb DUIs besides punitive  sentencing, like mandatory ignition interlock devices for offenders.  Those devices force drivers to blow into a device before their cars will  start.

A pilot program began this summer in four California counties, including Sacramento. However, Miers acknowledged such a device likely wouldn't have prevented Spaeth's death because Vela initially had a designated driver.
Miers said repeat offenders pose a huge problem that needs attention. A MADD survey in 2009 found that nearly 45,000 California drivers had five or more DUIs, he said. More than 300,000 had three.
Though Vela's four priors involved no injuries, Miers said the system should've treated her as a greater threat.
"Just  because they haven't killed anybody yet doesn't mean they're not a  danger or a split second away from causing" death or injury, he said.
Even some of Vela's loved ones have questioned whether more could have been done earlier. As the sentencing ended, a woman who appeared to be with Vela's supporters stood up.

"Is the law ever going to change?" she asked Superior Court Judge Kevin J. McCormick. "If she had been in prison after her first DUI, these people never would've lost a loved one."
Prison might be a natural response, but it's costly and unrealistic, said Floyd Feeney, a professor at the UC Davis School of Law.
"What  are they hoping to accomplish?" he asked. "If you are in prison, you're  not running anyone down, but unless you're willing to put someone in  prison forever, they eventually get out."

And while many voters  put great faith in the idea that harsh sentences deter future bad  behavior, Feeney said most criminologists agree that's not always the  case.
Miller said harsh sentences are often the solution embraced by what he described as a "knee-jerk" public.
"We're trying to find a law that will prevent any harm to anyone," he said. "And there's no such thing."
California law allows judges little discretion when sentencing DUI offenders. What little leeway they have typically involves the amount of jail time served or fees paid.
But  Miller said his client has an illness and would have been better served  by getting strict treatment in a government-run facility more  structured than Promise House.
A judge, aware of an individual  offender's history, should be trusted to make such calls, Miller said.  Vela – and perhaps society – could have benefited from such personal  consideration, he said.

"Is this a person who truly has a disease, or is this person just irresponsible?" he asked.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

Hey, how about getting rid of all the ridiculous and arbitrary road regulations (Traffic lights, speed limits, etc.) so people can actually focus on driving instead of everything around them. That would do more to reduce the amount of traffic accidents and fatalities especially those associated with drunk driving (E.g. people would actually be paying attention and not just blindly going because a light is green, etc.). These inane road regulations kill more people than anything else in America.

----------


## Kregisen

> Hey, how about getting rid of all the ridiculous and arbitrary road regulations (Traffic lights, speed limits, etc.) so people can actually focus on driving instead of everything around them. That would do more to reduce the amount of traffic accidents and fatalities especially those associated with drunk driving (E.g. people would actually be paying attention and not just blindly going because a light is green, etc.). These inane road regulations kill more people than anything else in America.


Well I don't understand how you could get rid of traffic lights, but speed limits for sure. Your speed doesn't even matter,what depends is the marginal speed between you and the cars around you, and even that doesn't matter near as much as just simply paying attention....which a large percentage of drivers don't do, even if they're driving below the speed limit.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> Well I don't understand how you could get rid of traffic lights, but speed limits for sure. Your speed doesn't even matter,what depends is the marginal speed between you and the cars around you, and even that doesn't matter near as much as just simply paying attention....which a large percentage of drivers don't do, even if they're driving below the speed limit.


Check out Fit Roads. You will be pleasantly surprised. I think there was a mises article on it also, where it talks about first-principle and how it is the default intuitive position of our species. There is no need for lights. It in fact, makes the situation far more dangerous and increases congestion and commute times.

----------


## tjeffersonsghost

> Check out Fit Roads. You will be pleasantly surprised. I think there was a mises article on it also, where it talks about first-principle and how it is the default intuitive position of our species. There is no need for lights. It in fact, makes the situation far more dangerous and increases congestion and commute times.


You say you are a resident of Florida?  You obviously have not been through a hurricane when all of the power was knocked out and traffic lights dont work.  Every major intersections lines back up and people are honking and nearly clipping each other as two people decide to try and go at the same time.  The city with no traffic lights = pandemonium.  Stop signs and traffic lights are a good thing.

I agree with you on getting rid of speed limits, that is on open roads.  Residential areas should have limits.  But open road like interstates should have no speed limit or at least have a lane dedicated to no speed limit.  It annoys the hell out of me when I am driving on an interstate and no traffic for miles and yet I still have to go 65.  It makes no sense....

----------


## Son of Detroit

> You say you are a resident of Florida?  You obviously have not been through a hurricane when all of the power was knocked out and traffic lights dont work.  Every major intersections lines back up and people are honking and nearly clipping each other as two people decide to try and go at the same time.  The city with no traffic lights = pandemonium.  Stop signs and traffic lights are a good thing.
> 
> I agree with you on getting rid of speed limits, that is on open roads.  Residential areas should have limits.


Agreed.  You can't have someone going 90 MPH down a neighborhood road.

----------


## ARealConservative

> Check out Fit Roads. You will be pleasantly surprised. I think there was a mises article on it also, where it talks about first-principle and how it is the default intuitive position of our species. There is no need for lights. It in fact, makes the situation far more dangerous and increases congestion and commute times.


what an idiotic premise.  I see it around here often and just shake my head.  are people really this devoid of critical thinking?

mankind can account for a lack of lights, but at the cost of greatly reduced traffic output.

well timed lights can move more cars through congested areas then letting mans desire to survive be the ultimate arbitrator of traffic flow.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> what an idiotic premise.  I see it around here often and just shake my head.  are people really this devoid of critical thinking?
> 
> mankind can account for a lack of lights, but at the cost of greatly reduced traffic output.
> 
> well timed lights can move more cars through congested areas then letting mans desire to survive be the ultimate arbitrator of traffic flow.


Wrong.

YouTube - Part 2: Roads FiT for People

I see it every time I drive also. There are many busy intersections with no lights whatsoever, and it moves much faster than any intersection with less traffic (or more) with lights. There is less accidents also. You want eyes on the road and looking around at other drivers, not blindly following a stupid ass light, or looking at your odometer, etc.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> Agreed.  You can't have someone going 90 MPH down a neighborhood road.


Who the $#@! is going to go 90 in a residential neighborhood? Sure, if you want to go to jail for killing someone then go ahead, but people aren't as $#@!ing idiotic and stupid as you make them out to be. People don't need a 'big brother' or anyone else to make decisions for themselves. People drive slowly in residential areas not because of speed limits (because there is NEVER a cop around to ticket you), but because they realize that it is a high pedestrian area and it is unsafe. How hard is it to comprehend?

----------


## Brett85

Wow.  This goes way beyond libertarianism into anarchy.  People who speed and people who drive drunk are endangering the lives of others.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> Wow.  This goes way beyond libertarianism into anarchy.  People who speed and people who drive drunk are endangering the lives of others.


And if they damage property or hurt someone then prosecute them. Speed limits, traffic lights, and other road regulations make people less safe. How much documented evidence do you need? (By the way libertarianism is statelessness (It has always been that. Only in the last 20-30 years have minarchists been trying to steal the moniker))

----------


## pcosmar

> And if they damage property or hurt someone then prosecute them. Speed limits, traffic lights, and other road regulations make people less safe. How much documented evidence do you need?


This is true, And most "statistics are faulty. Especially those used by MADD. They are just plain false.




> Wow.  This goes way beyond libertarianism into anarchy.  People who speed and people who drive drunk are endangering the lives of others.


People who drive cars are endangering lives. As well as those who fly planes or nearly anything else.
 Life is not safe.

----------


## Brett85

> And if they damage property or hurt someone then prosecute them. Speed limits, traffic lights, and other road regulations make people less safe. How much documented evidence do you need? (By the way libertarianism is statelessness (It has always been that. Only in the last 20-30 years have minarchists been trying to steal the moniker))


If you didn't have traffic lights in major cities you would have people running into each other non stop, and you would have complete chaos and anarchy.  I've always understood that libertarianism is a philosophy that says that the government should protect the rights of others.  The government won't be protecting the rights of others if it allows people to drive drunk and go through red lights.

----------


## nobody's_hero

I vote we repeal them for comical relief.

YouTube - Worst Intersection in the World

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> If you didn't have traffic lights in major cities you would have people running into each other non stop, and you would have complete chaos and anarchy.  I've always understood that libertarianism is a philosophy that says that the government should protect the rights of others.  The government won't be protecting the rights of others if it allows people to drive drunk and *go through red lights*.


Um what? There wouldn't be any lights, and the rule would merely be changed from red/yellow/green light to a first-use principle. People would not be running into each other non-stop. Watch the video. Drive around through busy intersections without lights and see how people interact. They aren't running into each other non-stop, in fact, there are far less accidents at those intersections than at ones with lights. Also people are going to drive drunk regardless of the law. Besides, driving drunk has not hurt anyone, or damaged any property. Why are you so quick to enforce pre-crime laws? _Pre-crime is not a crime._

Libertarianism is a philosophy of liberty. The maximization of liberty is to have no State. People can form whatever voluntary societies, etc. they want, and to purchase/sign up/form whatever courts, and laws they wish to subject themselves to. Libertarianism was coined by, and has been used for the last 120+ years by Anti-Statists (Pro-Statelessness). The word anarchy is a terrible world because it means different things to different people and brings up stupid images of kids running around in black masks throwing molotov cocktails. 

Besides, the Government can't protect the rights of people when they violate their rights by being in existence. Taxation is theft, period and a violation of the property rights and labor of another.

----------


## Brett85

> Libertarianism is a philosophy of liberty. The maximization of liberty is to have no State.


So you're in favor of having no government at either the federal or state level?

----------


## RonPaulGetsIt

How about the foolish cops that arrest a guy when he is sleeping in his car to avoid driving drunk?

What is the result?  An incentive to drive drunk when he ordinarily wouldn't have.

----------


## FrankRep

> Libertarianism is a philosophy of liberty. The maximization of liberty is to have no State.


If men were angels, no government would be necessary.

- James Madison

----------


## Anti Federalist

> If you didn't have traffic lights in major cities you would have people running into each other non stop, and you would have complete chaos and anarchy.  I've always understood that libertarianism is a philosophy that says that the government should protect the rights of others.  The government won't be protecting the rights of others if it allows people to drive drunk and go through red lights.


Busy street, major city, streetcars, horses, cars, pedestrians, bicycles.

No cops, no traffic lights, no revenue spy cameras, no surveillance systems.

Lo and behold, no "anarchy" and everybody gets where they need to go.

YouTube - San Francisco 1905 - 1906 (short form)

----------


## FrankRep

> YouTube - San Francisco 1905 - 1906 (short form)


Libertarian Road Utopia - 

YouTube - Worst Intersection in the World

----------


## Wesker1982

> If men were angels, no government would be necessary.
> 
> - James Madison


"If one rejects laissez faire on account of mans fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action." - Ludwig Von Mises

Good read:
*If Men Were Angels*
http://www.lewrockwell.com/higgs/higgs166.html

----------


## Theocrat

> Libertarian Road Utopia - 
> 
> YouTube - Worst Intersection in the World


That is hilariously sad. Just one more illustration of how much anarchy fails.

----------


## Vessol

> If men were angels, no government would be necessary.
> 
> - James Madison


And where sir do you propose that we find such angels amongst men to govern other men?

The argument that a government is required because humans are naturally
evil is destroyed by simply asking "Then why would you trust them to
govern over people in the first place?"




> That is hilariously sad. Just one more illustration of how much anarchy fails.


Uh. You do know that there are traffic lights at that intersection, right?

They might not be the normal overhead lights that you see in America, but they are there off to the side. Those black poles that are fat at the top.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Libertarian Road Utopia - 
> 
> YouTube - Worst Intersection in the World


State Control Fail.

I see no less than four traffic lights at that intersection.

Also under 24 hour surveillance.

And wrecks abound.

----------


## mczerone

> If men were angels, no government would be necessary.
> 
> - James Madison


Since men are no angels, they should never be given a govt to rule over others.

----------


## Vessol

> State Control Fail.
> 
> I see no less than four traffic lights at that intersection.
> 
> Also under 24 hour surveillance.
> 
> And wrecks abound.


Don't blame Theocrat and Frank. When you selectively see everything from only one point of Statist view, it is hard to see the glaringly obvious traffic lights that are there.

----------


## Theocrat

> Uh. You do know that there are traffic lights at that intersection, right?
> 
> They might not be the normal overhead lights that you see in America, but they are there off to the side. Those black poles that are fat at the top.


Thanks for pointing that out. Still, anarchy removes the traffic lights from such intersections, so the video still remains accurate of what an "anarchical street" would resemble. Remember, anarchy is without rulers, and that includes electrical devices with bulbs that tell drivers when they can go and stop.

----------


## Vessol

> Thanks for pointing that out. Still, anarchy removes the traffic lights from such intersections, so the video still remains accurate of what an "anarchical street" would resemble. Remember, anarchy is without rulers, and that includes electrical devices with bulbs that tell drivers when they can go and stop.


Uh, what?

How does that video show what an "anarchical" street would resemble if there is no "anarchy" present?

That's like me showing a video of a tiger and then saying that this video demonstrates how a dolphin would act in the wild.

Cognitive dissonance much?

----------


## Theocrat

> Uh, what?
> 
> How does that video show what an "anarchical" street would resemble if there is no "anarchy" present?
> 
> That's like me showing a video of a tiger and then saying that this video demonstrates how a dolphin would act in the wild.


It presents the effects of what anarchical principles brings about in society, if taken seriously and carried out consistently in, this case, municipal policy of traffic control.

----------


## Wesker1982

> Just one more illustration of how much anarchy fails.


How so?

If the market decided that traffic lights, etc. were necessary and demanded them, the market would provide them. There is no reason a private road couldn't have lights. If they were needed they would be profitable, thus provided.

You  make most of your decisions in a state on anarchy, I would bet that your life is not failing because of it. You live anarchy.

Read the first two sections if you don't know what I mean
http://freedomainradio.com/board/blo...-the-book.aspx



> We love the anarchy we live, and yet fear the anarchy we imagine. -Stefan Molyneux


Edit to add:




> Remember, anarchy is without rulers, and that includes electrical devices with bulbs that tell drivers when they can go and stop.


Without rulers, not without rules. If there is a demand for lights they would be provided, even in a stateless society.

----------


## Vessol

> It presents the effects of what anarchical principles brings about in society, if taken seriously and carried out consistently in, this case, municipal policy of traffic control.


What anarchistic principles are present within that video?

----------


## Theocrat

> What anarchistic principles are present within that video?


The attitudes of the drivers are what is evident of the anarchistic principles. Notice how they refused to obey the "master" of the road by just driving through the intersection based on their on judgments of when it was safe to go. That is what anarchy brings about--everyone doing what is right in his own eyes. It's an utter refusal to submit to civil authority, and that is not what liberty is about.

Of course, that much is evident to people who have not been misled by the folly of anarchy.

----------


## Jordan

> Libertarian Road Utopia - 
> 
> YouTube - Worst Intersection in the World


Russia too, so they're all drunk.

----------


## Vessol

> The attitudes of the drivers are what is evident of the anarchistic principles. Notice how they refused to obey the "master" of the road by just driving through the intersection based on their on judgments of when it was safe to go. That is what anarchy brings about--everyone doing what is right in his own eyes. It's an utter refusal to submit to civil authority, and that is not what liberty is about.
> 
> Of course, that much is evident to people who have not been misled by the folly of anarchy.


Wait..what?

Liberty is about submission? Isn't that kind of a..well an oxymoron? What sick sense of Statism do you believe in..oh wait I forgot to look at your username.

Also did you notice the timelapse in those videos? They are all taking place months apart. What traffic heaven do you live in that does not have accidents happen like this from time to time? Especially in a busy city like St. Petersburg?

How does the driver properly "submit to civil authority?"

----------


## Theocrat

> How so?
> 
> If the market decided that traffic lights, etc. were necessary and demanded them, the market would provide them. There is no reason a private road couldn't have lights. If they were needed they would be profitable, thus provided.
> 
> You  make most of your decisions in a state on anarchy, I would bet that your life is not failing because of it. You live anarchy.
> 
> Read the first two sections if you don't know what I mean
> http://freedomainradio.com/board/blo...-the-book.aspx
> 
> ...


First of all, I do not live my life as an anarchy. All of the universe is governed by laws, and when we reject or go against those laws, we get ourselves into trouble. So, I reject your notion that anarchy is part of life.

Second of all, when you say "without rulers, not without rules," how else are the rules enforced but by rulers? I'm sorry, but that is naive thinking to believe one can live by rules without the enforcement of rules by an agent. You simply are ignorant of human nature and its sinful depravity. That is a main reason why anarchy will not work. It underestimates the sinfulness of mankind, and that to its own folly and ruin.

----------


## Vessol

Theocrat, have you ever read the wonderful book "The Kingdom of God is Within You?" I'd say that the basis of modern anarchy thoughts is rooted within Christian theology.

Where in the Bible is there any support for the State or Rulers? Some words from Tolstoy.

“Nowhere nor in anything, except in the assertion of the Church, can we find that God or Christ founded anything like what churchmen understand by the Church.”

“How can you kill people, when it is written in God’s commandment: ‘Thou shalt not murder’?”

“That this social order with its pauperism, famines, prisons, gallows, armies, and wars is necessary to society; that still greater disaster would ensue if this organization were destroyed; all this is said only by those who profit by this organization, while those who suffer from it – and they are ten times as numerous – think and say quite the contrary.”

----------


## Theocrat

> Wait..what?
> 
> Liberty is about submission? Isn't that kind of a..well an oxymoron? What sick sense of Statism do you believe in..oh wait I forgot to look at your username.
> 
> Also did you notice the timelapse in those videos? They are all taking place months apart. What traffic heaven do you live in that does not have accidents happen like this from time to time? Especially in a busy city like St. Petersburg?
> 
> How does the driver properly "submit to civil authority?"


Yes, liberty is about submission. That is a discussion for another thread, but all I'm saying is that human beings do not have freedom in living without rules NOR rulers. Nature will not allow it, and more importantly, it goes against the ordinances of God in relation to the various governments He has established.

Simply, drivers submit to civil authority by obeying the laws of that civil authority, which includes traffic laws.

----------


## Wesker1982

> First of all, I do not live my life as an anarchy.


You don't make most of your daily decisions in absence of political coercion? Aren't most of your decisions you make _voluntary_?

----------


## Vessol

> Yes, liberty is about submission. That is a discussion for another thread, but all I'm saying is that human beings do not have freedom in living without rules NOR rulers. Nature will not allow it, and more importantly, it goes against the ordinances of God in relation to the various governments He has established.
> 
> Simply, drivers submit to civil authority by obeying the laws of that civil authority, which includes traffic laws.


What governments has God established?

----------


## Wesker1982

btw I am going crazy looking for that clip from one of Stossel's shows where he shows that one really busy road without traffic lights. Anyone have this clip or know what episode it is from? He talks about spontaneous order a lot in this episode.

----------


## Theocrat

> You don't make most of your daily decisions in absence of political coercion? Aren't most of your decisions you make _voluntary_?


I do, but I don't agree with your assumption that all rules are governmental or politically enforced, either inherently or by convention.

----------


## Theocrat

> What governments has God established?


Self-government, family government, church government, and civil government.

----------


## Vessol

> Self-government, family government, church government, and civil government.


The first three I agree with. But, where in the Bible does God create the States of the modern world?

----------


## Wesker1982

> I do, but I don't agree with your assumption that all rules are governmental or politically enforced, either inherently or by convention.


I don't remember making that assumption. 

Anyways, you forgot to reply to this part when you quoted me




> If the market decided that traffic lights, etc. were necessary and demanded them, the market would provide them. There is no reason a private road couldn't have lights. If they were needed they would be profitable, thus provided.


What do you think about this?

----------


## KetchupMaster

> btw I am going crazy looking for that clip from one of Stossel's shows where he shows that one really busy road without traffic lights. Anyone have this clip or know what episode it is from? He talks about spontaneous order a lot in this episode.


YouTube - Stossel Show - Planes, Trains and Automobiles! (Part 3/6)

----------


## Theocrat

> The first three I agree with. But, where in the Bible does God create the States of the modern world?


In principle, the justification for civil magistrates is woven throughout all of Scripture, from the times of the rule of elders under Moses to the rule of the Judges to the time of Kings. Nowhere in the Gospel accounts does Jesus, Who Himself was King of kings and Lord of lords, even hint that civil governments were evil and should be abolished. Anyone who has seriously read the Scriptures can understand that.

----------


## Wesker1982

Thank you! 

*favorited*

Check out that video, Theocrat.

Also, 

Jesus is an Anarchist: http://www.anti-state.com/redford/redford4.html

----------


## Theocrat

> I don't remember making that assumption. 
> 
> Anyways, you forgot to reply to this part when you quoted me
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think about this?


I don't buy into the notion of private roads, at least not in the capacity of which we use public roads today. The market cannot decide on everything, after all. It's not a "rational, sentient, living thing," for starters. The deification of the market to the extent that it can provide total safety of all realms of civil behavior is naive and mistaken. On a logical point, it falls into a fallacy of reification.

----------


## FrankRep

> Jesus is an Anarchist: http://www.anti-state.com/redford/redford4.html


Jesus obeyed God's Law, he's not an Anarchist.

----------


## phill4paul

Wow. From anti-drunk driving to theological vs. anarchic debate.

  Before it use to be specific threads where we would debate our individual beliefs ad nauseum.

  Now it seems we are so bored we will just throw all our eggs in one basket.

  So since others are injecting worn debates into this thread I pose my question.

*
  Should 12 year old's be allowed to drive while impaired under a Constitutional Theocracy if their state constitution allows it?*

----------


## ClayTrainor

Edit:

----------


## FrankRep

> Should 12 year old's be allowed to drive while impaired ...?


State Issue, not a Federal Issue.

----------


## Wesker1982

> Jesus obeyed God's Law, he's not an Anarchist.


ok he was a voluntaryist.

----------


## phill4paul

> State Issue, not a Federal Issue.


  Even under a Constitutional Theocracy?

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Yes, liberty is about submission. That is a discussion for another thread, but all I'm saying is that human beings do not have freedom in living without rules NOR rulers. Nature will not allow it, and more importantly, it goes against the ordinances of God in relation to the various governments He has established.
> 
> Simply, drivers submit to civil authority by obeying the laws of that civil authority, which includes traffic laws.


Theo, you channeling Rudy the Ghoul?




> What we don't see is that freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do.

----------


## Theocrat

> ok he was a voluntaryist.


Jesus is a theocrat, and as God, He rules all things. Stop applying human titles and labels which belittle His authority.

----------


## Theocrat

> Theo, you channeling Rudy the Ghoul?


Liberty is not libertinism. Unfortunately, we have a majority of libertines on this forum whose ideas do not comport with the principles of liberty taught by God, espoused by our Founders, and defended by Congressman Paul.

These libertines are operating on a totally different worldview, and that's our major problem.

----------


## FrankRep

> Even under a Constitutional Theocracy?


America is not Theocracy nor would I support a Theocracy.

----------


## phill4paul

> Liberty is not libertinism. Unfortunately, we have a majority of libertines on this forum whose ideas do not comport with the principles of liberty taught by God, espoused by our Founders, and defended by Congressman Paul.
> 
> These libertines are operating on a totally different worldview, and that's our major problem.


  Oh yawn. It's you in all your glory again. Tell us how it is best to kill gays again.
  Sorry Theo but you've already lost rep with me.
  You're worse then the politicians that pay homage to the Christian Coalition in that you are a true believer in the $#@! you spew.
  Quote me were Ron Paul says we should kill gays or STFU with your agenda.

----------


## Wesker1982

> Liberty is not libertinism. Unfortunately, we have a majority of libertines on this forum whose ideas do not comport with the principles of liberty taught by God, espoused by our Founders, and defended by Congressman Paul.


You should check out this video, the part relevant starts at about 46 seconds in.

YouTube - Ron Paul on ideas, self-government and activism (with Pete Eyre)

----------


## phill4paul

> America is not Theocracy nor would I support a Theocracy.


  Well then you didn't answer my original question of amalgamations of forum posts.





> *Should 12 year old's be allowed to drive while impaired under a Constitutional Theocracy if their state constitution allows it?*

----------


## MN Patriot

When most people hear "eliminate drunk driving laws", they will immediately assume you are a complete babbling idiot. The OP makes a pretty good argument, but it would be total political suicide to propose this, especially with the ruthless fascists running for office for both parties.

Then there is the libertarian argument for no speed limits. 90 mph through a street of children playing is considered to be OK according to some libertarians. No wonder people think libertarians are idiots. If no speed limits are OK, then don't complain when I shoot my gun at you, but aiming to miss by 1 inch. It's alright, I'm not shooting to hit you, I am shooting to miss you, so you have absolutely NO right to complain, right?

Anyway, here is something for your entertainment. Anarchy, something something...
YouTube - Indian Intersection Traffic

----------


## phill4paul

Americans like to be told were to go and what to do.

  Lord forbid a traffic circle be put in at a crossroads.

  Amazing that laws requiring seat belt use and air bags inspire enough apathy to text while driving thus leading to further fatalities.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Americans like to be told were to go and what to do.
> 
>   Lord forbid a traffic circle be put in at a crossroads.
> 
>   Amazing that laws requiring seat belt use and air bags inspire enough apathy to text while driving thus leading to further fatalities.


Not a traffic light to found in my town.

Not a single one.

----------


## idirtify

> Well I don't understand how you could get rid of traffic lights,


Roundabouts?

----------


## silentshout

> Liberty is not libertinism. Unfortunately, we have a majority of libertines on this forum whose ideas do not comport with the principles of liberty taught by God, espoused by our Founders, and defended by Congressman Paul.
> 
> These libertines are operating on a totally different worldview, and that's our major problem.


No, the problem is people who think they can tell other people how to live their lives and what to believe.

----------


## idirtify

> If men were angels, no government would be necessary.
> 
> - James Madison


Hey Madison,
So government is not made up of men? Who then; ANGELS?

----------


## silentshout

> Americans like to be told were to go and what to do.
> 
>   Lord forbid a traffic circle be put in at a crossroads.
> 
>   Amazing that laws requiring seat belt use and air bags inspire enough apathy to text while driving thus leading to further fatalities.


Seriously. The worst ones have MADD stickers on their car while texting and driving. Whatever...hypocrisy at its finest.

----------


## idirtify

> I don't buy into the notion of private roads, at least not in the capacity of which we use public roads today. The market cannot decide on everything, after all. It's not a "rational, sentient, living thing," for starters. The deification of the market to the extent that it can provide total safety of all realms of civil behavior is naive and mistaken. On a logical point, it falls into a fallacy of reification.


Of course its naive and mistaken to claim the market can provide total safety of all realms of civil behavior. Thats why no one here made such a preposterous claim. So whom were you arguing with? Oh, the strawmanI see.

----------


## Theocrat

> Oh yawn. It's you in all your glory again. Tell us how it is best to kill gays again.
>   Sorry Theo but you've already lost rep with me.
>   You're worse then the politicians that pay homage to the Christian Coalition in that you are a true believer in the $#@! you spew.
>   Quote me were Ron Paul says we should kill gays or STFU with your agenda.


You don't even have a worldview that can make sense of the principles you claim to believe in. [lol] If anything, I have more of a right to support Congressman Paul than you because I, at least, believe in God and understand the basis for defending and preserving God-given rights. You, on the other hand, do not. It's "atheists" like you which continue to make this movement a motionless train full of corrosion and idiocy. And if you think your ideas will prosper without God, then you are delusional.

By the way, I don't care about you giving me a negative rep. I was speaking my beliefs before the rep system was activated, and I will continue to speak my beliefs whether you like it or not. Either way, your ideas are foreign to the principles upon which this entire website was created, for you cannot justify them in a rational, consistent, and might I add, respectful way.

----------


## phill4paul

> Not a traffic light to found in my town.
> 
> Not a single one.


  Amazing!

  The county I lived in before in Virginia didn't have one. The whole county. Then a major supermarket put out a store.

  I don't know whether they were paid by the store, or forced through state law , but for some reason they had to put the first stop light at the stores intersection and main highway.

  Residents were timid at first. They obeyed the big red eye.

  Until it was just counterproductive and everyone went back to treating it as the 4 way that it had always been.

----------


## Theocrat

> Of course its naive and mistaken to claim the market can provide total safety of all realms of civil behavior. Thats why no one here made such a preposterous claim. So whom were you arguing with? Oh, the strawmanI see.


Well, that was certainly the assumption in the question which Wesker1982 asked me. It's also the assumption of the anarchists who believe the market can provide anything and everything better than civil authorities. So, it's not a strawman, unless you can give me some concrete examples where the civil government provides safety better than the free market...

----------


## Theocrat

> You should check out this video, the part relevant starts at about 46 seconds in.
> 
> YouTube - Ron Paul on ideas, self-government and activism (with Pete Eyre)


I'm sorry, but I missed the part where *Congressman* Paul said anarchy or libertinism was the ideal of a free society. When I listen to his response, all he's emphasizing is the importance of self-government. He's not making contrasts between limited government and the absence of government.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> I'm sorry, but I missed the part where *Congressman* Paul said anarchy or libertinism was the ideal of a free society. When I listen to his response, all he's emphasizing is the importance of self-government. He's not making contrasts between limited government and the absence of government.


Limited government is not ceding most, or all, of what I do to the discretion of collective government "authority".

If you and the Ghoul are correct, then why have "limited" government?

Why not have *unlimited* governement?

Wouldn't that result in even *more* liberty and freedom?

In "Bizarro World" perhaps.

----------


## phill4paul

> You don't even have a worldview that can make sense of the principles you claim to believe in. [lol] If anything, I have more of a right to support Congressman Paul than you because I, at least, believe in God and understand the basis for defending and preserving God-given rights. You, on the other hand, do not. It's "atheists" like you which continue to make this movement a motionless train full of corrosion and idiocy. And if you think your ideas will prosper without God, then you are delusional.
> 
> By the way, I don't care about you giving me a negative rep. I was speaking my beliefs before the rep system was activated, and I will continue to speak my beliefs whether you like it or not. Either way, your ideas are foreign to the principles upon which this entire website was created, for you cannot justify them in a rational, consistent, and might I add, respectful way.


  Who are you to claim you know my worldview when your mind is so wrapped in yours that you cannot see others?

  More of a right to support Ron Paul? Wut? You're just being $#@!ing silly you twit. Are you now claiming that your faith affords you more points for supporting a candidate than others? ORLY.

  We've been through this but apparently your memory and rote of agenda does not recognise that I am an agnostic. Not an athiest. I just don't believe in "your" god. Or anyone elses.

  I didn't give you a -neg rep you silly git. That just goes along with your inability to read others posts. I just said you had a -neg rep with me.




> Either way, your ideas are foreign to the principles upon which this entire website was created, for you cannot justify them in a rational, consistent, and might I add, respectful way.


  I've said it before and I'll say it again. You are the anti-thesis of liberty and freedom. I will hound you in any thread you preach Theocracy over Republic and individual freedom and your personal rendition of what you think the Bible tells you. 

  I don't think my ideas vs. yours are foreign to this site. Should we set up a poll?

----------


## pcosmar

Most fatal auto accidents are not caused by drunk drivers. Even of those that are recorded as "alcohol related", there is a percentage where the drunk is the victim of another and not the cause at all.
Most as in the majority of fatal accidents *are caused by sober people.*

That is a FACT. deal with it.

----------


## phill4paul

> Most fatal auto accidents are not caused by drunk drivers. Even of those that are recorded as "alcohol related", there is a percentage where the drunk is the victim of another and not the cause at all.
> Most as in the majority of fatal accidents *are caused by sober people.*
> 
> That is a FACT. deal with it.


  I know man. I've been through this so many times I can't do it again. There was one post about two years ago that in the course  laid out all the statistics, the manipulation thereof and every argument known to man.

  It seems the consensus is that we need government to take care of our personal issues but not on issues we personally seek freedom from.

  We on RPFs/Liberty Forums are the most disfunctional family and they should make a TV show out of us.

  (This is my electronic TM. Patent. Whatever. If anyone makes a buck off this idea I'd like enough for a Doctors visit, a vacation, a payed position on the traveling film crew and other things after I have talked with a lawyer)

  (To those that don't believe in intellectual property at least buy me a beer and send a coupla thousand to Glen Bradley.)

----------


## Kregisen

> Who the $#@! is going to go 90 in a residential neighborhood? Sure, if you want to go to jail for killing someone then go ahead, but people aren't as $#@!ing idiotic and stupid as you make them out to be. People don't need a 'big brother' or anyone else to make decisions for themselves. People drive slowly in residential areas not because of speed limits (because there is NEVER a cop around to ticket you), but because they realize that it is a high pedestrian area and it is unsafe. How hard is it to comprehend?


I've seen plenty of cars go 70+ in residential, maybe not quite 90...but saying there shouldn't be a law against it because Americans _aren't_ that stupid?? Are you sure you wanna go down that route??



Now I'm a huge activist for no/very high speed limits in most places, but I wouldn't want drivers legally going 100+ in a small residential road.

----------


## Wesker1982

Being an believer in Austrian Economics, what would you say when Ron Paul says that the free private market could successfully and efficiently provide roads? I hope you wouldn't call him a stark raving made atheist.




> You don't even have a worldview that can make sense of the principles you claim to believe in..


Says a guy who believes in initiative violence. Do you think Jesus would condone initiating violence?




> Either way, your ideas are foreign to the principles upon which this entire website was created


This is just simply not true. If you knew more about Ron Paul, you would know why. I guess you didn't know that one of his influences was Murry N. Rothbard? 




> Murray Newton Rothbard (March 2, 1926  January 7, 1995) was an American _individualist anarchist_, author, and economist of the Austrian School who helped define modern libertarianism and popularized a form of _free-market anarchism he termed "anarcho-capitalism"_. Rothbard wrote over twenty books and is considered a centrally important figure in the American libertarian movement


He along with Lew Rockwell (another anarchist) worked with Ron Paul during his 1988 campaign. Ron Paul also lists a Rothbard book in suggested reading at the end of "The Revolution: A Manifesto". On the back of Mary J. Ruwarts book there is a quote from Ron Paul: "Healing our world bridges the gap between conservatives and liberals, Christians and New Agers, special interests and the common good, with practical solutions to our economic and societal woes." Right there, Ron Paul endorsing a book on anarchy. I recommend that book to you btw. 




> And if you think your ideas will prosper without God, then you are delusional.


Worship God, not the state.




> I'm sorry, but I missed the part where Congressman Paul said anarchy or libertinism was the ideal of a free society. When I listen to his response, all he's emphasizing is the importance of self-government. He's not making contrasts between limited government and the absence of government.


What do you think the interviewer, who happens to be a voluntaryist, meant by self government? He meant self government, as in the individual governing himself, i.e. voluntaryism. Not only did he emphasize the importance of it, he said that it was his goal!

"I know you stand for the constitution, but what do you say to people who advocate for self government _rather than a return to the constitution_."

"I think thats really what my goal is."- Ron Paul

The interviewer purposely said _rather_ than a return to the constitution, if he were talking about a minarchy he would not have said _rather_. He was talking about a stateless society.

----------


## Brett85

This whole discussion is insane.  No speed limits, no traffic lights, and drunk drivers all over the road.  Welcome to anarchy in America.  Ron Paul himself is a statist compared to many people here.

----------


## Travlyr

> This whole discussion is insane.  No speed limits, no traffic lights, and drunk drivers all over the road.  Welcome to anarchy in America.  Ron Paul himself is a statist compared to many people here.


Not really insane. People here are saying that they want to accept responsibility for their actions.  Libertarians want to experience true freedom, not the pseudo freedom promoted by MSM and controlling authorities who take 1/2 your pay to line their pockets.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> This whole discussion is insane.  No speed limits, no traffic lights, and drunk drivers all over the road.  Welcome to anarchy in America.  Ron Paul himself is a statist compared to many people here.


See what I mean folks. Because you advocate against a pre-crime law, according to people like the above, it means you want people to drive drunk all over the place instead of driving sober. This cognitive disconnect is ridiculous. I advocate the immediate repeal of all drug laws, but that doesn't mean I want five year olds to start smoking meth, or heroine, or 40 year olds smoking a lb of crack a night. I recognize however, that each individual owns their own body, and thus, can do it with it as they please. _I am not an authoritarian like you are._  Besides why the $#@! do you need redundant laws? There is all ready laws in place that deal with property damage and bodily harm. Why do you need drunk driving laws? They don't stop anyone, and only increase the tyranny (Checkpoints, more police, etc.).

Well $#@! I take that back. I think we should have laws that outlaw the activities by Traditional Conservative. It is dangerous to others if you own a gun, therefore I think we should revoke and take T. Conservatives guns. He might commit a crime after-all. I think we should outlaw alcohol also. We did it once we can do it again, after all when you drink you are more likely to hurt someone or your spouse, etc. That is dangerous, so therefore we should take that option and freedom away. Let's not stop there, how about we get rid of driving altogether. It is dangerous too. After all you are driving a few tons of metal at high velocities, whether sober or not that is putting others in harm. While we are at the helm of tyranny, lets outlaw fatty foods, and other foods which cost the Gubmit more money. Well $#@! ain't they all ready doing that? I bet Traditional Conservative is in favor of all the above -- after all, all those things increase the chances of harm to others, so therefore should be illegal. Welcome to Nanny State Mr. Traditional Conservative, where the bureaucrats watch out for you, because they know best after-all!

----------


## idirtify

> Well, that was certainly the assumption in the question which Wesker1982 asked me. It's also the assumption of the anarchists who believe the market can provide anything and everything better than civil authorities. So, it's not a strawman, unless you can give me some concrete examples where the civil government provides safety better than the free market...


Your arguing tactics are deceptive. In post 51 you represented your opponents position as the marketcan provide *total* safety of *all* realms of civil behavior. Since thats a distortion (absolute-exaggeration) of their position, its a strawman argument. After I pointed it out in my rebuttal, NOW you misrepresent your previous misrepresentation as the market can provide anything and everything *better* than civil authorities. Since that was NOT your previous misrepresentation (you dropped the absolute exaggeration), you are engaging in another fallacy/tactic that is basically another strawman. But technically, since a strawman is only distorting your opponents words (not your own), you are only guilty of changing your argument. Basically you got caught lying and now are claiming you didnt lie. But as any third-grader knows, that makes TWO lies. Would you please stop misrepresenting claims, arguing with ones that are clearly not there, and then denying you did it when busted?

----------


## Brett85

> See what I mean folks. Because you advocate against a pre-crime law, according to people like the above, it means you want people to drive drunk all over the place instead of driving sober. This cognitive disconnect is ridiculous. I advocate the immediate repeal of all drug laws, but that doesn't mean I want five year olds to start smoking meth, or heroine, or 40 year olds smoking a lb of crack a night. I recognize however, that each individual owns their own body, and thus, can do it with it as they please. _I am not an authoritarian like you are._  Besides why the $#@! do you need redundant laws? There is all ready laws in place that deal with property damage and bodily harm. Why do you need drunk driving laws? They don't stop anyone, and only increase the tyranny (Checkpoints, more police, etc.).
> 
> Well $#@! I take that back. I think we should have laws that outlaw the activities by Traditional Conservative. It is dangerous to others if you own a gun, therefore I think we should revoke and take T. Conservatives guns. He might commit a crime after-all. I think we should outlaw alcohol also. We did it once we can do it again, after all when you drink you are more likely to hurt someone or your spouse, etc. That is dangerous, so therefore we should take that option and freedom away. Let's not stop there, how about we get rid of driving altogether. It is dangerous too. After all you are driving a few tons of metal at high velocities, whether sober or not that is putting others in harm. While we are at the helm of tyranny, lets outlaw fatty foods, and other foods which cost the Gubmit more money. Well $#@! ain't they all ready doing that? I bet Traditional Conservative is in favor of all the above -- after all, all those things increase the chances of harm to others, so therefore should be illegal. Welcome to Nanny State Mr. Traditional Conservative, where the bureaucrats watch out for you, because they know best after-all!


I'm no more of a statist then Ron Paul is.  I want to reduce the federal government back to it's Consitutional size, and I want to legalize things like drug use and prostitution for adults.  I think that adults should have the right to do whatever they want to do as long as they don't infringe on the rights of others.  But I've never actually heard any libertarian argue that people should be allowed to drive impaired.  Most libertarians I know want to legalize drugs but then greatly increase the penalties for driving under the influence of drugs.  People who drive impaired  threaten the liberties and lives of others, and they deserve to be arrested.  People don't have the freedom to threaten the lives of others.   And yes, if it was legal to drive impaired we would have all kinds of drunk and stoned drivers on the road, and it would cause an enermous amount of accidents and deaths.  Think about the three year old kid who gets killed by a drunk driver and ask yourself whether it's really a good idea to allow people to drive drunk.

----------


## reillym

> You don't even have a worldview that can make sense of the principles you claim to believe in. [lol] If anything, I have more of a right to support Congressman Paul than you because I, at least, believe in God and understand the basis for defending and preserving God-given rights. You, on the other hand, do not. It's "atheists" like you which continue to make this movement a motionless train full of corrosion and idiocy. And if you think your ideas will prosper without God, then you are delusional.
> 
> By the way, I don't care about you giving me a negative rep. I was speaking my beliefs before the rep system was activated, and I will continue to speak my beliefs whether you like it or not. Either way, your ideas are foreign to the principles upon which this entire website was created, for you cannot justify them in a rational, consistent, and might I add, respectful way.


theocrats maddd uh oh. 

respectful way? Please, shut up. "I have more of a right to support Paul than you do, ahahahahaha I'm a loser who clings to religion as a last ditch effort to express my hate for gays and free thinking hahahaha"

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> I'm no more of a statist then Ron Paul is.  I want to reduce the federal government back to it's Consitutional size, and I want to legalize things like drug use and prostitution for adults.  I think that adults should have the right to do whatever they want to do as long as they don't infringe on the rights of others.  But I've never actually heard any libertarian argue that people should be allowed to drive impaired.  Most libertarians I know want to legalize drugs but then greatly increase the penalties for driving under the influence of drugs.  People who drive impaired  threaten the liberties and lives of others, and they deserve to be arrested.  People don't have the freedom to threaten the lives of others.   *And yes, if it was legal to drive impaired we would have all kinds of drunk and stoned drivers on the road, and it would cause an enermous amount of accidents and deaths.  Think about the three year old kid who gets killed by a drunk driver and ask yourself whether it's really a good idea to allow people to drive drunk*.


People drive drunk all the damn time. In fact, in Wisconsin it is common for people to have 2 or 3 DUI's! Now go look up the statistics for Wisconsin on accidents and deaths..Drunk driving laws do not stop anyone from driving drunk, period. Unless you have cops stationed outside all the bars giving breathalyzers it doesn't stop anyone. 

All it does is 1) restrict freedom by:

- Cannot have open containers (Ridiculous)
- Random police checkpoints
- Revokation of license (People don't get it revoked for sober accidents...)
- Increase revenue for police (If you don't think it does you are delirious)

Police love MADD and MADD love police because they feed off each other and it is a lucrative business for both. People should be able to drive impaired if they want to. They will be held accountable for their actions if or when they damage anothers property or hurt another person. I also seriously can't believe you brought up *THE CHILDREN!*

If it was legal we would not. Have fatalities gone down since the rush of drunk driving laws or have they gone up? They have gone up, almost every year since 1950. You should really read Block's book on Privatization of the Roadways. *Drunk driving laws don't save anyone, but it sure does satiate the Statists craving for authoritarianism.*

----------


## tjeffersonsghost

People who advocate anarchy neither understands human behavior or history.  Anarchy in a historical sense has never lasted.  Why?  Human behavior.  Humans thrive for power and control.  Humans never can settle for "just enough" they want more and more.  

History has shown that these people who want more and more use their wealth to create armies.  They use those armies to steal the wealth and freedoms of others.  It has always been this way and it will always be this way.  Anarchy was not our founding fathers intentions..... never.  Our founding fathers understood that government needed to be installed to protect freedom and liberty.

I find it funny many of you so called anarchists are completely for the take what you can while you can mentality but cant grasp that it is that mentality that leads to the very tyrants that government is supposed to protect us from.  

Stop lights and speed limits are to protect freedoms of others.  I agree with you guys that the government has taken it too far in posting cameras, speed limits that make no sense in certain areas, and cops hiding behind every corner but to say we need to get rid of them all is just absurd.  We need to have a common sense approach to these things.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> People who advocate anarchy neither understands human behavior or history.  Anarchy in a historical sense has never lasted.  Why?  Human behavior.  Humans thrive for power and control.  Humans never can settle for "just enough" they want more and more.  
> 
> History has shown that these people who want more and more use their wealth to create armies.  They use those armies to steal the wealth and freedoms of others.  It has always been this way and it will always be this way.  Anarchy was not our founding fathers intentions..... never.  Our founding fathers understood that government needed to be installed to protect freedom and liberty.
> 
> I find it funny many of you so called anarchists are completely for the take what you can while you can mentality but cant grasp that it is that mentality that leads to the very tyrants that government is supposed to protect us from.  
> 
> Stop lights and speed limits are to protect freedoms of others.  I agree with you guys that the government has taken it too far in posting cameras, speed limits that make no sense in certain areas, and cops hiding behind every corner but to say we need to get rid of them all is just absurd.  We need to have a common sense approach to these things.


First-use principle is not common sense? Seems to me it is..Most people use this principle without even realizing it. Whoever arrives first at the intersection gets to go first. How is that hard to comprehend? Having to sit at a light for 4 minutes, while I could have been gone and past a long time ago is $#@!ing retarded. Why doesn't every intersection have lights? Do those intersections that don't have lights have massive statistics for accidents? (Tip: They don't -- it is actually safer) 

All these 'regulations' make the road less safe, just like regulations in the marketplace distort and manipulate the natural order and create perverse incentives. For instance -- take traffic lights. People speed through yellow all the time because they don't want to wait at the light for 5+ minutes. Most people don't even take a few seconds on green to check, they figure its clear because its _green_, meanwhile the guy speeding up to get through the yellow light T-bones the guy who goes because it is _GREEN_. This happens all the damn time. I could give about ten more examples (Lets see....people slamming on the brake to stop at yellow/red the opposite of the guy who speeds up causes just as much accidents!) why traffic lights make the roads less safe..., but why bother I doubt any of you will listen to _common sense_.

----------


## tjeffersonsghost

> First-use principle is not common sense? Seems to me it is..Most people use this principle without even realizing it. Whoever arrives first at the intersection gets to go first. How is that hard to comprehend? Having to sit at a light for 4 minutes, while I could have been gone and past a long time ago is $#@!ing retarded. Why doesn't every intersection have lights? Do those intersections that don't have lights have massive statistics for accidents? (Tip: They don't -- it is actually safer) 
> 
> All these 'regulations' make the road less safe, just like regulations in the marketplace distort and manipulate the natural order and create perverse incentives. For instance -- take traffic lights. People speed through yellow all the time because they don't want to wait at the light for 5+ minutes. Most people don't even take a few seconds on green to check, they figure its clear because its _green_, meanwhile the guy speeding up to get through the yellow light T-bones the guy who goes because it is _GREEN_. This happens all the damn time. I could give about ten more examples why traffic lights make the roads less safe..., but why bother I doubt any of you will listen to _common sense_.


Austrian, as I stated on the second page, you obviously have never been to Florida after a hurricane when the power is out everywhere.  There are accidents all over the place and long lines at the intersections.  We are not talking theory here we are talking reality that I personally dealt with in the early and mid 2000s when we were pounded with hurricane after hurricane.  In theory what you say makes sense, reality it is pandemonium when the traffic lights are out.

As far as why they are not at every intersection it is very simple, the traffic quantity does not warrant it.  Now I can agree with you that there maybe are intersections that do not warrant lights and I can even think of a few that need lights.  

A simple question because time seems to be the real issue here.  Why the hurry?

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> Austrian, as I stated on the second page, you obviously have never been to Florida after a hurricane when the power is out everywhere.  There are accidents all over the place and long lines at the intersections.  We are not talking theory here we are talking reality that I personally dealt with in the early and mid 2000s when we were pounded with hurricane after hurricane.  In theory what you say makes sense, reality it is pandemonium when the traffic lights are out.
> 
> As far as why they are not at every intersection it is very simple, the traffic quantity does not warrant it.  Now I can agree with you that there maybe are intersections that do not warrant lights and I can even think of a few that need lights.  
> 
> A simple question because time seems to be the real issue here.  Why the hurry?


I prefer to arrive where I am going sooner rather than later. Same as the Austrian time preference of people rather have goods now than later. Not to mention it is $#@!ing idiotic to wait at a light when the intersection is clear. Makes no sense whatsoever. Also, I can speak with experience that the intersections without lights are vastly better. When I go to Target or Arby's I drive through a very busy intersection (It always has 4-5 cars backed up in line S/N E/W all the time), and there is never an accident there and it accomodates a lot of traffic. Traffic runs smooth and wait time is very minimal. Just like the Fit Road video (Have you seen it yet?). 

Also, when the power goes out here (More common than you think), all the lights flash red (e.g. same as having a stop sign), and traffic flows much better than when they are working. I've seen this at least four times. _It's not me who doesn't understand human nature, it is you._ 

Why do you think traffic accidents continue to go up and up and up? How much more signs and regulations and laws do you want to foist on everyone? When will you learn that those things DO NOT WORK.

----------


## pcosmar

> Think about the three year old kid who gets killed by a drunk driver and ask yourself whether it's really a good idea to allow people to drive drunk.


I've thought about it.
Now think about the sober driver who kills a three year old or anybody else for that matter.

*Sober drivers kill many more than drunk drivers.*  Fact of life.
Why are drunk drivers targeted? And why are the penalties worse?
Dead is dead.  At fault is at fault regardless of the reason. ( no fault insurance is another issue)

Your argument makes absolutely no sense.

----------


## pcosmar

> Austrian, as I stated on the second page, you obviously have never been to Florida after a hurricane when the power is out everywhere.  There are accidents all over the place and long lines at the intersections.  We are not talking theory here we are talking reality that I personally dealt with in the early and mid 2000s when we were pounded with hurricane after hurricane.  In theory what you say makes sense, reality it is pandemonium when the traffic lights are out.
> 
> As far as why they are not at every intersection it is very simple, the traffic quantity does not warrant it.  Now I can agree with you that there maybe are intersections that do not warrant lights and I can even think of a few that need lights.  
> 
> A simple question because time seems to be the real issue here.  Why the hurry?


I have been in Florida during hurricanes. And drove around for weeks with no traffic lights. 
I never had an accident nor a close call.
I  also saw numerous accidents when the lights were working because people are driving stupid.
Especially with the media induced panic prior to a hurricane.

----------


## tjeffersonsghost

> I prefer to arrive where I am going sooner rather than later. Same as the Austrian time preference of people rather have goods now than later. Not to mention it is $#@!ing idiotic to wait at a light when the intersection is clear. Makes no sense whatsoever. Also, I can speak with experience that the intersections without lights are vastly better. When I go to Target or Arby's I drive through a very busy intersection (It always has 4-5 cars backed up in line S/N E/W all the time), and there is never an accident there and it accomodates a lot of traffic. Traffic runs smooth and wait time is very minimal. Just like the Fit Road video (Have you seen it yet?). 
> 
> Also, when the power goes out here (More common than you think), all the lights flash red (e.g. same as having a stop sign), and traffic flows much better than when they are working. I've seen this at least four times. _It's not me who doesn't understand human nature, it is you._ 
> 
> Why do you think traffic accidents continue to go up and up and up? How much more signs and regulations and laws do you want to foist on everyone? When will you learn that those things DO NOT WORK.


Hey I can respect your feelings on waiting at lights when there is no traffic.  Fortunately down here in S Florida most lights are the sensor lights and not the timer lights so that isnt really a problem here.  Maybe you should lobby your city to save money by instead of installing cameras and put in sensor lights instead?

As far as lights going out and flashing red, let me just explain something to you.  When we have a major hurricane, there is *no* power.  That means no flashing lights, nothing.  It is every man for himself and it's not pretty.  Also we are probably also talking different city populations.  I live in a big city with a lot of traffic whereas you may live in a smaller city.  Maybe there arent a need for lights at many of your major intersections, but down here in a big city, we need them.

----------


## tjeffersonsghost

> I have been in Florida during hurricanes. And drove around for weeks with no traffic lights. 
> I never had an accident nor a close call.
> I  also saw numerous accidents when the lights were working because people are driving stupid.
> Especially with the media induced panic prior to a hurricane.


If you have driven in a major Florida city with no traffic lights because of a hurricane then you cant tell me traffic was smooth and there were no accidents or close calls between either you or anyone else.  It is pandemonium without lights and lights *do* make traffic run smoother.

----------


## pcosmar

> If you have driven in a major Florida city with no traffic lights because of a hurricane then you cant tell me traffic was smooth and there were no accidents or close calls between either you or anyone else.  It is pandemonium without lights and lights *do* make traffic run smoother.


Is Miami a "Major City". Yes there were idiots. There are idiots when the lights work.
I lived in Key West. For about 16 years.

The panic before the Hurricane and the idiots driving around in one is the worst. After, and during clean up was not a problem.

----------


## tjeffersonsghost

> Is Miami a "Major City". Yes there were idiots. There are idiots when the lights work.
> I lived in Key West. For about 16 years.
> 
> The panic before the Hurricane and the idiots driving around in one is the worst. After, and during clean up was not a problem.


So you're telling me you drove around Miami right after a hurricane when power was out and that traffic was smoother and safer with no lights working?

----------


## Wesker1982

Is there anyone here who would put a gun to a strangers head if they saw them drive drunk and kidnap them, if they resisted, shoot them?

If you agree with this violence, you would find it morally justified in acting on it yourself.

Also,

If roads were privatized, some would have traffic lights and drunk driving laws, etc. and some wouldn't. The free market would decide. The problem is right now we have no alternative if we don't agree the way they are operated and we are forced through violence to pay for something we disagree with.

I don't think it makes sense to claim the free market is so superior for everything but OH except these few things. The government is too inefficient to provide health care and virtually everything else but hey I'll bet they are road experts!  Its not consistent.

To all the people who think so highly of Ron Paul and simultaneously think all of us are too extreme, what would you say if you found out Ron Paul supports the private production of roads? I mean not just supports the idea, but what if he thought the government had no business in providing roads and it should be left completely to the market? Would your minds be blown?

----------


## Brett85

> I've thought about it.
> Now think about the sober driver who kills a three year old or anybody else for that matter.
> 
> *Sober drivers kill many more than drunk drivers.*  Fact of life.
> Why are drunk drivers targeted? And why are the penalties worse?
> Dead is dead.  At fault is at fault regardless of the reason. ( no fault insurance is another issue)
> 
> Your argument makes absolutely no sense.


That's the most insane thing I've ever read.  Of course sober drivers kill more people than drunk drivers, because almost all of the drivers out on the road are sober drivers.  How hard is that to figure out?  The reason that there aren't a great number of drunk drivers out on the road is because we have laws against it.  If we didn't have laws against it, we would have total anarchy with all kinds of people driving recklessly on the road, endangearing the lives of others.  The government has a duty to protect the freedom and liberty of others, not simply allow people to do whatever they want to do even if it means that they put other people's lives in danger.

----------


## Brett85

> To all the people who think so highly of Ron Paul and simultaneously think all of us are too extreme, what would you say if you found out Ron Paul supports the private production of roads? I mean not just supports the idea, but what if he thought the government had no business in providing roads and it should be left completely to the market? Would your minds be blown?


Ron Paul doesn't support that, nor does he support abolishing the speed limit, traffic lights, or drunk driving laws.  Ron Paul is a libertarian who believes in the rule of law, not an anarchist.

----------


## Wesker1982

> He (Rothbard) along with Lew Rockwell (another anarchist) worked with Ron Paul during his 1988 campaign. Ron Paul also lists a Rothbard book in suggested reading at the end of "The Revolution: A Manifesto". On the back of Mary J. Ruwarts book there is a quote from Ron Paul: "Healing our world bridges the gap between conservatives and liberals, Christians and New Agers, special interests and the common good, with practical solutions to our economic and societal woes." Right there,* Ron Paul endorsing a book on anarchy*. I recommend that book to you btw.


YouTube - Ron Paul on ideas, self-government and activism (with Pete Eyre)





> What do you think the interviewer, who happens to be a voluntaryist, meant by self government? He meant self government, as in the individual governing himself, i.e. voluntaryism. Not only did he emphasize the importance of it, he said that it was his goal!
> 
> "I know you stand for the constitution, but what do you say to people who advocate for self government _rather than a return to the constitution_."
> 
> "I think thats really what my goal is."- Ron Paul
> 
> The interviewer purposely said _rather_ than a return to the constitution, if he were talking about a minarchy he would not have said _rather_. He was talking about a stateless society.





> Ron Paul doesn't support that


I asked what _if_ he did. (in regards to private roads)




> Ron Paul is a libertarian who believes in the rule of law, not an anarchist.


You would probably say the same thing about Judge Napolitano, who if you remember on Stossel said opposes all taxation, and all taxation is theft. So you might not conclude hes an anarchist but at the very least he believes roads could be provided by the free market.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> Hey I can respect your feelings on waiting at lights when there is no traffic.  Fortunately down here in S Florida most lights are the sensor lights and not the timer lights so that isnt really a problem here.  Maybe you should lobby your city to save money by instead of installing cameras and put in sensor lights instead?
> 
> As far as lights going out and flashing red, let me just explain something to you.  When we have a major hurricane, there is *no* power.  That means no flashing lights, nothing.  It is every man for himself and it's not pretty.  Also we are probably also talking different city populations.  I live in a big city with a lot of traffic whereas you may live in a smaller city.  Maybe there arent a need for lights at many of your major intersections, but down here in a big city, we need them.


Um...I live in Milwaukee the 17th largest city in the US, and I used to live right outside St. Pete and Tampa so I know what a city is like lmao. Like I said earlier, traffic lights make conditions less safe, not more, and comparing a situation in a Hurricane to one of normal day life is a bit...hyperbolic, but whatever.  (Also the hurricanes I've been through it hasn't been chaos, but was pretty orderly with people helping each other, so I don't know what sort of place you live at)

----------


## TonySutton

YouTube - Part 2: Roads FiT for People

----------


## pcosmar

> t.  If we didn't have laws against it, we would have total anarchy with all kinds of people driving recklessly on the road, endangearing the lives of others.


The lack of excessive and pointless laws is not Anarchy. There are laws.
I am in favor of laws.
Don't murder
Don't steal
Don't assault
Don't rape
Don't steal
If you cause harm you are responsible.
But the authoritarian idea that every aspect of life has to be controlled by 90,000 laws is ridiculousness.

----------


## idirtify

Why aren’t any of you who support traffic lights replying to the previous comments about roundabouts?

----------


## idirtify

Here’s but one model of how the market could provide a better alternative to state enforcement. It could work through insurance companies. Drivers could equip their vehicles with multiple video cameras. These cameras would document other drivers driving recklessly. The videos would then be sold to insurance companies who would then raise the rates of those particular customers who would be considered high risk. Except for the reckless drivers who were posing credible threats of real violence to others, everybody is happy. In fact, if a few details could be ironed out, this could be happening right now (hey admin, where’s that libertarian business ideas forum you were supposed to set up?).

----------


## CCTelander

> See what I mean folks. Because you advocate against a pre-crime law, according to people like the above, it means you want people to drive drunk all over the place instead of driving sober. This cognitive disconnect is ridiculous. I advocate the immediate repeal of all drug laws, but that doesn't mean I want five year olds to start smoking meth, or heroine, or 40 year olds smoking a lb of crack a night. I recognize however, that each individual owns their own body, and thus, can do it with it as they please. _I am not an authoritarian like you are._  Besides why the $#@! do you need redundant laws? There is all ready laws in place that deal with property damage and bodily harm. Why do you need drunk driving laws? They don't stop anyone, and only increase the tyranny (Checkpoints, more police, etc.).
> 
> Well $#@! I take that back. I think we should have laws that outlaw the activities by Traditional Conservative. It is dangerous to others if you own a gun, therefore I think we should revoke and take T. Conservatives guns. He might commit a crime after-all. I think we should outlaw alcohol also. We did it once we can do it again, after all when you drink you are more likely to hurt someone or your spouse, etc. That is dangerous, so therefore we should take that option and freedom away. Let's not stop there, how about we get rid of driving altogether. It is dangerous too. After all you are driving a few tons of metal at high velocities, whether sober or not that is putting others in harm. While we are at the helm of tyranny, lets outlaw fatty foods, and other foods which cost the Gubmit more money. Well $#@! ain't they all ready doing that? I bet Traditional Conservative is in favor of all the above -- after all, all those things increase the chances of harm to others, so therefore should be illegal. Welcome to Nanny State Mr. Traditional Conservative, where the bureaucrats watch out for you, because they know best after-all!



Irrational FEAR.

That's what motivates this constant defense of the state on the part of some people. They're irrationally afraid of their neighbors.

Never mind the guys with well-armed armies (both police and military), tanks, fighter jets, and atomic bombs. Those guys we can control if we just vote the right people into office.

It's the guy next door that we REALLY need to be afraid of.

With conservatives, in my experience, it's usually rooted in the insane, evil doctrine or original sin. They really believe that everyone is basically, inherently evil and that the ONLY thing that keeps that evil in check is coercive force.

Even if they're non-religious that stupid, evil doctrine has managed to worm its way so deeply into American Culture that many people act in accordance with it unconsciously, without even being aware of it.

Until these poor, pitiful souls learn not to cringe in abject terror at the thought of their neighbor actually enjoying real freedom, they'll never come around.

----------


## Brett85

> Irrational FEAR.
> 
> That's what motivates this constant defense of the state on the part of some people. They're irrationally afraid of their neighbors.
> 
> Never mind the guys with well-armed armies (both police and military), tanks, fighter jets, and atomic bombs. Those guys we can control if we just vote the right people into office.
> 
> It's the guy next door that we REALLY need to be afraid of.
> 
> With conservatives, in my experience, it's usually rooted in the insane, evil doctrine or original sin. They really believe that everyone is basically, inherently evil and that the ONLY thing that keeps that evil in check is coercive force.
> ...


It's the role of the government to protect freedom and liberty for all.  The government can't allow people to act so irresponsibly that they endanger the lives of others.  Can you imagine what a mess New York city would be if we didn't have traffic lights?  The fact that some people actually advocate doing away with traffic lights is just unreal.  Things like traffic lights and speed limits were designed to protect the liberty and lives of those driving on the road.  People who drive at excessive speeds are threatening the liberty and lives of others on the road.  I'm not in favor of a blanket federal law that sets a speed limit for everybody.  It should be a state issue.  But it's ridiculous to say that the states should abolish speed limits, especially in cities.  Can you imagine people flying through New York City or Chicago at 90 MPH with no traffic lights?  Never in my life have I met anybody who wants to do away with traffic lights and allow people to drive drunk.  You can't possibly get any more extreme than that.

----------


## Vessol

> It's the role of the government to protect freedom and liberty for all.  The government can't allow people to act so irresponsibly that they endanger the lives of others.  Can you imagine what a mess New York city would be if we didn't have traffic lights?  The fact that some people actually advocate doing away with traffic lights is just unreal.  Things like traffic lights and speed limits were designed to protect the liberty and lives of those driving on the road.  People who drive at excessive speeds are threatening the liberty and lives of others on the road.  I'm not in favor of a blanket federal law that sets a speed limit for everybody.  It should be a state issue.  But it's ridiculous to say that the states should abolish speed limits, especially in cities.  Can you imagine people flying through New York City or Chicago at 90 MPH with no traffic lights?  Never in my life have I met anybody who wants to do away with traffic lights and allow people to drive drunk.  You can't possibly get any more extreme than that.


It's quite liberating once you get over the Stockholm's syndrome for the State

----------


## ClayTrainor

> The lack of excessive and pointless laws is not Anarchy. There are laws.
> I am in favor of laws.
> Don't murder
> Don't steal
> Don't assault
> Don't rape
> Don't steal


I just wanted to point out that those kinds of laws are laws that are completely consistent with Natural Law with respect to the Non-Aggression principle, which is exactly what Anarcho-Capitalists argue in favor of. 

The point is no one should be granted the power to initiate aggression against the individual or his/her property...




> The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes...

----------


## Wesker1982

> Never in my life have I met anybody who wants to do away with traffic lights and allow people to drive drunk.


I'm no expert when it comes to the function of traffic but neither is the government. Thats why it should be left to the professionals who have an incentive to provide an efficient and safe product, in the free market.

Free market roads do not = no traffic lights. The free market is the better at determining what is successful and what is not. 

If no one is willing to pay for roads with no traffic lights, or roads that allow drunk driving, then there isn't a problem. But just because you prefer it one way doesn't give you the right to initiate or have other people initiate aggression on your behalf to pay for your ideal roads.

----------


## Brett85

> I'm no expert when it comes to the function of traffic but neither is the government. Thats why it should be left to the professionals who have an incentive to provide an efficient and safe product, in the free market.
> 
> Free market roads do not = no traffic lights. The free market is the better at determining what is successful and what is not. 
> 
> If no one is willing to pay for roads with no traffic lights, or roads that allow drunk driving, then there isn't a problem. But just because you prefer it one way doesn't give you the right to initiate or have other people initiate aggression on your behalf to pay for your ideal roads.


Well having private companies put up traffic lights would be better than not having any at all.  My point was simply that you would have non stop collisions in major cities if you had no traffic lights.  No traffic lights and stop signs might work in a town of 500, but it won't work in Chicago or New York City.

----------


## nobody's_hero

Again, I say repeal them for comical purposes:

YouTube - Car Videos Street Racing Drunk Driver Accident

----------


## teacherone

90% of all german intersections have neither a stop light nor a stop sign.

you yield to the person on your right unless you see one of these babies sprinkled on the street you are cruising down



 in which case you have the right of way.

german highways have enormous stretches of road without speed limits.

fatality rate GERMANY --- 7: 100,000
fatality rate US--- 14.5: 100,000 *DOUBLE*

source: International comparison of injury deaths: Road traffic

----------


## MelissaWV

> Um...I live in Milwaukee the 17th largest city in the US, and I used to live right outside St. Pete and Tampa so I know what a city is like lmao. Like I said earlier, traffic lights make conditions less safe, not more, and comparing a situation in a Hurricane to one of normal day life is a bit...hyperbolic, but whatever.  (Also the hurricanes I've been through it hasn't been chaos, but was pretty orderly with people helping each other, so I don't know what sort of place you live at)


The situation being discussed isn't necessarily during a hurricane, but afterwards.  I will second the fact that intersections are terrible in Miami, Orlando, Jacksonville, Gainesville, and Ocala... not to mention DC, Baltimore, Alexandria, Detroit, Atlanta, Charleston... you get the point.  Any situation where there is a widespread power outage, causing the lights to malfunction or be entirely out, is chaotic as long as there are a bunch of people on the roads.  In my experience this is more likely to happen after a typical afternoon severe thunderstorm in Florida, which usually catch people off-guard as opposed to hurricanes.  Most folks have the good sense not to travel post-hurricane.  The power went out no fewer than two dozen times in 2009 while my parents were in Miami, so it's not as rare as one might suppose.

One could argue there that if people were used to driving without traffic lights, they might fare better, but imagining that if they vanished today everyone would be gloriously happy and kind is a bit nuts.

The biggest obstacle to overcome in a world without traffic lights/signs/etc. is where two or more streets of entirely different traffic characteristics meet.  When I go to work via the interstate, and I have to take the off ramp and hang a left to get onto a busy street (versus the interstate which is not as busy at that hour), the traffic light is quite helpful.  People are whipping past on that busy street at 50mph or so.  They don't really see or pay mind to the people coming off of the interstate.  It might actually be just about impossible to slow/stop in time to yield to someone and let them turn left off of the interstate and onto that street.  If you did, you'd be rear-ended in short order.  That's all to let ONE care through.  In the meantime, the interstate's ramp is starting to back up to the point it's obstructing traffic on the interstate (ramps are short).  What incentive do the people on the busy street have to stop, endanger themselves, and yield to the vehicles on the ramp?  If there is none, then would all of us on the ramp just wait patiently for there to be no traffic on that busy street?

I don't buy for a moment that the world would get along without traffic lights/signs/etc..  Of course, I think that people would just put up and maintain traffic controls in their own area.  At this point in history, the most effective means of telling people they should stop at an intersection, look both ways, then proceed with caution and courtesy (in the USA) is going to be an octagonal red sign with "STOP" in big white block letters in the middle.  It behooves a property/road owner to have stop signs at intersections where they would be helpful in reducing accidents or making people feel safe.  It makes your property/road more attractive to safety-minded people, though it may annoy others who will use other roads instead.  

The OP was about drunk driving laws, though, and my opinion is similar.  If you are driving like $#@!, to the point you are scaring others and affecting their actions (they have to swerve, slow down, etc.), you might just get pulled over.  Who's going to pull you over?  Once again, whoever owns the roads is going to maintain a certain level of safety and security, which will involve pulling some folks over, or collecting tolls, or a combination of both.  This is not going to vary as much as people think from place to place.  There will always be outliers, but making these matters private is really not going to lead to vehicular anarchy.

Under the current system of policing, at very least "DUI" should go the way of "hate crimes."  There should be a catchall of wreckless driving, and the officer bringing the charge should have evidence that would convince anyone beyond all doubt that the events in question happened how they did.  If the video is blurry, if the stories conflict, if there's nothing but the officer's "word," it shouldn't fly.  If a police officer continues to do that over and over again, he should be cited for crying "Wolf."  It could also be tacked on if there is evidence of the wreckless driving in conjunction with another demonstrable offense.  The "evidence" of someone driving drunk being a danger... is their being a danger.  The evidence of them being a danger is NOT the fact they are simply drunk.  

Therefore, when you say people are against traffic controls and want people to drive drunk, it's a blatant mischaracterization.

----------


## nobody's_hero

> 90% of all german intersections have neither a stop light nor a stop sign.
> 
> you yield to the person on your right unless you see one of these babies sprinkled on the street you are cruising down


I hate it whenever I see an "unathorized hotlinking" sign.

----------


## AGRP

http://www.thenorthwestreport.com/a-...raffic-device/

----------


## Anti Federalist

> *wreckless driving*


I love these:

*WRECK-less Driving*



*RECKLESS* Driving

----------


## CCTelander

> It's the role of the government to protect freedom and liberty for all.  The government can't allow people to act so irresponsibly that they endanger the lives of others.



That's the sales pitch. It's a lie, plain and simple.

There's never been a single example, in all of recorded history, of a government that's lived up to this kind of hype. Never.

What governments are designed for is, in fact, what they actually do. They exist for the simple purpose of stealing from the many for the benefit of an elite few.





> Can you imagine what a mess New York city would be if we didn't have traffic lights?



Actually, I can. See below.





> The fact that some people actually advocate doing away with traffic lights is just unreal.



There's that irrational fear again. 

Actually the idea has a very sound basis in both practical experience and philosophy.

It's actually been tried, in real life, in a good number of cities across Europe and in other places. In every single instance where it's been done, the same results have been achieved.

Fewer overall accidents.

Fewer accidents involving fatalities of either drivers or pedestrians.

The accidents that do occur are much less serious.

Traffic flows more smoothly and efficiently, and people get to where they're going safely and more quickly.

As the British guy said in the Stossel video posted earlier, as long as the general driving population is informed right up front that they are expected to be responsible for their actions while driving, things have so far always gone extremely well. That's because people always tend to live up to the expectations placed upon them.

I won't bother citing the various studies and real life experiences that support the whole concept since I don't really expect facts to have much impact on the irrational fear that's being displayed by some in this thread. Being irrational, it's beyond the ability of reason to influence it.

As far as the philosophical merits, see AED's post to which I originally replied, and below.






> Things like traffic lights and speed limits were designed to protect the liberty and lives of those driving on the road.



Again, that's the sales pitch. It's simply not true.

Originally, that may even have been the intent. The fact remains that it doesn't deliver on the promise.

Nowadays, the reason for traffic laws has nothing whatever to do with public safety. They exist for the sole purpose of generating revenue, of stealing from the masses for the benefit of that elite few I mentioned above.






> People who drive at excessive speeds are threatening the liberty and lives of others on the road.



And, if they actually cause a damage, they most certainly should make restitution.

But punishing the many for the irresponsible actions of a few is not only counterproductive, it's flat out immoral.

What is this, Kindergarten? All right children, Johnny was irresponsible and ran too fast and didn't pay attention to where he was going and fell down and hurt Suzie, so no one is allowed to run anymore.

That's one of the problems with socialistic measures of all types. They always seek to infantilize the people affected by them.

Well I, for one, am not an infant. I refuse to be held responsible for the irresponsible actions of others, under any circumstances.

Whether that means being prevented from buying a gun, getting fleeced by a government thug because I was driving at a speed greater than some arbitrary limit or facing the prospect of being thrown in a cage and having my property stolen because I happened to have a couple of glasses of wine with dinner makes absolutely no difference in principle. It's all prior restraint and it's all wrong. Period.

If you want to deal with irresponsible people, deal with irresponsible people, SPECIFICALLY. Don't arbitrarily include myself or the vast majority of other people who are NOT irresponsible in your schemes.

You're relying on the exact same arguments that victim disarmament advocates use to try to ban guns. See AED's previous post for more on that. 






> I'm not in favor of a blanket federal law that sets a speed limit for everybody.  It should be a state issue.



Yes, because tyranny at the state level is so much more tolerable than tyranny at the federal level.

This is one of the major flaws in the state's rights position, and the CONstitution itself.

Tyranny at ANY level is evil. I'm not interested in trading federal tyranny for the state variety.





> But it's ridiculous to say that the states should abolish speed limits, especially in cities.  Can you imagine people flying through New York City or Chicago at 90 MPH with no traffic lights?



See above.





> Never in my life have I met anybody who wants to do away with traffic lights and allow people to drive drunk.  You can't possibly get any more extreme than that.



I see. So, because the idea is beyond your personal experience, and you're personally not well-informed on the subject, it's simply to be dismissed out of hand? Ridiculous.

Do some research on the subject. Inform yourself. Then maybe you'll be capable of making a rational decision.

----------


## dannno

> 90% of all german intersections have neither a stop light nor a stop sign.
> 
> you yield to the person on your right unless you see one of these babies sprinkled on the street you are cruising down
> 
> 
> 
>  in which case you have the right of way.
> 
> german highways have enormous stretches of road without speed limits.
> ...


That's some pwnage!!

----------


## Jordan

It is relative non-issues like these that make libertarians/anarchists/minarchists/anarchyhasmoredivisionsthanthechurchomg look crazy.

----------


## teacherone

> That's some pwnage!!


in addition to that, germany has no highway patrol to speak of.

just the odd speed camera on the stretches of road with speed limits.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

This post is overflowing with win! 




> That's the sales pitch. It's a lie, plain and simple.
> 
> There's never been a single example, in all of recorded history, of a government that's lived up to this kind of hype. Never.
> 
> What governments are designed for is, in fact, what they actually do. They exist for the simple purpose of stealing from the many for the benefit of an elite few.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> It is relative non-issues like these that make libertarians/anarchists/minarchists/anarchyhasmoredivisionsthanthechurchomg look crazy.


How is it a non-issue when there are whole industries (such as cops, highway patrol, breathalizer manufacturers, etc) tied into it?  Not to mention the importance of understanding what liberty really is(as opposed to what TPTB say)!

----------


## CCTelander

> How is it a non-issue when there are whole industries (such as cops, highway patrol, breathalizer manufacturers, etc) tied into it?  Not to mention the importance of understanding what liberty really is(as opposed to what TPTB say)!



As if the decision of whether or not to make a stand on principle should always be subject to what others may think of it.

The very thought is full of fail.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> As if the decision of whether or not to make a stand on principle should always be subject to what others may think of it.
> 
> The very thought is full of fail.


qft!

----------


## MelissaWV

> I love these:
> ...


You win this time, Gadget.

----------


## Brett85

> How is it a non-issue when there are whole industries (such as cops, highway patrol, breathalizer manufacturers, etc) tied into it?  Not to mention the importance of understanding what liberty really is(as opposed to what TPTB say)!


I'll tell you what liberty isn't.  Liberty isn't allowing people to drive recklessly on our roads and endanger the liberty and lives of others.

----------


## CCTelander

> I'll tell you what liberty isn't.  Liberty isn't allowing people to drive recklessly on our roads and endanger the liberty and lives of others.



And I'll tell YOU what liberty isn't. Liberty ISN'T holding the innocent responsible for the irresponsible actions of a very small minority. Liberty ISN'T socialism.

----------


## Brett85

> And I'll tell YOU what liberty isn't. Liberty ISN'T holding the innocent responsible for the irresponsible actions of a very small minority. Liberty ISN'T socialism.


People who drive drunk aren't innocent.  They're endangering the lives of others due to their own selfishness.

----------


## Brett85

> And I'll tell YOU what liberty isn't. Liberty ISN'T holding the innocent responsible for the irresponsible actions of a very small minority. Liberty ISN'T socialism.


So now traffic lights are a form of socialism.  Lol.  This kind of craziness is why I call myself a conservative rather than a libertarian.

----------


## teacherone

> People who drive drunk aren't innocent.  They're endangering the lives of others due to their own selfishness.




so are people who drive: 

while fiddling with their radios (take them away)

are tired (have an alertness test before driving)

while talking on their phones (take them away)

have kids fighting in the back seat (take them away)

----------


## Brett85

> so are people who drive: 
> 
> while fiddling with their radios (take them away)
> 
> are tired (have an alertness test before driving)
> 
> while talking on their phones (take them away)
> 
> have kids fighting in the back seat (take them away)


No, but if those things cause people to drive recklessly on the road they should certainly get pulled over.

----------


## CCTelander

> People who drive drunk aren't innocent.  They're endangering the lives of others due to their own selfishness.



Define "drunk" without relying on some arbitrary "limit."

And, I assure you, the many people who are stopped at "sobriety checkpoints" who are not "drunk," the many people hit with DUIs due to having a couple of drinks while out to dinner and winding up in jail, or sometimes worse, ARE innocent.

But hey, can't make an omellette ... right?

----------


## MelissaWV

> No, but if those things cause people to drive recklessly on the road they should certainly get pulled over.


DING DING DING!!!!! We have a winner!

Notice how, with those other behaviors, your line that needs to be crossed is DRIVING RECKLESSLY, but with driving drunk, your line is only that they are drunk.  You are making a leap in logic that being "drunk" while driving automatically makes you drive recklessly.  It isn't the case.  

Why not pull over people who are driving like $#@!, regardless of the perceived reason for why they might be driving so poorly, and have done with the ridiculous checkpoints and propaganda?

----------


## teacherone

> DING DING DING!!!!! We have a winner!
> 
> Notice how, with those other behaviors, your line that needs to be crossed is DRIVING RECKLESSLY, but with driving drunk, your line is only that they are drunk.  You are making a leap in logic that being "drunk" while driving automatically makes you drive recklessly.  It isn't the case.  
> 
> Why not pull over people who are driving like $#@!, regardless of the perceived reason for why they might be driving so poorly, and have done with the ridiculous checkpoints and propaganda?


^^^this (of course)

----------


## Anti Federalist

> You win this time, Gadget.

----------


## Wesker1982

> So now traffic lights are a form of socialism.


The way they are funded, yes. Voluntarily funded roads and traffic lights isn't socialism. Its the coercion used to fund the traffic lights that is the issue. 

I don't think any "anarchists" here would object to a private property owner installing lights on his or her property, regardless of the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of them. 

The thing is, the people here who disagree with the efficiency of traffic lights are not allowed to act on their disagreement. Essentially, they really do not have a right to disagree with you. That IS NOT liberty.

----------


## CCTelander

> The way they are funded, yes. Voluntarily funded roads and traffic lights isn't socialism. Its the coercion used to fund the traffic lights that is the issue. 
> 
> *I don't think any "anarchists" here would object to a private property owner installing lights on his or her property, regardless of the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of them*. 
> 
> The thing is, the people here who disagree with the efficiency of traffic lights are not allowed to act on their disagreement. Essentially, they really do not have a right to disagree with you. That IS NOT liberty.



Exactly. Their property, their rules. It's really simple.

I would, however, try to avoid any such roads, since the inclusion of traffic lights and other current regulatory schemes have been shown to make the roads significantly less safe.

The rest of your comments are right on too.

----------


## Brett85

> Define "drunk" without relying on some arbitrary "limit."
> 
> And, I assure you, the many people who are stopped at "sobriety checkpoints" who are not "drunk," the many people hit with DUIs due to having a couple of drinks while out to dinner and winding up in jail, or sometimes worse, ARE innocent.
> 
> But hey, can't make an omellette ... right?


I'm opposed to the sobriety checkpoints.  I guess that's one thing we can actually agree on.  I don't think that the police should stop everybody on the road in order to try to find a few drunk drivers.  I think that the current law of .08 is about right.  The truth is simply that if we didn't have laws against drunk driving, people wouldn't even hesitate to do it, and we would have far more accidents and more deaths.  There simply isn't any reason for anybody to ever drive drunk.  People who do that are simply being selfish and aren't thinking about the damange that they may do to others.  Also, if someone has had a few drinks and is obeying the laws and the road and not driving recklessly, they aren't going to get pulled over.  It's as simple as that.

----------


## dannno

I've had a disdain for traffic lights my whole life.

As for drunk driving laws, ideologically I'm opposed, but at least move it up to .10, give those people a ticket, and MAYBE arrest people at .14 or something.. that seems a lot more reasonable.. people get killed in drunk driving accidents and then they increase the penalty for everybody instead of the really drunk people that are actually causing these accidents on a more frequent basis.

I'd also like to see breathalyzers in cars.. not to turn the car on, people should volunteer to get them just to test yourself before you drive off. I know you can buy them separately, but some how they always end up in the house when everybody is getting all drunk to see who can get the highest BAL. It's kind of nice to know whether or not you are breaking the law while you're doing it.. not fair to pull somebody over who has no idea if they are actually breaking a law.. people should demand to inform themselves..

I should be able to go out and have 2 drinks and be able to drive home without fearing having my car impounded and going to jail.. If I am driving recklessly then give me a ticket for that.

I've been seeing a lot of "buzzed driving = drunk driving" and that is just bull$#@!. Ya, some people get a little more aggressive when they are buzzed, but you can give them a speeding ticket.. but not everybody gets like that.. alcohol doesn't make you swerve and drive poorly until you are DRUNK not buzzed.. when we get this notion out of our head and that some people can drive fine buzzed, and yes, buzzed people occasionally get in accidents too just like everybody else and that is OK as long as they are responsible.

----------


## Brett85

> The way they are funded, yes. Voluntarily funded roads and traffic lights isn't socialism. Its the coercion used to fund the traffic lights that is the issue. 
> 
> I don't think any "anarchists" here would object to a private property owner installing lights on his or her property, regardless of the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of them. 
> 
> The thing is, the people here who disagree with the efficiency of traffic lights are not allowed to act on their disagreement. Essentially, they really do not have a right to disagree with you. That IS NOT liberty.


Having public resources is not socialism.  Socialism is when the government redistributes wealth.  Farm subsidies and Medicaid are examples of income redistribution and socialism.  Also, people certainly have the right to disagree with me.  I'm just pointing out that basically having no government doesn't coincide with reality.

----------


## idirtify

> Well having private companies put up traffic lights would be better than not having any at all.  My point was simply that you would have non stop collisions in major cities if you had no traffic lights.  No traffic lights and stop signs might work in a town of 500, but it won't work in Chicago or New York City.


are you familiar with a roundabout intersection? *no light* but safer and just as efficient or more.

----------


## dannno

> Having public resources is not socialism.  Socialism is when the government redistributes wealth.  Farm subsidies and Medicaid are examples of income redistribution and socialism.  Also, people certainly have the right to disagree with me.  I'm just pointing out that basically having no government doesn't coincide with reality.


Having no Fed would coincide with smaller cities. 

Cities attract capital, which is 'created' in excess in more profitable city centers to the detriment of rural and more spread out areas.

You did see the post on the last page with the statistics comparing German collisions to US collisions? 

There are other ways to help traffic get through intersections besides lights.

----------


## Son of Detroit

> are you familiar with a roundabout intersection? *no light* but safer and just as efficient or more.


Very different.  With roundabouts everyone is going in one direction.  There's no left turns.  They're nice and simple.

----------


## dannno

> Very different.  With roundabouts everyone is going in one direction.  There's no left turns.  They're nice and simple.


But you agree they serve the same function 

There are a few in my town, I like them better. You only have to stop if there is traffic going through them and most people keep moving rather than sitting.. God I hate SITTING at a $#@!ing traffic light when everybody else is also SITTING around while the one direction that has a green light nobody is going through.. then you gotta put in a bunch of damn sensors and complicated equipment to get them to work relatively efficiently when there are already better ways..

----------


## Son of Detroit

> But you agree they serve the same function


I'm just saying roundabouts and a normal 4 way intersection just without traffic lights are not comparable.

----------


## dannno

> I'm just saying roundabouts and a normal 4 way intersection just without traffic lights are not comparable.


You can have a roundabout at a 5 or 6 way intersection and go whatever way you want, I'm not sure what you're trying to say 

Have you driven through many?

----------


## ClayTrainor

> I'm just saying roundabouts and a normal 4 way intersection just without traffic lights are not comparable.


How are they not comparable?  They are 2 possible solutions to the same problem.

----------


## Son of Detroit

I guess I don't understand why you brought up the roundabouts... To say that since roundabouts are safe, then a huge intersection with no traffic lights (but not a roundabout) is safe is well?

----------


## Theocrat

To relate back to the OP, I actually do believe we should eliminate drunk driving laws. Though it is irresponsible, dangerous, and unwise to drive intoxicated, the main issue is whether destruction of property or injury/loss of life has resulted in poor driving habits, whether one drinks or not. I do believe drunk driving increases the risks of damaging property and/or killing an innocent driver/pedestrian, however.

Having said that, I still do not believe eliminating the "guideposts" of the road like traffic lights, stop signs, etc. will make drivers more safe. I'm sorry, but there are just some people who do not have very good judgment on the road, and to ensure the safety of all other drivers, it is wise and beneficial to have those traffic regulators.

Somehow, anarchists have this naive notion that if a restraint is lifted from the public domain, it will always be optimal behavior for society. Even arguing for privatization of roads is unreal because if the roads were to be auctioned off tomorrow, I doubt any of the anarchists in here today would be able to afford the market price for those roads. And then what do you do when roads like interstates and county roads are blocked off by private owners just because they don't want a bunch of people "messing up their stuff"? It's just not practical, in the long term.

I think anyone who has studied civil engineering can easily see how our society is shaped by the roads paved for us. The traffic system is an intricate and scientifically-based phenomenon which can't be eradicated by anarchical notions of exclusive private amenities just because they don't like the State telling them how to drive. It's more complicated than that.

----------


## dannno

//

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Having public resources is not socialism.  Socialism is when the government redistributes wealth.  Farm subsidies and Medicaid are examples of income redistribution and socialism.  Also, people certainly have the right to disagree with me.  I'm just pointing out that basically having no government doesn't coincide with reality.


Depends on whether or not said resources are made public voluntarily or by force of law.  I'm not aware of any "public resources" that aren't mandated, are you?

----------


## Brett85

> are you familiar with a roundabout intersection? *no light* but safer and just as efficient or more.


Yes, I can't stand roundabouts.  They're confusing as hell.  We actually have a roundabout on a highway near where I live that's just out in the middle of nowhere.  It's the dumbest thing I've ever seen.

----------


## Brett85

> Depends on whether or not said resources are made public voluntarily or by force of law.  I'm not aware of any "public resources" that aren't mandated, are you?


No, but how could we even have a government at all without taxes?  I'm in favor of having very low tax rates, but obviously there has to be some to provide for public resources.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> To relate back to the OP, I actually do believe we should eliminate drunk driving laws. Though it is irresponsible, dangerous, and unwise to drive intoxicated, the main issue is whether destruction of property or injury/loss of life has resulted in poor driving habits, whether one drinks or not. I do believe drunk driving increases the risks of damaging property and/or killing an innocent driver/pedestrian, however.
> 
> Having said that, I still do not believe eliminating the "guideposts" of the road like traffic lights, stop signs, etc. will make drivers more safe. I'm sorry, but there are just some people who do not have very good judgment on the road, and to ensure the safety of all other drivers, it is wise and beneficial to have those traffic regulators.
> 
> Somehow, anarchists have this naive notion that if a restraint is lifted from the public domain, it will always be optimal behavior for society. Even arguing for privatization of roads is unreal because if the roads were to be auctioned off tomorrow, I doubt any of the anarchists in here today would be able to afford the market price for those roads. And then what do you do when roads like interstates and county roads are blocked off by private owners just because they don't want a bunch of people "messing up their stuff"? It's just not practical, in the long term.
> 
> I think anyone who has studied civil engineering can easily see how our society is shaped by the roads paved for us. The traffic system is an intricate and scientifically-based phenomenon which can't be eradicated by anarchical notions of exclusive private amenities just because they don't like the State telling them how to drive. It's more complicated than that.



Private roads are not a strictly anarchist notion.  They are a capitalist and "propertarian" notion.  They also predate the modern conversation on the topic.

You're right about the importance and complexity of roads, but it does not follow that their cost/maintenance must be socialized.  The network of networks that comprises the internet is also vastly complicated, and can be dangerous if hackers get access to certain computers-would you have the government take that over as well?

----------


## idirtify

> I guess I don't understand why you brought up the roundabouts... To say that since roundabouts are safe, then a huge intersection with no traffic lights (but not a roundabout) is safe is well?


I brought up roundabouts to dispute those who argue against lightless intersections. It seems entirely relevant. Why exactly are you claiming that its not? 

(Could you write/comment a little clearer?)

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> No, but how could we even have a government at all without taxes?  I'm in favor of having very low tax rates, but obviously there has to be some to provide for public resources.


Those who voluntarily participate in a government would be responsible for funding it.  It is not at all "obvious" that public resources must be provided.  This was in fact disputed as early as Plymouth colony.  Had they not moved to a system of private resources, they would have starved to death. 

As Ebling wrote:
"The Pilgrim Fathers came to colonial America to escape religious  persecution in Great Britain, but also to establish a new type of  society in the wilderness. They were determined to follow Platos model  in The Republic, and create a communist utopia.It lead to  economic disaster, which was only overcome through the Plymouth Colony  elders admitting their error, and instead privatizing the colonys  property. By doing so they set loose individual initiative and  market-based incentives. The result: a bounty in the wilderness rather  than starvation."



Of course, if people get together and fund a wasteful, socialist road project, that would be fine with me.  Just don't send me the bill.

----------


## aGameOfThrones

Earlier today I was at a traffic light and 2 $#@!s were trying to beat it, I of course waited for them to pass though it was green for me. When that same intersection has no power for the lights(which is regular), traffic is much smoother. Also, I've witness a few accidents from people trying to beat the light, though never when there is no working lights.

----------


## Theocrat

> Private roads are not a strictly anarchist notion.  They are a capitalist and "propertarian" notion.  They also predate the modern conversation on the topic.
> 
> You're right about the importance and complexity of roads, but it does not follow that their cost/maintenance must be socialized.  The network of networks that comprises the internet is also vastly complicated, and can be dangerous if hackers get access to certain computers-would you have the government take that over as well?


Well, I don't need the Internet in order to live. However, I do need the roads to get to work so that I can make a living. Also, I'm not arguing that simply because an entity is complex that, therefore, the civil magistrate must regulate it. That is an absurd line of reasoning, were I to argue that.

Consider the context of what I was talking about. I was simply stating that privatization of the roads is an impractical effort because of how much the public domain of roads has been for society in commercial traveling, family vacations, business ventures, emergencies, etc.

In addition, I am not saying there can be no private roads. If a person owns a mansion on a plot of land and decides to build a road from a public one leading to his home, that is fine. To me, this isn't an "Either-Or" issue. We can have both public roads and private roads and still be a free people.

By the way, I see you've conveniently ignored my scenario about what would an anarchist do if the roads were auctioned off and the public kept off because the owners didn't want others to mess them up...

----------


## dannno

//

----------


## idirtify

> Somehow, anarchists have this naive notion that if a restraint is lifted from the public domain, it will *always* be optimal behavior for society.


Even though your sentence is far from perfectly clear, it seems you are insistent on utilizing strawman arguments in order to refute your opponents position. Why do you have to AGAIN distort the position? Can you not refute the ACTUAL position?

----------


## dannno

jfc sorry///

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Well, I don't need the Internet in order to live.


Perhaps you don't, but many people do.




> However, I do need the roads to get to work so that I can make a living. Also, I'm not arguing that simply because an entity is complex that, therefore, the civil magistrate must regulate it. That is an absurd line of reasoning, were I to argue that.


Good.  We can agree on that.  (I like the Locke reference-"civil magistrate" )




> Consider the context of what I was talking about. I was simply stating that privatization of the roads is an impractical effort because of how much the public domain of roads has been for society in commercial traveling, family vacations, business ventures, emergencies, etc.


You did indeed say this, but it was speculation.  You also ignore my point that socialized roads may SEEM like a net benefit (compare seen vs. unseen costs), but the cost of maintaining them outweighs the benefit.  These costs could be minimized with a better model.




> In addition, I am not saying there can be no private roads. If a person owns a mansion on a plot of land and decides to build a road from a public one leading to his home, that is fine. To me, this isn't an "Either-Or" issue. We can have both public roads and private roads and still be a free people.


If one must pay the government for roads he doesn't even use, one can hardly be called "free".




> *By the way, I see you've conveniently ignored my scenario about what would an anarchist do if the roads were auctioned off and the public kept off because the owners didn't want others to mess them up..*.


I ignored that because I am not an anarchist.  If I am to deal with this very vague scenario, I need some more details-why would the roads be auctioned off?  (the public would already be restricted from using private roads they haven't paid for/subscribed to in the same way they are prevented from walking into your house.  There are many ways to deal with how people will pay for use, some have been worked out by Block.  Others will materialize as the subject is studied further)

----------


## Theocrat

> Even though your sentence is far from perfectly clear, it seems you are insistent on utilizing strawman arguments in order to refute your opponents position. Why do you have to AGAIN distort the position? Can you not refute the ACTUAL position?


It's not a strawman. Simply put, the absence of the State is better than the presence of the State to regulate things like the roads via traffic laws, according to anarchists, right? From that, it leads to an increase in people following the NAP when they drive on all private roads because they realize they don't need a decentralized government telling them what to do, right? What am I missing there? That is the optimal condition I'm referring to in anarchical reasoning. It's the belief that with no State present, life can be better for us all.

----------


## Theocrat

> You did indeed say this, but it was speculation.  You also ignore my point that socialized roads may SEEM like a net benefit (compare seen vs. unseen costs), but the cost of maintaining them outweighs the benefit.  These costs could be minimized with a better model.


What better model? Please explain.




> If one must pay the government for roads he doesn't even use, one can hardly be called "free".


I guess one could opt of the tax code for the use of roads, but if it is later found he is using them, he has every right to be fined by the State, too.




> I ignored that because I am not an anarchist.  If I am to deal with this very vague scenario, I need some more details-why would the roads be auctioned off?  (the public would already be restricted from using private roads they haven't paid for/subscribed to in the same way they are prevented from walking into your house.  There are many ways to deal with how people will pay for use, some have been worked out by Block.  Others will materialize as the subject is studied further)


It's basically giving control of the roads over to private citizens who are able and willing to pay whatever price to own the roads for themselves. (That would be wealthy people like the Gates and Buffets of the world, not the average RPF anarchist, by the way. ) That's what I was getting at.

----------


## idirtify

> It's not a strawman. Simply put, the absence of the State is better than the presence of the State to regulate things like the roads via traffic laws, according to anarchists


Once again, you got caught in a lie, and in order to save face are now denying it by changing your argument. Same as before, just different wording.

Here, just look at your two statements (as if I actually have to explain it to you):

1)	Somehow, anarchists have this naive notion that if a restraint is lifted from the public domain, it will always be optimal behavior for society.
2)	Simply put, the absence of the State is better than the presence of the State to regulate things like the roads via traffic laws, according to anarchists.

The first one talks in terms of absolute generality and throws in an absolute exaggeration to boot. The second one has no such absolute errors and speaks very specifically. HINT: Your second statement is not even close to your original claim. Basically, you got caught misrepresenting (distorting) your opponents position, so you respond by trying to misrepresent (correct) your original misrepresentation (trying to imply that you did not misrepresent it).

Can you not make a legitimate argument?

----------


## Theocrat

> Once again, you got caught in a lie, and in order to save face are now denying it by changing your argument. Same as before, just different wording.
> 
> Here, just look at your two statements (as if I actually have to explain it to you):
> 
> 1)	Somehow, anarchists have this naive notion that if a restraint is lifted from the public domain, it will always be optimal behavior for society.
> 2)	Simply put, the absence of the State is better than the presence of the State to regulate things like the roads via traffic laws, according to anarchists.
> 
> The first one talks in terms of absolute generality and throws in an absolute exaggeration to boot. The second one has no such absolute errors and speaks very specifically. HINT: Your second statement is not even close to your original claim. Basically, you got caught misrepresenting (distorting) your opponents position, so you respond by trying to misrepresent (correct) your original misrepresentation (trying to imply that you did not misrepresent it).
> 
> Can you not make a legitimate argument?


Oh my goodness, idirtify. Do I have to connect the dots of reasoning for you about your own beliefs? *Is the State a restraint on society?* Answer that question first.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> What better model? Please explain.
> *A good model is laid out in Block's book on roads, and there are others who are exploring this area as well.
> * 
> 
> I guess one could opt of the tax code for the use of roads, but if it is later found he is using them, he has every right to be fined by the State, too.
> *You're assuming a "competing" model, in which some roads are public, some are private, "competing" for users.  This is a poor model for your argument-because in a free society, people tend to prefer private roads for a number of reasons, including better upkeep and rule enforcement.    
> * 
> 
> It's basically giving control of the roads over to private citizens who are able and willing to pay whatever price to own the roads for themselves. (That would be wealthy people like the Gates and Buffets of the world, not the average RPF anarchist, by the way. ) That's what I was getting at.
> *why is this less preferable than the wealthy and powerful government critters controlling the roads?  (assuming that said millionaires would desire such a low-return investment-the returns would mostly be from advertising-we can assume that subscription costs for road use would decline over time, as with other products)* *A Gates or Buffet is not a government that can be easily bribed and manipulated, or simply pander to special interests as the government often does.*



FYI, Block responds in greater detail to your arguments and other arguments against private roads in his "rejoinder to Carnis on Private Roads".  Well worth reading if you're interested in this topic.

----------


## Wesker1982

> Well worth reading if you're interested in this topic.


Although they go through the trouble of arguing against the privatization of roads, etc., it doesn't seem like they are really that interested in these subjects in the first place. They are more interested in defending their blind allegiance to the state than learning about practical alternatives.

----------


## idirtify

> Oh my goodness, idirtify. Do I have to connect the dots of reasoning for you about your own beliefs? *Is the State a restraint on society?* Answer that question first.


Now what is this third argument you are introducing? My whole comment was dedicated to exposing your previous deceptive arguing tactics. Twice you distorted your opponents position to more easily defeat it, and twice I caught you doing it, and twice you responded with a false denial consisting of a blatant distortion of your original distortion. Now you completely ignore the exposures and try distracting away from them with something about dots. There was nothing in my comment that would cause you to infer something about my beliefs on whether the state is a restraint on society. 

I suppose if the first two tricks dont work, try a third. Right? Trouble with that is: your credibility suffers. Can you not make a legitimate argument? Can you not correctly characterize your opponents position? Do you not care about your credibility?

----------


## Theocrat

> Now what is this third argument you are introducing? My whole comment was dedicated to exposing your previous deceptive arguing tactics. Twice you distorted your opponents position to more easily defeat it, and twice I caught you doing it, and twice you responded with a false denial consisting of a blatant distortion of your original distortion. Now you completely ignore the exposures and try distracting away from them with something about dots. There was nothing in my comment that would cause you to infer something about my beliefs on whether the state is a restraint on society. 
> 
> I suppose if the first two tricks dont work, try a third. Right? Trouble with that is: your credibility suffers. Can you not make a legitimate argument? Can you not correctly characterize your opponents position? Do you not care about your credibility?


If you answer the question, you will see where I'm coming from. Interestingly, you refuse to answer such a simple question, in the hopes of trying to refute my critique of your position. There are no tricks involved, I assure you. Just answer the question.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

You know people like Theo, and Traditional Conservative if alive in the 1820s would be rabid socialists compared to most Americans who were in favor of the privatization of all so-called "public works" and even expressely forbade such funding for these in their State Constitutions. The anarchist position only relates to LAW AND COURTS. This stupid mischaracterization is absurd. _You can see how far socialist we have come as a society when so-called liberty advocates are completely socialist._

----------


## Wesker1982

> _You can see how far socialist we have come as a society when so-called liberty advocates are completely socialist._


Thats what I have been thinking this whole time lol. 

It also surprises me that some people here don't know just how "extreme" Ron Paul really is.

----------


## Fox McCloud

I think some road laws are reasonable, at the moment, such as speed limits and stoplights...drunk driving? I have mixed feelings about that, but I think if someone kills someone else while driving drunk it should be the death penalty for the drunk driver...no questions asked.

It really needs to be up to private companies who own the roads to  make up the rules; under that situation the best "rules" of the road that maximize profit, safety, and efficiency will win; maybe it's a speed limit of 67 MPH, maybe it's 58 MPH, or maybe we don't need any at all, but we really need the market to find out what really is the best.

----------


## Danke

> , but I think if someone kills someone while driving drunk it should be the death penalty...no questions asked.


Do you ever read what you write?

----------


## aGameOfThrones

> but I think if someone kills someone while driving drunk it should be the death penalty...no questions asked.




I assume you apply this "logic" to all driving situations.

----------


## revolutionary8

> I think some road laws are reasonable, at the moment, such as speed limits and stoplights...drunk driving? I have mixed feelings about that, but I think if someone kills someone while driving drunk it should be the death penalty...*no questions asked*.


what if they were both drunk?
(that's a question)

----------


## tpreitzel

> Even though your sentence is far from perfectly clear, it seems you are insistent on utilizing strawman arguments in order to refute your opponents’ position. Why do you have to AGAIN distort the position? Can you not refute the ACTUAL position?


LOL ... here you, i.e. idirtify, go again!

----------


## revolutionary8

> You know people like Theo, and Traditional Conservative if alive in the 1820s would be rabid socialists compared to most Americans who were in favor of the privatization of all so-called "public works" and even expressely forbade such funding for these in their State Constitutions. The anarchist position only relates to LAW AND COURTS. This stupid mischaracterization is absurd. _You can see how far socialist we have come as a society when so-called liberty advocates are completely socialist._


This is why I like forgetting names and actively practice voluntary dissassociation from "names and labels". I am just not sure what you are saying here besides griping about super old school members here on RPH. (Not that TC or theo drive me anything less than CRAZY *at times*, just like my family members), Can't you go bigger than that? I KNOW you can AED, all of your posts show me that you are one smart focker.

----------


## Fox McCloud

> Do you ever read what you write?


Yes, I do, and when I make grammatical mistakes, I often change it. In this case I'm not sure if you're making fun of my grammatical error(s) or suggesting that the death penalty is not in line with the non-aggression principle.

If it's within the grammatical sense, then I'm very sorry your most worshipful grammar master, I should have said "someone kills someone else" instead of "someone kills someone", I am but a fool who needs every ounce of your instruction!

As for the death penalty, I think it fits well in line within the libertarian tradition and works well within the scope of the non-aggression axiom: http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block34.html

it is only currently screwed up because of the huge mess and inefficiency of the State.




> I assume you apply this "logic" to all driving situations.


No; whoever directly caused the accident bears the burden of the cost of the accident;  if it's because a civilian decided to cross the road at the wrong time, he pays; if it's the drunk driver, he pays, and so on and so forth. Of course, this could vary in a true free market for roads; some might have different contracts that specify the relationships of those who use the road, thus changing the nature of conflicts.




> what if they were both drunk?
> (that's a question)


It's whoever was the cause of the accident that should bear the full cost.

----------


## dannno

> what if they were both drunk?
> (that's a question)


Yes, and a great one...

----------


## revolutionary8

> It's whoever was the cause of the accident that should bear the full cost.


so they "both" need to die..

I see...

KILLEMALL!  NO QUESTIONS!!!!!

but wait, what if they killed one another, and they are BOTH dead? Then who are you going to "blame"?
let me guess. "the parents"...

----------


## MelissaWV

> You can have a roundabout at a 5 or 6 way intersection and go whatever way you want, I'm not sure what you're trying to say 
> 
> Have you driven through many?


Roundabouts work in some areas (where all the entering roads have similar levels of traffic and where few people must navigate the entire round to get to where they want to go, for instance)... but I've been in many that were worse than traffic lights.  What's worse is when there is an accident on one of the roads which is a popular outlet to a roundabout.  This means the entire roundabout becomes clogged, which prohibits anyone else who didn't want to get onto the road where the accident is... from using the roundabout and going on their merry way in another direction.

* * *

I still maintain that whoever owns the road/property would put up what they believe to be the safest and most effective security/traffic controls/etc., and that it really wouldn't vary all that much from what we have now.  All we'd see is some areas where there are unusual circumstances, or that have no speed limits for instance.  Maybe we'd see more innovation as far as crosswalk styles, pedestrian bridges, safer guardrails, and so on.  Property owners have a vested interest in the people who make use of their property not dying or getting injured through neglect or malice.    Right now we have the same old technology, and no threat of anyone putting the Government out of business when it comes to "safety standards" on the roads.  How's that working out for everyone?

----------


## idirtify

> If you answer the question, you will see where I'm coming from. Interestingly, you refuse to answer such a simple question, in the hopes of trying to refute my critique of your position. There are no tricks involved, I assure you. Just answer the question.


Where you are coming from is already clear, and it has little to do with relevance. Submitting sequence after sequence of deceptive fallacies and then denying them certainly gives no credibility to your current assurance of relevance, or authority to your demand that I play along. 

Shall I count the questions (and rebuttals) YOU have left unanswered?

----------


## Wesker1982

> but I think if someone kills someone else while driving drunk it should be the death penalty for the drunk driver...no questions asked.


What if the victim states in his will that he is against capital punishment?

It should be up to the victim. Without being stated in the will, it should be up to the victims family. The victim could have also agreed to a particular policy with a defense/insurance company which deals with cases that result in the death of the customer.

To anyone interested, I recommend this:
*PUNISHMENT AND PROPORTIONALITY*
http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/thirteen.asp

It answers a lot of questions you might have in regards to this post.

----------


## Theocrat

> Where you are coming from is already clear, and it has little to do with relevance. Submitting sequence after sequence of deceptive fallacies and then denying them certainly gives no credibility to your current assurance of relevance, or authority to your demand that I play along. 
> 
> Shall I count the questions (and rebuttals) YOU have left unanswered?


It's funny how you keep claiming that I'm engaging in "deceptive fallacies," strawman arguments, shifting questions, etc. when you have not shown ONCE how I've supposedly misrepresented anarchy. Whatever way you want to dodge my critiques in your meaningless sophisms, it still does not hide the fact that anarchists believe the absence of any formal, civil authority will automatically (whether it's by progression or not) will ultimately make society better. If I am wrong, then please demonstrate my error. Otherwise, I will hold you to the truth of my conclusions about the "positive" (naive) effects of anarchy in society.

----------


## idirtify

> It's funny how you keep claiming that I'm engaging in "deceptive fallacies," strawman arguments, shifting questions, etc. when you have not shown ONCE how I've supposedly misrepresented anarchy. Whatever way you want to dodge my critiques in your meaningless sophisms, it still does not hide the fact that anarchists believe the absence of any formal, civil authority will automatically (whether it's by progression or not) will ultimately make society better. If I am wrong, then please demonstrate my error. Otherwise, I will hold you to the truth of my conclusions about the "positive" (naive) effects of anarchy in society.


I really thought I had shown your deceptive fallacies sufficiently, but here you are continuing them and begging for more. OK, you asked for it...

Amazingly, now you go all in and claim Ive not shown how youve misrepresented anarchy. Even though I actually only explained how you misrepresented your opponents positions, you cant deny that your wrote this about what you think anarchists believe (in post #51):

the marketcan provide total safety of all realms of civil behavior.

Now tell me; Do you think that is an accurate representation of anarchy (or any of your opponents positions)? Go ahead. Say yes, and make my day.

----------


## Fox McCloud

> What if the victim states in his will that he is against capital punishment?
> 
> It should be up to the victim. Without being stated in the will, it should be up to the victims family. The victim could have also agreed to a particular policy with a defense/insurance company which deals with cases that result in the death of the customer.
> 
> To anyone interested, I recommend this:
> *PUNISHMENT AND PROPORTIONALITY*
> http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/thirteen.asp
> 
> It answers a lot of questions you might have in regards to this post.


then that's different, and in line with what I believe (you'd see that if you read the article I posted).

----------


## Anti Federalist

Bump, cuz Y Not?

----------


## Shredmonster

Fist of all we are lied to on this topic by the government - gee imagine that.   The statistics of drunk related accidents include ridiculous things including just the passengers being drunk.   The statistics say what the government wants them to say and they are total B.S.

Second the average - AVERAGE - person that gets into a serious alcohol related accident is .28   -   did you hear me ????????????????    .28  is the average !

The average person in a serious alcohol related accident has had at least 10 DWI's.

I know this because a friend of mine is an attorney and a lobbyist and testified at the state level in front of the legislature.

.08 is total bull$#@!.    .1 was total bull$#@! as well.    

There is also a legal question which has not been answered IMO.    If you are on the road driving over the limit you still have not caused harm.  

The potential for causing harm is not something you can be prosecuted for.    As it was said earlier every driver on the road has the potential to cause harm.   Life has the potential to cause harm.

The drunk driving "industry" has become corrupt like everything else.  Lining the pockets of attorneys, psychologists and a whole slue of rehabilitative types, lots of money for states to collect from those it arrests etc....

Around where I live there is a judge who is partner in overnight condos where he will sentence people to stay for rehabilitation.   What a $#@!ing crock of $#@! the whole thing has become.

I agree it is terrible when accidents are caused but this is for any reason not just due to drinking.  It is a fact more accidents are cause by people that are tired or fatigued.   Lets just arrest them and while we are at it why don't we arrest everybody because everybody has the potential to be a threat.    This is how $#@!ing ridiculous this has become propagated by emotions.   

If you want to keep drunk drivers off the road them be real about it.   Most people can drive after they moderately drink.   Many can drive after they have drank quite a bit.  
Officers use to judge the situation by talking to the person that they stopped with reasonable cause.  Now it has gone way to far in the other direction.   They don't even use reasonable cause anymore - they lie - claims like you were swerving just as an excuse to pull you over just because you happen to be on the read late at night and they have nothing better to do.

The whole thing is a racket.   You think the government really gives a $#@! whether people die or not ?   If so then why do they want your guns ?  Why do they have gun free zones around young defenseless children ?    Why are the people in Bengazi dead ?   Why do they start wars and send the poor to fight them ?  Why are the central banks like HBSC allowed launder drug traffic money (fact by the way) ?

Open your eyes.  It is all about money.  Most things with government these days are.

----------


## BSWPaulsen

> Thanks for pointing that out. Still, anarchy removes the traffic lights from such intersections, so the video still remains accurate of what an "anarchical street" would resemble. Remember, anarchy is without rulers, and that includes electrical devices with bulbs that tell drivers when they can go and stop.


Traffic lights, et al, remove the responsibility of the individual to pay attention to his surroundings, abdicating such a responsibility to State guidelines. He will, wrongly, assume other individuals will obey the rules instead of paying absolute attention to his surroundings and behaving accordingly. Note that this also applies to gun-control arguments.

By abrogating the responsibility of the individual you increase the likelihood of accidents. This is _The Law of Unintended Consequences_ at work.

----------


## Anti Federalist

Bump for another thread

----------


## trey4sports

get rid of the DD laws. Or you should prohibit driving while tired, yawning, sneezing or anything else that impairs judgement.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Wow.  This goes way beyond libertarianism into anarchy.  People who speed and people who drive drunk are endangering the lives of others.


You know, I feel like I may have had a change of heart on the DUI thing.  Why can't there just be a blanket "Distracted Driving" rule? I mean, we've already agreed that there shouldn't be random checks and that the only way the cops would even know is if you're driving unsafely in the first place, so why can't there just be a law against reckless driving period?

Regarding speeding... I don't know, it depends on the situation.  On interstates, I really don't see the point.  In the middle of the city... yeah I can see the point, but even still, a safe speed in NYC at 3AM is going to be a lot higher than at 3PM, so I feel like that could still be solved by some kind of law against reckless driving.

Now, traffic lights I agree with you on.  Ultimately I support road privatization, but I don't think it makes sense to get rid of traffic lights.  Although I don't think someone who completely safely crosses a red light should be ticketed just for giggles.

I'm ready to be convinced that any/all of this is wrong.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> You know people like Theo, and Traditional Conservative if alive in the 1820s would be rabid socialists compared to most Americans who were in favor of the privatization of all so-called "public works" and even expressely forbade such funding for these in their State Constitutions. The anarchist position only relates to LAW AND COURTS. This stupid mischaracterization is absurd. _You can see how far socialist we have come as a society when so-called liberty advocates are completely socialist._





> You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Austrian Econ Disciple again.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> You know, I feel like I may have had a change of heart on the DUI thing.  Why can't there just be a blanket "Distracted Driving" rule? I mean, we've already agreed that there shouldn't be random checks and that the only way the cops would even know is if you're driving unsafely in the first place, so why can't there just be a law against reckless driving period?
> 
> Regarding speeding... I don't know, it depends on the situation.  On interstates, I really don't see the point.  In the middle of the city... yeah I can see the point, but even still, a safe speed in NYC at 3AM is going to be a lot higher than at 3PM, so I feel like that could still be solved by some kind of law against reckless driving.
> 
> Now, traffic lights I agree with you on.  Ultimately I support road privatization, but I don't think it makes sense to get rid of traffic lights.  Although I don't think someone who completely safely crosses a red light should be ticketed just for giggles.
> 
> I'm ready to be convinced that any/all of this is wrong.


WRT lights, this has been solved in several US locales and abroad with roundabout intersections. (there are vids about them on youtube)  Safer and more efficient than the standard "grid" of roads we're used to.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Traffic lights, et al, remove the responsibility of the individual to pay attention to his surroundings, abdicating such a responsibility to State guidelines. He will, wrongly, assume other individuals will obey the rules instead of paying absolute attention to his surroundings and behaving accordingly. Note that this also applies to gun-control arguments.
> 
> By abrogating the responsibility of the individual you increase the likelihood of accidents. This is _The Law of Unintended Consequences_ at work.


Well said!

----------


## Origanalist

> 





> You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Austrian Econ Disciple again.


Got it.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Got it.


Bless your beating heart, kitten!

----------


## Christian Liberty

> WRT lights, this has been solved in several US locales and abroad with roundabout intersections. (there are vids about them on youtube)  Safer and more efficient than the standard "grid" of roads we're used to.


I've seen traffic circles, and yeah that does work, although I question whether its actually safer once you have two lanes (We have one such circle near my house.)

Ultimately I support private roads and they can make any rules they want.  I seriously doubt they'll really go with "None" but they could if they wanted.

----------


## Origanalist

> I've seen traffic circles, and yeah that does work, although I question whether its actually safer once you have two lanes (We have one such circle near my house.)
> 
> Ultimately I support private roads and they can make any rules they want.  I seriously doubt they'll really go with "None" but they could if they wanted.


The two lane circles suck, IMO.

----------


## Origanalist

> Bless your beating heart, kitten!


Awwwww....

----------


## Anti Federalist

bump for another thread

----------


## Origanalist

> Got it.


That's Circus Clown to you HB.

----------


## Anti Federalist

*Officer Not So Friendly*

http://ericpetersautos.com/2013/12/01/officer-friendly/

by eric • December 1, 2013 • 4 Comments	

A reader sent me a note about his recent experience with Officer Not So Friendly, following an unexpected early morning encounter with a moose. I thought it was worth relaying to you in its entirety, because it’s yet another example of the needlessly adversarial attitude that seems to be becoming the new normal among law enforcers – and justification for the entirely rational fear of police that more and more of us are coming to grips with.

It’s especially hard for people who are inclined to support police (mostly, on the misplaced belief that they are there to “serve and protect” as opposed to “harass and collect”) to read these stories – and to face up to the reality of law enforcement these days.* But it’s increasingly impossible to maintain the illusion that police are anything more than an enforcer class – to be avoided if all possible.*

Here’s an object lesson as to why that’s so:

This past Sunday, while I was on my way to work, I hit a moose.

Let me set the stage for you. At 7:30 in the morning in late November at 61° north, it is pitch black. The sun isn’t even considering coming up yet. Add to that that Alaskan moose are huge, ornery, and dumb – they’re used to being the biggest thing around, so they pretty much do what they please and pay no attention to their surroundings. Add to that that I live in the woods, and you can probably guess what happened: I’m driving down the road, moose suddenly bolts out of the woods in front of me, I don’t have room to stop. Smash.

Best as I can reconstruct the actual events of the crash, I think I very nearly stopped in time; I don’t have much front-end damage, and the air bags never deployed. But the moose’s legs were knocked out from underneath it, and it flipped over toward me, hit the top of the windshield, bounced over the car (thankfully my Toyota Yaris is so low to the ground; if I were driving the typical Alaskan wankmobile, he’d have come right into the cabin to join me!) kicked out one of my taillights, and then went on his merry way. As for me, I and my passenger were both completely unharmed; the front of the cabin was crushed, the windshield was smashed in; I don’t see how there could have been any room left in there for the two of us, but somehow we found it.

Some time later, we’re standing by the wreckage waiting for the tow, and the state police arrive. The trooper in question looked to be all of nineteen – your typical wanna-be big man type, pushy and humorless. And, as I would discover, not astonishingly competent. He asked me what happened; I told him a moose ran out from the woods, I was unable to stop in time, and I hit it. He asked me where the moose was; I told him I had no idea, and that it must have run back into the woods.

And then he hit me with it.

“You been drinking?”

What? At 7:30 in the morning on my way to work? I told him no. “Have you been drinking since the accident?” No. “Any alcohol in the car?” No. “Were you drinking at all yesterday?” What? Yesterday? What’s that have to do with anything? I had a couple of glasses of wine with dinner, and I said so.

Which was a huge mistake.

*Now, I know better. I know not to talk to cops, and especially not when they’re obviously searching for some pretext to arrest me. And especially I know not to admit that I’ve ever, ever so much as considered allowing a drop of Demon Rum to pass my lips. My only excuse was that, frankly, after miraculously escaping moose murder, I was a bit rattled and not thinking at 100 percent. But, then, who expects to be subjected to a game of life-or-death Twenty Questions in this situation?*

My stupid response gave him the excuse he was looking for to subject me to the entire field sobriety test. Walk the straight line, spin around in a circle, stand on one foot for thirty seconds, recite the alphabet and count arbitrary numbers. He said he detected some evidence of impairment from my test performance; while the verbal part was flawless, I was apparently “a little shaky” during the physical part.

It is November. It is Alaska. I have been standing out in the cold for lord knows how long after having annihilated my car and almost myself by crashing into a moose, and this jackboot dipstick has the audacity to claim that being “a little shaky” is evidence that I’ve been drinking? Excuse me for being 5 percent less calm and detached than the worthless low-level bureaucrat sent to document the events! This, of course, is setting aside the fact that he had me perform his idiotic rituals on an uneven surface – an uneven surface of ice. Not the easiest place to keep one’s footing.

After half an hour or so of his routine, he finally decided not to charge me with anything, which I considered downright neighborly of him, given I hadn’t done anything. But he had one more quality moment yet to go. He told me I wasn’t being charged with anything, but then asked me if I’d like to take a voluntary breath test, just “because he was curious.” I mean, yes, I fell for “did you drink anything yesterday,” but I absolutely am not stupid enough for this. I told him that if I weren’t being compelled to take the breath test, I declined to do so. And then he got angry! “Look, I already told you I’m not charging you with anything. You think I’m lying?” I told him again that, his intentions aside, I had no intention of taking the breath test if I could choose not to.

He glared at me for a minute and finally dropped it.

*How reprehensible a human being do you have to be to show up at the scene of what is, frankly, a natural disaster (“act of God,” the insurance company calls it) in which, somehow, against all odds, nobody was hurt, and think “oh, I better fix that?” The man set out deliberately to ruin me! It was his one and only function at the scene – I and a private tow driver (sent by AAA, a private organization) cleared the wreck out of the roadway. The cop literally served no purpose except to try to cause me even more harm. Who was he “protecting?” Who was he “serving?”*

Nobody but the cop union and, potentially, the jail union.

And every creep politician whose job security is boosted by spooky stories about “drunk drivers.” 

Who once, long ago, had a glass of wine, and then had their cars crushed by falling wildlife.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So ends my reader’s story. It is, unfortunately, a typical story. I have one very similar to it. Worse, in fact. A motorcycle rider wrecked. Badly. He was severely injured and being hauled out of the woods by the EMTs. The state cop who showed up would not let them leave with this seriously injured man before he had obtained the man’s driver’s license – so that he could write him up for “reckless driving.”
*
Some people say, “what would we do without police”? To which I respond: A whole lot better.*

Throw it in the Woods?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> That's Circus Clown to you HB.


Bring back teh kitteh! :P

----------


## Origanalist

> Bring back teh kitteh! :P


That kitten has more than nine lives.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

Thanks for posting. Good read.

----------


## Anti Federalist

Bump for another thread

----------


## PRB

> Bump for another thread


Which one?

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Which one?


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ce-Mafia/page2

----------


## ThePaleoLibertarian

If you think it's a good idea to get rid of traffic light, go to Egypt. Cairo has very few traffic lights, very few cops on the road and next to no enforcement of any traffic laws. It's a disaster, with wreck after wreck after wreck. When I was there some years ago, they just put these hunks of twisted metal to the side of the road, and you drive by one after another after another. I remember I would look at them and wonder if there were bodies or even living people trapped inside. Not a pretty sight.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> If you think it's a good idea to get rid of traffic light, go to Egypt. Cairo has very few traffic lights, very few cops on the road and next to no enforcement of any traffic laws. It's a disaster, with wreck after wreck after wreck. When I was there some years ago, they just put these hunks of twisted metal to the side of the road, and you drive by one after another after another. I remember I would look at them and wonder if there were bodies or even living people trapped inside. Not a pretty sight.


Road deaths per 100,000 people in the US - 11.6

Road deaths per 100,000 people in Egypt - 13

----------


## Anti Federalist

Seriously mods?

*Really?*

What the $#@!...

----------


## phill4paul

> Seriously mods?
> 
> *Really?*
> 
> What the $#@!...


  It's election time. Can't chance stretching the noodle of a law and order type.

----------


## ThePaleoLibertarian

> Road deaths per 100,000 people in the US - 11.6
> 
> Road deaths per 100,000 people in Egypt - 13


First of all, you can survive a crash, but be terribly injured in the accident. Secondly, the statistics you would have to look at is the accident rate in Cairo vis a vis the rates in US cities with similar rates of traffic congestion. All one has to do to know there's a problem in Cairo is cross the street. I saw more wrecked and banged up cars in one day there than my whole life in the US. I saw dozens, maybe hundreds of cars that were barely road-worthy or didn't have side view mirrors. The roads in Cairo are pure chaos.

----------


## DFF

Eliminating drunk driving laws still won't solve the problem of drunk driving. For this, we need better, more accessible public transportation. Vast Subways in every major city and European style Trams. Eventually though, once cars can drive themselves, we won't even need these and drunk driving laws will become totally obsolete.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> Which one?



Click here, my friend:




> .

----------


## PRB

> Eliminating drunk driving laws still won't solve the problem of drunk driving.


Drunk driving isn't a problem.




> For this, we need better, more accessible public transportation.


No, we don't. Only a socialist would suggest such as ridiculous waste of taxpayer money




> Vast Subways in every major city and European style Trams.


European = socialist




> Eventually though, once cars can drive themselves, we won't even need these and drunk driving laws will become totally obsolete.


Drunk driving laws are a violation of freedom, that's all you need to know.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> It's election time. Can't chance stretching the noodle of a[n] law and order type.


I've maintained that law and order don't go together a majority of the time in US code.  All code about law was implemented a long time ago.  Most new laws are strictly order.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> No, we don't. Only a socialist would suggest such as ridiculous waste of taxpayer money
> 
> 
> 
> European = socialist
> 
> 
> 
> Drunk driving laws are a violation of freedom, that's all you need to know.



If any Daily Paul or new members are reading PRB, then just ignore his threads/posts.  He pretends to be libertarian in an effort to show the impracticalities of liberty.  He is really a progressive Democrat.  This has been demonstrated time and time again.  He will, of course, deny it.  As he does time and time again.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

It's not even about "drunk driving" any more.  The language changed from "Don't drive drunk" to "Don't drimk and drive."  


Check out these headlines from the American Beverage Institute:




> National Transportation Safety Board proposes to lower legal blood alcohol limit from .08 to .05






> Recommendation to put in-car breathalyzers in every new vehicle is misguided



https://abionline.org/newsroom/



Also, the famous quote from MADD's founder:




> Candy Lightner, MADD's founder, says she disassociated herself from the movement in 1985 because she believed the organization was headed in the wrong direction.
> "It has become far more neo-prohibitionist than I had ever wanted or envisioned," said Mrs. Lightner, who founded MADD after her daughter was killed by a drunk driver. "I didn't start MADD to deal with alcohol. I started MADD to deal with the issue of drunk driving."


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-035702-2222r/

----------


## DFF

MADD will actually show up at prisoner parole hearings demanding they aren't released. That's how psychotically bloodthirsty that organization is.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *Eliminating drunk driving laws still won't solve the problem of drunk driving.* For this, we need better, more accessible public transportation. Vast Subways in every major city and European style Trams. Eventually though, once cars can drive themselves, we won't even need these and drunk driving laws will become totally obsolete.


Neither will keeping them.  That's the whole point.  It's similar to the War On (some) Drugs that way.

----------


## TheTexan

You guys are all monsters who want minivans full of small children to be t-boned by Rodney King.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> You guys are all monsters who want minivans full of small children to be t-boned by Rodney King.


LULZ   Heartless monsters at that!

----------


## phill4paul

> Eliminating drunk driving laws still won't solve the problem of drunk driving. For this, we need better, more accessible public transportation. Vast Subways in every major city and European style Trams. *Eventually though, once cars can drive themselves, we won't even need these and drunk driving laws will become totally obsolete.*


  And here is where I say you will be entirely wrong. You will still be required to remain sober. 




> Even if it is an autonomous vehicle, the alcohol-impaired person is still the driver. After all, actions need to be taken to start the vehicle, enter instructions regarding destination and route, and engage the self-driving function. These actions constitute driving, and if you’re drunk, that’s drink driving.
> 
> Moreover, there are serious issues concerning the possible situations where a driver in an autonomous vehicle needs to intervene due to an emergency or system malfunction. Any such intervention constitutes driving, and again, if you’re drunk, that’s drink driving.


http://theconversation.com/self-driv...g-driver-31747

  Your horse might know the way to the barn from the bar. But if you are drunk and in the saddle you will still get a DUI.

----------


## TheTexan

The best advice to avoid drunk driving charges is just to follow the same rules pilots do.  If you get absolutely hammered, you need to give it at least 2 hours before driving.  Or maybe it's 3.  I don't remember the regs.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> You guys are all monsters who want minivans full of small children to be t-boned by Rodney King.



He be dead.  Unless you mean his ghost.

----------


## Danke

> The best advice to avoid drunk driving charges is just to follow the same rules pilots do.  If you get absolutely hammered, you need to give it at least 2 hours before driving.  Or maybe it's 3.  I don't remember the regs.


We are not supposed to drink within 50 feet of aircraft.

----------


## euphemia

> MADD will actually show up at prisoner parole hearings demanding they aren't released. That's how psychotically bloodthirsty that organization is.


Except that some of the parole hearings they attend are because their kids were killed by drunk drivers.  It's hard to believe self-proclaimed libertarians would deny parents an opinion about whether the person who killed their child should stay in jail or not.  If the drunk shot the child, would that be any different?

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> Except that some of the parole hearings they attend are because their kids were killed by drunk drivers.  It's hard to believe self-proclaimed libertarians would deny parents an opinion about whether the person who killed their child should stay in jail or not.  If the drunk shot the child, would that be any different?


One reason I don't like this approach is because you inevitably put more value on one life over another.  Kids are more valuable than older people because the oldster has lived his life.  The poor homeless $#@! has no one to speak for him, so running his ass over is a little more palatable to this type of emotion.

----------


## euphemia

> One reason I don't like this approach is because you inevitably put more value on one life over another.  Kids are more valuable than older people because the oldster has lived his life.  The poor homeless $#@! has no one to speak for him, so running his ass over is a little more palatable to this type of emotion.


My personal life experience has to do with two teens and a mom (not my mom) being killed by a teen drunk driver.  That's why I chose to rebut the statement that MADD showing up at parole hearings is a bad thing.  Crime victims are allowed to show up at parole hearings to remind the board why the person is in prison to begin with.

You are the one using vulgar terms to describe a homeless person who has largely been forgotten.  All life has dignity.  Those who take it should forfeit it.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Those who take it should forfeit it.


And who is going to take that person's life?

The state?

Because they never get it wrong, correct?

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> My personal life experience has to do with two teens and a mom (not my mom) being killed by a teen drunk driver.  That's why I chose to rebut the statement that MADD showing up at parole hearings is a bad thing.  Crime victims are allowed to show up at parole hearings to remind the board why the person is in prison to begin with.
> 
> You are the one using vulgar terms to describe a homeless person who has largely been forgotten.  All life has dignity.  Those who take it should forfeit it.


Not sure if I am debating you because I don't know the whole history of this.  I am guessing that courts started doing this as a catharsis to placate the aggrieved.  This emotion really has nothing to do with determining a penalty or assess rehab potential.  The board certainly has (or should have) the facts in front of them.  Aggrieved parties are not there to present facts.

Everybody probably knows somebody who has been killed by a drunk.  I do too.  People like to play one up on this, but that's another part of the emotion.

By the way, I use an alternate version of devil's advocate with that referral to homeless.  Sort of like referring to blacks as coloreds.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> We are not supposed to drink within 50 feet of aircraft.


LOL

----------


## Anti Federalist

Look, folks can spin this any way they want, but punitive drunk driving laws that assume harm done with no one actually being harmed, are no different in theory than every single gun control or drug law.

It makes for a visceral response because it has touched many folks, and it has been ingrained into the culture to be the cause of everything bad in the world, from hemorrhoids to spontaneous decapitation.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

If you're going to support enforcement of drunk laws, then you better support enforcing tailgate (reckless op) laws.  I get tired of the dumbass 30 feet off my bumper going 60 MPH.  I usually find a remedy, but  would bet that tailgating does more damage than drunks. 

If you tailgate, then you are no better than a drunk.  And you have no excuse to not understand the most basic physics.  On top of that--you're sober.  So look at yourself in the mirror.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> It's election time. Can't chance stretching the noodle of a law and order type.


Yeah, what was I thinking?

This thread had only been living in GP for five *years* now.

----------


## DFF

> Except that some of the parole hearings they attend are because their kids were killed by drunk drivers.


"Some"....most DWI/DUI prisoners aren't locked up for intoxicated assault, but just routine drunk driving, which IMO, is irresponsible but not necessarily a criminal act.

This on the other hand *is* a criminal act:




Strapping someone to a gurney and jabbing them with a syringe *against their will* is the very definition of *assault*.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

Don't forget about the "drinking while driving" roadblocks set up by lice.  The ones that have proven to be an abysmal failure.

Rights?  How about my rights?  Here's a good response to lazy lice.










Terry Bressi dishes it right back to government twit.  Looks like this female Arnold Ziffel got a little tongue tied.

----------


## TheTexan

I like drunk driving laws.  I don't ever see anyone driving drunk.  Now, they might actually _be_ drunk, but they have to be pretty good at driving drunk so as not to get pulled over.

It's much better this way.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> And who is going to take that person's life?
> 
> The state?
> 
> Because they never get it wrong, correct?


Put Christian libertarians in charge....

----------


## DFF

> Don't forget about the "drinking while driving" roadblocks set up by lice. The ones that have proven to be an abysmal failure.


The DWI/DUI checkpoints are another blatant violation because police are only supposed to stop you if they have probable cause.

But some Marxist Judge decided that "keeping us safe" (sound familiar?) was more important than upholding the constitution....and yeah, they're a failure to boot.

As far as the harshness of DWI laws and whether drinking and driving is as serious a crime as organizations like MADD and the DWI Industry claim it is, I don't accept this view.

To me, drinking and driving should be treated like an enhanced speeding ticket, pay a fine, maybe spend a night in jail till you sober up, and that's the end of it.

----------


## PRB

> I like drunk driving laws.  I don't ever see anyone driving drunk.  Now, they might actually _be_ drunk, but they have to be pretty good at driving drunk so as not to get pulled over.
> 
> It's much better this way.


Can't tell if sarcastic or our resident statist.

----------


## PRB

> It's not even about "drunk driving" any more.  The language changed from "Don't drive drunk" to "Don't drimk and drive."


Yeah, it's ridiculous to think drinking will always make you drunk. Just like it's retarded to think driving drunk is dangerous. There's zero evidence for both.

----------


## PRB

> which IMO, is irresponsible but not necessarily a criminal act.


Why is it irresponsible?

----------


## PRB

> One reason I don't like this approach is because you inevitably put more value on one life over another.


LMAO, what are you? Socialist? What kind of a person DOESN'T believe one life is more valuable than another? Of course some lives are worth more. That's the whole reason Obamacare and any other law that seeks to equalize people are morally wrong, because we KNOW human lives are unequal. 




> Kids are more valuable than older people because the oldster has lived his life.


Not always, and not always for that reason, there's plenty of arguments for why one is more than another (My kid is always more valuable than your kid)





> The poor homeless $#@! has no one to speak for him, so running his ass over is a little more palatable to this type of emotion.


That's capitalism, if you want people to speak up for you, don't be homeless, make friends, and don't piss off too many people.

----------


## PRB

> If you think it's a good idea to get rid of traffic light, go to Egypt. Cairo has very few traffic lights, very few cops on the road and next to no enforcement of any traffic laws.


It's a shame that an Islamofascist country wins on traffic freedom




> It's a disaster, with wreck after wreck after wreck. When I was there some years ago, they just put these hunks of twisted metal to the side of the road, and you drive by one after another after another.


it's called FREEDOM.




> I remember I would look at them and wonder if there were bodies or even living people trapped inside. Not a pretty sight.


Freedom isn't mean to be pretty.

----------


## ThePaleoLibertarian

> It's a shame that an Islamofascist country wins on traffic freedom
> 
> 
> 
> it's called FREEDOM.
> 
> 
> 
> Freedom isn't mean to be pretty.


Liberty doesn't necessarily entail a lack of traffic lights. Liberty doesn't mean no social order. A system of roads provided by the market could have just as many lights, if not more, and so could the roads provided by a small state.

NCL is a deranged weirdo, but I think he might be right about you. Not that you're a paid poster necessarily, but your posts seem like you're trying to be a parody of what a liberal thinks a libertarian is.

----------


## otherone

> All life has dignity.  Those who take it should forfeit it.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> NCL is a deranged weirdo,...


I take that as a compliment of the highest order.







> Not that you're a paid poster necessarily, but your posts seem like you're trying to be a parody of what a liberal thinks a libertarian is.



And somebody not posting for pay like PRB is normal? 

PRB, Zip, TheCount, Sam I Am, MaybeMaybeNot/Oreich (same person), etc. are paid or do this as part of their job.  There are more like them to come.

Put away your books, college boy, and pay attention to this forum for the next 19 months.  You're about to get a real world lesson of how politics actually works.

----------


## Anti Federalist

+Rep




> Originally Posted by tobismom
> All life has dignity. Those who take it should forfeit it.

----------


## Sam I am

Assuming you had to pick one of these following options, which would you prefer

1.  Drunk Driving law:  If you look like you're driving impaired, a cop can pull you over, and he may then administer an alcohol test, and if you're found to be drunk, he can charge you with drunk driving.  

2.  Impaired driving law:  If you look like you're driving impaired, a cop can pull you over, and he can charge you with impaired driving without administering a test.  

3.  Collision law:  If you get into a collision, you are charged with getting into a collision.  The cop might have the ability to decide that you were not at fault, and not charge you at all.

Only one of those options allows you to drive on public roads and at the same time have 100% control over whether or not you actually get charged with something.

----------


## PRB

> Liberty doesn't necessarily entail a lack of traffic lights. Liberty doesn't mean no social order. A system of roads provided by the market could have just as many lights, if not more, and so could the roads provided by a small state.


Give me an example or you can keep your imagination to yourself.

By the way, less govenrment is always more freedom. Prove me wrong if you can show an exception.




> NCL is a deranged weirdo, but I think he might be right about you. Not that you're a paid poster necessarily, but your posts seem like you're trying to be a parody of what a liberal thinks a libertarian is.


So what does a sincere libertarian sound like on the issue of traffic lights and drunk driving?

----------


## Anti Federalist

Bump

----------


## PRB

> Bump


Always bump, people need to know that DUI laws are destroying people's lives. 

If DUI were legal, Rand Paul's son wouldn't be in trouble, I really hope he makes this a big part of his campaign. 
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...on-cited-for-/

----------

