Confessions of a drunk driver

[heavenlyboy34]

If you killed someone I would have zero compassion for you and would be for life in prison.

Why? How does this help a victim/victim's family? Doesn't restitution make more sense? AF has posted a lot of info about the prison-industrial complex you should read, btw. It will most likely change the way you think of prisons.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Why? How does this help a victim/victim's family? Doesn't restitution make more sense? AF has posted a lot of info about the prison-industrial complex you should read, btw. It will most likely change the way you think of prisons.

Well, in some cases, although not all, the murderer is a security risk to everyone else... Even if almost all property were privatized, a convicted killer would likely not care about property laws, so he could go anywhere and kill anytime.

More importantly, life in prison is the wrong punishment. Death is the right punishment.


For Libertarian Theory, see here:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block34.html

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Well, in some cases, although not all, the murderer is a security risk to everyone else... Even if almost all property were privatized, a convicted killer would likely not care about property laws, so he could go anywhere and kill anytime.

More importantly, life in prison is the wrong punishment. Death is the right punishment.


For Libertarian Theory, see here:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block34.html

I'm familiar with Block's work. His arguments defend my position. See "Defending The Undefendable".

And notice you brought in the "murder" red herring. You just discredited yourself. Vehicular manslaughter and other forms of killing are not inherently murder (unless you can PROVE intent).

 

[Anti Federalist]

Nice work.

"You must spread some reputation around before giving it to kcchiefs again."

There are 315,000,000 people in the United States, or there about. That's 28,350,000 people at 9%. At 15%, it is 47,250,000.

Now one could say that 45,840,000 people drove drunk without incident. But we haven't gotten into auto accidents, well, I'm getting there.

32,885 is the total number of auto fatalities in 2010. 10,228 were 'alcohol related.' [now we don't know if these people were shitty drivers, or if it was even their fault, mind you] That's 31%.

So that means that 45,829,772 people drove drunk without incident, a DUI, or dying in an accident. [or even killing another man who was drunk for that matter, i.e. drunken pedestrian]

Let's see the percentage of people killed when compared to those who drove drunk.
0.0216%

Now, after seeing these numbers does it seem justifiable to lock up those unlucky enough to be caught for a by and large victimless crime? Or to have check points or per se DUI laws?

I think not.

 

[dannno]

The thing is there are people who will drive better with a BAC of .12 than some people with a BAC of 0. I drive much better stoned than most people do sober.

Honestly I don't think I would complain if they had a DUI law of .15, if that was the worst 'offense' the govt. committed against liberty then I'd be pretty happy.

But .08 lets the police act outlandishly with road blocks and stops, it ends up affecting EVERYBODY'S rights whether they drink or not.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Whether we like it or not, laws will exist until we can strip away all justifications for them. To that end, seeing people celebrate drunk driving is disheartening. .... think it's something Ron Paul would do? I don't. He'd lead by example as we all should, and not be so careless. As Vito Corleone said, men can't be careless.

Well, that just sounds like a self imposed tyranny then.

Sometimes we forget the whole point of this endeavor, it is not to live like cloistered monks, or in a self imposed tyranny of safety or worse yet, a government imposed one.

Liberty is for living.

Maybe somebody can dig up Ron's quote about that and about how people need to be free to make decisions, even dumb ones.

I know plenty of people who recoil in horror at the fact that Ron rides his bike without a helmet.

No, maybe driving drunk is not the greatest example to use, I'll grant you that, but, once have granted the contrary premise, "I can run your life whoever I wish, because everything you do can affect me", then nothing is off the table.

And here we are.

So all things being considered, especially given the statistically insignificant numbers that kc just pointed out, I'll take my chances with drunk drivers and dismantle the safety state.

 

[Tod]

One of my uncles was killed by a drunk driver. The drunk was driving on the wrong side of the road and nailed my uncle on the crest of a hill.

 

[Barrex]

I dont like math but you..you are horrible mathematician/logician.

There are 315,000,000 people in the United States, or there about. That's 28,350,000 people at 9%. At 15%, it is 47,250,000.

From those people how many are under-aged, too old etc. and dont drive? I dont mean how many have drivers license but how many drive.

Now one could say that 45,840,000 people drove drunk without incident.

One would be wrong and that one would make assumption that they drove without incident based o no evidence and from there your entire math theorem collapses...

32,885 is the total number of auto fatalities in 2010. 10,228 were 'alcohol related.' [now we don't know if these people were shitty drivers, or if it was even their fault, mind you] That's 31%.

"Alcohol related" in police reports and government statistics universally means caused by alcohol or alcohol was determining/mayor factor.

Drunk driving is like gambling with yous (and you have every right to do that) and what is worse with other peoples lifes (and that is bad).

A man turns the lights off and starts shooting a gun (with a silencer maybe?) in a room with some people in it. He turns on the lights and he sees that he didnt shoot anyone. Victimless crime. No punishment.

A lot of people (in liberty movement) dont understand "victimless crime" concept. Most important factor in it is consent. In drunk driving people dont give any kind of consent for increased risk. There is a lot more but i really dont feel like writing an essay.

Why? How does this help a victim/victim's family? Doesn't restitution make more sense? AF has posted a lot of info about the prison-industrial complex you should read, btw. It will most likely change the way you think of prisons.

Life in prison doesnt exclude restitution. Take all his property. Responsibility for ones actions is base of libertarian movement. If you kill someone while driving drunk you take responsibility for it.

I know responsible people who drive 10 mph when they are drunk and I know retards who turn into maniacs when they drink. Both of them should take responsibility like i mentioned above.

There is nothing libertarian in taking chances on other peoples property/life against their will.


That being said I agree that there are laws and rules about driving that are stupid.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Life in prison doesnt exclude restitution. Take all his property. Responsibility for ones actions is base of libertarian movement. If you kill someone while driving drunk you take responsibility for it.

I know responsible people who drive 10 mph when they are drunk and I know retards who turn into maniacs when they drink. Both of them should take responsibility like i mentioned above.

There is nothing libertarian in taking chances on other peoples property/life against their will.


That being said I agree that there are laws and rules about driving that are stupid.

Doing life may not exclude restitution, but so what? It doesn't provide restitution either. Is the perpetrator's spending life in jail going to bring back a dead person or even compensate the victim's family? No. It's just schadenfreude and $ for the prison industrial complex. I agree with you WRT taking responsibility. There simply needs to be a rational way about doing it.

It's entirely libertarian to do things that risk hurting other people. If it weren't, libertarians would not support the existence of automotive vehicles, planes, boats, saws, and the millions of other things that COULD cause bodily harm. As AF pointed out "Safety Uber Alles" is not freedom or even a decent way to live.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

I dont like math but you..you are horrible mathematician/logician.

Meh. I've been out of school for too long. My brain is getting rusty. As of lately math hasn't been my strong suit, that's for sure.

From those people how many are under-aged, too old etc. and dont drive? I dont mean how many have drivers license but how many drive.

Lmao. I do tend to overlook simple things. The numbers are still completely one sided. 15% of the 208,000,000 drivers [2008] is 31,200,000. 10,288 alcohol related deaths in 2010. [which does NOT mean caused by alcohol] Upon further searching, the number for alcohol impaired traffic deaths was 10,839 in 2008. I'll take my chances. 0.0347% is the percentage of people killed in an alcohol impaired traffic accident compared to the number of people who admitted driving drunk once in the last year. Now most them have probably driven drunk more than once, and some people would not admit as much in a survey. I would bet my bottom dollar that the figures are way more one sided than I could even show or my last calculations showed. No one knows how many times people drive under the influence where nothing happens yearly. We only know the '.0347%' that cause crashes and the people whose lives are ruined by DUI laws.

I am not willing to sacrifice my freedom for safety. I don't give a damn.

ETA: I am assuming if you have a drivers license you drive. The number of people with a license who don't drive is probably offset by the number of people without a license who do drive.

 

[Barrex]

Doing life may not exclude restitution, but so what? It doesn't provide restitution either. Is the perpetrator's spending life in jail going to bring back a dead person or even compensate the victim's family? No. It's just schadenfreude and $ for the prison industrial complex. I agree with you WRT taking responsibility. There simply needs to be a rational way about doing it.

You mentioned restitution I just responded that one doesnt exclude other.... that makes your "so what" little strange. Punishment is not meant to bring back to life anyone so that argument is silly... no matter how some people love to introduce it into every legal argument. I was referring punishment carried under law and not family killing person who killed their loved one (which if law fails I could not find guilty of anything).
Again punishment is not meant to bring back to life. It is meant for:deterrence, retribution, rehabilitation, and incapacitation (depends from case to case). Deterrence= people choose not to commit the crime rather than experience the punishment and is most important reason for punishment.

Just because your prison system is screwed doesnt mean that murderer (in my example) should walk free.

It's entirely libertarian to do things that risk hurting other people. If it weren't, libertarians would not support the existence of automotive vehicles, planes, boats, saws, and the millions of other things that COULD cause bodily harm. As AF pointed out "Safety Uber Alles" is not freedom or even a decent way to live.

It is not matter of "COULD".See:
Public endangerment
Reckless endangerment

Again: I already did responde to it in my previous post:

Drunk driving is like gambling with yous (and you have every right to do that) and what is worse with other peoples lifes (and that is bad).

A man turns the lights off and starts shooting a gun (with a silencer maybe?) in a room with some people in it. He turns on the lights and he sees that he didnt shoot anyone. Victimless crime. No punishment.

A lot of people (in liberty movement) dont understand "victimless crime" concept. Most important factor in it is consent. In drunk driving people dont give any kind of consent for increased risk. There is a lot more but i really dont feel like writing an essay.



For those of you who dont agree how would you regulate, formulate or whatever public endangerment and reckless endangerment? How far would you go?

 

[dannno]

Why isn't driving in and of itself considered reckless endangerment?

 

[kcchiefs6465]

Why isn't driving in and of itself considered reckless endangerment?

Because you aren't reckless?

Driving like an idiot is.

There's a certain amount of safety you must sacrifice. I'm sure if everyone drove 5MPH traffic related fatalities would be zero. How practical would that be though?

 

[dannno]

There's a certain amount of safety you must sacrifice.

Is there a certain amount of liberty you must sacrifice?

 

[phill4paul]

Why isn't driving in and of itself considered reckless endangerment?

Just be glad you are afforded the privilege, mundane.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

Is there a certain amount of liberty you must sacrifice?

I would argue no.

Those who sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither.

Checkpoints and per se DUI laws show how ridiculous this has all become. [all under the pretense of 'public safety'] That people put up with it is discouraging. I guess if their rights aren't violated at that specific time people couldn't care less.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Well, in some cases, although not all, the murderer is a security risk to everyone else... Even if almost all property were privatized, a convicted killer would likely not care about property laws, so he could go anywhere and kill anytime.

More importantly, life in prison is the wrong punishment. Death is the right punishment.


For Libertarian Theory, see here:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block34.html

Interesting Block would write that, as it is at odds with libertarian theories of justice and his own writing on similar subjects. Maybe he's changed his mind since this piece was published?

 

[BamaAla]

.a..

 

[angelatc]

For those of you who dont agree how would you regulate, formulate or whatever public endangerment and reckless endangerment? How far would you go?

It's really pretty simple. If nobody got hurt and no property was damaged, then there was no crime.

 

[angelatc]

More importantly, life in prison is the wrong punishment. Death is the right punishment.

Giving the government the power to decide who lives and who dies is never the right answer.