Eliminate Drunk Driving laws

[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 shit 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]

Phil, Cry Me a River

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 shit 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]

Not At All

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]

Consider His Context

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 fucking 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.)