Eliminate Drunk Driving laws

[Kregisen]

Who the fuck 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 fucking 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 fuck 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 shit 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 shit 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]

shame on you, theo

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 fuck 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 shit 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 shit 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 fucking 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 fucking 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 fucking 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 fucking 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?