Eliminate Drunk Driving laws

[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 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!

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.

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.

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 shit, 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-libertarians-traffic-device/

 

[Anti Federalist]

wreckless driving

I love these:

WRECK-less Driving

RECKLESS Driving