Eliminate Drunk Driving laws

[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 bullshit. 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 fucking 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]

Some Thoughts on Driving and Roads

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.