Eliminate Drunk Driving laws

[tpreitzel]

Even though your sentence is far from perfectly clear, it seems you are insistent on utilizing strawman arguments in order to refute your opponents’ position. Why do you have to AGAIN distort the position? Can you not refute the ACTUAL position?

LOL ... here you, i.e. idirtify, go again!

 

[revolutionary8]

You know people like Theo, and Traditional Conservative if alive in the 1820s would be rabid socialists compared to most Americans who were in favor of the privatization of all so-called "public works" and even expressely forbade such funding for these in their State Constitutions. The anarchist position only relates to LAW AND COURTS. This stupid mischaracterization is absurd. You can see how far socialist we have come as a society when so-called liberty advocates are completely socialist.

This is why I like forgetting names and actively practice voluntary dissassociation from "names and labels". I am just not sure what you are saying here besides griping about super old school members here on RPH. (Not that TC or theo drive me anything less than CRAZY at times, just like my family members), Can't you go bigger than that? I KNOW you can AED, all of your posts show me that you are one smart focker.

 

[Fox McCloud]

Do you ever read what you write?

Yes, I do, and when I make grammatical mistakes, I often change it. In this case I'm not sure if you're making fun of my grammatical error(s) or suggesting that the death penalty is not in line with the non-aggression principle.

If it's within the grammatical sense, then I'm very sorry your most worshipful grammar master, I should have said "someone kills someone else" instead of "someone kills someone", I am but a fool who needs every ounce of your instruction!

As for the death penalty, I think it fits well in line within the libertarian tradition and works well within the scope of the non-aggression axiom: http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block34.html

it is only currently screwed up because of the huge mess and inefficiency of the State.

I assume you apply this "logic" to all driving situations.

No; whoever directly caused the accident bears the burden of the cost of the accident; if it's because a civilian decided to cross the road at the wrong time, he pays; if it's the drunk driver, he pays, and so on and so forth. Of course, this could vary in a true free market for roads; some might have different contracts that specify the relationships of those who use the road, thus changing the nature of conflicts.

what if they were both drunk?
(that's a question)

It's whoever was the cause of the accident that should bear the full cost.

 

[dannno]

what if they were both drunk?
(that's a question)

Yes, and a great one...

 

[revolutionary8]

It's whoever was the cause of the accident that should bear the full cost.

so they "both" need to die..

I see...

KILLEMALL! NO QUESTIONS!!!!!

but wait, what if they killed one another, and they are BOTH dead? Then who are you going to "blame"?
let me guess. "the parents"...

 

[MelissaWV]

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?

Roundabouts work in some areas (where all the entering roads have similar levels of traffic and where few people must navigate the entire round to get to where they want to go, for instance)... but I've been in many that were worse than traffic lights. What's worse is when there is an accident on one of the roads which is a popular outlet to a roundabout. This means the entire roundabout becomes clogged, which prohibits anyone else who didn't want to get onto the road where the accident is... from using the roundabout and going on their merry way in another direction.

* * *

I still maintain that whoever owns the road/property would put up what they believe to be the safest and most effective security/traffic controls/etc., and that it really wouldn't vary all that much from what we have now. All we'd see is some areas where there are unusual circumstances, or that have no speed limits for instance. Maybe we'd see more innovation as far as crosswalk styles, pedestrian bridges, safer guardrails, and so on. Property owners have a vested interest in the people who make use of their property not dying or getting injured through neglect or malice. Right now we have the same old technology, and no threat of anyone putting the Government out of business when it comes to "safety standards" on the roads. How's that working out for everyone?

 

[idirtify]

If you answer the question, you will see where I'm coming from. Interestingly, you refuse to answer such a simple question, in the hopes of trying to refute my critique of your position. There are no tricks involved, I assure you. Just answer the question.

Where you are “coming from” is already clear, and it has little to do with relevance. Submitting sequence after sequence of deceptive fallacies and then denying them certainly gives no credibility to your current assurance of relevance, or authority to your demand that I play along.

Shall I count the questions (and rebuttals) YOU have left unanswered?

 

[Wesker1982]

but I think if someone kills someone else while driving drunk it should be the death penalty for the drunk driver...no questions asked.

What if the victim states in his will that he is against capital punishment?

It should be up to the victim. Without being stated in the will, it should be up to the victims family. The victim could have also agreed to a particular policy with a defense/insurance company which deals with cases that result in the death of the customer.

To anyone interested, I recommend this:
PUNISHMENT AND PROPORTIONALITY
http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/thirteen.asp

It answers a lot of questions you might have in regards to this post.

 

[Theocrat]

Beyond the Smoke of Allegations

Where you are “coming from” is already clear, and it has little to do with relevance. Submitting sequence after sequence of deceptive fallacies and then denying them certainly gives no credibility to your current assurance of relevance, or authority to your demand that I play along.

Shall I count the questions (and rebuttals) YOU have left unanswered?

It's funny how you keep claiming that I'm engaging in "deceptive fallacies," strawman arguments, shifting questions, etc. when you have not shown ONCE how I've supposedly misrepresented anarchy. Whatever way you want to dodge my critiques in your meaningless sophisms, it still does not hide the fact that anarchists believe the absence of any formal, civil authority will automatically (whether it's by progression or not) will ultimately make society better. If I am wrong, then please demonstrate my error. Otherwise, I will hold you to the truth of my conclusions about the "positive" (naive) effects of anarchy in society.

 

[idirtify]

It's funny how you keep claiming that I'm engaging in "deceptive fallacies," strawman arguments, shifting questions, etc. when you have not shown ONCE how I've supposedly misrepresented anarchy. Whatever way you want to dodge my critiques in your meaningless sophisms, it still does not hide the fact that anarchists believe the absence of any formal, civil authority will automatically (whether it's by progression or not) will ultimately make society better. If I am wrong, then please demonstrate my error. Otherwise, I will hold you to the truth of my conclusions about the "positive" (naive) effects of anarchy in society.

I really thought I had shown your deceptive fallacies sufficiently, but here you are continuing them and begging for more. OK, you asked for it...

Amazingly, now you go all in and claim I’ve not shown how you’ve misrepresented anarchy. Even though I actually only explained how you misrepresented your opponents’ positions, you can’t deny that your wrote this about what you think anarchists believe (in post #51):

“the market…can provide total safety of all realms of civil behavior”.

Now tell me; Do you think that is an accurate representation of anarchy (or any of your opponent’s positions)? Go ahead. Say “yes”, and make my day.

 

[Fox McCloud]

What if the victim states in his will that he is against capital punishment?

It should be up to the victim. Without being stated in the will, it should be up to the victims family. The victim could have also agreed to a particular policy with a defense/insurance company which deals with cases that result in the death of the customer.

To anyone interested, I recommend this:
PUNISHMENT AND PROPORTIONALITY
http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/thirteen.asp

It answers a lot of questions you might have in regards to this post.

then that's different, and in line with what I believe (you'd see that if you read the article I posted).

 

[Anti Federalist]

Bump, cuz Y Not?

 

[Shredmonster]

Fist of all we are lied to on this topic by the government - gee imagine that. The statistics of drunk related accidents include ridiculous things including just the passengers being drunk. The statistics say what the government wants them to say and they are total B.S.

Second the average - AVERAGE - person that gets into a serious alcohol related accident is .28 - did you hear me ???????????????? .28 is the average !

The average person in a serious alcohol related accident has had at least 10 DWI's.

I know this because a friend of mine is an attorney and a lobbyist and testified at the state level in front of the legislature.

.08 is total bullshit. .1 was total bullshit as well.

There is also a legal question which has not been answered IMO. If you are on the road driving over the limit you still have not caused harm.

The potential for causing harm is not something you can be prosecuted for. As it was said earlier every driver on the road has the potential to cause harm. Life has the potential to cause harm.

The drunk driving "industry" has become corrupt like everything else. Lining the pockets of attorneys, psychologists and a whole slue of rehabilitative types, lots of money for states to collect from those it arrests etc....

Around where I live there is a judge who is partner in overnight condos where he will sentence people to stay for rehabilitation. What a fucking crock of shit the whole thing has become.

I agree it is terrible when accidents are caused but this is for any reason not just due to drinking. It is a fact more accidents are cause by people that are tired or fatigued. Lets just arrest them and while we are at it why don't we arrest everybody because everybody has the potential to be a threat. This is how fucking ridiculous this has become propagated by emotions.

If you want to keep drunk drivers off the road them be real about it. Most people can drive after they moderately drink. Many can drive after they have drank quite a bit.
Officers use to judge the situation by talking to the person that they stopped with reasonable cause. Now it has gone way to far in the other direction. They don't even use reasonable cause anymore - they lie - claims like you were swerving just as an excuse to pull you over just because you happen to be on the read late at night and they have nothing better to do.

The whole thing is a racket. You think the government really gives a shit whether people die or not ? If so then why do they want your guns ? Why do they have gun free zones around young defenseless children ? Why are the people in Bengazi dead ? Why do they start wars and send the poor to fight them ? Why are the central banks like HBSC allowed launder drug traffic money (fact by the way) ?

Open your eyes. It is all about money. Most things with government these days are.

 

[BSWPaulsen]

Thanks for pointing that out. Still, anarchy removes the traffic lights from such intersections, so the video still remains accurate of what an "anarchical street" would resemble. Remember, anarchy is without rulers, and that includes electrical devices with bulbs that tell drivers when they can go and stop.

Traffic lights, et al, remove the responsibility of the individual to pay attention to his surroundings, abdicating such a responsibility to State guidelines. He will, wrongly, assume other individuals will obey the rules instead of paying absolute attention to his surroundings and behaving accordingly. Note that this also applies to gun-control arguments.

By abrogating the responsibility of the individual you increase the likelihood of accidents. This is The Law of Unintended Consequences at work.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Bump for another thread

 

[trey4sports]

get rid of the DD laws. Or you should prohibit driving while tired, yawning, sneezing or anything else that impairs judgement.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Wow. This goes way beyond libertarianism into anarchy. People who speed and people who drive drunk are endangering the lives of others.

You know, I feel like I may have had a change of heart on the DUI thing. Why can't there just be a blanket "Distracted Driving" rule? I mean, we've already agreed that there shouldn't be random checks and that the only way the cops would even know is if you're driving unsafely in the first place, so why can't there just be a law against reckless driving period?

Regarding speeding... I don't know, it depends on the situation. On interstates, I really don't see the point. In the middle of the city... yeah I can see the point, but even still, a safe speed in NYC at 3AM is going to be a lot higher than at 3PM, so I feel like that could still be solved by some kind of law against reckless driving.

Now, traffic lights I agree with you on. Ultimately I support road privatization, but I don't think it makes sense to get rid of traffic lights. Although I don't think someone who completely safely crosses a red light should be ticketed just for giggles.

I'm ready to be convinced that any/all of this is wrong.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

You know people like Theo, and Traditional Conservative if alive in the 1820s would be rabid socialists compared to most Americans who were in favor of the privatization of all so-called "public works" and even expressely forbade such funding for these in their State Constitutions. The anarchist position only relates to LAW AND COURTS. This stupid mischaracterization is absurd. You can see how far socialist we have come as a society when so-called liberty advocates are completely socialist.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Austrian Econ Disciple again.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

You know, I feel like I may have had a change of heart on the DUI thing. Why can't there just be a blanket "Distracted Driving" rule? I mean, we've already agreed that there shouldn't be random checks and that the only way the cops would even know is if you're driving unsafely in the first place, so why can't there just be a law against reckless driving period?

Regarding speeding... I don't know, it depends on the situation. On interstates, I really don't see the point. In the middle of the city... yeah I can see the point, but even still, a safe speed in NYC at 3AM is going to be a lot higher than at 3PM, so I feel like that could still be solved by some kind of law against reckless driving.

Now, traffic lights I agree with you on. Ultimately I support road privatization, but I don't think it makes sense to get rid of traffic lights. Although I don't think someone who completely safely crosses a red light should be ticketed just for giggles.

I'm ready to be convinced that any/all of this is wrong.

WRT lights, this has been solved in several US locales and abroad with roundabout intersections. (there are vids about them on youtube) Safer and more efficient than the standard "grid" of roads we're used to.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Traffic lights, et al, remove the responsibility of the individual to pay attention to his surroundings, abdicating such a responsibility to State guidelines. He will, wrongly, assume other individuals will obey the rules instead of paying absolute attention to his surroundings and behaving accordingly. Note that this also applies to gun-control arguments.

By abrogating the responsibility of the individual you increase the likelihood of accidents. This is The Law of Unintended Consequences at work.

Well said!