Question for "pro-drunk drivers"

[WaltM]

I think Melissa's response was more than adequate, but then you didn't chose to acknowledge that one. Not biting.

I didn't disagree with her, that's why I didn't respond with a disagreement.

All I said was "Melissa you're right, but AF is wrong, thanks" (in my opinion)

 

[Kregisen]

I don't agree or disagree with what you're saying. I think you and people who agree with you should have the right to set up a society like that and see if it works. Meanwhile I should also be able to live in a place where drunk driving is illegal. I don't think either of us has the right to force each other into one method or another. If what you're doing works a lot better than what I'm doing, then maybe I'll be smart enough to change. We need to be able to experiment and try to see if these things work.

What do you mean by "works better"? If you banned driving under the influence, you'll save more lives than by only banning reckless driving....but if you banned all cars, you would save thousands more lives.

So by "works best" you mean "saves the most lives", then your answer is to ban cars.

On principle I have to agree with people like dannno who say we should just make reckless driving illegal and not ban individual causes of it, even though the pragmatic view would be to ban driving under the influence because it'll save more lives.


It's a tough decision.

When you go faster than the posted speed limit you are creating a current, tangible threat to other drivers who are following the rules of the road. Everybody has to follow the rules, rules that are directly related to where the car is, where it is going, how fast, etc.

When you disobey other traffic laws you are creating a current, tangible threat to other drivers.

Threat = Aggression -> Ability to defend one's self -> Ability to transfer that right to the state

Driving under the influence of alcohol doesn't always lead to reckless or dangerous driving. Reckless and dangerous driving leads to accidents.. so you stop reckless and dangerous driving, period. It's pretty simple. If drinking alcohol causes some people to drive recklessly and dangerously, then you stop those people. If listening to the fucking radio causes some people to drive recklessly and dangerously, then you stop THOSE PEOPLE.. You don't ban radios from cars!!

Best post in the whole thread.

 

[phill4paul]

I didn't disagree with her, that's why I didn't respond with a disagreement.

All I said was "Melissa you're right, but AF is wrong, thanks" (in my opinion)

So you admit Melissa is right. Interesting.

Interesting that in response you referenced the first portion of the last sentence.

There are graduations of situations which Walt is ignoring

To which you replied....

No, I'm not ignoring it.

However, there was a second part to that last sentence which read...

and it's a big tail-chasing "not good enough" assessment of all of our answers.

Since you just admitted that Melissa was right then it infers that you agree with this assessment of you also.

While you ponder this I give you this bit of entertainment...

YouTube - Fish On (Fisherman Chronicles, Chapter II)

 

[WaltM]

So you admit Melissa is right. Interesting.

Interesting that in response you referenced the first portion of the last sentence.

She's right about there being varying levels of threat and risk, she's not right about saying I ignore them or only try to be disagreeable.

 

[phill4paul]

She's right about there being varying levels of threat and risk, she's not right about saying I ignore them or only try to be disagreeable.

While you ponder this I give you this bit of entertainment...

YouTube - Fish On (Fisherman Chronicles, Chapter II)[/QUOTE]

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

civil and criminal doesn't change whether it's LEGAL, ALLOWED AND WHETHER A POLICEMAN CAN STOP YOU FROM IT, DOES IT?

Obviously you are completely ignorant to CIVIL vs. CRIMINAL and the reason everything has been criminalized. Police stopping people IS the reason everything has been criminalized.

 

[parocks]

Why should they get a ticket for driving bad? They didn't hurt anybody yet, have they?

Well, we're talking about a minor traffic ticket. If you're speeding you get a ticket. No one is harmed. But no one cares why you're speeding. Let's focus on the actual driving. Let's not worry about what's causing the bad driving.

You shouldn't be going to jail for doing something that doesn't harm people.

You shouldn't be getting a ticket unless you are doing some bad driving.

I'm not suggesting that people shouldn't get tickets for running red lights.

Focus on the driving and then the harm that comes from the driving and not the reasons for the driving and the reasons for the harm.

 

[phill4paul]

Walt, just as a point of interest...Anti-Fed answered to your "verbal threat" in post #241. 17 minutes later you made your reply. You called him a liar.

As yet, Anti-Fed hasn't responded. Well, maybe you felt he was ignoring you. Truth is a lot more should.

However, if you've been on here long enough you know that Anti-Fed sometimes posts when he is out to sea. Sometimes that connection isn't the best. Also, there is the possibility that he actually had to go do some work. As a third possibility he could just have ignored you. I don't think he would do that. I wouldn't blame him if he did.

You kept banging on his response regarding "verbal threats" for almost two hours. Should I really bring the posts up?

It has been over 17 minutes since you have last responded to mine. Should I begin posting scuttle-butt in your absence? Would that be proper etiquette?

So there is MY defense of Anti-Fed. It ain't about the two positions held.

It is more about your desire to take parts of discussions without acknowlaging the whole. I showed you this in one post and in your response you pretty much affirmed it.

Since your still posting on these forums (at the time of my writing) you don't have the problems that Anti-Fed may experience. My only thought is that your intentionally avoiding replying in your own thread.

fishing...

 

[WaltM]

Walt, just as a point of interest...Anti-Fed answered to your "verbal threat" in post #241. 17 minutes later you made your reply. You called him a liar.

As yet, Anti-Fed hasn't responded. Well, maybe you felt he was ignoring you. Truth is a lot more should.

However, if you've been on here long enough you know that Anti-Fed sometimes posts when he is out to sea.

I apologize, I actually didn't know that.

You kept banging on his response regarding "verbal threats" for almost two hours. Should I really bring the posts up?

It has been over 17 minutes since you have last responded to mine. Should I begin posting scuttle-butt in your absence? Would that be proper etiquette?

So there is MY defense of Anti-Fed. It ain't about the two positions held.

It is more about your desire to take parts of discussions without acknowlaging the whole. I showed you this in one post and in your response you pretty much affirmed it.

Since your still posting on these forums (at the time of my writing) you don't have the problems that Anti-Fed may experience. My only thought is that your intentionally avoiding replying in your own thread.

fishing...

no, I'm not avoiding anything or anybody, I may miss some, but I do my best to respond to all.

 

[libertybrewcity]

so what if all the corporations came together and said Ron Paul is not allowed on any privatized road?

 

[Anti Federalist]

LIAR, you are, not only do you believe drunk driving should be legal, but also that making verbal threats should be.

So intentions and likelihood aside, how can you say you're not pro-drunk driving and pro-threat when you admit you don't want anything illegal UNLESS & UNTIL people are hurt, damaged?

Liar?

WTF?

I think prostitution and cocaine should be decriminalized as well.

That doesn't mean that I'm in favor of people getting high on blow and chasing hookers.

I think that the perceived "benefit" to society of passing and enforcing malum prohibitum laws is far less than the damage done by the encroachment of government and loss of liberties into areas where it should have never been in the first place in order to enforce these "laws".

Therefore, I'll take my chances with freedom, warts and all, thank you.

Why all the hostility?

You a cop or something?

And of course you shouldn't go to jail for verbal statements.

Is it your contention that I should go to jail for saying, "I'll punch you in the nose for such and such"?

 

[Anti Federalist]

Truth was number two, I'm home but actually had to go do something productive.

I'm still trying to catch up in this thread.

Walt, just as a point of interest...Anti-Fed answered to your "verbal threat" in post #241. 17 minutes later you made your reply. You called him a liar.

As yet, Anti-Fed hasn't responded. Well, maybe you felt he was ignoring you. Truth is a lot more should.

However, if you've been on here long enough you know that Anti-Fed sometimes posts when he is out to sea. Sometimes that connection isn't the best. Also, there is the possibility that he actually had to go do some work. As a third possibility he could just have ignored you. I don't think he would do that. I wouldn't blame him if he did.

You kept banging on his response regarding "verbal threats" for almost two hours. Should I really bring the posts up?

It has been over 17 minutes since you have last responded to mine. Should I begin posting scuttle-butt in your absence? Would that be proper etiquette?

So there is MY defense of Anti-Fed. It ain't about the two positions held.

It is more about your desire to take parts of discussions without acknowlaging the whole. I showed you this in one post and in your response you pretty much affirmed it.

Since your still posting on these forums (at the time of my writing) you don't have the problems that Anti-Fed may experience. My only thought is that your intentionally avoiding replying in your own thread.

fishing...

 

[phill4paul]

I apologize, I actually didn't know that.

Apology accepted. On my part. I can't speak, nor would presume to, for Anti-Fed.

 

[andrewh817]

The police get the freedom to harass people, and non-drinkers get the freedom of being protected from drunks. I know this isn't freedom you want, but you asked what I was talking about.

Being protected isn't a freedom. I'm paying for the police whether I like it or not, and I'm not really being protected by them either. Every one I associate with doesn't abstain from stealing, raping, and murdering because the cops are there! They abstain because they consider those actions to be immoral.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Yep.

That was the purpose of this thread, to see who just doesn't like the BAC standard, and who actually believes making verbal threats should be legal because "nobody was harmed yet".

I want to know what Lew Rockwell thinks about verbal threats (according to his "she hurt nobody" principle).

yep. he just admitted VERBAL THREATS SHOULD BE LEGAL.

In quotation within the above post number 252.

AF states that after someone wrecks into someone else then reckless charges should be filed. In that case it should be murder or assault charges. By those standards the person playing russian roulette in a crowded room should not be charged until someone is shot. NO HARM HAS BEEN COMMITTED to another person before that.

Who wrote that and who said that and who are you quoting?

You have it within quotes indicating that I said that, and nowhere in this thread did I make that statement.

Now, to make it clear once more, repeating what I stated in post 237:

Saying you are going to do such and such is not, it cannot be, a crime.

I also said that trying accomplish a criminal act, and failing, for whatever reason, is, in fact, a crime, because somebody, somewhere had to respond, you have intruded upon whatever they were otherwise doing.

To use danno's example of him running up to me with a shiv and hollering "I'm going to kill you", is a crime and will be met with lawful force, by me, to prevent it.

It became such when he acted upon his words.

If he said the same thing, unarmed, and not moving towards me and I shot him for it, I'd go to jail in a heartbeat, and deservedly so.

This is what the law pretty much is right now in all 50 states anyway, why are you dropping your mud on this?

 

[klamath]

In quotation within the above post number 252.



Who wrote that and who said that and who are you quoting?

You have it within quotes indicating that I said that, and nowhere in this thread did I make that statement.

Now, to make it clear once more, repeating what I stated in post 237:

Saying you are going to do such and such is not, it cannot be, a crime.

I also said that trying accomplish a criminal act, and failing, for whatever reason, is, in fact, a crime, because somebody, somewhere had to respond, you have intruded upon whatever they were otherwise doing.

To use danno's example of him running up to me with a shiv and hollering "I'm going to kill you", is a crime and will be met with lawful force, by me, to prevent it.

It became such when he acted upon his words.

If he said the same thing, unarmed, and not moving towards me and I shot him for it, I'd go to jail in a heartbeat, and deservedly so.

This is what the law pretty much is right now in all 50 states anyway, why are you dropping your mud on this?

He was quoting me paraphrasing what I thought you meant in your post 233.

 

[Anti Federalist]

He was quoting me paraphrasing what I thought you meant in your post 233.

Oh, OK, got it.

 

[furface]

Saying you are going to do such and such is not, it cannot be, a crime.

The government says they'll put you in jail if you smoke crack, don't pay your taxes, lie to them if they question you, etc. Is that moral? Do you feel victimized by the government's actions? I certainly do. They're terrorists and are able to change my behavior very effectively with threats.

 

[Anti Federalist]

The government says they'll put you in jail if you smoke crack, don't pay your taxes, lie to them if they question you, etc. Is that moral? Do you feel victimized by the government's actions? I certainly do. They're terrorists and are able to change my behavior very effectively with threats.

Yes I do, and yes they are.

But only because of the monopoly of violence that the state has.

It's interesting to note that the state is the one that prosecutes verbal threats against it.

 

[osan]

That's all very true in the de jure sense.

However, in the de facto sense government has usurped total authority over any "rights" you may think you have. In refusing to recognize and respect them they have created a situation where, for all practical purposes you have no rights save those they "grant" or allow you.

I agree with what you say in some measure, but I reiterate that for all practical purposes we do in fact still possess our rights and that government simply refuses to respect them. I know the difference may seem subtle, but I assure you that the difference is fundamental and critical to one's position. If you reasoned in an honest court using your approach, I suspect you would be keel hauled because you are essentially saying that the usurpation effectively negates your rights. I say it does not. It only prevents you from exercising them without meeting suffering criminally imposed results. These two positions ARE different because mine maintains that my rights exist no matter what another people may do to violate them and that they are absolute. Your stated position could be construed to concede that the existence of your rights is contingent upon whether you have been allowed to exercise them - the "practical result" of government failure to respect you.

Does the point make itself reasonable apparent to you? It is subtle, I agree, but I further maintain that in our arguments we must not only ue unbreakable reason, but must concede not the smallest measure of our reserved rights and the powers they confer, to anyone (especially "government") at any time, for any reason. To do so is to accept the criminal trespass onto the sacred property of who and what you are. This should never be tolerated.

We must learn to be sternly and immutably intolerant where out rights are concerned. Anyone so much as suggesting some violation thereof, regardless of its minute measure or innocuous nature, should be shouted down and summarily shunned, if not beaten. 1/2

This is the core problem that has lead to the perdition of this nation - tolerance run amok. There is much that should be tolerated, but "tolerance" as a social concept has become a political one wherein we are expected to tolerate EVERYTHING. I take it I do not have to explain to you all why this is insanity of the first order. We need to clearly, thoroughly, and CORRECTLY understand rights and why they are important - dispense with all this "socially" oriented bullshit, and get seriously intolerant of anyone trespassing upon anyone else. Until these things happen, we're not going anywhere.