Question for "pro-drunk drivers"

[WaltM]

yeah. the proof of this is that the Post Office is as efficient as FedEx.

post office is cheaper, and you'll say "thats because they're tax payer subsidized!".

I use the post office 1000x more than FedEx, and I can certainly live without FedEx. Of course, you don't care about me, because it matters to other people, if that, you lose on the drunk driving issue.

 

[low preference guy]

How do you reconcile "roads are currently not private" and "if roads are not private, the State should not make rules on how to protect people" with "a person isn't fair game to kill"?

Where did I say "if roads are not private, the State should not make rules on how to protect people"?

My position is that states should make laws against actual harm while driving, which do protect people, so you just assumed, dishonestly, that the bold part is my position, which is not, and then went on to reach out an outrageous conclusion which is not my position and in no way follows from my statement.

 

[newbitech]

DUI laws are about making money for the government, not about protecting lives.

 

[WaltM]

They are different! To commingle these concepts is to create something entirely new, and almost never good.

and they have nothing in common?

Private sector never uses force?
State never tries to profit?
State is never trying to effecient?
Private sector is always responsible?
State never adopts for-profit management?
Private sector never mimics State rules?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

because roads are a long ways from being privatized on a mass scale (if it were workable, you'd point to a country doing it, and tell me why we're all wrong).
[/B]

a fallacious argument (ad populum-"if everyone else is Statist, and can't figure out another way, then Statism must be the ideal and only way") and epic fail.

 

[WaltM]

Where did I say "if roads are not private, the State should not make rules on how to protect people"?

OK, GOOD.

So you're saying, UNTIL THEN, it's OK for the State to make SOME rules to protect SOME PEOPLE?

My position is that states should make laws against actual harm while driving, which do protect people, so you just assumed, dishonestly, that the bold part is my position, which is not, and then went on to reach out an outrageous conclusion which is not my position and in no way follows from my statement.

Why didn't you just say so, instead of saying privatization will solve it better?

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

a fallacious argument (ad populum-"if everyone else is Statist, and can't figure out another way, then Statism must be the ideal and only way") and epic fail.

He uses the same argument that slave holders held in the 18th Century, and before.

But, but, every Civilization has had slavery, therefore slavery is a pre-requisite of Civilization! (That was, after all the reality in that time period, so therefore WaltM would have defended it) I am merely illuminating this to show how absurd his position is.

 

[WaltM]

a fallacious argument (ad populum-"if everyone else is Statist, and can't figure out another way, then Statism must be the ideal and only way") and epic fail.

nope, not the ideal and only way, just the way it's going to be, learn to love it.

 

[low preference guy]

DUI laws are about making money for the government, not about protecting lives.

What would the life of those poor police officers be like if they lose one way of nagging people?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

and they have nothing in common?

Private sector never uses force?
State never tries to profit?
State is never trying to effecient?
Private sector is always responsible?
State never adopts for-profit management?
Private sector never mimics State rules?

Your premises are wrong. You assume that the State and the market have the same motives, purposes, and goals. The opposite is true. While markets do not have a monopoly on the use of force, the State does. I could go on, but it's late.

 

[WaltM]

He uses the same argument that slave holders held in the 18th Century, and before.

But, but, every Civilization has had slavery, therefore slavery is a pre-requisite of Civilization!

Yes, I do use that argument.

I bet many slaves shared your ideas, look what they've accomplished!

 

[heavenlyboy34]

nope, not the ideal and only way, just the way it's going to be, learn to love it.

Yes, let's all roll over and be obedient serfts! /sarcasm

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Yes, I do use that argument.

I bet many slaves shared your ideas, look what they've accomplished!

Epic fail! lolz!

 

[WaltM]

What would the life of those poor police officers be like if they lose one way of nagging people?

Like I've said many times, the police are NOT short of excuses to harass people.

If you want to get rid of police, good for you.

If you want to get rid of nasty police, even better.

But the police DO NOT want to arrest you if they can simply slap you with a ticket, or their baton, without charging you with any crime.

Policemen WOULD rather chew donuts and watch TV in their cars. They HARDLY see arrests as bonuses or commissions to their job.

 

[newbitech]

What would be life of those poor police officers be like if they lose one way of nagging people?

or State Attorneys, or Public Defenders, or government subsidized "councilors", or government subsidized DUI processing centers, or government subsidized insurance agents...and all the other people I forgot to mention that profit and make their living off of this 99/100 victim-less crime.

It's more than just a nag. Its potentially a life ender. Even if the "criminal" didn't actually take a life or destroy property.

 

[low preference guy]

Apparently WaltM isn't aware that slavery ended. He gotta leave his computer and go out a little to check whether that is true in the real world.

 

[WaltM]

Your premises are wrong. You assume that the State and the market have the same motives, purposes, and goals.

Nope, I only said they CAN.

The opposite is true. While markets do not have a monopoly on the use of force, the State does. I could go on, but it's late.

The state doesn't always either, that's the point.

 

[low preference guy]

Policemen WOULD rather chew donuts and watch TV in their cars. They HARDLY see arrests as bonuses or commissions to their job.

Wrong. Apparently you are also not aware of the existence of bribes. You probably also believe that a police taking a bribe for an infraction that hasn't actually happened is something that doesn't occur.

 

[WaltM]

Apparently WaltM isn't aware that slavery ended. He gotta leave his computer and go out a little to check whether that is true in the real world.

Slavery was ended by people believing in the right thing against democracy and force?

 

[low preference guy]

Slavery was ended by people believing in the right thing against democracy and force?

Believing in the right thing against democracy?