Question for "pro-drunk drivers"

[WaltM]

I wanted to ask professional drunk drivers, oh, I meant, people who are sympathetic or supportive of drunk driving, or against anti-drunk driving laws, which best describes you?

(Please, leave out the "federal, state, local, voluntary" arguments, just say, in your ideal world, for the city you live in, what's best?)


a) anybody should do their part to make roads safer
b) the government should do their best to make roads safer, drunk driving is just one of many to care for
c) nobody should make roads safer, they're not private property
d) drunk driving should be legal, no matter what degree of intoxication and however high the rate of fatality is
e) drunk driving laws would be unnecessary if cars had alcohol detectors and can be disabled mechanically
f) drunk driving laws are fine, but the punishment is too much
g) drunk driving laws are fine, but the means of measurement isn't fair
h) drunk driving doesn't hurt anybody directly, therefore it's not a crime and should never be punished
i) the government should make our roads safer, but drunk driving isn't an issue
j) the government should make our roads safer, but by punishing what's done, not preventing what's hasn't
k) the government should make our roads safer, but by prevention, not punishment
l) the government should make our roads safer, by both prevention and punishment, they're not doing it good enough
m) drunk driving will never be eliminated, therefore it should be legal
n) if we made drunk driving legal, or decriminalize it, drunk driving would decrease

could I have possibly left any out? Tell me if I did!

 

[low preference guy]

answer: the government should privatize roads and let the owners implement whatever rules they want.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

answer: the government should privatize roads and let the owners implement whatever rules they want.

I concur.

 

[WaltM]

answer: the government should privatize roads and let the owners implement whatever rules they want.

in other words : until then, whoever leaves their house is fair game to be killed, who asked them to step on anybody's property but their own?

 

[WaltM]

I concur.

Who currently owns the roads?

Government or citizens?

What if they both currently agree on drunk driving laws?

 

[silverhandorder]

Drunk driving is not dangerous in all instances. Only when you are wasted and the government admits this by setting the limit. The problem is that the limit is set arbitrarily. You should be punished for reckless driving and not for w/e you breathalyzer test says.

 

[low preference guy]

in other words : until then, whoever leaves their house is fair game to be killed, who asked them to step on anybody's property but their own?

that's not an implication of my statement, no matter how much you want to reasonably stretch it. it proves you are a dishonest person and not worth engaging in a discussion.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

in other words : until then, whoever leaves their house is fair game to be killed, who asked them to step on anybody's property but their own?

No-whoever owns the roads makes the rules. Rules regarding drunken driving would spring up naturally, the same way such rules occur in restarants and other businesses. I imagine that any one person could only own a portion of the road near one's property, but it is possible to create more complex systems of ownership, as Block points out.

 

[WaltM]

Drunk driving is not dangerous in all instances. Only when you are wasted and the government admits this by setting the limit. The problem is that the limit is set arbitrarily. You should be punished for reckless driving and not for w/e you breathalyzer test says.

Ok, fair enough.

I can't say I disagree, by this definition, a person can say and think he's drunk, but as long as he's passed the breathalyzer and can prove he's in control, he's fine.

 

[silus]

answer: the government should privatize roads and let the owners implement whatever rules they want.

Why would you privatize roads? Why can't this be a function of state governments? And is competition supposed to exist in privatized road construction and ownership??

 

[chadhb]

Pre-Crime law's are wonderful.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Who currently owns the roads?

Government or citizens?

What if they both currently agree on drunk driving laws?

I certainly don't agree, therefore the "citizens" by this necessary fact, do not concurrently believe the drunk driving laws. Assuming, I have not renounced my US citizenship, I am therefore, a citizen correct?

Secondly, the Government has possession of the roads, but are not the just or legitimate owners. The legitimate owners of the roads, are the people who have had it stolen from via eminent domain and other State abuses. Furthermore, since the State cannot legitimately own property because it necessarily uses stolen money, this cements previous fact.

If you are asking who makes the rules. It is the office holders. They rule by fiat, or by mob. Either is illegitimate as it violates Natural Law, and our inherent natural rights. If you are not swayed by that argument, lest us use the utilitarian argument. We have come far since the 19th Century. Slavery is looked upon unfavorable, and indeed criminal. We continue to improve our conditions and ourselves, and this is another area to do so. We should not be content to have little say in our labor and lives. You will inevitably, rebut that my argument has no basis in reality, and I to you say, that reality changes, and that liberty is only the true reality of our nature.

You will get no argument from me on the current realities. I reject those. I promote liberty. I am no pragmatist Mr. Walt. Liberty is necessary for a safe and prosperous society. If you truly desire safety and prosperity, you would be urged to strive for a truly just and legitimate free society.

Are you clamoring to reduce the 40,000 deaths caused each year by the managers of said property? I do not believe in pre-emptive laws, as those necessarily lead to tyranny. Only laws that have a defined aggrieved party, are just. I would ask you, where do you draw the line?

 

[WaltM]

that's not an implication of my statement, no matter how much you want to reasonably stretch it. it proves you are a dishonest person and not worth engaging in a discussion.

what IS the implication then?

Until then, WHAT?

 

[WaltM]

You will get no argument from me on the current realities. I reject those. I promote liberty. I am no pragmatist Mr. Walt. Liberty is necessary for a safe and prosperous society. If you truly desire safety and prosperity, you would be urged to strive for a truly just and legitimate free society.

Ok, you win.

Keep living in fantasyland.

 

[low preference guy]

what IS the implication then?

Until then, WHAT?

Show me how saying "roads should be private" implies "whoever leaves their house is fair game to be killed".

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Ok, you win.

Keep living in fantasyland.

 

[WaltM]

Why would you privatize roads? Why can't this be a function of state governments? And is competition supposed to exist in privatized road construction and ownership??

somehow he's worked out in his mind that the State is a special creature raised in a special incubator incapable and disqualified from acting with human traits. and the State, or the private sector, are day and night just because the name says so.

 

[low preference guy]

somehow he's worked out in his mind that the State is a special creature raised in a special incubator incapable and disqualified from acting with human traits. and the State, or the private sector, are day and night just because the name says so.

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

 

[WaltM]

Show me how saying "roads should be private" implies "whoever leaves their house is fair game to be killed".

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).

secondly, you don't believe that until then, a person has a right to be protected from harm if possible.

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"?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

somehow he's worked out in his mind that the State is a special creature raised in a special incubator incapable and disqualified from acting with human traits. and the State, or the private sector, are day and night just because the name says so.

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