Question for "pro-drunk drivers"

[CCTelander]

No, he is not right. Government does not grant rights. They decide not to violate extant rights, given some set of conditions... like paying a fee. While the end result is the same, the roots are different, and they DO make a significant difference. Buying into the "government grants rights" nonsense is not a keen idea.

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.

Is that the way it "ought" to be? Nope.

Is it "right"? Again, nope.

Is it consistent in any way with moral pronciple? Yet again, nope.

But in reality, that's the world we live in. The whole point of the so-called "liberty movement" is to change that.

 

[JeNNiF00F00]

..

 

[WaltM]

By saying you don't support privatizing of roads, means that you support monopolies.

No. I don't support monopolies, or competition per se, I support what works best.

I'm not against privatizing roads, I've just not seen it work, nor am I skeptical that's either going to come soon, or solve the problem. (unless you believe that as long as blood is on private hands rather than State hands, that's called "solved")

By supporting monopolies, basically means you are a statist.

Well, I'm neither completely anti-monopoly, nor am I completely anti-state.

And by being a statist, means you don't really understand the real meaning of Liberty nor why the founding fathers seceded from the British Monarchy doing the same exact shit this GD govt is imposing on us today. Wake up!

Our founders seceded from British Monarchy to create their own oligarchy, they were against democracy, immigration, women's suffrage, and black suffrage.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

make drunk drivers liable for damages, and criminally liable for injuries to people.

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

I am not crazy about how the debate is framed. If the goal posts are set at securing borders how does that address immigration subsidies and the welfare state? If the goal posts are set at decriminalizing risk how does that address subsidizing moral hazard?

Anyone aware of any studies that have been published with estimated costs for different transportation types per mile if all government distortions were eliminated?

 

[YumYum]

??

http://www.stat.fi/til/ton/2010/05/ton_2010_05_2010-06-23_tie_001_en.html


So we can expect that all this was due to sober drivers.
Finland is a pretty small country compared to the US. And that is just a few months.

It is your point,,,take it.

According to your link, I think we can expect that the deaths were due to sober drivers, since it doesn't mention deaths due to drunk drivers. I never said there was a reduction in accidents, I said that Finland has the lowest death rate due to drunk drivers. Interestingly, the chart you provided shows a decline in accidents. Could that be due to Finland's zero tolerance laws?

I got my information from an article a few years back that was on alcohol in the National Geographic magazine. But hey, they could be wrong, as NG claimed in that article that even though Winston Churchill drank everyday of his life, he wasn't an alcoholic, since nobody had ever seen him "drunk". Since that article, scientists have refuted that claim and have said he was most definitely a drunk. One thing is for sure: Drunk drivers should stay clear of Finland!

 

[andrewh817]

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).

So your argument is that, if something is possible it must have already been done? That means no new ideas could EVER be implemented because they had no precedent. Overlooking the obvious fallacies in that statement, most roads were private in the US until the 1950's.

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

Instead of focusing on beliefs, let's just focus on the facts. I am capable of preventing danger for myself and others with the decisions I make. Preventing dangerous situations requires THINKING. A lot of people DON'T THINK or are addicted to short-term comfort, even at the expense of long-term detriments, and this phenomenon manifests itself in drunk driving, high interest loans, unprotected sex, etc.

Passing a law is not education! Passing a law doesn't illustrate inherent dangers in ANY activity! I'm sick and tired of hearing about "rights" from the mouths of statists. Every thing the state does reduces freedom for the individual.

 

[andrewh817]

No it's not a crime to be exceptional. But the burden of proof is on you to show you're safe and not a threat.

If you say that line while interviewing with the DHS, I'm sure you'll be picked for the job.

No, I'm more afraid of the uncertainty of REAL drunk drivers, every growing government is oppression to some, freedom for others.

Actually it's not freedom for anyone. Even if you don't drink (let alone drink and drive) and a law is passed, you just lost another potential thing you could do without harassment. Even if you're a government worker you lose that right. So who exactly gets more freedom in this situation, because it's very unclear to me what you meant?

 

[WaltM]

So your argument is that, if something is possible it must have already been done? That means no new ideas could EVER be implemented because they had no precedent. Overlooking the obvious fallacies in that statement, most roads were private in the US until the 1950's.

So you prefer life back then?

No, I'm seriously asking you how much you value the privatization.

Not that something would be done if it's possible, as many things are possible, but also preferable for the most people, such that it'd have support and cooperation on a wide scale.

Instead of focusing on beliefs, let's just focus on the facts. I am capable of preventing danger for myself and others with the decisions I make. Preventing dangerous situations requires THINKING. A lot of people DON'T THINK or are addicted to short-term comfort, even at the expense of long-term detriments, and this phenomenon manifests itself in drunk driving, high interest loans, unprotected sex, etc.

And for the sake of freedom we should act like they don't bother us?

Passing a law is not education! Passing a law doesn't illustrate inherent dangers in ANY activity! I'm sick and tired of hearing about "rights" from the mouths of statists. Every thing the state does reduces freedom for the individual.

I disagree, passing a law is education, not the only way though.
I don't believe dangers of an activity are always the only thing to illustrate in a law.

Yes, sometimes I desire reduction of freedom for individuals.
(I bet I can think of a few freedoms you'd hate for me to have)

 

[low preference guy]

Yes, sometimes I desire reduction of freedom for individuals.

Tell us something we don't know.

 

[WaltM]

If you say that line while interviewing with the DHS, I'm sure you'll be picked for the job.

I didn't learn this when I first applied for TSA back in 2004.

Actually it's not freedom for anyone. Even if you don't drink (let alone drink and drive) and a law is passed, you just lost another potential thing you could do without harassment. Even if you're a government worker you lose that right. So who exactly gets more freedom in this situation, because it's very unclear to me what you meant?

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.

 

[WaltM]

Tell us something we don't know.

I dare you say you disagree with me.

You want me to list some freedoms I want and you'd get out of your way to prevent me from having?
(ahh, nevermind, what I, a bad guy wants isn't called freedom to you)

 

[payme_rick]

name one Walt and I'm serious... just want to see where you're coming from and see if I can see your point...

 

[Kregisen]

But what you're arguing for, could also slippery slope into arguments for death penalty, nobody can argue against, that executing a person is cheaper than keeping them alive for 10 years.

Do some research. Death penalty is more expensive than keeping someone in prison for life. http://www.walletpop.com/blog/2009/03/09/death-penalty-costs-more-than-life-in-prison/

Maybe if the system was changed it would be cheaper, but the way it is now, no way.

(I actually still support the death penalty in some cases)


------


Anyway, I'm still neutral on this. I wanna pick the libertarian side here but it's tough.

So if we got rid of the .08 arrest number, would officers just start arresting people for driving over a line or into another lane? Or would it just be a ticket?

If it's just a ticket, how is that gonna get bad drivers (under influence or sober) off the road ASAP?

Is reckless driving automatically an arrest?

 

[WaltM]

name one Walt and I'm serious... just want to see where you're coming from and see if I can see your point...

Freedom to kill drunks & junkies, because I feel they're a threat to my life, my happiness and ego. (again, I don't expect you to consider this a freedom worth having, and nor do I think driving drunk is one, not that they're equal in any way, they both share one thing : somebody wants it, somebody thinks its fair)

 

[Kregisen]

Also, regarding the notion that a cell phone ban is the same as a DUI law.....I'm not sure if it is.

A cell phone is an item that CAN distract people (anything in the world can) and a cell phone ban is VERY stupid. I can talk on a phone while driving and still drive 100 times better than most people do without being on a phone. It's about paying attention to the road, and banning phones altogether is RIDICULOUS.


But wouldn't alcohol influence everyone? Whereas the cell phone has no affect on some drivers, given enough alcohol, everyone wouldn't be able to operate a car properly.



Anyway, I don't know....just throwing another thought out there.

 

[payme_rick]

Freedom to kill drunks & junkies, because I feel they're a threat to my life, my happiness and ego. (again, I don't expect you to consider this a freedom worth having, and nor do I think driving drunk is one, not that they're equal in any way, they both share one thing : somebody wants it, somebody thinks its fair)

ha... I see I see...

So, WaltM gets the freedom to kill drunks and junkies...

And payme_rick gets the freedom to drive drunk...

cool...

But when we both wake up the morning after exercising our freedoms there is a big difference:

I drove home drunk without taking from, injuring or killing someone... you killed someone...

 

[WaltM]

Do some research. Death penalty is more expensive than keeping someone in prison for life. http://www.walletpop.com/blog/2009/03/09/death-penalty-costs-more-than-life-in-prison/

FAIL, why am I not surprised that every time somebody brings up the costs of death penalty, they count the costs of "appeal" which isn't the penalty itself. (and it falsely assumes appeal doesn't exist for non-death penalty alternatives).

Maybe if the system was changed it would be cheaper, but the way it is now, no way.

(I actually still support the death penalty in some cases)

and I ONLY support the death penalty in some cases, but the punishment itself is not more expensive than the prison sentence itself (appeal costs do cost both sides, and are expensive over time, but if that was the issue, we can get rid of it).

------

Anyway, I'm still neutral on this. I wanna pick the libertarian side here but it's tough.

I want to pick the fun & happy side, but it's childish.

So if we got rid of the .08 arrest number, would officers just start arresting people for driving over a line or into another lane? Or would it just be a ticket?

Exactly.

What if officers wanted to arrest you BECAUSE HE THOUGHT YOU WERE RECKLESS but he had zero proof (other than him and his partner's opinion).

If it's just a ticket, how is that gonna get bad drivers (under influence or sober) off the road ASAP?

I've not heard anybody here actually say they want to get bad drivers off the road asap. They'll then take what you say and scream "but that's making the state money, why should i pay a ticket if I hurt nobody!"

Is reckless driving automatically an arrest?

if bad enough, yes, I believe.

 

[WaltM]

ha... I see I see...

I drove home drunk without taking from, injuring or killing someone... you killed someone...

you don't sound like you have a problem with it.

 

[WaltM]

Also, regarding the notion that a cell phone ban is the same as a DUI law.....I'm not sure if it is.

The only thing they have in common is, that they're both an umbrella, blanket rule that applies uniform with no exceptions, even though they can both be arbitrarily enforced.

They don't share the same statistics. Car accidents related to cell phones can PROBABLY be saved dramatically the moment one drops the phone and takes control. Try that with drunk.

A cell phone is an item that CAN distract people (anything in the world can) and a cell phone ban is VERY stupid. I can talk on a phone while driving and still drive 100 times better than most people do without being on a phone. It's about paying attention to the road, and banning phones altogether is RIDICULOUS.

It's not illegal if you don't get caught, right?

But wouldn't alcohol influence everyone? Whereas the cell phone has no affect on some drivers, given enough alcohol, everyone wouldn't be able to operate a car properly.

According to some people such as brandon, .12 isn't going to change his driving ability, he said nothing about HIGHER content, but I'm not going to assume he's going to lose any of his driving control just because he has higher BAC than .12, because I have no evidence, plus I want to think he's EXCEPTIONAL (which isn't a crime)

He said it's ridiculous to make BAC illegal, which implies no matter HOW DRUNK a person is, he should ALWAYS be allowed to drive (until it's proven reckless, I guess).

Anyway, I don't know....just throwing another thought out there.

appreciated