Other: Ron's position on DUI?
- Thread starter Joe3113
- Start date
ThePieSwindler
Member
- Joined
- May 19, 2007
- Messages
- 1,936
Uh.... thats how it already is.. its sort of hard to enforce something like this on a national level....
Actually, the federal government has a lot of say. Why do you think the drinking age is 21 everywhere? The federal government threatened to withhold highway funding from states that didn't change it. This is how they do everything.
Ahh ok.....I'm just curious to know if DUI laws are compatible with a libertarian philosophy.
and I found this aswell
http://udadd.com/ "U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, Presidential candidate, OPPOSES NMDA. That’s the federal law that bribes state legislators to impose the drinking age, by giving them more federal highway construction money."
Last edited:
blakjak
Member
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2007
- Messages
- 757
Yup, the states currently set laws for this. A DUI is not a 'federal' offense.
DUI laws are not compatible with Libertarians. As you have not harmed anyone by driving drunk. It is the same as a thought crime.
That does not mean that you could not charge someone with a higher penalty if they happen to be drunk at the time. IE someone who is swerving around the road gets pulled over, that person would be charged with reckless driving. If that same person was drunk you could charge them with a higher offense. At the same time if a person is driving perfectly well and has a busted tail light they should not be charged if they happen to be drunk also.
I do not know exactly what Dr. Paul's stance on the subject is, but I would wager that it follows the constitution (those rights not granted are reserved to the states or the people)
That does not mean that you could not charge someone with a higher penalty if they happen to be drunk at the time. IE someone who is swerving around the road gets pulled over, that person would be charged with reckless driving. If that same person was drunk you could charge them with a higher offense. At the same time if a person is driving perfectly well and has a busted tail light they should not be charged if they happen to be drunk also.
I do not know exactly what Dr. Paul's stance on the subject is, but I would wager that it follows the constitution (those rights not granted are reserved to the states or the people)
ThePieSwindler
Member
- Joined
- May 19, 2007
- Messages
- 1,936
Im talking about DUI laws, not drinking laws. DUI laws and enforcement are fully a state position. And DUI laws are perfectly libertarian - you have no right to be a danger out on the road to others, by reckless decision that put others at risk.
I do not support us getting into minutia like this and trying to read Ron Paul's mind. There are much bigger issues at stake during this election than DUI laws. I recommend the most sensible thing to do politically is to focus on the issues that Ron focuses on. These forums are read by the public. I do not support people speculating on such issues such as whether state DUI laws are compatible with Libertarians on the "Ron Paul" forums, especially on the Grassroots Central. This is about Ron Paul, not about the Libertarian Party.
Last edited:
I'm in FULL support with jj111 here. We have a country that's going down the sewers and we're getting caught up with DUI LAWS?!? People are having their life's savings stolen from them, our kids are being forced to spend their childhood in youth detention camps, the government is raising up an insurmountable debt, and we're worrying about DUI LAWS?!? Please...
-JD
-JD
You're right....sorry dude. I was just curious.....should've posted elswhere
Maybe the Mod can delete the thread or at least move it.
DUI laws are not compatible with libertarians in the sense that the federal government should not be writing up another 1000 pages of legal code to define and punish DUI.
DUI laws are completely compatible with the libertarians in the sense that it is being controlled at the more local level....that of the State and City government. Similar to what should be done with drugs.....which is currently being prohibited at the federal level.
Sorry, my response was WAY over the top. I sincerely apologize for my response -- it was highly uncalled for.
InRonWeTrust
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2007
- Messages
- 658
Sure libertarians would support reasonable local DUI laws. We don't want to be killed on the highways either.
murrayrothbard
Member
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2007
- Messages
- 734
Libertarian political theory is theory based on property rights. So...who owns the road? In a purely free society it is some group of individuals that own the road, doesn't matter who except that they maintain it without committing any acts of aggression (i.e they don't tax/rob people to maintain it, they don't steal land to build it etc) In this case they are free to set whatever kind of rules they want for use of the road. In speculating I would think that most, if not all, such road propreitors would prohibit impaired driving since it drastically increases the chance of accidents, etc. This would be a big liability for the road people, so I would think they would prohibit it. Unsafe roads would be bad for business. The key is what is the "punishment" for breaking this rule. In libertarian theory aggression is a crime, so it would be out of the question for the offender (one that was simply driving drunk, not causing any damge) to be kidnapped and placed in a cage (i.e. jail). That is where state DUI laws cross over the line.
Bob Spruill
Member
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2007
- Messages
- 143
Ditto
I have opinions on that issue, but this is not the place to debate them.
Last edited:
Johncjackson
Member
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2007
- Messages
- 1,764
Highway is also tied to the BAC levels as well as drinking age. Why do you think almost all states define it as a BAC of 0.8 ( or whatever it is)? It is neither an arbitrary number nor something based on any type of science. That is what the federal government and special interest lobby groups like MADD ( well they actually support prohibition as the end) demand.
Saying it is left up to the states is a distortion of reality.
Knightskye
Member
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2007
- Messages
- 7,249
Well, to quote the good doctor: "The government doesn't deal with murder or violence."
So, I think he would leave it to the states. Think about his position on the war on drugs - he wants to end it.
So a war on drunk drivers? I don't think so.
So, I think he would leave it to the states. Think about his position on the war on drugs - he wants to end it.
So a war on drunk drivers? I don't think so.Similar threads
