TX Man Sentenced to Life in Prison for 9th DWI

[Danan]

Things such as roads that are publicly owned are de facto owned by the public and the duly elected representatives of the public are the ones making the laws, much as employees of a private road-owning company would do. As our representatives, lawmakers have decided that there should be a limit on blood alcohol and how high it should be. The same is true for speed limits, etc. And also, of course, for the fines for breaking these rules as well as their enforcement.

Wait...is there an echo in here?

?
I also said that the fact that they provide this service without fees or tolls for it's usage, but finance everything by taxing the general public (which is theft), is effectively keeping out competition and thus the conditions and specific rules to not resemble what the market would give you, which is the optimal set of rules to maximize profits. Which ultimately comes down to the simple truth that without coerced funding, the customers would inderictly chose the rules on the roads (and that's a way superior decision making process than letting politicians and bureaucrat elected via a flawed democratic system decide).

Or did I misunderstand your question? =/

 

[Dr.3D]

Why does the "while being drunk" part matter? It's the same as if somebody completely sober did some damage, either way, they are to be held responsible for the damage.

True, but sober it is more likely the damage was done by accident. Everybody knows being drunk does make is easier for people to have an "accident."

 

[PaulConventionWV]

When the vic is dead or broken its a bit LATE to question the dangerous stupidity of drunk driving. Wanna drink? FINE!!!!!! Take a cab home. Everyone wins , except YOUR pathetic self-absorbed immature ego.

You can't prevent people from dying with laws. That's just the way it works. You keep wanting to say that, if this is illegal, the crime will be stopped before it happens. It just doesn't work, as is clearly the case with drinking and driving laws, speeding laws, drug laws, gun laws. Laws don't prevent anything. They are only there to serve justice for crimes already committed. You can't engage in the idea that you can stop crime by making precursors illegal, as if all precursors led to crimes being committed. Some people who drive drunk make it home just fine, and if you arrest them, you haven't fixed anything. People are innocent until proven guilty for a reason, and that's because it's better for a hundred guilty men to go free than for one innocent man to be falsely convicted. If you make precursors illegal, why stop there? Why not make bars illegal so that drinking stops altogether. Oh wait, didn't they try that in the 1920s?

 

[AGRP]

It is intellectually inconsistent for anyone to state that drinking and driving should be illegal while stating other activities and non-activities before driving should not be illegal. For example, someone who works or stays awake for at least two 12 hour work shifts (which is very common) before driving home is just as dangerous, if not more dangerous than having a few drinks before driving. Oh, but working 60-80 hour work weeks is lauded in our society isn't it?

 

[AFPVet]

He injured at least one person. In a voluntary society, i would like to believe his community would come together to trade his vehicle for something like a golf cart, horse, bike, etc.

In his situation, yes, he injured someone. I was simply referring to the generality.

 

[Danan]

Why does the "while being drunk" part matter? It's the same as if somebody completely sober did some damage, either way, they are to be held responsible for the damage.

True. But it should also be understandable that drivers would want to demand from the owner of the road, that he prevents people who are obviously endangering others (like drunks, extremely poor drivers, extremely tired people, etc.) from using the same road as everybody else. Every entrepreur would understand that demand and try to come up with a way to sort these people out (it's his road after all).

The problem originates from the fact that the government owns the road.

 

[MelissaWV]

It is intellectually inconsistent for anyone to state that drinking and driving should be illegal while stating other activities and non-activities before driving should not be illegal. For example, someone who works or stays awake for at least two 12 hour work shifts (which is very common) before driving home is just as dangerous, if not more dangerous than having a few drinks before driving. Oh, but working 60-80 hour work weeks is lauded in our society isn't it?

Ah you added the last part just as I quoted you, which was going to be my point.

It is worse because, while there is a stigma associated with drinking and driving, and programs for you to be able to call a free ride under certain circumstances, people who are driving while exhausted often have little alternative, and are being good little worker bees.

And the person they kill is just as dead as one a drunk driver kills.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

True, but sober it is more likely the damage was done by accident. Everybody knows being drunk does make is easier for people to have an "accident."

Well, if you wanna go down THAT road...

The point is, people can do things maliciously or accidentally regardless of what state they're in. Punishing the crime is the only surefire way to go.

 

[AFPVet]

True. But it should also be understandable that drivers would want to demand from the owner of the road, that he prevents people who are obviously endangering others (like drunks, extremely poor drivers, extremely tired people, etc.) from using the same road as everybody else. Every entrepreneur would understand that demand and try to come up with a way to sort these people out (it's his road after all).

The problem originates from the fact that the government owns the road.

This is another valid point for privatizing roads.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

It is intellectually inconsistent for anyone to state that drinking and driving should be illegal while stating other activities and non-activities before driving should not be illegal. For example, someone who works or stays awake for at least two 12 hour work shifts (which is very common) before driving home is just as dangerous, if not more dangerous than having a few drinks before driving. Oh, but working 60-80 hour work weeks is lauded in our society isn't it?

Not to mention working those kinds of shifts WHILE driving. Driving is part of my job, and I just put in a 12 hour shift last night, most of it spent driving.

 

[Danan]

It is intellectually inconsistent for anyone to state that drinking and driving should be illegal while stating other activities and non-activities before driving should not be illegal. For example, someone who works or stays awake for at least two 12 hour work shifts (which is very common) before driving home is just as dangerous, if not more dangerous than having a few drinks before driving. Oh, but working 60-80 hour work weeks is lauded in our society isn't it?

Ideally, in a perfect system, none of those things should be "illegal", but rather prohibited by the owner. And of course he has no right other than to force you to leave his property, or whatever you agreed to contractually by driving on his road (which, theoretically, could include prison sentences for drunk driving - if you still sign up for it...).

While the government does own the road, however, I personally would want it to lower the risk of dying while driving on it (but without destroying people's lifes for being risky).

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Ideally, in a perfect system, none of those things should be "illegal", but rather prohibited by the owner. And of course he has no right other than to force you to leave his property, or whatever you agreed to contractually by driving on his road (which, theoretically, could include prison sentences for drunk driving - if you still sign up for it...).

While the government does own the road, however, I personally would want it to lower the risk of dying while driving on it (but without destroying people's lifes for being risky).

The idea of public property isn't that "the government" owns it, but that nobody owns it.

I personally am not too attracted to the idea that I can drive around and have a different set of arbitrary rules enforced on me depending on whose property I'm on. There should be places where people are free to travel without being subject to somebody's arbitrary rules.

 

[AGRP]

So, how many video game junkies will be playing that new COD game for days on end before possibly getting on the road and killing someone? What about the black friday deal grabbers who will be shopping all day and driving possibly kill someone? They get to the stores by at least 5am. Both groups are impaired.

 

[Tpoints]

why is this dangerous substance "legal" then?

life sentence...but not for sandusky, corizone, or teh bernack...

Sandusky got 30+ years, that's effectively life for a 68 year old.

 

[Tpoints]

BTW, do you feel the fate of one who kills/maims while driving (impaired or not) should be equal to the fate of someone who damages only property while driving (impaired or not)?

Take out the word driving and the answer is obvious.

 

[Danan]

The idea of public property isn't that "the government" owns it, but that nobody owns it.

I personally am not too attracted to the idea that I can drive around and have a different set of arbitrary rules enforced on me depending on whose property I'm on. There should be places where people are free to travel without being subject to somebody's arbitrary rules.

But most other people are not too attracted to the idea of getting killed by some drunk driver who can legally and freely drive around unless he finally kills someone. And because that won't change ever, you're not going to get rid of those kind of laws through politics, imho.

Btw, if nobody owns them, can I claim ownership and fence in a road?

 

[PaulConventionWV]

But most other people are not too attracted to the idea of getting killed by some drunk driver who can legally and freely drive around unless he finally kills someone. And because that won't change ever, you're not going to get rid of those kind of laws through politics, imho.

Btw, if nobody owns them, can I claim ownership and fence in a road?

Look at the privatization of roads guy telling me how impractical my idea is.........

Getting rid of the police state will probably never happen, but most people here still want to. Same for the fed.

And no, you can't fence in a road because that would make it impossible to drive on. Seriously, though, if nobody owns them and you claim it, your claim will not be recognized and you need not seek compensation when your fence is destroyed.

 

[Tpoints]

But most other people are not too attracted to the idea of getting killed by some drunk driver who can legally and freely drive around unless he finally kills someone. And because that won't change ever, you're not going to get rid of those kind of laws through politics, imho.

Btw, if nobody owns them, can I claim ownership and fence in a road?

it's not just that nobody owns it, it's NOBODY CAN, otherwise it wouldn't be left unclaimed.

 

[VoluntaryAmerican]

True. But it should also be understandable that drivers would want to demand from the owner of the road, that he prevents people who are obviously endangering others (like drunks, extremely poor drivers, extremely tired people, etc.) from using the same road as everybody else. Every entrepreur would understand that demand and try to come up with a way to sort these people out (it's his road after all).

The problem originates from the fact that the government owns the road.

Excellent post,

I would like to add one little thing: There would be no need for police officers to patrol for traffic violations if roads were privatized, there would be transportation workers dedicated to keeping the roads safe and not trying to enforce bullshit laws like seat-belt violations.

Perhaps then police would have more time to do what they are supposed to do, catch real criminals like murderers and rapists.

 

[VoluntaryAmerican]

The idea of public property isn't that "the government" owns it, but that nobody owns it.

I personally am not too attracted to the idea that I can drive around and have a different set of arbitrary rules enforced on me depending on whose property I'm on. There should be places where people are free to travel without being subject to somebody's arbitrary rules.

You seriously don't think there would be some form (or multiple competing forms) of standardization to provide a consistent experience to motorists?

Eventually the best system would survive.

I would also argue that laws are more arbitrary (55 mph speed limit) than the market's self regulation.