(Video) Radley Balko on John Stossel - Abolish Drunk Driving Laws

Sorry, I don't think I can get on board with the anarcho-capitalists on this one. Drunk driving laws do provide a deterrent and abolishing them probably would lead to more deaths.

On the bright side, this issue will become moot in a few years once cars advance to the point where they can drive themselves.
 
I don't know if I'd get rid of DUI laws at the moment, you should privatize roads first, so private road operators can decide what safe use of their roads like amusement parks decide who can safely ride their rides.
 
AlexMerced said:
I don't know if I'd get rid of DUI laws at the moment, you should privatize roads first, so private road operators can decide what safe use of their roads like amusement parks decide who can safely ride their rides.
Click to expand...

About these private roads, wouldn't it be very expensive for their owners to keep track of who drives on then and for how long? Also, wouldn't law enforcement be more difficult as traffic cops would only be allowed to enforce rules within their jurisdiction and offenders would just be able to go on a street owned by a different corporation? Finally, wouldn't there be an incentive for competing corporations to hire drivers to break down and clog up their competitor's roads in order to get more traffic?
 
I completely agree with getting rid of drunk driving laws. The only drunk driving laws that there should be are if a private road-owning company or person wishes such laws under a contract with those who drive on those roads. People tend to think that people can take away rights of liberty to protect the right to life, but all rights cannot be alienated for the sake of POTENTIALLY protecting another. Rights can only be taken away after one has infringed upon the rights of another. If a man drives drunk, but is able to never get in a car crash, where is the crime? Technically, it's much safer to not drive at all, so why don't we ban driving altogether? It's a slippery, arbitrary and inconsistent road when one starts banning one thing, but ignores other things.
 
Teaser Rate said:
About these private roads, wouldn't it be very expensive for their owners to keep track of who drives on then and for how long?
Click to expand...

No, we have computers nowadays.


Teaser Rate said:
Also, wouldn't law enforcement be more difficult as traffic cops would only be allowed to enforce rules within their jurisdiction and offenders would just be able to go on a street owned by a different corporation?
Click to expand...

Actually that is beneficial. Road owners who most efficiently and productively increase safety on their roadways would make the most money from safe drivers, while bad drivers would tend to have to fend off each other at the other less desirable roads. This would give people the incentive to drive more safely.


Teaser Rate said:
Finally, wouldn't there be an incentive for competing corporations to hire drivers to break down and clog up their competitor's roads in order to get more traffic?
Click to expand...

Corporate owned roads would have a mechanism to move broken down cars off the road and out of the way quickly, so it wouldn't be a big issue. They might also have a way to screen for that sort of stuff and not allow them on the road.
 
Teaser Rate said:
About these private roads, wouldn't it be very expensive for their owners to keep track of who drives on then and for how long? Also, wouldn't law enforcement be more difficult as traffic cops would only be allowed to enforce rules within their jurisdiction and offenders would just be able to go on a street owned by a different corporation? Finally, wouldn't there be an incentive for competing corporations to hire drivers to break down and clog up their competitor's roads in order to get more traffic?
Click to expand...

How are my competitors going to get permission to clog up my road?
 
dannno said:
No, we have computers nowadays.
Click to expand...

So how would the tracking work? Would I have to put a chip on my car or would there have to be cameras observing ever car on every street? Wouldn't both be very expensive to implement and require people to trust all their commuting data to a private corporation which would then be able to sell it to third parties?

Actually that is beneficial. Road owners who most efficiently and productively increase safety on their roadways would make the most money from safe drivers, while bad drivers would tend to have to fend off each other at the other less desirable roads. This would give people the incentive to drive more safely.
Click to expand...

1-I don't think drivers would take significantly longer path because one road is slightly safer than another (if that information were to somehow be available to them)

2-Wouldn't keeping bad drivers off your roads be very expensive? How would such a thing be enforced?

3-You didn't address the main point I was raising about private law enforcement's limited proximity to chase down law-breakers.

Corporate owned roads would have a mechanism to move broken down cars off the road and out of the way quickly, so it wouldn't be a big issue. They might also have a way to screen for that sort of stuff and not allow them on the road.
Click to expand...

That kind of enforcement would probably be quite expensive. As long as it costs you more money to get cars off your roads than it does me to hire bums in used cars to disturb your traffic, I'm going to keep doing it.

bwlibertyman said:
How are my competitors going to get permission to clog up my road?
Click to expand...

How are you going to stop them? Put traffic cops at every corner?
 
Teaser Rate said:
So how would the tracking work? Would I have to put a chip on my car or would there have to be cameras observing ever car on every street? Wouldn't both be very expensive to implement and require people to trust all their commuting data to a private corporation which would then be able to sell it to third parties?



Of course if I didn't know how to run a road I might put traffic cops on there and probably go out of business.

1-I don't think drivers would take significantly longer path because one road is slightly safer than another (if that information were to somehow be available to them)

2-Wouldn't keeping bad drivers off your roads be very expensive? How would such a thing be enforced?

3-You didn't address the main point I was raising about private law enforcement's limited proximity to chase down law-breakers.



That kind of enforcement would probably be quite expensive. As long as it costs you more money to get cars off your roads than it does me to hire bums in used cars to disturb your traffic, I'm going to keep doing it.



How are you going to stop them? Put traffic cops at every corner?
Click to expand...

There's a number of ways. If I use the sticker system that's connected to a credit card I could charge him fees for breaking rules. Unless he has unlimited funds I don't think it'd be viable for him to do it.

I could have a computer system set up to where ever half mile or so I have spikes that can come up out of the ground. If he's breaking my rules I can puncture his tires and have the automatic arm push his car to the side of the road so that my normal traffic can go through.

I think having traffic cops would be very expensive. I would not do it that way.
 
Teaser Rate said:
Sorry, I don't think I can get on board with the anarcho-capitalists on this one. Drunk driving laws do provide a deterrent and abolishing them probably would lead to more deaths.

On the bright side, this issue will become moot in a few years once cars advance to the point where they can drive themselves.
Click to expand...

I don't really think they do. In practice it's one of those things where you are mostly penalized bases on your wealth/resources- not that I'm sure that doesn't apply to anything. A judge/lawyer/connected/wealthy can drive drunk as much as he wants, but if you don't have resources you can do mandatory jail time for a false positive due to health conditions, at least in my state.

I would also add, I doubt Balko identifies as an an-cap, though I could be wrong.
 
The idea of abolishing drunk driving laws is no more ( and I would actually say less) "extreme" than legalizing drugs or abolishing the income tax/or FED. It's a liberty position. MADD is a lobbyist/special interest group and dwi laws mostly have to do with revenues and funding. It's policing a "pre-crime", if that.
 
Look. I think there need to be some changes in the laws. People who are perfectly capable of driving can get a DUI just because they are slightly over the legal limit. MADD is insane, and if they get their way it will be fucking prohibition again.

That being said, I know there have times when I have driven home, and I should not have. I was a danger to society. And my stupidity could have violated the rights of others. Don't give me the bullshit about, oh since I didn't hit anyone, I didn't violate their rights.

Drunk driving should be illegal, but the laws should be changed from the artificial bullshit limits that they are.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee
 
Slutter McGee said:
Look. I think there need to be some changes in the laws. People who are perfectly capable of driving can get a DUI just because they are slightly over the legal limit. MADD is insane, and if they get their way it will be fucking prohibition again.

That being said, I know there have times when I have driven home, and I should not have. I was a danger to society. And my stupidity could have violated the rights of others. Don't give me the bullshit about, oh since I didn't hit anyone, I didn't violate their rights.

Drunk driving should be illegal, but the laws should be changed from the artificial bullshit limits that they are.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee
Click to expand...

Drunk driving should just be filed under reckless driving, I don't know why it's something separate.
 
I have to agree that the crime itself is not the state of being "drunk" just as the crime is not the state of being "sleepy. A person who commits a crime against another person should be prosecuted for their actions and not for their personal habit or circumstance.What you have is a racket which fixes nothing.
 
How can anyone support drunk driving laws (at least as they currently are) when they are so obviously a money making machine? It's not about justice and safety. Diversion, DUI for sleeping in a vehicle while drunk, PUI, etc. They actually make an incentive to drive drunk rather than sleeping it off or walking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

jct74
John Oliver takes on homeschooling
Replies
1
Views
3K
ClaytonB
ClaytonB
Occam's Banana
Cop training seminar exposed on video
Replies
14
Views
2K
Occam's Banana
Occam's Banana
J
Why isn't gaslighting "insurrection" media reporting on Antifa 1/6 instigator John Sullivan
Replies
0
Views
186
James_Madison_Lives
J
Anti Federalist
Legally “Drunk” vs. Actually Impaired
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
Dr.3D
Dr.3D
W
Video: Solution to Child Indoctrination
Replies
2
Views
808
pcosmar
pcosmar
Back
Top