Does government has a duty to...?

[Kludge]

Curiosity Poll.

[Grimnir Wotansvolk]

only the second

response, not prevention.

[idiom]

Wow, people are paying attention in class :)

[Kludge]

So everyone who voted believes that drunk driving should not be a crime...?

[LittleLightShining]

So everyone who voted believes that drunk driving should not be a crime...?Technically, no. Not if you can drive according to the laws.

[Acala]

So everyone who voted believes that drunk driving should not be a crime...?

Roads should be private, making drunk driving a matter of contract and, assuming the road owner prohibits drunk driving on his road pursuant to contract, trespass for the drunk driver who ignores the contract terms.

[UnReconstructed]

I don't think they have the legitimate authority to do anything. They only have the authority through force.

[Kludge]

I don't think they have the legitimate authority to do anything. They only have the authority through force.

Sorry, I should have included that.

[tmosley]

I don't really care what your motivations are, nor what physical state you are in when you get behind the wheel. If you get into an accident, you probably won't be covered by your insurance (who would probably have a no drunk driving clause), and you would be held liable for any harm you did based on community standards (ie would a sober person have been able to avoid that mailbox, etc).

Private roads are stupid. People have a right to move about the country at will.

[Grimnir Wotansvolk]

So everyone who voted believes that drunk driving should not be a crime...?drunks should be permitted to drive as long as they pull over to the right, slow way down, and turn on their hazard flashers. If they did this now, police would pick up on them immediately. Thus, drunk driving laws encourage drunks to drive at speeds too difficult to handle while inebriated.

[UnReconstructed]

Private roads are stupid. People have a right to move about the country at will.

That's not what was meant by privatizing the roads.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market_roads

[NaT805]

None of the above.

[Acala]

Private roads are stupid. People have a right to move about the country at will.

Government roads are leading us directly to National ID. Think about it. Because the government nationalized the roads we all need to use government roads. Because the government controls the roads, the government got away with imposing standards for driving on the roads. To prove you meet the standards, you must have a government-issued driver's license. Otherwise you can't go anywhere. The government-issued drivers license has become the "papers" everyone is expected to have and carry. And it has laid the foundation for the next step of having every person in the country tagged and filed away in a central government database.

Government roads are a tool of tyranny.

[Standing Like A Rock]

Roads should be private, making drunk driving a matter of contract and, assuming the road owner prohibits drunk driving on his road pursuant to contract, trespass for the drunk driver who ignores the contract terms.

B-B-B-Bingo!!

[Matt Collins]

Government's duty is to secure individual rights and liberties

[Standing Like A Rock]

who are the dumbasses who voted for 1,3 and 4?

[UnReconstructed]

Government's duty is to secure individual rights and liberties

How's that working out for you?

[Conza88]

Who besides Kade, clicked the bottom one? :confused:

"You did not select an option to vote for. Please press back to return to the poll and choose an option before voting."

"recognized rights" - insert right to work. = Fail.

[Zolah]

So everyone who voted believes that drunk driving should not be a crime...?

Not if you think driving is a priveledge (I do), from what I've seen of car driving in India, we can be thankful that not just anyone can buy a car then buy a driving liscence and ascend to the streets with a 2 ton metal box that can hit 110 mph, having never driven one before..

Right to freedom of movement isn't infringed by not letting you drive without having a liscence (having passed a test), you can still move freely with other means of transports, or feet-power.

I do however support privatisation of the roads, and would accept the laws of the road as dictated by its owners.

Government's duty is to protect the rights of it's citizens anyway.

I cringe when listening to British PM Gordon Brown, he talks a lot about government duties, government's duty to protect the economy, government's duty to fight youth crime, government duty to fight climate change, government duty to fight terrorism and stop it from coming on our soil, government's duty to provide the welfare state for those in need, etc., etc. :(

[drew1503]

The Second only.

[Matt Collins]

How's that working out for you?Not very well. But that's because our legislators don't have integrity to their office (neither do our Presidents and our courts for that matter), and the population is mostly apathetic.

[Kade]

Who besides Kade, clicked the bottom one? :confused:

"You did not select an option to vote for. Please press back to return to the poll and choose an option before voting."

"recognized rights" - insert right to work. = Fail.

I didn't vote asshole.

[angelatc]

Are you talking about federal government or local government?

[brandon]

Teh guberment can haz a duty

[hypnagogue]

Teh guberment can haz a duty Dammit that's what I came here to do.

Yeah I couldn't vote either. Option one is obviously a trap.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Curiosity Poll.

Nothing

[wizardwatson]

Government's duty is to secure individual rights and liberties

Government should be prohibited from infringing on individual rights and liberties, it can't secure its own trousers.

[Dr.3D]

Wow, four people actually voted for 'create equality'. Unbelievable!
Either they are joking or ignorant.
Don't they understand where it says, 'all men are created equal'? (I don't want somebody to say 'women are not included' either.) Whenever it says men, it automatically means both genders.

Since all men are created equal, the government wouldn't have to create equality.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Government has a right to nothing. just die

[brandon]

Don't they understand where it says, 'all men are created equal'? (I don't want somebody to say 'women are not included' either.) Whenever it says men, it automatically means both genders.


Don't tell me you actually believe this.

You're telling me someone born with down syndrome to a poor single mom is equal to someone born with strong genetics, an IQ of 135 and a 10 million dollar trust fund?

We're not born equal, we don't live equal, and we don't die equally. The world's just not a fair place, and no government or poet is going to change that.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Don't tell me you actually believe this.

You're telling me someone born with down syndrome to a poor single mom is equal to someone born with strong genetics, an IQ of 135 and a 10 million dollar trust fund?

We're not born equal, we don't live equal, and we don't die equally. The world's just not a fair place, and no government or poet is going to change that.

They don't have a right to any privileges. No one is entitled to special rights. No one, not even the crippled. People, on here, loathe me for my consistency in regards to libertarianism.

[idiom]

Equality is a recognized right Dr. 3D? So ppl who violate the right to be treated equally should be punished?

[Dr.3D]

Equality is a recognized right Dr. 3D? So ppl who violate the right to be treated equally should be punished?

Equality is not a right. It is how you were created.
This was because there were those who thought kings and queens were special and more equal than other people.

Equality is not a recognized right.

[Standing Like A Rock]

They don't have a right to any privileges. No one is entitled to special rights. No one, not even the crippled. People, on here, loathe me on here for my consistency in regards to libertarianism.

yea, people ARE born with equal opportunity.

Look at Steven Hawking and see what he has been able to accomplish while some people born with millions might just be lazy as hell and never do anything and have an unfulfilled life.

Money and physical ability are always going to be inherently different, however people are born with the equal opportunity to make the best of what they have.

For example. In Texas Hold'em I could be dealt two aces, and you could be dealt 2-7 off suited. We still have the equal opportunity to make the best hand that we can out of those cards. However, it would be wrong to: A) Have the dealer just say, oh, you got 2-7 and he's got aces, you lose, before even letting you play, and B) Having the dealer say, that since I have aces and you have 2-7 that I need to give you one of my aces and you give me one of your cards, just to make it "fair."

[Dr.3D]

Don't tell me you actually believe this.

You're telling me someone born with down syndrome to a poor single mom is equal to someone born with strong genetics, an IQ of 135 and a 10 million dollar trust fund?

We're not born equal, we don't live equal, and we don't die equally. The world's just not a fair place, and no government or poet is going to change that.

It doesn't matter if you were born with an extra foot or an ear in the middle of your forehead. You should still be considered equal to other people.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Equality is not a right. It is how you were created.
This was because there were those who thought kings and queens were special and more equal than other people.

Equality is not a recognized right.

Everyone exits the pussy as equals. I agree.

the creator = egg + sperm

[idiom]

yea, people ARE born with equal opportunity.

Look at Steven Hawking and see what he has been able to accomplish while some people born with millions might just be lazy as hell and never do anything and have an unfulfilled life.

Money and physical ability are always going to be inherently different, however people are born with the equal opportunity to make the best of what they have.

For example. In Texas Hold'em I could be dealt two aces, and you could be dealt 2-7 off suited. We still have the equal opportunity to make the best hand that we can out of those cards. However, it would be wrong to: A) Have the dealer just say, oh, you got 2-7 and he's got aces, you lose, before even letting you play, and B) Having the dealer say, that since I have aces and you have 2-7 that I need to give you one of my aces and you give me one of your cards, just to make it "fair."

Lookit McCain, he bluffed the House!