Question: How does a DUI get handled in an all-volunteer society without government? [Archive]

socialize_me

11-03-2008, 12:03 AM

If you don't hit anything, what's the crime?

Either way, it would be up to the owner of the road, I would think. He may forbid clients from using the roads if they have a history of drunk driving, for instance.

Also, if roads were privatized, how in the world would commerce ever take place?? Could you imagine how big of a pain in the ass it'd be to get permission from everyone who owns roads to drive on them? And what happens if you don't get permission since there's no police force since force itself can only be brought about through government? So there's nothing stopping me from doing things against your permission on your property if I voluntarily decide to do it.

You anarchists or radical volunteerists are unbelievable.. even the Constitution provides for the Government to post roads.. it's scary to think even in your idealistic worlds. I like volunteering and think it's great, but to say a DUI isn't a crime because it should be left up to the owner of the road to determine actuary tables is beyond rationality.

I'll stick with the Constitution and the writings of the Founders who envisioned at least some government. You all are stuck in a utopia that will never exist and could never be sustained. Have you all taken a look at Somalia lately?? I just saw on the news where a 13 year old girl was stoned to death as 1,000+ people watched because she had been raped but due to Sharia and its laws, being raped is adultery and punishable by death. This is being enforced in a lawless society where government does not exist.

You honestly cannot believe for a second this volunteer society could sustain itself for beyond a day. There'd be warlords running around America before you could choose what you would have for breakfast in the morning. Absolutely unbelievable. It's amazing how this movement is trying to deviate from Economic Theories and go to Reality, which is what Austrian Economics suggests, but you all are assuming this voluntary theory to be practical. It's not. You're no better than the Keynesians trying to socialize your way out of a mess.

Conza88

11-03-2008, 12:03 AM

Curious as to how anarcho-capitalists, anarchists, anarcho-[insert ist here] would handle DUI's. Would you have people caught voluntarily go to jail or pay a fine?

Anarcho-Capitalism - non aggression axiom + property rights...

In your situation there is no victim, as has been previously stated.

Legalize Drunk Driving by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/drunkdriving.html)

As far as anarcho-communists go... there would be no such thing as a 'car' or motor transport. All the societies that have remained true to the philosophy, have remained in the dirt - for thousands of years. :)

Truth Warrior

11-03-2008, 12:05 AM

socialize_me

11-03-2008, 12:06 AM

drunks should be allowed to slow way down and turn on their hazard flashers. Because of DUI laws, though, they're forced to go the speed limit (30-50-70) in an attempt to remain inconspicuous

Drive slower won't accomplish ANYTHING when you're swirving around the road. What if someone going 70 hits you when you're going 20? It's not like it's better than going 65 because someone is likely to die, and what happens then? So if your daughter is killed by a drunk driver, you'd be fine with saying "That's okay, just go slower next time"? Ridiculous!

Ya know guys, Ron Paul made a lot of sense when he asked how we'd feel if China was building bases over here like we're doing over there. It's that empathy that you need to show. None of you have a clue (obviously) what it's like to have a sibling or a child die from a drunk driver. I'm sure your opinions would change quite radically if your spouse were struck by a drunk driver.

Anti Federalist

11-03-2008, 12:07 AM

What is "society"? C'mon, I dare ya. :D

Bastard.

That's twice in two days ya "got me".;)

socialize_me

11-03-2008, 12:09 AM

What is "society"? C'mon, I dare ya. :D

LoL care to address the other point, Truth Warrior rather than debating semantics considering all you'll do is pull up some BS dictionary.com definition? Let's talk about something that matters here--would you be okay with a drunk school bus driver taking your kid to school? Would you? No crime has been committed. Even if you didn't know the guy was drunk, would you be okay with it or would you be demanding he get fired or arrested? How could you coerce the school board or the police in such a way?

See, this is where just a little bit of logic completely shatters the pure-voluntary society theories.

Conza88

11-03-2008, 12:09 AM

Also, if roads were privatized, how in the world would commerce ever take place?? Could you imagine how big of a pain in the ass it'd be to get permission from everyone who owns roads to drive on them? And what happens if you don't get permission since there's no police force since force itself can only be brought about through government? So there's nothing stopping me from doing things against your permission on your property if I voluntarily decide to do it.

You anarchists or radical volunteerists are unbelievable.. even the Constitution provides for the Government to post roads.. it's scary to think even in your idealistic worlds. I like volunteering and think it's great, but to say a DUI isn't a crime because it should be left up to the owner of the road to determine actuary tables is beyond rationality.

I'll stick with the Constitution and the writings of the Founders who envisioned at least some government. You all are stuck in a utopia that will never exist and could never be sustained. Have you all taken a look at Somalia lately?? I just saw on the news where a 13 year old girl was stoned to death as 1,000+ people watched because she had been raped but due to Sharia and its laws, being raped is adultery and punishable by death. This is being enforced in a lawless society where government does not exist.

You honestly cannot believe for a second this volunteer society could sustain itself for beyond a day. There'd be warlords running around America before you could choose what you would have for breakfast in the morning. Absolutely unbelievable. It's amazing how this movement is trying to deviate from Economic Theories and go to Reality, which is what Austrian Economics suggests, but you all are assuming this voluntary theory to be practical. It's not. You're no better than the Keynesians trying to socialize your way out of a mess.

Well HERE we go again... :rolleyes:

LOOK, how about you take some time to try educate yourself on these issues. You automatically dismiss them out of ignorance. Take off the blind folds.

Road Socialism - Walter Block (Lew Rockwell Podcast) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwHZ_NXENKw)

11: The Public Sector, II: Streets and Roads (http://mises.org/multimedia/mp3/audiobooks/rothbard/foranewliberty/11.mp3)
From the book "For A New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto"

http://mises.org/media.aspx?action=category&ID=87

Now go read / listen... all the refutations to your arguments are there.

"Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all." – Frederic Bastiat

Don't be a socialist... ;)

Anti Federalist

11-03-2008, 12:10 AM

Drive slower won't accomplish ANYTHING when you're swirving around the road. What if someone going 70 hits you when you're going 20? It's not like it's better than going 65 because someone is likely to die, and what happens then? So if your daughter is killed by a drunk driver, you'd be fine with saying "That's okay, just go slower next time"? Ridiculous!

Ya know guys, Ron Paul made a lot of sense when he asked how we'd feel if China was building bases over here like we're doing over there. It's that empathy that you need to show. None of you have a clue (obviously) what it's like to have a sibling or a child die from a drunk driver. I'm sure your opinions would change quite radically if your spouse were struck by a drunk driver.

Ummm, I did have a close family member killed in DUI crash.

Did the law prevent that from happening to "society"?

And why did you post such a loaded question if all you wanted to do is stir shit and raise hell?

socialize_me

11-03-2008, 12:12 AM

Ummm, I did have a close family member killed in DUI crash.

Did the law prevent that from happening to "society"?

And why did you post such a loaded question if all you wanted to do is stir shit and raise hell?

So you're okay with no punishment? Where's the thing to hold people back from doing it? If no one gets punished for driving drunk, then you'll see more of it.

Another point I might add is that if you think no government is the answer and that force is a bad thing, then when you have kids, don't give them a bedtime or curfew. Don't set any restrictions and tell me how it works out for you.

Anti Federalist

11-03-2008, 12:13 AM

LoL care to address the other point, Truth Warrior rather than debating semantics considering all you'll do is pull up some BS dictionary.com definition? Let's talk about something that matters here--would you be okay with a drunk school bus driver taking your kid to school? Would you? No crime has been committed. Even if you didn't know the guy was drunk, would you be okay with it or would you be demanding he get fired or arrested? How could you coerce the school board or the police in such a way?

See, this is where just a little bit of logic completely shatters the pure-voluntary society theories.

I remember my HS bus driver, before I quit of course, driving stoned most all the time. All of us stoners reversed the age old rule of sitting at the back of the bus just for that reason, we could clandestinely fire up as well.:D

The Simpon's writers must have been on that bus as well, he was the spitting image of Otto.

In any case, I'm still here.

Anti Federalist

11-03-2008, 12:14 AM

Conza88

11-03-2008, 12:18 AM

Socialize_me is a troll. Welcome back from your little lull. :)

Anti Federalist

11-03-2008, 12:32 AM

Socialize_me is a troll. Welcome back from your little lull. :)

Seemed pretty obvious, but what the hell, I'm bored tonight.:D

tremendoustie

11-03-2008, 12:34 AM

LoL care to address the other point, Truth Warrior rather than debating semantics considering all you'll do is pull up some BS dictionary.com definition? Let's talk about something that matters here--would you be okay with a drunk school bus driver taking your kid to school? Would you? No crime has been committed. Even if you didn't know the guy was drunk, would you be okay with it or would you be demanding he get fired or arrested? How could you coerce the school board or the police in such a way?

See, this is where just a little bit of logic completely shatters the pure-voluntary society theories.

No, it wouldn't be ok, and the bus driver should be fired. If the school is not responsive, the parents can threaten to remove their kids should the driver not be fired.

And, voluntarism does not necessarily imply no law enforcement. If someone hits another person while driving negligently, the driver should go to jail. Just as violence can be justified for self defense, so criminal consequences (which are effectively violence) for violent acts are justified.

nbhadja

11-03-2008, 12:51 AM

So you're okay with no punishment? Where's the thing to hold people back from doing it? If no one gets punished for driving drunk, then you'll see more of it.

Another point I might add is that if you think no government is the answer and that force is a bad thing, then when you have kids, don't give them a bedtime or curfew. Don't set any restrictions and tell me how it works out for you.

Big flaw in your logic. In a small government type of society kids are not without guidance, they have their parents raising them. They learn to become responsible.

In your situation you have no one raising or teaching the kids. That would never happen. Their parents would raise them.

Try letting yourself (or any adult) have no bedtime, restrictions, or curfew....oh wait you are a adult and don't need any because you learned when you were a kid.

What government tries to do is give every adult a bed time, bath time etc.

ronpaul4pres

11-03-2008, 01:00 AM

11: The Public Sector, II: Streets and Roads (http://mises.org/multimedia/mp3/audiobooks/rothbard/foranewliberty/11.mp3)
From the book "For A New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto"

I'm listening to this, and he mentions competition providing benefits to consumers - specifically an example of providing proper heat for renters. This all sounds find and dandy; however, I'm curious what you think about this: why do slum lords get away with what they do for long periods of time except when government intervenes on behalf of the customers? i.e. do you disagree there are times when some consumers have no other choice and no other recourse?

1000-points-of-fright

11-03-2008, 01:10 AM

LOL wow so you guys actually believe drinking drunk shouldn't be against the law??

You should only be allowed to drink if you're sober. If you're drunk, there's no need to drink.

Conza88

11-03-2008, 01:25 AM

I'm listening to this, and he mentions competition providing benefits to consumers - specifically an example of providing proper heat for renters. This all sounds find and dandy; however, I'm curious what you think about this: why do slum lords get away with what they do for long periods of time except when government intervenes on behalf of the customers? i.e. do you disagree there are times when some consumers have no other choice and no other recourse?

Do you have anything besides mere conviction? Like an historical example at all? A case study?

Why are there slums in the first place? ;)... Is what you need to ask yourself. Rent Controls by any chance? :p Government intervention...

Yes I do agree there are times when citizens have no other choice and no other recourse, and that is because the government is inhibiting the free market.... :)

Roads, Education, and Waterways: The Case Against Public Services by Walter Block (http://mises.org/Controls/Media/MediaPlayer.aspx?Id=3436)

"When FEMA came to 'help'... my problem with FEMA is not that they screwed up royally... it's just there was no market mechanism to get rid of them..."

Few min in... :cool:

ronpaul4pres

11-03-2008, 01:44 AM

Do you have anything besides mere conviction? Like an historical example at all? A case study?

Why are there slums in the first place? ;)... Is what you need to ask yourself. Rent Controls by any chance? :p Government intervention...

Yes I do agree there are times when citizens have no other choice and no other recourse, and that is because the government is inhibiting the free market.... :)

Roads, Education, and Waterways: The Case Against Public Services by Walter Block (http://mises.org/Controls/Media/MediaPlayer.aspx?Id=3436)

"When FEMA came to 'help'... my problem with FEMA is not that they screwed up royally... it's just there was no market mechanism to get rid of them..."

Few min in... :cool:

Thanks, but I do not accept your conclusion that all lacking of recourse is because "the government is inhibiting the free market." For example, the US federal government does not force you to be a US citizen. You have a free market choice of countries to live in. If you feel the federal government is so intrusive in your life, why don't you leave this country for another or even attempt to set up your own?

nbhadja

11-03-2008, 01:50 AM

Conza88

11-03-2008, 01:53 AM

Thanks, but I do not accept your conclusion that all lacking of recourse is because "the government is inhibiting the free market." For example, the US federal government does not force you to be a US citizen. You have a free market choice of countries to live in. If you feel the federal government is so intrusive in your life, why don't you leave this country for another or even attempt to set up your own?

10. Why don't you just leave?

One could simply turn this around, and ask, "Why doesn't the State just leave?" The "love it or leave it" bromide begs the underlying question, who is entitled to occupy this space. Perhaps a hardcore statist would simply assume that the government rightfully owns everything, but anarcho-capitalists reject that assumption, given the State's history of conquest and plunder. We believe rightful property comes from homesteading and voluntary exchange, not conquest. A good anarcho-capitalist response may be, "The State doesn't rightfully own this property; people do."

I suggest you do some more reading... ;) This quick FAQ may help... :cool:

http://www.ozarkia.net/bill/anarchism/faq.html

ronpaul4pres

11-03-2008, 02:04 AM

All other countries are socialist as well.

Ah - so you have no other recourse?

ronpaul4pres

11-03-2008, 02:15 AM

10. Why don't you just leave?

One could simply turn this around, and ask, "Why doesn't the State just leave?" The "love it or leave it" bromide begs the underlying question, who is entitled to occupy this space. Perhaps a hardcore statist would simply assume that the government rightfully owns everything, but anarcho-capitalists reject that assumption, given the State's history of conquest and plunder. We believe rightful property comes from homesteading and voluntary exchange, not conquest. A good anarcho-capitalist response may be, "The State doesn't rightfully own this property; people do."

I suggest you do some more reading... ;) This quick FAQ may help... :cool:

http://www.ozarkia.net/bill/anarchism/faq.html

That doesn't address my question. I wasn't talking about physical space or property.

You're living in a country where 99%+ of the people (over) pay for living in this country by giving up certain freedoms (besides taxes). The free market demands that you will not "pay" any less than anyone else - or else you can take your "business" elsewhere.

Conza88

11-03-2008, 03:26 AM

That doesn't address my question. I wasn't talking about physical space or property.

You're living in a country where 99%+ of the people (over) pay for living in this country by giving up certain freedoms (besides taxes). The free market demands that you will not "pay" any less than anyone else - or else you can take your "business" elsewhere.

What? Yes it does absolutely address your question / flawed premise.

You're a fken imbecile, clearly - because you really have missed the boat on this one. Btw, you haven't addressed anything that I have said... empirically that is..

You just went; "ummm "ok" (I just got fken pwned and have no logical / coherent argument against it) SOOoo.... (I'm now defaulting to the clinically retarded "Why don't you just LEAVE?!" argument..)

:rolleyes:

Wtf are you talking about? :confused: The free market doesn't "demand" anything... it's NOT a zero sum game :eek:

How ignorant do you want to be, as to what a free market actually is?

I like it how you just made that statistic up.. lol How creative... :o

youngbuck

11-03-2008, 04:07 AM

Anarcho-Capitalism - non aggression axiom + property rights...

In your situation there is no victim, as has been previously stated.

Legalize Drunk Driving by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/drunkdriving.html)

As far as anarcho-communists go... there would be no such thing as a 'car' or motor transport. All the societies that have remained true to the philosophy, have remained in the dirt - for thousands of years. :)

Dude, that was an awesome article. That's basically what I've always thought (I got a DUI while camping, my vehicle hadn't moved since I started drinking, and I was just in my car sippin one while on the phone). It's still affecting me to this day.

But, that article just explains exactly how absurd this government usurpation on our lives, judgment, and actions really is.

FindLiberty

11-03-2008, 04:53 AM

I need to read those articles...

OP must be loaded or drunk with power - or maybe new to the concept and power of Liberty. My answer: The invisible hand slaps drunk driver who causes damage or loss of life. DUI checkpoints go cold turkey. Fewer drunks on road would drive slower. Bus service employers would demand safe drivers to avoid liability.

Cheaper, easier, safer "high" would replace toxic booze and impaired judgment and hangover side effects. Location, accessibility and convenience of "Bar" would evolve to minimize risk and liability. Smarter, more responsible consumers would not be tricked into ingesting/buying more "libation" than necessary to get their buzz on. i.e., realize that chowing down on those "free" carbohydrates placed in handy bowls diabolically delays the digestion process in order to keep the consumed alcohol from reaching the blood stream for 30 minutes, just to sell a few more "drinks" than necessary to get buzzed.

Optional technology in future cars may evolve to evaluate driver condition/skill and compensate for this or indicate condition to other advanced technology cars or drivers in addition to making any crash safer, if the market called for any of this (reduce liability exposure or to obtain lower cost insurance, etc. Maybe each car or private intersection will eventually get an automated RPG cannon to keep the road clear of hazards. I don't think some secret cabal can meet today and plan all future needs, technology, limits, laws and follow ‘em up with ineffectively applied checkpoints "enforced" at the point of a gun. Why do we want/need to travel anyhow - was that a "school bus" that dives on the internet where future classes may be taught?

EVERYTHING would get better with a little less government. A lot less government would allow evathin’ to get even mo-betta' still. A 90% reduction in government seems like a reasonable starting point considering how crushing the burden is today.

Maybe NH would make a good extreme Liberty “test” state. DC could try the opposite by concentrating 100% invasive, freedom choking “federal police state” laws and regulations into one “hot” spot to see how quickly that cleans up the streets of DC and empties the place out. The DC operation would have to be self-funded and would have to promise not to impose its “ban everything or be shot” perfect order beyond DC.

It's dangerous (and eventually it's leathal) to hold the keys to the federal reserve purse while using a pen to write regulation and laws. Need to separate purse and pen.

Truth Warrior

11-03-2008, 05:19 AM

LoL care to address the other point, Truth Warrior rather than debating semantics considering all you'll do is pull up some BS dictionary.com definition? Let's talk about something that matters here--would you be okay with a drunk school bus driver taking your kid to school? Would you? No crime has been committed. Even if you didn't know the guy was drunk, would you be okay with it or would you be demanding he get fired or arrested? How could you coerce the school board or the police in such a way?

See, this is where just a little bit of logic completely shatters the pure-voluntary society theories.

No. :) I'd inform the employer of the bus driver of the situation, and maybe the employer's liability insurance company also. I'd also notify the school. I'd request that corrective action be taken, as necessary. I'd then drive my kid to school, or make other transportation arrangements until the "problem" was resolved.

Ya just gotta think outside of your barbaric statist box. I know it's hard. ;)

Conza88

11-03-2008, 05:21 AM

Dude, that was an awesome article. That's basically what I've always thought (I got a DUI while camping, my vehicle hadn't moved since I started drinking, and I was just in my car sippin one while on the phone). It's still affecting me to this day.

But, that article just explains exactly how absurd this government usurpation on our lives, judgment, and actions really is.

Yeah quality isn't it. :)

Sorry about that... it's fken bullshit aye :(

Conza88

11-03-2008, 05:30 AM

See the thing though is; private roads... they can refuse whoever they want on their property... lol.. They COULD choose to impose breathe testing on every single driver entering on their road...

Except there would be massive track jams, they would earn hardly any money, people would avoid it like the plague (traffic jams).... and the business would eventually lose money, and go bankrupt to be bought by another company... that isn't clinically retarded, who would get rid of the breathe testings for every person, and it would operate as the market wants...

But furthermore you wouldn't be breaking the law if they chose to random breathe test... you'd just be refused entry onto their property, because the company wouldn't want to risk it.. you wouldn't get a life altering stain on your name because you were simply sitting in a car / vehicle whilst not sober.

And as usual, the retarded fcken government - it GOES ON AND ON! Here in Australia; you can get fine for DRINK riding (human powered bycle)... DRINK riding (a horse)... then there was a professional downhill skater, who was clocked breaking the speed limit down a mountain...

The cops took him to caught, and he represented himself.. (idiot) & was pleading guilty.. but the judge didn't think you could classify a skate board as a vehicle etc.. Plus he could have argued that as he was a professional, it wasn't "reckless driving", it would be for a normal person, but not him... The case is currently still underway..

That's the absurd bullshit that follows such govt actions and laws...

*sigh* GOD damnit I hate the state.. :eek:

danberkeley

11-03-2008, 06:21 AM

Also, if roads were privatized, how in the world would commerce ever take place?? Could you imagine how big of a pain in the ass it'd be to get permission from everyone who owns roads to drive on them?

As if the current system isn't bureaucratic at all.

And what happens if you don't get permission since there's no police force since force itself can only be brought about through government?

Huh? Where did you learn how to write? Public skewlz?

So there's nothing stopping me from doing things against your permission on your property if I voluntarily decide to do it.

I suppose. But there is nothing stopping you from committing a crime in the current system.

You anarchists or radical volunteerists are unbelievable.. even the Constitution provides for the Government to post roads.. it's scary to think even in your idealistic worlds. I like volunteering and think it's great, but to say a DUI isn't a crime because it should be left up to the owner of the road to determine actuary tables is beyond rationality.

You are an idiot. Anarchy does not equal lawlessness. Also, why do you assume we are anarchist or radicals? Oh yeah, it's because you are an idiot.

I'll stick with the Constitution and the writings of the Founders who envisioned at least some government. You all are stuck in a utopia that will never exist and could never be sustained. Have you all taken a look at Somalia lately?? I just saw on the news where a 13 year old girl was stoned to death as 1,000+ people watched because she had been raped but due to Sharia and its laws, being raped is adultery and punishable by death. This is being enforced in a lawless society where government does not exist.

Sharia laws being enforced in a lawless society? How interesting!

You honestly cannot believe for a second this volunteer society could sustain itself for beyond a day. There'd be warlords running around America before you could choose what you would have for breakfast in the morning. Absolutely unbelievable.

So what would you call the current police forces? Good samaritans?

It's amazing how this movement is trying to deviate from Economic Theories and go to Reality, which is what Austrian Economics suggests, but you all are assuming this voluntary theory to be practical. It's not. You're no better than the Keynesians trying to socialize your way out of a mess.

I'll take the volutariness of calling you an eediut!

It's that empathy that you need to show. None of you have a clue (obviously) what it's like to have a sibling or a child die from a drunk driver. I'm sure your opinions would change quite radically if your spouse were struck by a drunk driver.

Aha! The beast reveals it true premise. Rand would have a field day with your subjectiveness.

LoL care to address the other point, Truth Warrior rather than debating semantics considering all you'll do is pull up some BS dictionary.com definition? Let's talk about something that matters here--would you be okay with a drunk school bus driver taking your kid to school? Would you? No crime has been committed. Even if you didn't know the guy was drunk, would you be okay with it or would you be demanding he get fired or arrested? How could you coerce the school board or the police in such a way?

See, this is where just a little bit of logic completely shatters the pure-voluntary society theories.

This is also where intellect allows us to ascertain that you are a dummy poopoo dumbass! I'm not taking this thread seriously. I've read enough baseless arguments this year and don't care to argue with anyone who's premises are completely unfounded.

So you're okay with no punishment? Where's the thing to hold people back from doing it? If no one gets punished for driving drunk, then you'll see more of it.

Another point I might add is that if you think no government is the answer and that force is a bad thing, then when you have kids, don't give them a bedtime or curfew. Don't set any restrictions and tell me how it works out for you.

Oh noezZz! Private property ownerzZz wont enforce the lawzZz on their ownzZz property! Why do you think men carry loaded guns?

.,. and I'm out! Peace! :cool:

Conza88

11-03-2008, 06:28 AM

As if the current system isn't bureaucratic at all.

Huh? Where did you learn how to write? Public skewlz?

I suppose. But there is nothing stopping you from commiting a crime in the current system.

You are an idiot. Anarchy does not equal lawlessness. Also, why do you assume we are anarchist or radicals? Oh yeah, it's because you are an idiot.

Sharia laws being enforced in a lawless society? How interesting!

So what would you call the current police forces? Good samaritans?

I'll take the volutariness of calling you an eediut!

Aha! The beast reveals it true premise. Rand would have a field day with your subjectiveness.

This is also where intellect allows us to ascertain that you are a dummy poopoo dumbass! I'm not taking this thread seriously. I've read enough baseless arguments this year and don't care to argue with anyone who's premises are completely unfounded.

Oh noezZz! Private property ownerzZz wont enforce the lawzZz on their ownzZz property! Why do you think men loaded carry guns?

.,. and I'm out! Peace! :cool:

HAHahaha.... :D Kthxbye

Severius

11-03-2008, 11:17 AM

If you feel the federal government is so intrusive in your life, why don't you leave this country for another or even attempt to set up your own?

The South attempted that in 1861. The Federal Government will not let you declare independence from them without a fight.

ARealConservative

11-03-2008, 11:34 AM

LOL wow so you guys actually believe drinking drunk shouldn't be against the law?? Who is the victim?? Society. So you all would be okay with a bus driver who is plastered off his ass to be driving your kid to school? After all, who's the victim?

welcome to libertarianism.

It is also ok for cannibals to get pregnant with every intention of a miscarriage followed by a hearty feast.

And nobody is so insane that they lose their rights to a gun.....ever.

Andrew-Austin

11-03-2008, 11:42 AM

LoL care to address the other point, Truth Warrior rather than debating semantics considering all you'll do is pull up some BS dictionary.com definition? Let's talk about something that matters here--would you be okay with a drunk school bus driver taking your kid to school? Would you? No crime has been committed. Even if you didn't know the guy was drunk, would you be okay with it or would you be demanding he get fired or arrested? How could you coerce the school board or the police in such a way?

See, this is where just a little bit of logic completely shatters the pure-voluntary society theories.

So you think anyone who drives as a part of their job, would be allowed to drive drunk just because it was legal? No they'd get their ass fired in a flash, regardless of the legality. What fucking school would not perform a background check, to make sure they didn't hire a complete pyscho who would dare drive drunk with a bus full of kids?

welcome to libertarianism.

It is also ok for cannibals to get pregnant with every intention of a miscarriage followed by a hearty feast.

And nobody is so insane that they lose their rights to a gun.....ever.

The only complaints I've seen against libertarianism in this thread are bullshit hypothetical scenarios, "what if" fear mongering.

kombayn

11-03-2008, 11:50 AM

angelatc

11-03-2008, 11:50 AM

Pericles

11-03-2008, 11:54 AM

I'll stick with the Constitution and the writings of the Founders who envisioned at least some government. You all are stuck in a utopia that will never exist and could never be sustained. Have you all taken a look at Somalia lately?? I just saw on the news where a 13 year old girl was stoned to death as 1,000+ people watched because she had been raped but due to Sharia and its laws, being raped is adultery and punishable by death. This is being enforced in a lawless society where government does not exist.

You honestly cannot believe for a second this volunteer society could sustain itself for beyond a day. There'd be warlords running around America before you could choose what you would have for breakfast in the morning. Absolutely unbelievable. It's amazing how this movement is trying to deviate from Economic Theories and go to Reality, which is what Austrian Economics suggests, but you all are assuming this voluntary theory to be practical. It's not. You're no better than the Keynesians trying to socialize your way out of a mess.

I'd say Midieval Europe would be a good picture of what an anarchistic society would resemble. Just a matter of time until fiefdoms develop, then principalities, and back into the nation state model. Like gun control, it only works when everybody is on board with the same program. Not everyone will choose to live by your rules - even not having rules is in effect a rule - might makes right.

sdczen

11-03-2008, 12:33 PM

Personal freedom = great responsibility.

The act of driving while intoxicated is not a crime, unless there is an accident that causes damage, injury or death. In this case, why wouldn't a law apply to the offender? The offender would be punished by the severity of the law that he broke.

You have to allow people to do what they wish; unless they do harm to people or property. You can act as a nanny or big brother as much as you'd like. The simple truth is, you cannot stop people from acting irresponsibly. Besides, using arbitrary guidelines deciding if you are drunk or not, is ridiculous.

What about laws that state:

- You cannot drive and eat while driving.
- You cannot put on make-up while driving.
- You cannot talk on a cell phone while driving.
- You cannot speak with your passengers while driving.
- You cannot listen to the radio loudly or adjust stations while driving.
- You cannot have a animal (pet) in your vehicle while driving.
- You cannot have children in your vehicle while driving.
- You cannot be on any anti-depressants while driving.
- You cannot be sleepy while driving.

Where does it end? All of these are and can be very distracting. Many accidents are caused by people doing very simple things listed above. All of which have the same potential of causing property damage, injury or death.

Being a super nanny is not going to solve anything.

danberkeley

11-03-2008, 02:19 PM

welcome to libertarianism.

It is also ok for cannibals to get pregnant with every intention of a miscarriage followed by a hearty feast.

And nobody is so insane that they lose their rights to a gun.....ever.

Obviously, you have no idea what libertarianism is. I bet you don't even know what conservatism is.

What fucking school would not perform a background check, to make sure they didn't hire a complete pyscho who would dare drive drunk with a bus full of kids?

Obviously, the school that socialize_me went to.

torchbearer

11-03-2008, 02:21 PM

It's not a crime until you hurt or kill someone.
And if you are drunk when the crime is committed, the penalty should be extra.

Truth Warrior

11-03-2008, 02:28 PM

From the "government" school kids that I see today, if I drove a school bus, I'd sure drink. :rolleyes:

:D

ItsTime

11-03-2008, 02:31 PM

danberkeley

11-03-2008, 02:56 PM

It's not a crime until you hurt or kill someone.
And if you are drunk when the crime is committed, the penalty should be extra.

In a sans state society, contracts would have greater pedastal than they have now. In other words, drunk driving could be a crime (read as "violation of a contract") if it violates a clause in the contract. Just because there is not a (state) law that prohibits drunk driving, it doesn't mean that a no-drunk-driving clause couldn't be included in a contract between the employer and a bus driver.

Original_Intent

11-03-2008, 02:57 PM

RickyJ

11-03-2008, 03:01 PM

I think we should execute them. :D

That would solve drunk driving for good.

torchbearer

11-03-2008, 03:03 PM

In a sans state society, contracts would have greater pedastal than they have now. In other words, drunk driving could be a crime (read as "violation of a contract") if it violates a clause in the contract. Just because there is not a (state) law that prohibits drunk driving, it doesn't mean that a no-drunk-driving clause couldn't be included in a contract between the employer and a bus driver.

the contract would be a civil matter, not a criminal matter.

RickyJ

11-03-2008, 03:04 PM

Where's the victim? I read a stat several years ago that, on average, 1 out of 10 drivers coming at you are legally drunk. :eek:

Say what? :eek:

Execute them all! :D

Truth Warrior

11-03-2008, 03:15 PM

Well I think there is a balance - if you are going to say there is no harm until someone gets hit, that is OK, but then the penalty for hitting someone has to be much harsher.

In other words, current laws provide a deterent to druck driving, if you legalize drunk driving you need to make people much more responsible for any damages they cause due to driving drunk.

Are voluntaryists OK with a death penalty for killing someone while driving drunk? Are they OK with the death penalty in any case?

See how it all turns out WHEN the country is based on voluntaryism. Until that time it is all moot, as long as the state GROWS.

We're going to the Andromeda Galaxy, how will those last ten miles turn out? :p "Are we there yet?"

1789, "Hey, here's your new Constitution."

"How will it be in 2008?" ( That just sounds like a pretty stupid BSQ to me. )

Yeah, there were a LOT of Tories in 1776, too. "Leave England?" :eek: "What about the King?"

danberkeley

11-03-2008, 03:43 PM

the contract would be a civil matter, not a criminal matter.

Criminal law implies a government/state. Anyway, the contract could have a clause that says that the if the bus driver drives drunk, he/she (let's be PC here, people, lol) will be imprisoned for X amount of time at a private (obviously) prison.

ronpaul4pres

11-03-2008, 06:23 PM

What? Yes it does absolutely address your question / flawed premise.

You're a fken imbecile, clearly - because you really have missed the boat on this one. Btw, you haven't addressed anything that I have said... empirically that is..

You just went; "ummm "ok" (I just got fken pwned and have no logical / coherent argument against it) SOOoo.... (I'm now defaulting to the clinically retarded "Why don't you just LEAVE?!" argument..)

:rolleyes:

Wtf are you talking about? :confused: The free market doesn't "demand" anything... it's NOT a zero sum game :eek:

How ignorant do you want to be, as to what a free market actually is?

I like it how you just made that statistic up.. lol How creative... :o

Those who resort to such rants and name calling demonstrate their weak position. You need to open your mind and think about it.

Conza88

11-03-2008, 06:24 PM

I'd say Midieval Europe would be a good picture of what an anarchistic society would resemble. Just a matter of time until fiefdoms develop, then principalities, and back into the nation state model. Like gun control, it only works when everybody is on board with the same program. Not everyone will choose to live by your rules - even not having rules is in effect a rule - might makes right.

:rolleyes:

17, Have there been any anarcho-capitalist societies?

Yes, more or less. Since both anarchism and capitalism are theoretical models, it's hard to claim that any real situation is 100% stateless and 100% free market capitalist. But there are various societies that were, for all intents and purposes, stateless, and societies that implemented anarcho-capitalist "programs" such as private law. Here is a short list:

* Celtic Ireland (650-1650)
In Celtic Irish society, the courts and the law were largely libertarian, and operated within a purely state-less manner. This society persisted in this libertarian path for roughly a thousand years until its brutal conquest by England in the seventeenth century. And, in contrast to many similarly functioning primitive tribes (such as the Ibos in West Africa, and many European tribes), preconquest Ireland was not in any sense a "primitive" society: it was a highly complex society that was, for centuries, the most advanced, most scholarly, and most civilized in all of Western Europe. A leading authority on ancient Irish law wrote, "There was no legislature, no bailiffs, no police, no public enforcement of justice... There was no trace of State-administered justice."

* Icelandic Commonwealth (930 to 1262)
David Friedman has studied the legal system of this culture, and observes:

The legal and political institutions of Iceland from the tenth to the thirteenth centuries ... are of interest for two reasons. First, they are relatively well documented; the sagas were written by people who had lived under that set of institutions and provide a detailed inside view of their workings. Legal conflicts were of great interest to the medieval Icelanders: Njal, the eponymous hero of the most famous of the sagas, is not a warrior but a lawyer--"so skilled in law that no one was considered his equal." In the action of the sagas, law cases play as central a role as battles.

Second, medieval Icelandic institutions have several peculiar and interesting characteristics; they might almost have been invented by a mad economist to test the lengths to which market systems could supplant government in its most fundamental functions. Killing was a civil offense resulting in a fine paid to the survivors of the victim. Laws were made by a "parliament," seats in which were a marketable commodity. Enforcement of law was entirely a private affair. And yet these extraordinary institutions survived for over three hundred years, and the society in which they survived appears to have been in many ways an attractive one . Its citizens were, by medieval standards, free; differences in status based on rank or sex were relatively small; and its literary, output in relation to its size has been compared, with some justice, to that of Athens. - David Friedman, Private Creation and Enforcement of Law: A Historical Case

* Rhode Island (1636-1648)
Religious dissenter Roger Williams, after being run out of theocratic puritan Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1636, founded Providence, Rhode Island. Unlike the brutal Puritans, he scrupulously purchased land from local indians for his settlement. In political beliefs, Williams was close to the Levellers of England. He describes Rhode Island local "government" as follows: "The masters of families have ordinarily met once a fortnight and consulted about our common peace, watch and plenty; and mutual consent have finished all matters of speed and pace." While Roger Williams was not explicitly anarchist, another Rhode Islander was: Anne Hutchinson. Anne and her followers emigrated to Rhode Island in 1638. They bought Aquidneck Island from the Indians, and founded the town of Pocasset (now Portsmouth.) Another "Rogue Island" libertarian was Samuell Gorton. He and his followers were accused of being an "anarchists." Governor Winthrop of Massachusetts Bay called Gorton a "man not fit to live upon the face of the earth," Gorton and his followers were forced in late 1642 to found an entirely new settlement of their own: Shawomet (later Warwick). In the words of Gorton, for over five years the settlement "lived peaceably together, desiring and endeavoring to do wrong to no man, neither English nor Indian, ending all our differences in a neighborly and loving way of arbitration, mutually chosen amongst us."Pf

* Albemarle (1640's-1663)
The coastal area north of Albemarle Sound in what is now northeastern North Carolina had a quasi-anarchistic society in the mid-17th century. Officially a part of the Virginia colony, in fact it was independent. It was a haven for political and religious refugees, such as Quakers and dissident Presbyterians. The libertarian society ended in 1663, when the King of England granted Carolina to eight feudal proprietors backed by military.Pf

* Holy Experiment (Quaker) Pennsylvania (1681-1690)
When William Penn left his Quaker colony in Pennsylvania, the people stopped paying quitrent, and any semblance of formal government evaporated. The Quakers treated Indians with respect, bought land from them voluntarily, and had even representation of Indians and Whites on juries. According to Voltaire, the Shackamaxon treaty was "the only treaty between Indians and Christians that was never sworn to and that was never broken." The Quakers refused to provide any assistance to New England's Indian wars. Penn's attempt to impose government by appointing John Blackwell, a non-Quaker military man, as governor failed miserably.Pf

* The American "Not so Wild" West - various locations
Most law for settlements in the American West was established long before US government agents arrived. Property law was generally defined by local custom and/or agreement among the settlers. Mining associations established orderly mining claims, cattlemen's associations handled property rights on the plains, local "regulators" and private citizens provided enforcement. Yet most movie-watching people are surprised to learn that crime rates were lower in the West than the "civilized" East. Cf: The American Experiment in Anarcho-Capitalism: The Not so Wild, Wild, West

* Laissez Faire City
A more recent unsuccessful attempt to start a new country, LFC attempted to lease a hundred square miles of land from a third-world State in order to start an anarcho-capitalist society, taking Hong Kong as a guide. When that fell through, some members moved to Costa Rica, where the State is relatively weak, there is no standing army, and what little State interference there can usually be "bought off." There remain small libertarian communities in the central valley (Curridabat) and on the Pacific coast (Nosara).

Number19

11-03-2008, 07:51 PM

...wow so you guys actually believe drinking drunk shouldn't be against the law?? Who is the victim?? Society...I had an uncle who was a "heavy" drinker - by today's standards he would probably be considered an alcoholic. In over 50 years of driving himself home from the nightclubs, bars and honky tonks he never once had an accident!

Now, about this privatization of roads - there is something that I never hear supporters admit to, and that is: travel would be very much different from what we are use to, today. In fact, huge chunks of America would go back to horse and wagon transportation, or at least the modern equivalent. In sparsely populated areas there would be no improved roads. Locals would exclusively use 4-wheel drives and 4 wheelers or return to horseback riding. Small towns would return to life because of the need to keep stores within a slow day's travel. Most of the west would not be accessable to much of the population.

Now, I'm a libertarian. I'm not saying this is bad. I'm only admitting to the fact that I recognize the reality of this.

KenInMontiMN

11-03-2008, 08:10 PM

Preventative criminal statutes have to go, they lead to keeping everybody safe in cages.

You could still have regulatory statutes regarding drunk driving, ie the vehicle is towed and impounded overnight if you are over the line (which is now too low). Effectively takes the drunk driver off the road through private means that the driver has to pay for. No criminal charges unless there has been an actual crime committed against persons or property.

Our government has abused and pushed the envelope on the concept of 'criminal' to the point where it has no real meaning anymore, except in abstract legal terms.

On the death penalty- if someone has lost their life in a capital crime, and we find the defendant guilty, then the state locks him/her away and any adult among the immediate family of the victim has access any time they wish to that individual, after a reasonable waiting period, for the purpose of his/her execution should they so choose. The state is out of the business of institutionalizing killing, and the decision and the execution of the decision is in the hands of those with the greatest moral right to that decision. Should evidence come up after the fact of the execution that exonerates, then the executing family members must understand that their freedom is now forfeit and their fate is subject to the exact same treatment by the family of the deceased prisoner. In other words as a bereaved family member of a victim you are personally responsible for poring over the case and satisfying yourself that the guilt is certain before acting or your own life is at risk.

Conza88

11-03-2008, 09:49 PM

Those who resort to such rants and name calling demonstrate their weak position. You need to open your mind and think about it.

I don't resort to name calling. I throw it in to vent, when the said person CLEARLY doesn't have an open mind or is WILLFULLY ignorant of other possibilities, after having been shown the logical conclusion and they then choose to dismiss it due to cognitive dissonance.... It doesn't weaken my argument what so ever. It may APPEAR to. But it doesn't, for I have no built my argument on the foundations of insults, but logic, truth and reasoning.

If any of the latter is flawed, I'd love to hear about it - because I DO have an open mind, which is why in roughly 6 months I've come from an independent leaning chomskyite semi socialist, ignorant of the nwo.... to an anarcho-capitalist who knows exactly what is going on.

So don't talk to me about keeping an open mind. Alright? :)

What's to keep an open mind about anyway? I STARTED OFF thinking there should be laws against it. Hell, you're the one who needs to think about it. :rolleyes:

RickyJ

11-03-2008, 10:01 PM

Also, if roads were privatized, how in the world would commerce ever take place?? Could you imagine how big of a pain in the ass it'd be to get permission from everyone who owns roads to drive on them? And what happens if you don't get permission since there's no police force since force itself can only be brought about through government? So there's nothing stopping me from doing things against your permission on your property if I voluntarily decide to do it.

You anarchists or radical volunteerists are unbelievable.. even the Constitution provides for the Government to post roads.. it's scary to think even in your idealistic worlds. I like volunteering and think it's great, but to say a DUI isn't a crime because it should be left up to the owner of the road to determine actuary tables is beyond rationality.

I'll stick with the Constitution and the writings of the Founders who envisioned at least some government. You all are stuck in a utopia that will never exist and could never be sustained. Have you all taken a look at Somalia lately?? I just saw on the news where a 13 year old girl was stoned to death as 1,000+ people watched because she had been raped but due to Sharia and its laws, being raped is adultery and punishable by death. This is being enforced in a lawless society where government does not exist.

You honestly cannot believe for a second this volunteer society could sustain itself for beyond a day. There'd be warlords running around America before you could choose what you would have for breakfast in the morning. Absolutely unbelievable. It's amazing how this movement is trying to deviate from Economic Theories and go to Reality, which is what Austrian Economics suggests, but you all are assuming this voluntary theory to be practical. It's not. You're no better than the Keynesians trying to socialize your way out of a mess.

Thank you for bringing some sound reasoning to this thread.

nickcoons

11-03-2008, 11:08 PM

Now, about this privatization of roads - there is something that I never hear supporters admit to, and that is: travel would be very much different from what we are use to, today. In fact, huge chunks of America would go back to horse and wagon transportation, or at least the modern equivalent. In sparsely populated areas there would be no improved roads. Locals would exclusively use 4-wheel drives and 4 wheelers or return to horseback riding. Small towns would return to life because of the need to keep stores within a slow day's travel. Most of the west would not be accessable to much of the population.

You probably don't here supporters of private roads mentioning this because we don't believe that this is what would happen.

Home builders would build roads in residential neighborhoods when they were building the homes. It'd be easier to sell houses with paved roads than those without. Commercial establishments would likely build roads near their locations in order to make it easier for customers to frequent them. Between these two, that should take care of most urban and suburban roads.

As far as roads between towns, the equivalent of today's interstate highways, would probably be built by companies needing to transport goods on a regular basis (Fedex, UPS, DHL, and any of the dozens of trucking companies). People who wanted to use these roads could pay a subscription fee to do so, or they could pay per-use.

The details of how this works (such as collecting payment) has been discussed ad-infinitum elsewhere, including on this forum, so I won't go into those details. But this is the gist of it.

heavenlyboy34

11-03-2008, 11:09 PM

Thank you for bringing some sound reasoning to this thread.

Sound reasoning? I consider it ignorance of laissez-faire principles. :rolleyes: I guess some folks are destined to be government serfs. ;)

Conza88

11-03-2008, 11:31 PM

sound reasoning? I consider it ignorance of laissez-faire principles. :rolleyes: I guess some folks are destined to be government serfs. ;)

qft! :)

Number19

11-04-2008, 06:37 PM

You probably don't here supporters of private roads mentioning this because we don't believe that this is what would happen...The details of how this works (such as collecting payment) has been discussed ad-infinitum elsewhere, including on this forum, so I won't go into those details. But this is the gist of it.No it's not. You are simply regurgitating the standard libertarian response without recognizing my point. The opening words of my third sentence refers to "sparsely populated areas". Your sig indicates that you are from Arizona, so you should know better. There are few, if any, "residential neighborhoods" outside of the county seats in many/most of the western states. Here in Texas, there are 100 empty miles ( except for Texas sized ranches) between Ft Stockton and Alpine. My post specifically addresses the situation where the carrying capacity of a potential road does not meet that which is required to fund maintenance, much less construction. People with any capacity for reasoning think you are, at best, being misleading, and at worst think you are an outright liar, if you fail to admit to this reality in any conversation on this subject. Again, let me repeat that I am a long time libertarian and I do not say that this is a bad thing, only that it is a reality that needs addressing. Now, I'd like to hear ( I never have ) a convincing libertarian argument that it would be profitable to build and maintain an improved road 30 miles to serve the residents of a community with 50 people, a church, a small general store and a service station. Hence my statement that much of the rural west would revert back to "horse and wagon".

dannno

11-04-2008, 06:54 PM

mcgraw_wv

11-04-2008, 06:57 PM

If you don't hit anything, what's the crime?

Either way, it would be up to the owner of the road, I would think. He may forbid clients from using the roads if they have a history of drunk driving, for instance.

With no government, who is there to enforce property rights? I assume then it is up to the owner to enforce things, and then in place they would commit a crime in enforcing it...

ronpaul4pres

11-04-2008, 07:12 PM

I don't resort to name calling. I throw it in to vent, when the said person CLEARLY doesn't have an open mind or is WILLFULLY ignorant of other possibilities, after having been shown the logical conclusion and they then choose to dismiss it due to cognitive dissonance.... It doesn't weaken my argument what so ever. It may APPEAR to. But it doesn't, for I have no built my argument on the foundations of insults, but logic, truth and reasoning.

If any of the latter is flawed, I'd love to hear about it - because I DO have an open mind, which is why in roughly 6 months I've come from an independent leaning chomskyite semi socialist, ignorant of the nwo.... to an anarcho-capitalist who knows exactly what is going on.

So don't talk to me about keeping an open mind. Alright? :)

What's to keep an open mind about anyway? I STARTED OFF thinking there should be laws against it. Hell, you're the one who needs to think about it. :rolleyes:

You've built your arguments not on logic, truth, and reasoning but on feelings. This is clearly demonstrated by your rants and also your belief that you know "exactly what is going on."

Conza88

11-04-2008, 08:50 PM

You've built your arguments not on logic, truth, and reasoning but on feelings. This is clearly demonstrated by your rants and also your belief that you know "exactly what is going on."

Please step back and take a look at what you've just said...

You've just said; Lew Rockwell, Walter Block and above all else Murray Rothbard.... have not built their arguments on logic, truth and reasoning, but on feeling.

AMAZING, amazing...

Anarcho-Capitalism - non aggression axiom + property rights...

In your situation there is no victim, as has been previously stated.

Legalize Drunk Driving by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/drunkdriving.html)

Well HERE we go again... :rolleyes:

LOOK, how about you take some time to try educate yourself on these issues. You automatically dismiss them out of ignorance. Take off the blind folds.

Road Socialism - Walter Block (Lew Rockwell Podcast) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwHZ_NXENKw)

11: The Public Sector, II: Streets and Roads (http://mises.org/multimedia/mp3/audiobooks/rothbard/foranewliberty/11.mp3)
From the book "For A New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto"

http://mises.org/media.aspx?action=category&ID=87

Now go read / listen... all the refutations to your arguments are there.

"Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all." – Frederic Bastiat

Do you have anything besides mere conviction? Like an historical example at all? A case study?

Why are there slums in the first place? ;)... Is what you need to ask yourself. Rent Controls by any chance? :p Government intervention...

Yes I do agree there are times when citizens have no other choice and no other recourse, and that is because the government is inhibiting the free market.... :)

Roads, Education, and Waterways: The Case Against Public Services by Walter Block (http://mises.org/Controls/Media/MediaPlayer.aspx?Id=3436)

"When FEMA came to 'help'... my problem with FEMA is not that they screwed up royally... it's just there was no market mechanism to get rid of them..."

10. Why don't you just leave?

One could simply turn this around, and ask, "Why doesn't the State just leave?" The "love it or leave it" bromide begs the underlying question, who is entitled to occupy this space. Perhaps a hardcore statist would simply assume that the government rightfully owns everything, but anarcho-capitalists reject that assumption, given the State's history of conquest and plunder. We believe rightful property comes from homesteading and voluntary exchange, not conquest. A good anarcho-capitalist response may be, "The State doesn't rightfully own this property; people do."

I suggest you do some more reading... ;) This quick FAQ may help... :cool:

http://www.ozarkia.net/bill/anarchism/faq.html

OH yessss, no logic, truth or reasoning here... JUST feelings & emotions...

Words cannot convey how stupid / idiotic / a troll of ignorance you are.

Number19

11-04-2008, 10:48 PM

...Why should the government pave the whole fucking world?I don't know. Why should they? I didn't say the "government should pave the whole fucking world". The assumption from my remarks is that much of the rural west would revert to unimproved roads.

Those "dirt" roads you refer to are probably maintained by the county government and are probably not dirt, but gravel, with an improved, compacted and stabilized base. Haven't you seen photos of the 1920's rural, dirt roads; with the huge mud holes in rainy weather; with the early autos being pulled out of the mud with teams of horses?

Modern gravel roads are semi-improved and are not inexpensive to construct, although, of course, are much cheaper than concrete or asphalt.

Again, you are missing my point that if roads are not profitable to construct and maintain, then access to much of rural America will become much more difficult, especially during inclement weather, and this point needs to be made clear in any discussion of privatizing the road system.

Conza88

11-04-2008, 11:55 PM

With no government, who is there to enforce property rights? I assume then it is up to the owner to enforce things, and then in place they would commit a crime in enforcing it...

Private Courts. Private Security companies. Businesses, shop owners, house owners, all people involved in the community have a self interest in low crime and a respect for property rights.

Don't simply do what the socialists do and dismiss it right off the bat.

Many links within this thread outlining this... Check out mises.org for a more general link.

Doktor_Jeep

11-05-2008, 12:40 AM

The DUI was invented to suck money from people.

back in the day, it was the DWI that got you in trouble. DWI was bad - getting full sail drunk and trying to handle heavy equipment was a proven risk.

So the people........

listened!

Indeed it was hard to argue against: Do not get tanked and then attempt to drive.

Unfortunately, the system did not like that. People actually started to watch themselves. Sure there are still morons out there, but drinking up and driving became socially unacceptable.

The system was losing money. So they came up with the DUI.

I know people who had been hit with DUIs, It appears each DUI earns the local and state governments anywhere from 3 to 15 thousand dollars each.

Remember, kids, once upon a time a "DUI" was rarely ever heard of. It came about in the early 90s. I used to hear of people getting "dewees" (DWIs) all of the time. Now I seldom hear DWI, but I hear "DUI" a lot.

How does a no-police state society handle this?

Well, simple.

No victim no crime.

In other words, if you get tanked and make it home without damaging anything or killing anyone, you are lucky.

But under common law or even biblical law, if you cause damage, you are held FULLY RESPONSIBLE.

Yes, fully.

Meaning that you don't get to run someone over and plea it down to vehicular manslaugher and get out in 2 years on good behavior.

of course, with each case like that, they state claims to need tougher laws and more patrols - so they can nab more "impaired" (invented crime) people and soak them for more money.

Meanwhile, the system, lacking real consequences, protects nobody.

but the police get to rake in dough for more APCs and machine guns (to further fight crime, they say).

By the way, if someone runs over your kid, and you kill that person, if we still recognized that a jury can JUDGE BOTH THE CASE AND THE LAW, then no jury would be forced to convict you.

Therfore those who want to get drunk and drive around will have THAT to think about.

Big deterrent.

nickcoons

11-05-2008, 02:18 AM

No it's not. You are simply regurgitating the standard libertarian response without recognizing my point. The opening words of my third sentence refers to "sparsely populated areas". Your sig indicates that you are from Arizona, so you should know better. There are few, if any, "residential neighborhoods" outside of the county seats in many/most of the western states. Here in Texas, there are 100 empty miles ( except for Texas sized ranches) between Ft Stockton and Alpine. My post specifically addresses the situation where the carrying capacity of a potential road does not meet that which is required to fund maintenance, much less construction. People with any capacity for reasoning think you are, at best, being misleading, and at worst think you are an outright liar, if you fail to admit to this reality in any conversation on this subject. Again, let me repeat that I am a long time libertarian and I do not say that this is a bad thing, only that it is a reality that needs addressing. Now, I'd like to hear ( I never have ) a convincing libertarian argument that it would be profitable to build and maintain an improved road 30 miles to serve the residents of a community with 50 people, a church, a small general store and a service station. Hence my statement that much of the rural west would revert back to "horse and wagon".

I take some amount of offense to being put somewhere between "misleading" and "liar". Normally this wouldn't bother me, because someone making that claim doesn't normally appear to be too bright or is clearly a troll. You don't seem to be a troll, and you're well-spoken; except that your follow-up seems to clarify now-obvious ambiguities in your previous post.

It is now clear that you are referring only to rural areas. At least, that's what I gather from you follow-up. But in your previous post, you opened by stating, "travel would be very much different from what we are use to, today." And you go on to say that "huge chunks" of the country would revert to horse-and-wagon-like transportation. So I took your post to refer to all roads because of the way it was written.

Most paved roads exist in urban and suburban areas, which I've already explained how those would be built and maintained. Most of the west is connected by interstates, which would likely exist as transport routes.

The rural areas that you refer to make up a very small (not "huge chunk") of the remaining paved roads, even out here in lil ole Arizona. My response to you was not intended to address these roads. I was focusing on the majority of roads that are most commonly used by most people. Hopefully you can now see why it was inaccurate to call me disingenuous.

Now getting to your question specifically about rural roads; I see a couple of things happening:

- If the road is to a rural area that provides a good or service (like to a farm), and the supplier wants a paved road, he can purchase the road and build it into the cost of his products. People who buy his products and therefore receive benefit from the road can pay for it, instead of making everyone pay for it. Or perhaps the supplier can actually provide lower prices for his crops because the cost of building and maintaining the road may be offset by increased shipping productivity and less wear and tear on his equipment (traveling on improved roads instead of dirt roads).

- There may be some people that decide not to live in such remote areas if paved roads are unavailable.

- The remainder of roads may be partially improved, or just plain dirt. I don't really see a problem with this. Or rather, I see much less of a problem with this than I see with taxing people who will likely never use the road to pay the building and maintenance costs.

Additionally, it may be that when those wanting to use roads are paying the costs more directly that some method of building roads more efficiently will be sought after and discovered.

Truth Warrior

11-05-2008, 02:41 AM

"If one takes care of the means, the end will take care of itself."

Number19

11-05-2008, 07:57 AM

...Most paved roads exist in urban and suburban areas, which I've already explained... Perhaps, in my remarks, I'm too much influenced by the Texas hiway system. Texas was the first to develop, and perhaps it continues to be the best, the Farm to Market System of roads which blankets rural Texas. Government maintained gravel roads are very rare, having been replaced with asphalt.
Now getting to your question specifically about rural roads; I see a couple of things happening:

- If the road is to a rural area that provides a good or service (like to a farm), and the supplier wants a paved road, he can purchase the road and build it into the cost of his products. People who buy his products and therefore receive benefit from the road can pay for it, instead of making everyone pay for it. Or perhaps the supplier can actually provide lower prices for his crops because the cost of building and maintaining the road may be offset by increased shipping productivity and less wear and tear on his equipment (traveling on improved roads instead of dirt roads).

- There may be some people that decide not to live in such remote areas if paved roads are unavailable.

- The remainder of roads may be partially improved, or just plain dirt. I don't really see a problem with this. Or rather, I see much less of a problem with this than I see with taxing people who will likely never use the road to pay the building and maintenance costs.

Additionally, it may be that when those wanting to use roads are paying the costs more directly that some method of building roads more efficiently will be sought after and discovered.Now, with this added explanation, you are finally beginning to talk to my point. It's easy to talk to people, and maybe even partially win over, when discussing heavy to moderate volume roadways. You begin to lose them when these other areas are brought into the discussion. Rural Americans ( and from my experience, I'm referring to rural Texans ) are the hard sale. The way they see it is that they will be paying more or doing without - and they way things are, they can't pay more. They want it the way it is - with the rest off the state subsidizing their roads.

It is these tough minded individuals, not I, who would think your arguments "disingenuous" for failing to address their situation. In my experience, advocates for privatization are adequately conversant with the standard talking points but they just don't cut it on these tougher questions. Which is why I kept prodding and digging.

One final expansion. Down here here Texas, folks are used to getting into their RV's, or hooking up their travel trailer, and hitting the pavement for a weekend at Garner State Park, or Lost Maples, or the Big Bend. In part, when I referred to : ""travel would be very much different from what we are use to, today...", it was this leisure travel which so many take for granted in our highly mobile society. This would not go away under privatization, but it would be impacted, which would impact the tourism industry. My point being, much discussion is given to the operation and logistics of a privatized road system, but very little thought is given to the actual impact on the daily lives of the average citizen.

Truth Warrior

11-05-2008, 08:16 AM

Who builds roads? People. Who pays to build roads? People.

There is NO government MAGIC. :rolleyes:

DamianTV

11-05-2008, 08:23 AM

Private Courts. Private Security companies. Businesses, shop owners, house owners, all people involved in the community have a self interest in low crime and a respect for property rights.

Don't simply do what the socialists do and dismiss it right off the bat.

Many links within this thread outlining this... Check out mises.org for a more general link.

Personally, if the punishment were ENTIRELY up to me, I would go for a PUBLIC CANING in front of everyone else in the town that they drove drunk in. This also goes a bit off of your Sig...

Number19

11-05-2008, 08:23 AM

Who builds roads? People. Who pays to build roads? People. But how is the cost apportioned?

Truth Warrior

11-05-2008, 08:27 AM

But how is the cost apportioned? The same way it's collected.

Coercively. :p :rolleyes:

Uncle Emanuel Watkins

11-05-2008, 08:36 AM

Curious as to how anarcho-capitalists, anarchists, anarcho-[insert ist here] would handle DUI's. Would you have people caught voluntarily go to jail or pay a fine?

Rule #18. The purpose of authority is to bring contentment, not to bring responsibility. (Persecution: When the need for responsibility becomes greater than the need for contentment.)

Rule #1. Never have too many rules.

Rule #2. Hate is un-American.

Rule #3. Never blame the people.

Rule #4. Never use the political spectrum as a playing field to bicker about politics.

Rule #5. Never give an interview with the media that isn't spontaneous, unedited and unrehearsed.

Rule #6. As Protestants worship the singular Civil-Purpose "of the Holy Word in the Bible" over the worshipping "of the legal precedent rituals established by the authority of the Pope and the Vatican," Civil-Purpose should likewise be consecrated by American citizens over any traditional legal precedence established by the authority of tyranny outside of the Constitution.

Rule #7. As law abiding American citizens, we should prefer imprisonment, torture, death and even the frangrance of an outhouse to that of legal tyranny.(Never smile in a courtroom. Always show up as late as possible while leaving as quickly as possible.)

Rule #8. As a winning political campaign is a victory for tyranny, establishing a bipartisan American Movement to consecrate Civil-Purpose is a victory for the people (The intention is never to establish a totalitarian single party, for this is disillusionment, but to reestablish an eroded two party system.)

Rule #9. False American Movements are Administrations which fail to implement fresh measures while they dig up obsolete legal precedents from the past to implement. (American Movements lead Americans back to the consecration of the Civil Purpose in the Constitution, the Founding Fathers, the formal documents of The Declaration of Independence and The U.S. Constitution, and to improvements in contentment in the lives of Americans while altering, tweaking, clarifying and ammending the Constitution, our lightingning in a bottle so to speak, as little as possible. A false American Movement, on the other hand, just tells us what we want to hear.)

Rule #10. The debt of the people should not be burdened with any legal counterfeit created by any foreign or domestic tyranny. (If THE PEOPLE must spend 20 trillion to fix a divided national dinner table all created by a tyranny who spent 10 trillion to do so, so be it. The people must own the purse!)

Rule #11. As legal lobbying on the Federal level benefits the rule of tyranny, civil invention on the local level benefits the rule of the people (The local invention of a comfortable chair is created to make THE PEOPLE "happier." This is far greater in value than the Federal lobbying of tyranny that takes place by special interest groups who serve to divide up our national dinner table all in the name of "responsibility." We are not a nation of special interests but a nation of the people).

Rule #12. There are 3 kinds of people: those with feeble minds who persecute people, those with immature minds who laugh about persecution, and those with the kinds of sober minds that get persecuted. To be an American is always to be the latter.

Rule #14. Taxes are created with the intentions of benefitting some while cheating others. (Give 10% to the widows and orphans and be governed by the pure hearts of the widows and orphans)

Rule #15. Disillusioned is the idea that problems are solved with lots of change. The U.S. Constitution should be cherished as lightning in a bottle by its contents being altered, tweaked, clarified, and ammended as little as possible in order to improve the lives of American citizens. (The best change comes in small, precious packages)

Rule #16. While our partisanship views politics otherwise, the evil of tyranny actually victimizes the rich just as much as it does the poor. (The practice of the people's "business" was once deemed illegal, while it was penalized as such by British tyranny. The only legal businessmen were the ones involving those who were employed by the King as his monarchy and those employed by the Pope in his Church).

Rule #17. When inquiring about a matter with the government, ask to speak to an American before asking to speak to an expert (while experts know what they are speaking about, far too few of them know what it is to be an American. Example: "Can I speak to an American please?" Oh? You are an American? Well, are you an expert then?").

Conza88

11-05-2008, 08:47 AM

Personally, if the punishment were ENTIRELY up to me, I would go for a PUBLIC CANING in front of everyone else in the town that they drove drunk in. This also goes a bit off of your Sig...

So you would break the non aggression axiom, and violate / break / damage someone elses property by canning them...

Because an innocent person drove through a town drunk... but didn't harm anyone or their property...

Wow...? :eek:

And I'm not sure what you meant by the sig comment. Perhaps you meant going along the lines of the quote? :confused:

nickcoons

11-05-2008, 10:20 AM

Perhaps, in my remarks, I'm too much influenced by the Texas hiway system. Texas was the first to develop, and perhaps it continues to be the best, the Farm to Market System of roads which blankets rural Texas. Government maintained gravel roads are very rare, having been replaced with asphalt.

I've been to Texas twice, both times to visit my brother in El Paso, and I drove there from Phoenix. Neither of those times did I venture further east, so you know what my extent of travel is within the state of Texas.

Now, with this added explanation, you are finally beginning to talk to my point. It's easy to talk to people, and maybe even partially win over, when discussing heavy to moderate volume roadways. You begin to lose them when these other areas are brought into the discussion. Rural Americans ( and from my experience, I'm referring to rural Texans ) are the hard sale. The way they see it is that they will be paying more or doing without - and they way things are, they can't pay more. They want it the way it is - with the rest off the state subsidizing their roads.

I don't think this is unique to rural Texas. Most everyone would advocate getting rid of huge portions of the government.. oh, except for their favorite program.

It is these tough minded individuals, not I, who would think your arguments "disingenuous" for failing to address their situation.

When asked (and/or when not missing the question), I wouldn't not address it.

In my experience, advocates for privatization are adequately conversant with the standard talking points but they just don't cut it on these tougher questions. Which is why I kept prodding and digging.

Well sure.. you have people that are getting something forcefully at the expense of others. How do you talk someone out of their "free" lunch? You can really only argue very abstract terms, like "but if the government was far smaller, the amount you'd save would outweight the amount you'd spend maintaining your road," which is abstract without any hard numbers, and in many cases it might not even be true.

One final expansion. Down here here Texas, folks are used to getting into their RV's, or hooking up their travel trailer, and hitting the pavement for a weekend at Garner State Park, or Lost Maples, or the Big Bend. In part, when I referred to : ""travel would be very much different from what we are use to, today...", it was this leisure travel which so many take for granted in our highly mobile society. This would not go away under privatization, but it would be impacted, which would impact the tourism industry. My point being, much discussion is given to the operation and logistics of a privatized road system, but very little thought is given to the actual impact on the daily lives of the average citizen.

You're right, there would be an impact. But if you look at the net effect, I think you'll see a positive impact over most people's daily lives (more efficient methods of travel) because most people live in (sub)urban areas and a negative impact on a small number of people's lives (these proportions will change from state to state).

I'm not trying to use the "greater good" argument, just pointing out that if you're concerned that we can't win people to libertarian ideas because they won't adopt privatized roads, I don't think this is the issue that will hang up most people. I think there are other issues that are tougher sells, like the legalization of hard drugs.

DamianTV

11-05-2008, 10:45 AM

So you would break the non aggression axiom, and violate / break / damage someone elses property by canning them...

Because an innocent person drove through a town drunk... but didn't harm anyone or their property...

Wow...? :eek:

And I'm not sure what you meant by the sig comment. Perhaps you meant going along the lines of the quote? :confused:

I was going off of:

I follow the law by fear of community and government power. Otherwise I have no problem killing, robbing or vandalizing.

My bad. not the thread starter.

Public caning, and I know a lot of people wont agree with me, I dont think is torture. It is the entire sentence. Both words of it. Public. Caning. I'll explain...

Public: Your community now knows about your offense that puts then at an extreme risk. Driving Drunk puts too many people at risk. Not just other drivers, but pedestrians, and people that are asleep in their houses.

I consider Drunk Driving to be a very public offense since the number of people put at risk by ones decision to drive drunk has zero discrimination. My back yard is open to a field with a dirt road and before I moved in (well, mobile home really), my neighbor accordingly had some drunk shithead crash his truck into his house, before he moved in, while drunk. I was told no one was hurt, they werent home. That dipshits drunk driving habits put people that would never be in the position to get hurt in severe risk. Really there isnt a damn thing that the owner of that house could have done that would have protected anyone that lived there any better. Even to have lived someplace else. Drunk Driving doesnt just affect drivers. It affects newborn kids sleeping in their cribs by the window of their houses when people drive drunk. Admitted it is to a lesser degree.

Caning: Several parts to this. The equal part to this is they feel the same physical pain whether you are super rich, or dirt broke. The difference is that it stays equal. For someone filthy rich, they dont think twice about it. What $100,000,000,000,000,000 to me Im filthy rich! Dirt poor it will devestate their lives. Yes, it is a mistake. It is a mistake that I hope they will NOT repeat. The public part of it is HUMILIATION. Everyone knows who the drunk driver is, so friends or enemies of the drunk driver, everyone in the community will probably be more inclined to keep an eye on that person. "Hey man, let me drive you to the store, you look like you are kinda drunk". IE no harm no foul. OR: "Dude, you get in that car, I will call the cops on your ass, they know you have done it before." Responsibility by community. Watch out for each other.

Next: Caning: Rich or Poor can BOTH pay. Equally. Getting caned if your rich or if you are poor, regardless of the humiliation factor, still hurts both as much. Honestly, without being unfair, I dont think there is a more equal form of punishment. And yes I would consider age and physical condition of the accused as a major determining factor. But also something that had been left out, a jury of ones peers. The guy is a cripple. First time offense. One stroke of the cane. And if there is scarring, then let the scars be a warning to others in his community that he has done something to hurt his community. Personally I think that is more than enough for ANYONE on any first time offense. A lot of you know I am ex military, but also that I have known people that have served sentences for violations overseas where caning is still a viable form of punishment. I havent been overseas myself but I have seen the scars from being caned and they are no joke. Neither is the pain or what the people tell me about the experience. Like a dominatrix crossbreed with Hannibal Lector. That was 3 strokes of the cane and I didnt know the guy well enough for him to tell me what the hell he got caned for. Not even sure if it was while he was in the military when it happened. Guy was Filipino.

Also: These are for PUBLIC offenses. Breaking into someones house or car, drunk driving, prank phone calls to the fire department, stuff like that. Now there are other offenses that caning I dont think would be appropriate for. Didnt make child support payment (might have been laid off in our current wonderful economy), driving without insurance but not drunk, things like that. In cases of damages, hit my car while driving drunk, restitution of the ammt of the damages to either me, or the insurance company. Rape: Youre god damn right it will be a PUBLIC caning. Child Molestation. You better believe it. And I dont mean an 18 year old having voluntary sex with a 17 and 1/2 year old. I mean real baby raper shit. And dont chop it off in cases like that, that wont fix their real problem and they WILL find "other" ways to satisfy themselves. Grr, I dont like that topic but I will drop it to stay on topic.

Conclusion: I think CANING is an equal form of punishment for people as it hurts like hell just as bad to rich or for poor about equally and provides equal opportunity for both individuals to be able to continue their lives after their sentence has been paid in full. 10 swats of a cane as compared to a $5,000 fine. A rich drunk fuck would laugh at the fine, while an underpriviledged black man would ruin his entire life. I dont think money can be used as an appropriate form of punishment any longer due to the extreme differences between upper and lower class people, and that apportionioning fines based on financial status wont work either as the rich have too many tax shelters to really consider it to be fair to both classes. One, it is too devestating for, and the other, it just isnt enough. Caning is about as close to exactly equal as I can come up with, and fair for both.

Truth Warrior

11-05-2008, 10:49 AM

Hmmmm, seems kinda punitive, not to mention barbaric, by whose authority?

CountryboyRonPaul

11-05-2008, 03:54 PM

Well, I'm currently on probation for 2nd Offense DWI.

I don't agree with Damian's punishment... I actually don't agree with any punishment, seeing as I didn't hurt anyone, and wasn't even very drunk.

However... I have to admit, public caning would be a lot more merciful than the terms of my probation.

Being a 23 yo College Student, I don't exactly have much (any) cash to spare, so the revoking of my license, $4k legal fees, 2 years of random drug screening, and 30 days of community service(slave labor) really hit me hard.

Not to mention forced me to take a hiatus from school.

I would much rather take an hour of public caning than the punishment currently doled out by the state.

bojo68

11-05-2008, 04:37 PM

I had a run in with the cops lately, after drinking all night at a bar. Cop started running her mouth about a bunch of garbage, then started heading for my dog, and I cut her off and stopped her. She didn't like that, and tased me 3 times, which only pissed me off more. Due to past conduct on the part of the local cops killing people, by proceedure they HAVE to call the medical people from the fire dept. after a tasing.
The fire dept shows, and tests me for coherence, and I PASS just fine. NOW, the cops can't use their drunk scam to try to do me in. Whats even better, is in court I plan on pointing out that I was right and the cop was wrong, so therefor, I'm better drunk than they are sober.

SeanEdwards

11-05-2008, 04:56 PM

In an anarchic society, I'd handle the DUI by dragging the drunk selfish prick out of his car by his ear, and then executing him right there in the road next to his vehicle.

Pure voluntarism at its finest.

Conza88

11-05-2008, 06:43 PM

I was going off of:

My bad. not the thread starter.

Public caning, and I know a lot of people wont agree with me, I dont think is torture. It is the entire sentence. Both words of it. Public. Caning. I'll explain...

Public: Your community now knows about your offense that puts then at an extreme risk. Driving Drunk puts too many people at risk. Not just other drivers, but pedestrians, and people that are asleep in their houses.

I consider Drunk Driving to be a very public offense since the number of people put at risk by ones decision to drive drunk has zero discrimination. My back yard is open to a field with a dirt road and before I moved in (well, mobile home really), my neighbor accordingly had some drunk shithead crash his truck into his house, before he moved in, while drunk. I was told no one was hurt, they werent home. That dipshits drunk driving habits put people that would never be in the position to get hurt in severe risk. Really there isnt a damn thing that the owner of that house could have done that would have protected anyone that lived there any better. Even to have lived someplace else. Drunk Driving doesnt just affect drivers. It affects newborn kids sleeping in their cribs by the window of their houses when people drive drunk. Admitted it is to a lesser degree.

Caning: Several parts to this. The equal part to this is they feel the same physical pain whether you are super rich, or dirt broke. The difference is that it stays equal. For someone filthy rich, they dont think twice about it. What $100,000,000,000,000,000 to me Im filthy rich! Dirt poor it will devestate their lives. Yes, it is a mistake. It is a mistake that I hope they will NOT repeat. The public part of it is HUMILIATION. Everyone knows who the drunk driver is, so friends or enemies of the drunk driver, everyone in the community will probably be more inclined to keep an eye on that person. "Hey man, let me drive you to the store, you look like you are kinda drunk". IE no harm no foul. OR: "Dude, you get in that car, I will call the cops on your ass, they know you have done it before." Responsibility by community. Watch out for each other.

Next: Caning: Rich or Poor can BOTH pay. Equally. Getting caned if your rich or if you are poor, regardless of the humiliation factor, still hurts both as much. Honestly, without being unfair, I dont think there is a more equal form of punishment. And yes I would consider age and physical condition of the accused as a major determining factor. But also something that had been left out, a jury of ones peers. The guy is a cripple. First time offense. One stroke of the cane. And if there is scarring, then let the scars be a warning to others in his community that he has done something to hurt his community. Personally I think that is more than enough for ANYONE on any first time offense. A lot of you know I am ex military, but also that I have known people that have served sentences for violations overseas where caning is still a viable form of punishment. I havent been overseas myself but I have seen the scars from being caned and they are no joke. Neither is the pain or what the people tell me about the experience. Like a dominatrix crossbreed with Hannibal Lector. That was 3 strokes of the cane and I didnt know the guy well enough for him to tell me what the hell he got caned for. Not even sure if it was while he was in the military when it happened. Guy was Filipino.

Also: These are for PUBLIC offenses. Breaking into someones house or car, drunk driving, prank phone calls to the fire department, stuff like that. Now there are other offenses that caning I dont think would be appropriate for. Didnt make child support payment (might have been laid off in our current wonderful economy), driving without insurance but not drunk, things like that. In cases of damages, hit my car while driving drunk, restitution of the ammt of the damages to either me, or the insurance company. Rape: Youre god damn right it will be a PUBLIC caning. Child Molestation. You better believe it. And I dont mean an 18 year old having voluntary sex with a 17 and 1/2 year old. I mean real baby raper shit. And dont chop it off in cases like that, that wont fix their real problem and they WILL find "other" ways to satisfy themselves. Grr, I dont like that topic but I will drop it to stay on topic.

Conclusion: I think CANING is an equal form of punishment for people as it hurts like hell just as bad to rich or for poor about equally and provides equal opportunity for both individuals to be able to continue their lives after their sentence has been paid in full. 10 swats of a cane as compared to a $5,000 fine. A rich drunk fuck would laugh at the fine, while an underpriviledged black man would ruin his entire life. I dont think money can be used as an appropriate form of punishment any longer due to the extreme differences between upper and lower class people, and that apportionioning fines based on financial status wont work either as the rich have too many tax shelters to really consider it to be fair to both classes. One, it is too devestating for, and the other, it just isnt enough. Caning is about as close to exactly equal as I can come up with, and fair for both.

Fail.

No crime has been committed, so there should be no punishment. You don't makes crimes based on RISK... unless your a fcken fascist, totalitarian, authoritarian regime.