"Libertarian" drunk driving tradition coming to end in Montana.

[Anti Federalist]

Montana drinking and driving culture at crossroads

By MATT GOURAS, Associated Press Writer Matt Gouras, Associated Press Writer – 2 hrs 7 mins ago

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_drunk_driving_montana

HELENA, Mont. – Montana has long had a reputation as a place where you could crack open a beer while driving down the interstate just about as fast as you liked

Until 2005, when the state came under heavy duress from the federal government, it was legal to drink and drive in many places. And a few years before that there wasn't even a speed limit on major highways and in rural areas.

But spurred by the high-profile death of a highway patrolman at the hands of an intoxicated driver, Montana's Old West drinking and driving culture is retreating. Judges are rejecting lenient plea deals and law enforcement leaders are exploring different ways of keeping track of repeat offenders.

Even the Legislature, which just a few years ago struggled mightily to ban open containers of booze in cars, is beginning to promise tough new laws. This comes after years of virtually ignoring the state's ranking at or near the top of per capita drunken driving deaths.

Montana has long been tolerant of drivers who drink.

Some small town bars still offer cocktails in a to-go cup. Repeat DUI offenders are shuttled in and out of the system before they have a chance to sober up.

Montana has many isolated roads and almost no public transportation. A saloon era attitude toward drinking, coupled with Montana's libertarian streak that eschews tough law enforcement or even letting local police set up roadside "safety checks," combine for a deadly scenario, experts say.

"There is significant anti-government sentiment which spills over into impaired driving enforcement," said Mothers Against Drunk Drivers' Rebecca Sturdevant. "Rather than praising public safety officers for keeping our highways safe, I have heard legislators berate them for bothering drivers."

(God, do I hate these people - AF)

But almost no one doubts the state is coming to grips with its drinking and driving issues.

A statewide conversation started last year after the high-profile death of Montana Highway Patrol trooper Michael Haynes — killed in a head-on crash after a bartender served the other driver 13 drinks over 3 1/2 hours. The judge in that case sent a message by throwing out a plea deal against the bartender in favor of mandatory jail time.

Headlines in the state have since been full of repeat offenders being charged with a 9th or even 10th DUI, keeping editorial pages abuzz with demands for a solution.

"Obviously it's very exciting to see the change. It is a huge part of the culture here, drunk driving, binge drinking and underage drinking," said Tawny Haynes, the widow of the officer who was killed. "Alcohol just seems to be way of life around here, a rite of passage. I have nothing against alcohol, you just have to be responsible."

Haynes, who said her youngest son only knows his dad as the picture on the wall, said she feels compelled to honor her husband — who led all troopers in DUI arrests before being killed — by giving a face to the problem.

"I think the people of Montana are really ready for this change that seems to be happening," she said.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration found that Montana led all states in 2008 in alcohol-related traffic fatalities per miles traveled. Montana had 229 that year in a state with just 1 million residents — compared to Rhode Island, which has about the same population but only had only 65 such deaths.

Not only are judges dishing out stiffer sentences, the attorney general has launched a pilot project in Helena to force subsequent DUI offenders to do daily tests for alcohol use — all at their own expense. Lawmakers who meet every other year will look at unrolling that program statewide then they convene in 2011.

"We didn't want to wait for the next Legislature before we started taking steps, and so we put together a pilot that we hope will show some results," Attorney General Steve Bullock said.

Bullock thinks all the publicity put on repeat drunken drivers is already helping. He says that so far this year DUI fatalities are down 40 percent, and he is cautiously optimistic that trend will hold.

"I think we have hit a point where Montana has said 'enough is enough for these subsequent DUIs,'" the attorney general said.

It's been a long road.

Back in 2003, state Sen. Jim Shockley led the lawmakers who killed an attempt to ban drivers from drinking a beer while they were driving — as long as the driver wasn't drunk.

The outspoken civil libertarian railed against the U.S. Department of Transportation for attaching highway money to the issue. Now Shockley, running for state attorney general, is among those looking for tougher drinking and driving laws.

His plan would set up a 24-hour magistrate in Helena that police in the state could call to get a warrant to take blood from suspected drunk drivers. Right now, Montana drivers can refuse the test. They still lose their driver's license but deny prosecutors that evidence for a DUI charge.

The proposed crackdowns will cost extra money at a time Montana is looking to cut spending.

"All of these things are going to cost money, and that is a problem. But if the people really want something then we are going to have to do it," said Shockley.

Tawny Haynes said lawmakers no longer have a choice.

"If this is what the people want, and I think it's clear they do, then this is the direction the Legislature needs to go in," she said. "I think people are sick of it, so it is not something they can ignore."

[Zippyjuan]

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration found that Montana led all states in 2008 in alcohol-related traffic fatalities per miles traveled.

When you are driving under the influence, you are not just exercising choice for your self, you also put other people at risk. An automobile can be a dangerous weapon. If you run into someone, you will not be the only person harmed. Now if you want to establish roads exclusively for people under the influence, you can have at it and drink and drive all you want. Somebody dies, so what? They knew the risks (or should have). But when you share the road you also put at risk somebody else's wife, child, father, husband, mother. They have to pay the costs of the drunk driver too.

[Wesker1982]

lol wtf people go to jail all the time around here for DUI.



also:
Drunk-Driving Laws Are Absurd
http://www.lewrockwell.com/crovelli/crovelli25.html

[Acala]

There is a big difference between drunk driving and drinking while driving. No reason in the world a person shouldn't be able to drink a beer while driving - so long as they don't become impaired. That was the law in Arizona until recently as well. The Federal government ruined that.

Arresting people for drinking while driving because they "might" get drunk is like arresting someone for carrying a gun because they "might" shoot somebody. Nanny-state badness.

[Matt Collins]

One of my best friends from high school had a dad who was a cop that was run over and killed by a drunk driver. Oh wait a minute.... this happened in FL where drinking and driving is illegal already. Sheesh, if we only had more laws then maybe that guy wouldn't have been drinking and driving. :rolleyes::rolleyes::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

[oyarde]

When you are driving under the influence, you are not just exercising choice for your self, you also put other people at risk. An automobile can be a dangerous weapon. If you run into someone, you will not be the only person harmed. Now if you want to establish roads exclusively for people under the influence, you can have at it and drink and drive all you want. Somebody dies, so what? They knew the risks (or should have). But when you share the road you also put at risk somebody else's wife, child, father, husband, mother. They have to pay the costs of the drunk driver too.

I do not think this will ever be anything people can agree on . The law in my home state seems over the top to me . .08 and you go to jail . I weigh maybe near 170 .If I drink two beers in an hour , I think that would be about .08. I would not be impaired in any manner and would still be a better driver than many on the road.

[Zippyjuan]

I do not think this will ever be anything people can agree on . The law in my home state seems over the top to me . .08 and you go to jail . I weigh maybe near 170 .If I drink two beers in an hour , I think that would be about .08. I would not be impaired in any manner and would still be a better driver than many on the road.

The alcohol number takes into account your body size. It is a percent of your blood. The brain in a 200 pound person is not twice the size of a 100 pound person- and the alcohol effect on that is the most important thing. Studies have shown that a person who drinks is a poor judge of how impaired they might actually be. "That amount of alcohol won't matter to me. I can handle it no problem."

Libertarians don't like people to impose on them. Somebody who is drinking and driving is imposing themselves on others which should be contrarian to libertarian principles. If they get into a crash, they are violating somebody's property rights by damaging or destroying their property. Let's try to change one thing. Let the drunk driver be "the government". How do you react then if you are driving your own car and the government is driving drunk on the road?

[dannno]

The alcohol number takes into account your body size. It is a percent of your blood. The brain in a 200 pound person is not twice the size of a 100 pound person- and the alcohol effect on that is the most important thing.

Ya, that's his entire point. I've known a lot of small people who can handle a lot of alcohol, and some bigger people who can't.

The point is that just because somebody has been drinking doesn't mean they are impaired to drive. The law doesn't take into account for that. There are people who are horrible drivers sober, and others who drive great when they are pretty drunk. The law doesn't take into account for that at all. A lot of innocent people get hurt. My friend went to jail for blowing a .08 after having 2 drinks at a bar, going home at 1:45am. First of all, he wasn't impaired at all. Second of all, how many women and children and husbands are out driving at this time :confused:

[phill4paul]

Nice AF! I saw this and was going to post it.

Another state legislators bought off with federal funds while M.A.D.D.( a private prohibitionist organization) colludes with the NHTSA to skew highway statistics.

Funny that the protaganist, the ex-Senator cum Attorney General (read income generator) has taken such a 360 degree.

He had to get the peoples votes before he had to get the peoples money.

[zade]

One of my best friends from high school had a dad who was a cop that was run over and killed by a drunk driver. Oh wait a minute.... this happened in FL where drinking and driving is illegal already. Sheesh, if we only had more laws then maybe that guy wouldn't have been drinking and driving. :rolleyes::rolleyes::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

So what's your point? If there WASN'T a law he wouldn't have done it? Having a law will stop some people, not having it won't stop anyone.

[dannno]

So what's your point? If there WASN'T a law he wouldn't have done it? Having a law will stop some people, not having it won't stop anyone.

Abolishing taxi cab licensing will stop a lot of people from driving drunk, plus drunk driving laws are tyrannical and don't make any sense. If cabs were cheaper, people wouldn't want to risk getting in an accident and that would be enough for them to call a cab. If somebody is driving bad, then cite them for it. There are already laws for that. If the person is really intoxicated, then the cop should ask them if they want a cab home or want to sleep it off in their car. Perhaps the cop can escort the person home if they are close, or to a rest area. If the person refuses all of these things, then the cop should escort them anyway and pull them over when they F-up and give them another ticket. Imagine waking up hung over with 22 traffic tickets for reckless driving and such all in your glove box. You probably would call a cab the next time.

[oyarde]

The alcohol number takes into account your body size. It is a percent of your blood. The brain in a 200 pound person is not twice the size of a 100 pound person- and the alcohol effect on that is the most important thing. Studies have shown that a person who drinks is a poor judge of how impaired they might actually be. "That amount of alcohol won't matter to me. I can handle it no problem."

Libertarians don't like people to impose on them. Somebody who is drinking and driving is imposing themselves on others which should be contrarian to libertarian principles. If they get into a crash, they are violating somebody's property rights by damaging or destroying their property. Let's try to change one thing. Let the drunk driver be "the government". How do you react then if you are driving your own car and the government is driving drunk on the road?

My main pint is that people will not agree on this . I think .08 is excessive , others may not.

[zade]

Abolishing taxi cab licensing will stop a lot of people from driving drunk, plus drunk driving laws are tyrannical and don't make any sense. If cabs were cheaper, people wouldn't want to risk getting in an accident and that would be enough for them to call a cab. If somebody is driving bad, then cite them for it. There are already laws for that. If the person is really intoxicated, then the cop should ask them if they want a cab home or want to sleep it off in their car. Perhaps the cop can escort the person home if they are close, or to a rest area. If the person refuses all of these things, then the cop should escort them anyway and pull them over when they F-up and give them another ticket. Imagine waking up hung over with 22 traffic tickets for reckless driving and such all in your glove box. You probably would call a cab the next time.

Would a law against playing russian roulette with an unwilling participant make sense to you?

[YumYum]

So, in Free Market Utopia do we get to drink all we want and go driving?

[torchbearer]

The crime is getting in a wreck while drunk, not driving drunk.
A crime requires a victim. Your accuser is ther person you have wronged.
It is your right to question the person who has accused you of infringing on their natural rights.
If there is no victim there is no crime.

[dannno]

Would a law against playing russian roulette with an unwilling participant make sense to you?

Would making a post that makes any sense or relates to what we are discussing make sense to you?

You are under the ASSumption that people who have been drinking are impaired.

There are a lot of horrible drivers who don't drink or use drugs. They are playing Russian roulette with unwilling participants every time they get on the road... whereas some 'drunk drivers' aren't impaired at all and drive completely safe.

[torchbearer]

So, in Free Market Utopia do we get to drink all we want and go driving?

yes, and if you kill someone you go to prison, if you damage property you will be restitution.
see my previous post for an education in crime.
or we can let the government put people in jail for pre-crimes.

[zade]

The crime is getting in a wreck while drunk, not driving drunk.
A crime requires a victim. Your accuser of wrong doing to them.
It is your right to question the person who has accused you of infringing on their natural rights.
If there is no victim there is no crime.

Could you answer my last question if you don't mind?

[zade]

Would making a post that makes any sense or relates to what we are discussing make sense to you?

How about answering. It's a victimless crime. You're taking entirely unnecessary highly dangerous chances with another person's life, but the person happens to come out of it alive, no crime has taken place?

[torchbearer]

Could you answer my last question if you don't mind?

you mean pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger?
that is certain death.
more people die by the hands of sober people in cars than drunk people.
maybe we should arrest anyone who gets in a car on the highway by those standards.
oops./

driving your car with sober people on the road is russian roullette.

[dannno]

How about answering. It's a victimless crime. You're taking entirely unnecessary highly dangerous chances with another person's life, but the person happens to come out of it alive, no crime has taken place?



You are under the ASSumption that people who have been drinking are impaired.

There are a lot of horrible drivers who don't drink or use drugs. They are playing Russian roulette with unwilling participants every time they get on the road... whereas some 'drunk drivers' aren't impaired at all and drive completely safe.


..

[YumYum]

yes, and if you kill someone you go to prison, if you damage property you will be restitution.
see my previous post for an education in crime.
or we can let the government put people in jail for pre-crimes.

Where a person's rights are concerned, I understand and agree. But, according to the states, driving is a "privilege" and not a "right". So, by us signing an agreement with the state when we receive our driver's licenses, are we not agreeing to the terms and conditions that are to be abided by if we want the "privilege" to drive?

[dannno]

Countless studies by governments and various organizations around the globe have shown that drivers under the influence of moderate amounts of cannabis are safer than sober drivers.

I decree that everybody who gets into a car and drives MUST consume cannabis before hand, otherwise they are playing Russian Roulette with everybody on the road!! The roads are dangerous, we need to make them safer, we must FORCE everybody to use cannabis before driving!!

[torchbearer]

Where a person's rights are concerned, I understand and agree. But, according to the states, driving is a "privilege" and not a "right". So, by us signing an agreement with the state when we receive our driver's licenses, are we not agreeing to the terms and conditions that are to be abided by if we want the "privilege" to drive?

I forgot, our rights are not determined by our nature as a human, but by the government. sorry.
i was assuming we owned our bodies and all principles of rights come from that fact.

[dannno]

I forgot, our rights are not determined by our nature as a human, but by the government. sorry.


Ya, i guess if our govt disintegrates nobody will be able to drive :confused:

[torchbearer]

Countless studies by government and various organizations around the globe have shown that drivers under the influence of moderate amounts of cannabis are safer than sober drivers.

I decree that everybody who gets into a car and drives MUST consume cannabis before hand, otherwise they are playing Russian Roulette with everybody on the road!! The roads are dangerous, we need to make them safer, we must FORCE everybody to use cannabis before driving!!

instead of blowing on a device before driving, people will need to inhale on the vaporizer before driving.

[zade]

You are under the ASSumption that people who have been drinking are impaired.

There are a lot of horrible drivers who don't drink or use drugs. They are playing Russian roulette with unwilling participants every time they get on the road... whereas some 'drunk drivers' aren't impaired at all and drive completely safe.

Got it, that wasn't there at first. Considering that some drunk drivers aren't that impaired is the equivalent in my analogy of considering how many bullets you load into the gun as a basis for whether it's legal. Some guns only have one bullet, they're not THAT much of a risk, so its ok?

I'm not making any assumptions, so some drunk drivers are relatively good at drunk driving, but if we are looking to create reasonable rules aimed at maintaining the safety of all, it is safer to set a standard and punish what is a reasonable, average BAC at which people are dangerously impaired rather than doing nothing and risking lives.

[heavenlyboy34]

The crime is getting in a wreck while drunk, not driving drunk.
A crime requires a victim. Your accuser is ther person you have wronged.
It is your right to question the person who has accused you of infringing on their natural rights.
If there is no victim there is no crime.

The winning-est post in this thread. :cool::D

[torchbearer]

Got it, that wasn't there at first. Considering that some drunk drivers aren't that impaired is the equivalent in my analogy of considering how many bullets you load into the gun as a basis for whether it's legal. Some guns only have one bullet, they're not THAT much of a risk, so its ok?

I'm not making any assumptions, so some drunk drivers are relatively good at drunk driving, but if we are looking to create reasonable rules aimed at maintaining the safety of all, it is safer to set a standard and punish what is a reasonable, average BAC at which people are dangerously impaired and risk pulling over a "safe" drunk driver rather than risking lives.

For your safety, I hope the government outlaws any activity that could lead to your possible demise.

[YumYum]

I forgot, our rights are not determined by our nature as a human, but by the government. sorry.
i was assuming we owned our bodies and all principles of rights come from that fact.

I keep going back and forth between what we are currently dealing with in our own government, and the the way it should be. So, in an ideal world, you can drink and get impaired and you only get in trouble if you hurt somebody or their property. I understand. Who would enforce this? Since there would be no government or police, who would site you for a crime committed while driving under the influence?

[torchbearer]

I keep going back and forth between what we are currently dealing with in our own government, and the the way it should be. So, in an ideal world, you can drink and get impaired and you only get in trouble if you hurt somebody or their property. I understand. Who would enforce this? Since there would be no government or police, who would site you for a crime committed while driving under the influence?

we should be arguing for how things should be, not accepting how things are.
if we live in tyranny, why accept it?

[YumYum]

we should be arguing for how things should be, not accepting how things are.
if we live in tyranny, why accept it?

I understand. So, with regards to the way things should be, who would act as the "police"?

[ClayTrainor]

I understand. So, with regards to the way things should be, who would act as the "police"?

The people who own the roads should be able to regulate their own roads. Freeways would be likely to be owned by entrpreneurs who would have an interest in meeting the safety demand of their customers and local communities and businesses would likely hold shares in their local roads.

[torchbearer]

I understand. So, with regards to the way things should be, who would act as the "police"?

the citizens of their community can choose who acts as an extension of their judicial system. if police were just enforcement of natural rights, then they are literally keepers of the peace and not protectors of tyrants.
if roads are private, then that company determines its policies and enforces those.

[dannno]

Got it, that wasn't there at first. Considering that some drunk drivers aren't that impaired is the equivalent in my analogy of considering how many bullets you load into the gun as a basis for whether it's legal. Some guns only have one bullet, they're not THAT much of a risk, so its ok?

I'm not making any assumptions, so some drunk drivers are relatively good at drunk driving, but if we are looking to create reasonable rules aimed at maintaining the safety of all, it is safer to set a standard and punish what is a reasonable, average BAC at which people are dangerously impaired rather than doing nothing and risking lives.

Again, you are under the assumption that the driver who has been drinking is less safe than the sober driver. Maybe the driver who has been drinking is great at driving drunk and perfectly safe. Just because they might be a little safer sober, which is an assumption in and of itself, doesn't mean that they themselves are not safer than many sober drivers out there, why take their rights away when they are one of the more safer drivers on the road :confused:

[YumYum]

The people who own the roads should be able to regulate their own roads.

I live 12 miles from Walmart. I travel on 5 different roads to get there. What do I do, pay a toll on each road every time I want to go to Walmart?

[torchbearer]

Again, you are under the assumption that the driver who has been drinking is less safe than the sober driver. Maybe the driver who has been drinking is great at driving drunk and perfectly safe. Just because they might be a little safer sober, which is an assumption in and of itself, doesn't mean that they themselves are not safer than many sober drivers out there, why take their rights away when they are one of the more safer drivers on the road :confused:

if you really think about it, all traffic accidents are caused by a form of impairment.
whether it be a distraction of talking to a passenger, day dreaming, texting, fatigue, sunlight in the eyes, halogen headlights in your eyes, slippery roads, frozen roads, mechanical problems, etc.

[dannno]

Sometimes people who are mildly or moderately intoxicated make up for it by concentrating extra hard on the road and their surroundings. Maybe when they are sober they are driving on auto-pilot and not as in tune with their surroundings. Maybe they are fucking with the radio, talking to their friends and thinking about other stuff when they are sober.. but drunk, they focus on the road cause they are trying to be more careful. Some people actually drive more safe when they are mildly or moderately intoxicated.

[heavenlyboy34]

I live 12 miles from Walmart. I travel on 5 different roads to get there. What do I do, pay a toll on each road every time I want to go to Walmart?

It is likely that in a private road system, subscriptions would arise to satisfy customers. (i.e. unlimited use of road x for $5/month)

[torchbearer]

I live 12 miles from Walmart. I travel on 5 different roads to get there. What do I do, pay a toll on each road every time I want to go to Walmart?

you already pay for the roads you take to walmart anyway. not only that, but you pay for the roads you don't use as well.
given the choice, do you want to pay for all the roads in your state or just the roads you use?

[heavenlyboy34]

we should be arguing for how things should be, not accepting how things are.
if we live in tyranny, why accept it?

I like this side of you, Torch. :cool:

[dannno]

I live 12 miles from Walmart. I travel on 5 different roads to get there. What do I do, pay a toll on each road every time I want to go to Walmart?

That's the beauty of RFID, you can have it debited automatically.

But lets pretend it is 20 years ago.. well, you could have road passes. Too many roads, cars starting to fill up with passes? Well, the owners of the road could get together with other owners of roads and form an organization that consolidates all of those problems with passes and then pays the owners of the road based on their traffic.

There are solutions.

The good news is your taxes would be waaay lower so you would have the money to pay for all of this and some left over.

[torchbearer]

I like this side of you, Torch. :cool:

anarchs call me a statist
statist call me an anarch.
the only difference we have is that i believe government can work on a community level.

[ClayTrainor]

I live 12 miles from Walmart. I travel on 5 different roads to get there. What do I do, pay a toll on each road every time I want to go to Walmart?

Your question was about safety, now this??? :confused:

You make the assumption that every road would be a toll road. That woudl likely be true for a lot of freeways, but not for local roads. There's plenty of business models that could work. Off the top of my head, Local communities and businesses could hold shares in their roads. People who buy houses and office buildings would be buying the share of road in front of their house. It would then be up to the shareholders to regulate the safety of their own roads, which they have a vested interest in.

Walmart, and other local businesses could do the same type of thing. They would have an interest in enabling customers to get to them safely and effectively. Businesses could treat roads as a business expense, much like advertising. In fact, building high quality roads and letting people use them for free, could make people like you and want to use your business even more :eek:

[oyarde]

I also find the amount of money charged by states for a dui with no injury or damage to be excessive . When states started changing from .10 to .08 , my first thought was a money grab. I would say I am correct.

[phill4paul]

I also find the amount of money charged by states for a dui with no injury or damage to be excessive . When states started changing from .10 to .08 , my first thought was a money grab. I would say I am correct.

Yeppers!

[oyarde]

I also find the amount of money charged by states for a dui with no injury or damage to be excessive . When states started changing from .10 to .08 , my first thought was a money grab. I would say I am correct.

So , the average person went from 2 1/2 to 3 drinks to fines and jail to two drinks until fines and jail . Since that increases the potential pool , the counties and cities increase the revenue . Nice .

[Anti Federalist]

I live 12 miles from Walmart. I travel on 5 different roads to get there. What do I do, pay a toll on each road every time I want to go to Walmart?

Wal Marx is the spawn of satan.

Don't go to Wal Marx.

Problem solved. :p

[dannno]

I also find the amount of money charged by states for a dui with no injury or damage to be excessive . When states started changing from .10 to .08 , my first thought was a money grab. I would say I am correct.

Ya I'm not a huge fan of the law in general, but I would much rather see it moved up to .14 max for doing nothing wrong, like, say, your tail light was out and you happen to be intoxicated.. cop gets you at .12 when you had a tail light out? "Drive safely!!" Then a max .12 for disobeying traffic laws and .10 for at-fault collisions.. and lower the penalties.. and abolish taxi cab licensing..

That way when people are starting to actually get to the point where they are intoxicated, they have a good incentive to drive well, but you aren't sending nearly as many perfectly safe drivers to jail.

[YumYum]

you already pay for the roads you take to walmart anyway. not only that, but you pay for the roads you don't use as well.
given the choice, do you want to pay for all the roads in your state or just the roads you use?

Similar to a gated community where everybody can use the roads, but they are still privately owned. Is this discussed over on the Mises web site, or do you know what book Rothbard discusses this? I don't want to derail the thread, but I would like to study more on this.

[YumYum]

Wal Marx is the spawn of satan.

Don't go to Wal Marx.

Problem solved. :p

I have to go. I need my regular dose of gamma rays. :eek:

[oyarde]

Ya I'm not a huge fan of the law in general, but I would much rather see it moved up to .14 max for doing nothing wrong, like, say, your tail light was out and you happen to be intoxicated.. cop gets you at .12 when you had a tail light out? "Drive safely!!" Then a max .12 for disobeying traffic laws and .10 for collisions.. and lower the penalties.. and abolish taxi cab licensing..

Yeah , something like greater tan .10 for collisions and no taxi license fees sounds much more reasonable. Fine for no damage or accident should be no more than avg. of one days pay for the area. Anything else is excessive .

[ClayTrainor]

Similar to a gated community where everybody can use the roads, but they are still privately owned. Is this discussed over on the Mises web site, or do you know what book Rothbard discusses this? I don't want to derail the thread, but I would like to study more on this.

I'm not sure about Rothbard, but Walter Block has discussed this quite a bit. This lecture is worth watching.

YouTube - Privatizing Roads (Walter Block) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUA4h8ctNWM)

I haven't read this book, but it is on my reading list. :)

http://mises.org/store/Assets/ProductImages/SS428.jpg

[libertybrewcity]

How would a privatized road system stop drunk driving? Would they breathalize you every time you wanted to drive on the road?

[torchbearer]

How would a privatized road system stop drunk driving? Would they breathalize you every time you wanted to drive on the road?

stop drunk driving??
i don't think anyone proposed private roads would stop drunk driving.

[ClayTrainor]

How would a privatized road system stop drunk driving? Would they breathalize you every time you wanted to drive on the road?

I think they'd be more concerned about just regulating away all forms of reckless driving, instead of simply regulating what is in peoples blood.

Lew Rockwells argument for legalizing drunk driving, does a good job of explaining why the current method of regulating against drunk drivers is pretty flawed. :)

Legalize Drunk Driving (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/drunkdriving.html)

[Anti Federalist]

I think they'd be more concerned about just regulating away all forms of wreckless driving

Well, I think we'd all like to see "wreck-less" driving.

;)

[ClayTrainor]

Well, I think we'd all like to see "wreck-less" driving.

;)

heh... Doh! I meant "Reckless". :D

[YumYum]

There is only one problem. You cannot get an alcoholic to stop driving drunk. There has to be some sort of preventative medicine. I don't know, I've lived around drunks all of my life and the thought of them driving any time they want when they are drunk gives me shudders. I think we should adopt Finland's zero tolerance laws. I don't know about the drunks you are referring to dannno; people who can get trashed and drive good, but the drunks that I know are terrible drivers when they drive intoxicated.

[libertybrewcity]

stop drunk driving??
i don't think anyone proposed private roads would stop drunk driving.

I am proposing it. If roads weren't public, how would that be any better than if they were, in regards to drunk driving?

[oyarde]

There is only one problem. You cannot get an alcoholic to stop driving drunk. There has to be some sort of preventative medicine. I don't know, I've lived around drunks all of my life and the thought of them driving any time they want when they are drunk gives me shudders. I think we should adopt Finland's zero tolerance laws. I don't know about the drunks you are referring to dannno; people who can get trashed and drive good, but the drunks that I know are terrible drivers when they drive intoxicated.

OK , but I bet they are way more than .08 or .10 . ...... .08 is not drunk.

[torchbearer]

I am proposing it. If roads weren't public, how would that be any better than if they were, in regards to drunk driving?

they wouldn't be any different except you would have a choice on which road laws you wish to travel by.

[dannno]

There is only one problem. You cannot get an alcoholic to stop driving drunk. There has to be some sort of preventative medicine. I don't know, I've lived around drunks all of my life and the thought of them driving any time they want when they are drunk gives me shudders. I think we should adopt Finland's zero tolerance laws. I don't know about the drunks you are referring to dannno; people who can get trashed and drive good, but the drunks that I know are terrible drivers when they drive intoxicated.

.08 is not 'trashed' by any stretch of the imagination. The people you are talking about are probably driving with like .20-.25 which is entirely a different matter. I would imagine they are driving recklessly whereas the people I am talking about are driving safely.

Maybe if drugs were legalized we wouldn't have so many alcoholics. Doing other drugs and driving is not nearly the same as drinking. Drinking is the only drug that makes your balance point sway back and forth, it has to do with the viscosity of the liquid in your ears.

[oyarde]

.08 is not 'trashed' by any stretch of the imagination. The people you are talking about are probably driving with like .20-.25 which is entirely a different matter. I would imagine they are driving recklessly whereas the people I am talking about are driving safely.

Maybe if drugs were legalized we wouldn't have so many alcoholics. Doing other drugs and driving is not nearly the same as drinking. Drinking is the only drug that makes your balance point sway back and forth, it has to do with the viscosity of the liquid in your ears.

Correct , .20 is trashed , .08 is not .

[Rothbardian Girl]

There is only one problem. You cannot get an alcoholic to stop driving drunk. There has to be some sort of preventative medicine. I don't know, I've lived around drunks all of my life and the thought of them driving any time they want when they are drunk gives me shudders. I think we should adopt Finland's zero tolerance laws. I don't know about the drunks you are referring to dannno; people who can get trashed and drive good, but the drunks that I know are terrible drivers when they drive intoxicated.

I honestly have to wonder about this point. I was lurking on this topic and was going to post something about the problems of alcoholism, seeing as my mom is one. She honestly believes she won't get caught, and she denies that she drinks. But the real issue is, there are literally no deterrents for her. If it is a really bad cycle, she only stops when she is arrested, and even that is temporary, obviously. Typically *if* we get her to admit that she's been drinking, she doesn't stop. I can't imagine what I would do if something terrible happened to her.

I am really not sure what to think. Would a no-tolerance policy work? I am not really sure. From what I understand, the psychological triggers in my mom's brain are too strong for her to think about any legal consequences.

E: So would you guys propose simply moving the BAC up? I guess that is reasonable.

[kahless]

I am very much against buzzed driving or getting behind the wheel drunk. But MADD is a fascist organization whose true intent is prohibition. Even the founder got fed up and left the organization. If the police see someone driving recklessly then they should pull them over, sobriety test them and charge them accordingly.

The problem is spineless politicians cave to MADD and enact policies that destroy lives of non-drunk drivers. The BAC laws in NY you cannot have a few beers at the pub, at dinner, with friends or a concert without risking your life being turned upside down with a DWAI. DWAI after 3 beers in 2 hours? I am worse off after a poor night sleep or taking allergy medication.

I am also sick of going through these dam road blocks. There were a few days this summer I had to deal with the douchebags at these roadblocks 4-6 different times in one day. (3 different road blocks in my county)

It is like living in a police state here in NY for a variety of reasons and in this case it is because of these prohibitionists at MADD.

[Wesker1982]

I live 12 miles from Walmart. I travel on 5 different roads to get there. What do I do, pay a toll on each road every time I want to go to Walmart?

http://www.gogaminggiant.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/facepalm.jpg

There is a lot of literature on private roads, if you are still stuck on this then I assume you haven't read any of it.

[oyarde]

I honestly have to wonder about this point. I was lurking on this topic and was going to post something about the problems of alcoholism, seeing as my mom is one. She honestly believes she won't get caught, and she denies that she drinks. But the real issue is, there are literally no deterrents for her. If it is a really bad cycle, she only stops when she is arrested, and even that is temporary, obviously. Typically *if* we get her to admit that she's been drinking, she doesn't stop. I can't imagine what I would do if something terrible happened to her.

I am really not sure what to think. Would a no-tolerance policy work? I am not really sure. From what I understand, the psychological triggers in my mom's brain are too strong for her to think about any legal consequences.

E: So would you guys propose simply moving the BAC up? I guess that is reasonable.

The current BAC is unreasonable . So are the fines they are associating this with .

[Cowlesy]

I am in 100% agreement with Torch on the no-victim, no-crime end of it, but what burns me about this article is the snide "libertarian" remarks, almost making it sound like Montanans are luddites resisting change.

To actually bolster what Collins said, people who want to jump in a car and cork a beer, are still going to jump in a car and cork a beer, regardless of the law. People who have been drinking are going to jump in a car and cork a beer, and those are responsible are going to stay off high traffic areas, and some won't. In the middle of Montana, do you think changing these laws are going to stop some Rancher who owns 3,000 square acres of land from corking a beer as he drives the perimeter, perhaps on a county-line road?

:rolleyes:

Like other people noted, you are far more likely to be killed by a non-drunk driver than a drunk driver.

And fuck this paper for shitting on "libertarian" ideas, and all the lobbyists and bullshit artists who scare legislators into doing their bidding.

P.S. It's freaking tragic what happened to that trooper. But you don't use one-off items to legislate vast new rules.

[Golding]

I've always disliked the argument that police crawling along the road to look for someone to pull over keeps anyone "safe". Anyone that's had the driver in front of them slam the brakes because they thought they saw a cop car with a radar gun knows very well that the police make the roads anything but safe.

[Jordan]

Correct , .20 is trashed , .08 is not .

.20 is a slow Tuesday.

[phill4paul]

P.S. It's freaking tragic what happened to that trooper. But you don't use one-off items to legislate vast new rules.

Yeppers.

[oyarde]

.20 is a slow Tuesday.

Glad to see somebody is having fun . :D We usually reserve that for Sat. or Sun. evenings at home .

[james1906]

Mothers Against Drunk Driving is the Taliban with cunts.

.08 is too low, 21 is too high

I think there should be laws about drunk driving, but not the neo-prohibitionist ones we have currently.

[Anti Federalist]

.20 is a slow Tuesday.

And 55 MPH is the speed at which a spirited person parallel parks, not drives down the interstate.

[aGameOfThrones]

Ban Cars!!! There!!! Problem solved!!!

[kahless]

Mothers Against Drunk Driving is the Taliban with cunts.

.08 is too low, 21 is too high

I think there should be laws about drunk driving, but not the neo-prohibitionist ones we have currently.

^I agree. In NY, DWAI starts at .04. So depending on your weight you could be fined for 2-3 beers in 2 hours.

[oyarde]

Ban Cars!!! There!!! Problem solved!!!

They will start working on that next . The Marxists want to make you pay twice as much for one running on a battery that will not let you drive far enough to get away from them . :D

[Vessol]

I grew up in Montana. I remember all this garbage back then. Most people thought it was bullshit and hated MADD. I remember when MADD came to speak at my High School they got booed for 3 minutes before we were hushed.

The problem with drunk driving(it is a problem) has a lot more to do with the culture then laws. A lot of people who drink and drive are middle aged and younger men raised by those same men. Part of the drinking culture in Montana is one of little drinking responsibility and the ignorance of one's personal drinking limits that many people develop. You can't make laws that change this, it'll be the continued accidents and the public opinion swaying against it, that is what will change it.

[oyarde]

^I agree. In NY, DWAI starts at .04. So depending on your weight you could be fined for 2-3 beers in 2 hours.

That is ridiculous .

[aGameOfThrones]

That is ridiculous .


No it's not...it's Progressive :D

[Anti Federalist]

And fuck this paper for shitting on "libertarian" ideas, and all the lobbyists and bullshit artists who scare legislators into doing their bidding.

Yah, I'm not in the mood to slavishly praise our brave "public safety officers".

:mad:

[idirtify]

Beyond the devilish details involved in determining BAC numbers, I think (true) drunk driving does violate a libertarian principle. It’s called “a credible threat of violence”. This is the principle where there does not have to be a victim for there to be a crime. Individuals have the right to defend/protect themselves at the point when/where the threat is credible (imminent) enough. I can rightfully attack/restrain/kill you before you have even hurt me; IF you are pointing a gun at me. There are lots more examples.

[Danke]

I get nervous in heavy traffic. Getting drunk before rush hour helps me relax.

[american.swan]

Let private companies/individuals patrol their own(ownership) roads. We need to call Montana and get them to experiment in a few counties by having private companies own roads.

[oyarde]

No it's not...it's Progressive :D

Progressive and ridiculous are interchangeable . I can think of others as well , but will refrain. :)

[oyarde]

^I agree. In NY, DWAI starts at .04. So depending on your weight you could be fined for 2-3 beers in 2 hours.

That would be one beer in one hour at my weight.

[LibForestPaul]

Under statist thinking of crimes without victims, shouldn't becoming drunk be a crime period, regardless of driving.

1. Domestic violence increase with alcohol use.
2. Personal injuries increase with alcohol use.
3. Gun related deaths increase with alcohol use.

If I am in my house and have a firearm and I am drunk, am I not putting my family and community at greater risk?

If I am at my friends house and I am drunk, am I not putting both myself and my friend at greater risk of violence?

[Fox McCloud]

Libertarians don't like people to impose on them. Somebody who is drinking and driving is imposing themselves on others which should be contrarian to libertarian principles. If they get into a crash, they are violating somebody's property rights by damaging or destroying their property. Let's try to change one thing. Let the drunk driver be "the government". How do you react then if you are driving your own car and the government is driving drunk on the road?

No they aren't; they're only imposing on others when they actually cause an accident.

If they cause an accident though, the penalty should be exactly proportionate to the damage they cause; meaning if they kill someone while under the influence (and it was enough to cause impairment), then its basically a 100% chance of getting the death penalty/executed.

that said, this arguing over how the government should handle roads just masks a much bigger issues; the incompetence, mismanagement, and stupidity of government owning, running, and operating all the roads.

[LibForestPaul]

No they aren't; they're only imposing on others when they actually cause an accident.

If they cause an accident though, the penalty should be exactly proportionate to the damage they cause; meaning if they kill someone while under the influence (and it was enough to cause impairment), then its basically a 100% chance of getting the death penalty/executed.

that said, this arguing over how the government should handle roads just masks a much bigger issues; the incompetence, mismanagement, and stupidity of government owning, running, and operating all the roads.

Shhhhh! The Transit Authority is everywhere... nothing like quasi-government and offshore accounts.

[idirtify]

Under statist thinking of crimes without victims, shouldn't becoming drunk be a crime period, regardless of driving.

1. Domestic violence increase with alcohol use.
2. Personal injuries increase with alcohol use.
3. Gun related deaths increase with alcohol use.

If I am in my house and have a firearm and I am drunk, am I not putting my family and community at greater risk?

If I am at my friends house and I am drunk, am I not putting both myself and my friend at greater risk of violence?

As I said, the devil is in the details. While all those examples are probably not credible-enough threats to justify physical restraint / self-defense, they are worth discussing. But just remember: greater risk does not equal “credible threat” - or justify prohibition (partially because prohibition its self will increase risk). A better example of a credible threat might be a drunken cab driver who will not stop to let you out; or a falling-down drunk who shows up with a loaded pistol at a crowded shooting range; or a bull in a china shop.

[specsaregood]

I get nervous in heavy traffic. Getting drunk before rush hour helps me relax.

I remember fondly a time years ago while living outside the US where I had done some blanco and was running out of beer, so I took my remaining beer and hopped in the truck and went to the store. my truck broke down and some friendly local cops helped me push it out of the way, paying no mind to the open container and the clinking of the empty bottles rattling around the floor of my truck. they then happily gave me a ride home -- and stopped at the store so I could pick up a 12pack......

[Anti Federalist]

I remember fondly a time years ago while living outside the US where I had done some blanco and was running out of beer, so I took my remaining beer and hopped in the truck and went to the store. my truck broke down and some friendly local cops helped me push it out of the way, paying no mind to the open container and the clinking of the empty bottles rattling around the floor of my truck. they then happily gave me a ride home -- and stopped at the store so I could pick up a 12pack......

I can imagine that happening now.

[LibForestPaul]

As I said, the devil is in the details. While all those examples are probably not credible-enough threats to justify physical restraint / self-defense, they are worth discussing. But just remember: greater risk does not equal “credible threat” - or justify prohibition (partially because prohibition its self will increase risk). A better example of a credible threat might be a drunken cab driver who will not stop to let you out; or a falling-down drunk who shows up with a loaded pistol at a crowded shooting range; or a bull in a china shop.

Yes drunk with guns around is not credible threat...
Hard to be wrong...you'll get over it.

[oyarde]

Let private companies/individuals patrol their own(ownership) roads. We need to call Montana and get them to experiment in a few counties by having private companies own roads.

Meh , hell with the roads. If I figure up the last thirty years of Federal , state gas tax I have paid , calculate the sales tax I paid on those two taxes , calculate what plates have cost ....... hmm ...... Looks like I own the roads .

[Icymudpuppy]

The crime is getting in a wreck while drunk, not driving drunk.
A crime requires a victim. Your accuser is ther person you have wronged.
It is your right to question the person who has accused you of infringing on their natural rights.
If there is no victim there is no crime.

Since traffic accidents involving drunk drivers so often result in death, the finality of that is what makes it more extreme.

Do you have a problem with laws against randomly discharging firearms into the air in a populated area?

Drunk driving laws are laws against randomly driving around with a deadly machine.

Drunk driving is aggressive assault against all others around that vehicle. It may or may not result in battery, but it is still assault.

[oyarde]

I have paid more than enough to cover the roads I use. Think I will mail the county a letter asking for title . :D

[oyarde]

Since traffic accidents involving drunk drivers so often result in death, the finality of that is what makes it more extreme.

Do you have a problem with laws against randomly discharging firearms into the air in a populated area?

Drunk driving laws are laws against randomly driving around with a deadly machine.

Drunk driving is aggressive assault against all others around that vehicle. It may or may not result in battery, but it is still assault.

OK , but at .04 or .08 , I am not " drunk" . The govt. has overstepped by passing laws to jail me and significantly fine me for that . As I said ealy in this thread , I do not think people will agree on this . I do not expect everyone to share my opinion . I also do not expect to change mine . :)

[dannno]

//

[dannno]

Since traffic accidents involving drunk drivers so often result in death, the finality of that is what makes it more extreme.

Once again, for the fifty millionth time, there are people who drive more safely when they are drunk than many sober people. It was also discussed that a lot of drunk driving data has been purposely manipulated, but that is completely beside the point.




Do you have a problem with laws against randomly discharging firearms into the air in a populated area?

What does that have to do with the person driving safely whilst drunk versus the non-safe sober driver? Your analogy doesn't solve that puzzle.




Drunk driving laws are laws against randomly driving around with a deadly machine.

What does that mean? Randomly driving around? What if they are driving to a specific location?




Drunk driving is aggressive assault against all others around that vehicle. It may or may not result in battery, but it is still assault.

Again, the assumption being that the driver who has been drinking is more dangerous than the sober driver who is actually more dangerous.

[oyarde]

Once again, for the fifty millionth time, there are people who drive more safely when they are drunk than many sober people. It was also discussed that a lot of drunk driving data has been purposely manipulated, but that is completely beside the point.




What does that have to do with the person driving safely whilst drunk versus the non-safe sober driver? Your analogy doesn't solve that puzzle.




What does that mean? Randomly driving around? What if they are driving to a specific location?




Again, the assumption being that the driver who has been drinking is more dangerous than the sober driver who is actually more dangerous.

Well , data manipulation ....

[Icymudpuppy]

OK , but at .04 or .08 , I am not " drunk" . The govt. has overstepped by passing laws to jail me and significantly fine me for that . As I said ealy in this thread , I do not think people will agree on this . I do not expect everyone to share my opinion . I also do not expect to change mine . :)

Good points, I don't agree with BAC levels anymore than I think age is a good determination of voting privelege.

However, my point was mostly...

Responsible shooters always check for a backstop.

Responsible drivers drive sober.

I think it is reasonable to keep irresponsible people from discharging firearms, or driving cars.

[oyarde]

Good points, I don't agree with BAC levels anymore than I think age is a good determination of voting privelege.

However, my point was mostly...

Responsible shooters always check for a backstop.

Responsible drivers drive sober.

I think it is reasonable to keep irresponsible people from discharging firearms, or driving cars.

I was paying taxes at 15 . They should not be able to steal from children before they can vote.

[Anti Federalist]

Read the stories just today:

Elderly man with heart condition tased multiple times.

Little girl dies while cops detain mom for traffic violations.

Man beaten by hospital goons while trying to leave.

And some people think giving these 'roided out, bug eyed, miserable prick sons of bitches, more power is a good idea??!!

I'll take my chances with a 1000 drunk drivers before I take just one chance with a meat headed, state enforcer douchebag.

Fuck a bunch of "brave public safety officers".

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Similar to a gated community where everybody can use the roads, but they are still privately owned. Is this discussed over on the Mises web site, or do you know what book Rothbard discusses this? I don't want to derail the thread, but I would like to study more on this.

As far as I know the best book on this subject is Walter Block's Privatization of Roads and Highways. I also echo ClayTrainor when I say that many of the local roads you use would become free to use (e.g. business expense, marketing, etc.), just like you are free to drive in Wal-Marts parking lot, or a gated community for instance. The major highways and parkways, would require a pay to use fee, but then again you all ready pay for EVERYTHING, so it's much better to just pay for what you use. Not to mention axing the gas tax which would save you from 1$ to 2.50$ in taxes PER GALLON.

[heavenlyboy34]

Read the stories just today:

Elderly man with heart condition tased multiple times.

Little girl dies while cops detain mom for traffic violations.

Man beaten by hospital goons while trying to leave.

And some people think giving these 'roided out, bug eyed, miserable prick sons of bitches, more power is a good idea??!!

I'll take my chances with a 1000 drunk drivers before I take just one chance with a meat headed, state enforcer douchebag.

Fuck a bunch of "brave public safety officers".

+a zillion. You sure have a way of being straightforward, AF. ;):cool:

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

How would a privatized road system stop drunk driving? Would they breathalize you every time you wanted to drive on the road?

I'm pretty sure no one would use your roads if you were that authoritarian as a businessman. As for stopping drunk driving that is impossible. All you can do is to make sure those who damage another and their property are held accountable. This mythical stopping anything that may cause bodily and property damage is getting beyond ridiculous. It's impossible. This continued thinking will surely lead us to the most grotesque paternalistic Nanny-State imaginable where anything and everything we do that increases our chances at bodily damage will become outlawed or severely restricted. Personally, I'd subscribe to a road provider who had no MPH laws, no drunk driving laws, etc. Maybe then people would actually drive in the LEFT LANE on the highway and let people in unless they want to get into a wreck...


People take up responsibility on their own when they recognize that no outside source will do it for them!

[oyarde]

As far as I know the best book on this subject is Walter Block's Privatization of Roads and Highways. I also echo ClayTrainor when I say that many of the local roads you use would become free to use (e.g. business expense, marketing, etc.), just like you are free to drive in Wal-Marts parking lot, or a gated community for instance. The major highways and parkways, would require a pay to use fee, but then again you all ready pay for EVERYTHING, so it's much better to just pay for what you use. Not to mention axing the gas tax which would save you from 1$ to 2.50$ in taxes PER GALLON.

You are correct we already pay for everything . I would benefit by only paying for what I use . Would the state or the country benefit by that ? Roads are one of the few things congress has Constitutional power to tax for. I hate gas tax.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

You are correct we already pay for everything . I would benefit by only paying for what I use . Would the state or the country benefit by that ? Roads are one of the few things congress has Constitutional power to tax for. I hate gas tax.

Um...Roads are no where indicated in the Constitution. Who taught you this? Di'Lorenzo has a magnificent article on this.

http://mises.org/journals/scholar/internal.pdf

[MRK]

So what's your point? If there WASN'T a law he wouldn't have done it? Having a law will stop some people, not having it won't stop anyone.

lol what? even if being drunk and driving were legal in my state i still wouldn't go off and get hammered then go off on a joy ride.

[oyarde]

Um...Roads are no where indicated in the Constitution. Who taught you this? Di'Lorenzo has a magnificent article on this.

http://mises.org/journals/scholar/internal.pdf

Article one, section eight , I believe . I could be wrong , but it should be where the Post Office is . It should say Post Roads . I get mail on my road.

[Icymudpuppy]

Um...Roads are no where indicated in the Constitution.

You need to look again...

Article 1, Section 8, line 7


To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

If there is an address which gets mail delivery on that road, it is a federal post road.

[reduen]

Perfection is simply not obtainable... Thusly, I would rather contend with the inconveniences of too much liberty than contend with the inconveniences of not enough...

[oyarde]

You need to look again...

Article 1, Section 8, line 7



If there is an address which gets mail delivery on that road, it is a federal post road.

Hey , I had to do that from memory.

[torchbearer]

Perfection is simply not obtainable... Thusly, I would rather contend with the inconveniences of too much liberty than contend with the inconveniences of not enough...

well said. I'll buy you a beer next time you are in my area.

[oyarde]

And here I was hoping I was wrong and we could get rid of some taxes and I would just pay for what I use . :)

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

And here I was hoping I was wrong and we could get rid of some taxes and I would just pay for what I use . :)

I would argue that Post Roads do not constitute every single inch of the Nations roads, but why let me argue for that case, when Jefferson, Calhoun, Monroe, and Jackson did. Nevertheless, do you pay all ceasing homage and deference to every single thing in the Constitution? Yes, you can get out of it, by simply not believing that we should have tax-payer subsidies to construction businesses for the purposes of some sort of socialized public "good".

PS: Go look back in your State Constitution. Most states had amended theirs to prohibit internal improvements paid for by the tax-payer. What was that? I thought Post Roads were every single road in the Nation.

[oyarde]

I would argue that Post Roads do not constitute every single inch of the Nations roads, but why let me argue for that case, when Jefferson, Calhoun, Monroe, and Jackson did. Nevertheless, do you pay all ceasing homage and deference to every single thing in the Constitution? Yes, you can get out of it, by simply not believing that we should have tax-payer subsidies to construction businesses for the purposes of some sort of socialized public "good".

PS: Go look back in your State Constitution. Most states had amended theirs to prohibit internal improvements paid for by the tax-payer. What was that? I thought Post Roads were every single road in the Nation.

Yes it is a slippery slope . We have Fed , city , county roads . These are being paid for in a variety of ways . Some counties have wheel tax and county tax , some cities have a city tax, we have state and Federal gas tax , most pay sales tax on that , there are license and license plate fees.Each state has a Constitution . There are toll roads , toll bridges .It is enough to make a guy want a beer just thinking about it .

[reduen]

Careful, I will hold you to that one torch.... :cool:


well said. I'll buy you a beer next time you are in my area.

[kahless]

removed

[idirtify]

Yes drunk with guns around is not credible threat...
Hard to be wrong...you'll get over it.

If you are disagreeing with something I said, could you be a little/lot clearer?

[crazyfacedjenkins]

I've never had a problem drinking and driving. Any time I've been pulled over, a crack the window very little so they can't smell my breath. Despite being drunk, my behavior is reasonable enough for them not to be suspicious. In these cases I wasn't pulled over for shitty driving, just simple stuff like a light being out.

Frankly I don't give a shit about the laws, I'm not sleeping in my car when it's only a few miles to get home.