How Does Liberty and Drunk Driving Work?

[AGRP]

I've heard that in a Libertarian society, people can drive drunk or drive while drinking (one of the two, not sure).

Can someone explain why? Don't you put others at risk?

************************************************** **************

You're having a conversation with someone and you say drunk driving shouldn't be illegal.

People are shocked you would say such a thing.

How would you proceed with your side?

How would you deflect the negative reaction and their hatred of your view?

Lets say the persons dad died due to a drunk driver and the person is crying; you're now the recipient of hatred from several people.

I started this thread because I brought this topic up to someone and I realized it was a hard stance to defend; and could be taken by some as very offensive.

**********************************

Edit:

This seems to be one of the better responses: http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/drunkdriving.html

Clinton has signed a bill passed by Congress that orders the states to adopt new, more onerous drunk-driving standards or face a loss of highway funds. That's right: the old highway extortion trick. Sure enough, states are already working to pass new, tighter laws against Driving Under the Influence, responding as expected to the feds' ransom note.

Now the feds declare that a blood-alcohol level of 0.08 percent and above is criminal and must be severely punished. The National Restaurant Association is exactly right that this is absurdly low. The overwhelming majority of accidents related to drunk driving involve repeat offenders with blood-alcohol levels twice that high. If a standard of 0.1 doesn't deter them, then a lower one won't either.

But there's a more fundamental point. What precisely is being criminalized? Not bad driving. Not destruction of property. Not the taking of human life or reckless endangerment. The crime is having the wrong substance in your blood. Yet it is possible, in fact, to have this substance in your blood, even while driving, and not commit anything like what has been traditionally called a crime.

What have we done by permitting government to criminalize the content of our blood instead of actions themselves? We have given it power to make the application of the law arbitrary, capricious, and contingent on the judgment of cops and cop technicians. Indeed, without the government's "Breathalyzer," there is no way to tell for sure if we are breaking the law.

Sure, we can do informal calculations in our head, based on our weight and the amount of alcohol we have had over some period of time. But at best these will be estimates. We have to wait for the government to administer a test to tell us whether or not we are criminals. That's not the way law is supposed to work. Indeed, this is a form of tyranny.

Now, the immediate response goes this way: drunk driving has to be illegal because the probability of causing an accident rises dramatically when you drink. The answer is just as simple: government in a free society should not deal in probabilities. The law should deal in actions and actions alone, and only insofar as they damage person or property. Probabilities are something for insurance companies to assess on a competitive and voluntary basis.

This is why the campaign against "racial profiling" has intuitive plausibility to many people: surely a person shouldn't be hounded solely because some demographic groups have higher crime rates than others. Government should be preventing and punishing crimes themselves, not probabilities and propensities. Neither, then, should we have driver profiling, which assumes that just because a person has quaffed a few he is automatically a danger.

In fact, driver profiling is worse than racial profiling, because the latter only implies that the police are more watchful, not that they criminalize race itself. Despite the propaganda, what's being criminalized in the case of drunk driving is not the probability that a person driving will get into an accident but the fact of the blood-alcohol content itself. A drunk driver is humiliated and destroyed even when he hasn't done any harm.

Of course, enforcement is a serious problem. A sizeable number of people leaving a bar or a restaurant would probably qualify as DUI. But there is no way for the police to know unless they are tipped off by a swerving car or reckless driving in general. But the question becomes: why not ticket the swerving or recklessness and leave the alcohol out of it? Why indeed.

To underscore the fact that it is some level of drinking that is being criminalized, government sets up these outrageous, civil-liberties-violating barricades that stop people to check their blood — even when they have done nothing at all. This is a gross attack on liberty that implies that the government has and should have total control over us, extending even to the testing of intimate biological facts. But somehow we put up with it because we have conceded the first assumption that government ought to punish us for the content of our blood and not just our actions.

There are many factors that cause a person to drive poorly. You may have sore muscles after a weight-lifting session and have slow reactions. You could be sleepy. You could be in a bad mood, or angry after a fight with your spouse. Should the government be allowed to administer anger tests, tiredness tests, or soreness tests? That is the very next step, and don't be surprised when Congress starts to examine this question.

Already, there's a move on to prohibit cell phone use while driving. Such an absurdity follows from the idea that government should make judgments about what we are allegedly likely to do.

What's more, some people drive more safely after a few drinks, precisely because they know their reaction time has been slowed and they must pay more attention to safety. We all know drunks who have an amazing ability to drive perfectly after being liquored up. They should be liberated from the force of the law, and only punished if they actually do something wrong.

We need to put a stop to this whole trend now. Drunk driving should be legalized. And please don't write me to say: "I am offended by your insensitivity because my mother was killed by a drunk driver." Any person responsible for killing someone else is guilty of manslaughter or murder and should be punished accordingly. But it is perverse to punish a murderer not because of his crime but because of some biological consideration, e.g. he has red hair.

Bank robbers may tend to wear masks, but the crime they commit has nothing to do with the mask. In the same way, drunk drivers cause accidents but so do sober drivers, and many drunk drivers cause no accidents at all. The law should focus on violations of person and property, not scientific oddities like blood content.

There's a final point against Clinton's drunk-driving bill. It is a violation of states rights. Not only is there is no warrant in the Constitution for the federal government to legislate blood-alcohol content — the 10th amendment should prevent it from doing so. The question of drunk driving should first be returned to the states, and then each state should liberate drunk drivers from the force of the law.

[Anti Federalist]

I've heard that in a Libertarian society, people can drive drunk or drive while drinking (one of the two, not sure).

Can someone explain why? Don't you put others at risk?

You do many things every day that could put others "at risk".

Until you actually injure somebody (or set out on course of action with the deliberate intent to injure somebody, say, like shooting their house up) you have not committed a crime.

And in a truly free society, unless you can show a victim, you really do not have a crime.

[goldencane]

edit- i just read what i wrote and realized it could be interpreted in a way I didn't mean it to.

[AGRP]

A drunk driver is swerving in and out of his lane. What should he get charged with?

A fall down drunk man is getting in his car and drives away. What should happen?

[Anti Federalist]

A drunk driver is swerving in and out of his lane. What should he get charged with?

A fall down drunk man is getting in his car and drives away. What should happen?

Did he injure anybody?

[muzzled dogg]

No victim no crime

[AGRP]

Did he injure anybody?

What should the driver be charged with if he did? Under the influence, reckless driving?

[madfoot]

Besides that, I though erratic driving was already illegal. So DUI laws basically criminalize something which is already a crime. With the exception of checkpoints and stuff, in which case, if you can drive safely while under the influence, then you're not causing a problem.

[Anti Federalist]

What should the driver be charged with if he did? Under the influence, reckless driving?

Yes. You could make the penalties for causing damage/injury/death very punitive, if it was determined that alcohol impairment played a role.

[Ninja Homer]

In a libertarian society, the roads are privately owned & operated. The owners can make whatever rules they want to. "Drive drunk on my road or you're banned from ever using it again" would likely be a common one. You'd probably also be put on a national blacklist, and you'd find travel very difficult.

[Brett85]

I've heard that in a Libertarian society, people can drive drunk or drive while drinking (one of the two, not sure).

Can someone explain why? Don't you put others at risk?

The average libertarian probably supports drunk driving laws, as those who drive drunk put others at risk. It's just that many of the libertarians here are more the anarchist types and basically don't want any laws.

[Rothbardian Girl]

Did he injure anybody?

What happens if he kills someone, but walks away from the accident himself? What should happen then? I'm sure this subject has been discussed many times, but how would a person be punished in the event he or she does kill someone, especially an alcoholic who might be a repeat offender? If someone is CLEARLY putting others in danger due to his or her behavior on the roadways, what should be done, if anything? I must admit I'm pretty unsure about some of the law enforcement aspects of libertarian society, especially regarding drunk driving. I'm sure there's literature out there, but I haven't found it yet.

Should the penalties be stiffer if a person drinks and drives, injures or kills someone, then continues to do the same thing over and over again? And what should those penalties be? I am fully aware that the BAC levels at which people are considered "drunk" are getting ridiculous, presumably to make more money for law enforcement, but I just can't shake the image of a significantly drunk person endangering others by choosing to drink and drive and only getting punished AFTER he kills or injures someone.

Perhaps I should put my personal biases towards the subject away, but there is someone in my family who is in fact an alcoholic and honestly believes that he/she is able to drink and drive, even when significantly inebriated, and the same person has caused issues with traffic and such before.

e: a lot of people answered my questions beforehand... need to learn not to post such long posts next time


The average libertarian probably supports drunk driving laws, as those who drive drunk put others at risk. It's just that many of the libertarians here are more the anarchist types and basically don't want any laws.

I wouldn't say anarchist society would be "lawless". A great variety of already-existing laws would presumably be privately enforced or simply dealt with in different ways.


You'd probably also be put on a national blacklist, and you'd find travel very difficult.
I found this post interesting. Wouldn't this violate peoples' expectations of privacy?

[Andrew-Austin]

I've heard that in a Libertarian society

In a libertarian society roads would be privately owned, and the owner operators could have patrols on the lookout for drunk drivers. If the driver were really drunk, they could shoot out his tires. If he were just a little inebriated, they could just tail him to make sure he isn't going to crash, then send him a fine in the mail.

[AGRP]

You're having a coversation with someone and you say drunk driving shouldn't be illegal.

People are shocked you would say such a thing.

How would you proceed with your side?

No victim, no crime?

How would you deflect the negative reaction and their hatred of your view?

Lets say the persons dad died due to a drunk driver and the person is crying; you're now the recipient of hatred from several people.

I started this thread because I brought this topic up to someone and I realized it was a hard stance to defend; and could be taken by some as very offensive.

[madfoot]

In a libertarian society roads would be privately owned, and the owner operators could have patrols on the lookout for drunk drivers. If the driver were really drunk, they could shoot out his tires. If he were just a little inebriated, they could just tail him to make sure he isn't going to crash, then send him a fine in the mail.

...that sounds terrible.

[Nate-ForLiberty]

What happens if he kills someone, but walks away from the accident himself? What should happen then? I'm sure this subject has been discussed many times, but how would a person be punished in the event he or she does kill someone, especially an alcoholic who might be a repeat offender? If someone is CLEARLY putting others in danger due to his or her behavior on the roadways, what should be done, if anything? I must admit I'm pretty unsure about some of the law enforcement aspects of libertarian society, especially regarding drunk driving. I'm sure there's literature out there, but I haven't found it yet.

Should the penalties be stiffer if a person drinks and drives, injures or kills someone, then continues to do the same thing over and over again? And what should those penalties be? I am fully aware that the BAC levels at which people are considered "drunk" are getting ridiculous, presumably to make more money for law enforcement, but I just can't shake the image of a significantly drunk person endangering others by choosing to drink and drive and only getting punished AFTER he kills or injures someone.

Perhaps I should put my personal biases towards the subject away, but there is someone in my family who is in fact an alcoholic and honestly believes that he/she is able to drink and drive, even when significantly inebriated, and the same person has caused issues with traffic and such before.

e: a lot of people answered my questions beforehand... need to learn not to post such long posts next time



I wouldn't say anarchist society would be "lawless". A great variety of already-existing laws would presumably be privately enforced or simply dealt with in different ways.


I found this post interesting. Wouldn't this violate peoples' expectations of privacy?

Also, in a free market system, there would be way more mass transit available. The only reason we have vehicles everywhere is because that mode of transportation has been heavily subsidized for almost 100 years. Hell, we go to war to acquire fuel to run them. So in a free market there would be fewer drivers and more passengers.

[Sentient Void]

In a libertarian society, the roads are privately owned & operated. The owners can make whatever rules they want to. "Drive drunk on my road or you're banned from ever using it again" would likely be a common one. You'd probably also be put on a national blacklist, and you'd find travel very difficult.

^^^^ This man actually understands how a libertarian society with all property being marketized / privatized would work.

Andrew-Austin seems to get it too.

Now, that being said, I feel it is important to bring up a great article by Llew Rockwell (fellow ancap and head of the Von Mises Institute)...

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/drunkdriving.html


Clinton has signed a bill passed by Congress that orders the states to adopt new, more onerous drunk-driving standards or face a loss of highway funds. That's right: the old highway extortion trick. Sure enough, states are already working to pass new, tighter laws against Driving Under the Influence, responding as expected to the feds' ransom note.

Now the feds declare that a blood-alcohol level of 0.08 percent and above is criminal and must be severely punished. The National Restaurant Association is exactly right that this is absurdly low. The overwhelming majority of accidents related to drunk driving involve repeat offenders with blood-alcohol levels twice that high. If a standard of 0.1 doesn't deter them, then a lower one won't either.

But there's a more fundamental point. What precisely is being criminalized? Not bad driving. Not destruction of property. Not the taking of human life or reckless endangerment. The crime is having the wrong substance in your blood. Yet it is possible, in fact, to have this substance in your blood, even while driving, and not commit anything like what has been traditionally called a crime.

What have we done by permitting government to criminalize the content of our blood instead of actions themselves? We have given it power to make the application of the law arbitrary, capricious, and contingent on the judgment of cops and cop technicians. Indeed, without the government's "Breathalyzer," there is no way to tell for sure if we are breaking the law.

Sure, we can do informal calculations in our head, based on our weight and the amount of alcohol we have had over some period of time. But at best these will be estimates. We have to wait for the government to administer a test to tell us whether or not we are criminals. That's not the way law is supposed to work. Indeed, this is a form of tyranny.

Now, the immediate response goes this way: drunk driving has to be illegal because the probability of causing an accident rises dramatically when you drink. The answer is just as simple: government in a free society should not deal in probabilities. The law should deal in actions and actions alone, and only insofar as they damage person or property. Probabilities are something for insurance companies to assess on a competitive and voluntary basis.

This is why the campaign against "racial profiling" has intuitive plausibility to many people: surely a person shouldn't be hounded solely because some demographic groups have higher crime rates than others. Government should be preventing and punishing crimes themselves, not probabilities and propensities. Neither, then, should we have driver profiling, which assumes that just because a person has quaffed a few he is automatically a danger.

In fact, driver profiling is worse than racial profiling, because the latter only implies that the police are more watchful, not that they criminalize race itself. Despite the propaganda, what's being criminalized in the case of drunk driving is not the probability that a person driving will get into an accident but the fact of the blood-alcohol content itself. A drunk driver is humiliated and destroyed even when he hasn't done any harm.

Of course, enforcement is a serious problem. A sizeable number of people leaving a bar or a restaurant would probably qualify as DUI. But there is no way for the police to know unless they are tipped off by a swerving car or reckless driving in general. But the question becomes: why not ticket the swerving or recklessness and leave the alcohol out of it? Why indeed.

To underscore the fact that it is some level of drinking that is being criminalized, government sets up these outrageous, civil-liberties-violating barricades that stop people to check their blood — even when they have done nothing at all. This is a gross attack on liberty that implies that the government has and should have total control over us, extending even to the testing of intimate biological facts. But somehow we put up with it because we have conceded the first assumption that government ought to punish us for the content of our blood and not just our actions.

There are many factors that cause a person to drive poorly. You may have sore muscles after a weight-lifting session and have slow reactions. You could be sleepy. You could be in a bad mood, or angry after a fight with your spouse. Should the government be allowed to administer anger tests, tiredness tests, or soreness tests? That is the very next step, and don't be surprised when Congress starts to examine this question.

Already, there's a move on to prohibit cell phone use while driving. Such an absurdity follows from the idea that government should make judgments about what we are allegedly likely to do.

What's more, some people drive more safely after a few drinks, precisely because they know their reaction time has been slowed and they must pay more attention to safety. We all know drunks who have an amazing ability to drive perfectly after being liquored up. They should be liberated from the force of the law, and only punished if they actually do something wrong.

We need to put a stop to this whole trend now. Drunk driving should be legalized. And please don't write me to say: "I am offended by your insensitivity because my mother was killed by a drunk driver." Any person responsible for killing someone else is guilty of manslaughter or murder and should be punished accordingly. But it is perverse to punish a murderer not because of his crime but because of some biological consideration, e.g. he has red hair.

Bank robbers may tend to wear masks, but the crime they commit has nothing to do with the mask. In the same way, drunk drivers cause accidents but so do sober drivers, and many drunk drivers cause no accidents at all. The law should focus on violations of person and property, not scientific oddities like blood content.

There's a final point against Clinton's drunk-driving bill. It is a violation of states rights. Not only is there is no warrant in the Constitution for the federal government to legislate blood-alcohol content — the 10th amendment should prevent it from doing so. The question of drunk driving should first be returned to the states, and then each state should liberate drunk drivers from the force of the law.

FYLR!

[Nate-ForLiberty]

...that sounds terrible.

it would also be terrible for business. I'd envision a company having an account for each driver, much like governments have "EZ Tags" for toll paying, etc. Except these would be run by private companies who could not share, nor would they want to share, that info. If you ever caused an accident on their road because of drunk driving they could ban you from ever using those roads again. I think the penalties of not being able to use a companies services would become such an inconvenience that people who go out a get drunk will just learn to use mass transit. (which would be much more widely available in a Lib society.)

[Andrew-Austin]

...that sounds terrible.

Why? The shooting of the tires? Just throwing ideas out there, point is there is no reason private owners couldn't deal with drunk driving.

[jackers]

I deal with these questions a lot on another forum that I frequent. The majority are Liberals so it's a constant game of "gotcha" that they try to play. Additionally, most people have a personal example of how drinking and driving has impacted their lives.

What you have to understand is, we are not for anarchy (most of us anyway). There are laws in place for someone swerving all over the road. Instead of creating new laws, or even worse, conducting preemptive arrests, they just need to enforce the existing laws (reckless driving, careless driving, etc). Additionally, the infrastructure would be privately owned so different owners would have different rules.

[t0rnado]

In a libertarian society, private companies would decide the rules that the users of their roads have to follow.

Arresting a person who hasn't impeded upon the rights of anyone else is prior restraint. By simply driving drunk, you aren't hurting anyone. As soon as you hit anyone else, it becomes immoral. Just as people shouldn't be judged by the pigment of their skin, they shouldn't be judged by the content of their blood.

[AZKing]

I've heard that in a Libertarian society, people can drive drunk or drive while drinking (one of the two, not sure).

I disagree with that principle. You have every right to drink and harm yourself on your own property, but you don't have the right to put me or my family in danger. Drunk driving is like playing Russian Roulette with other people's lives.

I don't have a problem with DUI laws. In a truly libertarian society they may not be necessary, but they are very necessary as long as roads are considered commons.

[AGRP]

I feel it is important to bring up a great article by Llew Rockwell (fellow ancap and head of the Von Mises Institute)...

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/drunkdriving.html


My mind is thoroughly scrambled.

[goldencane]

While I agree with most people on here, especially with the philosophy behind it being illegal, that isn't always practical. The fact of the matter is that roads are not privatized, so no private company is there to "outlaw" it. This is why the tax payers who fund the road, whether is be city, state, national, should vote on if it should be legal on their roads or not. Effectively, the tax payers own the road so they should make the laws. So, while I agree that it should only be a crime if you hurt someone, the decision should be up to the tax payer who "owns" the road.

[Rothbardian Girl]

Sentient Void, I greatly enjoyed your article. I think I saw it once but I had completely forgotten about it. Thanks for the post, it definitely clarified things a lot more for me, although I cannot say with certainty that I agree with 100% of it.

I do have a question, however. Ninja-Homer mentioned a national registry or a blacklist of some sort - I think a great number of people here would object to a government-sponsored national registry. What makes this private registry any better then, if both registries violate peoples' reasonable expectations of privacy? I guess I don't really understand why a private organization or business should be allowed to violate peoples' liberties in the same manner as the government already does. Forgive me if I have misinterpreted the point at all - I am not trying to troll or anything.


I'd envision a company having an account for each driver, much like governments have "EZ Tags" for toll paying, etc. Except these would be run by private companies who could not share, nor would they want to share, that info.
This is pretty interesting - especially your second sentence. Can you please elaborate on what, if anything, would stop private agencies from sharing confidential data?

[AZKing]

A drunk driver is swerving in and out of his lane. What should he get charged with?

A fall down drunk man is getting in his car and drives away. What should happen?

A man points a gun at you and your family, but misses each time. What should happen?

[t0rnado]

I disagree with that principle. You have every right to drink and harm yourself on your own property, but you don't have to right to put me or my family in danger. Drunk driving is like playing Russian Roulette with other people's lives.

I don't have a problem with DUI laws. In a truly libertarian society they may not be necessary, but they are very necessary as long as roads are considered commons.

If you're implying that a car is a bullet, then you're playing Russian Roulette anyways. Feeling like you're in danger isn't a reason to ban anything. Using that piss poor line of logic, you could propose banning anything from rifles to words on "commons" because you feel you're family is in danger.

[guitarlifter]

This has been said in the thread already, but I'll just put in my own words for repetition's sake. All roads need to be privatized. The owner of the roads may make whatever rules they want for the roads, which can include similar drunk driving laws like we have now in the US. The only difference is that you agree, by using the roads (and possibly paying if they charge for it), to follow and be subject to these rules and the enforcement of them. Also, I think that, should one damage a person or property while driving, one shouldn't be punished any more severely just because they were inebriated during the crime. It would be like punishing them more severely for being tired, angry, distracted. It would be arbitrary to change the law due to one arbitrary factor and not for all others.

Of course, in a libertarian society, transportation technology would likely advance at a much quicker rate, so better, safer modes of transportation would likely arise, possibly making this argument a moot point.

[Nate-ForLiberty]

Sentient Void, I greatly enjoyed your article. I think I saw it once but I had completely forgotten about it. Thanks for the post, it definitely clarified things a lot more for me, although I cannot say with certainty that I agree with 100% of it.

I do have a question, however. Ninja-Homer mentioned a national registry or a blacklist of some sort - I think a great number of people here would object to a government-sponsored national registry. What makes this private registry any better then, if both registries violate peoples' reasonable expectations of privacy? I guess I don't really understand why a private organization or business should be allowed to violate peoples' liberties in the same manner as the government already does. Forgive me if I have misinterpreted the point at all - I am not trying to troll or anything.


This is pretty interesting - especially your second sentence. Can you please elaborate on what, if anything, would stop private agencies from sharing confidential data?

Technically the only thing that could stop them is if they signed a contract with each individual to not share any info. This would require a major educational campaign in order to get people to understand the dangers behind making certain info "shareable" between companies. But of course there will always be people who wouldn't care or maybe would want companies to share their info. It's all about how the people vote with their money. A company could use "We do not share your info" as a selling point. That could bring in certain customers, but then those customers must read the fine print.

Most likely in a free market system with privately owned roads, you'd have a separate company manage the client accounts with TAGs. This third company would be contracted by the road owners to manage the client side aspect of the industry. So you won't have 100s of companies managing roads and clients. You'll have 100s of companies managing roads, and then these road managers contract to the few client managing companies.

just like buying stuff at the grocery store. You don't buy directly from your local dairy. The dairy contracts with the store to sell their product.


You could also have a toll company that gets contracted out by the road owners. Just like commercial airlines have a "network" of flight routes, you can have a "network" of highways.

Also, just because all roads would be privatized doesn't mean all roads would have tolls. They could cover their costs with advertising. Or build special lanes for trucking and bring in money from industry for special use. There are so many potential ways to pay for these roads it's ridiculous. We've been programmed to think taxes are the only way.

[South Park Fan]

Drunk driving laws are a typical statist response to a social problem. Rather than actually treating the root problem of erratic driving, they set an arbitrary limitation on the amount of alcohol that one can have in their bloodstream, ignoring the fact that people can react differently to different alcohol levels. Through Pavlovian conditioning, the public seems to have forgotten that sober drivers are often capable of erratic driving and that many 'drunk' drivers can drive competently.

[AZKing]

If you're implying that a car is a bullet, then you're playing Russian Roulette anyways. Feeling like you're in danger isn't a reason to ban anything. Using that piss poor line of logic, you could propose banning anything from rifles to words on "commons" because you feel you're family is in danger.

By your logic, every person, even a mentally insane one, should be able to get a gun because no one has technically been hurt. Sure, there's a very strong possibility that someone will get killed or hurt, but until someone is killed or hurt it's perfectly fine.

[outspoken]

Any person that takes the side of a drunk getting behind the wheel because his neglegence didn't cause injury doesn't not respect criminal intent... or lack of intent not to harm others. That's like saying it should be legal to go around shooting off a handgun in a public area as long as the bullets don't hit any bystanders. I'm sorry but I value liberty above all else but a person does not have the right to use a piece of machinery that can inflict damage if they have consciously consumed a large enough quantity of alcohol to impair their driving.

[Nate-ForLiberty]

By your logic, every person, even a mentally insane one, should be able to get a gun because no one has technically been hurt. Sure, there's a very strong possibility that someone will get killed or hurt, but until someone is killed or hurt it's perfectly fine.

Mentally "sane" people kill more people with guns than mentally "insane" people.

[Nate-ForLiberty]

Any person that takes the side of a drunk getting behind the wheel because his neglegence didn't cause injury doesn't not respect criminal intent... or lack of intent not to harm others. That's like saying it should be legal to go around shooting off a handgun in a public area as long as the bullets don't hit any bystanders. I'm sorry but I value liberty above all else but a person does not have the right to use a piece of machinery that can inflict damage if they have consciously consumed a large enough quantity of alcohol to impair their driving.

what about sleep induced impairment?

[pcosmar]

How do you keep stupid inept people off the roads?
It is obvious that drivers licenses are not effective.

Fact. The vast majority of traffic fatalities are caused by sober drivers.
Fact The vast majority of traffic accidents and fatalities are caused by licensed drivers.

Why do you want to target people who have alcohol in their system if they have not harmed anyone? Especially considering they are a small percentage of all traffic incidents.

Seems rather backwards to me.

[AGRP]

Can someone explain/reword what Lew means by this?

What have we done by permitting government to criminalize the content of our blood instead of actions themselves? We have given it power to make the application of the law arbitrary, capricious, and contingent on the judgment of cops and cop technicians. Indeed, without the government's "Breathalyzer," there is no way to tell for sure if we are breaking the law.

Sure, we can do informal calculations in our head, based on our weight and the amount of alcohol we have had over some period of time. But at best these will be estimates. We have to wait for the government to administer a test to tell us whether or not we are criminals. That's not the way law is supposed to work. Indeed, this is a form of tyranny.

[Nate-ForLiberty]

I'd recommend those arguing for keeping drunk driving laws look up the "red herring fallacy" before posting further.

[AZKing]

Mentally "sane" people kill more people with guns than mentally "insane" people.

More people go through with pregnancy than people who terminate the pregnancy through abortion. Does that make it ok?

[Nate-ForLiberty]

More people go through with pregnancy than people who terminate the pregnancy through abortion. Does that make it ok?

red herring.

we are talking about drunk driving.

[pcosmar]

A man points a gun at you and your family, but misses each time. What should happen?

That is the most stupid argument, and the most commonly used by statists and Anti-2nd amendment folks at the same time.

It is no where near the same nor similar.
it is pure fear mongering.

[nayjevin]

Driving drunk is idiotic. The worst part about it is that a drunk person cannot accurately judge his own ability to drive. Does this mean there should be a law? Compelling arguments are made above that under the current state there should be. If society were more responsible and more free perhaps the market could solve even this difficult problem without state enforcement. Private organizations attempt to educate people about the dangers. I remember we had a car that was involved in an alcohol accident on the front lawn of our school as a reminder. We've all been encouraged to 'take the keys' or be a designated driver.

But it doesn't stop drunk driving, even when it is in addition to laws against it. One possible answer is that in a 'libertarian society,' a culture of personal responsibility would be a prerequisite, and it's more likely to be cultivated when there is no state to depend upon. No libertarian expects a perfect utopia - it is just a means to minimize suffering, not an end all be all cure.

Another point: a part of the formula commonly overlooked is the suffering of the drunk driver, arrested, who has harmed no one. Admittedly, this holds no candle to those drunks harm - but it is indeed part of the evaluation. Ask a police officer to tell you some drunk tank stories. Often their eyes light up as they recount some of their own gross overactions.

If approaching this subject, it's important I believe to establish that 'we agree on the problem, but I think/I wonder if/could there be better ways to solve it' vs. starting with some version of 'it should be legal.'

[VIDEODROME]

Well I'm reading a lot about privitizing everything but we would still have public funded police right?

Now is there some middle ground here? I mean someone staggering to their car is a recipe for disaster. Sure they might make it home without incident but it's highly likely they could kill someone else or themselves. Are we to really just shrug it off and let them go?

But...... if we do something what kind of action would make sense? What if the cops just told the drunk they were going to follow him home with their rolling lights on to keep an eye on him and warn other drivers. Maybe suggest having him turn his hazard lights on as well.

If we operated this way would intoxicated people have less of a surge of resentment and fear of law enforcement and cooperate? Now I bet there are some drunks who would stubbornly try to drive the whole way home but I bet a few who partied and drank to hard might drive half a mile and give up. I mean if the cops are just there to keep the peace instead of immediately hauling him away in cuffs to spend the night in a lousy county jail then why not accept the help that is being offered to just keep people safe? Also maybe this way we don't treat hardcore alcoholics and people who had a few to many on a holiday the same way.

However we deal with this though I just don't accept having a total hands off approach if someone presents a clear obvious threat on the road. I want to see the Police take reasonable action that gets results in promoting road safety. If someone is swerving around they should be pulled over, but instead of dealing out aggressive punishment and intimidation offer help.

[Sentient Void]

This is why the tax payers who fund the road, whether is be city, state, national, should vote on if it should be legal on their roads or not. Effectively, the tax payers own the road so they should make the laws. So, while I agree that it should only be a crime if you hurt someone, the decision should be up to the tax payer who "owns" the road.

What does this even mean? Who is 'the taxpayer' exactly? How does 'the taxpayer' determine the laws?

I'm a taxpayer. If I'm outvoted, then I don't get to choose these laws. So let's call it what it is - the taxpayer is irrelevant - what's relevant in such a system is the majority.

So is it just to have 50.1% exercise their vision of what should be enforced on the 49.9% that disagree?

The State is one giant Tragedy of the Commons. The problem with 'public property' and according issues (drunk driving, 'free speech', trespassing, etc), as that it is not clear who owns the property. Do I own the property? Does everyone? Does no one? Does 'the government' - whatever that means? Because there are no clear property rights, the public sphere is fucked in determining laws and ownership and who can do what and where.

Privatize it all.

[Sentient Void]

Can someone explain/reword what Lew means by this?

What have we done by permitting government to criminalize the content of our blood instead of actions themselves? We have given it power to make the application of the law arbitrary, capricious, and contingent on the judgment of cops and cop technicians. Indeed, without the government's "Breathalyzer," there is no way to tell for sure if we are breaking the law.

Sure, we can do informal calculations in our head, based on our weight and the amount of alcohol we have had over some period of time. But at best these will be estimates. We have to wait for the government to administer a test to tell us whether or not we are criminals. That's not the way law is supposed to work. Indeed, this is a form of tyranny.

"Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We WANT them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted … and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Not that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with." - Ayn Rand, 'Atlas Shrugged'

[heavenlyboy34]

What does this even mean? Who is 'the taxpayer' exactly? How does 'the taxpayer' determine the laws?

I'm a taxpayer. If I'm outvoted, then I don't get to choose these laws. So let's call it what it is - the taxpayer is irrelevant - what's relevant in such a system is the majority.

So is it just to have 50.1% exercise their vision of what should be enforced on the 49.9% that disagree?

The State is one giant Tragedy of the Commons. The problem with 'public property' and according issues (drunk driving, 'free speech', trespassing, etc), as that it is not clear who owns the property. Do I own the property? Does everyone? Does no one? Does 'the government' - whatever that means? Because there are no clear property rights, the public sphere is fucked in determining laws and ownership and who can do what and where.

Privatize it all.
+rep epic post^^

[MikeStanart]

Do I think the current laws need to be reformed? Yes. Nobody should pay the rest of their life if they got behind the wheel and misjudged how much they took in and didn't harm anyone. (I honestly think the legal limit should be increased by a large amount.)


Do I condone drunk driving? Hell no. Anyone who knowingly drives when they know they're compromised has lost any and all respect from me. ( If you're in the middle of nowhere with a town population of 200, then I won't make a huge fuss), but if you're in a city with any sizeable population where you knowingly put people at risk, you're a asshole who should shell out the 20 damn bucks for a taxi.

[goldencane]

What does this even mean? Who is 'the taxpayer' exactly? How does 'the taxpayer' determine the laws?

I'm a taxpayer. If I'm outvoted, then I don't get to choose these laws. So let's call it what it is - the taxpayer is irrelevant - what's relevant in such a system is the majority.

So is it just to have 50.1% exercise their vision of what should be enforced on the 49.9% that disagree?

The State is one giant Tragedy of the Commons. The problem with 'public property' and according issues (drunk driving, 'free speech', trespassing, etc), as that it is not clear who owns the property. Do I own the property? Does everyone? Does no one? Does 'the government' - whatever that means? Because there are no clear property rights, the public sphere is fucked in determining laws and ownership and who can do what and where.

Privatize it all.

I agree that it should all be privatized. But in the real world, that might not happen for a long time, if ever. The closest thing we have to owners of the roads are taxpayers. The citizens of the city should determine what is legal on their roads, the state citizens on their roads, and the national citizens on their roads. The nation shouldn't make laws for the state, the state shouldn't make laws for the city, and vice versa.

[Nate-ForLiberty]

"Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We WANT them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted … and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Not that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with." - Ayn Rand, 'Atlas Shrugged'

some Eastern Wisdom...

Tao Te Ching
58

If a country is governed with tolerance,
the people are comfortable and honest.
If a country is governed with repression,
the people are depressed and crafty.

When the will to power is in charge,
the higher the ideals, the lower the results.
Try to make people happy,
and you lay the groundwork for misery.
Try to make people moral,
and you lay the groundwork for vice.

Thus the Master is content
to serve as an example
and not to impose her will.
She is pointed, but doesn't pierce.
Straightforward, but supple.
Radiant, but easy on the eyes.



75

When taxes are too high,
people go hungry.
When the government is too intrusive,
people lose their spirit.

Act for the people's benefit.
Trust them; leave them alone.




57

If you want to be a great leader,
you must learn to follow the Tao.
Stop trying to control.
Let go of fixed plans and concepts,
and the world will govern itself.

The more prohibitions you have,
the less virtuous people will be.
The more weapons you have,
the less secure people will be.
The more subsidies you have,
the less self-reliant people will be.

Therefore the Master says:
I let go of the law,
and people become honest.
I let go of economics,
and people become prosperous.
I let go of religion,
and people become serene.
I let go of all desire for the common good,
and the good becomes common as grass.


-----And this shit was written in the 6th century B.C.E!!

[messana]

Well I'm reading a lot about privitizing everything but we would still have public funded police right?

Now is there some middle ground here? I mean someone staggering to their car is a recipe for disaster. Sure they might make it home without incident but it's highly likely they could kill someone else or themselves. Are we to really just shrug it off and let them go?

But...... if we do something what kind of action would make sense? What if the cops just told the drunk they were going to follow him home with their rolling lights on to keep an eye on him and warn other drivers. Maybe suggest having him turn his hazard lights on as well.

If we operated this way would intoxicated people have less of a surge of resentment and fear of law enforcement and cooperate? Now I bet there are some drunks who would stubbornly try to drive the whole way home but I bet a few who partied and drank to hard might drive half a mile and give up. I mean if the cops are just there to keep the peace instead of immediately hauling him away in cuffs to spend the night in a lousy county jail then why not accept the help that is being offered to just keep people safe? Also maybe this way we don't treat hardcore alcoholics and people who had a few to many on a holiday the same way.

However we deal with this though I just don't accept having a total hands off approach if someone presents a clear obvious threat on the road. I want to see the Police take reasonable action that gets results in promoting road safety. If someone is swerving around they should be pulled over, but instead of dealing out aggressive punishment and intimidation offer help.

State police has no jurisdiction in monitoring private property.

[Sentient Void]

love Lao Tzu and Tao Te Ching.

[AZKing]

red herring.

Just making a comparison. It's very much so the same concept. Does government have the responsibility to protect life and property when someone is knowingly putting it in danger or not?

[Anti Federalist]

Therefore the Master says:
I let go of the law,
and people become honest.
I let go of economics,
and people become prosperous.
I let go of religion,
and people become serene.
I let go of all desire for the common good,
and the good becomes common as grass.

That ^^^

[Nate-ForLiberty]

Just making a comparison. It's very much so the same concept. Does government have the responsibility to protect life and property when someone is knowingly putting it in danger or not?

Life, Liberty, and Property. - yes

What we are talking about is the line between Life and Liberty as it relates to drunk driving. Using other scenarios for comparison muddies the debate and doesn't further our understanding.

[1000-points-of-fright]

A man points a gun at you and your family, but misses each time. What should happen?

He should not own a gun if he can't even point it at someone.

Drunk driving laws are like hate crime laws. Who cares why you killed someone or damaged property or were driving wrecklessly. You did it, end of story. Drinking, talking on the phone, playing with the cd player, eating a burger, doing make up... it doesn't matter.

[VIDEODROME]

State police has no jurisdiction in monitoring private property.

Well in the world we currently live in the roads are public. I'm just trying to suggest another approach current law enforcement could take.

Also just trying to focus just on the main topic of drunk driving more then total restructuring and privitizing all roads and services.

[MikeStanart]

He should not own a gun if he can't even point it at someone.

Drunk driving laws are like hate crime laws. Who cares why you killed someone or damaged property or were driving wrecklessly. You did it, end of story. Drinking, talking on the phone, playing with the cd player, eating a burger, doing make up... it doesn't matter.

So if I legitimately get into an accident with someone that was unavoidable, and they die....should I be charged with a crime as if it was murder?

[Freedom 4 all]

I'm drunk as a basketfull of lemurs in a cabbage factory right now! But I'm not on the road. That's the diff/jklh

[juleswin]

One answer is private roads. Then it is none of your business how they want to regulate DUI on their roads

[Brian4Liberty]

...how would a person be punished in the event he or she does kill someone, especially an alcoholic who might be a repeat offender? If someone is CLEARLY putting others in danger due to his or her behavior on the roadways, what should be done, if anything?

Good questions, does it depend upon how powerful the person is?

- How about a President or General whose actions repeatedly result in the accidental deaths of innocents (dropping bombs, firing missiles, sending in soldiers, starting wars, etc)?

- How about Police who accidentally kill people?

- How about the CEO or company executives who order employees to do dangerous things in an attempt to save a little money or time (resulting in accidents, exploding oil rigs, exploding nuclear reactors, dead employees, etc.)?

- What if any of the above take actions or make decisions that kill people after having a drink? Does that make a difference?

[1000-points-of-fright]

So if I legitimately get into an accident with someone that was unavoidable, and they die....should I be charged with a crime as if it was murder?

A car accident is almost always someone's fault. If the dead person is at fault you got no problem.

[Philhelm]

So if I legitimately get into an accident with someone that was unavoidable, and they die....should I be charged with a crime as if it was murder?

That's not a proper question. There are already separate desgnations for "murder." Manslaughter would be the criminal charge, and negligence the civil one.

[Bryan]

I disagree with everyone here. Consider the following...

Roads already are owned by a private entity, they are in effect owned by a group know as the State- which is nothing more than a collection of private people. The State however happens to share this asset with others.

However, in order to gain privilege to drive on the roads, that were constructed with other peoples property and labor, you agree to specific terms of use via a contract. That contract can stipulate that DWI is not allowed. So if you DWI, there might not be a victim with loss of life or property, there is however a victim from breach of contract. It's basic contract law.

Of course the Federal government has no place to say what the private States can do.

There are of course some other things to consider, such as:

- The State use force against others to take their property for road construction-- this is a completely morally vacant action and has no place in a society where people are opposed to such takings. This gives the State an untouchable advatage in the "road market", such that no one else can compete. In general, States should have no advantage over others for the purpose of getting land, getting funds, and dealing with other regulations vs. anyone else.

- There is a right to travel vs. right to private property dilemma that remains. Arguments that all property should be private will in effect land lock most everyone since you'd violate others property to travel anywhere, unless you paid whatever arbitrary fee they required. (Some try to counter this with you have a right to pass but that doesn't work so well when everyone fences everything off.. the argument holds no water to me). Even if roads are built, regardless of what private entity did so (the State or otherwise)- that would not gain you freedom of travel since you would have to be bound by the terms of the contract.

Thus, in a society that offers a degree of freedom of travel you must have free to travel land corridors- which could remain completely unimproved unless volunteers dedicated resources to improve them. In these cases however, there could be no contract to disallow any sort of DWI.

Our fundamental problem is the lack of these free to travel land corridors, thus everyone is all but forced into accepting the States terms of use for roads.

To argue that roads can't or shouldn't be owned by the State is very anti-libertarian in my point of view-- since you are trying to force your will onto others and say that they can't self organize in such a manner. Why would you care if a bunch of people said they are going to donate land / money to some entity for the purpose of building roads, which you could then travel on if you so wished? You shouldn't... the problem however is that you have no choices-- and no free land corridor option if you don't like any of the terms of the contracts of the "improved" land corridors.

The issue is a lot more complicated than this- this is just the short version.

[nayjevin]

Just making a comparison. It's very much so the same concept. Does government have the responsibility to protect life and property when someone is knowingly putting it in danger or not?

Kind of like the 'forks don't kill people, felons who aren't allowed to own weapons kill people (with forks)'. Driving is knowingly putting others in danger already. That one is drunk is immaterial to that point - this because it is not 1 to 1 that X amount of drunkeness causes X amount of danger. Such a relationship can only be found 'on average,' and would defy the principles of individualism. I do believe that being drunk is material to culpability - I would imagine that arbitration organizations would see a demand for judging restitution requirements based on whether the guilty was drunk - just as we see communities calling for heavier punishments for drunk drivers.

[nayjevin]

The issue is a lot more complicated than this- this is just the short version.

Wow-o great post. I'd buy the long version :)

[Ninja Homer]

- There is a right to travel vs. right to private property dilemma that remains. Arguments that all property should be private will in effect land lock most everyone since you'd violate others property to travel anywhere, unless you paid whatever arbitrary fee they required. (Some try to counter this with you have a right to pass but that doesn't work so well when everyone fences everything off.. the argument holds no water to me). Even if roads are built, regardless of what private entity did so (the State or otherwise)- that would not gain you freedom of travel since you would have to be bound by the terms of the contract.

Yes yes yes! Thank you, for moving it to this logical conundrum. I think it's pretty obvious to most of us that private ownership of roads has a multitude of solutions to the problem of drunk (or any form of reckless/endangering) driving. The real problem is how do you balance private ownership of roads with the right to travel freely throughout the land.

In my opinion, what would need to be done is to break down and recognize the role that each level of government should have. For example, the only role that the federal government should have is to examine free access to interstate travel, and if there isn't enough free travel between 2 states they should have the power to order the states to make travel more free between them.

It gets trickier as it goes down from there, but the way I see it is that states should own the roads designated as interstate travel roads, and thus should create the rules for them. States should also have the role of making sure that there is free travel between counties.

Counties own the roads that are designated to connect counties for travel throughout a state, and create the rules for them. Counties also have the role of making sure there is free travel between cities/communities.

City or community roads may have roads owned by them, or they may also have roads that are privately owned by people. The way I see it is that if you own land connected to a road, you should be part owner of that road. If you own land, you should have a right to freely travel to and from there (provided you are paying your share of upkeep for the road).

Besides these roads that are owned and operated and ruled by various levels of government, there could also be competing privately owned roads. One existing example of this is railroads. Just imagine what might happen if railroads added a couple lanes for automobiles next to all their tracks and were allowed to create whatever rules they wanted to for driving on them.

[IDefendThePlatform]

I disagree with everyone here. Consider the following...

In general, States should have no advantage over others for the purpose of getting land, getting funds, and dealing with other regulations vs. anyone else.



Very interesting post. But doesn't the above statement mean that States are not actually States? My definition of a State is an organization that initiates force to achieve its means. If States had no advantage, wouldn't that mean they aren't States at all, but just organizations or companies? It seems like you are implying that they would lose the power to tax, which would strip them of the title "State", IMHO.

Also, I take issue with the "Right to travel". This implies a claim on other people's property, which I disagree with. "Landlocked" seems like a highly unlikely scenario to me in a society based on property rights.

[pcosmar]

I'm just trying to suggest another approach current law enforcement could take.



I am as well. and have several times. I suggest a total rethinking of enforcement. I find the concept of "police" to be offensive to liberty.
And this offense has corrupted the very idea of justice and the legal system.

This is the best piece i have seen on the subject.
ARE COPS CONSTITUTIONAL?
http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm

As far as "drunk driving". It is an issue that has been pushed by prohibitionists, and goes beyond all logic. They have lied and twisted or fabricated statistics to do so.
A very small percentage of traffic accidents and deaths are caused by drunk drivers. But a great many Non-drunk people are negatively affected by both laws and their enforcement.

Rethinking both the laws and their enforcement is in order.

[Bryan]

Very interesting post.Thanks.


But doesn't the above statement mean that States are not actually States? My definition of a State is an organization that initiates force to achieve its means. If States had no advantage, wouldn't that mean they aren't States at all, but just organizations or companies? It seems like you are implying that they would lose the power to tax, which would strip them of the title "State", IMHO.
:D You got it. :) ...but here's the reason. If you talk to a non-free-thinking non-libertarian and tell them there should be no State or the like then you immediately run into a major physiological barrier, people shut down, they think you're crazy and a danger to others... so what you have to do is respect their right to self organize, and they are welcome to call their organization whatever it is they want... and if they want to call it a State, then so be it. Why bother arguing semantics if you've got your freedom? I don't see any inherent cast in stone definition that says a State has the power to tax, etc. It's arbitrary. Let them "win" that one.

This same argument applies to corporations. Some in our camp argue that they shouldn't exist, but it is again just how you define things. A corporation can be nothing other than a private group of people self-organizing for business purposes--- the problems arise however when they are granted special privileges because they filled out paper work and paid a fee. The issue is the special privileges, not what they call themselves.



Also, I take issue with the "Right to travel". This implies a claim on other people's property, which I disagree with. "Landlocked" seems like a highly unlikely scenario to me in a society based on property rights.
"Right to travel" is a pretty ambiguous statement- and as stated, there is a contention between "right to travel" and private property- they are really in fact, mutually exclusive. I tend to think of it as a scale. On one side, if you are to have absolute right to travel anywhere then there can in effect be no private property since someone can always have the right to come into your home, or whatever. If a society wanted this for some predefined geographical area then that would be their choice, but I don't see a lot of people wanting this. Most people do want some privacy / security / etc - via private property and there is little substance to argue that that shouldn't be allowed somewhere on this planet. However, if 100% of the land in a geographical area was private property then you could not get to a non-adjacent piece of land without having to request authorization to pass though an adjacent piece. Again, if a group of people wanted it this way, then what's the issue? But most don't want that...

Beyond these two extreme cases there are countless other possibilities in-between, of which there is no perfect solution that makes everyone happy-- but the point is that, travel does not have to impede on other peoples property.

So having the ability to freely travel to other places, which could be a loose definition of "Right to travel" doesn't have to imply that you are claiming other peoples property. It can just mean that there are land corridors that you can use as some sort of middle ground between the two extremes described above.

[awake]

The issue is really at what point does preemptive prosecution become a principle. If you think a man might do something or there is a good chance that he will, do you arrest him before the fact?

One is always left with justifying the action of arrest in the thought that the captured person was going to hurt some one eventually, so it's OK to prosecute first. Preemptive war is a glaring example of this mentality - chasing the world over for mad men before they become mad.

Drunk driving is not a wise activity, as is putting on make up while eating a cheese burger and talking on a cell phone, but it isn't a crime until you injure someone or their property. The laws against it do not eliminate these actions in any way.


One is as well left wonder how these issues would play out on private roads and with free market insurance companies.

[Bryan]

In my opinion, what would need to be done is to break down and recognize the role that each level of government should have. For example, the only role that the federal government should have is to examine free access to interstate travel, and if there isn't enough free travel between 2 states they should have the power to order the states to make travel more free between them.
I would not support such power since the degree of access needed to travel between two state is arbitrary. Having the federal government apply social pressure would be much better-- and the social pressure can balance out based on public opinion, but there is never any force involved.



The way I see it is that if you own land connected to a road, you should be part owner of that road.
What if one of your neighbors decides to use some of their property as part of a new road consortium, should you somehow become a part owner in this private consortium?

That said, it would not make sense to buy land that was truly land locked, without any road access. If someone was to sell off part of their land, and that part had no road access then why buy it? The seller would do much better if the land purchase came with a grant to pass over part of their land to reach a road-- and that grant would be tied to future owners too.

[Bryan]

Wow-o great post. I'd buy the long version :)
Thanks... I'll have to work on that one. :)

[Bryan]

Drunk driving is not a wise acativity, but it isn't a crime until you injure someone or their property..
Read my first post here (post #62)-- the issue can be a violation of contract.

[awake]

"I've heard that in a Libertarian society, people can drive drunk or drive while drinking"

I have heard of people in our current society who do this as well. The assumption that a law against it drunk driving magically makes it disappear is a curious one.

[awake]

Read my first post here (post #62)-- the issue can be a violation of contract.

Yes I would agree...It can be.

[IDefendThePlatform]

So having the ability to freely travel to other places, which could be a loose definition of "Right to travel" doesn't have to imply that you are claiming other peoples property. It can just mean that there are land corridors that you can use as some sort of middle ground between the two extremes described above.

I submit that having the "ability" to travel and the "right" to travel are two different things. People in a free society would almost certainly have the ability to travel, via private roads, unowned land, etc... but not the "right". The only "right" anyone has is the right of self-ownership, which IMHO includes ownership of property.

Basically, I agree with you that the right to travel and the right to private property are mutually exclusive, but my stance is that the "right" to property supercedes any claim regarding a "right" or "ability" to travel.

[IDefendThePlatform]

That said, it would not make sense to buy land that was truly land locked, without any road access. If someone was to sell off part of their land, and that part had no road access then why buy it? The seller would do much better if the land purchase came with a grant to pass over part of their land to reach a road-- and that grant would be tied to future owners too.

+1

[Nate-ForLiberty]

I disagree with everyone here. Consider the following...

Roads already are owned by a private entity, they are in effect owned by a group know as the State- which is nothing more than a collection of private people. The State however happens to share this asset with others.


And the State can make horrible laws that come with inappropriately harsh consequences for victimless crimes, and then use it's own police force and judicial system to enforce those laws. Having privately owned roads would be a check on this power. When the state owns and operates all roads there is a complete monopoly. Combined with it's use of the police force, it is tyranny.



However, in order to gain privilege to drive on the roads, that were constructed with other peoples property and labor, you agree to specific terms of use via a contract. That contract can stipulate that DWI is not allowed. So if you DWI, there might not be a victim with loss of life or property, there is however a victim from breach of contract. It's basic contract law.

Of course the Federal government has no place to say what the private States can do.


Agreed. This includes building an interstate highway system, which was lobbied for by automobile companies during Eisenhower's reign. Of course, he mostly saw it as a national defense network. The Constitution, however, only allows the Federal Government the power to establish post roads.




There are of course some other things to consider, such as:

- The State use force against others to take their property for road construction-- this is a completely morally vacant action and has no place in a society where people are opposed to such takings. This gives the State an untouchable advatage in the "road market", such that no one else can compete. In general, States should have no advantage over others for the purpose of getting land, getting funds, and dealing with other regulations vs. anyone else.


Agreed. eminent domain has nothing to do with Liberty or "Free Travel".



- There is a right to travel vs. right to private property dilemma that remains. Arguments that all property should be private will in effect land lock most everyone since you'd violate others property to travel anywhere, unless you paid whatever arbitrary fee they required. (Some try to counter this with you have a right to pass but that doesn't work so well when everyone fences everything off.. the argument holds no water to me). Even if roads are built, regardless of what private entity did so (the State or otherwise)- that would not gain you freedom of travel since you would have to be bound by the terms of the contract.


I'm not sold on the "right to travel" meaning that everyone has a right to go anywhere no matter what. To me, this sounds similar to the "right to medical care". I see the "right to travel" as meaning the government cannot hinder one's ability to go wherever they choose (i.e. checkpoints, roadblocks, state's restricting passage to a neighboring state, etc.) "Right to travel" is not the 'positive' "you can go anywhere you please no matter who owns the land", but the 'negative' "the government has no right to stop you from traveling where you please." As a private property owner you have every right to say "no passage here".




Thus, in a society that offers a degree of freedom of travel you must have free to travel land corridors- which could remain completely unimproved unless volunteers dedicated resources to improve them. In these cases however, there could be no contract to disallow any sort of DWI.


This has no Constitutional basis. Nor does it have any basis in economics. People need to travel in order to trade. Trade produces wealth. If, in the ridiculous example of everyone throwing up a fence, you a have 100% landlocked immobile society, you would have a desolate, 3rd world nation. No one would be wealthy enough to maintain their property, or defend it. If there was a State, it would collapse immediately. In short, if people tried to wall themselves in their own property, without the ability to travel, society would collapse.

Obviously, people want more wealth and will devise ways of obtaining it. If all land was privately owned, you'd still need lanes for trade. Which would become another industry! We've had state run roads for so long we've forgotten that this is a whole sector of the economy that has been completely wiped out due to government intervention. There is a lot of money to be made from providing safe, cheap, reliable, and fast roads for transport. Not to mention other forms of travel like rail. People will make what they need. If two neighboring communities see a need for a 20 lane freeway from their town to the next, they'll band together via temporary Incorporation and build the damn thing. Yes, it's a lot harder to get everyone on board with your ideas for construction, but it is also the right thing to do, the legal thing to do, and the method most in line with Liberty. Once one community does it successfully, others will follow. This is what Ron Paul talks about (non-specifically) when he says you can't spread our goodness at the point of a gun. You can't spread Freedom and economic prosperity by stealing land no matter if you are one person or a government.



Our fundamental problem is the lack of these free to travel land corridors, thus everyone is all but forced into accepting the States terms of use for roads.

To argue that roads can't or shouldn't be owned by the State is very anti-libertarian in my point of view-- since you are trying to force your will onto others and say that they can't self organize in such a manner. Why would you care if a bunch of people said they are going to donate land / money to some entity for the purpose of building roads, which you could then travel on if you so wished? You shouldn't... the problem however is that you have no choices-- and no free land corridor option if you don't like any of the terms of the contracts of the "improved" land corridors.

The issue is a lot more complicated than this- this is just the short version.

I don't get how it is very anti-libertarian. People can organize all they want. Why do they have to organize into the despotic land grabbing "State". This is what the corporation is for, which is supposed to be a temporary establishment for the building or production of a major project. Not a monolithic overreaching eternal entity that has it's hands into everything. A corporation that has no ability to send people to jail for victimless crimes.

There are always choices on how to get to places. If you don't like the terms of the contract, use a different route. But in reality, what company wants to put stringent contractual requirements on travel. The more people that travel their roads the more money they make. Why the fear that private companies, if given control over vital parts of our infrastructure, would just shut us all down? Competition prevents this, monopolies encourage this. Right now, the State has a monopoly.

[Bryan]

And the State can make horrible laws that come with inappropriately harsh consequences for victimless crimes, and then use it's own police force and judicial system to enforce those laws.
This is a completely different issue, and one that is not inherently tied to a State. Such tyranny can arise in the absence of any sort of State, such as with warlords. These issues have to be guarded against, regardless.


When the state owns and operates all roads there is a complete monopoly. Combined with it's use of the police force, it is tyranny.
I agree- and my position says that the State should not have a monopoly on roads.



I'm not sold on the "right to travel" meaning that everyone has a right to go anywhere no matter what. To me, this sounds similar to the "right to medical care". I see the "right to travel" as meaning the government cannot hinder one's ability to go wherever they choose (i.e. checkpoints, roadblocks, state's restricting passage to a neighboring state, etc.) "Right to travel" is not the 'positive' "you can go anywhere you please no matter who owns the land", but the 'negative' "the government has no right to stop you from traveling where you please." As a private property owner you have every right to say "no passage here".
I think we are in agreement here, I explained this position a bit more in my reply to IDefendThePlatform post.


This has no Constitutional basis.
Agreed, so it's a state issue.


Nor does it have any basis in economics.
Debatable, but why should it? I would argue it should have a basis in freedom first.


People need to travel in order to trade. Trade produces wealth. If, in the ridiculous example of everyone throwing up a fence, you a have 100% landlocked immobile society, you would have a desolate, 3rd world nation.
Why is it ridiculous? How many people offer other allowance to pass freely on their land? Not too many (I have seen cases, most of which are done to reduce tax burden).


No one would be wealthy enough to maintain their property, or defend it.
No one can ever completely defend a fixed position, 100%, it's all degrees of... so we'd have to dissect this more. None-the-less, it is still a possible outcome from 100% "private" property.


In short, if people tried to wall themselves in their own property, without the ability to travel, society would collapse.
My point really isn't that people would wall themselves in, it's that they have gated access and tolls to pass- so everywhere you went, you could pay dozens or hundreds of tolls.


If all land was privately owned, you'd still need lanes for trade. Which would become another industry!Agreed, but part of my point is that you will have to agree to the terms of those roads... and if none are favorable (or even reasonable), you're stuck. The free land corridor solution solves this- it always gives you an out. This "out" is also important as a means to avoid having to purchase a specific type of energy that may be required to use a road way, such as oil.


We've had state run roads for so long we've forgotten that this is a whole sector of the economy that has been completely wiped out due to government intervention. There is a lot of money to be made from providing safe, cheap, reliable, and fast roads for transport. Not to mention other forms of travel like rail. People will make what they need. If two neighboring communities see a need for a 20 lane freeway from their town to the next, they'll band together via temporary Incorporation and build the damn thing. Yes, it's a lot harder to get everyone on board with your ideas for construction, but it is also the right thing to do, the legal thing to do, and the method most in line with Liberty. Once one community does it successfully, others will follow. This is what Ron Paul talks about (non-specifically) when he says you can't spread our goodness at the point of a gun. You can't spread Freedom and economic prosperity by stealing land no matter if you are one person or a government.
I agree with you 100% on this- it's totally critical too-- I'm not sure how my position is inferring otherwise.



I don't get how it is very anti-libertarian. People can organize all they want. Why do they have to organize into the despotic land grabbing "State".
The issue is that there needs to be a respect for others right to self organize, and they are welcome to call their organization whatever it is they want... and if they want to call it a State, then so be it... of course that doesn't give them the right to start despotic land grabs.


There are always choices on how to get to places. If you don't like the terms of the contract, use a different route.
But what if you don't like the terms of any of the private routes?


But in reality, what company wants to put stringent contractual requirements on travel. The more people that travel their roads the more money they make.
Not true- they will have the most people traveling if it is free, and will make no money. They will end up with a system of marked-based tolls, charging as much as the market will bear, which will make them the most money. Worse, if there is only a small number of private companies then they could in their right work with the others to raise prices as much as possible, even scaled on ones ability to pay. The free land corridor solution always provides an out.


Why the fear that private companies, if given control over vital parts of our infrastructure, would just shut us all down? Competition prevents this, monopolies encourage this. Right now, the State has a monopoly.
I am not arguing against private companies, as originally stated "In general, States should have no advantage over others for the purpose of getting land, getting funds, and dealing with other regulations vs. anyone else." ... OK, that wasn't totally clear but that was the point. (Hey, it was late... :))

[Bryan]

I submit that having the "ability" to travel and the "right" to travel are two different things. People in a free society would almost certainly have the ability to travel, via private roads, unowned land, etc... but not the "right". The only "right" anyone has is the right of self-ownership, which IMHO includes ownership of property.

Basically, I agree with you that the right to travel and the right to private property are mutually exclusive, but my stance is that the "right" to property supercedes any claim regarding a "right" or "ability" to travel.
I think we are in agreement here on principles-- sometimes you just have to work through the semantics. :)

[Nate-ForLiberty]

"In general, States should have no advantage over others for the purpose of getting land, getting funds, and dealing with other regulations vs. anyone else."

that's what States are for!! :D

[IDefendThePlatform]

I think we are in agreement here on principles-- sometimes you just have to work through the semantics. :)

Agreed. :)

[Elwar]

It should depend on the policy of the private road that you're traveling on.

[Nate-ForLiberty]

Not true- they will have the most people traveling if it is free, and will make no money. They will end up with a system of marked-based tolls, charging as much as the market will bear, which will make them the most money. Worse, if there is only a small number of private companies then they could in their right work with the others to raise prices as much as possible, even scaled on ones ability to pay. The free land corridor solution always provides an out.

I have to go teach a piano lesson, but I'll be back! I was just watching a lecture (I think by Thomas Woods) who talks about this myth. That all the companies will get together and raise prices. When I get back I'll post. :)

[Brian4Liberty]

And the State can make horrible laws that come with inappropriately harsh consequences for victimless crimes, and then use it's own police force and judicial system to enforce those laws. ... Combined with it's use of the police force, it is tyranny.

I agree with that part. It's not an issue about whether there can or should be a law against driving after drinking. We will always have laws, even in a minimalist society. We have speed laws on roads. Laws against driving impaired are reasonable. No big deal.

The issue is about undue harsh penalties for victimless "crimes" (although this might be better called a violation). In addition, it's about throwing the 4th Amendment right out the window with checkpoints and other Police tactics that do not have the required probable cause. Traditional probable cause was a driver weaving or other irregular driving. That is reasonable.

Finally, this is a vendetta and propaganda campaign by a neo-prohibitionist special interest group. Don't fall for their rhetoric and hyperbole. Even the founder of said organization has disavowed them (in 1985).


Candace Lynne "Candy" Lightner (born May 30, 1946) is the organizer and founding president of Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD)
...
She left MADD in 1985. She has since stated that MADD "has become far more neo-prohibitionist than I had ever wanted or envisioned … I didn’t start MADD to deal with alcohol. I started MADD to deal with the issue of drunk driving".

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

[MelissaWV]

This discussion has been had so, so many times... but okay! I'm game for another!


I disagree with that principle. You have every right to drink and harm yourself on your own property, but you don't have the right to put me or my family in danger. Drunk driving is like playing Russian Roulette with other people's lives.

I don't have a problem with DUI laws. In a truly libertarian society they may not be necessary, but they are very necessary as long as roads are considered commons.

You don't have a right on common property to harm others (unless you're in uniform, but that's another matter). DUI laws start far before that. If you are at a checkpoint, which usually requires that you slow down, follow directions, and submit to a sobriety exam, then you have not harmed others. If anything, the maneuvers associated with parking and getting out and taking the test show that you're at least somewhat capable of driving. If you are swerving, as others have noted, you are already likely breaking various laws and might be demonstrably putting someone at risk.

On that last point, let's be very clear. Having a drink, getting into your car, and driving home does not put anyone at more risk than getting into your car and driving home (sans drink). Swerving, driving badly, tailgating, driving in a threatening way (flashing your lights, cutting someone off, honking, etc.)... those are things that can contribute to another person having an accident. We are in a gray area here, and on private roads this would be addressed by the owner or a contracted "safety patrol" type organization. If you cut me off so closely that I have to swerve off of the road to avoid an accident, I would hope I have some course of action to pursue if I can identify you. If that swerve results in, say, a flat tire or something... I would want to go after you to pay for it. This would hinge on being able to show a judge that you were the person that cut me off and also I had no choice but to swerve and get a flat. I would hope that most private roads would issue "tickets" to people like this. In our current system, I really wish the police we have would concentrate more on people who are actually causing a danger rather than those who are just a little over the legal limit (BAC) or speeding in a perfectly safe way.


A drunk driver is swerving in and out of his lane. What should he get charged with?

A fall down drunk man is getting in his car and drives away. What should happen?

The former ties into the aforementioned scenarios... as long as someone's in danger other than the driver. I've driven straddling two lanes before, because with deer the way they are, it was safer that way. At 2am on a winding West Virginia stretch of interstate, there are few unannounced vehicles I could be endangering. If a cop saw me, I'd get pulled over for certain.

The latter is no one's business until there's an injury or a "near-miss" as defined by the owner of the road (see examples above). Getting into his car and driving away seems to me to indicate he can drive. He hasn't crashed in the parking lot. He has managed to put the car into gear. These are all major positives. He could be driving away down one block or two. It's a potentially dangerous situation, yes, and it's likely that some street signs are in for a rough night. What's way more likely is that the car will get beached on a curb and only the drunk will suffer as he has to repair his bumper.

I know... so upsetting. You talked about how to respond when someone starts weeping. This is where I have to roll my eyes at people. My one grandfather died after an operation to repair a hernia. We should ban that, right? Ban infections!!! Well, we should at least require really long, redundant sterilization of everything... of course then he'd have died waiting for an operation to repair a hernia, eventually. My other grandfather died of a heart attack alone in the house with my sister who was a toddler at the time. I think we should have in-house cameras to ensure no elderly people drop dead!!! No? Stupid? Google "asleep at the wheel accidents" sometime. Shall we mandate people be appropriately rested before being allowed to drive?

The "falling down drunk" guy could have easily been "falling down tired." I know I've left work so exhausted that, once home, I could not recall anything about my drive home. I have nodded off slightly behind the wheel.

It's not heartless to realize that people will die, and are still dying, regardless of Government "help" in trying to stop it.


The average libertarian probably supports drunk driving laws, as those who drive drunk put others at risk. It's just that many of the libertarians here are more the anarchist types and basically don't want any laws.

No, the average libertarian tends to support one of two angles (or even both simultaneously) on the issue. First, that private owners of the roads in question should decide the rules of the road based on their desired purpose. Second, that laws should ideally and most fairly punish actions which can be proven to have caused injury or death, or damage to property, or came so close that any idiot (court) could see there should be something done.

Not wanting Federal laws is not automatically a desire for no laws at all.

[Wesker1982]

This is a non-issue when property rights are defended. Like yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, its not an issue when property rights are upheld. Voluntaryarize roads = problem solved.

Here is another good article on drunk driving laws anyways
Drunk-Driving Laws Are Absurd http://www.lewrockwell.com/crovelli/crovelli25.html

[Agorism]

Privately owned highways could make their own laws. If they are not safe, then a lot of people wouldn't use those highways.

[newbitech]

I am 100% certain that in a libertarian society any law for or against driving with alcohol in your system would be either 100% for it or 100% against it. There would be no grey area of arbitrary BAC.

People who think DUI is good and proper the way the law stands now need to understand that they are supporting a law that actually ENCOURAGES driving with alcohol in the blood.

That's right, if you like the law the way it reads now, then you are encouraging driving with alcohol in your system. As someone who has been through DUI class twice (no i didn't kill your or anyone else family member, nor did I cause any damage or financial loss) the first thing you learn is that as soon as you put 1 drop of alcohol in to your system, you are under the influence.

So the law says, yes you are allowed to drive under the influence, but there is a limit to how much alcohol can be in your system. Apparently that limit is the same for someone who is allergic to alcohol (alcoholics) and someone who is not allergic to alcohol (most people). Here is the problem, if I have one drink and go out and kill someone or cause property damage, alcohol will STILL be considered a contributing factor and I will STILL face the tougher sanctions. 1 drink is not going to put me over the arbitrary limit, but because it was a contributing factor, I still get treated as breaking the DUI law and get a DUI on my record. That is how it should function and how it does function at least in FL. But see, if I don't cause any damage or hurt or kill someone, I can beat the breath test because I am under the limit and the law will not enforce a DUI.

See what happens there? Proponents of the DUI laws want us to believe that the laws are preventing deaths or act as a deterrent. This is simply not the case. In fact, the law actually encourage people that it is OK to be under the influence and drive as long as they stay below some arbitrary limit.

Sitting there in the bar with friends. Ah I can have a drink and impair my judgement as long as I stay below the limit, I'll be fine.

Vs.

Sitting there in the bar with friends, there is 0 tolerance for having anything in my system that will impair my judgement so I don't even want to smell alcohol.


Which do you support? If you support 0 tolerance, then you don't need to be pissed at individuals who drive drunk but don't hurt anyone. You need to be pissed at individuals who believe some alcohol is ok up to a certain limit FOR EVERYONE. You need to be pissed at people who accepts anything other than zero tolerance FOR EVERYONE.

We already tried abolition. The solution is not trying to arbitrarily enforce BAC. The solution is making sure people understand that if you have any controlled substance in your system and you cause loss, injury, or death, you will be just as responsible for paying for that loss as someone who caused the loss, injury, or death that is clean as a whistle.

Fight the problem, not the symptom and stop defending laws that encourage drunk driving!

[Brian4Liberty]

We are in a gray area here, and on private roads this would be addressed by the owner or a contracted "safety patrol" type organization.

<On a tangent, not directed at MWV or anyone else...>

I consider private roads to be a separate issue, but this reminded me about the real world implications of private roads. Obviously, the average toll road works just fine. They are in business. But a real private road, shared by the people living on the road, or in a gated community, can be nightmares. Believe me, there will be people that will "appoint" themselves to be the "safety patrol". The most obnoxious, safety-mommy, busy-body, in everyone else's business, people will leap at the opportunity. And power corrupts even at the smallest scale. Expect speed limits of 5mph, with the mommy-types (not exclusively female by any means!), who can't tell the difference between a car going 3mph or 35mph, to be constantly complaining and wanting to extract penalties. Public roads are lawless and filled with anarchy compared to a road where some busy-bodies get to make the rules. Maybe this is only in California, but some people put multiple red cones and yellow plastic children shaped signs with flags out into the public roads around their house when their children are outside. Imagine putting those people in charge.

/end rant

[MelissaWV]

Right, but as we are not discussing gated communities, there would be few instances where you'd be "forced" to use those roads. I avoid roads I know to have "traffic calming" bullcrap, or too many lights, or blind corners where you can't see well enough to decide whether to go or not. I avoid roads where the speed limits are strictly enforced but there are rolling hills (funny how the cops love hiding at the bottoms of those hills). There are a few instances where I must go past a school, and it's obvious to me why a schoolzone --- like the one I drive through each morning to get to work --- must have much lower speed limits while kids are walking to school. I allow a bit of time to get through there.

I guess the problem with the California example is that other roads are still public. The extremists tend to get ahold of things first. I doubt sincerely that every road-owner will have tolls every mile or two, or a bunch of busybody patrols, and so on. Anyone who would own something as large as, say, a section of interstate, would be likely to hire a "police" force that, being private, would be held much more accountable for its performance and treatment of patrons.


Maybe this is only in California, but some people put multiple red cones and yellow plastic children shaped signs with flags out into the public roads around their house when their children are outside. Imagine putting those people in charge.

Currently, those people are in charge of everything.

I would actually kind of appreciate it if people in my neighborhood would let me know when their charming, undersupervised children might suddenly leap out in front of my car. I would never mandate it, but it sounds like a pretty neat idea :p

[Brian4Liberty]

Right, but as we are not discussing gated communities, there would be few instances where you'd be "forced" to use those roads.

I also included private roads (usually not in the city). I know a couple of people who live off of private roads, and there is a business that I go to every once and a while that is on a private road.


I would actually kind of appreciate it if people in my neighborhood would let me know when their charming, undersupervised children might suddenly leap out in front of my car. I would never mandate it, but it sounds like a pretty neat idea :p

Lol, yeah, it is nice to have the warning, at the same time it gets obnoxious, especially when parents run out yelling slow down when you are actually going 25 mph and keeping a good eye out. Some people add their own permanent sign to the existing Street sign pole that says "Caution, Slow Children". My response is "get faster children". :p

True story: In a neighborhood near mine, there was a stupid kid revving and speeding up the neighborhood street. One of the "concerned" parents waited for the kid to come speeding back down the street, and he jumped out and threw a drive shaft through the front windshield. Took the kids head off. Of course the parent is no longer on safety patrol.

[Icymudpuppy]

It should depend on the policy of the private road that you're traveling on.

Exactly. I think most private roads would want to improve the safety on their roads, and I could totally invision a breathalyzer or similar test at the entrance of every turnpike.

[MelissaWV]

I also included private roads (usually not in the city). I know a couple of people who live off of private roads, and there is a business that I go to every once and a while that is on a private road.



Lol, yeah, it is nice to have the warning, at the same time it gets obnoxious, especially when parents run out yelling slow down when you are actually going 25 mph and keeping a good eye out. Some people add their own permanent sign to the existing Street sign pole that says "Caution, Slow Children". My response is "get faster children". :p

True story: In a neighborhood near mine, there was a stupid kid revving and speeding up the neighborhood street. One of the "concerned" parents waited for the kid to come speeding back down the street, and he jumped out and threw a drive shaft through the front windshield. Took the kids head off. Of course the parent is no longer on safety patrol.

I watched a kid who'd been obnoxiously rolling up and down the street on his skateboard get very brave and try to "jump" the speed hump within view of my window. He faceplanted right into a "caution" sign. I haven't seen him skateboarding around here recently.

Your examples don't contradict my point of view, though. If the mom wants to run out and create a hazard (which is what she is) then she'd best be ready to pay for damage to my car as I try to swerve and avoid her. There are numerous methods of traffic calming that don't involve a human being screaming at you or throwing things. The business along the private road has a strike against it if the rules are too obnoxious. Either the rules can change, or you don't keep going, or you decide it's worth the stupid rules to go.

[Zippyjuan]

Exactly. I think most private roads would want to improve the safety on their roads, and I could totally invision a breathalyzer or similar test at the entrance of every turnpike.

If that is done by a private company or the governement- what is the difference to you? There is still enforcement of laws on the road.

[Brian4Liberty]

I watched a kid who'd been obnoxiously rolling up and down the street on his skateboard get very brave and try to "jump" the speed hump within view of my window. He faceplanted right into a "caution" sign. I haven't seen him skateboarding around here recently.

Classic. :D

Now if you had a vid, there's several TV shows that might buy that...

Of course that would not happen on private roads where I am, as skateboarding, blading and bicycling is banned.

[Galileo Galilei]

drunk driving is the only "crime" in which the state does not have to prove criminal intent. Remember this.

[Anti Federalist]

I hate the whole private roads idea.

I can envision it being as tyrannical or, more likely, more tyrannical, than what we're dealing with now.

Not to mention the whole "eminent domain for private gain" issue.

It was the precedent of private railroads having government take private property by eminent domain that the SCROTUS used to find in the favor of the NLDC in the infamous Kelo v. New London decision.

Under limited constitutional government, only a very few obligations were granted to government.

Building roads was one of them, just as tariffs were the only permitted taxes.

[LibertyRevolution]

In a libertarian society, the roads are privately owned & operated. The owners can make whatever rules they want to. "Drive drunk on my road or you're banned from ever using it again" would likely be a common one. You'd probably also be put on a national blacklist, and you'd find travel very difficult.

And this is why I will never be for private roads.
I do not want corporations limiting my travel anymore so than the government..

There ain't a lot of choices when it comes to getting from point a to point b quickly..
To say, eh, you don't like the rules on that private road, just take another one is BS.
Yeah take the 10min trip down the highway or the 40min single lane road, that is full of cars because no one wants to pay $5 to get on the highway..

Now for my worst nightmare .. the hippie global warming save the planet people buy up all the highways and turn them into parks...


And to the topic now. Driving while intoxicated is a victimless crime, thus not a crime.

[VIDEODROME]

I hate the whole private roads idea.

I can envision it being as tyrannical or, more likely, more tyrannical, than what we're dealing with now.

Not to mention the whole "eminent domain for private gain" issue.

It was the precedent of private railroads having government take private property by eminent domain that the SCROTUS used to find in the favor of the NLDC in the infamous Kelo v. New London decision.

Under limited constitutional government, only a very few obligations were granted to government.

Building roads was one of them, just as tariffs were the only permitted taxes.

It makes think of horror stories I hear about people living in gated Homeowner Association communities. Something that seems nice and prestigious at first turning into petty fines and stupid rules.

Oddly enough I think it's much harder to hold a private company accountable. I'd feel more comfortable with a mix of mostly public municipal roads with some private transit services like rail or buses or even some private Turnpikes.

[MelissaWV]

I hate the whole private roads idea.

I can envision it being as tyrannical or, more likely, more tyrannical, than what we're dealing with now.

Not to mention the whole "eminent domain for private gain" issue.

It was the precedent of private railroads having government take private property by eminent domain that the SCROTUS used to find in the favor of the NLDC in the infamous Kelo v. New London decision.

Under limited constitutional government, only a very few obligations were granted to government.

Building roads was one of them, just as tariffs were the only permitted taxes.

Personally and in realism-land, I'd like to see the major interstates and highways maintained by Government (Federal or State) and localities to have the option of purchasing stretches of road. Most people would keep their same driving habits on those private stretches by default, but the owner would be responsible for traffic calming, litter cleanup, and could collect tolls to do so. I always include the private police force/private road scenario just to make sure my point gets across in these discussions.

I think that even if we went to a private road system, if it was found to be a good venture you'd see just a few rich folks snatch up the roads and collude to install their rules of the road.

[Anti Federalist]

It makes think of horror stories I hear about people living in gated Homeowner Association communities. Something that seems nice and prestigious at first turning into petty fines and stupid rules.

Oddly enough I think it's much harder to hold a private company accountable. I'd feel more comfortable with a mix of mostly public municipal roads with some private transit services like rail or buses or even some private Turnpikes.

Exactly, that is precisely what I'm thinking of.

Everybody must drive a yellow Prius hybrid or you will not be allowed on "my" road.

It comes back to a concept that I hold to be true, but certainly chafes on some of the folks around here:

Corporate tyranny is as bad as government tyranny.

[MelissaWV]

And this is why I will never be for private roads.
I do not want corporations limiting my travel anymore so than the government..

There ain't a lot of choices when it comes to getting from point a to point b quickly..
To say, eh, you don't like the rules on that private road, just take another one is BS.
Yeah take the 10min trip down the highway or the 40min single lane road, that is full of cars because no one wants to pay $5 to get on the highway..


Ah but that's the choice people face now in a lot of places. I used to prefer taking the turnpike to work in Miami and paying the toll. There was a "free" way of getting there but it was always jammed with the cars who didn't want to pay. It was an added value to the turnpike, then, and worth paying the money to get there faster. If it were just as jammed, I would obviously have chosen the free option.

The trouble is when your choices are between a 10 min drive on a stretch of road where the toll is $10 or a 10 min drive on a stretch of road where the toll is also $10. If you were already in your home before those roads were bought up and tolls changed, you're kind of screwed.

This already happens.

[LibertyRevolution]

If a private company made roads...I bet you would have to use their insurance carrier. :-P

[Sola_Fide]

True story: In a neighborhood near mine, there was a stupid kid revving and speeding up the neighborhood street. One of the "concerned" parents waited for the kid to come speeding back down the street, and he jumped out and threw a drive shaft through the front windshield. Took the kids head off. Of course the parent is no longer on safety patrol.


I bet that stung.

[AFPVet]

In a libertarian society, the roads are privately owned & operated. The owners can make whatever rules they want to. "Drive drunk on my road or you're banned from ever using it again" would likely be a common one. You'd probably also be put on a national blacklist, and you'd find travel very difficult.

This seems to be the most logical; however, how would they fund it? Tolls? Annual highway fee to be paid to the highway company?

[IDefendThePlatform]

Exactly, that is precisely what I'm thinking of.

Everybody must drive a yellow Prius hybrid or you will not be allowed on "my" road.

It comes back to a concept that I hold to be true, but certainly chafes on some of the folks around here:

Corporate tyranny is as bad as government tyranny.

Not to pick a fight, but I couldn't disagree more. Corporate "tyranny" does not involve the initiation of force; government tyranny does. If a person does not like what a corporation is doing, then that person does not have to do business or associate with that corporation. A government, by contrast, initiates force on all persons within a geographic boundary through taxation, etc...

That's a big difference, IMHO.

[Nate-ForLiberty]

ok, this thread derailed a bit into the question of road privatization. For more of that, go here

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?286035-Should-roads-be-privatized&p=3189070#post3189070


This thread is about drunk driving laws in a libertarian society. I think we can all agree at the very least the federal government has no place making laws, or forcing states to make laws, regarding drunk driving. Constitutionally speaking, it is a State issue and not a federal government one.

Now if you want to talk about state laws regarding drunk driving, then that makes sense. I personally think this is not a matter of laws, but a matter of property.

[VIDEODROME]

Well what I would prefer is to just shrink the government to the point where it's on more even footing with the People. If government gets out of line we need to be able to hold them accountable with elections or recalls.

But government and politics is bloated with the dollars given to them by their corporate backers and lobbyists. I feel like privatizing everything just cuts out the government and makes a more efficient corporate tyranny. There is some complaining about the government being a monopoly but at least it's one where the people can rise up and beat it down or vote people out. You can't do that with a MegaCorporation going unchallenged and stamping out the competition. Unless we all struggle to scrap together money to buy all of it's stock.

With that I do think some Privatizing is a very good thing that can lead to great innovation but I don't think we need to run from one extreme to another. It seems like we do that all the time in this country and it bothers me. Mostly the extremes we see are from Leftwing to Rightwing but around here I see extremes of Up to Down or Big Government to Zero Government. Government can be useful like Fire. It can provide light or warmth but to much can burn your house down.

[Icymudpuppy]

If that is done by a private company or the governement- what is the difference to you? There is still enforcement of laws on the road.

I have the choice not to pay for it on a private road. The gov forces me to pay through taxation on public roads. I can boycott the private roads I don't like. That is the difference.

[BlackTerrel]

No victim no crime

This is why I'll never be a "true libertarian" whatever that means.

Of course drunk driving should be illegal.

How about shooting at the ground near people but not actually hitting them? How about putting a gun to the back of someone's head and laughing.

"No victim no crime".

[Nate-ForLiberty]

This is why I'll never be a "true libertarian" whatever that means.

Of course drunk driving should be illegal.

How about shooting at the ground near people but not actually hitting them? How about putting a gun to the back of someone's head and laughing.

"No victim no crime".

but in both of those cases there is a victim.... soooo?

[MelissaWV]

This is why I'll never be a "true libertarian" whatever that means.

Of course drunk driving should be illegal.

How about shooting at the ground near people but not actually hitting them? How about putting a gun to the back of someone's head and laughing.

"No victim no crime".

I already addressed this earlier in the thread. It's a gray area, which would be decided by courts/arbitration, where you'd have to show that the person you've brought charges against is the one that caused you distress/harm, and the degree of that distress/harm. Someone putting a gun to someone's head and laughing, in certain context, would probably be dismissed. In other context, it might warrant punishment of some sort or damages being paid out. Those cases you are citing have a "victim" who is afraid. Drunk driving does not always have a victim at all. There are cases where someone is arrested simply because they got into their vehicle and turned it on (to use the A/C or heater). People are arrested at checkpoints before they have even swerved or broken a single other traffic law. To make your examples more realistic, what is being proposed is that anyone spotted with a gun should be punished, most likely by having the gun taken away, but also potentially by not allowing them to ever have another gun, or even by jail time.

[heavenlyboy34]

This is why I'll never be a "true libertarian" whatever that means.

Of course drunk driving should be illegal.

How about shooting at the ground near people but not actually hitting them? How about putting a gun to the back of someone's head and laughing.

"No victim no crime".
What about the person playing with the radio buttons, yelling at the screaming kids, talking on the phone, etc while driving? Distracted driving is statistically more dangerous than drunk driving, but drunk drivers are singled out. Your example of shooting at someone but not hitting them is not an even remotely fair comparison. That example is ALWAYS dangerous (a clear and present danger-what English common law often calls a "glaring nuisance"), but drunk driving is not. Some people even drive better when drunk. The person who is shot at IS a victim of a crime-attempted manslaughter.

[nayjevin]

There's a short story, I think by Robert Heinlein, that has a future system of travel. Instead of cars on roads, you just step onto a slow moving conveyor belt, kind of like those at the airport. Once on this slow moving conveyor, step over to one that's a bit faster moving, and on and on until you're moving the speed of an automobile. Step back over and gradually reduce speed and exit where necessary.

My point being there are a trillion possible ideas for how travel might be handled, so 'how would roads work in a free society' is an improperly framed question. 'How might travel be handled in a free society' is better - if government monopoly had not limited us to inefficient technologies.

Surely there are means of travel which could/would be used that render drunkeness immaterial - and make the widely disparate individual abilities to drive safely moot.

[Nate-ForLiberty]

in a semi-related note....


The Final Four is in Houston this weekend which means there are going to be a lot of drunks out there late at night. So a private company, "Whataburger", a fast food joint (the best!), is offering free food to cabbies.

http://culturemap.com/newsdetail/04-02-11-whataburger-jacks-my-idea-commits-to-give-yellow-cab-cabbies-free-food-on-final-four-weekend/


free market bitches! :D

[nayjevin]

Some people even drive better when drunk.

I don't like this argument. First, almost all the times I've heard it was coming from a person who is rationalizing driving home from a bar. Second, when this is true, I believe it says more about that person's unsafe habits while sober than the person's safer habits while drinking.

[MelissaWV]

...free market bitches! :D

Free market bitches are only available in Nevada, I thought?

[VIDEODROME]

Nice. I used to truck drive as far as Texas and would walk down to the Whataburger from our terminal.

[heavenlyboy34]

I don't like this argument. First, almost all the times I've heard it was coming from a person who is rationalizing driving home from a bar. Second, when this is true, I believe it says more about that person's unsafe habits while sober than the person's safer habits while drinking.

Perhaps, but it's still true. Likewise, some people do really well on allergy medication(and other meds), while others get so groggy they cause accidents.

[Nate-ForLiberty]

Free market bitches are only available in Nevada, I thought?

grammar nazi
http://www.customonlinesigns.com/images/u/0ed6194f0c904abe8f28bbd37e84ee9f-800.png

"...free market, bitches."

[Galileo Galilei]

but in both of those cases there is a victim.... soooo?

in drunk driving, there is no criminal intent, unlike shooting at someone. Libertarians talk about crimes without victims, but "crimes" without intent is even worse. And drunk driving is even worse it has no criminal intent or a victim.

[Nate-ForLiberty]

in drunk driving, there is no criminal intent, unlike shooting at someone. Libertarians talk about crimes without victims, but "crimes" without intent is even worse. And drunk driving is even worse it has no criminal intent or a victim.

so what are you saying? I'm not sure what your point is.

[heavenlyboy34]

in drunk driving, there is no criminal intent, unlike shooting at someone. Libertarians talk about crimes without victims, but "crimes" without intent is even worse. And drunk driving is even worse it has no criminal intent or a victim.

Excellent point. +rep

[Galileo Galilei]

so what are you saying? I'm not sure what your point is.

drunk driving is the only crime I've ever heard of where the state need not prove any criminal intent at trial.

[MelissaWV]

drunk driving is the only crime I've ever heard of where the state need not prove any criminal intent at trial.

Any crime which consists of being in possession of something or in a given state often has the same distinction.

You don't have to show an intent to distribute the drugs you're about to take. The fact you have them is enough.

You don't have to have any intention of ever looking at it. If kiddie porn is on your computer, even if it was placed there unbeknownst to you, you're going to be in a lot of trouble.

You don't have to have an intention of crashing into someone or doing something bad, you just have to be drunk and behind the wheel of a car.

All of those things are crimes not because of the intent, but because of the law alone.

*No, I'm not saying kiddie porn is good.

[Anti Federalist]

Not to pick a fight, but I couldn't disagree more. Corporate "tyranny" does not involve the initiation of force; government tyranny does. If a person does not like what a corporation is doing, then that person does not have to do business or associate with that corporation. A government, by contrast, initiates force on all persons within a geographic boundary through taxation, etc...

That's a big difference, IMHO.

If you're forced into doing something against your will, that violates a core principle that you hold, I fail to see how it makes any difference if you are forced into that position because some government goon is holding a gun to your head, or if you are forced into it because the only suppliers of something that you need to survive or function demand that you do so.

There are more ways to coerce somebody into doing what you want them to, without resorting to sticking a gun in their face.

Government just does it that way because it's the fastest, cheapest way.

[Anti Federalist]

Any crime which consists of being in possession of something or in a given state often has the same distinction.

You don't have to show an intent to distribute the drugs you're about to take. The fact you have them is enough.

You don't have to have any intention of ever looking at it. If kiddie porn is on your computer, even if it was placed there unbeknownst to you, you're going to be in a lot of trouble.

You don't have to have an intention of crashing into someone or doing something bad, you just have to be drunk and behind the wheel of a car.

All of those things are crimes not because of the intent, but because of the law alone.

*No, I'm not saying kiddie porn is good.

I was thinking the same thing, how government considers a certain arbitrary amount of controlled substance prima facie evidence of "intent to distribute", even when you never sold so much as a single dime bag and were never going to.

[BlackTerrel]

but in both of those cases there is a victim.... soooo?

A victim if the bullet never touches anyone?

[Nate-ForLiberty]

A victim if the bullet never touches anyone?

uhh, yeah. I'd be seriously pissed if someone pointed a gun at me and threatened me. If someone shot at me even without the intent to harm, I'd shoot back. How do you know what someone's intentions are at that moment?

[BlackTerrel]

uhh, yeah. I'd be seriously pissed if someone pointed a gun at me and threatened me. If someone shot at me even without the intent to harm, I'd shoot back. How do you know what someone's intentions are at that moment?

I'd be pissed if there was a drunk driver next to me swerving in and out of his lane.

[heavenlyboy34]

I'd be pissed if there was a drunk driver next to me swerving in and out of his lane.

I don't know about where you live, but sober people drive like that here regularly.

[MelissaWV]

I'd be pissed if there was a drunk driver next to me swerving in and out of his lane.

Would you somehow be less pissed if the driver were sober?

Barring a really good excuse (someone having a medical emergency causing them to swerve, etc.), why should the penalty be any different?

This is not a thread about being against pulling someone over for driving dangerously. Drunk driving laws are a problem because they wrongly assume that anyone over a certain blood alcohol content is driving dangerously, and anyone under that same blood alcohol content is driving safely.

Why not actually pull over the person swerving, drunk or not, who is causing the drivers around them to have to take evasive action? There *is* a victim at that point, and you will be trying to drive (probably dangerously) in such a way as to not get into an accident; the person's swerving is having a real effect.

If he's swerving all alone on a road somewhere, though, should a helicopter swoop in and ticket him? If so, why? The only person in jeopardy there is him, and until he actually crashes into something, he hasn't damaged anything.

[Galileo Galilei]

Any crime which consists of being in possession of something or in a given state often has the same distinction.

You don't have to show an intent to distribute the drugs you're about to take. The fact you have them is enough.

You don't have to have any intention of ever looking at it. If kiddie porn is on your computer, even if it was placed there unbeknownst to you, you're going to be in a lot of trouble.

You don't have to have an intention of crashing into someone or doing something bad, you just have to be drunk and behind the wheel of a car.

All of those things are crimes not because of the intent, but because of the law alone.

*No, I'm not saying kiddie porn is good.

in the Drug War, you must knowingly possess or sell the drugs and know they are illegal (except on conspiracy cases where everything revolves around intent). If you can show you did not knowingly possess the drugs, that is a legal defense. For example, a farmer where the cops find some plants growing, the state must prove the farmer knew about the drugs. In other words, the state must show criminal intent as an element of the crime. In drunk driving there is no criminal intent in the statute books.

[BarryDonegan]

I think, given the known risk to others caused by drinking alcohol then driving in traffic, it is perfectly fair for the government to impose unusually harsh punishments upon drivers who injure, kill, or damage the property of others due to drunk driving. I think the fear of getting a $2000 fine and probation sentence if you are found by law enforcement is not as good of motivation as the fear of a multi year jail sentence if you hit someone's car and cause them to lose their leg.

Should you be jailed for drinking a quantity of alcohol that a single bureaucrat believes makes you impaired despite the fact you injure no one and cause no harm? I think not.

[heavenlyboy34]

I think, given the known risk to others caused by drinking alcohol then driving in traffic, it is perfectly fair for the government to impose unusually harsh punishments upon drivers who injure, kill, or damage the property of others due to drunk driving. I think the fear of getting a $2000 fine and probation sentence if you are found by law enforcement is not as good of motivation as the fear of a multi year jail sentence if you hit someone's car and cause them to lose their leg.

Should you be jailed for drinking a quantity of alcohol that a single bureaucrat believes makes you impaired despite the fact you injure no one and cause no harm? I think not.

It's also highly risky to drive when extremely tired. There are in fact instances of people falling asleep behind the wheel and causing wrecks. Should the same fine apply? Will there be checkpoints for insomniacs? Nyqil junkies? People who use car radios or cell phones? IOW, why pick on one type of impaired driving?

[Vessol]

Two things about drunk driving.

A) I am almost legally blind when I am not wearing my glasses or contacts. Once when coming home from the eye doctor, I decided to not wear either. Luckily it was only a two mile drive, but in just that time I almost got in a wreck twice. Obviously I'm a danger. Yet, if I was pulled over I doubt I'd get in much trouble. Maybe a small fine, that's about it. Compare that to a drunk driver who is equally dangerous, yet is treated like an outcast and receives jail time.

B) Privatize Roads. Let companies decide whether or not they'd like drunk drivers on their roads or not. Don't use my violently stolen property in order to arrest, prosecute and jail people.

[heavenlyboy34]

Two things about drunk driving.

A) I am almost legally blind when I am not wearing my glasses or contacts. Once when coming home from the eye doctor, I decided to not wear either. Luckily it was only a two mile drive, but in just that time I almost got in a wreck twice. Obviously I'm a danger. Yet, if I was pulled over I doubt I'd get in much trouble. Maybe a small fine, that's about it. Compare that to a drunk driver who is equally dangerous, yet is treated like an outcast and receives jail time.

B) Privatize Roads. Let companies decide whether or not they'd like drunk drivers on their roads or not. Don't use my violently stolen property in order to arrest, prosecute and jail people.

+a zillion, +rep :cool:

[BlackTerrel]

Two things about drunk driving.

A) I am almost legally blind when I am not wearing my glasses or contacts. Once when coming home from the eye doctor, I decided to not wear either. Luckily it was only a two mile drive, but in just that time I almost got in a wreck twice. Obviously I'm a danger. Yet, if I was pulled over I doubt I'd get in much trouble. Maybe a small fine, that's about it. Compare that to a drunk driver who is equally dangerous, yet is treated like an outcast and receives jail time.

My takeaway from this is that there should be more severe punishment for people who are "almost legally blind" who drive without their glasses.

[IDefendThePlatform]

I'd like to take this time to point out that anyone who wears a seatbelt while driving endangers other drivers more than normal.

Yes, study after study has found that wearing a seatbelt makes drivers feel "safe" and this leads to more dangerous driving. Should people who wear seatbelts be subject to fines and imprisonment?


What an interesting discussion.

[LibertyRevolution]

I have a vision restriction on my license that says I must wear glasses/contacts to drive.
I never wear my glasses unless I am at home in front of the computer...

My eyes don't get along with the states simulated depth of field test machine..Just like 3d doesn't work for me.
In the real world I have no problem telling how far a stop sign is, or whether the child's ball is in front or behind it..

God forbid they start enforcing that law..

[pcosmar]

I have a vision restriction on my license that says I must wear glasses/contacts to drive.
I never wear my glasses unless I am at home in front of the computer...

My eyes don't get along with the states simulated depth of field test machine..Just like 3d doesn't work for me.
In the real world I have no problem telling how far a stop sign is, or whether the child's ball is in front or behind it..

God forbid they start enforcing that law..

LOL,
I have had to cheat on every eye test I have ever taken. (Left eye dominant,,extremely so)

[MelissaWV]

My takeaway from this is that there should be more severe punishment for people who are "almost legally blind" who drive without their glasses.

Just think! If only you actually supported punishing the dangerous driving rather than focusing on whether or not the driver has alcohol in their system, you wouldn't need to keep pondering the "severe punishment." It'd already be there... for those actually causing a hazardous condition.

[BlackTerrel]

Just think! If only you actually supported punishing the dangerous driving rather than focusing on whether or not the driver has alcohol in their system, you wouldn't need to keep pondering the "severe punishment." It'd already be there... for those actually causing a hazardous condition.

I'd say someone driving who is legally blind or almost legally blind is driving dangerously whether they run someone over or not. Eventually they will.

[Vessol]

My takeaway from this is that there should be more severe punishment for people who are "almost legally blind" who drive without their glasses.

So say a little old black lady is driving to church without her glasses on. Should she be pulled over, tackled and then handcuffed and dragged to jail where she will sit for days before she is tried and heavily fined while her license is taken away. Her friends and family then look at her as a loser.

[Theocrat]

I think there are two issues to consider:


Is drunk-driving a morally good or wise thing to do?
Does having the opportunity to drink and drive really enhance liberty in society? Life? Property?

[Vessol]

I think there are two issues to consider:


Is drunk-driving a morally good or wise thing to do?
Does having the opportunity to drink and drive really enhance liberty in society? Life? Property?


You are absolutely right! We must reinstate the 18th Amendment posthaste!

[nayjevin]

I think there are two issues to consider:


Is drunk-driving a morally good or wise thing to do?
Does having the opportunity to drink and drive really enhance liberty in society? Life? Property?


It's not that, it's the long history of the encroachment on liberty beginning with the most distasteful sounding of actions being regulated by officials. When we let people pull others over for swerving, it is pre-crime enforcement. It inevitably results in situations where people are pulled over who swerved but were not dangerous, barely swerved at all, or didn't swerve, but had the misfortune of fitting a profile - only to find an officer claiming a swerve to justify his actions. Many who choose liberty do so unconditionally, with a belief/recognition that laws such as these do not solve the problem, and introduce problems unforseen.

[Brian4Liberty]

My takeaway from this is that there should be more severe punishment for people who are "almost legally blind" who drive without their glasses.

That would be consistent with our nanny-State leaders. When the dilemma arises of two relatively equal violations with very unequal punishment, they always choose to increase the punishment on the "lesser" punished violation.

[Nate-ForLiberty]

I think there are two issues to consider:


Is drunk-driving a morally good or wise thing to do?
Does having the opportunity to drink and drive really enhance liberty in society? Life? Property?


http://craigswinejourney.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/doublefacepalm.jpg

[MelissaWV]

I'd say someone driving who is legally blind or almost legally blind is driving dangerously whether they run someone over or not. Eventually they will.

Do you have any statistics to back that up?

I've driven without my glasses on many roads that I'm familiar with. The fact I cannot see the street signs does not impair my ability to drive on those particular streets, since I am familiar with where and when I need to turn, and they are not frequently under construction or anything of the sort. I'm almost legally blind myself.

Now, I've gotten into various accidents in my years on this planet. None of them could really be termed as being entirely my fault. None of them were caused by me driving without my glasses. The lady that turned left directly into my vehicle (left turn on solid green; she didn't seem to care that I was going straight on the green light and hence had the right-of-way) and was busily chatting up the contractors who were going to remodel her house? Now SHE was dangerous.

You keep saying that these conditions cause people to drive dangerously. If that's so, you would not have any problem at all with what I proposed because not only would it catch these awful non-seeing people who are automatically driving dangerously, and all of these drunk drivers who are automatically driving dangerously, but it would also catch those people who are neither of these things who are occasionally driving dangerously, too! It catches 'em all!

If all drunk drivers drive dangerously, and driving dangerously is against the law, then isn't drunk driving automatically against the law since it causes one to break an existing law? Doesn't that make additional punishment for intoxication redundant?

I don't get it. It's like hate crime legislation to me; it is just a bow to a special interest group and a twisting of statistics to generate more revenue and give the state more control.

[BlackTerrel]

So say a little old black lady is driving to church without her glasses on. Should she be pulled over, tackled and then handcuffed and dragged to jail where she will sit for days before she is tried and heavily fined while her license is taken away. Her friends and family then look at her as a loser.

You're adding a bunch of things in here that are irrelevant.

Regardless if she is "almost legally blind" as a poster here previously said he was then yes it should be illegal for her to drive without her glasses.

Should blind people be allowed to drive?

[BlackTerrel]

Do you have any statistics to back that up?

Do I have statistics that people who can't see well and are legally blind don't drive as good as people with 20/20 vision?

Some things don't need statistics.

[nayjevin]

You're adding a bunch of things in here that are irrelevant.

In fairness, this is responding to your questions which seem to me to have already been discussed in this thread. Have you read the whole thing?

[MelissaWV]

Do I have statistics that people who can't see well and are legally blind don't drive as good as people with 20/20 vision?

Some things don't need statistics.

Now we are not pulling over people who are driving dangerously, but people who simply don't drive as well as others?

It's a statistical likelihood that one race/gender/height/weight drives better than another. Can I use that as a basis? Unlike what you've been discussing, I can at least see those things from my own vehicle. I can't tell my looking at someone whether or not they are nearly legally blind. I can, however, tell if they are swerving, driving strangely, going the wrong way down a one way street, etc..

Why shouldn't that be the basis for pulling them over?

And why are you so afraid for it to be the basis if, as you contend, anyone who's had a drink or can't see well or is otherwise impaired would be driving in an obviously dangerous manner?

In order to determine whether or not someone is affected by these factors I can't ascertain by looking in a car window, I would need to set up checkpoints or other roadblocks which would --- are you paying attention? --- be DESIGNED to catch drivers who are DRIVING WELL but are "impaired" according to the law. They were driving so well that no one caught them doing something dangerous with their vehicle. If they were driving so badly, they would have been pulled over regardless of the checkpoint.

[Theocrat]

You are absolutely right! We must reinstate the 18th Amendment posthaste!


It's not that, it's the long history of the encroachment on liberty beginning with the most distasteful sounding of actions being regulated by officials. When we let people pull others over for swerving, it is pre-crime enforcement. It inevitably results in situations where people are pulled over who swerved but were not dangerous, barely swerved at all, or didn't swerve, but had the misfortune of fitting a profile - only to find an officer claiming a swerve to justify his actions. Many who choose liberty do so unconditionally, with a belief/recognition that laws such as these do not solve the problem, and introduce problems unforseen.

Neither of you answered the two questions I posed. I understand where you're coming from, though. I have to say that in our circles, there is a whole lot of confusion over what "liberty" actually entails. The way I see it, liberty is not allowance or license to do dangerous, unwise, or evil acts. Rather, liberty is doing the right thing with love and integrity in mind towards yourself, your neighbor, and most importantly, God. A train is much safer and more free when it stays on the tracks than it is off the tracks.

It's not good to allow people to drink and drive, and, ideally, I would not favor the government making laws forbidding drunk-driving. I would be for the approach of local people (families, communities, churches, etc.) encouraging and educating their neighbors to not drink and drive. When a drunk-driver still gets behind the wheel, and he damages another person's property or takes a life, then the government should step in and punish him for property damages or murder (not drunk-driving).

[newbitech]

You're adding a bunch of things in here that are irrelevant.

Regardless if she is "almost legally blind" as a poster here previously said he was then yes it should be illegal for her to drive without her glasses.

Should blind people be allowed to drive?

Have you ever seen a blind person driving?






















Neither have they!

[nayjevin]

Neither of you answered the two questions I posed.

OK, I'll try again.



Is drunk-driving a morally good or wise thing to do?
Does having the opportunity to drink and drive really enhance liberty in society? Life? Property?


1. It isn't wise, good, or morally sound to put people in unnecessary danger. Where is the line of unnecessary danger? Well driving isn't necessary for survival, usually. So the problem becomes drawing the line. And a big question is whether government should attempt to solve the problem at all. You and I seem to agree that it's preferable for communities, Churches, and private organizations to solve the problems if possible. For me this is because individuals make decisions better than groups, the more local the better. One-size-fits-all solutions are the bureaucrat's solution, individualism is the People's solution. So I say let individuals who have intimate knowledge of the situation at hand draw the lines on a case by case basis - drawing upon axiom, experience, and learning from others.

2. Having the opportunity to drink and drive is a narrow scope. The question to me is, when and to what extent do we allow people to make bad decisions, and when will the natural consequences of those decisions not be adequate? If no one were allowed to drink and drive at all - the problem would be solved. Similarly, if no one were allowed to have radios in their cars, or children talking in the back seat, that problem would be solved. But enforcement as a solution to these problems is impossible. Far better through education and peaceful, voluntary social pressures to cultivate a society which does not accept inappropriately dangerous behavior.

So a direct answer to your question is that, no, it does not add to liberty to have that opportunity. But this does not matter to the libertarian - because it takes far more from liberty to attempt to use enforcement to take away that opportunity. The opportunity can never truly be taken away - it is a matter of how it is best minimized - and the libertarian would say it's best minimized via voluntary means.


I understand where you're coming from, though. I have to say that in our circles, there is a whole lot of confusion over what "liberty" actually entails. The way I see it, liberty is not allowance or license to do dangerous, unwise, or evil acts. Rather, liberty is doing the right thing with love and integrity in mind towards yourself, your neighbor, and most importantly, God. A train is much safer and more free when it stays on the tracks than it is off the tracks.

I agree with the greater point - this is the responsibility one has in a libertarian society. But again, attempting to take away the opportunity with force does not work, and besides isn't moral.


It's not good to allow people to drink and drive, and, ideally, I would not favor the government making laws forbidding drunk-driving. I would be for the approach of local people (families, communities, churches, etc.) encouraging and educating their neighbors to not drink and drive.

Friends don't let friends, yes.


When a drunk-driver still gets behind the wheel, and he damages another person's property or takes a life, then the government should step in and punish him for property damages or murder (not drunk-driving).

Necessity for restitution and means of restitution are huge issues in and of themselves. But we agree that there is no excuse for damaging property or person.

[Galileo Galilei]

we had WWII, then the Cold War, then the War on Drugs, and then the War on terror. Next up: the War on Drunk Driving!

This is great marketing, drunk driving convictions require neither a victim of the "crime" or even criminal intent. Even the Drug War requires criminal intent!

And we got tons of TV ads for alcohol, beer signs along the highways, and parking lots next to taverns! This guarantees that among a population of 300 million people we will have plenty of enemies in the War upon drunk driving. Hey, they don't even have to prove you're drunk anymore, just slightly buzzed at .08 for light drinkers and almost irrelevant for regular drinkers.

And if this ain't enough, we even got zillions of dollars on TV for COLLEGE FOOTBALL AND BASKETBALL beer ads! Yaahoo! The kids aren't old enough to drink, but they are old enough to watch their teams sponsored by Miller and Budweiser!!

Let's get it done!!!

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

I just dont have a problem with DUI laws. Check points and blood intoxication levels is what I dont like.

[pcosmar]

I just dont have a problem with DUI laws. Check points and blood intoxication levels is what I dont like.

I do. For those reasons plus some.
I have never wrecked a car nor been responsible for any traffic accident. I have never even had a speeding ticket or other driving infraction.
I have had 2 DUIs. One, I was not driving at all, and the other I was not drunk but was targeted by a dirty cop. (he was later fired)

This thread is misleading on a main point. Drunk Driving
A .08 blood level is not drunk, for that matter a .10 level (former legal limit) is no where near drunk.

Statistics used to "sell" these laws are fabricated and drunk drivers are responsible for only a small fraction of traffic fatalities and injuries.
Most (by far) are caused by sober drivers.

So the laws are not about Drunk Driving or "safety". That is the false excuse for them.

[heavenlyboy34]

I do. For those reasons plus some.
I have never wrecked a car nor been responsible for any traffic accident. I have never even had a speeding ticket or other driving infraction.
I have had 2 DUIs. One, I was not driving at all, and the other I was not drunk but was targeted by a dirty cop. (he was later fired)

This thread is misleading on a main point. Drunk Driving
A .08 blood level is not drunk, for that matter a .10 level (former legal limit) is no where near drunk.

Statistics used to "sell" these laws are fabricated and drunk drivers are responsible for only a small fraction of traffic fatalities and injuries.
Most (by far) are caused by sober drivers.

So the laws are not about Drunk Driving or "safety". That is the false excuse for them.
+a zillion and I'd +rep you, but I'm out of ammo. :(

[BlackTerrel]

This thread is misleading on a main point. Drunk Driving
A .08 blood level is not drunk, for that matter a .10 level (former legal limit) is no where near drunk.

If the argument that the legal level is too low you could make a valid point. But most reasonable people should be able to agree that someone with a 0.7 shouldn't be driving. Then the argument becomes where you draw the line.


Statistics used to "sell" these laws are fabricated and drunk drivers are responsible for only a small fraction of traffic fatalities and injuries.

Well you know what they say about statistics... What percent of drivers on the road are drunk and what percent are sober? Now proportionately what percent of traffic fatalities would you attribute to each group?

That's a more valid statistic.

"Drunk one-handed 12 year olds cause less accidents than sober two-handed 18 year olds. Fact".

[MelissaWV]

Okay. Now let's base some rules of the road on level of tiredness, blood sugar (which is directly in your control and can greatly impair your driving if it's off), age, gender, and economic background.

I am 100% sure you can find statistics to back all of those up.

[nobody's_hero]

A man points a gun at you and your family, but misses each time. What should happen?

I was thinking the same thing. In fact, I'd rather have a gun pointed at me than a car.

If I get shot in the leg, I'll likely survive. If a cadillac hits me in the leg, I'm f***ed.

[newbitech]

If the argument that the legal level is too low you could make a valid point. But most reasonable people should be able to agree that someone with a 0.7 shouldn't be driving. Then the argument becomes where you draw the line.



Well you know what they say about statistics... What percent of drivers on the road are drunk and what percent are sober? Now proportionately what percent of traffic fatalities would you attribute to each group?

That's a more valid statistic.

"Drunk one-handed 12 year olds cause less accidents than sober two-handed 18 year olds. Fact".


If anyone is serious about it, the line should be at 0.0. Any amount of alcohol in the brain WILL, not might, WILL cause a lack of good judgement and have an immediate impact on depth perception and reaction time. Of course this effects people differently due to other LEGAL factors, like weight and of course the ability for someone to compensate for that tiny fraction of intoxication.

So if you are ok with the law, you are ok with allowing SOME intoxication that impairs driving of EVERYONE who has even the slightest amount of alcohol in their system. Of course there are those who will argue that alcohol at any level has absolutely NO effect on them, but we no this to be scientifically false.

So why is it ok for this law to allow us to play whack a mole with people's lives? Either DUI is acceptable and ok, or it is not. As it stands, lawmakers have compromised creating a very dangerous situation for everyone. Remove any question of acceptance of driving drunk and you will solve the problem. Either allow it, or don't allow it. This grey area is what is killing people on both sides, literally, economically, and socially.

[WyoLiberty]

Unless there has been actual harm caused to property or person, THERE IS NO CRIME. DUI laws have become quite draconian in Wyoming as of late, and ironically, little to do with drunk driving prevention. It makes anyone not want to go out because they might be accused of driving drunk. This last legislative session while everyone was up at arms about not recognizing gay marriages - (something that has NO effect on my liberty) this most heinous "DUI" law got passed - if they even suspect a person to be drunk...they can pull you over and test you. If you refuse the test - automatic loss of drivers license for 6 months. "Guilty" or not...just another way to control the masses. There should be NO drunk driving laws, in my not so humble opinion.

[kahless]

If the states want the highway funds they have to accept the federal limit defining drunk driving at .08 BAC which is too low for people to be subjected to such draconian justice.

I saw this thread after trying to see where Gary Johnson is on issues since his name comes up allot here and saw that he supports the .08 limit. I have the feeling the more I digg the more I am going to be disappointed.

[Nate-ForLiberty]

http://www.click2houston.com/news/27428892/detail.html



"(She admitted to the arresting officer) that she understood and didn't realize she was so intoxicated, which was something that played heavily with the jurors," said Laurel Ellisor, an assistant prosecutor with Fort Bend County.
But it was what Pettis wrote on her Facebook page that really got prosecutors' attention.
In a section explaining her activities and interests, she wrote, "a whole paragraph listed of stuff, but amongst that was beer, BJ Restaurant and Brew House, beer again, ice cold beer, beer pong -- certainly things that would be red-flagged in a DWI case," Ellisor said.
Ellisor used it against Pettis when it came time for sentencing.

For gods sakes, don't help them! If you must use Facebook, consider it an online resume and don't post dumb shit!

[Nate-ForLiberty]

I have to go teach a piano lesson, but I'll be back! I was just watching a lecture (I think by Thomas Woods) who talks about this myth. That all the companies will get together and raise prices. When I get back I'll post. :)

finally found it...

"Predatory Pricing"
specifically talks about it around 9 minute mark


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUFj45VpIgU

[heavenlyboy34]

http://www.click2houston.com/news/27428892/detail.html




For gods sakes, don't help them! If you must use Facebook, consider it an online resume and don't post dumb shit!
Even better-don't use your real name or photos! That's what I do. :cool:

[1000-points-of-fright]

A man points a gun at you and your family, but misses each time.

Nobody else finds this idea amusing?

[Nate-ForLiberty]

Nobody else finds this idea amusing?

I'm sure I saw that in a Naked Gun movie.

[heavenlyboy34]

I'm sure I saw that in a Naked Gun movie.

wasn't it "33 and 1/3"? ;)

[pcosmar]

"A man points a gun at you and your family, but misses each time."

Nobody else finds this idea amusing?

Misses pointing?
or shooting?

I am always annoyed at that red herring argument.

[1000-points-of-fright]

Misses pointing?
or shooting?

I am always annoyed at that red herring argument.

He never mentioned shooting. Just pointing. The image of someone with such bad hand-eye coordination that they can't even point at someone accurately is funny to me.