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

[socialize_me]

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

[MGreen]

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

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

[Anti Federalist]

What MGreen said.

A "crime" has only happened when demonstrable harm has been done to someone's person or property.

[Truth Warrior]

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

[socialize_me]

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

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

[Grimnir Wotansvolk]

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

[socialize_me]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Conza88]

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

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

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

Legalize Drunk Driving by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

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

[Truth Warrior]

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

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

[socialize_me]

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

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

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

[Anti Federalist]

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

Bastard.

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

[socialize_me]

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

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

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

[Conza88]

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

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

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

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

Well HERE we go again...

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

Road Socialism - Walter Block (Lew Rockwell Podcast)

11: The Public Sector, II: Streets and Roads
From the book "For A New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto"

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

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

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

Don't be a socialist...

[Anti Federalist]

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

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

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

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

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

[socialize_me]

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

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

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

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

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

[Anti Federalist]

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

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

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

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

In any case, I'm still here.

[Anti Federalist]

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

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

That driver got punished for causing a crash and harming people and destroying property.

I already have two kids and have raised three stepkids.

[Conza88]

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

[Anti Federalist]

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

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

[tremendoustie]

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

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

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

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

[nbhadja]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ronpaul4pres]

11: The Public Sector, II: Streets and Roads
From the book "For A New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto"

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

[1000-points-of-fright]

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

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

[Conza88]

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

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

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

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

Roads, Education, and Waterways: The Case Against Public Services by Walter Block

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

Few min in...

[ronpaul4pres]

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

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

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

Roads, Education, and Waterways: The Case Against Public Services by Walter Block

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

Few min in...

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

[nbhadja]

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

All other countries are socialist as well.

[Conza88]

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

10. Why don't you just leave?

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

I suggest you do some more reading... This quick FAQ may help...

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

[ronpaul4pres]

All other countries are socialist as well.

Ah - so you have no other recourse?

[ronpaul4pres]

10. Why don't you just leave?

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

I suggest you do some more reading... This quick FAQ may help...

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

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

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

[Conza88]

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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