I consider most of those who claim to hate "drunk driving" to be hypocrites. And I'll tell you why (as if you had any doubt).
If "drunk driving" is so horrible to your mind, and you claim you'd do anything humanly possible to prevent it from happening, then you must support ending the risk of any legal and civil penalties for driving "drunk" right up until actual harm to another occurs. Otherwise you are a hypocrite.
A person must be able to be driving and realize "Hey, I shouldn't be doing this" and stop and ask for help without the risk of punishment. Otherwise they realize they're (legally) better off to make the attempt to get where they are going without getting stopped by a reaver. It's a matter of weighing the risks.
There's a 100% risk of being molested by "the law" if you admit you need help after starting to drive (or probably even entering your car), even though you haven't hurt anyone yet, and a much smaller risk of being hurt, molested, and/or hurting someone else by driving "drunk". Which risk seems riskier to someone who might be judgement-impaired? Or, even to those who are not?
Get rid of the one needless risk, if you are serious about saving lives, or admit you just "don't like it" and don't care about the consequences of your advocacy.
.
I agree Kent. Until a "drunk driver" harms another person or damages someone's property, he has committed no crime. When and if he does, the punishment should be just as if he were not intoxicated.
ReplyDeleteIf I get in my car and decide to drive blindfolded, I might make it home. I am also more likely to crunch another car or hit a pedestrian. My stunt would be ill advised, foolish, and risky. If I went before a jury for causing damage, I would rightfully be hammered. But, if I harmed no one, there would be no reason to prosecute me.
I agree Kent. Until a "drunk driver" harms another person or damages someone's property, he has committed no crime. When and if he does, the punishment should be just as if he were not intoxicated.
ReplyDeleteIf I get in my car and decide to drive blindfolded, I might make it home. I am also more likely to crunch another car or hit a pedestrian. My stunt would be ill advised, foolish, and risky. If I went before a jury for causing damage, I would rightfully be hammered. But, if I harmed no one, there would be no reason to prosecute me.
"Drunk Driving" seems to be just about the perfect topic to see how consistent someone is on their views about liberty. As you talked about, it shows just how contradictory some "Big L" Libertarians can be, since they still want government to keep people safe (which it can't).
ReplyDeleteWhat's considered "drunk" varies from country to country, state to state, and town to town. That's also a great way to tell how silly "justice" is.
If we eliminate zoning and property taxes then we will have plenty of businesses and gathering places within walking distance of our homes.
ReplyDeleteLongbow, I don't know, lives are not a ledger sheet. I do agree that there should not be punishment if there is no damage. That said, I see no reason that someone doing something outrageously dangerous-like driving blindfolded-could not be prevented from doing it-forcibly if needed.
ReplyDeleteThis brings up an interesting question, if I see you getting ready to pull onto the expressway blindfolded-almost certain to kill someone who is not nuts-am I justified in preventing that with whatever force is needed? Do I have a responsibility to do so?
How about if I watch a guy drink a bottle of jack?
Was that a Firefly reference Kent? Heh.
ReplyDeleteQuestion: If I go out on the front porch and stick a thirty shot clip in my rifle and just unload it into the air liberty minded folks should have no problems with it unless/until a round lands on someone's house, property, or person?
I consider my self a reality based libertarian who tries to view principles in the context of real life as it objectively is and I have to say that I don't want to go that far. People owe it to each other to not place others in danger just because in principle we aren't hurting them (yet). My two cents.
If you see someone put on a blindfold (or downing a bottle of Jack) to pull into traffic, and you think it is important enough to "do something" that you are willing to initiate force and live with the consequences, I probably wouldn't stop you. But if you want to pass "laws" and send reavers among the population to catch and punish "drunk drivers"- no. I will oppose you.
ReplyDeleteI don't think driving drunk is smart. I also would probably be OK with an individual intervening to stop someone from driving drunk. But, "drunk" has been dispensed with and now it is "impaired"- or "I smelled alcohol on his breath...".
As for shooting into the air- it depends on where this was being done. In the middle of a city- the chance of harm is high. In the middle of nowhere- the chance for harm is almost nonexistent. Drinking before driving is like that. There are varying risks, depending on a lot of circumstances. "One size fits all" is nonsense.
There is a big difference between "having a problem with" an action, and thinking "laws" and enforcement are the solution.
I certainly would never suggest a law as a cure-besides being philosophically repellant, laws don't work in these sorts of cases. If they did, drunks would never drive. Indeed there are varying risks.
ReplyDeleteWhat about removing laws as a solution? As it stands, limited liability protects bar owners and tenders from total liability in lawsuits if they serve a drunk then do nothing to prevent that person from driving. Likewise, auto-makers are shielded, and so, naturally, is the government who builds the roads.* Is this right?
Limited liability and sovereign immunity are government "one size fits all" restraints upon individual seeking redress from harm-without these restrictions would bars exist on the sides of hi-ways? Would car-makers voluntarily build safer cars(would they build them at all...)? Would the roads be safer?
My point here is that often I hear about personal responsibility from libertarians to the point where there can be no mechanism to mitigate risk before it happens-that the restitution must act as the only deterrent. I don't think that needs to be the case. rarely can responsibility for an event be narrowed to one person alone-particularly with unintended events. To my mind, if I decide to make money by selling vodka on the side of a hi-way, I ought to have some culpability when accidents occur as a result. To my mind, juries, or similar one-time congregations ought to determine this sort of liability, and there should be no artificial limit. Each case can then be judged on the merit, rather than "one-size fits all".
*Bar owners purchase, often by mandate, a special form of insurance that covers incidents of liability resulting from drunken people, this though is sold by companies that are also beneficiaries of limited liability, and so are willing to cover higher risks at lower premium. And at any event, it is a set amount of liability.
Yes, I would go for that. I am for removing ALL statutory "laws"- even the ones that seem like a "good idea".
ReplyDeleteNow, if I were on a jury (or were the arbitrator) deciding if a bar owner was at fault for serving drinks to someone who then went out and had an accident, it would be quite an uphill battle to convince me the bar owner was very much at fault. But I would listen to all arguments.
Individual liberty is one thing until it impinges on my right to stay safe.
ReplyDeleteYou have the right to get as drunk as you want up until you become a potential menace.
DUI attorney in Philadelphia
DUI Attorney- Your "right to stay safe" is OK until you use it as an excuse to infringe on the liberty of someone else. Once you start using it as a positive "right" it becomes just as illegitimate as a right to "free" medical care, or a right to a "free" Mercedes. Can you think of even one activity that isn't a "potential menace"? I can't.
ReplyDelete