Intrusion

[BellePlaine]

I say peoples opinions are emotional based because the argument they make must consist of visions of innocent women and children being plowed down by drunk drivers, like that vision then means it is okay to have huge penalties on anyone having more then one drink an hour irregardless of how safely they were driving. It seems logic is removed, the thought of a drunk driver hurting someone has been conditioned into a deep part of the brain. Emotions are a powerful tool when it comes to conditioning. I really think it is the same thinking that killed the jews, gives us the war on terror, killed witches in the past. It is blanket type stereo typing and discrimination, and there are tons of innocent people hurt and who suffer, just so some can have a little more sense of safety.

Regarding drunk driving. You've got the DD making a choice to drive despite the risks: killing themselves/others/damage/fines/etc. You've got other sober drivers sharing the road. They are making a choice to drive despite the risks: flat tire/breakdown/typical fender bender/etc. A DD is going to have a retarded reflex (compared to their sober state) which creates a new risk for everyone, of which, the sober drivers were not aware of. A DD is messing with everyone's assesment of the situtation. It's out of everyone elses' control. As libertarians, do we not want to have control over ourselves? We have to know the risks. That's logical.

[airkooledchris]

you should be able to drive drunk all you want, as long as you switch to eco-friendly light bulbs.

If your drunk AND using incandescent bulbs, you should get a mandatory fine and your daughter will be excused from becoming a stripper later in life as a direct result. (because were only in control of our own actions/life when they can't be linked to the enforcement of a known law.)

[steve74baywin]

I say peoples opinions are emotional based because the argument they make must consist of visions of innocent women and children being plowed down by drunk drivers, like that vision then means it is okay to have huge penalties on anyone having more then one drink an hour irregardless of how safely they were driving. It seems logic is removed, the thought of a drunk driver hurting someone has been conditioned into a deep part of the brain. Emotions are a powerful tool when it comes to conditioning. I really think it is the same thinking that killed the jews, gives us the war on terror, killed witches in the past. It is blanket type stereo typing and discrimination, and there are tons of innocent people hurt and who suffer, just so some can have a little more sense of safety.

Regarding drunk driving. You've got the DD making a choice to drive despite the risks: killing themselves/others/damage/fines/etc. You've got other sober drivers sharing the road. They are making a choice to drive despite the risks: flat tire/breakdown/typical fender bender/etc. A DD is going to have a retarded reflex (compared to their sober state) which creates a new risk for everyone, of which, the sober drivers were not aware of. A DD is messing with everyone's assesment of the situtation. It's out of everyone elses' control. As libertarians, do we not want to have control over ourselves? We have to know the risks. That's logical.

That is just it, I know the risk. Getting in a car and driving at any speed, let alone 60 mph+ I know the risk, there is a big risk, yet we choose to do it. There are people on the phone, people with much less brain functioning, people with screaming kids, people jamming to the music, people working 12 hours or more a day with long commutes, I take personal responsibility and I take the risk when I get on the road. If you jail someone for impairing themselves by having a few drinks, then we should jail someone working two jobs and lacking a bit of sleep, someone with screaming brats in the car, etc, etc. But no to that, I take the risk and responsibility when I get in a car, I don't want to jail everyone else who isn't driving at their very best, or who just doesn't have the capability to drive as well as me.

[steve74baywin]

Yeah and there are laws around here that say I can't shoot my .30-06 in the air. I mean that's bullshit. That bullet hasn't come down and hit anyone yet. Whats the deal with that? I mean we don't even know if it's going to come down do we? It might just knick a plane or keep on going in the gut of a seagull. Then if it drops it's the pilots or the seagulls responsibility. This is bullshit. We know our founding fathers didn't care if we shot our guns in the air or they would have mentioned it in the constitution. In Pakistan they get to shoot their guns in the air with abandon. And I thought we lived in a free country.

This is a good one. I didn't know how to answer it when I read it yesterday.
I thought of a reply as I was going to sleep.
Dam Russell, you on my mind before I go to sleep!

First let me recap what point I've been trying to convey. The protection of Individual Rights which I believe is what we set government up for covers alot and we don't need tons of laws, we have gotten tons of laws cause things were turned upside down.
If someone can shoot the bullet and not hit a plane and have it land on their own property then they would be allowed to do it in what I say would be a Libertarian system.
See, I can't throw my empty beer bottles over the fence in your yard. I can't violate your property rights by putting my property in your yard. Hence, if you shoot the bullet in the air and it doesn't land in your property, which odds are it wouldn't and where it did land would be someone else's property. It already would be breaking a law, unless it goes up, hits no one else's property, and lands back on your property.

[Velokid1]

Soda cans pose no iminent threat to a person. Bullets do. The comparison doesnt work.

[steve74baywin]

you should be able to drive drunk all you want, as long as you switch to eco-friendly light bulbs.

If your drunk AND using incandescent bulbs, you should get a mandatory fine and your daughter will be excused from becoming a stripper later in life as a direct result. (because were only in control of our own actions/life when they can't be linked to the enforcement of a known law.)

You totally missed the point.

People are all in favor of the DUI laws because kids have gotten hurt by someone driving drunk. That's right, not just in favor of punishing someone who did hurt a kid, but in favor of punishing someone who did something that others did that hurt kids. In other words they are attempting to justify how it is right to punish someone who has hurt no person or no ones property in the name of "protecting kids". I was pointing out that they might actually be causing more harm to kids overall than they realize. That doesn't mean I have jumped the fence and am now on the side of passing the buck.

In others words, if a person is in favor of and support such laws, they have to take the good with the bad. If your in favor of putting someone in jail for Pot even though they hurt no one in any way shape of form, you must also take the responsibility for the kids being without a dad for 5 years. This is why I say Libertarians are the most responsible and the collectivist are not. The collectivist are in favor of all these laws, but turn their head to the guns being pointed at people to pay for them, the guns used to get people to do what they want, the innocent people killed in wars, the kids left with out parents cause you know, that drug isn't good so they should go to jail for using it.
In others, no thanks for the cheap shot, follow the flow of the conversation.
If I have interpreted what you meant wrong, I apologize.


Edited to explain the responsibility part more.
When a person decides that they want DUI laws, they are not letting the person take the responsibility and risk, they are instead taking the role of governor or god over that person, and saying we will not let you drive drunk and take the chance your self, we will intervene and take on that responsibility for you. By doing so they also need to take on the responsibility for what this action causes. It is not in their power in the first place I say to govern in ones life that way, but if they are then going to use guns and force to bring about their desire, they need to take the responsibility for that action. Every child who is without a parent because the parent had a joint on them, or drank 3 beers in a hour due to a law they favor, they have to own up to the fact they they were a party to this. The can't shirk this, they want to take on that authority and power, they also have to take the responsibility also. They need to self reflect, they need to understand all the repercussions of what they want. But yes, the parent also new they were taking a chance.

With every right comes a responsibility.
I say it is not your right to govern in someones life like that, but if you think and act like you have that right, with it comes a responsibility.

[steve74baywin]

Soda cans pose no iminent threat to a person. Bullets do. The comparison doesnt work.

Point was made that if you shoot a bullet in the air and it doesn't land on your own property it is already a crime so no additional law would be needed, and odds are it wouldn't' land on your own property so someone would be breaking the law almost every time. . And I used a beer bottle as an example. If I throw the beer bottle high enough in the air it too can be an imminent threat. I guess kids should not be allowed to play baseball in their back yards either. That needs to be against the law. The baseball could kill, it can be an imminent threat.

[Velokid1]

Kids playing baseball = people shooting guns.

[steve74baywin]

Kids playing baseball = people shooting guns.

You say,
Can't shoot gun cause stray bullet could kill.
If that is the logic (reason they can't) then kid hitting baseball also should not be allowed, becuase it could kill too.
It is called applying the logic you are using to justify this.
If what I said make no sense, that should show you how what you said also makes no sense.
If we follow the logic for why you want these things outlawed, we see that baseballs and people driving after not getting enough sleep should also be a crime. They fit in the same logic you use to justify these things.

Velo, it is nice having you join in as much as you have again.
But I'm starting to feel that I may be coming very close to pissing you off.

[BellePlaine]

Steve, respectfully, I still don't understand why you hold your position.

The bullet you fired is your responsibility until it comes to a stop. You can shoot anywhere you like but you own it. Same as...
The car you drive is your responsibility until it comes to a stop. The difference is driving on a public road is a shared road. "WE" own the road together. Our representatives create rules for the shared road that we must agree to before we drive on it. Just like you might ask me to remove my shoes before entering your house. You own the house, you make the rules if I wish to enter. We own the roads, we make the rules if for all of us to abide by. Stoplight cameras; I maintain that they are not an infringement on my rights because a) I never had the right to drive, b) I'm on a public road and c) I'm bound by a contract to follow the rules.

You are saying that driving is risky and we must take responsibly for the risks we take. I agree. I would not get behind the wheel if I knew 100% that I was going to crash that day, would you? Of course not. We want our shared road to be as risk-free as possible, for other drivers. Shit Happens so 0% is not realistic. If everyone was driving attentively, perhaps the chances of your car crashing would be 0.0001%. Perhaps if you are intoxicated the chances of your car crashing is now 0.1%. Other drivers around the intoxicated driver, 0.025% Sober drivers are now what about 400X's more likely to crash? Are you willing to take the risk now or would you support stopping the higher risk driver before they crash? Again, we are all bound by contracts which we all entered into freely to be given a privilege, not a right.

By your position, would you support allowing driver to blow through a red light at a busy intersection even though he did not crash?

I love the debate. I don't think that we are going change any minds though. Probably like you, I don't support seatbelt and helmet laws for adults even though they lower the risk of getting hurt. The difference is that they don't lower the risk of someone else getting hurt. Make sense?

[Velokid1]

Velo, it is nice having you join in as much as you have again.
But I'm starting to feel that I may be coming very close to pissing you off.

Nah, don't worry about me. I feel a little frustration but if you're up at night thinking about your response to Russell's posts, I'm doing alright. I'm making a concerted effort to not make you feel the way we made (?) turk feel. We can debate without crossing the line, I think.

Kids playing baseball = people shooting guns.

You say,
Can't shoot gun cause stray bullet could kill.
If that is the logic (reason they can't) then kid hitting baseball also should not be allowed, becuase it could kill too.
It is called applying the logic you are using to justify this.
If what I said make no sense, that should show you how what you said also makes no sense.
If we follow the logic for why you want these things outlawed, we see that baseballs and people driving after not getting enough sleep should also be a crime. They fit in the same logic you use to justify these things.

Your logic seems very oversimplified. Your logic above doesn't take into account that different things have different risks. By your logic here, one could argue:

If people must register guns because guns can kill, then they should also be required to register the bag of cotton balls they purchased, since toddlers can choke on cotton balls, so cotton balls have an inherent risk, as well.

I mean, if registering cotton balls (or NOT registering guns, since cotton balls are also dangerous and don't need to be registered) makes sense to you, it's sort of the end of the discussion IMO.

[steve74baywin]

Steve, respectfully, I still don't understand why you hold your position.

The bullet you fired is your responsibility until it comes to a stop. You can shoot anywhere you like but you own it. Same as...
The car you drive is your responsibility until it comes to a stop. The difference is driving on a public road is a shared road. "WE" own the road together. Our representatives create rules for the shared road that we must agree to before we drive on it. Just like you might ask me to remove my shoes before entering your house. You own the house, you make the rules if I wish to enter. We own the roads, we make the rules if for all of us to abide by. Stoplight cameras; I maintain that they are not an infringement on my rights because a) I never had the right to drive, b) I'm on a public road and c) I'm bound by a contract to follow the rules.

You are saying that driving is risky and we must take responsibly for the risks we take. I agree. I would not get behind the wheel if I knew 100% that I was going to crash that day, would you? Of course not. We want our shared road to be as risk-free as possible, for other drivers. Shit Happens so 0% is not realistic. If everyone was driving attentively, perhaps the chances of your car crashing would be 0.0001%. Perhaps if you are intoxicated the chances of your car crashing is now 0.1%. Other drivers around the intoxicated driver, 0.025% Sober drivers are now what about 400X's more likely to crash? Are you willing to take the risk now or would you support stopping the higher risk driver before they crash? Again, we are all bound by contracts which we all entered into freely to be given a privilege, not a right.

By your position, would you support allowing driver to blow through a red light at a busy intersection even though he did not crash?

I love the debate. I don't think that we are going change any minds though. Probably like you, I don't support seatbelt and helmet laws for adults even though they lower the risk of getting hurt. The difference is that they don't lower the risk of someone else getting hurt. Make sense?

We are discussing the logic of the law and or whether it should be a law, not whether one can violate it or not now that it is a law. IE, whether it should be a law
Roads are tricky when it comes to discussions becuase there are different types of roads (different owners), and some have been put in via wrong means in the first place. So we'd have to break it down to each type of road, Federal, state, county, city, etc.
Also one must keep in mind alcohol has been around long before cars and roads with motorized cars on them, and roads with cars were around for ages before DUI laws. In spite of the propaganda things really weren't much worse before the laws. What has gotten worse is innocent people being punished. Before the media propaganda you hardly heard of any drunk driver issues.
So lets discuss.
Let's assume roads are put on public property with agreement of the public.
That means we all own it. If that is the case I would not need permission to use it. If I own it, I can use it as long as I don't violate someone else's right. Driving my car into them and hurting them would violate that, whether sober or drunk. Driving my car drunk or sober would not. I am a firm believer in {To be a crime their needs to be a victim).
It is that simple, there is no crime if I drive drunk. There is no victim.
I think all things should pass what I call a Litmus test.
If I break down the logic used to say why we need the punishment we have for someone driving drunk, it seem tons more things would need to be including, being tired, using a cell phone, having noisy kids in the car, daydreaming, etc, etc. It just becomes unrealistic.
It boils down to whatever things people got stuck in their brains via emotion, cause the logic isn't there. It doesn't pass the litmus test.

[steve74baywin]

Your logic seems very oversimplified. Your logic above doesn't take into account that different things have different risks. By your logic here, one could argue:

If people must register guns because guns can kill, then they should also be required to register the bag of cotton balls they purchased, since toddlers can choke on cotton balls, so cotton balls have an inherent risk, as well.


I mean, if registering cotton balls (or NOT registering guns, since cotton balls are also dangerous and don't need to be registered) makes sense to you, it's sort of the end of the discussion IMO.

I'm not sure if my next statement would end the conversation.
I am totally against registering guns, to the max. So that might make it hard for me to grasp your example.
I'm probably not fully understanding your point.
But I will here goes.

I know the risk is different, and I thought someone might bring that up.
The risk is different, but here is where it gets all messy and crazy, how much risk then makes it okay? Who determines the level of risk? It all just becomes BS in my opinion.
There is the wrong doing, the crime, that is killing for this example. Do it with a car sober, do it with a gun drunk, whatever, to me it is hair brainy emotional legislation. If it is a crime to kill, that is it, just cause more people or some people do it more so when doing X or Y, on A or B days is irrelevant.

Guns can kill, but so can a knife. It is what a person does with it. And, killing already is a crime. So that should be the end of the discussion. Many many things can kill, most take a human to use them in order for them to kill The common denominator is the human, the crime is the killing.

See, I feel that once we cross the line of the basic simply form of government and now violate individual rights, we have opened the door for the exact circle jerk we now get. It is like opening pandora's box. The lines is crossed, now we have stuff to discuss for ages, we now have POLITICS. We now have smoke and mirrors, we now can form two sides and fight till hell freezes over while "we the people" keep losing and "the rich the controllers" keep winning.
This really is the crutch of the "Individualism vs Collectivism" argument.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMYicq_SN1E
I posted that 3 or 4 times on this site over the years, I don't know if you ever watched it or not. There is 6 or 7 vids I think.

[BellePlaine]

There is the wrong doing, the crime, that is killing for this example. Do it with a car sober, do it with a gun drunk, whatever, to me it is hair brainy emotional legislation. If it is a crime to kill, that is it, just cause more people or some people do it more so when doing X or Y, on A or B days is irrelevant.

Guns can kill, but so can a knife. It is what a person does with it. And, killing already is a crime. So that should be the end of the discussion. Many many things can kill, most take a human to use them in order for them to kill The common denominator is the human, the crime is the killing.

See, I feel that once we cross the line of the basic simply form of government and now violate individual rights, we have opened the door for the exact circle jerk we now get. It is like opening pandora's box. The lines is crossed, now we have stuff to discuss for ages, we now have POLITICS. We now have smoke and mirrors, we now can form two sides and fight till hell freezes over while "we the people" keep losing and "the rich the controllers" keep winning.
This really is the crutch of the "Individualism vs Collectivism" argument.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMYicq_SN1E
I posted that 3 or 4 times on this site over the years, I don't know if you ever watched it or not. There is 6 or 7 vids I think.

This makes sense. Finally!

It's noteworthy though, that the marketing slogan is "Don't Drink and Drive" and not "Don't Kill Anyone with Your Car".

[RussellK]

Its more expedient to go after the cause. Its a reasonable assumption if you shoot a gun in the air the bullet will drop potentially hitting someone. Its a reasonable assumption drunk drivers result in increased traffic accidents, some fatal. We, meaning our society, penalizes the causes as a preventative measure. We go after the effects as punitive measures The penalty for a spent bullet landing in someones skull is much greater than the penalty for discharging the weapon. Try a manslaughter charge. Same with that drunk driving charge and a related fatality. Steve you made the assertion things were not much worse before stricter enforcement. Really? Where are the statistics to support that? Because I believe every statistic out there proves strict enforcement has worked. Awareness is up, fatalities are down, and the stigma of remaining sober has changed. You made the assertion that innocent people have been hurt since greater enforcement. Really? Who? The drunk driver? The drunk driver is a lawbreaker not an innocent. His family? The family of every lawbreaker gets hurt. That's why we say there are two victims for every crime but the choice belongs to the lawbreaker and the responsibility for that choice rests squarely on their shoulders.