The truth is that for the vast majority of us, it's not worth making our homes secure from hurricanes and tsunamis. I'm probably more likely to be killed on my way home tonight than I am of ever being killed by a hurricane in my home.

And a tsunami would have to be going some to reach Tennessee.

I would say it has to be at least medium term for capitalism. You gots to have the capital itself.

OTOH, there was someone killed a couple of years ago who lived in a brick house when the wall blew over and fell on them.

Though in the US, even brick houses are commonly wooden frame. If I ever build a house, it will be all-brick just like my parents' was.

I guess the point I'm not really getting at very well is that it's not enough to have stuff, it's not even enough to have enough stuff to trade, capitalism requires that it be possible to keep the excess of value that is created in that trade.

I guess live chickens are a valid form of stored value

True as far as it goes. But that begs a whole lot of other questions.

Serbia?

Really?

The issue of defining why civilians shouldn't be allowed nuclear weapons is complicated by the need to rationalize why governments should be allowed them.

Pah, you can have my nuke when you pry it from my hot, glowing hands.

You remember the huge action. What you don't remember is that George Bush got in and it ended up with a slap on the wrist (and that's stretching it) for Microsoft.

Still on page 1 but I didn't see it there...

Capitalism needs a store of value. It doesn't work exchanging  chickens for corn if  the chicken spoils and the corn rots. Sure, you'll eat well but it's only when you get to chicken jerky, feathers for decoration and dry storage for the corn that capitalism kicks in

Nice one. Though I'd just like to point out that not all British citizens are quite as hopeless as you make out (in the same was that many US citizens actually are). Worth bearing in mind that Washington was, at one point, a colonel in the British army.

I agree. There are many other possible causes of impairment including prescription drugs, incapacity due to age and just plain not being skilled at driving. A proper driving test and periodic re-qualification would do wonders for road safety.

Fortunately, this is likely to become moot in what will seem like a surprisingly short period of time. It wont be without its downsides though.

A little bit disingenuous as quoted as what's being criminalized is not UI but DUI.

There's an oft quoted phrase "Your right to swing your fist ends at the end of my nose". I've always felt a little uncomfortable with this as there are quite a few things that could go wrong that would end up with fist and nose coming into violent contact. It would also be interesting to see what would happen in an ancap society to a person who went around swinging their fist just short of people's noses.

Usually when things seem woolly like this issue, I usually find it means that the argument has not been thought through to first principles and insufficient information about the circumstances have been given. Government laws, for example, usually attempt to treat the circumstances and not the cause and are typically poorly thought out even for that.

It's scary when the training wheels come off for some.

Dude, it's not over until the BFL guys post to say they turned up to work and the doors were locked and the execs aren't answering their phones.

Though I'm not necessarily saying that will happen.

What is crazy is that drunk driving does increase risk for everyone and that there are laws about it yet those who cause drunk driving accidents are typically repeat offenders either because punishments are too low or they simply drive illegally. Government is simply not in a good position to administer access to the roads. They can't simply consider safety and efficiency but there are many other competing considerations and some hurdles based on (quite sound) legal restrictions on what government can actually do (those drunk-driving road blocks are a travesty

The driving test here in Tennessee is a joke also.

And how about the opposite? If deflation implies currency hoarding and delaying purchases, inflation implies early purchasing and hoarding of supplies, consequently pushing the price up for everyone else.

True. And I look forward to that day. Hopefully the daily commute will be obsolete for many also. I find it hard to believe all the fuss being made about the green agenda when no one seems to be pushing for the most obvious energy saving measure of all - removing the need to use a ton of steel to move a couple of hundred pounds of flesh around (let alone the human cost of it all).

This is a little tangental but interesting.

http://www.brake.org.uk/facts/naked-roads.htm

The essence is that by tightly regulating the roads, a false sense of security is engendered. When responsibility is put back of the driver, speeds drop in dangerous areas and safety is improved. Certainly I know of a couple of places where it would be possible to get in trouble from over-confidence in signs and markings.

To the question originally asked, I think the subject is somewhat muddied and is getting conflated with other issues. I think myrkul touches on this when he refers to threatening behavior but I don't think that's the whole story. Certainly it's possible to deliberately endanger people in ways that would not be considered breaking the law if there was no adverse outcome.