Right to endanger?

[myrkul]

A relevant article on the subject:
http://lfb.org/blog/the-drunk-driving-question/

With laws against DUI, what’s being criminalized? Not wreckless driving as such. Not aggression against anyone. What’s being criminalized is the chemical make up of the blood in your body. That itself should be no crime. To make having a certain blood content illegal is essentially totalitarian.

[Richy_T]

A relevant article on the subject:
http://lfb.org/blog/the-drunk-driving-question/

With laws against DUI, what’s being criminalized? Not wreckless driving as such. Not aggression against anyone. What’s being criminalized is the chemical make up of the blood in your body. That itself should be no crime. To make having a certain blood content illegal is essentially totalitarian.

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.

[myrkul]

A relevant article on the subject:
http://lfb.org/blog/the-drunk-driving-question/

With laws against DUI, what’s being criminalized? Not wreckless driving as such. Not aggression against anyone. What’s being criminalized is the chemical make up of the blood in your body. That itself should be no crime. To make having a certain blood content illegal is essentially totalitarian.

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

Don't judge the article based solely on the paragraph I quoted. He goes much more in depth than that.

The real question is what should be criminalized: Should it be swerving into other people's lanes, or having an arbitrary (and not necessarily impairing - or worse, far greater than needed to impair) amount of a chemical in your blood? If you're going to punish behavior that endangers others, you should punish the behavior that actually endangers others - regardless of the cause.

[FirstAscent]

A relevant article on the subject:
http://lfb.org/blog/the-drunk-driving-question/

With laws against DUI, what’s being criminalized? Not wreckless driving as such. Not aggression against anyone. What’s being criminalized is the chemical make up of the blood in your body. That itself should be no crime. To make having a certain blood content illegal is essentially totalitarian.

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

Don't judge the article based solely on the paragraph I quoted. He goes much more in depth than that.

The real question is what should be criminalized: Should it be swerving into other people's lanes, or having an arbitrary (and not necessarily impairing - or worse, far greater than needed to impair) amount of a chemical in your blood? If you're going to punish behavior that endangers others, you should punish the behavior that actually endangers others - regardless of the cause.

They are free to walk a line and touch their nose instead. Better that than putting them back on the road and watch them swerve into another lane or run a red light and kill someone. No?

[myrkul]

A relevant article on the subject:
http://lfb.org/blog/the-drunk-driving-question/

With laws against DUI, what’s being criminalized? Not wreckless driving as such. Not aggression against anyone. What’s being criminalized is the chemical make up of the blood in your body. That itself should be no crime. To make having a certain blood content illegal is essentially totalitarian.

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

Don't judge the article based solely on the paragraph I quoted. He goes much more in depth than that.

The real question is what should be criminalized: Should it be swerving into other people's lanes, or having an arbitrary (and not necessarily impairing - or worse, far greater than needed to impair) amount of a chemical in your blood? If you're going to punish behavior that endangers others, you should punish the behavior that actually endangers others - regardless of the cause.

They are free to walk a line and touch their nose instead. Better that than putting them back on the road and watch them swerve into another lane or run a red light and kill someone. No?

Impairment testing is all well and good. But singling out one cause of impairment is rather pointless, isn't it?

[FirstAscent]

A relevant article on the subject:
http://lfb.org/blog/the-drunk-driving-question/

With laws against DUI, what’s being criminalized? Not wreckless driving as such. Not aggression against anyone. What’s being criminalized is the chemical make up of the blood in your body. That itself should be no crime. To make having a certain blood content illegal is essentially totalitarian.

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

Don't judge the article based solely on the paragraph I quoted. He goes much more in depth than that.

The real question is what should be criminalized: Should it be swerving into other people's lanes, or having an arbitrary (and not necessarily impairing - or worse, far greater than needed to impair) amount of a chemical in your blood? If you're going to punish behavior that endangers others, you should punish the behavior that actually endangers others - regardless of the cause.

They are free to walk a line and touch their nose instead. Better that than putting them back on the road and watch them swerve into another lane or run a red light and kill someone. No?

Impairment testing is all well and good.

Glad you agree. So can we put to rest the whole notion that it's a not a good idea to keep drunks off the road before they kill someone?

But singling out one cause of impairment is rather pointless, isn't it?

And how do we test for other temporary causes of impairment, such as a fainting, sleeping or strokes? Better to at least catch drunk drivers because it is detectable. Or do you advocate letting the drunks kill because we can't tell that someone might faint in the next thirty minutes?

[grondilu]

IIRC, there is no speed limit on german highways.

[myrkul]

A relevant article on the subject:
http://lfb.org/blog/the-drunk-driving-question/

With laws against DUI, what’s being criminalized? Not wreckless driving as such. Not aggression against anyone. What’s being criminalized is the chemical make up of the blood in your body. That itself should be no crime. To make having a certain blood content illegal is essentially totalitarian.

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

Don't judge the article based solely on the paragraph I quoted. He goes much more in depth than that.

The real question is what should be criminalized: Should it be swerving into other people's lanes, or having an arbitrary (and not necessarily impairing - or worse, far greater than needed to impair) amount of a chemical in your blood? If you're going to punish behavior that endangers others, you should punish the behavior that actually endangers others - regardless of the cause.

They are free to walk a line and touch their nose instead. Better that than putting them back on the road and watch them swerve into another lane or run a red light and kill someone. No?

Impairment testing is all well and good.

Glad you agree. So can we put to rest the whole notion that it's a not a good idea to keep drunks off the road before they kill someone?

But singling out one cause of impairment is rather pointless, isn't it?

And how do we test for other temporary causes of impairment, such as a fainting, sleeping or strokes? Better to at least catch drunk drivers because it is detectable. Or do you advocate letting the drunks kill because we can't tell that someone might faint in the next thirty minutes?

Do you not think that sleepiness is detectable in impairment testing? Fainting and strokes are one-time events, and should not be punished, due to their unpredictable nature. But if you're going to punish someone before they harm someone, it should be for the actions which actually endanger people - the reckless driving - regardless of cause.

[FirstAscent]

IIRC, there is no speed limit on german highways.

Not all segments allow for unlimited speed. If you think they're discussing freeways like one might find in Los Angeles or the Bay Area of California, then forget it. Furthermore, you will get pulled over for reckless endangerment (see thread title) of others depending on traffic density, weaving, weather, etc.

[Richy_T]

Impairment testing is all well and good. But singling out one cause of impairment is rather pointless, isn't it?

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.

[benjamindees]

I haven't read this thread but since we're on the topic, has anyone touched on whether it's prudent to let women or Asians drive?