Drunk driving

[Trader Steve]

Mod note: Split from here. Stay on topic!

Storing any sort if incendiary or explosive devices in quantity is serious business and putting the lives and property of others in danger is very wrong.  

They're glorified firecrackers containing 1 gram of powder or about 1/3 of the size of what I used to call an M80 when I was a kid. It was a bullshit case brought by a bullshit government because some employees of said government have very thin skins and didn't like the criticism being thrown their way.

Did you miss the 'in quantity' part?

Or the part the 'apartment' and 'that he was renting' in the original text?

It could be the case the Ver told his landlord that he would be using his apartment room to store the devices and told all his neighbors.  Also told the local fire department such that if there were a fire the firefighters would know to avoid his apartment room as they were attempting to fight it.  And that they all said, 'Sure.  No problem.'  Somehow I find it doubtful that this is how things went down.

I would not rule out that the guy was a victim of retribution for various of his activities.  Off hand I would find some combination of retribution and punishment for being irresponsible the most probably.  But again I've not looked at the case.  And I believe that at this time information about who engages in 'thoughtcrime' is likely cataloged but the info tends not to filter down into the various arms of our justice department very much...though this is likely to change drastically and quickly at some point.  Given the timeframe I'd tend to guess that Ver's case was likely driven largely by his own lack of common sense and it sounds (admittedly through docs that the government has written) as though there is a fair degree of legitimacy to his treatment.

Bullshit case. Was he irresponsible? Apparently not as no one was harmed. The average household has plenty of items that can cause great harm. It is what you do with them that matters.

[1714985935]

1714985935

[tvbcof]

Storing any sort if incendiary or explosive devices in quantity is serious business and putting the lives and property of others in danger is very wrong. 

They're glorified firecrackers containing 1 gram of powder or about 1/3 of the size of what I used to call an M80 when I was a kid. It was a bullshit case brought by a bullshit government because some employees of said government have very thin skins and didn't like the criticism being thrown their way.

Did you miss the 'in quantity' part?

Or the part the 'apartment' and 'that he was renting' in the original text?

It could be the case the Ver told his landlord that he would be using his apartment room to store the devices and told all his neighbors.  Also told the local fire department such that if there were a fire the firefighters would know to avoid his apartment room as they were attempting to fight it.  And that they all said, 'Sure.  No problem.'  Somehow I find it doubtful that this is how things went down.

I would not rule out that the guy was a victim of retribution for various of his activities.  Off hand I would find some combination of retribution and punishment for being irresponsible the most probably.  But again I've not looked at the case.  And I believe that at this time information about who engages in 'thoughtcrime' is likely cataloged but the info tends not to filter down into the various arms of our justice department very much...though this is likely to change drastically and quickly at some point.  Given the timeframe I'd tend to guess that Ver's case was likely driven largely by his own lack of common sense and it sounds (admittedly through docs that the government has written) as though there is a fair degree of legitimacy to his treatment.

Bullshit case. Was he irresponsible? Apparently not as no one was harmed. The average household has plenty of items that can cause great harm. It is what you do with them that matters.

So it is A-OK to drive drunk as long as you don't happen to get in a crash and kill someone?

There are very good reasons why explosives are required, by law, to be treated with a high degree of care.  This is especially true of high explosives if that is what Ver was screwing around with.  (I do have first hand experience with high explosives having been an engineer in the US Army at one time, by the way.)

I have every right to rent and apartment for my family with the expectation that some nit-wit is not storing a box full of high explosives below my kid's bed, and I have every right to expect that the renters in the houses I own are storing such compound in my basement.  This is part of the reason why I don't complain to bitterly about paying my taxes.

It would be much different in my mind if Ver had owned his home and it was rural.  Then he could cook meth or blow his hands off or whatever he wanted to do and it would not effect others.  (Though I call myself a Socialist, I'm probably more of a pure Libertarian than most people who apply that label to themselves.)

If/when the paramilitaries set up do deal with irresponsible actors like Ver (appears to have been) and re-oriented to act as that back-bone of our police state, I will be complaining more bitterly about my taxes.  Until then I have to accept the good with the bad and work to prolong the probably inevitable shift.  In the Ver case it seems like the justice system was doing largely what I pay and ask them to do.  Gotta call it like I see it.

[Frozenlock]

So it is A-OK to drive drunk as long as you don't happen to get in a crash and kill someone?

Normally I would try to keep this thread on topic, but I have a big grudge against how drunk driving is handled.

Is it OK to drive drunk? No, people should be educated and shown why it's wrong.
However, the laws in places (claiming to protect citizens from drunk driving) are doing just the opposite.
This is where all the hypocrisy of the situation arises.

Being drunk slows down your reaction time. If you have to drive home, you should drive slower, say 20 km/h, for example.
But because there's bad laws in place, you have an incentive to drive faster,
otherwise the cops will see you driving at 20 km/h and say "Hum, that's odd... he's probably drunk, let's arrest him."

So while the laws in place are claiming to protect the citizens, they are adding incentives for dangerous speedy drunk driving.
If you want to use the government to reduce drunk driving accidents, you should offer free lifts to whomever might need it,
in addition to bringing their car home.

[Trader Steve]

So it is A-OK to drive drunk as long as you don't happen to get in a crash and kill someone?

Absolutely! I've seen drunk drivers that can drive much better than many sober drivers.

I have every right to rent and apartment for my family with the expectation that some nit-wit is not storing a box full of high explosives below my kid's bed, and I have every right to expect that the renters in the houses I own are storing such compound in my basement.  This is part of the reason why I don't complain to bitterly about paying my taxes.

Yes, you have every right to expect whatever you want. But you do not have the right to force your expectations on others when they have done nothing to harm you.

In the Ver case it seems like the justice system was doing largely what I pay and ask them to do.  Gotta call it like I see it.

So you advocate the kidnapping of someone who harmed no one?

[tvbcof]

So it is A-OK to drive drunk as long as you don't happen to get in a crash and kill someone?

Absolutely! I've seen drunk drivers that can drive much better than many sober drivers.

Thanks for bringing this conversation back on-topic and demonstrating conclusively why it is good policy to keep Loonytarians out of the spotlight as much as possible.

[Trader Steve]

So it is A-OK to drive drunk as long as you don't happen to get in a crash and kill someone?

Absolutely! I've seen drunk drivers that can drive much better than many sober drivers.

Thanks for bringing this conversation back on-topic and demonstrating conclusively why it is good policy to keep Loonytarians out of the spotlight as much as possible.

Spoken like a true Statist from the Department of Pre-Crime. One who advocates the kidnapping and imprisonment of people who have harmed no one.

[tvbcof]

So it is A-OK to drive drunk as long as you don't happen to get in a crash and kill someone?

Absolutely! I've seen drunk drivers that can drive much better than many sober drivers.

Thanks for bringing this conversation back on-topic and demonstrating conclusively why it is good policy to keep Loonytarians out of the spotlight as much as possible.

Spoken like a true Statist from the Department of Pre-Crime. One who advocates the kidnapping and imprisonment of people who have harmed no one.

Driving drunk is not a 'pre-crime'.  It's a 'right then and there crime' for reasons that make sense to a vast majority of people.  From an engineering perspective it would be just as well that a responsible community beat the shit out of and regularly killed fringe wackos who endanger the rest vs. having the state do it.  Either one would work for me.

People like you (if you are not simply trolling which seems likely) are fringe among most populations, and will likely be fringe within the population of Bitcoin users as well.  I advise you to learn to like it.  I'm pretty fringe for other reasons (specifically in that I don't get my information from mainstream sources making my view of reality non-normal) and it does not bother me.

[Trader Steve]

Driving drunk is not a 'pre-crime'.  It's a 'right then and there crime' for reasons that make sense to a vast majority of people.

Technically, you are correct - driving drunk is a crime in most places yet it is still another victimless crime.

From an engineering perspective it would be just as well that a responsible community beat the shit out of and regularly killed fringe wackos who endanger the rest vs. having the state do it.  Either one would work for me.

I rest my case.
 

[tvbcof]

Driving drunk is not a 'pre-crime'.  It's a 'right then and there crime' for reasons that make sense to a vast majority of people.

Technically, you are correct - driving drunk is a crime in most places yet it is still another victimless crime.

From an engineering perspective it would be just as well that a responsible community beat the shit out of and regularly killed fringe wackos who endanger the rest vs. having the state do it.  Either one would work for me.

I rest my case.

Trimming your case out of the response text makes it a lot easier to 'rest' the case I suppose.  Handy because in context it makes zero sense to do so.

[Trader Steve]

Driving drunk is not a 'pre-crime'.  It's a 'right then and there crime' for reasons that make sense to a vast majority of people.

Technically, you are correct - driving drunk is a crime in most places yet it is still another victimless crime.

From an engineering perspective it would be just as well that a responsible community beat the shit out of and regularly killed fringe wackos who endanger the rest vs. having the state do it.  Either one would work for me.

I rest my case.

Trimming your case out of the response text makes it a lot easier to 'rest' the case I suppose.  Handy because in context it makes zero sense to do so.

Okay, let me be more clear: It is obvious (or not?) that you have no objection to using violence - even murder - against people who have harmed no one but simply disagree with your opinions.

[tvbcof]

Driving drunk is not a 'pre-crime'.  It's a 'right then and there crime' for reasons that make sense to a vast majority of people.

Technically, you are correct - driving drunk is a crime in most places yet it is still another victimless crime.

From an engineering perspective it would be just as well that a responsible community beat the shit out of and regularly killed fringe wackos who endanger the rest vs. having the state do it.  Either one would work for me.

I rest my case.

Trimming your case out of the response text makes it a lot easier to 'rest' the case I suppose.  Handy because in context it makes zero sense to do so.

Okay, let me be more clear: It is obvious (or not?) that you have no objection to using violence - even murder - against people who have harmed no one but simply disagree with your opinions.

It may come as a surprise to you, but drunk drivers kill thousands of completely innocent people every year and maim many times that number.

I'm not about to stand by while some weirdo runs around playing Russian roulette with other people's skulls just because they get their jollies out of it and it's a 'victimless crime' 5 our of 6 times.  Nor are most sane people which is why some societies have rule of law and some have vigilante justice, but all functional societies have at least something.   Always have and always will, so you would be well advised to deal with it as best you are able.

You called me a 'statist' or some such.  I tell you that I am not glued to the idea that the problem is solved via a functional state body as long as it is solved somehow.  You are perfect correct that I have no problem with 'violence' of one sort or another if that is what it takes to solve the problem most efficiently and most fairly.

You do seem a little mixed up (like a lot of Libertarians) about how one person's natural rights stop where another person's start.  I've got no problem with people doing whatever they want as long as it impacts only them.  When you start distributing risk to others without their consent is where we start to run into issues.

[Severian]

It may come as a surprise to you, but drunk drivers kill thousands of completely innocent people every year and maim many times that number.

When they do hurt or kill someone, I'll be the first one with you to make sure they never do it again. People that can't manage themselves to the point of injuring or killing other people lose the right to have a say in how they manage their affairs.

But a criminal isn't a criminal until they hurt, kill or in anyway infringe on rights to life and property through their own negligence or malice.

[tvbcof]

It may come as a surprise to you, but drunk drivers kill thousands of completely innocent people every year and maim many times that number.

When they do hurt or kill someone, I'll be the first one with you to make sure they never do it again. People that can't manage themselves to the point of injuring or killing other people lose the right to have a say in how they manage their affairs.

But a criminal isn't a criminal until they hurt, kill or in anyway infringe on rights to life and property through their own negligence or malice.

I have no beef with anyone doing anything they want to themselves on their own property.  If you want to get shit-faced and drive around, that is fine.  Just do it on your own property and if you don't have your own property then defer your dangerous behavior until you can get some.

I have to use public property for transportation in order to live.  Just like almost everyone else.  If you create extra risk for me an my family that is creating a very real problem for me.  If I have to balance the reality that there are a lot of shit-faced drivers who so far have managed to avoid killing someone on public property, that is detracting significant from the value of this resource among everyone who could otherwise enjoy it.  You are distributing the cost of your pleasure to every other member of society and it is wrong in most people's minds.

Now if you think that there should be no such thing as 'public property' and that in and of itself creates the problem you are having with drunk driving laws then that is another thing (and equally stupid.)  Wait until someone who has their shit together enough to buy all the public roads does so, and see how they put up with irresponsible boozers using what is now their private resource.

[myrkul]

It may come as a surprise to you, but drunk drivers kill thousands of completely innocent people every year and maim many times that number.

When they do hurt or kill someone, I'll be the first one with you to make sure they never do it again. People that can't manage themselves to the point of injuring or killing other people lose the right to have a say in how they manage their affairs.

But a criminal isn't a criminal until they hurt, kill or in anyway infringe on rights to life and property through their own negligence or malice.

I have no beef with anyone doing anything they want to themselves on their own property.  If you want to get shit-faced and drive around, that is fine.  Just do it on your own property and if you don't have your own property then defer your dangerous behavior until you can get some.

Public roads belong to everyone. Even drunk people.

[tvbcof]

It may come as a surprise to you, but drunk drivers kill thousands of completely innocent people every year and maim many times that number.

When they do hurt or kill someone, I'll be the first one with you to make sure they never do it again. People that can't manage themselves to the point of injuring or killing other people lose the right to have a say in how they manage their affairs.

But a criminal isn't a criminal until they hurt, kill or in anyway infringe on rights to life and property through their own negligence or malice.

I have no beef with anyone doing anything they want to themselves on their own property.  If you want to get shit-faced and drive around, that is fine.  Just do it on your own property and if you don't have your own property then defer your dangerous behavior until you can get some.

Public roads belong to everyone. Even drunk people.

Of course.  But they don't have the right to drive on them until they sober up.

Back to the original point of the original thread, my own thoughts about drunk driving are the consensus opinion.  Strong consensus in fact.  There are a variety of opinions on every subject.  A (thankfully) small number of people argue fervently that molesting kids is perfectly fine, and they can even point to societies where it is the norm.

The point is that it makes practical sense to choose spokesmen who are not going to alienate a high percentage of the population.  Promoting higher and more convenient use of Bitcoin is the goal of some in the Bitcoin community and that is one of the main charters of the Bitcoin Foundation.  As I said initially, Libertarians are fringe, and considered dangerous wackos by a lot of people.  And not without some good reason as evidenced by this conversation.

[myrkul]

It may come as a surprise to you, but drunk drivers kill thousands of completely innocent people every year and maim many times that number.

When they do hurt or kill someone, I'll be the first one with you to make sure they never do it again. People that can't manage themselves to the point of injuring or killing other people lose the right to have a say in how they manage their affairs.

But a criminal isn't a criminal until they hurt, kill or in anyway infringe on rights to life and property through their own negligence or malice.

I have no beef with anyone doing anything they want to themselves on their own property.  If you want to get shit-faced and drive around, that is fine.  Just do it on your own property and if you don't have your own property then defer your dangerous behavior until you can get some.

Public roads belong to everyone. Even drunk people.

Of course.  But they don't have the right to drive on them until they sober up.

Didn't you just say:

If you want to get shit-faced and drive around, that is fine.  Just do it on your own property

How does that reconcile with trying to deny the drunk the right to drive on public roads?

[tvbcof]

It may come as a surprise to you, but drunk drivers kill thousands of completely innocent people every year and maim many times that number.

When they do hurt or kill someone, I'll be the first one with you to make sure they never do it again. People that can't manage themselves to the point of injuring or killing other people lose the right to have a say in how they manage their affairs.

But a criminal isn't a criminal until they hurt, kill or in anyway infringe on rights to life and property through their own negligence or malice.

I have no beef with anyone doing anything they want to themselves on their own property.  If you want to get shit-faced and drive around, that is fine.  Just do it on your own property and if you don't have your own property then defer your dangerous behavior until you can get some.

Public roads belong to everyone. Even drunk people.

Of course.  But they don't have the right to drive on them until they sober up.

Didn't you just say:

If you want to get shit-faced and drive around, that is fine.  Just do it on your own property

How does that reconcile with trying to deny the drunk the right to drive on public roads?

It is so unbelievable simple that I cannot tell if you are joking around or what?  Just in case:

If you are driving drunk on a public road, you are endangering other and spreading risk to them which they have not given authorization to do.

If you are endangering only yourself nobody has a right to stop that (in my general opinion.)  In fact, being a fan or Chas Darwin and a bit of an asshole, I highly encourage people do do stupid things simply for the purposes of cleaning up the gene pool a bit.  Again, of course, only if they keep the risk contained to themselves.

[myrkul]

If you are driving drunk on a public road, you are endangering other and spreading risk to them which they have not given authorization to do.

Driving is a dangerous activity. Merely getting on the road involves accepting a great deal of risk to yourself, including that someone else on that road may be drunk, tired, distracted, or simply a bad driver. If you're not willing to assume that risk, don't drive.

Remember, it's their road too.

[Elwar]

Anyone who kills someone else while driving should be charged with manslaughter.

[tvbcof]

Anyone who kills someone else while driving should be charged with manslaughter.

Not necessarily.  Some accidents are simply not avoidable.  And some people are just naturally not as skilled as others.  That is a risk I take into account every time I get on the road.  (The road built with my tax dollars, by they way.)

That in no way makes it acceptable for some people to put other peoples lives at risk against their will simply because they feel like being irresponsible.  People who do so should be punished for being irresponsible idiots and unnecessarily endangering others against their will for that indiscretion alone.  If they roll the dice and end up killing someone, they should be punished for both opting to roll the dice and for the death (or injury) resulting from their decision.  My society agrees with me.