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.

[1715234965]

1715234965

[1715234965]

1715234965

[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.

[Elwar]

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.

They should still be charged. If it is found to be the person's fault then they should be convicted.

[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.)
...

They should still be charged. If it is found to be the person's fault then they should be convicted.

It's tempting to argue this from the 'limited government red tape' perspective, but...

I'm sure if I killed someone for any reason I'd feel terrible about it.  The details of many, if not most, fatal accidents are probably pretty clear and it would ordinarily be just fine to clean up the mess without undue hardship, but...

I will bet that there are more than a few cases where the participant(s) are known to the authorities and are let off the hook due to their social rank or for good-old-boy reasons.  I would not be adverse to enforcing a formalized no-exception process for clearing anyone of manslaughter no matter what the circumstances.

[myrkul]

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.)

Do you also take into account that some of those drivers may be impaired?

[teodor87]

Bottomline: drinking and driving is not a good idea. Unless you want to die or kill an innocent.

[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.)

Do you also take into account that some of those drivers may be impaired?

Of course.  I'm not naive enough to think that someone people don't break the law.  In fact my father was a terrible menace and it's just good luck that he never killed anyone.  Thankfully they took his licence or he probably would have.  (Oddly he still had a pilot's license though.)

I am also fully aware that if the laws didn't exist at all, or if society accepted such behavior, the risks to myself and my family would be much higher.  That's a non-starter to me...and for the umpteenth time, to most other clear thinking and semi-responsible people in our society as well.

In the same general vein, I am a gun owner also even though the law says that nobody should be breaking and entering my place or stealing my property.

[myrkul]

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.)

Do you also take into account that some of those drivers may be impaired?

Of course. 

Good. Then you can not claim that drunk drivers are putting you at risk against your will. You knowingly put yourself at risk by getting on the road after taking into consideration that some of the other drivers may be impaired.

I am also fully aware that if the laws didn't exist at all, or if society accepted such behavior, the risks to myself and my family would be much higher.  That's a non-starter to me...and for the umpteenth time, to most other clear thinking and semi-responsible people in our society as well.

I'll agree that if society accepted such behavior then it would indeed be more common. But do you honestly think that the law prevents drunk driving? Drunks, after all, are not a group of people known for their good judgment. The law against drunk driving doesn't stop people from driving drunk. It provides for punishment if they do. And by narrowly focusing on drunkenness, it neglects many other forms of impairment. I've used them as examples earlier in the conversation. Tiredness. Distraction. Anger. Should we punish a person who drives angry? Or with a full bladder? And if a person causes an accident, does it really matter why?

Elwar has the right of it. Hold all accidents to the same standard, and make the guilty party pay, instead of punishing people before they've harmed anyone.

[tvbcof]

I am also fully aware that if the laws didn't exist at all, or if society accepted such behavior, the risks to myself and my family would be much higher.  That's a non-starter to me...and for the umpteenth time, to most other clear thinking and semi-responsible people in our society as well.

I'll agree that if society accepted such behavior then it would indeed be more common. But do you honestly think that the law prevents drunk driving? Drunks, after all, are not a group of people known for their good judgment. The law against drunk driving doesn't stop people from driving drunk.  ...

Hogwash.  The perception of drunk driving and the incidence of it have gone way down as awareness, laws, and penalties have gone up.

People who would drive drunk are not universally stupid.  The enourmous cost has a significant impact on influencing their actions and many lives have been saved because of it.  Possibly even your own and you'll never know it.

Elwar has the right of it. Hold all accidents to the same standard, and make the guilty party pay, instead of punishing people before they've harmed anyone.

That's fine for people who are ambivalent about the difference between:

 - no accident, or

 - dead self/spouse/kid and some money + payback.

As always, most people draw a distinction and agree with my way of thinking.

[myrkul]

Elwar has the right of it. Hold all accidents to the same standard, and make the guilty party pay, instead of punishing people before they've harmed anyone.

That's fine for people who are ambivalent about the difference between:

 - no accident, or

 - dead self/spouse/kid and some money + payback.

As always, most people draw a distinction and agree with my way of thinking.

I certainly see a difference between no accident and accident + repayment. But you're not drawing a distinction between them. You are treating those who did not cause an accident as though they already have. And still you focus on drunkenness. Driving with a full bladder impairs your ability. Should we prosecute people who drive when they have to pee?

[tvbcof]

Elwar has the right of it. Hold all accidents to the same standard, and make the guilty party pay, instead of punishing people before they've harmed anyone.

That's fine for people who are ambivalent about the difference between:

 - no accident, or

 - dead self/spouse/kid and some money + payback.

As always, most people draw a distinction and agree with my way of thinking.

I certainly see a difference between no accident and accident + repayment. But you're not drawing a distinction between them. You are treating those who did not cause an accident as though they already have. And still you focus on drunkenness. Driving with a full bladder impairs your ability. Should we prosecute people who drive when they have to pee?

If/when it is a factor in 1/3 of the traffic fatalities, ya, probably.

Particularly if it is completely common knowledge that driving with a full bladder kills thousands of people, it is completely trivial to empty one's bladder and thus not expose others to the danger, and the people who are driving with a full bladder do it so for their own perverse enjoyment like boozers do.

[myrkul]

Driving with a full bladder impairs your ability. Should we prosecute people who drive when they have to pee?

If/when it is a factor in 1/3 of the traffic fatalities, ya, probably.

What about sleepy?

In fact, one in every six deadly car crashes results from a fatigue-impaired driver, estimates the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Perfectly legal, except in Jersey. My point is that you're not punishing impairment, you're punishing blood content.

Particularly if it is completely common knowledge that driving with a full bladder kills thousands of people, it is completely trivial to empty one's bladder and thus not expose others to the danger, and the people who are driving with a full bladder do it so for their own perverse enjoyment like boozers do.

It was my understanding that drunk drivers drive drunk because they want to go somewhere (typically, home), and are drunk. I was not aware they are getting a sick thrill from it. Do you have a study that shows that, or is that just your personal opinion?

[tvbcof]

Driving with a full bladder impairs your ability. Should we prosecute people who drive when they have to pee?

If/when it is a factor in 1/3 of the traffic fatalities, ya, probably.

What about sleepy?

In fact, one in every six deadly car crashes results from a fatigue-impaired driver, estimates the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Perfectly legal, except in Jersey. My point is that you're not punishing impairment, you're punishing blood content.

Particularly if it is completely common knowledge that driving with a full bladder kills thousands of people, it is completely trivial to empty one's bladder and thus not expose others to the danger, and the people who are driving with a full bladder do it so for their own perverse enjoyment like boozers do.

It was my understanding that drunk drivers drive drunk because they want to go somewhere (typically, home), and are drunk. I was not aware they are getting a sick thrill from it. Do you have a study that shows that, or is that just your personal opinion?

Boozers make a choice to go away from home and get hammered, and they do so for their own personal enjoyment.  If they drive, everyone else on the road absorbs the cost in terms of extra risk, and most importantly, the fellow travelers do not agree to subsidize the boozers enjoyment.  That is, in fact, why most of us support laws against drunk driving.

Even as a stupid-ass kid in the army we all took turns being a designated driver and planned it out ahead of time.  It is the common-sense decent thing to do, and we would have don't it even if the laws were not so harsh and probably even if they did not exist at all.  I've got no sympathy for someone who lacks this kind of decency and zero interest in taking on the extra risk needed to support their habits.

Everyone gets sleepy and there is nothing anyone can do about it.  Only first-class losers go out on the road drunk.  There is a difference that most people see.  That said, it is irresponsible to drive when one is totally exhausted also, and if they do so with extreme negligence and kill someone because of it then they should suffer the consequences as well.  Jury of one's peers...it can be a bitch...cry me a river.

[myrkul]

That said, it is irresponsible to drive when one is totally exhausted also, and if they do so with extreme negligence and kill someone because of it then they should suffer the consequences as well.  Jury of one's peers...it can be a bitch...cry me a river.

I agree. It is irresponsible to drive impaired, for whatever reason. And if you cause an accident - again, for whatever reason - you should suffer the consequences. But I don't think anyone should be punished for pre-crime. Merely getting on the road increases the risk for every other driver on that road. If you really want to limit risk, we should outlaw driving entirely.

[tvbcof]

That said, it is irresponsible to drive when one is totally exhausted also, and if they do so with extreme negligence and kill someone because of it then they should suffer the consequences as well.  Jury of one's peers...it can be a bitch...cry me a river.

I agree. It is irresponsible to drive impaired, for whatever reason. And if you cause an accident - again, for whatever reason - you should suffer the consequences. But I don't think anyone should be punished for pre-crime. Merely getting on the road increases the risk for every other driver on that road. If you really want to limit risk, we should outlaw driving entirely.

Balance of reason.  That's how democracy works (and pretty much every other social system for that matter.)  Suck it up...or move to one of the Libertarian or Anarchist micro-nations if you can catch one before it goes defunct.

[Elwar]

We would likely not care one bit about people drunk on the roads if it were not for the fact that the ancient government road technology has not been improved upon in over 100 years.

Telephones were only a government monopoly and hardly changed technology for 50 years. We have come a long way since the monopoly was lifted. Imagine if we had done the same with roads at the time. People would not be driving their cars anymore, the smart roads would.

[myrkul]

That said, it is irresponsible to drive when one is totally exhausted also, and if they do so with extreme negligence and kill someone because of it then they should suffer the consequences as well.  Jury of one's peers...it can be a bitch...cry me a river.

I agree. It is irresponsible to drive impaired, for whatever reason. And if you cause an accident - again, for whatever reason - you should suffer the consequences. But I don't think anyone should be punished for pre-crime. Merely getting on the road increases the risk for every other driver on that road. If you really want to limit risk, we should outlaw driving entirely.

Balance of reason.  That's how democracy works (and pretty much every other social system for that matter.)  Suck it up...or move to one of the Libertarian or Anarchist micro-nations if you can catch one before it goes defunct.

Democracy is based on a logical fallacy: that three men make a tiger.

Would you like to know how I would fix the problem? (no, it's not by letting everyone drive drunk on all the roads.)

[ripbitinstant]

Would you like to know how I would fix the problem?

I would. Please proceed...

[tvbcof]

That said, it is irresponsible to drive when one is totally exhausted also, and if they do so with extreme negligence and kill someone because of it then they should suffer the consequences as well.  Jury of one's peers...it can be a bitch...cry me a river.

I agree. It is irresponsible to drive impaired, for whatever reason. And if you cause an accident - again, for whatever reason - you should suffer the consequences. But I don't think anyone should be punished for pre-crime. Merely getting on the road increases the risk for every other driver on that road. If you really want to limit risk, we should outlaw driving entirely.

Balance of reason.  That's how democracy works (and pretty much every other social system for that matter.)  Suck it up...or move to one of the Libertarian or Anarchist micro-nations if you can catch one before it goes defunct.

Democracy is based on a logical fallacy: that three men make a tiger.

It's working acceptably well for me and most of the people I know, but YMMV.  Working as well as can be expected, though there is certainly room for improvement.  And welcoming drunk drivers to menace everyone who wishes to get from point-A to point-B is hardly along the the lines of what would appeal to most people.

Would you like to know how I would fix the problem? (no, it's not by letting everyone drive drunk on all the roads.)

My solution would be along the lines of subsidizing the aformentioned micro-nations enough to keep them operational and thus, hopefully, help keep the BFL types from contaminating ours.

[myrkul]

Would you like to know how I would fix the problem?

I would. Please proceed...

Well, I've pointed out three main problems:
1) Public property means it's their road too.
2) We're currently punishing blood content instead of impairment
3) We're treating people who have harmed no one like criminals

The first one is as simple as defining the problem. Public property is the problem, so private property is the solution. Privately owned roads would allow the owners to set the rules for people who drive on them. There could, theoretically be roads which allowed people to drive impaired (which would likely be deathtraps - Darwin at work) and roads which did not allow people to drive impaired. People could then decide how much risk they wanted to take, rather than being forced into a one-size fits all risk plan.

The answer to the second one follows from the first. Private road owners who prohibit impairment would probably like to keep their insurance rates down, as well as make it as pleasant as possible to use their roads, so as to increase their customers. To this end, they would likely want to make sure that impaired drivers don't cause accidents. The surest way, of course, is to remove all the impaired drivers from the road. With the option of taking the other road open to them, fewer will drive on the road that prohibits their behavior, but for those that do, an arbitrary blood alcohol content is a poor indicator of impairment, especially for the other forms of impairment I've mentioned. Therefore, impairment testing, such as the "road sobriety test" and various other more high-tech means, would likely replace the breathalyser or blood tests as measures of impairment. Being private property, the road owners can set punishment for driving impaired, but being business owners, would likely limit this to refusal of service (ie banning from that road).

And finally, by holding all accidents to the same standard, regardless of why the responsible party caused them, and requiring that they pay restitution, you hold the driver responsible for their actions. This, I think, will greatly reduce all forms of irresponsible driving, from drunkenness to road rage. True, restitution does not return a lost loved one, but neither will paying for caging a man, and at least he's supporting you in your time of need, instead of the other way around.

My solution would be along the lines of subsidizing the aformentioned micro-nations enough to keep them operational and thus, hopefully, help keep the BFL types from contaminating ours.

You're assuming they wouldn't end up subsidizing the welfare states to keep the leeches from contaminating them.

[ripbitinstant]

Would you like to know how I would fix the problem?

I would. Please proceed...

Therefore, impairment testing, such as the "road sobriety test" and various other more high-tech means, would likely replace the breathalyser or blood tests as measures of impairment.

But is this possible/feasible? Is there really a way to measure sleepiness or distractedness or whatever else? If there is, your idea I think is something I would agree with.

I'ven't ever heard a plan like this, but it is indeed quite intriguing, particularly the last paragraph.

[tvbcof]

Would you like to know how I would fix the problem?

I would. Please proceed...

Well, I've pointed out three main problems:
1) Public property means it's their road too.
2) We're currently punishing blood content instead of impairment
3) We're treating people who have harmed no one like criminals

The first one is as simple as defining the problem. Public property is the problem, so private property is the solution. Privately owned roads would allow the owners to set the rules for people who drive on them. There could, theoretically be roads which allowed people to drive impaired (which would likely be deathtraps - Darwin at work) and roads which did not allow people to drive impaired. People could then decide how much risk they wanted to take, rather than being forced into a one-size fits all risk plan.

The answer to the second one follows from the first. Private road owners who prohibit impairment would probably like to keep their insurance rates down, as well as make it as pleasant as possible to use their roads, so as to increase their customers. To this end, they would likely want to make sure that impaired drivers don't cause accidents. The surest way, of course, is to remove all the impaired drivers from the road. With the option of taking the other road open to them, fewer will drive on the road that prohibits their behavior, but for those that do, an arbitrary blood alcohol content is a poor indicator of impairment, especially for the other forms of impairment I've mentioned. Therefore, impairment testing, such as the "road sobriety test" and various other more high-tech means, would likely replace the breathalyser or blood tests as measures of impairment. Being private property, the road owners can set punishment for driving impaired, but being business owners, would likely limit this to refusal of service (ie banning from that road).

And finally, by holding all accidents to the same standard, regardless of why the responsible party caused them, and requiring that they pay restitution, you hold the driver responsible for their actions. This, I think, will greatly reduce all forms of irresponsible driving, from drunkenness to road rage. True, restitution does not return a lost loved one, but neither will paying for caging a man, and at least he's supporting you in your time of need, instead of the other way around.

My solution would be along the lines of subsidizing the aformentioned micro-nations enough to keep them operational and thus, hopefully, help keep the BFL types from contaminating ours.

You're assuming they wouldn't end up subsidizing the welfare states to keep the leeches from contaminating them.

Oh, I see.  A fascist state to solve three problems which don't exist.  What a great idea!  I again vote to chip in to keep one of the LFC style micro-nations where they attempt such a thing alive for long enough to see how it works out.  It would probably be entertaining enough that a media conglomerate could make money with a reality TV show and thus they might even be able to pull their own weight for a while.

[oakpacific]

I wonder when will people start arguing whether you require a license to drive....

[myrkul]

Would you like to know how I would fix the problem?

I would. Please proceed...

Therefore, impairment testing, such as the "road sobriety test" and various other more high-tech means, would likely replace the breathalyser or blood tests as measures of impairment.

But is this possible/feasible? Is there really a way to measure sleepiness or distractedness or whatever else? If there is, your idea I think is something I would agree with.

Distraction, probably not. At least, not a roadside test. If you're weaving, or having difficulty maintaining speed, you're probably distracted enough to call you "impaired." For other types, such as tiredness, the good, old-fashioned, roadside sobriety test, where they make you walk the line, close your eyes and touch your nose, etc, is a pretty good metric. And like I said, there are other more high-tech ways. Here's a company I found after a few minutes of Googling: http://www.eyedynamics.com/products.htm

I'ven't ever heard a plan like this, but it is indeed quite intriguing, particularly the last paragraph.

Restitution is the cornerstone of private law. Rather than paying the state a fine, you pay your victim back for the damage you caused. It's been used before, for instance in Medieval Iceland.

Oh, I see.  A fascist state to solve three problems which don't exist.

Fascist state? No, I think you're confused. What I am suggesting is removing the state from the equation.

[tvbcof]

We would likely not care one bit about people drunk on the roads if it were not for the fact that the ancient government road technology has not been improved upon in over 100 years.

Telephones were only a government monopoly and hardly changed technology for 50 years. We have come a long way since the monopoly was lifted. Imagine if we had done the same with roads at the time. People would not be driving their cars anymore, the smart roads would.

Most natural monopolies which work at all work because of public utility districts and the like.  If not for them there would be mega-cities and not much else since that's where the profit is.  Examples abound of backwater countries with a handful of reasonably modern cities and the rest of society not being far beyond early agriculture stage.  Thankfully my nation choose a different path and we've got a much stronger society for it.

Your 'smart roads' are utter fantasy-land tripe as anyone who can run a calculator can tell you.  There must be one example in the world where such a thing happened?  Where?  The closest thing I can think of is self-driving cars, and they sprung up in the epicenter of socialism on the Left Coast.

And to your suggestion that road technology has not been improved upon in the last 100 years tells me for certain that you are neither a civil engineer nor a historian.

[tvbcof]

Oh, I see.  A fascist state to solve three problems which don't exist.

Fascist state? No, I think you're confused. What I am suggesting is removing the state from the equation.

Well who is going to be 'enforcing' restitution and so on?  Private security forces of the handful of individuals who own everything?  So Fascism or Feudalism; Pick your poison.  Collectively as humans we'll say 'been there, done that.'

[myrkul]

Oh, I see.  A fascist state to solve three problems which don't exist.

Fascist state? No, I think you're confused. What I am suggesting is removing the state from the equation.

Well who is going to be 'enforcing' restitution and so on?  Private security forces of the handful of individuals who own everything?  So Fascism or Feudalism; Pick your poison.  Collectively as humans we'll say 'been there, done that.'

Careful. You're starting to show that you don't actually know what you're talking about.

Here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=jTYkdEU_B4o It'll be the most productive 23 minutes you've ever spent on YouTube.

[MikeH]

drink driving should be a crime however I think intent should be taken into consideration since people do stupid stuff they would never consider doing when they're drunk - like drive while drunk!

ie. if you drive to a pub and drink there should be harsher penalties than if you're at home, get wasted then decide it'd be a good idea to go for a drive.

I'm sure many wouldn't agree but I know from experience that some people are completely incapable of making sensible decisions while under the influence.

[myrkul]

ie. if you drive to a pub and drink there should be harsher penalties than if you're at home, get wasted then decide it'd be a good idea to go for a drive.

Shouldn't that be the other way around?

I mean, they're both completely optional, but at least at the pub you have reason to want to drive home - so you don't have to go back and get your car. And you're only diving one way drunk, not both ways.

[tvbcof]

Oh, I see.  A fascist state to solve three problems which don't exist.

Fascist state? No, I think you're confused. What I am suggesting is removing the state from the equation.

Well who is going to be 'enforcing' restitution and so on?  Private security forces of the handful of individuals who own everything?  So Fascism or Feudalism; Pick your poison.  Collectively as humans we'll say 'been there, done that.'

Careful. You're starting to show that you don't actually know what you're talking about.

Here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=jTYkdEU_B4o It'll be the most productive 23 minutes you've ever spent on YouTube.

Yawn.  A chain of completely implausible guesstimates which, unsurprisingly, yields something impressive to only a sliver of easily impressed zealots.

Where's the wienie?  Show me where such a thing even remotely works as described?  For examples of where it fails, pick any of the failed states throughout history.

[myrkul]

Oh, I see.  A fascist state to solve three problems which don't exist.

Fascist state? No, I think you're confused. What I am suggesting is removing the state from the equation.

Well who is going to be 'enforcing' restitution and so on?  Private security forces of the handful of individuals who own everything?  So Fascism or Feudalism; Pick your poison.  Collectively as humans we'll say 'been there, done that.'

Careful. You're starting to show that you don't actually know what you're talking about.

Here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=jTYkdEU_B4o It'll be the most productive 23 minutes you've ever spent on YouTube.

Yawn.  A chain of completely implausible guesstimates which, unsurprisingly, yields something impressive to only a sliver of easily impressed zealots.

Where's the wienie?  Show me where such a thing even remotely works as described?  For examples of where it fails, pick any of the failed states throughout history.

Worked pretty good in medieval Iceland, for about 600 years, until an outside power bought up the judges. 1000 years in Ireland, before Cromwell finally beat 'em.

[MikeH]

Shouldn't that be the other way around?

I mean, they're both completely optional, but at least at the pub you have reason to want to drive home - so you don't have to go back and get your car. And you're only diving one way drunk, not both ways.

I don't think so because while at the pub, you know you have to drive home and so can still make the decision while sober to stop at 3 or so.

If at home, you may have no intention to drive while sober - but then you make the decision while drunk.

Intent probably isn't always easily determined though, you might drive drunk to the pub then get caught on the way back

[myrkul]

Shouldn't that be the other way around?

I mean, they're both completely optional, but at least at the pub you have reason to want to drive home - so you don't have to go back and get your car. And you're only diving one way drunk, not both ways.

I don't think so because while at the pub, you know you have to drive home and so can still make the decision while sober to stop at 3 or so.

If at home, you may have no intention to drive while sober - but then you make the decision while drunk.

Intent probably isn't always easily determined though, you might drive drunk to the pub then get caught on the way back

lol... indeed. Thus why I prefer to ignore intent (and risk), and look only at results.

[Hawker]

...snip...
Worked pretty good in medieval Iceland, for about 600 years, until an outside power bought up the judges. 1000 years in Ireland, before Cromwell finally beat 'em.

Surely that is all you need to know?  If outside powers or hostile races like the English exist, then you need a state.

[vampire]

Drunk driving is like a homemade bomb with a burning fuse under your chair. It isn't certain that you will die, but there is a high chance of it.

[myrkul]

...snip...
Worked pretty good in medieval Iceland, for about 600 years, until an outside power bought up the judges. 1000 years in Ireland, before Cromwell finally beat 'em.

Surely that is all you need to know?  If outside powers or hostile races like the English exist, then you need a state.

No, it means we need some way of coordinating defense. A state is one option, but I don't think it's the best one. And it took centuries of attempted conquest before one finally stuck.

[Hawker]

...snip...
Worked pretty good in medieval Iceland, for about 600 years, until an outside power bought up the judges. 1000 years in Ireland, before Cromwell finally beat 'em.

Surely that is all you need to know?  If outside powers or hostile races like the English exist, then you need a state.

No, it means we need some way of coordinating defense. A state is one option, but I don't think it's the best one. And it took centuries of attempted conquest before one finally stuck.

I agree there are many options.  But a state is the only one that has been proven to work.  In the free market for the right to govern, there are no surviving non-state entities.  And of course, as we discussed a year ago, the market in government is the ultimate free market.  Weak competitors get conquered and occupied - what's left are examples of viable societies.

[myrkul]

...snip...
Worked pretty good in medieval Iceland, for about 600 years, until an outside power bought up the judges. 1000 years in Ireland, before Cromwell finally beat 'em.

Surely that is all you need to know?  If outside powers or hostile races like the English exist, then you need a state.

No, it means we need some way of coordinating defense. A state is one option, but I don't think it's the best one. And it took centuries of attempted conquest before one finally stuck.

I agree there are many options.  But a state is the only one that has been proven to work.  In the free market for the right to govern, there are no surviving non-state entities.  And of course, as we discussed a year ago, the market in government is the ultimate free market.  Weak competitors get conquered and occupied - what's left are examples of viable societies.

A "free market" that accepts violence as the means of competition isn't free, or a market.

[tvbcof]

Drunk driving is like a homemade bomb with a burning fuse under your chair. It isn't certain that you will die, but there is a high chance of it.

If it were that easy it would not be a big problem to me.  The main troubles as I see them are:

 - The perp is equally or more likely to kill someone else who received no benefit by by absorbing the extra risk.

 - The perp is equally likely to simply be paralyzed and become a ward of the state who I need to subsidize.  Like Ayn Rand when she got lung cancer after smoking like a chimney all her life, for instance.

[tvbcof]

...
Where's the wienie?  Show me where such a thing even remotely works as described?  For examples of where it fails, pick any of the failed states throughout history.

Worked pretty good in medieval Iceland, for about 600 years, until an outside power bought up the judges. 1000 years in Ireland, before Cromwell finally beat 'em.

I looked into both a bit last night.  The look to me like they were distinctly Feudal societies at their core albeit which some tribalism mixed in which is more common then not.  Sure, they had some mild variations about how law was enforced, but it seems nothing like what Friedman fantasizing about.

[Viceroy]

don't know if it was covered... just trolling the title and wanted to ad that for the 4th time the legislature of Colorado has been UNABLE to decide the definition of

DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF MARIJUANA

[Hawker]

...snip...
A "free market" that accepts violence as the means of competition isn't free, or a market.

Call it an evolutionary soup then.  Just like slow gazelles get eaten by jaguars and thus gazelles are evolved for speed, non-state societies fell apart or were conquered and modern societies evolved for security and stability.  Even if you don't like it, that's how evolution works.  A gazelle does not get to say to a jaguar "No violence please" does it?

[myrkul]

...snip...
A "free market" that accepts violence as the means of competition isn't free, or a market.

Call it an evolutionary soup then.  Just like slow gazelles get eaten by jaguars and thus gazelles are evolved for speed, non-state societies fell apart or were conquered and modern societies evolved for security and stability.  Even if you don't like it, that's how evolution works.  A gazelle does not get to say to a jaguar "No violence please" does it?

Nope, but they do have some nasty horns... And I thought we were discussing drunk driving? If you'd like to have a discussion about whether we should model our societies on the law of the jungle or laws of man, you can start a new thread, or move the discussion over to this one, but we're far off-topic here.

[Hawker]

You are right myrkul.

Laws to ban drunk driving are a good idea in my opinion and society is well justified in using violence and imprisonment if needed to deter it.  Of course others disagee so having said my bit, I'll shut up and let the thread go back on topic.

[tvbcof]

...snip...
A "free market" that accepts violence as the means of competition isn't free, or a market.

Call it an evolutionary soup then.  Just like slow gazelles get eaten by jaguars and thus gazelles are evolved for speed, non-state societies fell apart or were conquered and modern societies evolved for security and stability.  Even if you don't like it, that's how evolution works.  A gazelle does not get to say to a jaguar "No violence please" does it?

Nope, but they do have some nasty horns...

A gazelle's horns evolved exclusively for the purposes of applying 'violence' within their social groupings, by the way.  They have nothing to do with defense against jaguars.

[myrkul]

...snip...
A "free market" that accepts violence as the means of competition isn't free, or a market.

Call it an evolutionary soup then.  Just like slow gazelles get eaten by jaguars and thus gazelles are evolved for speed, non-state societies fell apart or were conquered and modern societies evolved for security and stability.  Even if you don't like it, that's how evolution works.  A gazelle does not get to say to a jaguar "No violence please" does it?

Nope, but they do have some nasty horns...

A gazelle's horns evolved exclusively for the purposes of applying 'violence' within their social groupings, by the way.  They have nothing to do with defense against jaguars.

Good thing I'm not a gazelle then, hmm?

[DobZombie]

All I have to say on this topic is if ANYBODY drives drunk, I hope they crash and kill themselves.

I know too many people that have been hurt/killed by somebody deciding they were okay to drive home drunk.