Drunk driving

[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?