Home | Community | Message Board


Myco Supply
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1 | 2 | Next >  [ show all ]
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 1 year, 10 months
The Libertarian implications of traffic laws
    #2812321 - 06/21/04 12:01 AM (12 years, 5 months ago)

In a post titled "Why I'm not a Libertarian", a tangent developed regarding SUVs and drinking and driving. In order to avoid derailing the thread, I created this new one to pursue Baby_Hitler's thought-provoking question --
Quote:

So then is driving under the influence not "initiating force" against anyone unless you hit somebody?




My response is that driving under the influence is not in and of itself an initiation of force against others. And clearly it is not. Why then, has the government decreed that those who operate a motor vehicle on public roads with a certain level of alcohol in their bloodstream are to be punished whether they have broken any other traffic regulations or not? What is the rationale for this prior restraint and is is such restraint justifiable under any rational legal principle?

I have my own thoughts on the matter (when do I not?) but I would like to see some responses from others before posting my own.

pinky


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: The Libertarian implications of traffic laws [Re: Phred]
    #2812404 - 06/21/04 12:24 AM (12 years, 5 months ago)

I'm on the fence on this issue. I agree that simply driving drunk is not initiation of force in and of itself, but enough is known about the effects of alcohol to know that drinking a certain amount of it within a certain timeline severely inhibits one's ability to drive, as well as to make rational decisions(such as whether to get behind the wheel or not). Perhaps there is a level of drunkenness at which a person should be considered unqualified to make such a decision for themselves.


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineAncalagon
AgnosticLibertarian

Registered: 07/30/02
Posts: 1,364
Last seen: 7 years, 9 months
Re: The Libertarian implications of traffic laws [Re: Phred]
    #2812420 - 06/21/04 12:27 AM (12 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Why then, has the government decreed that those who operate a motor vehicle on public roads with a certain level of alcohol in their bloodstream are to be punished whether they have broken any other traffic regulations or not?



Apparently I am not quite a Capital 'L' Libertarian at the moment as I AM in favor of a law prohibiting driving under the influence. True, drinking alcohol in and of itself is not an initiation of force. I cannot help but feel, however, that the consumption of a significant amount of alcohol prior to driving on a crowded road creates a clear and present danger to those who share that road. The nature of vehicles and alcohol's effect on a human are such that a relatively significant amount of people that drive while drunk end up causing harm to others. I think this may fall under a category similar to the US Supreme Court case that ruled "crying 'FIRE!' in a crowded movie theater without reason, results in a clear and present danger and must be disallowed despite freedom of speech." Going out onto the road with alcohol in your system, despite not violating anyones natural rights, is to much of a risk too permit. There must be law to create disincentive to driving while intoxicated. This post may come across a little incoherent as I am not COMPLETELY sure of my position on the matter at this time. Hopefully by the end of this thread I'll have a better picture.


--------------------
?When Alexander the Great visted the philosopher Diogenes and asked whether he could do anything for him, Diogenes is said to have replied: 'Yes, stand a little less between me and the sun.' It is what every citizen is entitled to ask of his government.?
-Henry Hazlitt in 'Economics in One Lesson'


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineBaby_Hitler
Errorist
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 22,840
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 2 months, 6 days
Re: The Libertarian implications of traffic laws [Re: Phred]
    #2812428 - 06/21/04 12:29 AM (12 years, 5 months ago)

I think they are initiating force against your safety, which is your property.

What about a neighbor who has a yard full of cars and other junk? They are lowering the value of your property and theirs. Is this initiation of force against property?


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 1 year, 10 months
Re: The Libertarian implications of traffic laws [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #2812532 - 06/21/04 12:59 AM (12 years, 5 months ago)

Baby_Hitler writes:

What about a neighbor who has a yard full of cars and other junk?

Dang, mang, can you not stay on topic more than a sentence or two? Do I have to start a "Property appearance bylaws vs Libertarian principles" thread now?

pinky


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlined33p
Welcome to Violence

Registered: 07/12/03
Posts: 5,381
Loc: the shores of Tripoli
Last seen: 3 years, 6 months
Re: The Libertarian implications of traffic laws [Re: Phred]
    #2812541 - 06/21/04 01:01 AM (12 years, 5 months ago)

Isn't driving a privledge granted to you by the government. In order for you to drive you must agree to not be under the influence. If you are under the influence, you are breaking the agreement and legal action follows.


--------------------
I'm a nihilist. Lets be friends.

bang bang


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineHagbardCeline
Student-Teacher-Student-Teacher
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/10/03
Posts: 9,805
Loc: Overjoyed, at the bottom ...
Last seen: 7 hours, 55 minutes
Re: The Libertarian implications of traffic laws [Re: Phred]
    #2812544 - 06/21/04 01:03 AM (12 years, 5 months ago)

I think you should. I am currently in the market for a home or property to build a home right now and this has been something on my mind. I haven't been able to reconcile it.


--------------------
I keep it real because I think it is important that a highly esteemed individual such as myself keep it real lest they experience the dreaded spontaneous non-existance of no longer keeping it real. - Hagbard Celine


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineBaby_Hitler
Errorist
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 22,840
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 2 months, 6 days
Re: The Libertarian implications of traffic laws [Re: HagbardCeline]
    #2812821 - 06/21/04 02:22 AM (12 years, 5 months ago)

We can make this thread the "what constitutes "initiation of force"" thread.


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 1 year, 10 months
Re: The Libertarian implications of traffic laws [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #2812840 - 06/21/04 02:27 AM (12 years, 5 months ago)

I don't wanna. Mainly because silversoul7 has one going already about just that topic. I think it is even titled "Initiation of force".

pinky


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: The Libertarian implications of traffic laws [Re: Phred]
    #2813345 - 06/21/04 09:32 AM (12 years, 5 months ago)

I have my own thoughts on the matter

if roads were privately owned, their owners could prohibit driving on them while intoxicated without initiating force?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleInnvertigo
Vote Libertarian!!
Male

Registered: 02/09/01
Posts: 16,296
Loc: Crackerville, Michigan U...
Re: The Libertarian implications of traffic laws [Re: Phred]
    #2813373 - 06/21/04 09:53 AM (12 years, 5 months ago)

I wouldn't say that it's an initiation of force but it is wrong if we use the law as the norm. Whether people agree with the law or not doesn't take away from the fact that it impairs driving skills and puts others at risk which in turn violates others ability to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (kind of a stretch). Intitiation of force is basic lawyer jargon for intentionally trying to hurt someone which if anyone who has ever driven after drinking a couple beers may know that this is the furthest from your mind at that moment (still makes it wrong).


--------------------

America....FUCK YEAH!!!

Words of Wisdom: Individual Rights BEFORE Collective Rights

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson


Edited by Innvertigo (06/21/04 01:48 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 28 days, 3 hours
Re: The Libertarian implications of traffic laws [Re: Phred]
    #2813536 - 06/21/04 11:49 AM (12 years, 5 months ago)

I live in an area that has no open container laws. It is amazing how uptight the US is when it comes to drinking and driving. I can remember getting a ticket for walking down the street with a beer in my hand in the states. About the only way I can get a DUI here is if I wreck.

I never understood why we have to make a blanket case out of every instance. What happened to looking at each case and deciding what is appropriate. Why should the guy that pulled over, climbed into the back seat and passed out, get a DUI? The arbitrary limits are meaningless... they apply to an average, not to the population as a whole... some people can drive fine at three times the limit while I wouldn't be caught dead with some people at only half the limit. No different than mandatory minimums... don't get me started on those...


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleDoctorJ
Stranger
 Arcade Champion: Frogger

Registered: 06/30/03
Posts: 8,451
Loc: space
Re: The Libertarian implications of traffic laws [Re: Phred]
    #2813858 - 06/21/04 01:46 PM (12 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

pinksharkmark said:

My response is that driving under the influence is not in and of itself an initiation of force against others. And clearly it is not. Why then, has the government decreed that those who operate a motor vehicle on public roads with a certain level of alcohol in their bloodstream are to be punished whether they have broken any other traffic regulations or not? What is the rationale for this prior restraint and is is such restraint justifiable under any rational legal principle?

I have my own thoughts on the matter (when do I not?) but I would like to see some responses from others before posting my own.

pinky




well, I know some people who can drive drunk and others who can't. I've driven on a fairly high dose of LSD before, although its not something I would like to do again, I did manage to do it without hurting myself or anyone else.

I think this is a classic example of why blanket laws and equal rights don't work.

the blood alchohol percentage is a bad indicator of someone's driving abilities. Everyone has different physio- and psycho- logical makeups which influence the impact of this particular variable on driving skills. Even set and setting are factors. One of my friends flipped her car while she was drunk; to this day she swears the reason it happened had more to do with the fact that she was upset over a friend's death than the amount of alchohol in her bloodstream.

anyway, the point is that different people can handle different things. If I can handle driving after four beers, I should not be punished for the fact that someone else can't handle driving after 2 beers.

We cant just let everyone drive drunk, but its unfair to prohibit people from driving while drunk if they can do it safely, just because others can't.


--------------------
peace, pot, and microdot!


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinepB0t
Generic Shroomery Member
Male

Registered: 04/25/03
Posts: 2,556
Loc: San Francisco, CA
Last seen: 5 years, 7 months
Re: The Libertarian implications of traffic laws [Re: Phred]
    #2815586 - 06/22/04 12:22 AM (12 years, 5 months ago)

Driving while impaired is like walking around firing a gun randomly.

Yeah, I guess you don't really "initiate force" until you hit someone but you are acting negligent. You owe a duty of care to everyone else on the road.


--------------------

5-MeOW-DMT

yageman said:
Dumb kids shouldnt even worry about trying salvia.

Dumb adults might want to give it a shot though.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineBaby_Hitler
Errorist
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 22,840
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 2 months, 6 days
Re: The Libertarian implications of traffic laws [Re: Phred]
    #2816111 - 06/22/04 05:01 AM (12 years, 5 months ago)

OK, what if someone follows someone around waving their hands in their face yelling "I'm not touching you! I'm Not Touching You ! ! ! ".


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinegermin8tionn8ion
enthusiast
Registered: 04/14/04
Posts: 399
Last seen: 12 years, 5 months
Re: The Libertarian implications of traffic laws [Re: DoctorJ]
    #2816124 - 06/22/04 05:18 AM (12 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

DoctorJ said:
\
We cant just let everyone drive drunk, but its unfair to prohibit people from driving while drunk if they can do it safely, just because others can't.




I suppose it might be fair, but quite costly, to have a course set up and allow a driver accused of DUI drive the course with the same BAC he had when he got his DUI. If he passes, he doesn't get charged. Of course, same logic, if I walk down the street shooting my gun "close to" people, and odn't hit one, and prove that I could do that all day long without killing a person, I don't think it should be allowed.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineuki
fool of wisdom
Registered: 06/13/04
Posts: 213
Loc: the milky way
Last seen: 12 years, 1 month
Re: The Libertarian implications of traffic laws [Re: Phred]
    #2817467 - 06/22/04 04:31 PM (12 years, 5 months ago)

driving is a right, not a privilege... for justice and peace, fuck the police. :smile:


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 33,778
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: The Libertarian implications of traffic laws [Re: uki]
    #2817480 - 06/22/04 04:35 PM (12 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

driving is a right, not a privilege



No, it's not.


Quote:

for justice and peace, fuck the police



Moronic. Bet when something happens you squeal and whine if the cops don't show up.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineuki
fool of wisdom
Registered: 06/13/04
Posts: 213
Loc: the milky way
Last seen: 12 years, 1 month
Re: The Libertarian implications of traffic laws [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #2817493 - 06/22/04 04:39 PM (12 years, 5 months ago)

har, har... you are funny. what you believe is your truth.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 33,778
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: The Libertarian implications of traffic laws [Re: uki]
    #2817531 - 06/22/04 04:55 PM (12 years, 5 months ago)

Sorry champ, in the first sentence,,, driving is a privilege granted by the state. All states.

So what I believe is the law.

In the second, those that complain the most strike me (from experience) to be the biggest whiners when the cops aren't there holding there hands.

So what I believe is based on observation.

So, based on your thread, it's not a stretch to imagine that you'd be a whiner.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1 | 2 | Next >  [ show all ]

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Libertarians and Drinking Laws nanananotehead 425 6 10/22/04 09:09 PM
by z@z.com
* Why I'm not a libertarian
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 all )
DoctorJ 9,031 174 06/21/04 12:11 AM
by Papaver
* 34 Libertarian arguments debunked silversoul7 1,711 7 05/09/03 07:06 AM
by Phred
* Libertarians?
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 all )
Libertine 10,691 156 08/17/08 07:28 PM
by ScavengerType
* A Libertarian Challenge
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Ancalagon 3,810 66 05/09/05 02:00 PM
by Autonomous
* Libertarians and DWI
( 1 2 all )
Divided_Sky 1,187 27 08/23/04 02:13 PM
by Ancalagon
* (True) Libertarians Battle the Corporate State Evolving 1,114 4 04/10/04 07:16 AM
by luvdemshrooms
* For libertarians: A message of hope Silversoul 735 2 07/07/05 02:02 PM
by Redstorm

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Prisoner#1, Enlil
1,378 topic views. 1 members, 4 guests and 3 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
Vaposhop
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2016 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.075 seconds spending 0.003 seconds on 16 queries.