Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


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!

Shop: North Spore Bulk Substrate   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2  [ show all ]
OfflineDivided_Sky
Ten ThousandThings

Registered: 11/02/03
Posts: 3,171
Loc: The Shining Void
Last seen: 15 years, 9 months
Libertarians and DWI
    #3036393 - 08/22/04 01:44 PM (19 years, 7 months ago)

This is a question to the libertarians on this board: a libertarian freind of mine says all drunk driving laws should be scrapped and drunk drivers should only be prosecuted after having injured or killed someone.

Is this a universal libertarian stance?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKingOftheThing
the cool fool
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/17/02
Posts: 27,397
Loc: USA
Re: Libertarians and DWI [Re: Divided_Sky]
    #3036396 - 08/22/04 01:45 PM (19 years, 7 months ago)

:lol: geeez, i hope not

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: Libertarians and DWI [Re: Divided_Sky]
    #3036404 - 08/22/04 01:47 PM (19 years, 7 months ago)

It's not mine.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDivided_Sky
Ten ThousandThings

Registered: 11/02/03
Posts: 3,171
Loc: The Shining Void
Last seen: 15 years, 9 months
Re: Libertarians and DWI [Re: Divided_Sky]
    #3036425 - 08/22/04 01:55 PM (19 years, 7 months ago)

Well, that is a little more reassuring. I guess it's just my freind I have to worry about.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblenewuser1492
Registered: 06/12/03
Posts: 3,104
Re: Libertarians and DWI [Re: Divided_Sky]
    #3037073 - 08/22/04 05:52 PM (19 years, 7 months ago)

I think DUI checkpoints should be abolished. DUI laws in there current form are simply money makers.

I don't know if I could find it or not but a while back even M.A.D.D. stated that people with BAC's of .08 were not the ones causing problems. It was the people with much higher BAC's that caused major accidents and deaths.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: Libertarians and DWI [Re: Divided_Sky]
    #3037089 - 08/22/04 05:56 PM (19 years, 7 months ago)

Nope. This is one of those gray areas in libertarian thought. But let me point out that driving is a priviledge, not a right. Therefore, it can be revoked for violating an agreement such as not drinking and driving.


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


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDivided_Sky
Ten ThousandThings

Registered: 11/02/03
Posts: 3,171
Loc: The Shining Void
Last seen: 15 years, 9 months
Re: Libertarians and DWI [Re: Divided_Sky]
    #3037094 - 08/22/04 05:57 PM (19 years, 7 months ago)

This guy also said that ALL gun laws should be abolished, and that you should be able to buy a rocket proppeled grenade launcher if you want to, and again only be held accountable AFTER killing somebody.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: Libertarians and DWI [Re: Divided_Sky]
    #3037099 - 08/22/04 05:58 PM (19 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Divided_Sky said:
This guy also said that ALL gun laws should be abolished, and that you should be able to buy a rocket proppeled grenade launcher if you want to, and again only be held accountable AFTER killing somebody.



Also not an area of complete agreement. Libertarians believe that people have the right to bear arms, not artillery.


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


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineCyber
Ash
Male User Gallery

Registered: 06/14/04
Posts: 1,476
Loc: Dearborn Michigan
Last seen: 10 months, 15 days
Re: Libertarians and DWI [Re: silversoul7]
    #3037196 - 08/22/04 06:28 PM (19 years, 7 months ago)

Man this board puts up some great question for discussion. :wink:

Quote:

a libertarian freind of mine says all drunk driving laws should be scrapped and drunk drivers should only be prosecuted after having injured or killed someone.




I would tend to agree with your friend. Until someones property or person has been damaged it is a "victimless crime" I am not saying that it is right or wrong to drive while intoxicated. I am saying that it is not the governments job to police what people do with there lives.

Quote:

But let me point out that driving is a privilege, not a right.




I would beg to differ on this one!

I point to case law from the US supream court

"The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.

"The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.
It could not be stated more directly or conclusively that citizens of the states have a common law right to travel, without approval or restriction (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S Constitution.

"The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.

"The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right." Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.


Quote:

This guy also said that ALL gun laws should be abolished, and that you should be able to buy a rocket  grenade launcher if you want to, and again only be held accountable AFTER killing somebody.




I would tend to agree with this as well. To quote the declaration of independents " We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." and "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

If we are all created equal than the government has no more rights that the people it governs. That being the case the government has no rights to those weapons if we the people have on rights to those weapons.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: Libertarians and DWI [Re: Cyber]
    #3037583 - 08/22/04 08:15 PM (19 years, 7 months ago)

I would tend to agree with your friend. Until someones property or person has been damaged it is a "victimless crime" I am not saying that it is right or wrong to drive while intoxicated.

i disagree. recklessly placing other people in danger, even if they are not certain to be harmed, may be prohibited, and sometimes should. because people can be permanently injured or even killed by drunk drivers, there are few people, if any at all, who can fully compensate for damages caused by drunk driving. it's a little too late to start regulating something once someone's already dead.

do i have a right to throw a single bullet into a revolver, spin the cylinder, point it at you, and pull the trigger? is it only a crime if the hammer strikes the live round?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblepB0t
I'm a teapot
Registered: 04/25/03
Posts: 2,556
Re: Libertarians and DWI *DELETED* [Re: ]
    #3037595 - 08/22/04 08:19 PM (19 years, 7 months ago)

Post deleted by pB0t

Reason for deletion: .


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblenewuser1492
Registered: 06/12/03
Posts: 3,104
Re: Libertarians and DWI [Re: pB0t]
    #3037667 - 08/22/04 08:38 PM (19 years, 7 months ago)

Who can adequitly and logically decide when my actions oppose current law?

If I wake up and drive a car I could potentially kill everyone I meet on the road. My 2800lb vehicle is more deadly than a 100gram .38 bullet. Who can legally decide my fate pre-incident?

I oppose certain actions and laws based solely on morality and interpretation of actions. Not based on fact or reality. I (capital I) feel that excessive alcohol and drugs shouldn't be allowed on the public highways. However I realize that these are my opinions and not federal law.

In my opinion the federal government should not be allowed the right to deny citizens common rights.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: Libertarians and DWI [Re: Cyber]
    #3037686 - 08/22/04 08:44 PM (19 years, 7 months ago)

... and those court rulings refer to travel not driving. riding as a passenger (or walking) is different from driving a vehicle.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleretread
-=HasH=-
Registered: 07/14/04
Posts: 851
Re: Libertarians and DWI [Re: newuser1492]
    #3037704 - 08/22/04 08:48 PM (19 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

cb9fl said:
In my opinion the federal government should not be allowed the right to deny citizens common rights.




If it's a common right, perhaps you could point to it in the Constitution?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: Libertarians and DWI [Re: retread]
    #3037720 - 08/22/04 08:52 PM (19 years, 7 months ago)

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineCyber
Ash
Male User Gallery

Registered: 06/14/04
Posts: 1,476
Loc: Dearborn Michigan
Last seen: 10 months, 15 days
Re: Libertarians and DWI [Re: ]
    #3037770 - 08/22/04 09:07 PM (19 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

mushmaster said:
I would tend to agree with your friend. Until someones property or person has been damaged it is a "victimless crime" I am not saying that it is right or wrong to drive while intoxicated.

i disagree. recklessly placing other people in danger, even if they are not certain to be harmed, may be prohibited, and sometimes should. because people can be permanently injured or even killed by drunk drivers, there are few people, if any at all, who can fully compensate for damages caused by drunk driving. it's a little too late to start regulating something once someone's already dead.






Hmm seems to be a flawed argument. You can replace drunk drive with just about any of the things that the MORAL Majority feels is wrong and make an argument to ban it.

Example:

Recklessly placing other people in danger, even if they are not certain to be harmed, may be prohibited, and sometimes should. Because people can be permanently injured or even killed by Drug users, there are few people, if any at all, who can fully compensate for damages caused by Drug Users. it's a little too late to start regulating something once someone's already dead.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineCyber
Ash
Male User Gallery

Registered: 06/14/04
Posts: 1,476
Loc: Dearborn Michigan
Last seen: 10 months, 15 days
Re: Libertarians and DWI [Re: ]
    #3037808 - 08/22/04 09:17 PM (19 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

mushmaster said:
... and those court rulings refer to travel not driving. riding as a passenger (or walking) is different from driving a vehicle.




Quote:

"The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.




So answer me this, If it is not a right then what makes an automobile different from a horse and carriage? You only have to have a license to drive a automobile. A horse and carrage does not require a license.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: Libertarians and DWI [Re: Cyber]
    #3037818 - 08/22/04 09:18 PM (19 years, 7 months ago)

i understand that it seems like a type of prior restraint, but it isn't. the simple act of placing others in danger can be an initiation of force in and of itself, even if that threat never actually materializes. people shouldn't be unwillingly placed in harm's way. that alone is an initiation of force.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: Libertarians and DWI [Re: Cyber]
    #3037829 - 08/22/04 09:21 PM (19 years, 7 months ago)

So answer me this, If it is not a right then what makes an automobile different from a horse and carriage? You only have to have a license to drive a automobile. A horse and carrage does not require a license.

again, that decision (like the others) refers to the right of travel, not driving. it says nothing about driving.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineTao
Village Genius

Registered: 09/19/03
Posts: 7,935
Loc: San Diego
Last seen: 8 years, 9 months
Re: Libertarians and DWI [Re: Divided_Sky]
    #3038309 - 08/23/04 12:33 AM (19 years, 7 months ago)

simply put: defining exactly what is 'initiation of force' is one of the problems in the libertarian philosophy.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: Libertarians and DWI [Re: Tao]
    #3038459 - 08/23/04 01:48 AM (19 years, 7 months ago)

It is not a problem, but it is an area that requires considerable thought. This is the reason why the philosophy of law is such a complex one. It takes little thought to verify that the initiation of force is unethical, but a lot of thought and review and careful phrasing to translate that fundamental principle into an objective body of law containing detailed and specific wording which can be appropriately applied in a wide variety of cases which differ slightly in their details. Even then, reasonable people may disagree on the exact interpretation of a specific law, which is why there are such things as judges, juries, courts of appeal, and the Supreme Court.

pinky


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineCyber
Ash
Male User Gallery

Registered: 06/14/04
Posts: 1,476
Loc: Dearborn Michigan
Last seen: 10 months, 15 days
Re: Libertarians and DWI [Re: ]
    #3038705 - 08/23/04 06:35 AM (19 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

mushmaster said:
So answer me this, If it is not a right then what makes an automobile different from a horse and carriage? You only have to have a license to drive a automobile. A horse and carrage does not require a license.

again, that decision (like the others) refers to the right of travel, not driving. it says nothing about driving.




Although your argument appears prima-facie it does not hold up to scrutiny.

You are trying to split a hair, sounds like Clintons "That depends on what your definition of 'is' is."

From the dictionary.

driving = To traverse in a vehicle

traverse = To travel or pass across, over, or through.

You are trying to justify restricting a natural right "The Right To Travel" based only on the mode that is chosen to travel.

This is the equivalent of justifying the abridgment of the right to free speech by saying Although you have a right to free speech, you do not have a right to transmit that speech over the internet. Because people can be permanently injured or even killed by the ideas that are transmitted over the internet (how to make bombs, guns, drugs etc), there are few people, if any at all, who can fully compensate for damages caused by the transmission of ideas over the internet. it's a little too late to start regulating something once someone's already dead.

Edited by Cyber (08/23/04 08:17 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: Libertarians and DWI [Re: Cyber]
    #3038985 - 08/23/04 09:38 AM (19 years, 7 months ago)

Mushmaster is not "splitting hairs" at all. There is a world of difference between travelling as a passenger in a vehicle (be it a train, bus, streetcar, airliner, ocean liner, or automobile) and being the operator of that vehicle.

pinky


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineCyber
Ash
Male User Gallery

Registered: 06/14/04
Posts: 1,476
Loc: Dearborn Michigan
Last seen: 10 months, 15 days
Re: Libertarians and DWI [Re: Phred]
    #3039081 - 08/23/04 10:15 AM (19 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

pinksharkmark said:
Mushmaster is not "splitting hairs" at all. There is a world of difference between travelling as a passenger in a vehicle (be it a train, bus, streetcar, airliner, ocean liner, or automobile) and being the operator of that vehicle.




Ok, so you are saying that I have a right to travel so long as I am not opperating an automobile (Something I own and is my private property) on a public road (Something I paid for with my tax dollars and have a right to use) because I do not have a right to use a machine I own with out the permission of the government.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: Libertarians and DWI [Re: Cyber]
    #3039148 - 08/23/04 10:38 AM (19 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Cyber said:
Quote:

pinksharkmark said:
Mushmaster is not "splitting hairs" at all. There is a world of difference between travelling as a passenger in a vehicle (be it a train, bus, streetcar, airliner, ocean liner, or automobile) and being the operator of that vehicle.




Ok, so you are saying that I have a right to travel so long as I am not opperating an automobile (Something I own and is my private property) on a public road (Something I paid for with my tax dollars and have a right to use) because I do not have a right to use a machine I own with out the permission of the government.



You have every right to use a machine you own on your own property. However, if you use public roads which everyone shares, you have no such right.


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


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: Libertarians and DWI [Re: silversoul7]
    #3039183 - 08/23/04 10:53 AM (19 years, 7 months ago)

Silversoul7 writes:

You have every right to use a machine you own on your own property. However, if you use public roads which everyone shares, you have no such right.

Silversoul nails it.

The government cannot stop you from driving your car or pickup truck or tractor or whatever all over your farm, for example. As a matter of fact, farm vehicles need not even have license plates -- unless they are travelling on public roads. Similarly, you need not have a driver's license to operate such vehicles on your own farm -- unless, again, you take one onto a public road.

pinky


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAncalagon
AgnosticLibertarian

Registered: 07/30/02
Posts: 1,364
Last seen: 15 years, 1 month
Re: Libertarians and DWI [Re: silversoul7]
    #3039462 - 08/23/04 12:13 PM (19 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

silversoul7 said:
Quote:

Divided_Sky said:
This guy also said that ALL gun laws should be abolished, and that you should be able to buy a rocket proppeled grenade launcher if you want to, and again only be held accountable AFTER killing somebody.



Also not an area of complete agreement. Libertarians believe that people have the right to bear arms, not artillery.



Sort of a conundrum there. Perhaps the most important reason the framers guaranteed our right to bear arms was to 'alter or abolish our government should it ever become destructive of it's ends.' I am a strong believer in Natural Rights theory, that by nature a man has the right to do whatever it is he wishes so long as he does not initiate force or fraud against another. However, applying Reductio ad Absurdum to this leaves us with the result of private citizens and/or groups of private citizens freely owning Nuclear Weapons. Personally, I believe it is the duty of even a liberty-based government(such as I desire) to not guarantee(deny) such a right. I realize the counter-argument is that this opens the door to so many other horrible things that government can and does perpetrate. Regardless, the nature of Nuclear Weapons(and other such weapons) is such that if I could have my ideal government tommorow I would absolutely pass laws against owning such devices and would instead leave the duty of preventing the erosion of liberty that such a law may lead to in the hands of the people.

Rocket-propelled Grenade launchers, while obviously not close to Nuclear Weapons as far as destructive capacity, are a difficult issue to decide in and of themselves. The real problem with their legalization is that their falling into the wrong hands is SO much more devestating that of a standard rifle. The counter-argument to THAT is that the 'wrong hands' will find these weapons regardless of their legality. On this issue I think I would decide in favor of an individuals right to act against a government turned tyrannical, though I need to think more on the topic.


--------------------
?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'

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2  [ show all ]

Shop: North Spore Bulk Substrate   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Libertarians?
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 all )
Libertine 14,598 156 08/17/08 05:28 PM
by ScavengerType
* Why I'm not a libertarian
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 all )
DoctorJ 13,751 174 06/20/04 10:11 PM
by Papaver
* Libertarians on Abortion DigitalDuality 942 13 09/02/04 12:34 PM
by Evolving
* Libertarianism and my .sig
( 1 2 3 all )
unbeliever 3,888 41 10/05/04 04:58 PM
by Ancalagon
* Libertarian position on imprisonment? Aldous 697 7 09/27/04 08:56 PM
by hound
* Why is there no mainstream love for libertarians?
( 1 2 all )
love2shpongleIRL 2,083 34 11/24/11 02:27 AM
by fireworks_god
* The Libertarian implications of traffic laws
( 1 2 all )
Phred 1,777 32 08/22/04 02:34 PM
by Phred
* Libertarian: Ron Paul
( 1 2 all )
Bridgeburner 3,905 32 11/29/07 12:37 AM
by pooppoop

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
1,518 topic views. 0 members, 4 guests and 15 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.033 seconds spending 0.009 seconds on 14 queries.