ThomasDoubts Posted December 11, 2013 Posted December 11, 2013 Thoughts? [Edit] This got me thinking about the debate with Walter Block. The guy's friend would be a criminal by libertarian law, perhaps, but it seems like the man would maybe be thankful. He certainly doesn't seem to be angry, or the type to prosecute. Had the man caught his daughter drinking and driving at 16, would he have been justified taking away her car, assuming she paid for it, along with her insurance? Perhaps he confiscates her car, returning it under the condition that she has a breathalizer installed, for example. Certainly, the man's friend would have no right to confiscate his car for an extended period of time, but maybe the parent would have that right with regard to a 16 child. I don't know, I'm worried extending this principal would permit spanking. To any parents out there: how would you respond if you caught your teenage child drinking and driving, assuming their car was rightfully their property and they are responsible for their own insurance?
Josh F Posted December 11, 2013 Posted December 11, 2013 I guess as far as being one of those big aggressive bros, this is about as close as you get to compassion, so hope it worked.
fractional slacker Posted December 12, 2013 Posted December 12, 2013 There is nothing wrong with drinking and driving. I, and many others, have done it many times. People who support drinking and driving laws in essence support punishing people who have not hurt anyone. They support punishment without evidence of a crime. That is an important element in advancing the cause of tyranny. No victim, no crime. You can't burn the village to save the village. That's statist ideology. People have a right to do stupid things. Saying you have intentions to promote safetey so that you can rule over people is not UPB compliant.
Josh F Posted December 12, 2013 Posted December 12, 2013 Being drunk and driving might not be immoral, but it is dangerous and people who care about you or the lives of others should be concerned.
Theeast1 Posted December 12, 2013 Posted December 12, 2013 @ fractional slacker, anarchists don't recommend no rules, just no rulers. There's a difference. The owners or insurers of the road or your vehicle and damage you cause would certainly penalize you for drinking and driving. And just like violent or property crime in an anarchist society, they would do so in a preventative and not just reactive way.
fractional slacker Posted December 14, 2013 Posted December 14, 2013 @ fractional slacker, anarchists don't recommend no rules, just no rulers. There's a difference. The owners or insurers of the road or your vehicle and damage you cause would certainly penalize you for drinking and driving. And just like violent or property crime in an anarchist society, they would do so in a preventative and not just reactive way. Are you suggesting it is okay to be punished not for committing harm to someone or property damage, but for having the potential to do harm someone or to do property damage? Are you going to judge who is a threat and who is not? If there is no victim, there is no crime. You seem to be suggesting roads would not have value without pre-crime rules such as drinking and driving. Do you know that to be true? To be clear, I am not advocating being drunk while driving. I am advocating against rulers that know better than eveyone else. How would you justify aggressing/banning/prohibiting against someone for combining two non violent actions, in this case driving and consuming adult beverages.
ThomasDoubts Posted December 14, 2013 Author Posted December 14, 2013 In a free society, there is no reason why you wouldn't be able to advertise your drunkeness. If you want to drive drunk, you could do what I think is the responsible thing, and in some way let others on the road be aware of your drunkeness. A simple flashing light mounted on the roof for example, could come to be a commonly accepted sign that your reactions could be impaired. By driving severly impaired, you are subjecting others to a higher degree of risk, and that's fine I think, so long as you let them know, such that they can avoid you if they want. It's a shame the State has a monopoly on flashing lights and sirens. How would you justify aggressing/banning/prohibiting against someone for combining two non violent actions, in this case driving and consuming adult beverages. I don't know whether it's justifiable or not, but let me test this. I should say, this is a very personal issue for me. As I child, I was in the backseat of the car 3 times when my father was pulled over and arrested for DUI, several times the legal limit, such that he couldn't maintain his lane in stop & go traffic. This is a problem, in my view. I never consented to, nor assumed that risk. An individual can do so, but he/she can't (shouldn't?) make that determination for a child passenger. I'm not sure how a free society would deal with this, but I do think it's a problem. I was failed by every adult in my life in this regard. I was failed by every other motorist with whom I was sharing the road. I was also failed by the state in every way, except that they protected my interest for a day. By what mechanism might the interests of innocent children be protected? Like child abuse (or as a form of?), is this just something that needs to be hammered into the public consciousness? As an aside, I regret that these experiences normalized the behavior for me. It took a long time before I realized this.
Jami Posted December 15, 2013 Posted December 15, 2013 Am I the only person that thought assault was committed upon said "dui coma patient" Justified or not, assault is assault.
ThomasDoubts Posted December 15, 2013 Author Posted December 15, 2013 Am I the only person that thought assault was committed upon said "dui coma patient" Justified or not, assault is assault. No you aren't. It would indeed be an assault. Presumably, the guy could press charges. I think the people who intervened knew him well enough that they were willing to risk that possibility. I'm sure the "coma patient" at worst, thought the ordeal was funny. At best, he may have learned his lesson, and committed to a change in behavior. If I were a member of the jury, I'd have a hard time voting his friend guilty of assault, though. If need be, I'd probably hang the jury.
doglash Posted December 15, 2013 Posted December 15, 2013 Are you suggesting it is okay to be punished not for committing harm to someone or property damage, but for having the potential to do harm someone or to do property damage? Are you going to judge who is a threat and who is not? If there is no victim, there is no crime. You seem to be suggesting roads would not have value without pre-crime rules such as drinking and driving. Do you know that to be true? To be clear, I am not advocating being drunk while driving. I am advocating against rulers that know better than eveyone else. How would you justify aggressing/banning/prohibiting against someone for combining two non violent actions, in this case driving and consuming adult beverages. If I owned a road I would most definitely put measures in place to prevent drunk drivers from being on my road. My reasoning being I would lose more business from people who didn't want to drive with drunks than I would from keeping the drunks out. I would "punish" drunk drivers by refusing them the benefits of my services.
fractional slacker Posted December 17, 2013 Posted December 17, 2013 If I owned a road I would most definitely put measures in place to prevent drunk drivers from being on my road. My reasoning being I would lose more business from people who didn't want to drive with drunks than I would from keeping the drunks out. I would "punish" drunk drivers by refusing them the benefits of my services. What other pre-crimes would you not allow? Is it just alcohol you are concerned with? Are you ready to micromanage every aspect of driving for the sake of security? How would your model will be more profitable than your competitor who is not interested in pre-crime, and thus has lower costs/tariffs?
doglash Posted December 17, 2013 Posted December 17, 2013 Drugs would probably be another one, Anything that impaired driving ability to any significant degree. Excessive speed. I don't think you need to micromanage every aspect of driving but I see some value in providing people with a road where they won't be endangered by people driving impaired. I think people would prefer to have themselves and their loved ones alive rather than dead or injured. That is how I would compete with a road that allowed impaired driving. By providing a safer environment.
cab21 Posted December 17, 2013 Posted December 17, 2013 this could be a contract matter if the contract says, don't drive with x or < alcohol level, and the person does drive with x or < alcohol level, then the contract has been violated. if people prefer to buy licences to drive on roads without such contracts, ok, if that's the market.
Kawlinz Posted December 17, 2013 Posted December 17, 2013 What other pre-crimes would you not allow? Is it just alcohol you are concerned with? Are you ready to micromanage every aspect of driving for the sake of security? How would your model will be more profitable than your competitor who is not interested in pre-crime, and thus has lower costs/tariffs? Customers might be willing to pay extra if it keeps impaired drivers off the roads they want to use. Using such roads might also lower your insurance.
Wesley Posted December 17, 2013 Posted December 17, 2013 What other pre-crimes would you not allow? Is it just alcohol you are concerned with? Are you ready to micromanage every aspect of driving for the sake of security? How would your model will be more profitable than your competitor who is not interested in pre-crime, and thus has lower costs/tariffs? this could be a contract matter if the contract says, don't drive with x or < alcohol level, and the person does drive with x or < alcohol level, then the contract has been violated. if people prefer to buy licences to drive on roads without such contracts, ok, if that's the market. I prefer wasted people to not be on my private property and I prefer wasted people to not be in the malls I shop at or the roads I drive on either. It is not a crime if they do not cause harm to anyone, and they can get drunk on their property, but it is not "precrime" for me to want to not associate with drunk people or not let them on the road that I own. Just like my private property or mall I own, if I can't tell then I don't really care. If they are acting up or anything then I can kick them out if I want to and it is perfectly acceptable for private property to do so.
fractional slacker Posted December 17, 2013 Posted December 17, 2013 Drugs would probably be another one, Anything that impaired driving ability to any significant degree. Excessive speed. I don't think you need to micromanage every aspect of driving but I see some value in providing people with a road where they won't be endangered by people driving impaired. I think people would prefer to have themselves and their loved ones alive rather than dead or injured. That is how I would compete with a road that allowed impaired driving. By providing a safer environment. Definitions are important. So when you say "Drugs would probably be another one, Anything that impaired driving ability to any significant degree." it would be good know exactly how you define "drugs" and "impaired." How would you know if someone were breaking your rules? Enforcement has two costs: direct and indirect. Direct is self explanatory, but indirect will be the business you don't get from those who don't want to be micromanaged in their travels even if you use the old adage and unguaranteed notion of SAFEY as your selling point.
Josh F Posted December 17, 2013 Posted December 17, 2013 Are you suggesting it is okay to be punished not for committing harm to someone or property damage, but for having the potential to do harm someone or to do property damage? Are you going to judge who is a threat and who is not? If there is no victim, there is no crime. firing rounds into the air might not kill anyone, a surgeon on LSD might perform an operation well, etc. It is incumbent upon empathetic people to be aware of the potential suffering we cause on others. I think in a free society, the owner of the roads will likely continue to prohibit alcohol consumption while driving. What other pre-crimes would you not allow? Is it just alcohol you are concerned with? Are you ready to micromanage every aspect of driving for the sake of security? How would your model will be more profitable than your competitor who is not interested in pre-crime, and thus has lower costs/tariffs? If the road was my business, certainly I'd manage it (not micromanage which actually refers to something else)
doglash Posted December 19, 2013 Posted December 19, 2013 Definitions are important. So when you say "Drugs would probably be another one, Anything that impaired driving ability to any significant degree." it would be good know exactly how you define "drugs" and "impaired." How would you know if someone were breaking your rules? Enforcement has two costs: direct and indirect. Direct is self explanatory, but indirect will be the business you don't get from those who don't want to be micromanaged in their travels even if you use the old adage and unguaranteed notion of SAFEY as your selling point. Drug - a medicine or other substance which has a physiological effect when ingested or otherwise introduced into the body. (from Oxford English Dictionary) When I say impaired I'm talking about a qualitative lowering. This could be of visual acuity, peripheral vision, concentration, reaction time, motor skills (motor as in body movement not car) or any other aspect of human physiology that affects the ability to drive. I also mentioned speed since, although it has no physiological effects (other than a rush of adrenaline), it does significantly reduce response time to sudden changes in a driving situation. I completely agree with you that safety as a selling point is not a guarantee of profit. There will always be people in society who want to be able to drive while under the influence. The mistake or confusion here I think is in framing this as crime, pre-crime or non-crime. Does crime even exist in a free society? Surely there are just ideas and values, and where those differ there is conflict. One person values being able to drive while under the influence of a particular substance. I value roads free of this behaviour. When we cross paths there is a conflict that needs to be resolved.
Recommended Posts