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.
Topic: Drunk driving (Read 2896 times)
...snip...
A "free market" that accepts violence as the means of competition isn't free, or a market.
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.
...snip...
A "free market" that accepts violence as the means of competition isn't free, or a market.
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.
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.
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.
...snip...
A "free market" that accepts violence as the means of competition isn't free, or a market.
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.
...snip...
A "free market" that accepts violence as the means of competition isn't free, or a market.
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?
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
DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF MARIJUANA
...
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.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.
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.
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.
...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.
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.
...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.
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.
...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.
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.
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.
...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.
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.
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 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.
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 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
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.'
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.
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.'
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.
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.
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.
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.
Jump to: