Topic: Drunk driving - page 3. (Read 2896 times)

Anyone who kills someone else while driving should be charged with manslaughter.

Not necessarily. Some accidents are simply not avoidable. And some people are just naturally not as skilled as others. That is a risk I take into account every time I get on the road. (The road built with my tax dollars, by they way.)

Do you also take into account that some of those drivers may be impaired?

Of course. I'm not naive enough to think that someone people don't break the law. In fact my father was a terrible menace and it's just good luck that he never killed anyone. Thankfully they took his licence or he probably would have. (Oddly he still had a pilot's license though.)

I am also fully aware that if the laws didn't exist at all, or if society accepted such behavior, the risks to myself and my family would be much higher. That's a non-starter to me...and for the umpteenth time, to most other clear thinking and semi-responsible people in our society as well.

In the same general vein, I am a gun owner also even though the law says that nobody should be breaking and entering my place or stealing my property.

teodor87

full member

Activity: 154

Merit: 100

Man is King!

Bottomline: drinking and driving is not a good idea. Unless you want to die or kill an innocent.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: Elwar on April 22, 2013, 10:21:55 PM

Anyone who kills someone else while driving should be charged with manslaughter.

Not necessarily. Some accidents are simply not avoidable. And some people are just naturally not as skilled as others. That is a risk I take into account every time I get on the road. (The road built with my tax dollars, by they way.)

Do you also take into account that some of those drivers may be impaired?

tvbcof

legendary

Activity: 4690

Merit: 1276

Anyone who kills someone else while driving should be charged with manslaughter.

Not necessarily. Some accidents are simply not avoidable. And some people are just naturally not as skilled as others. That is a risk I take into account every time I get on the road. (The road built with my tax dollars, by they way.)
...

They should still be charged. If it is found to be the person's fault then they should be convicted.

It's tempting to argue this from the 'limited government red tape' perspective, but...

I'm sure if I killed someone for any reason I'd feel terrible about it. The details of many, if not most, fatal accidents are probably pretty clear and it would ordinarily be just fine to clean up the mess without undue hardship, but...

I will bet that there are more than a few cases where the participant(s) are known to the authorities and are let off the hook due to their social rank or for good-old-boy reasons. I would not be adverse to enforcing a formalized no-exception process for clearing anyone of manslaughter no matter what the circumstances.

Elwar

legendary

Activity: 3598

Merit: 2386

Viva Ut Vivas

Anyone who kills someone else while driving should be charged with manslaughter.

Not necessarily. Some accidents are simply not avoidable. And some people are just naturally not as skilled as others. That is a risk I take into account every time I get on the road. (The road built with my tax dollars, by they way.)

That in no way makes it acceptable for some people to put other peoples lives at risk against their will simply because they feel like being irresponsible. People who do so should be punished for being irresponsible idiots and unnecessarily endangering others against their will for that indiscretion alone. If they roll the dice and end up killing someone, they should be punished for both opting to roll the dice and for the death (or injury) resulting from their decision. My society agrees with me.

They should still be charged. If it is found to be the person's fault then they should be convicted.

tvbcof

legendary

Activity: 4690

Merit: 1276

Quote from: tvbcof on April 22, 2013, 09:05:23 PM

Anyone who kills someone else while driving should be charged with manslaughter.

Not necessarily. Some accidents are simply not avoidable. And some people are just naturally not as skilled as others. That is a risk I take into account every time I get on the road. (The road built with my tax dollars, by they way.)

That in no way makes it acceptable for some people to put other peoples lives at risk against their will simply because they feel like being irresponsible. People who do so should be punished for being irresponsible idiots and unnecessarily endangering others against their will for that indiscretion alone. If they roll the dice and end up killing someone, they should be punished for both opting to roll the dice and for the death (or injury) resulting from their decision. My society agrees with me.

Elwar

legendary

Activity: 3598

Merit: 2386

Viva Ut Vivas

Anyone who kills someone else while driving should be charged with manslaughter.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

If you are driving drunk on a public road, you are endangering other and spreading risk to them which they have not given authorization to do.

Driving is a dangerous activity. Merely getting on the road involves accepting a great deal of risk to yourself, including that someone else on that road may be drunk, tired, distracted, or simply a bad driver. If you're not willing to assume that risk, don't drive.

Remember, it's their road too.

tvbcof

legendary

Activity: 4690

Merit: 1276

Quote from: myrkul on April 22, 2013, 08:51:19 PM

Quote from: tvbcof on April 22, 2013, 08:46:44 PM

Quote from: myrkul on April 22, 2013, 08:28:22 PM

Quote from: Severian on April 22, 2013, 05:55:49 PM

Quote from: tvbcof on April 22, 2013, 08:46:44 PM

It may come as a surprise to you, but drunk drivers kill thousands of completely innocent people every year and maim many times that number.

When they do hurt or kill someone, I'll be the first one with you to make sure they never do it again. People that can't manage themselves to the point of injuring or killing other people lose the right to have a say in how they manage their affairs.

But a criminal isn't a criminal until they hurt, kill or in anyway infringe on rights to life and property through their own negligence or malice.

I have no beef with anyone doing anything they want to themselves on their own property. If you want to get shit-faced and drive around, that is fine. Just do it on your own property and if you don't have your own property then defer your dangerous behavior until you can get some.

Public roads belong to everyone. Even drunk people.

Of course. But they don't have the right to drive on them until they sober up.

Didn't you just say:

Quote

If you want to get shit-faced and drive around, that is fine. Just do it on your own property

How does that reconcile with trying to deny the drunk the right to drive on public roads?

It is so unbelievable simple that I cannot tell if you are joking around or what? Just in case:

If you are driving drunk on a public road, you are endangering other and spreading risk to them which they have not given authorization to do.

If you are endangering only yourself nobody has a right to stop that (in my general opinion.) In fact, being a fan or Chas Darwin and a bit of an asshole, I highly encourage people do do stupid things simply for the purposes of cleaning up the gene pool a bit. Again, of course, only if they keep the risk contained to themselves.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: myrkul on April 22, 2013, 08:28:22 PM

Quote from: Severian on April 22, 2013, 05:55:49 PM

Quote from: myrkul on April 22, 2013, 08:28:22 PM

It may come as a surprise to you, but drunk drivers kill thousands of completely innocent people every year and maim many times that number.

When they do hurt or kill someone, I'll be the first one with you to make sure they never do it again. People that can't manage themselves to the point of injuring or killing other people lose the right to have a say in how they manage their affairs.

But a criminal isn't a criminal until they hurt, kill or in anyway infringe on rights to life and property through their own negligence or malice.

I have no beef with anyone doing anything they want to themselves on their own property. If you want to get shit-faced and drive around, that is fine. Just do it on your own property and if you don't have your own property then defer your dangerous behavior until you can get some.

Public roads belong to everyone. Even drunk people.

Of course. But they don't have the right to drive on them until they sober up.

Didn't you just say:

Quote

If you want to get shit-faced and drive around, that is fine. Just do it on your own property

How does that reconcile with trying to deny the drunk the right to drive on public roads?

tvbcof

legendary

Activity: 4690

Merit: 1276

Quote from: Severian on April 22, 2013, 05:55:49 PM

It may come as a surprise to you, but drunk drivers kill thousands of completely innocent people every year and maim many times that number.

When they do hurt or kill someone, I'll be the first one with you to make sure they never do it again. People that can't manage themselves to the point of injuring or killing other people lose the right to have a say in how they manage their affairs.

But a criminal isn't a criminal until they hurt, kill or in anyway infringe on rights to life and property through their own negligence or malice.

I have no beef with anyone doing anything they want to themselves on their own property. If you want to get shit-faced and drive around, that is fine. Just do it on your own property and if you don't have your own property then defer your dangerous behavior until you can get some.

Public roads belong to everyone. Even drunk people.

Of course. But they don't have the right to drive on them until they sober up.

Back to the original point of the original thread, my own thoughts about drunk driving are the consensus opinion. Strong consensus in fact. There are a variety of opinions on every subject. A (thankfully) small number of people argue fervently that molesting kids is perfectly fine, and they can even point to societies where it is the norm.

The point is that it makes practical sense to choose spokesmen who are not going to alienate a high percentage of the population. Promoting higher and more convenient use of Bitcoin is the goal of some in the Bitcoin community and that is one of the main charters of the Bitcoin Foundation. As I said initially, Libertarians are fringe, and considered dangerous wackos by a lot of people. And not without some good reason as evidenced by this conversation.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: Severian on April 22, 2013, 05:55:49 PM

Quote from: Severian on April 22, 2013, 05:55:49 PM

It may come as a surprise to you, but drunk drivers kill thousands of completely innocent people every year and maim many times that number.

When they do hurt or kill someone, I'll be the first one with you to make sure they never do it again. People that can't manage themselves to the point of injuring or killing other people lose the right to have a say in how they manage their affairs.

But a criminal isn't a criminal until they hurt, kill or in anyway infringe on rights to life and property through their own negligence or malice.

I have no beef with anyone doing anything they want to themselves on their own property. If you want to get shit-faced and drive around, that is fine. Just do it on your own property and if you don't have your own property then defer your dangerous behavior until you can get some.

Public roads belong to everyone. Even drunk people.

tvbcof

legendary

Activity: 4690

Merit: 1276

It may come as a surprise to you, but drunk drivers kill thousands of completely innocent people every year and maim many times that number.

When they do hurt or kill someone, I'll be the first one with you to make sure they never do it again. People that can't manage themselves to the point of injuring or killing other people lose the right to have a say in how they manage their affairs.

But a criminal isn't a criminal until they hurt, kill or in anyway infringe on rights to life and property through their own negligence or malice.

I have no beef with anyone doing anything they want to themselves on their own property. If you want to get shit-faced and drive around, that is fine. Just do it on your own property and if you don't have your own property then defer your dangerous behavior until you can get some.

I have to use public property for transportation in order to live. Just like almost everyone else. If you create extra risk for me an my family that is creating a very real problem for me. If I have to balance the reality that there are a lot of shit-faced drivers who so far have managed to avoid killing someone on public property, that is detracting significant from the value of this resource among everyone who could otherwise enjoy it. You are distributing the cost of your pleasure to every other member of society and it is wrong in most people's minds.

Now if you think that there should be no such thing as 'public property' and that in and of itself creates the problem you are having with drunk driving laws then that is another thing (and equally stupid.) Wait until someone who has their shit together enough to buy all the public roads does so, and see how they put up with irresponsible boozers using what is now their private resource.

Severian

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 250

Quote from: Trader Steve on April 22, 2013, 03:51:58 PM

It may come as a surprise to you, but drunk drivers kill thousands of completely innocent people every year and maim many times that number.

When they do hurt or kill someone, I'll be the first one with you to make sure they never do it again. People that can't manage themselves to the point of injuring or killing other people lose the right to have a say in how they manage their affairs.

But a criminal isn't a criminal until they hurt, kill or in anyway infringe on rights to life and property through their own negligence or malice.

tvbcof

legendary

Activity: 4690

Merit: 1276

Quote from: tvbcof on April 22, 2013, 01:31:39 PM

Quote from: Trader Steve on April 22, 2013, 01:22:50 PM

Quote from: tvbcof on April 22, 2013, 01:31:39 PM

Driving drunk is not a 'pre-crime'. It's a 'right then and there crime' for reasons that make sense to a vast majority of people.

Technically, you are correct - driving drunk is a crime in most places yet it is still another victimless crime.

Quote

From an engineering perspective it would be just as well that a responsible community beat the shit out of and regularly killed fringe wackos who endanger the rest vs. having the state do it. Either one would work for me.

I rest my case.

Trimming your case out of the response text makes it a lot easier to 'rest' the case I suppose. Handy because in context it makes zero sense to do so.

Okay, let me be more clear: It is obvious (or not?) that you have no objection to using violence - even murder - against people who have harmed no one but simply disagree with your opinions.

It may come as a surprise to you, but drunk drivers kill thousands of completely innocent people every year and maim many times that number.

I'm not about to stand by while some weirdo runs around playing Russian roulette with other people's skulls just because they get their jollies out of it and it's a 'victimless crime' 5 our of 6 times. Nor are most sane people which is why some societies have rule of law and some have vigilante justice, but all functional societies have at least something. Always have and always will, so you would be well advised to deal with it as best you are able.

You called me a 'statist' or some such. I tell you that I am not glued to the idea that the problem is solved via a functional state body as long as it is solved somehow. You are perfect correct that I have no problem with 'violence' of one sort or another if that is what it takes to solve the problem most efficiently and most fairly.

You do seem a little mixed up (like a lot of Libertarians) about how one person's natural rights stop where another person's start. I've got no problem with people doing whatever they want as long as it impacts only them. When you start distributing risk to others without their consent is where we start to run into issues.

Trader Steve

hero member

Activity: 836

Merit: 1007

"How do you eat an elephant? One bit at a time..."

Quote from: Trader Steve on April 22, 2013, 01:22:50 PM

Quote from: Trader Steve on April 22, 2013, 01:22:50 PM

Driving drunk is not a 'pre-crime'. It's a 'right then and there crime' for reasons that make sense to a vast majority of people.

Technically, you are correct - driving drunk is a crime in most places yet it is still another victimless crime.

Quote

From an engineering perspective it would be just as well that a responsible community beat the shit out of and regularly killed fringe wackos who endanger the rest vs. having the state do it. Either one would work for me.

I rest my case.

Trimming your case out of the response text makes it a lot easier to 'rest' the case I suppose. Handy because in context it makes zero sense to do so.

Okay, let me be more clear: It is obvious (or not?) that you have no objection to using violence - even murder - against people who have harmed no one but simply disagree with your opinions.

tvbcof

legendary

Activity: 4690

Merit: 1276

Driving drunk is not a 'pre-crime'. It's a 'right then and there crime' for reasons that make sense to a vast majority of people.

Technically, you are correct - driving drunk is a crime in most places yet it is still another victimless crime.

Quote

From an engineering perspective it would be just as well that a responsible community beat the shit out of and regularly killed fringe wackos who endanger the rest vs. having the state do it. Either one would work for me.

I rest my case.

Trimming your case out of the response text makes it a lot easier to 'rest' the case I suppose. Handy because in context it makes zero sense to do so.

Trader Steve

hero member

Activity: 836

Merit: 1007

"How do you eat an elephant? One bit at a time..."