Topic: Drunk driving - page 4. (Read 2937 times)

Thanks for bringing this conversation back on-topic and demonstrating conclusively why it is good policy to keep Loonytarians out of the spotlight as much as possible.

Absolutely! I've seen drunk drivers that can drive much better than many sober drivers.


Yes, you have every right to expect whatever you want. But you do not have the right to force your expectations on others when they have done nothing to harm you.


So you advocate the kidnapping of someone who harmed no one?

That is in place in most cities and towns, my town has this.

Now back ontopic...

Normally I would try to keep this thread on topic, but I have a big grudge against how drunk driving is handled.

Is it OK to drive drunk? No, people should be educated and shown why it's wrong.
However, the laws in places (claiming to protect citizens from drunk driving) are doing just the opposite.
This is where all the hypocrisy of the situation arises.

Being drunk slows down your reaction time. If you have to drive home, you should drive slower, say 20 km/h, for example.
But because there's bad laws in place, you have an incentive to drive faster,
otherwise the cops will see you driving at 20 km/h and say "Hum, that's odd... he's probably drunk, let's arrest him."

So while the laws in place are claiming to protect the citizens, they are adding incentives for dangerous speedy drunk driving.
If you want to use the government to reduce drunk driving accidents, you should offer free lifts to whomever might need it,
in addition to bringing their car home.

So it is A-OK to drive drunk as long as you don't happen to get in a crash and kill someone?

There are very good reasons why explosives are required, by law, to be treated with a high degree of care.  This is especially true of high explosives if that is what Ver was screwing around with.  (I do have first hand experience with high explosives having been an engineer in the US Army at one time, by the way.)

I have every right to rent and apartment for my family with the expectation that some nit-wit is not storing a box full of high explosives below my kid's bed, and I have every right to expect that the renters in the houses I own are storing such compound in my basement.  This is part of the reason why I don't complain to bitterly about paying my taxes.

It would be much different in my mind if Ver had owned his home and it was rural.  Then he could cook meth or blow his hands off or whatever he wanted to do and it would not effect others.  (Though I call myself a Socialist, I'm probably more of a pure Libertarian than most people who apply that label to themselves.)

If/when the paramilitaries set up do deal with irresponsible actors like Ver (appears to have been) and re-oriented to act as that back-bone of our police state, I will be complaining more bitterly about my taxes.  Until then I have to accept the good with the bad and work to prolong the probably inevitable shift.  In the Ver case it seems like the justice system was doing largely what I pay and ask them to do.  Gotta call it like I see it.

Mod note: Split from here. Stay on topic!


Bullshit case. Was he irresponsible? Apparently not as no one was harmed. The average household has plenty of items that can cause great harm. It is what you do with them that matters.