Ex-Bar Owner Sentenced in Patron's Death

The Washington Times ^ | 10-28-05 | AP

[waverna]

I guess its safe to say she didn't win the t-shirt.

[T.Smith]

To what end? How about ensuring public safety? How about so more people don't end up dead? Is this really a difficut concept?

Yes, it's a difficult concept. Ensuring that people do not drink themselves into a coma is not a function of the government. Decades ago it was up to the consumer to decide when they had had enough. The government did not regulate how much liquor the bar sold to an individual patron. Now we have those laws, do you propose that society is better now?

[SoothingDave]

Yes, it's a difficult concept. Ensuring that people do not drink themselves into a coma is not a function of the government.

Sure it is. Alcohol is a dangerous product, as this story attests. It is irresponsible for a bar to encourage drinking contests like this story says.

If someone wants to buy a bottle and drink themself to death, that is one thing. But a tavern serving drinks has a responsibility not to contribute to a person's death.

Decades ago it was up to the consumer to decide when they had had enough. The government did not regulate how much liquor the bar sold to an individual patron. Now we have those laws, do you propose that society is better now?

I don't know where you live, or how old you are. But this is not the Wild West and states have regulated the sale of liquor since prohibition ended. If you think there are not regulations against selling to visibly intoxicated persons and other such rules, ask a tavern owner.

These are not new ideas.

SD

[wideminded]

when Scott served the red, yellow and green drink to Goodpasture

This article is misleading in that the "Stoplight Challenge" actually involved a series of three different drinks rather than one multi-colored one.

[T.Smith]

You appear to be completely beholden to the law. Just because it is law does not make it right. I'm not arguing that the law holds the bar owner responsible for the patron. I'm arguing that the bar owner SHOULD NOT be responsible for the patron.

You are espousing the idea that bar patrons cannot take care of themselves, therefore the government must step in and impose harsh penalties on bar owners if they do not take responsibility for their patrons. You are taking the individual completely out of the equation. Your argument is repugnant because you are insisting that the government force one person to be responsible for another only because that person lacks the sense to be responsible for themselves.

I'm sorry, but I cannot get my head around that. It's just wrong.

[traviskicks]

Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.

[SoothingDave]

You appear to be completely beholden to the law. Just because it is law does not make it right.

No, I'm beholden to doing what is right. The law is right. The law and any conservative theory of governance must take into account reality. And reality is that people, especially when drinking, can be irresponsible.

It's fine and dandy to talk about individual rights and personal responsibility. But when people are dying, and here is an example, adherence to a political philosphy instead of doing something helpful and realistic is cold comfort.

I'm not arguing that the law holds the bar owner responsible for the patron. I'm arguing that the bar owner SHOULD NOT be responsible for the patron.

Yes, I know exactly what you are arguing. And I find that repugnant.

You are espousing the idea that bar patrons cannot take care of themselves, therefore the government must step in and impose harsh penalties on bar owners if they do not take responsibility for their patrons. You are taking the individual completely out of the equation. Your argument is repugnant because you are insisting that the government force one person to be responsible for another only because that person lacks the sense to be responsible for themselves.

It's called reality. Try wrapping your mind around that.

Liquor licenses come with responsibilty. I suppose you think everyone in the world should be allowed to open a bar without a license and serve alcohol to anyone at any time.

Nice in theory. Doesn't work in reality.

SD

[T.Smith]

No, I'm beholden to doing what is right. The law is right. The law and any conservative theory of governance must take into account reality. And reality is that people, especially when drinking, can be irresponsible.

The reality is that I do not know how to skateboard. Should the government forbid me to try? If I try and am injured, should my family sue the store that sold me the skateboard?

When the government - with your complete approval, apparently - relieves me of responsibility for myself in one aspect of my life, it relieves me of responsibility in all aspects of my life. The reality is that your way of thinking is the cause of the general decline of personal responsibility and the onset of this ridiculous bubble-wrapped society in which we now find ourselves.

Your way of thinking is also what leads to situations such as New Orleans in the wake of Katrina.

[SoothingDave]

It is exactly this type of hysterical reaction that brands libertarians as unserious.

Having reasonable liquor laws, including penalties for overserving, is not the downfall of civilization. Get a grip. Most people don't wish to live in a Darwinian state.

SD

[JeffAtlanta]

It is against the rules to have a bar sponsor drinking contests.

It's not clear from the article that the bar did sponsor a drinking game in this case.

[Abathar]

"To what end? How about ensuring public safety? How about so more people don't end up dead? Is this really a difficult concept? "

So in other words if a fat man with a bad heart walks in and orders the double meat, double cheese super sized fatso burger with 2 orders of fries the owner of the establishment is liable for his heart attack? Its the same exact thing, once you start regulating personal responsibility in one thing you have to do it for everything.

[pageonetoo]