'Booze It & Lose It' Yields 1,137 DWI Arrests in Second Week, 6,469 seat belt violations

releases.usnewswire.com ^

[bc2]

Well I will say this much, in sumnation:

While I personally think that seatbelt laws are "stupid" and that drunk driving limits are "arbitrary and do not necessarily corollate to impairment", I think that citizens of a State (not the Federal govt, which has mandated the BAC %'s) have the right to set restrictions on seatbelt useage and BAC %'s. While the primary immediate beneficiary, besides yourself and family, for the seatbelt laws are insurance company, I agree that States have a right to make this part of the contract for driving privilage.

Drunk driving is "stupid", "dangerous", "harmful", and violates the contract that you make with the State in which you are driving (I don't think any state allows you to drive drunk). It may not fit the legal definition of fraud, however I think most folks would agree that using the roads "fraudulently", i.e. outside the terms of your contract, is a lose useage of "fraud". You're splitting hairs.

You have made up mind about libertarianism, so I will not bother confusing you with the facts. To say that libertarianism is a precursor for totalitarianism shows just how uninformed you are on the subject. No matter.

Regardless, I do NOT approve of roadblocks to check for DUI, seatbelts, firearms, valid registration...

[robertpaulsen]

You're correct -- the Libertarians cannot explain their hypocrisy on this issue. If the public gets together and creates public roads, they are allowed to set the rules.

But if the public gets together and creates a community ....all of a sudden the "initiate force or fraud" mantra is heard.

[vin-one]

you've got mail.

[robertpaulsen]

Yep. Everyone's for "free" medical care.

But when the government tries to reduce their medical costs by mandating seat belts or helmets or BAC, suddenly we have this fascist state.

Get off the government teat, then you can have your freedoms back.

[Sloth]

Amendment IV -- The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[Dr Warmoose]

OK, we can both whine about the police state inspired concept of "check-points".

Though you may feel that my mind is "made-up about libertarianism" there are others here that benefit from the exchange in forming their own ideas. I would like to see your facts, the problem is that facts need to have a foundation of definition and reality, both which are absent in Libertine/Libertarian philosophy.

For example, given your earlier definition that a person can do whatever they want as long as it doesn't "inititate force or fraud against a person or property". Rather simplistic, it does make use of words that only make sense when there is a consistant definition.

In this latest post, you admitted that "fraud" didn't fit a legal definition, but could be wrested and be interpreted "loosely". Then the non-sequitor that this loose definition that is not legally recognized is "splitting hairs".

And this is the point. I don't want to appear to criticize your personal defintion of "fraud", I just want to demonstrate that the philosophy of Libertine/Libertarianism, like everything else proposed, is subject to personal interpretation. Thus what is "fraud" to you may not be "fraud" to someone else. When basing law and order on something so subjective and so liquid in defintion, the word I am looking for is not "loose" but "chaos".

For example, take our drunk driver. He is drunk only because the law says he is, and the law is written so that it has nothing to do with actual impairement or any measure of risk to others on the roadway. A person who has high tolerance but hits that magical .08 who is driving his car down a lonely dirt road in the middle of the night, presenting no actual risk to anyone except nocturnal critters that stumble into the road. The guy is treated by the law no different than the guy who is falling down drunk and propelling an eighteen-wheeler loaded with high explosives down a busy urban freeway. (at least as far as a DUI charge alone is concerned).

Now you are saluting this DUI law, and consider something more objective like the safety inherent in seatbelt laws as foolish. This means that your feelings regarding one activity is quite different than your neighbor's. You say that what constitutes "fraud" is radically differnet than what someone else would call "fraud". This is legal deconstructionalism, removing any objectivity to the "crime" and making it different from person to person.

We agree that the FedGod is involved in whole categories of law that would be better reserved to the State. You also admit, and I agree, that many laws should be held to a community standard. But Libertine/Libertarianism curses commnity standards over drugs, porn, and the great Bogie Man - Blue Laws. The Libs say that community standards don't apply in these categories, but they do in drunk driving. You say that drunkdriving should be outlawed because someone might be hurt? No. You say that drunk driving should be outlawed because of contracts. This contract finds its legitimacy in that "public roads" are being used. How about the stoner who is out wandering around the neighborhood? Aren't those streets, parks and sidewalks public paid for with public funds? Walking around in a public park is a "right" and driving on a public street is a "privilege"?

It is this kind of subjective chaos the Libertine/Libertarian desires that always is the precipitating condition where society yells "Enough is Enough" of this "Every man does what is right in his own eyes" and demands law and order from a far more stable authority.

[Dr Warmoose]

But if the public gets together and creates a community ....all of a sudden the "initiate force or fraud" mantra is heard

Then each person gets to decide for themselves what is "fraud" and what is "force". Do you want to go into a business where the law is determined by 300million legislators, 300 million judges, and 300 million juries?

[E Rocc]

highway checkpoint - shades of 1930s Germany

We had the local PD set one of these up near the bar a couple weeks ago. I called about eight nearby bars to let them know to tell their customers not to go that way. Hopefully they made so few arrests the powers-that-be will decide it was a waste of time.

One of our semi-regulars walked down the streets and was lecturing the people waiting in line about their constitutional rights. The checkpoint guards threatened to arrest him, until he dared them too. They seemed in poor humor. I hope the calls worked. >:)

-Eric

[Roscoe]

I do have a problem with perfectly well functioning drivers being pulled over, searched (in violation of their constitutional rights), and ticket for nanny-state seatbelt violations.

Where "perfectly well functioning" means that the drunk driver hasn't killed anybody yet. However, after he has run over someone, Libertarian theology holds that the victim's family could file suit to recover damages.

[ThinkDifferent]

Yep. Everyone's for "free" medical care.

That's news to me. I would certainly hope it's not true for most people here.

[bc2]

Well, you seem like a really smart person and I thank you for the civilized discussion. I'm not much for words, being pretty young and still trying to solidify my own personal philosophy.

For a really interesting read, I think you should check out "Libertarianism: A Primer" by Cato Executive Vice President David Boaz. I'm about 100 pages into it and it's a great read regarding Natural Rights, the nature of rights, the libertarian philosophy, famous historical libertarians, etc etc. It's quite fascinating.

To finish the discussion, I would argue that simply being stoned or drunk, and walking around... what's wrong with that? You're not hurting anyone, you're certainly not causing any trouble, there is no potential for harm, etc. It seems like a silly example, to be honest. What about drinking a 5th of whiskey and taking a walk?

Check out the David Boaz book, it's interesting.

Thanks for the chat...

[dead]

Where "perfectly well functioning" means that the drunk driver hasn't killed anybody yet.

Are you retarded? I very clearly wrote that I have no problem with a cop pulling somebody over if his driving leads the cop to suspect he may be drunk.

However, after he has run over someone, Libertarian theology holds that the victim's family could file suit to recover damages.

Nevermind. You are obviously retarded. “Libertarian theology” (whatever the hell that is) holds that a person who assaults or kills another person should go to jail.

[Roscoe]

I very clearly wrote that I have no problem with a cop pulling somebody over if his driving leads the cop to suspect he may be drunk.

Like running over someone?

[dead]

Like running over someone?

That would be a valid indicator. So would weaving across lanes, hanging out the window ranting inanely about the horrors of libertarianism, driving over curbs, rolling through stop signs, etc.

You know, things drunk people do.

[Roscoe]

[Like running over someone?]

That would be a valid indicator.

So absent a "valid indicator", such as running over someone, he should be able to drive on our public streets as drunk as wants.

You could use that POV to fertilize the garden.

[dead]

I guess the second sentence had too many words in it for you to read.

You're drunk and retarded.

[Roscoe]

I guess the second sentence had too many words in it for you to read.

No, just a zero content to noise ratio.

[Darth Reagan]

And we wonder why it took so long to catch Rudolf.

[dead]

I clearly stated in multiple posts that cops should be able to pull somebody over if the way they are driving makes the cop suspect that they are drunk.

But your thick head effectively shields your brain, so that my position doesn't get through. You can only continue to insist that I think people should be free to drive drunk until they've hit somebody.

I'm sorry, but I can only conclude that you are either intentionally being obtuse, or you are a total idiot.

I suspect the latter, but either way, I'm done dealing with you. Have a nice day.

[Roscoe]

I clearly stated in multiple posts that cops should be able to pull somebody over if the way they are driving makes the cop suspect that they are drunk.

No cops around, pop the top and gun it. Be sure to water after you fertilize.