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

releases.usnewswire.com ^

[Helms]

Let it go, "dead" has a rather Imus-like tempermant, why, I do not know. Perhaps his moniker is a warning, similar to the pirate ships of old.

[dljordan]

We need to get those damn set belt criminals off the road. I suppose the next thing will be for Officer (I was only doing my job) Friendly is to confiscate the cars of these civilian scum. How much did these revenue agents earn I wonder.

[DoughtyOne]

Yep, that bothers me too.

[Unknowing]

Oh, I agree that the cost would come out of the restaurateurs' pockets, and having to hire a car would also reduce our fun and freedom. That's the sad point: since the People are willing to accept these roadblock traps, and even demand them as part of what you've called "nanny state" social regulations, we're stuck with them. The risks of carrying on as reasonably prudent free people have become too great in certain ways, it may seem.

All conduct is becoming, de facto, subject to strict liability with the growth of social regulation. The standard of care required to avoid various legal traps is becoming superlative, so that refraining from many actions becomes the more prudent choice. If one exercising ordinary reasonable care cannot be "careful enough," according to the law, to avoid the sanctions of the law, then any reasonable person will restrict his activities.

Social regulation undermines and curtails the American presumption of liberty, by my lights. I mean the baseline assumption that individual willpower should be trusted, fostered, and let alone by the agents of the state unless probable cause exists to interfere. That philosophy is so lost and gone from our law, though I appreciate the fact that liberty lives on within FreeRepublic.

[Dr Warmoose]

So I went to cato.org to see the write-up on the book you recommended

In the book, Boaz traces the history of libertarian thought, producing a concise yet thorough treatment of the subject. He then goes on to discuss why libertarianism is morally just...

Here is the fundamental flaw in Libertarianism spelled out in cato.org's own assesment. They talk about "morally just" but consider their views on shooting up drugs, prostitution, religion free America, wide-open borders, homosexual "marriages" and abortion-on-demand, as moral. Since the term "moral" now has been hijacked to mean "whatever I want to do, restricted by only my personal judgments and inhibitions" this doesn't sound like "morality" it sounds like "flexible values". Since "morality" by definition comes from an immutable, absolute source, I find nothing within their concept of morality - particularly since many devoteés of Libertarianism are outright hostile to anything Christian, which observes a code of law five thousand years old.