Tags for this video have been changed from 'Constitution, Ticket, Legal, Right' to 'Constitution, Ticket, Legal, Right, driving, donald sullivan' - edited by kronosposeidon

This video is like Viagra to blankfist (Ron Paul, North Carolina, etc). Or maybe booze (the legal-ese limp dick at the end). Or maybe both. On one hand, this guy got away with it. At the same time, the lawyer is stating (and probably correctly) that the case of Lt. Col. Sullivan (Ret.) does NOT establish a precedent. He states (quite correctly) that the state can NOT deny your right to *travel. However, they can regulate how you travel. In other words, Lt. Col. Sullivan better not travel far and think that he's immune from prosecution.

Me? I tend to agree with the state on this one: In all 50 states of the republic, driving is a privilege, not a right. No one is saying that you are forbidden from going from Point A to Point B. However, you can't go there while driving a motor vehicle, unless you demonstrate the ability to safely do so. I don't think it's unfair of the state, i.e., the people, to demand that you demonstrate the ability to safely navigate its (our) roads without killing a hapless motherfucker or two because of your reckless ass.

I've been driving for over 25 years, and have received numerous traffic citations, almost all of them for speeding. Now I'm no fan of bad cops, but I will submit to you that bad drivers are a genuine menace. If there is a single person here who has never been genuinely put in danger of life or limb because of a bad driver, now is your time to speak up. Otherwise, I refuse to accept the philosophy of "No harm, no foul" when it comes to traffic violations. Now I am NOT defending excessive fines for traffic violations. However I will defend the enforcement of traffic laws. So help me, imaginary Jesus.

Adding video to channels (Travel) - requested by kronosposeidon.

*quality *wheels

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by kronosposeidon.

Adding video to channels (Wheels) - requested by kronosposeidon.

He has the right to walk.

I wonder how this guy views drunk driving.

I wonder how this guy views flying aeroplanes over New York City. Need a license?

written by kronosposeidon

He states (quite correctly) that the state can NOT deny your right to travel. However, they can regulate how you travel. In other words, Lt. Col. Sullivan better not travel far and think that he's immune from prosecution. ..driving is a privilege, not a right. ..No one is saying that you are forbidden from going from Point A to Point B.

Tho if the effects of regulations - impounding a vehicle, fines, imprisonment - infringe too harshly on that privilege, they effectively deny the right all together.

However, you can't go there while driving a motor vehicle, unless you demonstrate the ability to safely do so. I don't think it's unfair of the state, i.e., the people, to demand that you demonstrate the ability to safely navigate its (our) roads without killing a hapless motherfucker or two because of your reckless ass.


What do bad drivers have to do with this? And since when do "the people" dictate traffic laws or directly control DMV policies?

He was pulled over for driving without a license plate. Are you saying that only people who identify themselves are qualified to operate a vehicle safely?

Of course licenses plates help identify drivers that are reckless but I think his grievance is more about the penalites for failing to jump thru beauracratic hoops.

The only time a license plate is essential to identify a vehicle is in the case of hit and run. But should be all be subject to arrest and massive fines and loss of property on the off chance that we might one day hit someone and drive away.

So, you want our roads to be like an unmoderated message board, with anonymous trolls and spammers free to wreak havoc.

One local hick is one thing, but the consequences of everyone not registering vehicles are extremely high to everyone. It would place a high burden in the resolution of both civil and criminal situations.

Registration creates a line of accountability from a vehicle to a person that discourages reckless and criminal behavior. Not just for the most heinous crimes, but also for the more mundane occurrences, like fender benders.

In all 50 states of the republic, driving is a privilege, not a right.

And yet socialists believe health care is a "right".

>> ^quantumushroom:
In all 50 states of the republic, driving is a privilege, not a right.
And yet socialists believe health care is a "right".


Why is that crazy? It's reckless to let certain people drive. It's a threat to society. Motor vehicles kill tens of thousands of people every year, so that's not hyperbole. There's no equivalent danger to providing health care.

Hospitals are already legally required to provide aid to everyone, but the implementation now is terrible for patients and expensive for the rest of us. You're already living in a socialism, I guess, just implemented very stupidly.

*law

Adding video to channels (Law) - requested by MrFisk.

>> ^quantumushroom:
And yet socialists believe health care is a "right".


And conservatives believe owning a gun is a right, so what's your point?

>> ^HollywoodBob:
>> ^quantumushroom:
And yet socialists believe health care is a "right".

And conservatives believe owning a gun is a right, so what's your point?


Hollywood Bob - I agree with you entirely in spirit. However, for the sake of fair play, firearm ownership is stated directly in the Bill of Rights, whereas both driving and health care are not to be found in the Constitution.

With that said, as a human being, I do personally believe health care is much more a right than driving or weapon ownership.

Gun ownership = right.
Freedom of movement = right.
Health care = privilege.

Why? Government doesn't supply you with a firearm. Government doesn't supply you a car in which to drive. Therefore, government shouldn't supply you with health care. If it supplied you with any of those things, it would be welfare and not a right.

That aside, isn't this video the bee's knees? Seriously, was this video made for me or what? I love it. Good for that old guy.

>> ^HollywoodBob:
And conservatives believe owning a gun is a right, so what's your point?


I'm definitely not a conservative, and I know that it's a right.

How did this issue go from the topic, to firearms and health care? Are the conservatives so desperate to tag anything involving legal questions to these two issues?

If I understand it correctly. People voted at one point to elect people to office. This was purely under the constitution for how people get elected as representatives, senators and even a president. Those people, created the highway system as a federal system. That way laws created effected all the states evenly. Roads and vehicles were given strict standards on how each were created. Yes, there was plenty of leway given to looks, but the mechanics were made to keep things in one state the same as another. With the introduction of highways, this was given more consideration. Yes, this is a HUGE simplifacation of historical events in the US. Lets just agree, that's along the lines of how things happened in our country.

Some where along that route (pun unintended), law makers decided the concept of a license to show who understood the rules of the road, and agree to abid by them. That way, if you were caught speeding, you could not say "hey, I didnt know I couldnt go that fast." You could argue if the police man had made a mistake in court. Notice, the court is in this equation. An so, there were licenses for motorcycles, trucks, and even for special vehicles (i.e. school buses). The licenses provide a meager funding to the state to help maintain roads. They also allowed the license to be used to prove one's age (for nudie bars and beer), to help in some purchases (i.e. firearms), and as a form of identification (i.e. aquiring a job).

I as the motorist should not have to ask if the green pickup truck in front of me is in current register. I should have some thought the truck could past a inspection, if one was given on the spot (assuming, any grand-fathered clauses, due to the vehicles age). Without proper plates or registation, I could not tell that. In addition, what happens if this guy hits someone on a cross walk?

"The drive was in a green pickup truck." "Did you get a license plate?" "No, there wasn't one."

No, this guy is simply trying to avoid being responsible for his actions. Which is quite typical for a republican/conservative these days.

But the issue regarding whether one has a consitutional right to own a firearm, is a murky question at best. Since, the NRA types, conviently ignore the first 1/2 of the 2nd Amendment like it doesnt exist. No, I think we'd need the US Supreme court to weigh in on the issue some day.

The issue with health care is neither a right or a privilage. Its a needed concept.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Freedom of movement is not being controlled, just access to government owned roads. You are always free to walk or even take the bus. Government does supply you with a network of roads - soooo, by your logic I guess it makes it welfare.

>> ^blankfist:
Gun ownership = right.
Freedom of movement = right.
Health care = privilege.
Why? Government doesn't supply you with a firearm. Government doesn't supply you a car in which to drive. Therefore, government shouldn't supply you with health care. If it supplied you with any of those things, it would be welfare and not a right.
That aside, isn't this video the bee's knees? Seriously, was this video made for me or what? I love it. Good for that old guy.

Licenses and insurance is required for lots of things you have the right to, like property. Are they illegal? No. It's just that this guy is a dimwit and doesn't understand the law. State roads = state law. More generally: your property = your rules of access. The state's property = the state's rules of access. If he doesn't like it, he should go change his state's laws. Of course, they'll lose federal funding for roadway construction if they drop the license requirements, but hey, you can't have your cake and eat it too (cause then the cake becomes a lie).

Did anyone else think the thumbnail was of a man with a dog's head?

>> ^rosser99:

Hollywood Bob - I agree with you entirely in spirit. However, for the sake of fair play, firearm ownership is stated directly in the Bill of Rights, whereas both driving and health care are not to be found in the Constitution.
With that said, as a human being, I do personally believe health care is much more a right than driving or weapon ownership.


The whole "it's a right/privilege" thing misses an important point or two. What exactly is a "right" in the first place?

Women didn't have the right to vote before they got out there and raised hell, minorities of other sorts didn't have any rights at all before we fought a war. We didn't have a right to own guns or anything else until we fought a different war with Britain and wrote the rights for ourselves. We never had a "right" to anything that we didn't take, and we never kept a right we didn't enforce. When we do stop enforcing them we end up with things like "free speech zones". I used to think the whole country was a free speech zone, but when we stopped paying attention during the Bush years it turned into little approved boxes out of camera view where nobody could see the protest. Go figure, who knew we had to care about and enforce rights to keep them?

People act like a "right" is something observable and definable such as the grass or the sun, but a "right" is whatever we decide it is and it always has been. If we want, or don't want, a right to health care it's no more or less out of line than that right to own guns or to vote was. It's just a matter of if we're willing to fight and take it or not. Once we make that decision writing it down, as in the gun ownership example, just makes it official. But it was the fight that granted the right in the first place.

Hospitals are already legally required to provide aid to everyone, but the implementation now is terrible for patients and expensive for the rest of us. You're already living in a socialism, I guess, just implemented very stupidly.

The socialist solution is to make the system all-the-way bad. Once the government owns health care, they own you. They decide who lives or dies and with nothing as sinister as death panels, they just draw up a chart and if you're over age ____ you're no longer eligible for heart surgery, so sorry, it's not in the budget. Or maybe we decide you deserve health care this year, but we're going to assign only one doctor per 10,000 patients in your area. That's bureaucracy (in)action!

Oh, it may not happen that way overnight, but once the evil edifice is in place, it has the rest of the century to lose sight of the "good intentions" that always bring this crap about. Social Security was a brilliant idea when there were 4 workers to pay for every 1 retiree...not so much now though...

Yes, there is Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security now: all 3 are already insolvent and doomed to fail. There's better ways to do things and they all involve reducing government meddling.

I think this man's fellow libertarians should be the ones to discredit his crazy nonsense. Your rights end were mine begin. That includes having to pass a minimal level of competence before being allowed to drive, IE a drivers license. The primary need and reason for a drivers license is to ensure that the people driving on the roads are capable and willing to do so safely. This guy is either too stupid to understand that, or too much of an asshole to care.

>> ^quantumushroom:
In all 50 states of the republic, driving is a privilege, not a right.
And yet socialists believe health care is a "right".


"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

One would think something like health care, that impacts so greatly on your life, liberty, and your pursuit of happiness, would be considered a right as well.

>> ^dag:
Freedom of movement is not being controlled, just access to government owned roads. You are always free to walk or even take the bus. Government does supply you with a network of roads - soooo, by your logic I guess it makes it welfare.


Don't really agree. Yes, you can take the bus now. But the first bus that blows up in the United States will remove that right. As for walking, you can't walk everywhere. Lots of roads are closed to pedestrians. You'd have to trespass on others' property to even be able to walk everywhere in an urban non-city environment

>> ^dag:
Freedom of movement is not being controlled, just access to government owned roads. You are always free to walk or even take the bus. Government does supply you with a network of roads - soooo, by your logic I guess it makes it welfare.


Roads aren't welfare. They're paid for by voluntary taxes (gasoline tax). Roads are a service we pay for if we choose to use them. Example: if I drive on the roads, then I buy gas and am taxed to pay for the roads.

Welfare is something given without payment. Example: I want to drive on the roads, but cannot afford a car or gas, so the government subsidizes it using income tax (involuntary).

It's important to understand government is in service of the people, so when you say "government owned roads" it's important to make the distinction roads aren't supposed to be owned by the government but instead the people, because the people have charged the government to create them in service to them. The key word is service over control or ownership.



>> ^bcglorf:
I think this man's fellow libertarians should be the ones to discredit his crazy nonsense. Your rights end were mine begin. That includes having to pass a minimal level of competence before being allowed to drive, IE a drivers license. The primary need and reason for a drivers license is to ensure that the people driving on the roads are capable and willing to do so safely. This guy is either too stupid to understand that, or too much of an asshole to care.


You have the right not to be harmed and to not have your liberty infringed upon. So, as long as this man doesn't harm you or infringe on your liberty, he's doing nothing wrong in the eyes of a Libertarian. Conversely, your position to ensure your safety without being made a victim is preemptive and tyrannical.

So, as long as this man doesn't harm you or infringe on your liberty, he's doing nothing wrong in the eyes of a Libertarian. Conversely, your position to ensure your safety without being made a victim is preemptive and tyrannical.

Unfortunately for this fellow in the video, the majority of society does not believe that drivers licenses are tyrannical. More people in America are killed by car accidents than practically anything else. A drivers license is a very simply and unobtrusive method of keeping people from harming others. If the Libertarian view truly cares about preventing other people from harm, then very basic traffic safety seems in order and drivers licensing is an important part of that. If licensing drivers is too tyrannical, surely traffic lights, speed limits and stop signs should all be done away with as well.

If this were really about the repressing people's right to travel then passengers would be required to carry id with them as well. Call me when that starts happening and I'll come protest with you, armed if need be.

>> ^bcglorf:
Unfortunately for this fellow in the video, the majority of society does not believe that drivers licenses are tyrannical.


51% taking the rights away from 49%.

>> ^blankfist:
>> ^bcglorf:
Unfortunately for this fellow in the video, the majority of society does not believe that drivers licenses are tyrannical.

51% taking the rights away from 49%.


I think the % that believe drivers licenses are tyrannical is smaller than 49%, don't you think?

From a practical standpoint, how exactly should an ideal Libertarian society agree on the balance between protecting individual liberties from stepping upon each other? If 99% agree that drivers licenses are reasonable measure to protect everyone's right travel safely does that count? If it gets that support does still need the blessing of St. Paul?

>> ^bcglorf:
...If licensing drivers is too tyrannical, surely traffic lights, speed limits and stop signs should all be done away with as well.


Oddly enough, some tests done in Europe have found doing exactly that has cut down on congestion AND accidents. It seems taking away the assumption of right-of-way makes everyone more careful.

You have the right not to be harmed and to not have your liberty infringed upon. So, as long as this man doesn't harm you or infringe on your liberty, he's doing nothing wrong in the eyes of a Libertarian. Conversely, your position to ensure your safety without being made a victim is preemptive and tyrannical.


Really? Another libertarian that doesn't understand the concept of externalities? Do you guys have a breeding colony on this site?

So is it tyrannical to arrest someone for driving wasted, and swerving on the road? I suppose we should wait for him to hit a nun?

[redacted]

>> ^bmacs27:


Why do statists always use extreme examples of freedom causing dangerous situations? "So a drunk nazi who swerves on the road while shooting up and runs over nuns and kittens and children is fine with Libertarians, huh?"

No. You cannot run over nuns. That would be hurting someone. If you're not hurting anyone, then you shouldn't be thrown in a cage by men with guns. Why is that such a hard concept for you statists to grasp? Stop living in fear of your neighbor.

"I prefer dangerous freedom to peaceful slavery." -Thomas Jefferson

If you're not hurting anyone, then you shouldn't be thrown in a cage by men with guns.

Someone driving drunk isn't hurting anyone... yet. Your logic seems to conclude their should be no infringing of his liberties until AFTER he has hurt someone.

Common sense dictates that the risk of harm is great enough that some infringing of his liberties is warranted. This is what is referred to as internalizing an externality. In this case, the forcible imposition of risk of physical harm to society at large is the externality. The externality should be internalized to the driver.

Libertarians don't get that.

I'll stop living in fear of my neighbor as soon as he stops swinging his AR-15 around while screaming about the blood of tyrants.

>> ^blankfist:
>> ^bmacs27:

Why do statists always use extreme examples of freedom causing dangerous situations? "So a drunk nazi who swerves on the road while shooting up and runs over nuns and kittens and children is fine with Libertarians, huh?"
No. You cannot run over nuns. That would be hurting someone. If you're not hurting anyone, then you shouldn't be thrown in a cage by men with guns. Why is that such a hard concept for you statists to grasp? Stop living in fear of your neighbor.
"I prefer dangerous freedom to peaceful slavery." -Thomas Jefferson


It is an easy concept to grasp, and we all 'get it'. The problem is that most of us see the gaping holes in the concept and you refuse to recognize them when they are pointed out to you.

The real world is not as simple as you suggest. It is not possible to lump actions into the boxes of harm and no harm. The vast majority of actions carry varying probabilities of causing harm, from almost none to almost certain.

A law might exist that bans one from driving on the freeway while drunk and blindfolded. By your rationale, that law would by tyrannical because the driver has not 'yet' hurt anyone. If the police catch that person before they injure anyone, they are to simply let them continue driving drunk and blind folded, for they have caused no harm.

Your logic fails because you insist on oversimplifying things to the point of insanity.

Laws don't prevent behavior. If laws against drunk driving worked there would be no drunk drivers on the road just as there would be no murders in a state with a death penalty.

DUI laws serve to punish innocent people and are an attempt at social engineering. A person who has never hurt anyone or has never had more than the amount to drink he thinks is safe for him to operate a vehicle is irrelevant to statists.

If you have a beer or a glass of wine and get behind the wheel of a vehicle you will go to jail. That's collectivist justice.

If laws against drunk driving worked there would be no drunk drivers on the road just as there would be no murders in a state with a death penalty


Are you going to bother addressing anyone else's points, or just continue repeating yourself and ignoring anything inconvenient to your view?

By your logic any and every law around attempted crime should be abolished. So long as the would be murder, rapist or burglar manages to fail badly enough in their attempted crime that no person or property is damaged your idea says they should be free to go. By your logic I shouldn't be arrested for pointing a loaded gun at your children on their way to school and threatening to kill them. I should have the freedom to do this every day as no one is harmed, and nobody's liberties are being suppressed.

I'm afraid I can sleep quite well at night repressing the kind of 'freedom' you are advocating for. In fact, I'd be fighting to have them suppressed if they existed.

Sorry, bcglorf, I'm not your step-and-fetch-it, so I am not going to answer every ridiculous claim thrown out by statist majorities. Also, I don't know you like I do others on this site so it doesn't interest me quite as much to engage, especially if you're going to be so smug about it.

Pointing a loaded gun at someone's family isn't the same as driving a car with drugs or alcohol in your system. This is a silly analogy, and once again another typically extreme and wild one you statists need to employ in an attempt to win the argument. Let me explain it simply so even a statist can understand:

Pointing a gun at someone's family means you have an intent to do direct harm.

There's no direct harm intended when driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

I wanted to see if I could find the real court finding, to see on what basis they decided in his favor.

I had some trouble with that. It would be an understatement to say that this man has spent a lot of time in court over the last decade. Here's a decent summary from Mother Jones; it's Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan.

So, I found the opinions of him being laughed out of court for claiming that his property taxes are unconstitutional pretty much every year for as far back as the court has records. He's tried to get cases up to the SCOTUS on illegal passage of the 16th amendment (that's the one that permits income taxes), he's trying to make a case that Barack Obama's birth certificate is fake. He also tried to sue that the Iraq and Afghanistan wars were illegal because they were undeclared.

All that said, I haven't found any record of him winning a court case about a "right to drive" except this Youtube video, and it's accompanying article on the local TV station (which is basically a transcript of this video), and a blog entry by Donald Sullivan telling a story about how his son got arrested for refusing to answer an officer's questions when pulled over. He did this because the officer first read him his Miranda rights and then asked for license and proof of insurance (at which point the son exercised his right to remain silent).

Regardless, I think all rights have limits. You are free to speak, but you may not incite people to violence. You are free to "bear arms" but I'm pretty sure land mines are not permissible. You are guaranteed the right to a trial, but you do not have the right to infinite appeal.

People should indeed be able to move about without restriction. This does not mean I may use a 3000 lbs. device to convey myself without limits on how that device is used and operated.

Personally, I think if you want to take a "right to free movement" to some sort of extreme, the real meaning would be that trespassing shouldn't be a crime, and things like locks and fences should be illegal since they restrict people's freedom of movement.

After all, if you cause no damage to the person's property, it's a victimless crime...

>> ^blankfist:
Sorry, bcglorf, I'm not your step-and-fetch-it, so I am not going to answer every ridiculous claim thrown out by statist majorities. Also, I don't know you like I do others on this site so it doesn't interest me quite as much to engage, especially if you're going to be so smug about it.
Pointing a loaded gun at someone's family isn't the same as driving a car with drugs or alcohol in your system. This is a silly analogy, and once again another typically extreme and wild one you statists need to employ in an attempt to win the argument. Let me explain it simply so even a statist can understand:
Pointing a gun at someone's family means you have an intent to do direct harm.
There's no direct harm intended when driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol.


Alright then, I'm your neighbour and I like to use my shotgun to shoot at cans on the fence that your children are playing behind. That would seem to be perfectly acceptable then? No intent to cause direct harm, right?

>> ^bcglorf:
Alright then, I'm your neighbour and I like to use my shotgun to shoot at cans on the fence that your children are playing behind. That would seem to be perfectly acceptable then? No intent to cause direct harm, right?


You're firing a weapon onto my property.

Libertarians' cognition isn't burdened by politically correct pieties, so they should know that half the country has an IQ below 100, and most people aren't very responsible and they've never going to be very responsible.

That's why people lock their doors, own firearms (if they choose), and want others to pass at least a trivial test before they're allowed to drive a deadly vehicle.

Libertarianism within reason seems to be broadly viewed as being positive and something we should support, but IMHO libertarianism for the sake of libertarianism discredits the cause.

blankfist: I actually agree with you on this thread (though I'll admit that I usually disagree with you). Using the term 'statist' is not helping your (our!) case and just makes you sound like a jackass. Hugo Chavez is a statist. Joe "Driving Permits Serve a Purpose" Public is not, even if I disagree with him.

>> ^blankfist:
>> ^bcglorf:
Alright then, I'm your neighbour and I like to use my shotgun to shoot at cans on the fence that your children are playing behind. That would seem to be perfectly acceptable then? No intent to cause direct harm, right?

You're firing a weapon onto my property.


As long as I don't damage your property there shouldn't be a problem? Or maybe if I set up a small brick wall in front of the fence to stop the shots. Then as long as my aim isn't off I'm good to shoot all day long.

The point of course is the potential for harm obviously matters, despite how much you may want to protest otherwise when it comes to motor vehicles.

>> ^direpickle:
blankfist: I actually agree with you on this thread (though I'll admit that I usually disagree with you). Using the term 'statist' is not helping your (our!) case and just makes you sound like a jackass. Hugo Chavez is a statist. Joe "Driving Permits Serve a Purpose" Public is not, even if I disagree with him.


No, it's cool. I'm a statist in the sense that government should intervene in the economy. Deflationary spirals should be fought with every tool available. Since you mention it, however, I'd prefer the term Keynesian. It doesn't carry all of the fascist connotations.

I just find it funny that yet another naive, free market idealist neglects to show any understanding of externalities.

>> ^blankfist:
DUI laws serve to punish innocent people and are an attempt at social engineering. A person who has never hurt anyone or has never had more than the amount to drink he thinks is safe for him to operate a vehicle is irrelevant to statists.


I think the main question that others were attempting to convey was "when is behavior too dangerous to be legal?" This person who never hurt anyone may think it is safe for him to operate his vehicle with however much he drank, but he could very well be completely wrong too.

People who crash due to alcohol always think they're sober enough to drive. I've never heard anyone seriously say "I'm going to drive home, I doubt I'll make it there". Yet we still have people driving into trees (or people) because they overestimated their ability to drive. How much alcohol is too much to be legally allowed to drive on public roads? Should there not be any regulation at all?

I've known people who drove home when they could barely walk, still completely confident in their abilities. I also know people who refuse to do so, not because they lack confidence, but because they fear arrest. I prefer the latter, because I have yet to meet a rational drunk. Somewhere between being sober and struggling to walk people become very dangerous operating a motor vehicle, but confidence lasts well beyond that point.

Similarly, my grandmother swears to God that she is a safe driver, despite the fact that she can barely see the other end of her car's hood. I do not believe that her confidence is enough reason to allow her to drive, because she would kill someone. Luckily the DMV agrees and refused to renew her license, and I don't see that as a bad thing.


How would you handle these situations?

>> ^blankfist:
Laws don't prevent behavior. If laws against drunk driving worked there would be no drunk drivers on the road just as there would be no murders in a state with a death penalty.

BS, and you know it. Laws DISCOURAGE behavior. The law is a success if there are LESS murders. The law is a success if there are FEWER drunk drivers.


DUI laws serve to punish innocent people and are an attempt at social engineering. A person who has never hurt anyone or has never had more than the amount to drink he thinks is safe for him to operate a vehicle is irrelevant to statists.

No, they aren't irrelevant. Rather, they are bad at estimating a satisfactory tolerances for the safety of others. That is, they infringe on others' rights by making that judgement on their own, particularly in an impaired state. Much of this comes from a characteristic underestimation of small probabilities with catastrophic costs when relying on personal experience alone.[citation]

On the other hand, deaths that could have been prevented by government intervention are irrelevant to you. You'd rather be free to get wasted and swerve all the way home than prevent any loss of life potentially forced upon someone by your errant actions.


If you have a beer or a glass of wine and get behind the wheel of a vehicle you will go to jail. That's collectivist justice.

No, as you pointed out, if that were the case there would be no drunk drivers. If you have a glass of beer or wine, and get behind the vehicle of a car, AND GET CAUGHT, you go to jail. That slight increase in the probability of a bad event when drunk driving is what discourages the behavior.

>> ^direpickle:
Using the term 'statist' is not helping your (our!) case and just makes you sound like a jackass.


If you believe the State should have a say in the direction of society over the voice of the individual, then you're a Statist. It's a descriptive term, not a derogatory term like, say... "jackass"? Should people be angry if I called them Democrat or Republican, then?


>> ^bmacs27:
Laws DISCOURAGE behavior. The law is a success if there are LESS murders.


You support the death penalty, then? See, direpickle, this is a statist. He believes the state has the right to take your life as long as it can be proven to discourage murders.



>> ^Psychologic:
I think the main question that others were attempting to convey was "when is behavior too dangerous to be legal?" This person who never hurt anyone may think it is safe for him to operate his vehicle with however much he drank, but he could very well be completely wrong too.


I agree with you. Some people can be terribly irrational when drinking and stepping behind the wheel, and they may be an absolute danger to others on the road. There are a several issues I take with this. First, the current legal limit is ridiculously low. Anyone with a BAC of 0.08% isn't posing a threat to anyone, and it's simply a way to generate income for the state.

Secondly, you're supposing the roads have to be a guaranteed safe environment. Sure, we'd want them that way, but at what cost? A little bit of liberty given up for a bit of safety is reasonable, but I think we're long past that. When you take to the roads, you have to assume a reasonable amount of implied risk. If you went to a hockey game and were to be hit on the head by a galvanized rubber puck and shortly thereafter died, it wouldn't be the fault of the stadium or the player or the team or anyone, because there is a reasonably amount of expected risk associated with attendance (even though when this happens, the league typically pays for the hospital bills so to not endure bad press).

Let's take your grandmother for instance. As long as she doesn't harm anyone, I think she should be able to drive as long as she feels able. Why? Because your solution is she MAY hurt someone or herself because she's getting old and can barely see over the hood of her car. And your solution is the majority's position, which is another case where the majority take away the rights of the minority; in this case, the elderly. You wouldn't ban hockey because the players MAY knock a puck out of the glass and kill someone, would you? No. Why? Because that's the risk people assume when they visit a game. The roads can be dangerous, and by driving on them you're assuming risk.

Third, once you open the door to government restrictions where do they end? First you needed a permit to drive. Then they made you wear a seat belt. Now you can't talk on your cell phone. Next you won't be able to change the radio station or talk while driving. All in the name of safety to prevent risk.

You support the death penalty, then? See, direpickle, this is a statist. He believes the state has the right to take your life as long as it can be proven to discourage murders.

HA... why do idealists always resort to such extreme examples?

No, it is not okay for the state to commit genocide in order to bring about the great society.

If it could be proven, however, that detainment until sobriety, and income appropriate fining reduced automotive fatalities, I would support that. In the case of murder, death is too light a sentence .


Third, once you open the door to government restrictions where do they end? First you needed a permit to drive. Then they made you wear a seat belt. Now you can't talk on your cell phone. Next you won't be able to change the radio station or talk while driving. All in the name of safety to prevent risk.

You draw the line where the cost of intervention outweighs the costs imposed by the unregulated marketplace. Part of this requires an understanding of "token" laws if you will. Texting while driving, for instance, is obviously stupid. Unfortunately people still do it, and die because of it all the time. As a result, many states have token laws banning it. Everyone knows it's damn near impossible to enforce, or at the very least it's not enforced. All it does is pass the message from the government to the people "trust us on this one, it's a dumb idea." Just putting the law on the books can be enough to get people's attention, and help the greater good. It doesn't ever even have to be brought up in court.

^I don't agree with the "greater good". I agree with the "individual good".

Read up on Liberalism. Don't let the Democrats fool you into thinking they're liberals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

Friend... I prefer Richard Von Mises. He believed in quantifying things. Also, I don't know why all you follow the church Milton Friedman when the man is a monetarist and compromised your one precious tenant, disavowal of the central bank. His represents the worst of both worlds.

I'm your good old progressive, Keynesian, statist swine, or whatever you want to call it.

You're a progressive, Keynesian, Statist swine. I like that.

I'm a liberal, Austrian Economics, Voluntarist bird. Let's get together and have a flu.

No. You're an idealist. Ideally we wouldn't have to do this... but people are dumb.

I'd agree about the get together, but I fear the risk of pandemic is too high. I'd prefer it if you stayed in your designated polyhedron.

A little bit of liberty given up for a bit of safety is reasonable...

Really? And yet when I asked you about people driving drunk with blindfolds on you just went on about how useless drunk driving laws where. Do you enjoy being deliberately difficult, or are you changing your position?

You also say that 0.08% is a ridiculous limit for a drunk driving law. I'm fine with questioning the degree of the law, if you are simply arguing that it should be closer to 0.80% than 0.08% that is a different discussion. Every post until now you have given the distinct impression than having any limit what so ever was absolutely unacceptable.

Perhaps I can get a bearing on where your coming from with a simple question. In regards to drunk driving, is there any blood alcohol level limit that you would consider an acceptable absolute maximum when police can arrest you and prevent you from driving?

Anyone notice the confederate flag front lic. plate replacement?

^As long as you feel you can drive, I don't think Blankfist gives a shit. For someone who mocks extremes as much as BF does, he certainly has no problem with extreme freedoms and extreme punishments. No gradient with people like him. Uniform laws are collectivist justice!

I equate Libertarian fools with the Canadian Green Party; as long as they understand their ideal society will never exist, they can wax philosophical until the cows come home.

And about that ^ Liberalism - the very article he links to credits John Locke with popularizing and articulating Liberalism. While John Locke had better ideas than most, he errs (egregiously) when he suggests it's ok to steal the Indians' land because they ain't doing nothing with it. For a man who talked so much about property, he sure was a hypocrite.

>> ^blankfist:
First, the current legal limit is ridiculously low. Anyone with a BAC of 0.08% isn't posing a threat to anyone, and it's simply a way to generate income for the state.

I tend to agree, but I haven't looked into the studies on this subject. It does appear too low currently.


Secondly, you're supposing the roads have to be a guaranteed safe environment.

Not really, I want a reasonable expectation that the other drivers on the road at least have the physical ability to operate a vehicle safely. Good drivers do have accidents because of mistakes, so until we automate our roadways there will be accidents (we could do it fairly soon, but it will take longer due to regulations and public support). If someone has too much alcohol in their system then they do not have that ability to be safe.



Let's take your grandmother for instance. As long as she doesn't harm anyone, I think she should be able to drive as long as she feels able. Why? Because your solution is she MAY hurt someone or herself because she's getting old and can barely see over the hood of her car.

She nearly ran over me twice and didn't realize it until I told her. She can't read road signs, nor can she see cars at enough distance to safely pull out onto a road. Several years back she did pull out in front of someone, resulting in a broken neck (she recovered). It wasn't until two years later that the DMV refused to renew her license. Unfortunately confidence is no measure of competence or correctness.

I don't think roads can be made completely safe while humans are controlling multi-ton high-speed machines, but we can remove the most obvious risks.


Third, once you open the door to government restrictions where do they end?

They end where we decide. It isn't "all or nothing". It's illegal to intentionally spread false information about others, but we aren't prohibited from criticizing the government or established religion. We can't have rocket launchers or WMDs, but we can have hunting rifles.

Government restrictions don't always move in one direction either. Certain people weren't allowed to vote in the past, but now they can. Marijuana is illegal, but I doubt it will always be that way.

Having no restrictions is just as extreme as having absolute restrictions... there is a middle ground where it is helpful but not oppressive. I think most speed limits are too low, but I can still get to my destination. Our system could use a lot of improvement, but I don't think driver licenses and vehicle registrations are terrible things.