To Protect and to Serve...

Status
Not open for further replies.
#7,226
#7,226
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
Just look at what the market is capable of if we just get government out of the way.

Uber breathalyzer kiosk keeps drunk drivers off the road | Digital Trends
Click to expand...

I don't see this as having any bearing on your argument. I think it's an awesome idea (though I agree it likely won't stay free for long) but it's not going to remove the laws about DUI off the books. Which seems to be your main challenge. But you keep saying DUI laws are an arbitrary number. They aren't though.

You are correct it's a controversial subject. Same thing with speed limits. I agree many of the Interstates could be (maybe should be) speed limit free except in zones that are proven to be hazardous at high rates of speed. But other areas should be controlled and zoned. Residential or business areas. Areas that are known to have high concentrations of pedestrian traffic. School zones. Places like that. The problem is picking which roads could or should be speed free and those that shouldn't be. Which in turn means more laws on the books which you'd love.
 
#7,227
#7,227
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
You know me, I'll punch my way out of the corner.

It's voluntary and involuntary. Big differences between the two.

For the record, the foreman voluntarily went to the pulpit. lol
Click to expand...

What if he would have said, **** you, I am going back to my station? In your anarchistic world, would you have allowed that?
 
#7,228
#7,228
SpaceCoastVol said:
I am talking about your utopian wet dream. I freely acknowledge that the current system is deeply flawed. Yours, like communism assumes that everyone will row in the same direction. That's ludicrous.

I didn't look at your link, but I see what it is. The problem is that a human being has... to... use... it. But in your world, it is no big deal if he gets behind the wheel drunk anyway until he kills someone, then it matters.

My argument is not flawed. Yours is silly.
Click to expand...

So it's a utopian wet dream to have control over your own life? Make your own choices as well as live with them?

I'd think the true utopian is the person who believes he can put all the guns and control in the hands of a few and tell them to limit themselves. I.e. The current system.

No system is perfect. I've never claimed that ancap theory is without flaws. We want law we want order. We just want to voluntarily participate in things of our own choosing i.e. An actual free market, where people have a choice and aren't forced to participate in things they don't believe in. Perhaps even have communities designed to fit your own lifestyle, who knows.
 
#7,229
#7,229
Grand Vol said:
I don't see this as having any bearing on your argument. I think it's an awesome idea (though I agree it likely won't stay free for long) but it's not going to remove the laws about DUI off the books. Which seems to be your main challenge. But you keep saying DUI laws are an arbitrary number. They aren't though.

You are correct it's a controversial subject. Same thing with speed limits. I agree many of the Interstates could be (maybe should be) speed limit free except in zones that are proven to be hazardous at high rates of speed. But other areas should be controlled and zoned. Residential or business areas. Areas that are known to have high concentrations of pedestrian traffic. School zones. Places like that. The problem is picking which roads could or should be speed free and those that shouldn't be. Which in turn means more laws on the books which you'd love.
Click to expand...

It was an example of the market providing a peaceful solution to a problem. Instead of government force.

As far as communities and areas of high pedestrian traffic, that can be controlled with speed bumps and other such measures.
 
#7,234
#7,234
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
It was an example of the market providing a peaceful solution to a problem. Instead of government force.

As far as communities and areas of high pedestrian traffic, that can be controlled with speed bumps and other such measures.
Click to expand...

The market offered an alternative, a voluntary choice if you will, for driving intoxicated. It's still on the individual to take them at their offer. It doesn't change the penalties or current laws concerning DUIs. In fact, the argument could be made that those laws increase Uber profits since people make a choice to use them rather than drive drunk. Now if there were no DUI laws, people might ignore the Uber free ride and drive drunk. So my case would be that government actually directly helped the commercial sector in this case.

And I'll disagree with speed bumps and such devices being effective at controlling speeds. Some folks just don't care how much their suspension gets torn up as they speed away. But I'm also looking at it from a safety aspect. Take I-40 going into North Carolina. If someone was to be speeding and crashes against that wall, it certainly could cause additional problems like rock slides. Or massive pile ups since there are a lot of blind turns. Sure I-40 west of Cookeville is a straight shot that could go unlimited. But around the I-40/65/24 interchange in Nashville? That's a dangerous area to go plowing through at 100 MPH. Which people do all the time I know, but dangerous nonetheless.
 
#7,235
#7,235
To hell with it. I give up! Good lord people, do you really have that much dependence on the government that you honestly think the laws and their enforcers will be there to save you?
Here is the reality, bad things happen to good people every day. That's life. No matter how many liberty killing laws you enact, people will still die on the roads, they'll still be shot, the world is a horrible violent place, we should just enjoy our given time here. In actuality were helpless to prevent anything.
So instead of crying about muh roads or muh laws take a big swig of man the **** up and live your life. The government can't and won't save you.
 
#7,236
#7,236
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
Legalize Drunk Driving - Beautiful Anarchy

Perhaps you'll read it, perhaps you won't.
Click to expand...

Here's the problem I have with the article (yeah, I read it)

The author is incorrect in assuming it's entirely on the alcohol levels of the bloodstream. It is, but it is not. The impairment is based on your reaction times and ability to operate said vehicle. Blood in the alcohol will decrease reaction times. Furthermore, concentration is not as high as it should be. Cars will wander over the center line (I saw he addressed that later) or stay at a stop light too long. Or inconsistent speed. Or wide turns into the other lanes. Here's almost verbatim the NHTSA clues used to pull over suspected DWI drivers:

DUIs: What Are the Visual Cues? | DrivingLaws.org

If you care to peruse that link and tell me which of those you have a problem with. Or what your An-Cap link would have a problem with.

Here's another problem I have:

The best prevention against unsafe driving from drinking has been provided privately: friends, services offered by bars and restaurants, community interest groups, etc. This is the humane and rational way societies deal with social risks. The police have only messed up this process by adding a coercive element that targets liberty rather than crime.
Click to expand...

The author is correct by saying these items have decreased driving intoxicated. Here's the problem with that theory though...

These things only came about because penalties for DUI got tougher. You think back twenty years or more, the laws weren't that tough. You heard of guys going on their 5th or more DUI. Never served a day in jail. Some even destroyed property in the process. Yet they kept doing it. So the idea of the community/private sector helping out only came about because of the tougher laws. People weren't going to stop driving intoxicated because people offered them a ride. They did it because they made a choice between increased penalties for DUI or giving up the keys.

Love your An-Cap articles. "Grudge" isn't the term I'd use with DUI lol And I'll disagree that texting shouldn't be illegal behind the wheel. Talking? Really? Do most of those articles make such a huge leap to absurdity over little things? "Jamming a needle in an arm" is another completely absurd comment.

You post links to educate us, but when someone in the know reads them, I find it hard to actually take most of the ideas seriously when they get ridiculous.
 
#7,237
#7,237
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
To hell with it. I give up! Good lord people, do you really have that much dependence on the government that you honestly think the laws and their enforcers will be there to save you?
Here is the reality, bad things happen to good people every day. That's life. No matter how many liberty killing laws you enact, people will still die on the roads, they'll still be shot, the world is a horrible violent place, we should just enjoy our given time here. In actuality were helpless to prevent anything.
So instead of crying about muh roads or muh laws take a big swig of man the **** up and live your life. The government can't and won't save you.
Click to expand...

Good grief. Take a swig of calm the **** down dude. We're having a reasonable talk here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#7,238
#7,238
Grand Vol said:
Here's the problem I have with the article (yeah, I read it)

The author is incorrect in assuming it's entirely on the alcohol levels of the bloodstream. It is, but it is not. The impairment is based on your reaction times and ability to operate said vehicle. Blood in the alcohol will decrease reaction times. Furthermore, concentration is not as high as it should be. Cars will wander over the center line (I saw he addressed that later) or stay at a stop light too long. Or inconsistent speed. Or wide turns into the other lanes. Here's almost verbatim the NHTSA clues used to pull over suspected DWI drivers:

DUIs: What Are the Visual Cues? | DrivingLaws.org

If you care to peruse that link and tell me which of those you have a problem with. Or what your An-Cap link would have a problem with.

Here's another problem I have:



The author is correct by saying these items have decreased driving intoxicated. Here's the problem with that theory though...

These things only came about because penalties for DUI got tougher. You think back twenty years or more, the laws weren't that tough. You heard of guys going on their 5th or more DUI. Never served a day in jail. Some even destroyed property in the process. Yet they kept doing it. So the idea of the community/private sector helping out only came about because of the tougher laws. People weren't going to stop driving intoxicated because people offered them a ride. They did it because they made a choice between increased penalties for DUI or giving up the keys.

Love your An-Cap articles. "Grudge" isn't the term I'd use with DUI lol And I'll disagree that texting shouldn't be illegal behind the wheel. Talking? Really? Do most of those articles make such a huge leap to absurdity over little things? "Jamming a needle in an arm" is another completely absurd comment.

You post links to educate us, but when someone in the know reads them, I find it hard to actually take most of the ideas seriously when they get ridiculous.
Click to expand...

The author is simply trying to explain where this is leading. Oh, people die because they're distracted while texting? Make a law for it. That's all we ever get, another law. It's ridiculous to think that any law can prevent things from happening.
This is simply reactionary legislation. Police are charged with enforcing these unenforceable laws, so what do they do? Sobriety checkpoints, or random stops, which are really just fishing expeditions looking for a more severe "crime"

At what point do we stop and ask ourselves, have we sacrificed liberty to have the illusion of security? The legal code in this country is something like 180,000 pages long. When is enough, enough?
There were checkpoints here in Alabama where the cops were out collecting DNA samples. (Horrible thought with the local populace) it was voluntary but when will it be mandatory? Do you understand what I'm saying? It's what's coming, the encroaching state, ever in our lives all for the sake of "safety" it's ridiculous at best.
 
#7,239
#7,239
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
To hell with it. I give up! Good lord people, do you really have that much dependence on the government that you honestly think the laws and their enforcers will be there to save you?
Here is the reality, bad things happen to good people every day. That's life. No matter how many liberty killing laws you enact, people will still die on the roads, they'll still be shot, the world is a horrible violent place, we should just enjoy our given time here. In actuality were helpless to prevent anything.
So instead of crying about muh roads or muh laws take a big swig of man the **** up and live your life. The government can't and won't save you.
Click to expand...

You are lost
 
#7,242
#7,242
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
The author is simply trying to explain where this is leading. Oh, people die because they're distracted while texting? Make a law for it. That's all we ever get, another law. It's ridiculous to think that any law can prevent things from happening.
This is simply reactionary legislation. Police are charged with enforcing these unenforceable laws, so what do they do? Sobriety checkpoints, or random stops, which are really just fishing expeditions looking for a more severe "crime"

At what point do we stop and ask ourselves, have we sacrificed liberty to have the illusion of security? The legal code in this country is something like 180,000 pages long. When is enough, enough?
There were checkpoints here in Alabama where the cops were out collecting DNA samples. (Horrible thought with the local populace) it was voluntary but when will it be mandatory? Do you understand what I'm saying? It's what's coming, the encroaching state, ever in our lives all for the sake of "safety" it's ridiculous at best.
Click to expand...

I understand that, but the supposition he is making does not fit what is actually against the law. He avoids talking about the fact that impaired and distracted drivers are a very real threat to other drivers. Both life and property are at risk. And without the precognitive sense to figure out whether or not a driver may or may not make it home, the police cannot risk allowing someone to continue. Call it statist if you want, but the ounce of prevention in this case is would a ton of cure. Because whether or not restitution in the form of insurance money is given to the family of a victim, it's still not going to bring them back to life. Society demanded tougher penalties because drivers were going on their fifth, sixth and tenth DUI, not politicians. And I doubt you're going to get many people out there to agree that DUI laws are too strict. The methods in detecting them perhaps, but not the end result.

I agree with you that DUI checkpoints are going too far. I don't agree or believe in them. Mainly because as soon as one goes up, everyone knows where it is and avoids it. But it ties up a significant amount of officers and hence negating the patrol presence that would normally be out. And furthermore, the stop is not based on probable cause at that point. Which should negate the entire case had the Supreme Court not decided it was okay. A decision I don't feel was appropriate.

I see what you're saying, but we're not getting an encroachment of our rights by making penalties of DUI stricter. You fight it on the front end in the detection methods used by officers. Which we could debate. And I might even agree with you. But if we used the standard NHTSA guidelines (in the link I provided if you care to look) you will see the actions that lead to the stop are very valid. And could be hazardous to others.

And I don't know why they would take DNA in Alabama. One swab should be enough to cover at least 20% of the population.
 
#7,244
#7,244
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
There are no good cops. Only bad cops and silent cops. It's the profession I rail against, not the individual. I have always cited discretion as the most valuable tool available to the cop outside of his defense weapons.

Are good people cops? Sure, but these people still use threats of violence and outright violence at times to enforce "laws"
Click to expand...

Brother you're out there...... Way out there....just past La La Land
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#7,246
#7,246
The DUI issue is just an example of a greater problem. Americans will give up our rights at the drop of a hat. I don't agree with driving drunk personally, but I'm not naive enough to think laws will save me either.

Is it a stupid stance to take? Probably, but where else do we draw the line? The patriot act basically made the 4th amendment null and void. Even though some provisions were found to be against the 4th a week or so ago, congress reauthorized the patriot act in it's entirety just the other day.
Where do we turn? Call our reps? Lmao vote? Lmao
We've turned into a nation of lemmings all to quick to say "if you're not doing anything wrong, what do you have to worry about?"
It's sickening man, sickening.
 
#7,248
#7,248
SpaceCoastVol said:
I am talking about your utopian wet dream. I freely acknowledge that the current system is deeply flawed. Yours, like communism assumes that everyone will row in the same direction. That's ludicrous.

I didn't look at your link, but I see what it is. The problem is that a human being has... to... use... it. But in your world, it is no big deal if he gets behind the wheel drunk anyway until he kills someone, then it matters.

My argument is not flawed. Yours is silly.
Click to expand...

You can't prevent crimes from being committed or evil from harming the innocent. Yet, you are of the belief that the more we try to legislate, the better the world will be.
 
New posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement





Back
Top