Driving is a privilege. Seatbelt laws and possible cell phone bans only impenge on one's freedom to drive, but it doesn't classify as the violation of a right. In order for driving to be a right, it would have to be a positive one. I.E, you would be guaranteed the ability to drive irregardless of any past violations.

No it won't. Societies have always functioned without government. If income taxation were to be repealed, and revenues would have to be gained in other forms of taxation, then they would be allocated to the areas that have the highest demand, being utilities and law enforcement. Municipalities don't tax income, yet they're somehow capable of running sanitation, cleaning streets, and paying for police.

You aren't sounding like a very good Libertarian at this point.

Bradylama, my analogy specifically compared the preventative aspects of murder laws to the preventative aspects of drunk driving laws. I was responding what I perceive to be your general conclusion: if a law is not able to prevent the act from happening, then it is a bad law. I am merely pointing out that in general the conclusion does not hold regardless of whether the law is intended to prevent murder, drunk driving, or walking down the street. The analogy was meant to provide a counterexample to the general claim. If you do not think that you made such a claim, then I'm glad we are in agreement.

If someone is so inebrated that they cannot judge that driving drunk is probably not good for him, then I highly doubt that they are capable of obeying the traffic laws which they agreed to when they passed their drivers test. It's called gross negligence, and it doesn't matter what our intent was in that situation or not. I don't care if no one gets hurt or not, there should be laws against firing several hundred rounds into the air in the middle of New York on New Year's, even if their intent is only to celebrate the coming of the new year. Their actions are needlessly putting other people's lives in danger.

I don't think the argument assumes that it is the only reason. I am arguing that it is not a reason at all. If the behavior is detrimental to society, then we cannot sit back and do nothing, even if the current laws do not have the intended effect of preventing the act. The unsuccessfulness of the laws could prove just as easily that we just need better laws. It does not prove that we should just get rid of the laws outright. The only good reason I can think of to get rid of all DD laws is if drunk driving is not harmful. However, that very point is up for grabs, so talking about the effectiveness of the laws as preventative measures seems entirely irrelevent.

Your other examples, such as muscle soreness and fatigue while driving may therefore only prove that we needed to restrict those things, too (and I know for sure that fatigue is restricted to some degree). Even if we granted that all things that can impair driving must be restricted, that still doesn't prove that they all must be restricted to the same degree as drunk driving is. Until I see the numbers on how many people muscles soreness kills in car accidents every year, I am more hesitant to place as heavy-handed restrictions on it as we do on drunk driving.

I should have been more specific.

What I was really attacking was the concept that: that which is not a right can be regulated and destroyed as often as the government wants. Rights are positive and very broad; we have a right to liberty, not to walking down the street. That doesn't mean that walking down the street, however, should be unduly regulated in any way, which is why curfews are generally illegal.

I hate when people argue that because driving is not a right, but a privelge, our freedom to drive should be completely under the jurisdiction of whatever the hell the local (or federal) government wants from us.I have libertarian ideals; I don't prescribe to what the party wants.

Besides that, I also mean that income taxation being repealed would allow nothing but what a government should be funding. We live in a society where government does a whole lot more than what it should be doing. Repealing income taxation right now without other forms of taxation materializing (like, what was that damn fair tax, 28% sales tax?) we would be bankrupt in a heartbeat.

Like most libertarian-minded people, you seem to be forgetting the distinction between what is ideal and what is currently practical. I'm all for abolishing income taxation for obvious reasons; I'm not for doing it tomorrow and ignoring everything else. It is a problem that can and should be saved for the far-off future.

No, I understand them too. You can reduce the probability of car accidents by cracking down on drunken fools. I'm not saying drunk drivers are the only ones causing motor accidents, but there's enough of them on the road to make a difference.

As for probabilities, how high of a probability of someone/something getting hurt must we see before we restrict drunk driving?

In Germany, interestingly, it is illegal to run out of gas on the street. The police could arrest you for it (!) However, you ARE allowed to drive if you are drunk, as long as it is a reasonable driving. For example, you can consume like two glasses of beer and you would still be allowed to drive, however, don't drink a couple of glasses of vine because that wouldn't fall under the category of "reasonable" anymore, if you understand what I mean ^^

I didn't. Just because a law does not prevent behavior does not mean that its existance can't coincide with accepted norms of justice. It's like saying that capital punishment doesn't appreciably prevent crime, but may still be considered necessary as an implement of justice.

What I'm saying is that the idea that the law prevents crime is false.

However, driving while drunk, and firing into the air represent two different actions. If you shoot into the air, those bullets have to come down somewhere, and your actions represent a danger to people within a mile's radius. Driving drunk doesn't present any immediate danger, but driving wrecklessly does.

Also, because one has broken the law does not mean that they are incapable of acknowleging the fact that they have broken said law. For instance, if one is drunk and doesn't have a designated driver, one will feel compelled to drive himself regardless of the law. There's not much alternative in areas like mine where there aren't 24 hour taxi services. It may be an example of a lack of personal negligence, but doesn't represent an act of malice.

Not legislating against drunk driving isn't a case of "doing nothing" because the concerns of drunk driving are involving driving performance. Poor driving should still be legislated against, but drunk driving does not equate to poor driving performance as a rule.

The only way you could conceivably "do something" to prevent alcohol-related behavior is through prohibition of the substance in question, and a century of history regarding that measure has established its ineffectiveness.

That's a dangerous distinction to make when you're arguing for legislation, because it already admits that the actual impact of blood alcohol content is dependent on a case-by-case basis.

I'm also not saying that inebriation doesn't affect reflexes, but that lowered reflexes do not also discount the possibility of a drunk driver being capable of focusing on the surrounding conditions and anticipating an accident.

And yet, drunk drivers aren't the only ones running red lights. Drunk drivers aren't the only ones who have driven into oncoming traffic. You're arguing for the legislation of a condition that does not guarantee the negative action, instead of focusing on the action. Would it not be just as simple to charge drivers for the action and handle the severity of punishment depending on the context in which he performed said action? If people simply received harsher sentences for performing poorly while inebriated it would have the same net result.

I'm not saying that they should be on the road. What I'm saying is that when you make condition illegal instead of one's actions, you're basing laws on probabilities, irregardless of any actual danger that they pose. I think that's wrong, and I don't think it's a trend that should be encouraged, as is the case with cell phone usage.

You might as well also argue that the elderly shouldn't be able to drive because of the condition of being old. I understand that in the case of the elderly one's condition is not a matter of choice, but if we're legislating based on probabilities, society should be prepared for the likelihood of illegalising any number of behaviors based on condition, irregardless of choice.


TOO MUCH TALKING

No, rights are positive and negative. Negative rights guarantee that one's freedoms won't be infringed upon, while positive rights guarantee entitlement.

The Libertarian party is full of hacks, and to be honest I was being nice. You don't seem like a smart Libertarian.

You're also equating the desire to end something (income tax) with the ignorance of practical alternatives. No Libertarian other than market anarchists are actually advocating that the government should immediately cease taxing income without a shift to another system.

I agree with everything that woman above me just said but I have to ask a question in between: what is 0.08 what is the unit?

I just told you my issue and presented an alternative.

Axiom: if someone's set on doing (something illegal), no amount of legislation is going to stop them.

That is only halfway true since there is no higher type of legislation than your own conscience - which is by the way also the last instance - contrary to public belief - which will always still be able to stop you (even if the crime is just about to happen, there's still a chance your conscience will show the better side of yours). Of course, in most cases, the positive result is zero to none.

See, I like where this is going. Since there is no higher instance than your own conscience, why shouldn't laws be abolished altogether? If your own conscience doesn't stop you, what will?!

Additional Spam:
Of course, the problem with that idea is that laws aren't supposed to prevent shit in the first place, they're just a part of mechanism for isolating undesirable individuals from the rest of the society, am I right or am I right, guys?

The law isn't meant to be kind of an ultimative catalogue where you can find the answer to every question which is like "what am I allowed to do or not", "is what I am doing illegal or not" it is just an orientation. In fact, it is impossible for it to be like that since you will never encounter a situation where what you are doing can 100% be checked with the law. Eventually, it's only your conscience that tells you what you should do and what you shouldn't.

If I am drunk and sit into my vehicle, I might be not aware whether what I am doing is illegal or not. My conscience can tell me that I should not drive home now, though. Which means, in the end, your conscience can tell you what the law isn't able to.

Laws were and are made to avoid total chaos. Humanity would turn into anarchy without laws.

Anarchy isn't chaos, though chaos may be dependent upon anarchy. It's the difference between do-as-you-please, and do-as-you-should, in which one's actions are performed within the context of personal values and societal norms and taboos.

The NHTSA cites nearly 30 studies which say that it does.

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/inju...Laws-08BAC.pdf

Ah. So do you disagree with what the author of that article said, mainly "the law should deal in actions and actions alone, and only insofar as they damage person or property?" And, could you point my to what your second point is addressing?

The fact is, the largest plurality of motor deaths in our country belong to drunk driving incidents. Again, at what point is correlation between drunk driving and accidents considered high enough before we consider it to be harmful? If I am a cop and someone is so inebriated that they are having trouble walking straight, why should I have to wait for him to start driving recklessly before I have him arrested? Or should I wait for him to disobey some minor traffic violation, such as cutting in between lanes, and punish him for that small offense and only that small offense?

I'd like to know what your definition of a 'rule' is. There seems to be an awfully high correlation between driving drunk and reckless driving. How high does the correlation between driving drunk and reckless driving before we can see the former as a good sign of producing the latter?

I have to question the totality of those studies. How much can the drop in fatalities be attributed to the .08 laws as opposed to the License Revocation laws and public education efforts? What sociological efforts did they put into confirming that the .08 law was a direct cause? ALso, clearly, if you revoke licenses you're going to lower the amount of negligent drivers on the roads, and thus reduce fatality rates.

I do disagree, because there are actions which present a clear and immediate danger to lives and property. Improper use of a firearm, for instance.

The question of criminality shouldn't be relegated to damage to life and property, but should also extend to behavior that threatens the freedoms of others. Simply because somebody's freedom hasn't been violated does not mean that punitive actions shouldn't be taken.

As for the second part, I was addressing:

Even with the current laws in place, people shouldn't be arrested simply because they can't walk straight. They have to express intent to drive, and take appropriate actions to drive in order to justify an arrest.

To clarify, yes, I do believe that if an officer is aware of a drunk driver, he should wait for the driver to commit an infringement. At which point, the driver can then be issued a punishment in accordance to the severity of the crime, which is in this case violating traffic laws while intoxicated. The actual law being broken is the traffic one, but the severity of the punishment is dependent upon the context in which the crime was commited. I feel that's a reasonable compromise.

In the end my argument represents a compromise between greater freedoms and security or the illusion of it. I can understand if society places a higher value on its general safety than greater freedoms, but I have to disagree in principle.

If every drunk driver was involved in a crash, then I would be supportive of BAC laws. As it stands, though, I think it's an impossible figure to measure, because you would first need to get people to admit that they've broken the law and allow themselves to be monitored while they're breaking it.

This thing you're doing. Stop it. No, don't argue, just stop it right now.

why it doesn't seem to occur to you that drunks avoid accidents by chance, I don't know.

Do you often just dismiss sources that disagree with you a priori? Why don't you read their research methodology, and then come back and complain about how incomprehensive they are.

And then, after they break a small traffic infraction, you book them for that small traffic infraction and send them on their way like you would any other violator? Or do we have to wait for someone to get hurt or killed before we actually charge them? And that would make our drunk driving accidents per year numbers go down...how?

Wow. That's messed up. I'm really sorry for wasting my time in this conversation.

It's been my understanding that laws are generally put into place to prevent undesired behaviours. This is accomplished by making the punishment for being caught high enough to disuade people from doing it.

The notion that one's drunkeness has to be measured on a case-by-case basis instead of the baseline already established only makes it easier to put people at risk. The broad enforcement of laws instead of a case-by-case interpretation makes law enforcement much more feasible in general. It may not always feel fair, or right, but it is a practical solution.

I agree that driving drunk only increases your odds of driving poorly, instead of being a one-way trip to an accident, it is still practical to outlaw it. If I feel that I can reach around to grab something from the backseat and steer with my butt, doesn't guarantee that I'll be in an accident, but I shouldn't be allowed to just give it a shot. What about driving with my eyes closed? I mean, I might make it, right?

So while, in an abstract way, I like the idea of having the kind of freedom suggested by Bradylama in this thread, I don't think it'd work out for the best. Society on the whole has decided that it wasn't worth the risk, hence the laws governing it. And I like the alternative presented in judging all trafic cases with a heavy modifier for one's being drunk or not, it'd be hard to argue for. Instead of the catch-all 'no drunk driving' situation, we'd have the jail-time *if* you get caught situation. I propose that unless the penalty for being charged with having done X while driving drunk is extremely high (15 years prison time?), the catch-all solution would do more to prevent incidents.

It's funny, I kinda like the argument about firing into the sky. I mean, there is a chance that you won't hit anyone/anything that isn't yours, right? It's just a case of probabilities.

I didn't notice anything in the report that hinted at their methodology, unless you expect me to root through thirty different studies.

Are you just selectively ignoring what I'm saying or what?

Fuck you too.

Essentially, so is reckless driving. The difference between drunk driving, reckless driving, and the bullets, however, is that drunk driving only increases the likelihood of there being a danger. With bad driving and the bullets, though, the danger is immediate.

Considering you had questions about their methodology, what they controlled for etc yes you are expected to look past the abstract first. Unless you're in the 'google is hard' camp.

stop doing this thing that which you are doing

I guess my time is too precious to research for other people's arguments. How will internet debate survive this!? :(