The Philosophy of Drunk Driving

Originally Posted by Bradylama

But they're not keeping drunk drivers off the road. Police action can never be preventative, but reactionary.

Which explains the situation perfectly; in a free society, we deal with results and consequences, not intents and possibilities.

I have made the case against drunk driving laws, but also seatbelts and cell phones, which I think violate our right to drive. Of course, I'm also libertarian++.

Whoever said that driving was a 'privelege', not a right, please do read more about what makes a 'right' a right. The basic three rights (rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) incorporates a lot of other rights. From the comment you made, it sounds like you're liberal; you're using the same tactics conservatives use (There's no right to sodomy!).

Of course, there is a practical side of things and an idealistic side of things. While they are both equally important (ideas spur the actions, after all), we cannot do random actions if we wanted to make the US a more free society. Let me tell you: destroying income taxation right now would destroy our society. We need to work on other aspects, first.

Frankly, making drunk driving a non-issue by the government is pretty low on the list.

Still, it takes courage, sometimes, to acnowledge some of the absurdities in our society, even when unpopular, and I'm happy this article was written.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

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.

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.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by Bradylama

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

Actually, no. I don't agree with the concept of "freedom from ___". There are only "freedom of" rights, really. "Freedom from hunger", ack, ridiculous.

Quote:

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

Amazing considering you, what, read two paragraphs I wrote. If you mean I wasn't being a good libertarian, well, that's what I said from the beginning. If you mean I wasn't smart, well, your opinion. Maybe I'm being too nice in letting people online dictate to me my beliefs.

Quote:

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.

No, I'm not equating anything. Most libertarians I come across are. I make the point, perhaps, to someone not familiar that most libertarian party members are kind of crazy.

Curiously, are you a libertarian? You seem like it from virtually all of your posts (and quoting the Mises Institute) but you seem to mock it at the same time. But, you know, that might just be because mockery is big here.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.