The Philosophy of 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 ^^

How ya doing, buddy?

Quote:

If you do not think that you made such a claim, then I'm glad we are in agreement.

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

Someone intoxicated reacts much more slowly to incidents. This isn't debatable, this is fact. And by intoxicated I mean whatever level of alcohol begins to affect them individually, not just >0.08.

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.

Quote:

They're a danger to everyone that's the point. So do I need to point out obvious things like drunk drivers running red lights? Or having their perceptions impaired so that they crash right into oncoming traffic?

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.

Quote:

No, people are more likely to fuck up driving drunk. So it's more probable they'll be in a fatal accident. That's why they shouldn't be on the road.

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

Quote:

Rights are positive and very broad

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

Quote:

I have libertarian ideals; I don't prescribe to what the party wants.

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.

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

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 am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Quote:

I really don't see your issue here. It's not a matter of probability at this point, it's a matter of lives at stake due to drunk drivers.

I just told you my issue and presented an alternative.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

If someone is set on driving while high on a substance, no amount of legislation is going to stop them.

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

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

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.

FELIPE NO

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?

Most amazing jew boots

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

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.

Most amazing jew boots

Quote:

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

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

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

Quote:

Bradylama:
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.

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?

Quote:

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.

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?

Most amazing jew boots

Quote:

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

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.

Quote:

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?

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:

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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?

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.

Quote:

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?

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.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Yes, reaction times do help accident avoidance, but it also doesn't mean that the intoxicated are incapable of reacting to and avoiding a possible accident.

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.

How ya doing, buddy?

Quote:

Bradylama:
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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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?

Quote:

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.

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

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

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.

FELIPE NO

Quote:

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.

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

Quote:

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?

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

Quote:

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

Fuck you too.

Quote:

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.

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.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Bradylama

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

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

Jam it back in, in the dark.

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

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Really interesting argument. Honestly. But thinking it over, I have to disagree.


I don't see what's wrong about forcing people to avoid seriously courting danger for others. It is money-and-life saving pragmatism. It is illegal to put yourself in a situation where there's a damn good chance you'll kill someone else - tough shit.

You can't fly a plane untrained because there's a good chance you'll fuck up and kill someone - even if you inist "you can handle it." You can't build an unsafe bridge and wait for the collapse to get charged. You can't place a loaded gun in your nursery and let negligence charges wait until a child successfully shoots themselves.

The hazardous situation doesn't have to manifest itself to be wrong - wrong enough to legistlate against, if it's dangerous enough.

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

I actually think you can put a loaded gun in a nursery and wouldn't get charged unless someone got hurt or killed.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Bradylama

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.

Drunk driving = bad driving.

If you chose to drive recklessly (criminally recklessly), you'll be charged. If you drive drunk, you are driving recklessly even if you don't feel it to be so. It's a seperate charge, but same principle applies.

I don't see how one can support the freedom to drive drunk without also supporting driving with blatant disregard to other's safety.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Because possessing a blood alcohol content above a .08 does not make one a reckless driver. I can only repeat this so many times before I wonder if any of you are listening. BAC can only ever raise the likelihood of one being a danger to others, it doesn't act as a guarantee.

Quote:

The hazardous situation doesn't have to manifest itself to be wrong

Yeah, it sort of does. If there is no danger, then what harm or potential harm is there being commited?

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

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.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Hachifusa

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

You mean like the right to bear arms, the freedom of speech, and the freedom from unreasonable searches?

Quote:

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.

I'm not dictating your beliefs, I'm just telling you that you're wrong.

Quote:

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.

Most libertarians aren't even party members. Libertarians with a capital L refer to a rank and file, while libertarians are merely ideologues that usually vote republican.

Quote:

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.

I am, but there are crazy libertarians like there are crazy liberals and conservatives. In his New Year's Resolution for 1976, Murray Rothbard wished that the survivalist and free soiler libertarians would actually go off and live in the mountains or start their own country so that they wouldn't be a part of the movement that actually wanted to change things in the real world.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Bradylama

It's an interesting distinction to make, though, when you think about it. In any case, the result of a mansluaghter is going to be a dead person, and no amount of punishment would bring them back. Whether inebriated, fatigued, or unattentive, all cases of manslaughter are tied back to incidences of negligence. Why should it matter if the driver is drowsed or generally incompetent?

I can still see a justification for this sort of thing, however. It's an added punishment to curtail preventable accidents.

I don't know if the point I'm trying to make is clear, though. Yes, it seems wrong that two people making the same mistake and causing the same problem (i.e., a fatal car accident) should get different sentences. But considering one of them made a bad choice which could have prevented the accident, it does make sense to have an additional disincentive for willingly making a choice that causes high risk to others.

Economically speaking, it's an externality. Drunk drivers are more likely to incur a cost to others (in addition to themselves). A penalty for drunk driving works to shift the cost of that externality back to its source. Of course, whether or not it actually works is entirely debatable.

Additional Spam:

Originally Posted by Bradylama

I am, but there are crazy libertarians like there are crazy liberals and conservatives. In his New Year's Resolution for 1976, Murray Rothbard wished that the survivalist and free soiler libertarians would actually go off and live in the mountains or start their own country so that they wouldn't be a part of the movement that actually wanted to change things in the real world.

Let's not forget Stan Jones.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Because possessing a blood alcohol content above a .08 does not make one a reckless driver. I can only repeat this so many times before I wonder if any of you are listening. BAC can only ever raise the likelihood of one being a danger to others, it doesn't act as a guarantee.

People who are hot for child porn are at a greater degree of becoming future kiddy-touchers, although it's not a guarentee.

You need to stop this now. I don't know what you think you're doing, but it needs to be put out of its misery.

Additional Spam:

Originally Posted by Bradylama

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

Your time is too precious to read a study or two, but you have enough time to raise a tempest in a teacup over the tyranny of drunk driving laws.

I keep telling you to stop why aren't you listening to me. I only have your best interests in mind, now that it's obvious you're operating under the influence of hysterics.

There's nowhere I can't reach.