The Philosophy of Drunk Driving

Should drunk driving be illegal? Not according to Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

Quote:

http://www.mises.org/story/2343

In November 2000, Clinton signed a bill passed by Congress that ordered the states to adopt new, more onerous drunk-driving standards or face a loss of highway funds. That's right: the old highway extortion trick. Sure enough, states passed new, tighter laws against Driving Under the Influence, responding as expected to the feds' ransom note.

The feds have declared that a blood-alcohol level of 0.08 percent and above is criminal and must be severely punished. The National Restaurant Association is exactly right that this is absurdly low. The overwhelming majority of accidents related to drunk driving involve repeat offenders with blood-alcohol levels twice that high. If a standard of 0.1 doesn't deter them, then a lower one won't either.

But there's a more fundamental point. What precisely is being criminalized? Not bad driving. Not destruction of property. Not the taking of human life or reckless endangerment. The crime is having the wrong substance in your blood. Yet it is possible, in fact, to have this substance in your blood, even while driving, and not commit anything like what has been traditionally called a crime.

What have we done by permitting government to criminalize the content of our blood instead of actions themselves? We have given it power to make the application of the law arbitrary, capricious, and contingent on the judgment of cops and cop technicians. Indeed, without the government's "Breathalyzer," there is no way to tell for sure if we are breaking the law.

Sure, we can do informal calculations in our head, based on our weight and the amount of alcohol we have had over some period of time. But at best these will be estimates. We have to wait for the government to administer a test to tell us whether or not we are criminals. That's not the way law is supposed to work. Indeed, this is a form of tyranny.

Now, the immediate response goes this way: drunk driving has to be illegal because the probability of causing an accident rises dramatically when you drink. The answer is just as simple: government in a free society should not deal in probabilities. The law should deal in actions and actions alone, and only insofar as they damage person or property. Probabilities are something for insurance companies to assess on a competitive and voluntary basis.

This is why the campaign against "racial profiling" has intuitive plausibility to many people: surely a person shouldn't be hounded solely because some demographic groups have higher crime rates than others. Government should be preventing and punishing crimes themselves, not probabilities and propensities. Neither, then, should we have driver profiling, which assumes that just because a person has quaffed a few he is automatically a danger.

In fact, driver profiling is worse than racial profiling, because the latter only implies that the police are more watchful, not that they criminalize race itself. Despite the propaganda, what's being criminalized in the case of drunk driving is not the probability that a person driving will get into an accident but the fact of the blood-alcohol content itself. A drunk driver is humiliated and destroyed even when he hasn't done any harm.

Of course, enforcement is a serious problem. A sizeable number of people leaving a bar or a restaurant would probably qualify as DUI. But there is no way for the police to know unless they are tipped off by a swerving car or reckless driving in general. But the question becomes: why not ticket the swerving or recklessness and leave the alcohol out of it? Why indeed.

To underscore the fact that it is some level of drinking that is being criminalized, government sets up these outrageous, civil-liberties-violating barricades that stop people to check their blood – even when they have done nothing at all. This is a gross attack on liberty that implies that the government has and should have total control over us, extending even to the testing of intimate biological facts. But somehow we put up with it because we have conceded the first assumption that government ought to punish us for the content of our blood and not just our actions.

There are many factors that cause a person to drive poorly. You may have sore muscles after a weight-lifting session and have slow reactions. You could be sleepy. You could be in a bad mood, or angry after a fight with your spouse. Should the government be allowed to administer anger tests, tiredness tests, or soreness tests? That is the very next step, and don't be surprised when Congress starts to examine this question.

Already, there's a move on to prohibit cell phone use while driving. Such an absurdity follows from the idea that government should make judgments about what we are allegedly likely to do.

What's more, some people drive more safely after a few drinks, precisely because they know their reaction time has been slowed and they must pay more attention to safety. We all know drunks who have an amazing ability to drive perfectly after being liquored up. They should be liberated from the force of the law, and only punished if they actually do something wrong.

We need to put a stop to this whole trend now. Drunk driving should be legalized. And please don't write me to say: "I am offended by your insensitivity because my mother was killed by a drunk driver." Any person responsible for killing someone else is guilty of manslaughter or murder and should be punished accordingly. But it is perverse to punish a murderer not because of his crime but because of some biological consideration, e.g. he has red hair.

Bank robbers may tend to wear masks, but the crime they commit has nothing to do with the mask. In the same way, drunk drivers cause accidents but so do sober drivers, and many drunk drivers cause no accidents at all. The law should focus on violations of person and property, not scientific oddities like blood content.

There's a final point against Clinton's drunk-driving bill. It is a violation of states rights. Not only is there is no warrant in the Constitution for the federal government to legislate blood-alcohol content – the 10th amendment should prevent it from doing so. The question of drunk driving should first be returned to the states, and then each state should liberate drunk drivers from the force of the law.

To be honest, I have to agree. The government has no place telling us what we can or can't put into our blood. It's essentially along the same lines as giving harsher penalties for "hate crimes."

Jam it back in, in the dark.

The difference between degrees of murder and manslaughter is not the crime itself, but the intent and the cause of the crime.

Similarly, a person who drives drunk receives a harsher punishment than someone who doesn't drive drunk but does the same harm.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Should drunk driving be illegal? Not according to Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

:words:

To be honest, I have to agree. The government has no place telling us what we can or can't put into our blood. It's essentially along the same lines as giving harsher penalties for "hate crimes."

The government does not tell us that we can and can not put in our blood regarding alcohol - it tells us what we can and can not do while intoxicated by said substance. We can sit at home and enjoy a bottle of wine with no trouble whatsoever, provided we harm none.

Your perspective (which you share with Rockwell) could extend to many, many more substances. Be careful what you wish for.

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

Quote:

The government does not tell us that we can and can not put in our blood regarding alcohol - it tells us what we can and can not do while intoxicated by said substance. We can sit at home and enjoy a bottle of wine with no trouble whatsoever, provided we harm none.

They essentially are telling us what we can or can't put in our blood, it's just that in this specific case they're tying it to a behavior, being driving, irregardless of the actual performance of said driver.

Well, clearly if people can't drive when they're high on PCP, they should also be pulled over and ticketed or arrested.

Current drinking laws aren't doing much to curtail instances of substance use and driving than they couldn't without a culture shift as we've seen with all of the beer commercials telling us to set a designated driver.

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

Quote:

Similarly, a person who drives drunk receives a harsher punishment than someone who doesn't drive drunk but does the same harm.

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?

If somebody commits manslaughter while sober, are they not after all a constant danger to everyone around them?

I understand the cultural distinctions, I'm just saying that they don't mean jack shit.

In the end, being drunk is a liability no different from any other. Looking at it statistically, red cars are involved in the most accidents. Should we ban red cars?

Most amazing jew boots

Quote:

So taking someone into custody while they're inebriated isn't a good enough preventative measure?

No, it really isn't. The very nature of inebriation is that you aren't making the same kind of judgements you would when you're sober, so a drunk who intends to drive isn't likely to be concerned about the law.

Quote:

Except alcohol directly affects the motor skills of most people.

True, and it was a bad example to use. Plenty of factors have direct impact on one's motor skills, however, such as being fatigued or as was mentioned in the article, having sore muscles. Is it honestly that drunk driving is the only thing which possesses a stigma, or is it impossible to profile those kinds of drivers?

If you've noticed the recent ad campaigns against drunk driving, they're not appealing to the safety risk one causes, but fear of police action.

Most amazing jew boots

Quote:

True, and it was a bad example to use. Plenty of factors have direct impact on one's motor skills, however, such as being fatigued or as was mentioned in the article, having sore muscles. Is it honestly that drunk driving is the only thing which possesses a stigma, or is it impossible to profile those kinds of drivers?

So because we can't easily incriminate all negative influences we shouldn't incriminate any?

Quote:

If you've noticed the recent ad campaigns against drunk driving, they're not appealing to the safety risk one causes, but fear of police action.

That's because such techniques are far more effective at deterring drunk driving.

The Government has an obligation to keep the populace safe. Keeping drunk drivers off the road is an obvious part of that.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Bradylama

They essentially are telling us what we can or can't put in our blood, it's just that in this specific case they're tying it to a behavior, being driving, irregardless of the actual performance of said driver.

Driving is a privilege, not a right, and as such they do reserve the right to limit what we can or cannot do while exercising this privilege.

FELIPE NO

Staying on the traffic topic...

We have red lights, and it is illegal to run a red light. A police officer could pull you over for that. But what if you run a red light and don't hurt anyone? I mean, the law that a person must stop at a red light is not necessarily going to lead to someone not being injured. It is a preventative law.

So, we make it legal to run red lights and only prosecute people when their action causes a wreck.

Sound plausible?

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

Quote:

Article:
Now, the immediate response goes this way: drunk driving has to be illegal because the probability of causing an accident rises dramatically when you drink. The answer is just as simple: government in a free society should not deal in probabilities. The law should deal in actions and actions alone, and only insofar as they damage person or property. Probabilities are something for insurance companies to assess on a competitive and voluntary basis.

In even the most charitable reading, the author is guilty of sloppy language. By his words, we cannot punish a terrorist for attempting to blow up a building if he fails because we can only punish "insofar as he damages person or property". Even if we reassert some sort of criterion for intent into the proposition, he provides no argument for his conclusion, and the conclusion is disputable. What can be asserted with no evidence can be denied with no evidence.

There seems to be a place for punishing gross negligence in our laws. These blood-alcohol content laws seem to be a way of defining what is negligent enough to be blameworthy.

Quote:

Bradylama:
No, it really isn't. The very nature of inebriation is that you aren't making the same kind of judgements you would when you're sober, so a drunk who intends to drive isn't likely to be concerned about the law.

If he is unable to make a good judgement about obeying drunk driving laws, then I wonder if he will have the same disrespect for traffic laws.

Quote:

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

Since you didn't state your conclusion, I am assuming that you want to say, "therefore, there should be no legislation against drunk driving".

When we say that someone is 'intent on doing x', we seem to be saying that nothing will stop them from doing x by the very definition of the word 'intent'. So what? If I am intent on killing Sally, does that mean that we cannot legislate against intending to kill people? Why is driving drunk a special case?

Quote:

Current drinking laws aren't doing much to curtail instances of substance use and driving than they couldn't without a culture shift as we've seen with all of the beer commercials telling us to set a designated driver.

Current murder laws are not working in my home city of St. Louis, which was recently rated as the most dangerous city in the United States. Does that mean that we should abandon our murder laws, too? The number of murders in east St. Louis will not drop without a culture shift, either. But that doesn't mean that the laws should be dropped. What is the different between St. Louis' murder laws and current drunk driving laws?

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Your last point is illogical because murder laws are not made by design to prevent the act, but to punish the act.


That seems to be the main point hinged on the article (although I agree with the point about state's rights), that the law should not be allowed to have preventative measures in it, that we should only make harm illegal and not the causes of harm.

I wonder what the author's view on conspiracy to commit ____ is (even though that has the added intent of harm, while you can't say the same for drunk driving).

There's nowhere I can't reach.

It's probably something that the author wasn't thinking about, because the subject was drunk driving, which doesn't represent the intent to destroy or damage life and/or property. I don't think anybody would be so unreasonable as to say that if you have evidence of conspiracy to break the law, that the persons engaged in that conspiracy shouldn't be charged with conspiracy to commit _____.

Quote:

So because we can't easily incriminate all negative influences we shouldn't incriminate any?

Pretty much, yeah. Simply being drunk does not make one a danger to others, despite the impact on their motor skills. It's honestly a case-by-case basis, and the argument presented in the article is that it's wrong to excercise police power in order to punish those that may not actually be representing a danger.

There's another problem to this that hasn't been considered, which is that the severity of a crime doesn't have to be ruled out in sentencing. There's nothing stopping a judge or jury from issuing harsher sentences based on context, such as the offender being inebriated, it's just that legislating inebriation itself is wrong when the driver hasn't actually commited any infringements upon the freedoms of others.

Quote:

That's because such techniques are far more effective at deterring drunk driving.

The Government has an obligation to keep the populace safe. Keeping drunk drivers off the road is an obvious part of that.

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

I also think that using fear in order to encourage observance of the law runs counter to the principles of a free society. I mean, have you seen these commercials? The drivers aren't portrayed as violating any traffic laws, the message is that you will get ticketed for drunk driving. Not that you may depending on your driving performance, but that the police are some kind of empaths which can reach out and detect every drunk driver on the roads, enough so that driving while drunk is analogous to driving in a car whose interior is buried in whiskey or cocktails.

Quote:

Driving is a privilege, not a right, and as such they do reserve the right to limit what we can or cannot do while exercising this privilege.

PUHLEASE. Everything we do that isn't dictated as a positive right is a "privilege." Does that mean that our conditions should be legislated against when tied to any action? Keep in mind that you can also be ticketed for being "drunk in public," so apparently leaving the confines of your house and property is also a "privilege" dictated by the government, and you're ok with that?

Quote:

We have red lights, and it is illegal to run a red light. A police officer could pull you over for that. But what if you run a red light and don't hurt anyone? I mean, the law that a person must stop at a red light is not necessarily going to lead to someone not being injured. It is a preventative law.

So, we make it legal to run red lights and only prosecute people when their action causes a wreck.

Sound plausible?

No it doesn't sound plausible, because traffic laws are punitive, not preventative. Ticketing somebody for running a red light doesn't make anybody safer because the crime has already been committed, and the danger has already been presented.

Drunk driving, in and of itself, doesn't pose a danger to others. The only thing that affects the safety of others on the road is the performance of the driver, and while being drunk may affect said performance, it is only a probability and not a guarantee.

Running a red light is illegal, because the drivers who are observing traffic laws are operating under the assumtion that when they have a green light, they can accelerate without worrying about another vehicle careening down the perpendicular lanes.

People do operate under the assumtion, however, that the actual driving performance of others on the road may not be up to snuff. It's the very purpose of defensive driving.

What you're arguing is basically the observance of the law, while what I'm arguing is the relevancy of said law, not whether or not it's ok to break it.

Quote:

If he is unable to make a good judgement about obeying drunk driving laws, then I wonder if he will have the same disrespect for traffic laws.

Yeah, you can wonder, but because one has broken a law does not mean that he is naturally destined to break others.

Quote:

Since you didn't state your conclusion, I am assuming that you want to say, "therefore, there should be no legislation against drunk driving".

It'd be a faulty conclusion to make because it would be like implying that the impossibility of preventing drunk driving is the only reason for legalising drunk driving. You'll notice I've used other examples in order to illustrate my point, that drunk driving should be legal. In that case, I'm refuting the notion that drunk driving laws actually "keep drunk drivers off the streets."

Quote:

Why is driving drunk a special case?

Because drunk driving doesn't represent an intent to damage life and/or property.

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

BlueMikey, take the following example: if someone kills Sally, I will give him a million dollars. If there were no consequences in place for murder, it seems plausible that more people would be willing to take me up on my offer. The negative consequences to the person seem to serve as a preventative measure for those who choose not kill for reasons that aren't humanitarian. For example, no one with high personal moral standards against murder would take the offer, so the law doesn't prevent these people from killing because there are other factors preventing them from doing so.

However, the laws do seem to prevent people who do not have a good moral compass, but rather think only in terms of their own self interest. Hence, if there were no punishments for murder, then earning a million dollars for killing would not seem like such a bad thing to such a person. However, in this case, the consequences outweigh the benefits, so these people do not take the offer.

Hence, it seems that murder laws do have a preventative aspect to them. I have just given an instance of where a murder law does seem to prevent some people from killing. And I deny that murder laws were only intended to punish. I have just demonstrated a plausible example which is not so out of the ordinary that legislators could not have possibly had it or something similar in mind when they thought up murder laws.

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

Only, murder represents an act of theft from society, in this case a life, which is considered the highest form of theft.

While theft benefits the thief, being inebriated is only a case of robbing oneself of fine motor skills. Therefore, if we were to apply your ridiculous analogy to this situation, legislating drunk driving is an example of the government protecting us from ourselves, which is already a ridiculous notion because one's personal safety should be the choice of the individual.

There are no benefits involved in driving while drunk, other than possibly encouraging one to observe all traffic laws, therefore laws involving drunk driving can only be punitive.

How ya doing, buddy?

Accidents happen when you're sober, yes. Accidents are, in fact, irrefutably more likely to happen when your motorskills and decision making capabilities are decidedly impaired.

Sure, there are a lot of people who can drive competently, even with a BAC of 0.08, but that's because of their tolerance.

I don't think you should be allowed behind the wheeel of a motor-vehicle while under the influence of substances such as alcohol. Because there's a direct correlation between BAC and impairment of faculties. I really don't see how you can argue otherwise. The government's not telling you "hey, you're not allowed to put [chemical X] in your bloodstream, you're just not allowed to do it and DRIVE, where there are other people who could be put at risk because of your ARROGANCE and/or STUPIDITY."

Quote:

Therefore, if we were to apply your ridiculous analogy to this situation, legislating drunk driving is an example of the government protecting us from ourselves,

What? Do you not realize how many other people you endanger by driving drunk? My stance on the use of substances is extremely lax, but one thing I cannot get behind is the notion of allowing people to operate motor-vehicles while intoxicated.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Quote:

What?

Clearly it's not the case with the actual purpose of the law. I'm debunking the analogy.

No, I don't think that we should be legislating against drunk driving, because police should only be concerned about the performance of drivers, not their blood alcohol content. You don't need high motor functions to drive safely, I mean, driving a car isn't like stabbing a knife between the gaps in your fingers.

FELIPE NO

You turn a wheel and push down on a pedal. You're only working with two examples of force.

Beyond that, safe driving is mostly a matter of concentration. How do you think the disabled drive?

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

I dunno, you'd need numbers for that.

You're also describing situations that are impossible for people to avoid with normal reflexes. Avoiding those kind of accidents involves many elements of chance, and the danger being presented isn't the one caused by the drunk driver.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by Bradylama

No, I don't think that we should be legislating against drunk driving, because police should only be concerned about the performance of drivers, not their blood alcohol content.

Which is funny, because being drunk typically affects your performance.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

I don't think you understand how much some of these things are determined by chance. A momentary distraction, say you're paying attention to the wrong car, and then you get blind-sided. There are people around here who drive in blind spots, so I know a thing or two about asshole drivers.

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. I can't really tell you how they can do it, because I've never driven while drunk. We need somebody who would actually be willing to admit to it, and I don't doubt there are a few members on this board who have gone out, partied, and then thought they had to drive themselves home.

When you're pursuing this line of reasoning, you're also essentially arguing that drunk driving legislation is supposed to protect drunk drivers from themselves, because in all of the incidents you're bringing up as examples, the drunk driver isn't the party presenting a danger.

Quote:

Which is funny, because being drunk typically affects your performance.

Am I the only person who understands the concept of probabilities?

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

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.

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

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.

Quote:

Let me tell you: destroying income taxation right now would destroy our society.

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.

Most amazing jew boots

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.

Quote:

Bradylama:
Yeah, you can wonder, but because one has broken a law does not mean that he is naturally destined to break others.

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.

Quote:

It'd be a faulty conclusion to make because it would be like implying that the impossibility of preventing drunk driving is the only reason for legalising drunk driving. You'll notice I've used other examples in order to illustrate my point, that drunk driving should be legal. In that case, I'm refuting the notion that drunk driving laws actually "keep drunk drivers off the streets."

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.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

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

Am I the only person who understands the concept of probabilities?

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.

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

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

Jam it back in, in the dark.