Intrusion

[Amskeptic]

If you think drunk driving laws are an unacceptable means to save the lives of innocents, then I do have to conclude that your ideological purity is otherworldly.
All you have to do to avoid such draconian overreach of the nanny state is to not drink then drive. Whoa.
Colin

Colin, In all honesty I find this very hypocritical. You show an extra amount of concern for your pet peeve ideas, but than you show no mercy in other cases.

Define the hypocrisy, please.

You are extra sympathetic for some social programs,

Define "extra sympathetic", please.

wanting to use force to get us all in this here land to pay for the mistakes and hardships of others,

Define "wanting to use force" to pay for (please define) "the mistakes and hardships of others".

and then show nothing for the kids in this case.

Define the "kids in this case". What kids? What did they do? Define "show nothing".
I don't even know how to respond to these straw arguments. Hypocritical?
Sure you can set me up with all number of bizarre speculations and suppositions then mow me down with judgment, but I think you could at least support your arguments.

In all honesty to me many people let emotions instead of logic dictate.

And some people use questionable logic to dictate fast and false conclusions.

I don't believe in releasing "drunk driving dad" from the consequences of drunk driving.
Hell no. Personal responsibility. Easy choice: If you drink then don't drive.

And yes! The law hasn't caught up with all the idiocy I see and fear and avoid every damn day out here on America's roadways. I just got hit in the BobD on July 21st. Throw the book at morons who text and eat and blabble like maniacs and do their make-up and balance their laptop on their knee and read the paper and eat huge sloppy slidy hamburgers and swerve all over the place, throw the damn book at them if they are too stupid to realize that they are driving a kinetic bomb. That is one of the reasons we have laws like "you have to pass a test in order to drive".

For you to then conclude that I would then "show nothing for the kids in the case" is utter conjecture on your part. And you'd be so wrong. Right off, I can tell you those kids are risk for the exact sort of rationalizations you posit here ... apologizing for the stupidity, then blaming the system for the consequences that good ol daddy landed on his poor kids. At least we have a social safety blanket for the kids when IdiotDad goes to prison so they don't starve, although the Republicans have pared it back.
We Just Are Not Quite Ready For Libertarian Utopia,
Colin

[steve74baywin]

That's why we say there are two victims for every crime but the choice belongs to the lawbreaker and the responsibility for that choice rests squarely on their shoulders.

But when the crime is one you created, a victim less crime. You also have made a choice. You also must share the responsibility.

[RussellK]

That's why we say there are two victims for every crime but the choice belongs to the lawbreaker and the responsibility for that choice rests squarely on their shoulders.

But when the crime is one you created, a victim less crime. You also have made a choice. You also must share the responsibility.

Victimless? You didn't get the memo? Drive drunk and you pay a penalty. How selfish does one have to be to insist they're unfairly burdened by a law, and a somewhat innocuous law at that, that is proven to save lives. You want to get somewhere drunk? Walk, call a cab, call a friend, sober up. There. Was that so hard? Don't try to place the hardship you, that's right you, placed on your family on everyone else. Where did that personal responsibility go I'm hearing all the time. You face your family with the news their life just became more difficult because you screwed up. Yet you insist I have to bear your family's burden. OK That's fine. We all share in that. But tell me how your ideological purity squares with this.

[BellePlaine]

Victimless? What you didn't get the memo? Drive drunk and you pay a penalty. How selfish does one have to be to insist their style is being cramped by a law proven to have saved lives. You want to get somewhere drunk? Walk, call a cab, call a friend, sober up. There. Was that so hard? Don't try to place the hardship you, that's right you, placed on your family on everyone else. Where did that personal responsibility go I'm hearing all the time. You face your family with the news their life just became more difficult because you screwed up.

Russell, I don't think that Steve is advocating driving drunk or that it's a hardship on the drunkard. And certainly drunk driving laws are not an infringement on our rights because we do not have the right to drive and we are not forced to drive. We have these laws already in place but I take his point that we shouldn't really need a law to say don't drive drunk because we already have a law to say don't hurt or kill anyone.

You and others have mentioned before that these laws are good to create awareness. I agree but could there be a better way to create that awareness besides making a redundant law? How many of us know when we are at 0.08%? You may be surprised the BAC of a full grown man after drinking 1 16oz beer. 5 minutes after drinking that beer, your just about legally too drunk to drive. Wait another 15 minutes and you're back to a sensible level. The law, in my opinion, falls short of explaining what 0.08% means and feels like. It sets us up and leaves us hanging without a reference but our society considers it adequate awareness because we have a law.

[RussellK]

I think the law is perfectly appropriate. It's necessary and desirable to stop a drunk BEFORE he drives not AFTER he careens down the sidewalk. Therefore punishment of the cause (being drunk) at a lesser penalty and the effect (mayhem) at a greater penalty seems pretty logical to me. I agree levels of impairment differ with each individual but we have to have some kind of measuring stick or it becomes strictly a judgement call on the part of law enforcement which brings me to another point. Don't most people get stopped and tested because they are driving in a way that gives their impairment away? So where's the problem? I don't see one.

[BellePlaine]

Don't most people get stopped and tested because they are driving in a way that gives their impairment away? So where's the problem? I don't see one.

Good point. Though sometimes police officers will fish and pull everyone over for a burnt out tail light but let you go if you haven't been drinking so that they can quickly catch another car with a burnt out tail light.

This has been a fun discussion.

[ruckman101]

I think the law is perfectly appropriate. It's necessary and desirable to stop a drunk BEFORE he drives not AFTER he careens down the sidewalk. Therefore punishment of the cause (being drunk) at a lesser penalty and the effect (mayhem) at a greater penalty seems pretty logical to me. I agree levels of impairment differ with each individual but we have to have some kind of measuring stick or it becomes strictly a judgement call on the part of law enforcement which brings me to another point. Don't most people get stopped and tested because they are driving in a way that gives their impairment away? So where's the problem? I don't see one.

A person can drive as drunk as they want. But, yes, if they are so ripped they call attention to themselves and are pulled over and cited, that's the choice they made. A poor choice. So drink and drive away, just don't get caught.

Now check stations, that's a different story.


neal

[steve74baywin]

Victimless? You didn't get the memo? Drive drunk and you pay a penalty. How selfish does one have to be to insist they're unfairly burdened by a law, and a somewhat innocuous law at that, that is proven to save lives. You want to get somewhere drunk? Walk, call a cab, call a friend, sober up. There. Was that so hard? Don't try to place the hardship you, that's right you, placed on your family on everyone else. Where did that personal responsibility go I'm hearing all the time. You face your family with the news their life just became more difficult because you screwed up. Yet you insist I have to bear your family's burden. OK That's fine. We all share in that. But tell me how your ideological purity squares with this.

I am not sure I am going to be able to convey this to you and others. I am running out of ways.
A person would have to take the responsibility of damage they do when driving.
If you want to punish him, even though he did no damage, you need to take on the responsibility of that action. Seriously, if you didn't want to do X, but I use force to get you to do X, and you get hurt doing X, I know I'd feel bad, you didn't have to or want X, but I make X a part of the equation, it is partly my fault. You want to put someone in jail for drinking while driving even though there was no victim (no one was hurt), then take responsibility for your action.
And, BTW, I have a good driving record, I have no drinking or drug related things on any of my records and I don't even have or know any family members suffering from this. My kids are doing well also, just to let you know this is not personal, I'm not defending myself or anyone I know.

[steve74baywin]

BellePlaine, I have been thinking that there is a better way for me to explain why I do not like these laws or think they are okay as a Libertarian.

I feel we have an inherent right to govern ourselves.

From the Declaration of Independence

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

According to what is in bold above, we instituted a government to secure these rights.
The constitution is a limiting document, limiting the powers of the government, and never to violate the Declaration of Independence. All of the violations in the Constitution are after the 10th amendment, and after 1890, a generation+ after 1776, just long enough for peoples mindsets to be changed.
And,
All rights are derived from property
Every right implies a responsibility
The only limitation on your rights is the equal right of others.
Our rights proceed any documents done by this country.
I believe we set up a government to protect our rights to govern our own property, and I do not agree to anything else. We elect officials, and it is a democratic process used to elect, but we are not a democracy.
We have a government to protect our rights to govern ourselves. If this property (roads) are not Mr Jones, or a Mr SoandSo, but it is ours, set up by our government, it can't violate my individual rights to govern myself. A road is not a private individuals property, it is for us an by us and under the heading of "government" and governments are set up to protect individual rights, they can not get such powers to fine and jail if no one was hurt, killed or stolen from.
A government only can have power given to it by the people, and people can only give something they have.
If a person does not have the right to fine or jail you for doing something that does not hurt, steal or kill, a person or persons can not give that power to the government. In other words, no individual can tell you what you can or can not do to your property. Therefore people could never give that power to the government.
The only way someone could rightfully enforce something like that would be if it was on their property. Most of these road we have are not private property. They are supposedly by us and for us. Therefore they are yours and mine, neither of us can start to dictate such things, and if we can't, we could not give the government such powers.
Or, no government I have agreed to be instituted can have such powers because I did not give it those powers. And that I believe was the intent of the founding fathers.

[RussellK]

But Steve, the rules are already spelled out. The choice belonged to the drunk. Your reasoning tries to gives the drunk a right he doesn't have. The right to drive drunk. You don't even have the right to drive. Its a privilege that you enter to in a contract with the state. That's why they can mandate you have to have liability insurance. That's why they can enforce traffic laws. These points alone flaw your logic. Making the argument unless there is property damage there isn't a crime is ludicrous. Would you make the argument a guy who walks into a bank, slips a piece of paper to the teller announcing a holdup, gets thwarted so leaves empty handed didn't commit a crime?

Such an extreme parochial view of the founding fathers and property rights. You realize the importance placed on property rights was under British rule property rights were at the whim of the crown right? It was never so we the people could do whatever we wanted. How is it possible to hold to the narrowest interpretation a document that was written at a time when not everyone was even allowed to own property. A document that mentioned all men are created equal with the exception of those that aren't white, male or landed gentry.

[steve74baywin]

But Steve, the rules are already spelled out. The choice belonged to the drunk. Your reasoning tries to gives the drunk a right he doesn't have. The right to drive drunk. That point alone flaws your logic. Would you make the argument a guy who walks into a bank, slips a piece of paper to the teller announcing a holdup, gets thwarted so leaves empty handed didn't commit a crime?

I believe we are discussing the validity of the law. But, I think I get what you are saying, now that the law is in place, shouldn't he be the only one to blame.
Dam, you keep coming up with some good ones.
Let me think about that.
Well, first, a side note----I bet many on here have driven even in the last year with a .08. or higher. The Lucky Lab comes to mine. Last I checked someone weighing about 180 can't have more than one drink an hour, or they could be over the .08.
This statement

Your reasoning tries to gives the drunk a right he doesn't have. The right to drive drunk

I do not agree with, I would not say I am giving them a right.
Perhaps my attempting to put some of the responsibility on those who want the law isn't valid. So to that I guess I cry Uncle.
But I still stand behind everything I say, just not that.
I am getting tired now and am ready to get up from here. Maybe by tomorrow I will think differently.

[Gypsie]

The cost to not addressing Risky behavior before behavior results in damage is very high, IMO.

Speed limits. If everyone decided to go as fast or slow as they wanted whenever and wherever there would be much less smooth flow of traffic and likely more accidents.

Traffic management (ie stop lights, dividing lines, etc.): choosing to stop/go drive on this or that side of the big asphalt path causes a great amount of uncertainty.

With your logic, I should be allowed to do what I want as long as I don't cause an accident or damage. Run a stop sign. Ok, as long as there was no accident. Drive 100mph in a school zone? OK as long as no one gets run over. (ie You take your chances running over that kid that wasn't paying attention while you are speeding in a school zone, and you parents should teach your children better that to go running out into the street). Who decides who causes an accident? "I wouldn't have run over that kid if he didn't run out into the street. It's a street, he should pay attention, there are cars on the street."

When it is time to make your argument about who is at fault in an accident, is this done with attorneys? Some people need help communicating their thoughts and would be unfairly disadvantaged if they could be out talked when making their case to describe the incident. No rules of the road, each incident would need to have a thorough investigation and arguments will be made as most see themselves as not at fault.

Who pays for the attorney's? Will you have to pay for your own? Do you just take your chances and argue for yourself? I can see insurance companies having a field day with premiums in this 'Let's decide fault after the fact because we can't make people do anything they don't want to because no government should tell people what to do". Then again insurance companies for driving would likely not exist as the profits would be gone or only the very wealthy could afford it.

Perhaps those that don't have enough money should just skip driving altogether because they wouldn't be able to afford to protect themselves from someone of means that engages in very risky behavior and has the resources to argue their case better.

I think that, while I appreciate the thought of people using their higher reasoning to be good human beings and take responsibility for their actions, our baser beings still plays a big part of our lives. There are many folk that are very self centered in their beliefs. Self preservation, personal gain, familial/racial/national affinities will come into play when it comes time to decide 'what is right and fair'. Each person deciding for themselves what is good for everyone else will have as many different perspectives as people.

It is good to be able to express your ideas, no matter how unreasonable, though I am glad that there is a general consensus that there should be consequences for engaging in a risky behavior that poses a known threat to others.

[steve74baywin]

Such an extreme parochial view of the founding fathers and property rights. You realize the importance placed on property rights was because under British rule property rights were at the whim of the crown right? It was never so we the people could do whatever we wanted.

It's not a matter of doing "Whatever we wanted" either. We can't violate someone else's right to property. You can do whatever you want, as long as it doesn't violate ones right to govern their own property. Or as I stated in that post

The only limitation on your rights is the equal right of others

The DUI laws is more like someone thinks it was to do "Whatever we wanted". Just so you can feel a bit safer and have a decrease in the number of drunk drivers you can't come up with "whatever law you want". Driving after 2 beers isn't doing "Whatever we wanted", if you drive home and damage nothing, hurt nothing, kill no one, steal from no one, you aren't doing 'Whatever we wanted". Now if you want less drunk drivers on the road so you fine someone and jail them, that is doing "Whatever we wanted".

[RussellK]

GAHHHHHHHHHHH

[Gypsie]

Well, first, a side note----I bet many on here have driven even in the last year with a .08. or higher. The Lucky Lab comes to mine. Last I checked someone weighing about 180 can't have more than one drink an hour, or they could be over the .08.

This is a very poignant thought. Most of the folk I sit with at the Lab I consider to be good, high functioning, respectable folk, capable of engaging in very responsible behavior. And I would think that some (many?....most?...) have driven away after passing the approved limit...
Does that mean that since I think these people are nice, I like them and are good people they should face any less consequences than any others. I don't. They are taking their chances. It would cause me great pain to hear of someone that was hurt or caused hurt after getting together, but it doesn't make me think there should be any less impact if they get caught doing something that poses a known risk.

I still think they are good, capable, respectable folk. Perhaps that makes my input have less value because I would have respect for the people that engage in such reprehensible behavior.

I think It just supports the argument that legal consequences for this bit of risky behavior is important because of the ease with which the real world consequences (personal injuries and property damage) get set aside at the moment of need (transportation to the next destination). Not everyone does it, but some very respectable, upstanding, high functioning folk do.