If you consider drunk driving laws as one more link in the chain of abuse constructed by the progressive social engineers, and that it punishes someone because they might do harm, it no longer sounds quite so absurd. Look back to where we started from:
It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be to-morrow. (Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 62)Here is Lew Rockwell's take:
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.Probability and Ambiguity
Here is the truly insidious nature of lawmaking the modern American era. The laws are so complex that ordinary people no longer know where the boundaries are. Can you tell the difference between when your blood alcohol level is at .08 and when it is at .10?
Into this gap of ambiguity steps the regulator. Behave yourself and don't make trouble and you'll be OK. Decide to be a rabble rouser, and the regulators will hound you at every tiny infraction.
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.Some reasonable people will say I've gone too far. All I can do in response is ask why eating french fries and texting while driving are not punished the same as drunk driving. Why did congress tax tanning salons and not hookah parlors or swimming pools? Why ban smoking in privately-owned business (like here in Colorado) but not flatulence?
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.
Or as Jefferson would say,
"We lay it down as a fundamental, that laws, to be just, must give a reciprocation of rights; that without this, they are mere arbitrary rules of conduct, founded in force, and not in conscience." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XIV, 1782. ME 2:199
27 comments:
Oh, my! I gave you a standing ovation on this one. I've had people call me all kinds of crazy names for stating things similar to what you have posted, but they can never produce a solid, valid argument against it.
I think the money quote is "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."
Of our absurdly voluminous set of laws, the most dangerous just might be any law that "punishes someone because they might do harm." We have a lot of those laws, and they make the film "Minority Report" seem a little less unrealistic.
If I actually violate somebody's right to his or her life, liberty, or property, I will take my punishment, but don't try to punish me because I might do so. Unless law enforcement officers and judges, etc., can read minds and predict the future with 100% accuracy, punishing possibilities removes the meaning of having any law at all.
Thanks, but Lew Rockwell gets the standing O, not me.
This is a great thought piece, I used it to spur a debate among my two older kids about the role of government.
They are both turning into free-thinking libertarians. I don't know if I'm doing them more harm than good...
Definitely thinking outside the box there, my friend. I guess that I would keep the law but raise the bl alcohol limit to .10. And maybe get rid of some of these spot checks.
It is outside the box, and credit must be given to Lew Rockwell, not me.
I would be more for a petty fine if there's no damage caused.
I'm thinking back to all of those times back in the 70s and 80s when I used to drive absolutely annihilated. How, pray tell, did I (and the rest of CT) survive that? LOL
I'm bound to say that I think this is a deeply flawed argument.
"it punishes someone because they might do harm" is a straw man argument. The proper response is that I, as a driver, have a right to assume that every other driver on the road has not had their reaction times impaired by consuming alcohol [even one drink does that]. If this is a libertarian issue, then libertarianism sucks. no one has a rightto drive after consuming alcohol!
Your logic is flawed. You have a right to assume other drivers are not impaired?
Who says?
Clever Lew Rockwell- boosting Libertarian candidates by attracting the drunk vote. :)
BB: Now if we could only get him to run!
You can't use your phone while driving in the UK. There's no law against eating, but I think you always leave yourself open to "driving without due care and attention". Chips are probably ok, a plate of spaghetti probably isn't.
The real question is why there is no law against driving while fatigued, since 24 hours without sleep measurably impairs reactions to a greater degree than the proscribed alcohol blood level.
A thought experiment I'd like you to consider is whether it should be illegal to wear a blindfold and shoot a handgun down a high street. There's a probability of hitting a passer-by, but if I didn't hit one (even though I could have), what's the problem?
I like the idea of libertarianism, but even I can't object to some safety legislation for inherently dangerous activities, such as driving or carrying firearms.
We already have laws against discharge of firearms within city limits, and here in Colorado we still have the archaic and prudence-demanding "reckless discharge" law.
But to answer your question, we'd have to figure out what the probability of each act harming someone is. You shoot a gun it town, and you're going to damage something almost without question, even if it's just chipping the sidewalk or curb.
People drive at .08 or .1 all the time and the majority do no harm. This is where the prudence comes in.
There's another way to think of it, which is to count the number of deaths per year that the drink driving law has saved.
I haven't decided which point of view is better myself, but this one shouldn't be overlooked entirely: in the UK it's hundreds per year. A food or medicine or extreme sport that killed hundreds of people per year would be banned.
Point well taken , Jez, but you miss my point. The vast majority of "drunk drivers" are arrested at 4th amendment violating checkpoints, not because they were speeding or caused a crash.
Should government monitor my home because I drink and I am middle class, since I fit the profile of a wife and child abuser?
"Government in a free society should not deal in probabilities."
I disagree. Why should it be Legal to TAKE A RISK that Involves the Lives of Others Besides Oneself? Being Careless and Taking Risks is what I would Consider a Crime of Carelessness and Negligence and such Negligence should not be Allowed because of the Risk. If a Person Desires to Take a Risk with their Own Life, Fine, but this is not a Risk that Involves Only Ones Own Life.
"Can you tell the difference between when your blood alcohol level is at .08 and when it is at .10?"
Exactly, and this is why Drinking any Amount before Driving is a Risk, even when it is Lower than Dangerous Levels, because One Can Never Tell at what Precise Moment they are at Dangerous Levels. A Crime of Risk is a Crime of Negligence.
"We have given it power to make the application of the law arbitrary, capricious, and contingent on the judgment of cops and cop technicians."
The Precise Number of .08 is not a Subjective Number, Subject to the Judgment made by a Cop.
They are Working on Laws Relating to Texting and Driving even now as we Speak, but anyway, Pointing Out Imperfections in the Law does not Justify Legalizing a Very High Risk form of Negligence.
Dennis Hodgson Made a Very Good Argument. I Agree with him and as to "Who Says?". I Say, as an American Citizen who Votes. As a Voting Citizen, my Opinion Matters, so there.
Then you would also support the same punishments for texting and eating while driving, putting on make up, etc?
I Doubt if the Statistical Risk of Each of these Activities is the Same, yet if a Fine was Imposed based on that Statistical Risk, I would be in no Way Opposed. Carelessness is in and of itself a Behavior, so it is not the Same as Punishment for something that a Person Might Do.
The Government, in the Form of Fire and Police, is all about Public Safety, so Careless, Negligent Behavior is Totally Relevant to their Jurisdiction.
So you decide to risk my life because you think you can safely drive shit face and I'm supposed to wait till you kill someone?
Thi is a good example of why so many normals consider Libertarians morons.
And you, Ducky, are an excellent example of why so many people consider doctrinaire liberals like you brain-dead morons. I bet you voted for Obama.
Ok you Guys. Enough with the Name Calling Let's Play Nice.
Let's not straw man, Silverfiddle. Let's get back to why the big muy mucho macho soldier thinks he is being oppressed if it's made illegal for him to risk some family's life because soldier boy wanted to get shit faced and drive.
"Getting shit faced" and driving is a very imprudent thing to do and it endangers the lives of others.
Giving government money to crack heads is also imprudent, but I'm sure you're all for that.
Are you against preemptive wars? So am I, but I am also against preemptive justice.
Here's the deal, there is a basic contract involved with the civil privilege of driving. You don't risk other people's lives.
You drive around impaired and you violate my rights not to have some freaking moron's headlights coming head on or forcing me to try to get by him on the BWI as he's waving around.
When police see you weaving or otherwise have reasonable cause to believe you are impaired it is quite reasonable that they pull you over. You have violated the contract allowing you to use the roads.
I know you Libertarians find it tough to live without scratching any little itch you may have at any time you wish but you just can't. Not hard to understand.
Erratic driving is probable cause. Having the misfortune to end up in a 4th Amendment violation money maker known as a DUI Checkpoint is not.
Negligence is in itself a Behavior and therefore, Disciplining such is not Preemptive Justice.
Deciding to Risk the Lives of Others and not just your Own Life, is not a Decision of Risk that you should be Entitled to Make.
When the police stop someone with no probable cause, that is a 4th Amendment violation.
Did I ever Tell you that I was given a Drunk Driving Test Once? I do not Drink and there was no Alcohol in my System, but I was Overly Tired and Apparently I Swerved. Being Given a Drunk Driving Test Struck me as Funny, yet I was Tired and because of it, gave Probably Cause.
Post a Comment