Personally I had a similar thought about the drunk driving laws. If the roads were privately owned by a road holding company, I imagine they too would probably have some kind of anti-drunk driving rules to lower their liability.
Oh by the way, in the old days of Hollywood films they had to do just that - shoot at an actor but miss - blanks were not yet perfected. There are several films from the 1920s and 30s featuring shoot outs with actual bullets flying.
It is the action of GETTING DRUNK (or ‘attending other things’ while at the wheel) which is INTENDED by the perpetrator. He then must bear all consequences which come from that choice. Just like the one lighting a fuse cannot escape responsibility for that fuse being connected to a barrel of gun powder. Drink that glass and start that car, and you’ve defused a bomb. No one can argue that it should be legal to send off drone cars on the highways. Turning oneself into a drone by the use of alcohol is none better than that.
It is appaling that anyone here, who isn’t a known communist troll, even tries to defend drunk driving! Appalling! What next? Ritual murdering of children?
For sure, with libertarianism there might be stuntman and other wildly hazardous race tracks around for those who deliberately choose to put themselves in such danger. But that has no real relation to everyday traffic and the mass deaths today caused by the forced state non-regulation of it through public ownership.
GETTING DRUNK at the wheel, is obviously a continuum problem. naturally market solutions will be superior than socialist (i.e. federal and state solutions). end of.
I rather thought it more of a dispassionate exploration of the issue. Something that all laws of the state should be subject to on an ongoing basis. Someone must play Devil’s advocate. I think there is no danger of DWI being decriminalized anytime soon. Excuse me I’m late for a ritual…
I thought property was mentioned in the same instance as person?
Anyway, laws are made to control and have little to do with the protection of rights. Drunk driving laws fall directly into the control category. The drunk driver has not harmed person or property yet is guilty of a serious crime under the “LAW”. Of course so is drug dealing.
A uniform “objective” method to judge people on drunkeness, honestly? And yes many gun laws are indeed the result of lobbies, special intersts, and the wonderful world of democracy.
When dealing with a gun, you are dealing with a tool specificaly designed to injure/ kill people, when dealing with a car, no such thing two seperate tools two seperate functions. They can not be looked at the same way. Not to mention we are dealing with the many states of different consiecness when comparing sober driving, to drinking and driving NOT throwing objects in harm way still a difference.
That being said if private owners wished to ban people from driving drunk, fine I guess. I just see what people are trying to sell and I just don’t buy it, I really do beleive it is MOSTLY propaganda and dead baby pics. That is getting a little off topic though.
On a very small spurious point/tangent, there are indeed studies showing people performing much better say, playing pool drunk than sober if they learded to play pool intoxicated.