-
Drunk driving is objectively bad. It leads to more car accidents. Ergo, the most likely case is that if roads were privatized drunk driving would be banned in virtually all cases. Since this would likely be the case, anyone who allowed drunk driving on their road, or drunk drove themself on their road, would be criminally negligent.
-
A lot is not a road. A lot is a lot.
-
I’ve already answered that. Two ears one mouth.
“objectively bad”.
-
Can you demonstrate there is such a thing?
-
Can you demonstrate simply driving an automobile (or some transportation device) while drunk fits into that term?
Negligent of what? Of not acquiescing to your silly assumption?
If you’re differentiating, why in the hell did you even bring up “lot”? I didn’t say anything about a person driving on his own “lot”. Go back up and read. I said “Now what you’re saying is that as long as I own the road, I can drive on it no matter how drunk I am.” And your response was “Sure, someone could drive drunk on their own lot, but that is not even 1% of all driving so it is not really worth discussing.”
If you weren’t addressing the point I raised, why the hell is “lot” even relevant? Why would you even bother saying that? Are you just dancing again?
You did? You answered:
-Who declares this ban?
I suppose you could claim that your answer is “private road owners do”…but again, that’s just a ban on access to their private roads. They aren’t declaring “the act of driving drunk is now banned.” Who is making that declaration? And where does this person/group get that authority?
-Who is going to enforce this ban?
Again, if I drive drunk on my own road, obviously you can’t claim “the owner of the road will enforce the ban”. So, where exactly did you answer this question?
-Who is going to stop someone from getting in his car drunk?
where exactly did you answer this question?
-What’s going to happen to him when he does drive drunk and is caught?
where exactly did you answer this question?
-By whom?
where exactly did you answer this question?
-under what sort of justification is this unnamed source going to aggress on this drunk driver?
where exactly did you answer this question?
Virtually all driving occurs on roads. Drunk driving on a lot you own would be fine, but since that accounts for less than 1% of driving it`s irrelevant.
Are you serious?
One more time. I never said anything about “lots”. You did. You brought that up out of nowhere for no apparent reason. I said “if I own the road”. Again, you can scroll up and read it. I even spelled out this point in my last post. So one more time, I have no idea why you’re talking about lots.
So, again:
“objectively bad”.
-
Can you demonstrate there is such a thing?
-
Can you demonstrate simply driving an automobile (or some transportation device) while drunk fits into that term?
-Who declares this ban?
I suppose you could claim that your answer is “private road owners do”…but again, that’s just a ban on access to their private roads. They aren’t declaring “the act of driving drunk is now banned.” Who is making that declaration? And where does this person/group get that authority?
-Who is going to enforce this ban?
Again, if I drive drunk on my own road, obviously you can’t claim “the owner of the road will enforce the ban”. So, where exactly did you answer this question?
-Who is going to stop someone from getting in his car drunk?
where exactly did you answer this question?
-What’s going to happen to him when he does drive drunk and is caught?
where exactly did you answer this question?
-By whom?
where exactly did you answer this question?
-under what sort of justification is this unnamed source going to aggress on this drunk driver?
where exactly did you answer this question?
If we banned swimming, we could say ‘we ban swimming IN WATER’ but it really doens’t make sense to say that we ban swimming in water, cause where the hell else are you going to swim? I suppose one could construct giant resevoir of milk and take a dive into it, but there’s really no need to spell everything out in the nth degree.
Just because I own property doesn’t mean I can do whatever I want with it. My right to use my property as I please stops when I start injuring people.
Exactly. And not before then. QED
I have two humble suggestions:
-
This discussion merits a separate thread (it is not really about the “right price”).
-
Compare you positions on an array of slightly different issues, where allowing drunken drivers is replaced by: allowing potholes on the road, allowing really deadly pits on the road, concealing these deadly pits, etc., so you see better about which principle(s) you have disagreements.
Well then I suppose I can fire a gun into the air and if the bullet happens to land on someone and kill them it’s not really my fault. I didn’t MEAN to kill them, all I did was take an action that would increase the likelyhood of their death.
Where the hell did you get that idea? Certainly not from anything that me or Jargon said. More straw men, I presume?
Also, could you please provide a link to the post where you answered the questions that are asked in this post (and again, in this one)?
Does anyone have any solid statistics on alcohol related car deaths?
I’ve been looking but I can’t find anything that useful.
-
it is obvious that drunk driving is bad because drunk driving kills people, and unless you are an environmentalist you will agree that killing people is bad.
-
see 1
-
negligent of intentionally providing an unsafe road which increases the chance of your dying while you drive on it. it’s akin to selling deliberately spoiled meat or any other form of fraud where you appear to be offering something (nice safe road to drive on) but in fact are offering something else (road with crazy drunken drivers without warning). Of course if the owner informed potential customers that this was a drunk driving allowed route, then it would be fine, just as voluntary death ball games would also be fine, but on the other hand if you told someone they were playing soccer and they were actually playing death ball it would not be fine.
-
it would be established as a common practice very quickly, so that a vast super majority of owners would enforce it because it is in their self interest to do so. This is why I brought up the lot. Yes you could say ‘drunk driving is only banned on roads’ but since all driving is done on roads that seems silly to say. You could also say ‘i breath air’ but it makes more senese to say ‘i breath’. What else are you going to breath? What else are you going to drive on, and what % of driving do you think that else is?
It is obvious that drunk driving is bad because drunk driving kills people, and unless you are an environmentalist you will agree that killing people is bad.
Does drunk driving kill people or does reckless driving kill people? I drove intoxicated 4 days this week, no one was killed. Do guns kill people or people with the intent to kill people kill people? When someone shoots another person you don’t blame the gun, you blame the person, when a drunk driver causes an accident you don’t (or shouldn’t) blame the alcohol, you blame the person. I don’t see drunk driving as bad, but this is from my own experience of driving more than the average person intoxicated. As myself, the driver, I am responsible, whether or not I’ve been drinking, others simply cannot do the same, it’s on them not the alcohol.
Isn’t the flaw in your first argument the absolute correlation between drunk driving and killing: that drunk driving is killing? Shouldn’t you have written that it is obvious that drunk driving is bad because drunk driving can kill people?
Put another way, it’s the difference between saying that “shooting a gun is bad because shooting a gun kills people”, rather than saying that “shooting a gun is bad because shooting a gun can kill people” (not that I agree with either statement). But I presume that you knew that because putting it the latter way destroys the absolute correlation implied by your statement, which is what supports your argument.
You know, people who like to bitch about drunk driving probably don’t have the experience of driving while intoxicated. I know from my own personal experience that I actually pay more attention and drive at safer speeds precisely because I am intoxicated. I also have never killed anyone or gotten into an accident while intoxicated.
In a simpler manner: I drive drunk all the time and I have not killed anyone, thus what argument is left to sway my opinion?
Beat me to it, Bert…damn that quick reply button!
You know, people who like to bitch about drunk driving probably don’t have the experience of driving while intoxicated. I know from my own personal experience that I actually pay more attention and drive at safer speeds precisely because I am intoxicated. I also have never killed anyone or gotten into an accident while intoxicated.
I find this to be true amongst those against drunk driving. When I’m intoxicated I pay more attention as well and I’m probably more cautious compared to when I’m sober (when I’m sober I don’t concentrate on driving, I just drive because it’s became habit, routine, so it feels “natural” without thinking) as to that when I’m drunk I feel more focused out of the aspect of trying not to get into a wreck (when I’m driving drunk I actually go the speed limit and pay attention to every little thing around me.)
How drunk are we talking?
…somewhere between talking too loud and waking up at the zoo.