Utah's New Drunk Driving Law

Posted by Abaco 3 weeks, 2 days ago to Government
170 comments | Share | Flag

...is a joke. I don't driver after more than 2 beers (I'm large). Actually, I rarely have more than 1 or 2. But, over the years I've watched people I know have their lives turned upside down for this kind of thing. The fines are usury. It's one thing if somebody drives blitzed. But, this is a law going after casual drinkers, in my opinion. Why not make it 0.02?
SOURCE URL: https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2018/02/08/effective-date-for-utahs-tough-new-drunken-driving-law-could-be-delayed-under-new-bill/


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by Ramius 2 weeks, 6 days ago
    About a third of all auto accidents are caused by drunk drivers. Naturally, this means that two thirds are caused by sober drivers, making sobriety twice as dangerous. If we could just outlaw sobriety... think of the lives we could save! :-)
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by evlwhtguy 2 weeks, 6 days ago
      The vast majority of all drunk driving fatalities are caused by drunk drivers with blood alcohol content well in excess of.10. They typically also have multiple drunk driving convictions. The "not a drop" crowd is going a little bit too far with this. Not surprising that it's in Utah where LDS is such a High proportion of the population but it won't make any real difference in fatalities & after all fatalities an actual accidents is what these laws are supposedly all about. In point of fact though it's just another part of the regulatory state and a revenue generator.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by term2 2 weeks, 6 days ago
      I say all of the accidents are caused by stupid drivers not paying attention to what they are doing.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 2 weeks, 5 days ago
        Including not caring about the effects of drinking before they do whatever they will be doing, no longer able to pay attention.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by term2 2 weeks, 5 days ago
          I think that the drunk driving laws now on the books should be abolished immediately, and replaced by normal laws which reflect actual damage done and how liable one is for driving stupidly or drunk. NO DAMAGE DONE should mean NO PENALTY. Othersise, its a slippery slope as to how tired you were before driving, how upset you were over something but still drove, etc.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by LibertyBelle 2 weeks, 4 days ago
            No, someone should not drive drunk and get away with it. He has made himself a threat. Still, standards of evidence have to apply, and maybe the penalty should not be as harsh if there is no actual harm done.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by term2 2 weeks, 4 days ago
              If roads were privately owned, I suspect that the penalty for non harmful but dangerous driving would be expulsion from admission to the road system more or less as it happens now. But no other penalty or jail time. No road owner would want excessively dangerous situations on their roads if they can be prevented. All driving is dangerous to a degree unless you have no roads, so some risks would need to be allowed.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by LibertyBelle 2 weeks ago
                And then, the road owner might be held responsible, at least, to some extent, for accidents on his road. Also, there are minors who ride as passengers in cars, so one cannot reasonably say that they just made a choice.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by term2 2 weeks ago
                  It is complicated. Made even more complicated by not having privately owned roads.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by LibertyBelle 2 weeks ago
                    I'm not saying we shouldn't have privately owned roads. I'm just saying that someone setting up a road like that would have to be careful. But then I guess there have been problems like that one railroads, too. In fact, I think that under a laissez-faire system, there might likely be a lot more little, local railroads.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by term2 2 weeks ago
                      I think that customer service will decide how private business works. In the end, the customer will decide how it should work for them. The problem with government is that it doesnt serve customers well, and its got a monopoly which cant change direction to do what the customers want.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by LibertyBelle 1 week, 6 days ago
                        Ain't that the truth. That's one reason we should get rid of these government-created monopolies, and throw it open to laissez-faire.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by term2 1 week, 6 days ago
                          Yes. I think that the idea of states' rights is something that might get some competition into government, which would be good for us. Apart from that, we have the all powerful monopoly called the federal government. I would think if that doesnt happen, there will be a dissolution of the USA into at least two factions- left and right.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by LibertyBelle 1 week, 4 days ago
                            I want laissez-faire. Real laissez-faire. Not businesses being tyrannized by states' governments rather than the Federal government. I want government to get out of people's lives. Not just the Federal government. Government per se. I want man to be free to do his business, and make his private contracts.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by ewv 1 week, 5 days ago
                            There is no such thing as "states rights". Only individuals have rights. States do not "serve customers", they are supposed to protect our rights, but progressively "serve" pressure groups by imposing more and more demands for statism. Putting "competition into government" with "states rights" means "competing" statism. That is not an economic concept.

                            There are no geographical "two factions" into which the country could split. There are degrees of statism versus a remnant of respect for freedom spread within and across all states. Some states have a larger majority of more extreme statism. Even rural areas within states are increasingly welfare statist. Very few states could even in principle split from the rest as "right vs left", and they would still retain growing statism.

                            The country is being destroyed by the lack of ideas of reason and individualism accepted among the population. That is not solved by calling for the conservatives' collectivist "states rights" and "competing" state statism with no idea of the cause of the statism.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by term2 1 week, 5 days ago
                              I agree there is no hope of splitting the country effectively at this point. Leftist thinking has permeated the country like metastatic cancer

                              What I really mean by “states rights” is simply a way to shrink federal powers and allow state governments to compete with each other in the degree to which they infringe on individual rights. Some states would be less collectivist and attract citizens. Others like California would turn into hell holes to be avoided.
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                              • Posted by ewv 1 week, 5 days ago
                                There is no such thing as "states rights". It is an invalid concept. "Competing" statism in which states "compete with each other in the degree to which they infringe on individual rights" is not moral government and not a "right" of anyone. It does not even "shrink Federal powers", it is progressive increase of statism.

                                Such unprincipled thinking is hopeless. Advocating competing statism based on invalid concepts is no better than advocating a collapse in expectation that people will magically institute a proper government without regard to all the wrong ideas causing the problem in the first place. When people today migrate to a state that is in some way less onerous they proceed to vote for the same policies they just left, on the same false premises. That is "competing statism".
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                • Posted by term2 1 week, 4 days ago
                                  I stand corrected on the term 'states rights:. My argument was to take away most of the federel powers, thus reducing statism. Undoubtedly states would try to fill in the vacuum, but I would rather have competing statist governments than one overarching statist government.

                                  In any event, this is not a fix for government in the USA. It is a just hopefully a way to delay the march to collectivism. Maybe you can wait for a complete transition to freedom in 100 years. I cant wait that long and would never see it.
                                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ewv 2 weeks, 5 days ago
            The crime before the accident is the threat.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by term2 2 weeks, 5 days ago
              I dont recognize a "threat" as a real crime. Its too loose a definition to be reasonable.

              What if it never materializes, or is defined as the snowflakes current define things as "micro aggressions" ? Its a slippery slope leading to almost anything being considered a threat to someone. Simple words could be a "threat" and be used as a way to get rid of free speech.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by ewv 2 weeks, 4 days ago
                Physical threats, including irresponsible driving, are criminal, not psycho "microaggressions".
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by term2 2 weeks, 4 days ago
                  What standard would determine irresponsible driving without some actual physical damage being done? I could see anything that made leftists uncomfortable would qualify as irresponsible driving. To leftists, emotional damage is essentially equivalent to physical damage. If I scare you, that’s actionsble
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by ewv 2 weeks, 4 days ago
                    Physical harm from a threat has not yet occurred. Sticking a gun in someone's face is a crime; you don't have to wait for the trigger to be pulled. Likewise for reckless driving. It should not be condoned through sanctioning the psycho fears of those who can't tell the difference between physical force and anything else.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by term2 2 weeks, 4 days ago
                      I understand that you dont want to wait until physical harm occurs to stop it. I just think that pre-emptive actions are a slilppery slope and I am against them.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by ewv 2 weeks, 3 days ago
                        Stopping a threat isn't "preemptive". Evidence of the threat already exists. Holding a gun to someone's head is coercion. Endangering your life is an active, ongoing threat you have a right to stop.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by term2 2 weeks, 3 days ago
                          My problem is that the definition of threat is very subjective. Is 36 mph in an arbitrarily defined 35 mph zone a “threat”. Is 0.08 blood alcohol a threat but 0.079 is not? 0.08 gets u a dui and $10,000 costs, but 0.079 doesn’t. In either case no one was hurt and no property damage was done.

                          Your life is endangered when you walk out the front door of your house, so does that mean we can force all people to stay away from all other people. It’s a slippery slope
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by ewv 2 weeks, 3 days ago
                            You know very well what it means to be physically hit by a car. A criminal threat requires specific action by a specific person, not "walking out the door".

                            Exceeding a 35 mph speed limit by going 36 is a speeding misdemeanor, not driving to endanger. Objectivity in law requires stating what the limits are so everyone knows what they are. When there is an optional range some point must be selected within it so that it is not subjective law. Codifying the rules in objective law is not a "slippery slope" of "walking out the door".
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by term2 2 weeks, 3 days ago
                              My point is that drinking does not Necessarily result in any harm to another person, so it should not be a criminal offense. If there is actual harm, it’s a criminal offense I agree.

                              I would offer that if the roads were private, being caught driving intoxicated could result in forfeiture of driving privileges on that road network But no criminal charges unless actual harm. Occurred.

                              How about that scenario as a solution to this issue?
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                              • Posted by ewv 2 weeks, 3 days ago
                                No one is advocating prohibition. Driving under the influence is a threat. It is and should be a crime.
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                • Posted by term2 2 weeks, 3 days ago
                                  We differ on our response to this. I maintain that driving when tired, distracted by passengers, eating or drinking while driving, driving while sick, driving while emotionally upset, etc. could fall under the definition of “threats” and be subject to criminal prosecutions also.

                                  My point remains that unless and until there is harm done, it shouldn’t be a criminal matter. It’s gotten so bad with dui that you can’t visit Canada for at least 5 years after a single dui on your record- whether you are going to drive or not.

                                  A single dui will cost at least $10k, years of probation , jail time , and other restrictions. It’s really an attempt at reinstating prohibition. The originator of MADD even quit the organization because it was no longer just about dui.

                                  Very slippery slope attaching criminality to victimless crimes
                                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                  • ewv replied 2 weeks, 3 days ago
                                  • CircuitGuy replied 2 weeks, 2 days ago
    • Posted by JohnJMulhall 2 weeks, 6 days ago
      If they were REALLY interested in stopping 'drunk driving' the easy answer is to execute the criminal the third time they get caught driving drunk. Or on pot, or...
      How about texting? I keep seeing that 4,000 kids are killed while driving and texting. How many people are killed by those texting? How many accidents? Third time - throw them in the pokey for 5 or more years.
      Can we get the cops to target the legislators? Where I used to live, the greatest offenders were the law-makers...
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by ZenRoy 2 weeks, 6 days ago
    Not really a joke as far as BAC of .05 goes. Accidents are caused by people at .04, which is why most businesses will fire a person who works with a .02 or higher, and a federal law makes it criminal to work as a commercial driver with .04. Data has shown that the majority of drivers are impaired at .04.

    On the flip side I am not a fan on stop and check. I believe the police only have a responsibility to react to one causing harm, not attempt to prevent it.

    I have a friend that, until the doc told him to quit or die, was always at about .06 to .10 (I would bet) and had a machanic shop the whole time, became rather well off from his business and had 18 employees along with 2 or his 3 sons working for him. A highly functional person with high levels of Alchohol. He drove all the time, never did get busted, but had he been pulled over and checked, he would be in trouble.

    I do not care for laws that punish all people because they are taking preventative measures rather than reacting to a crime. While I have no problem at all with .05 blood alcohol, use it to check people that get in a accident, run off the road and need help.... swerve all over the road or demonstrate signs of impaired driving. If there is no sign that says "check me out" the police should not do so.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  gharkness 2 weeks, 6 days ago
      A good portion of the Utah populace are LDS adherents, and don't drink anything even as strong as coffee. I can't say I'm too surprised about this law and that the lawmakers aren't willing to change it.

      While I certainly agree that driving impaired is a huge problem, you really don't have to have been drinking to be impaired. You can be angry. You can be sleep-deprived. You can be ill. You can be worried. You can be distracted. You can even be on drugs that aren't apparent in a blood or breath test (I heard on the radio this morning that OK is about to start using a test that discovers marijuana in the blood/breath - can't remember which - but it can't be used in court because there's no way -yet- to determine concentration)

      All those things (and more) increase the likelihood for having a wreck. Where is the test for those?

      I agree with ZenRoy about stop and check and reasonable cause.

      For me, it's no different than having to prove I am not a thief every time I exit Costco or Sam's (and increasingly Walmart). I hate having to prove I'm not drunk.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  allosaur 2 weeks, 6 days ago
    Bah! Humbug! No way this old Alabama boy is going anywhere near Utah a\gain after driving through it during 1973.
    Me dino was Car #5 stopped on a deep in a desert two-laner by a herd of wild mustangs.
    Utah license plates drivers blew their horns Honk! Honk! Honk!
    Horses totally ignored that.
    Utah license plate drivers persisted some more Honk! Honk! Honk!
    Alabama me had seen enough Westerns to stick my head out my car window and yell, "HEE-YAH!"
    All those wild mustangs bolted and took off running,
    Sheesh! Was that common sense simple or what?
    As for that stupid law, it was a decade ago when I last sat in a bar. An ex-sister-in-law was having a birthday. That happens when you have children with cousins.
    Anyhoo, we moved from a Mexican restaurant to the nearest bar.
    Old me ordered an old-fashioned whiskey sour and was surprised someone knew how to make it.
    All my ex-relatives and friends spoke of bar hopping. When they drove to the next bar, me dino simply drove home.
    Sober me dino did not have a bit of trouble getting there.
    I'm to go to jail for showing common sense?
    I'll say it again~
    Freakin' bah! Humbug! .
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by term2 2 weeks, 6 days ago
      If one wants to just take it right up to the line, but dont cross it, one must KNOW exactly where the line is. Given the financial cost of drinking, one should just not drive even after any booze. Its too easy to get an overambitious cop to write you up and you still have to fight it.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  allosaur 2 weeks, 6 days ago
        Alabama ain't Utah, but I have seen some sorry excuses for cops.
        I could talk about underhanded speed traps. Perhaps the following is the wors eye witnessed example~
        I was seeing a redhead for a couple of months around 1983 a year after starting my state corrections officer career.
        Was sitting behind the counter with her where she worked at a convenience food store.
        She hissed and fussed as a seedy Bessemer City Cop she knew by name helped himself to shoplifting some pocketed snacks.
        It was like the cop was saying, "Hey, I protect you from robbers. So just you sit back and watch my protection racket go to work."
        Cop did not even come to the counter. Out the door he went perhaps thinking of his next stop to pull another two-bit heist.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by LibertyBelle 2 weeks, 4 days ago
          And she didn't report him? (answer to allosaur)
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  allosaur 2 weeks, 4 days ago
            No, she was intimidated. (Or mayber her boss was. I dunno). She did not me to stick my nose in it.
            So me dino, who had met her just three or four days earlier, figured that was her problem.
            About two weeks later, she hoped I'd watch her trailer, horse and dog (yes, she had a mobile home and a horse fenced in by wire) while
            she drove down to Mobile to help some guy cheat on his wife for a weekend.
            She was a looker, but for some reason I lost interest in her at that point.
            Can't realty put me finger on the elusive why.
            Hmm, Hmmmm, Hhmmmmm.
            Ooo! All that thinking just then made m widdle dino brain hurt.
            Maybe me dino will never figure that 'un out.
            And, ya know, there really are some decent people who shouldn't be called a certain name just for living in trailer homes.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by jdg 2 weeks, 5 days ago
    The 0.08 and 0.10 standards are mostly aimed at casual drinkers, too. A more reasonable probability-based BAC limit would be much higher. Then again, any standard amount is problematic anyway, because some people can simply function well on more alcohol than others.

    Federal statistics do not illuminate this problem, because USDOT directs the states to collect the data in a way that obfuscates it; any accident where somebody was present who had had a drink gets lumped in as "alcohol related," regardless of his BAC or even if the drinker was a passenger or pedestrian.

    But for the sake of argument let's accept the Federal propaganda as accurate: any drinking at all increases your chance of being involved in an injury accident that night by a factor of 100. Even then you're talking about the chance of an injury accident on your trip home going up from 1 in 20 million to 1 in 200,000. I can't especially blame drivers who believe that 1 in 200,000 is still pretty good odds.

    So if it were up to me, I would not have a "per se" limit at all, but simply direct officers to capture video of a driver's behavior (weaving, difficulty standing upright, etc.), play it in court, and let a jury decide the result. I fail to see that this puts an undue burden on law enforcement.

    All of the above applies to marijuana, too.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 2 weeks, 6 days ago
    This is a mormon thing. They are trying to enforce their religious restrictions on alcohol. Its got nothing to do with driving drunk, just drinking in general. If they could, they would make buying booze illegal as in prohibition.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by jimslag 2 weeks, 6 days ago
    I admit that in my young and stupid days, I drank (excessively) and drove back to the base with no accidents. However, that was in the days before lawmakers started being nannyish. Because of MADD and other groups pushing the nanny laws on us, I stopped drinking 37 years ago, mostly because I was stationed in Europe and they are complete assholes over there. When I came back to the states, I saw the new laws that came into being and just decided that it was not worth going through all that just to get home after enjoying myself in the bar. So, now, I still go out but I am the Designated Driver for my friends. In the early days of the laws, it was cool because Budweiser and other brewers gave out goodies for the DD but now it just because I care about my friends and relatives and don't want them to go through what my brother did when he got his DUI.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by GaryL 2 weeks, 6 days ago
    Driving under the influence is never good and I don't much care what the influence is. Pot. pills, alcohol or any of the other intoxicants and IMO what is just as bad is what I label as FIP, (Face In Phone). I have been run right into the ditch twice in the past 3 years and both time by some fool texting while driving. When we go out to dinner I will have one beer or drink and then nothing more for well over an hour before we drive home. A DWI around here is sure to cost you $15K.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by term2 2 weeks, 6 days ago
      One can buy a LOT of rides using Uber !!!! Doesnt pay to drink and drive at all. In fact, giving the price of tickets these days, I am not sure it pays to even drive at all.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by freedomforall 3 weeks, 1 day ago
    It's a population control and revenue raising measure that benefits insurance companies, self driving cars, taxis, government, and favors dope smokers and pill takers. Let's make sure that all the highway patrol in Utah has grenade launchers to stop those almost tipsy drivers in case some don't consent to serfdom.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 1 week, 3 days ago in reply to this comment.
    Observations of fact are not "fallacies". Most people (who have heard of it at all) realize the Libertarian Party is a fringe party because it is. Evading that with sophistry trying to 'refute' it with rationalizations pretending to have identified logical fallacies does not change the fact. It is rationalization.

    You attempted to promote the Libertarian Party by claiming "some libertarians are also Objectivists", implying it is compatible with Ayn Rand's philosophy. It is not. Neither the party nor the movement are "Objectivist". The most that could be said is that if "libertarian" is meant in a vague sense of being pro-freedom then Objectivism is that. That is not what the libertarian movement or the Libertarian Party within it are.

    Again, the Libertarian Party "does not have 'Objectivists'. It has some members claiming to have some interest in Objectivism, without understanding, as it dishonestly claims an association with the thinker Ayn Rand who emphatically denounced any such association with her ideas."
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  CBJ 1 week, 3 days ago
      The Libertarian Party certainly has been influenced by Ayn Rand (along with other thinkers), but does not claim any association with her. That’s a major distinction.

      Furthermore, the Libertarian Party does not have to be 100% compatible with Ayn Rand’s philosophy in order for Objectivists to legitimately support it and vote for its candidates. The Republican Party certainly does not (and never did) come up to this standard, yet Ayn Rand and many of her supporters often voted Republican and endorsed Republican Party candidates.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 1 week, 3 days ago
        After a half century of futile publicity-seeking the Libertarian Party is still a fringe party of no political significance. It has nothing to offer Objectivists either in political influence or its subjectivism mixing vague ideas of freedom with anarchism and abdication of foreign policy, as most recently illustrated by the two clowns Johnson and Weld it chose as its spokesmen and leaders out of expediency of "big names" that accomplished nothing. Promoting the Libertarian Party here with rationalizations is not serious discussion.

        There are no "Objectivists" running or supporting the Libertarian Party. Ayn Rand did not "influence" it, she opposed it. She also opposed the anarchists who claimed to have been "influenced" by her. Individuals who say they were influenced by her ideas may or may not have understood them and may or may not have been influenced for the better personally, but the Libertarian Party and a-philosophical libertarian movement were not among that..
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  CBJ 1 week, 3 days ago
          The Libertarian Party is more politically significant than in any time in its history. It more than tripled its previous highest vote total in the 2016 presidential election, and in her recent book Hillary Clinton claimed that it might have influenced the outcome. As I mentioned earlier, the 2016 LP presidential ticket was endorsed by several major newspapers, and C-SPAN has covered several LP national conventions.

          Interesting that you condemn the Libertarian Party while giving the Republicans a pass. Which party is closer to your views? The LP platform is anything but “vague” on the issue of individual liberty:

          “As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty: a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and are not forced to sacrifice their values for the benefit of others.

          “We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.

          “Consequently, we defend each person’s right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power.”

          And do you consider the following to be “abdication of foreign policy”?

          “American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world. Our foreign policy should emphasize defense against attack from abroad and enhance the likelihood of peace by avoiding foreign entanglements. We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid. We recognize the right of all people to resist tyranny and defend themselves and their rights. We condemn the use of force, and especially the use of terrorism, against the innocent, regardless of whether such acts are committed by governments or by political or revolutionary groups.”

          Contrast this with the GOP, and then explain why it’s moral to support Republicans but immoral to support Libertarians.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ewv 1 week, 2 days ago
            The Libertarian Party is not a serious political party with any influence; it is not politically relevant. Everyone knows that. Stop pretending. The Libertarian "positions" were discussed here during the election campaigns. Its vague and contradictory appeals to freedom, including by its own "candidates", are not "Objectivist", nor as an irrelevant "party" does it matter for politics in comparison with Republicans or anything else. A half century of this nonsense and the tracts of rationalizations for taking it seriously is more than enough.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  CBJ 1 week, 2 days ago
              Thank you for explaining why it's moral to support Republicans but immoral to support Libertarians.

              By the way, Ayn Rand cited the phrase "everybody knows" as an example of an Argument from Intimidation. http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/arg...
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by ewv 1 week, 2 days ago
                "Everybody knows" the Libertarian Party is a fringe party because it is. That is an observation, not an "argument from intimidation". Stop the rationalizing.

                Why it can be moral to vote for a Republican given the two choices available was explained during the campaign. "Voting" for the Libertarian Party is not a realistic vote at all. Sarcastic ignorant "appreciation" is not a response to that.

                Aside from its fringe political nature the Libertarian Party is worse in that its publicity-seeking misleads people about the meaning of freedom and what is realistic in politics while demanding support for its antics in which it calls itself the "party of principle". No Objectivist should support that.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by  $  CBJ 1 week, 2 days ago
                  "Moral" and "realistic" are two different standards. It's not immoral to cast a vote, even if it's a protest vote, for the party that is most in agreement with one's views. Restricting one's vote to two unpalatable choices allows the two "major" parties to remain in power for the indefinite future. That's truly a wasted vote.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by ewv 1 week, 2 days ago
                    Most of us know what moral and realistic are and the fact that they are fundamentally related. The fringe Libertarian Party represents neither, let alone their connection. Your endless rationalization and circling evasively trying to keep the game going for a fringe political party is not serious discussion.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 1 week, 4 days ago in reply to this comment.
    Criminal penalties for threatening people's lives do not depend on who owns the property. You are still hesitant to morally endorse endorse shooting someone in self defense who is trying to kill you and you have difficulty justifying self defense. That is not Ayn Rand's ethics and political philosophy.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by term2 1 week, 4 days ago
      I just cant accept criminal penalties for DUI where there is no injury or property damage. Those two things sholuld be the subject of a lawsuit, not the arbitrary criminalization of simply drinking above some arbitrary limit set by the state.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 1 week, 4 days ago
        Tests for driving mentally impaired while drunk are not arbitrary. "Accept" laws against drunk driving or not, the threat is so obvious and basic that most people understand it even today.and the drunks will continue to be prosecuted for good reason.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by term2 1 week, 4 days ago
          I am so done with governments arbitrary and incredible penalties for victimless crimes. They are as they are whether or not I approve. I’m sure the leftists approve and they have mob rule plurality
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ewv 1 week, 3 days ago
            Laws prohibiting drunk driving are not "arbitrary" and not "victimless crimes". Those threatened, injured or killed by drunks on the road are victims. I hope that the laws prevent you from becoming another victim.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by term2 1 week, 3 days ago
              We just disagree on the proper response to “threats” when no actual harm has occurred. Once you permit criminal charges allowed for “threats”, you slide down the slope of defining more and more things as “threats”. What about being a nazi supporter, or carrying a knife or gun which “could” hurt people if used? What about being a martial arts trainer who “could” be a. “Threat” if he got mad? What about operating a car that had a defect subject to a recall that you did not immediately fix? What about being tired and driving? Off to jail for that one too?
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by ewv 1 week, 3 days ago
                No one "sliding down a slope" of arbitrary threats in banning drunk driving. The carnage caused by drunk drivers is fact. The victims and the threat are real. The threat is objective, obvious and obviously criminal. Stop making excuses with rationalizations.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by term2 1 week, 2 days ago
                  I just think we just disagree on this I don’t think it’s reasonable to obey such laws. I also am not stupid when it comes to driving
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by ewv 1 week, 2 days ago
                    Telling people that it is not "reasonable" to "obey" laws prohibiting drunk driving is irresponsible advocacy of a crime. Subjectivist "disagreement" is not relevant. The facts of the carnage caused by drunks driving while impaired and the cause of that are not disputable.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by term2 1 week, 2 days ago
                      I don’t operate machinery of any kind when impaired by any one of many factors as a practical matter having nothing to do with fear of criminal prosecution from a power hungry authoritarian government

                      It’s as simple as that. This is what I do, and that doesn’t mean you have to agree
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by ewv 1 week, 2 days ago
                        Youi said you "don't think it's reasonable to obey such laws." It is good that you are personally careful with machinery and I'm glad you are; condoning deadly criminal behavior is not.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by term2 1 week, 2 days ago
                          The. “Criminal” label has little to do with it really. It’s a matter of practicality and respect for and acceptance of the potential dangers to myself and others.

                          If the roads were privately owned, I think there would be rules that customers would have to follow that attempted to increase the safety of all the customers- not unlike the current licensing and dui rules-BUT without the criminal aspects for driving in a dangerous fashion if no harm was involved. The membership in that road system would be revoked. Electronic surveillance could enforce that today
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by ewv 1 week, 1 day ago
                            "Criminal" is a legal concept, not just a "label". You said you "don't think it's reasonable to obey such laws."

                            Private roads, like private property anywhere, are not the basis of protecting the rights of the individual from criminal behavior. Wanting to eliminate enforcement of criminal law because the crime is on private property takes us back to the subjectivist "anarcho capitalist" mentality and its bizarre "private defense agencies".
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 1 week, 4 days ago in reply to this comment.
    Wishful thinking is not a shortcut. There are no shortcuts bypassing an intellectual renaissance. Unprincipled pragmatist wishing for "competing statism" not only brings more statism, it does nothing to reduce the Federal statism. Statism is on the rise because people believe in it, not because there isn't enough "competition" between states for how to abrogate the rights of the individual in different "degrees".
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by term2 1 week, 4 days ago
      You don’t understand my position. U get that you want an intellectual revolution. I hope the country listens to you, I really do. But I know that I won’t ever live to see it. In the meantime I want to slow down the collapse
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 1 week, 4 days ago
        You don't "slow down the collapse" with floating abstractions promoting more competing statism (which we already have), with the gang warfare imagined to reduce Federal power. It makes no more sense than precipitating a collapse to get it over with as a means to recover from the collapse. Saying that you won't live long enough for the required intellectual revolution does not make the necessity go away. There are no shortcuts. What you can do for the duration of your life is to choose your location and circumstances to minimize the problems the best you can.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by term2 1 week, 4 days ago
          I voted for trump and he has certainly slowed the March of socialism. That’s why the leftists hate him
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ewv 1 week, 2 days ago
            Trump is for a few years in the way of what Hillary was expected to do, but it's a blip, not a slowing of the march. We will take that much, but the pattern is the usual zig-zag superimposed on a downward trend as there are occasional relative backlashes. We still aren't sure that Trump with his emotional Pragmatist thinking won't do something really bad, but we tolerate that risk -- with no other choice -- in comparison with the certainty of a Hillary.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by term2 1 week, 2 days ago
              Wow. I think I totally agree with your comments ability trump and his effect in the March to collectivism. The philosophical basis of half the population is very collectivist (they voted for Hillary) and the philosophical basis of the other half is only marginally non collectivist (but mostly dependent a lot on belief in one god or another)

              I much prefer the emotional outbursts of trump than the hidden agendas and lies of Hillary and Obama. I also think that when it comes to actions that trump is much more careful and deliberate than it appears. He has to be to have been so successful in business. I also think that to retain his sanity in the face of the constant attacks on him, he enjoys tweaking the establishment with outrageous Twitter messages to annoy them

              I think he knows now that his ability to drain the swamp is quite limited by the protectionist actions of the swamp dwellers.

              I want to see trump pardon a number of people before he goes in 2020, Snowden for one followed by the people mueller has attacked because they worked for trump
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by ewv 1 week, 2 days ago
                Trump has been antagonistic towards Snowden, and his administration has sided with the police-state wing of the NSA, FBI and CIA wanting more arbitrary surveillance and weakening of privacy such as use of encryption -- everything that Snowden exposed and more. With Trump's emotional thinking and lack of knowledge and principles he is easily swayed by who knows what kind of arguments that get to him first. Maybe he will switch again on Snowden, who knows? You never know what he will do.

                Hillary will not be held accountable for her obvious and severe violations of security laws that she doesn't care about for her own arrogant convenience and entitlement to power to do what she wants. Maybe Trump will pardon her just to make a point, sticking the hypocrisy in their faces. Remember the story that leaked out during the campaign debates: Trump and Hillary were back stage before a debate. Hillary was arrogantly pushing her way through with a pseudo polite "pardon me". Trump said, "If I win the election I'll consider it."
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by term2 1 week, 2 days ago
                  Hillary knows she is guilty and got caught. Trump will NEVER pardon her, at least in my opinion.

                  As to Snowden, I was surprised at his reaction. I would have thought a pardon was coming down the pike immediately after election. But, I think that Trump has this time, and other times as well, pandered to the establishment. He should have brought snowden back and put him in as a watchdog right here in the USA with his security clearance reinstated. I wasnt pleased with his reaction to Snowden, or in fact his recent trade war with china. What he needs to do is stick to making sure USA workers are competitive with Chinese workers, which they are NOT now. USA workers are entitled, under educated, and under motivated. Best workers are chinese (right in china), and then first generation illegal workers from central america, Worst workers are second generation socialist central american workers spoiled by American welfare, entitled blacks. Trump supporting american workers are ok, but somewhat saddled by expectations not in line with world productivity standards however.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by ewv 1 week, 1 day ago
                    Whatever Hillary's degree of recognition, if any, of her own illegal activities, her dominant thoughts are that it doesn't matter for someone of her entitlement -- which is why she defied court orders, the FBI did not make her testify under oath or make a transcript, she cynically laughed it all off with defiantly ignorant jokes about "wiping", and otherwise ignored it. That statute of limitations (10 years or less for espionage) is running out and nothing will be done to hold her accountable. https://www.americanthinker.com/artic...

                    A Trump "pardon", if he were to do it, would have no practical effect on her politically exempt legal situation, but would serve the purpose of sticking it in her face and reminding everyone else of her guilt and the power-mongering double standard of the Democrats' FBI/Mueller persecutions.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 2 weeks, 2 days ago in reply to this comment.
    "I maintain that driving when tired, distracted by passengers, eating or drinking while driving, driving while sick, driving while emotionally upset, etc. could fall under the definition of “threats” and be subject to criminal prosecutions also. "
    I've always thought we single out drunk driving over other dangerous behaviors. I don't think anyone compared the risks and linked the penalties to them, e.g. going 15mph over in a populated area, running a red light, driving with 0.10% BAC, driving with a history of petit mal seizures. I think we go overboard on the seriousness of drunk driving.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by term2 2 weeks, 1 day ago
      I think the drunk driving mania is a thinly disguised way to reinstate prohibition on religious grounds
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 1 week, 5 days ago
        There is no mania. People were being killed in large numbers because of irresponsible drunks. It's still a problem, which is why the laws are enforced. There are no signs of any attempt to reinstate prohibition.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by term2 1 week, 5 days ago
          Dude, wake up. The laws aren’t working to “save” people from drunk drivers. You admit it’s “still” a problem.

          This is prohibition again. It didn’t work last time either, and isn’t working this time except to milk a lot of money from drivers, and cost us all a lot in terms of enforcement

          Laws designed to “prevent” real crimes by arresting people for victimless crimes can’t work. Prohibition failed and created the mafia. The war on drugs is a dismal failure and created cartels and violence at home. Laws penalizing people for auto insurance lapses (victimless crime” fail to reduce the need for “uninsured” motorist insurance the list goes on and on.

          Even the founder of MADD withdrew from the organization out of disgust that its goals had moved toward prohibition in general
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by CircuitGuy 4 days, 3 hours ago
            "This is prohibition again."
            Prohibition never stopped. Drug abuse went from being a personal temperance issue 100 years ago. Eventually by accident of history, caffeine, alcohol, and nicotine were exempted. Then around 1970 in turned into a "war" mentality. It's unhealthy in some many ways. I agree with your suspicion that this mentality makes us treat drunk driving as more criminal than other risky behavior.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by term2 3 days, 21 hours ago
              I suppose leftists would like to prohibit as many things as they can get away with and to the extent they can get away with. They have up in alcohol because they made too much money on taxes. Same thing with marijuana. They want to prohibit consumption of sugar, but they can’t do it yet. Same thing with nicotine and tobacco, although the tax revenue keeps consumption from going to zero. Prostitution is prohibited mostly
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 3 days, 22 hours ago
              Prohibition was repealed by the 21st amendment in 1933. There are no signs that it will be reinstated and the use of drugs is increasingly tolerated in law. The 'war on drugs' against hard drugs has nothing to do with the prohibition on drunk driving. It is also illegal to drive under the influence of drugs, but objective tests are more difficult. Any kind of observed reckless driving is also illegal. There is no reason to prohibit driving after drinking coffee or tea.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by CircuitGuy 2 days, 19 hours ago
                "Prohibition was repealed by the 21st amendment in 1933. There are no signs that it will be reinstated a"
                Only a small part of prohibition was repealed by amendment. The idea of treating people's drug use a crime persisted. Alcohol was exempted.

                "The 'war on drugs' against hard drugs "
                Hard means the focus of prohibition. The war on drugs includes drugs that are much less harmful than alcohol. Users of khat, which is on par with caffeine, are treated like armed robbers.

                "[drug prohibition] has nothing to do with the prohibition on drunk driving. "
                I don't assert it does or does not. I agree treating drunk driving as a serious criminal offense is not part of a conspiracy to increase prohibition of drugs or to start prohibiting more drugs. I think the way we treat drunk driving is part of a broad trend of criminalizing things.

                If you drive a car, you are increasing the risk to others. If you do it on drugs, the risk is several times worse. If you get caught but don't hurt anyone, it's treated as a minor crime. If fortune works against you and you hurt or kill someone while operating under the influence, it's treated like murder. This seems illogical to me. I don't have an answer about how to deal with someone who took a stupid risk and someone died. I just think we're overboard on drunk driving.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ewv 2 days, 10 hours ago
                  The 21st amendment repealed the entire 18th amendment, not "only a small part of prohibition": "The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed." The 18th amendment was about alcohol. It did not include drugs. There had been some laws taxing and regulating drugs, but the "war" prohibiting drugs did not begin until the 1970s. The 21st amendment in 1933 repealed prohibition.

                  "Hard drugs" means those that are more addictive and potent such as heroin and cocaine in comparison with marijuana, not "the focus of prohibition". The hard drugs are regarded as more serious because they are more damaging in both their effects and rapidity of addiction.

                  None of them, "hard" or not, are "on a par with caffeine". Regardless of the "hard drug" category, all of them are now prohibited, but more recently with a growing movement in law allowing marijuana. Prohibiting them is an attempt to protect people from themselves, but not only that: Manipulating other people, including children, into addiction is properly regarded as a serious crime.

                  The risk to others from driving under the influence of drugs is not "several times worse" than alcohol; it depends on the drug and the amount of drugs or alcohol. Instances of more serious danger possible from drugs do not reduce the danger and proper status of criminality for drunk driving. Prohibiting drunk driving is because of what it is, unrelated to either the 'war on drugs' or a "broad trend of criminalizing things." There is no excuse to allow drunk driving or driving mentally impaired due to drugs.

                  Drunk driving is prohibited because drunks kill people, caused by the nature of the mental impairment they choose, not "fortune working against you" after a mere "stupid risk" with no foreseeable consequences. They are responsible for their own decisions and the consequences. It is murder, in the form of involuntary manslaughter and felony death by vehicle, with technical details varying in different states. The criminal punishment is less severe under the law when someone is not killed -- as in many other categories -- because of the lack of malicious intent to kill, but the impairment causing the danger is chosen.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ewv 1 week, 5 days ago
            I am not "dude" and don't need to "wake up". Being killed by a drunk is not victimless. Taking drunks off the road has in fact helped to eliminate much of the carnage. It is not a secret conspiracy to impose prohibition and the "mafia", and is not a "mania". It doesn't make any difference who quit a private organization and this has nothing to with the libertarian mantra blaming the "drug war" for everything in sight. We are talking about laws preventing killing people by irresponsible drunks. Most people understand that holding those accountable for threatening and killing people through their own irresponsibility is good.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by term2 1 week, 4 days ago
              If a person is killed by a "drunk", it is called murder. Its NOT driving while (drunk, tired, inattentive, etc.). If you kill someone with your car and its your fault, in my book they call that murder. There IS no crime until someone is hurt.

              Half the people in the country voted for Hillary. Clearly the use of "most people" doesnt really make it right.

              If you remove all the vehicles, there will be absolutely NO deaths caused by cars at all. Remove all pedestrians and we can eliminate all pedestrian deaths too. If these anti dui laws were so effective, there would be no need for current enforcement, since all the drunk people would be off the road. BUT, thats clearly not the case now, as it wasnt during prohibition.

              The war on drugs is clearly a collectivist thing and is immoral in itself. Smoking out in your own house has NO VICTIMS at all.

              I dont understand why you are so into the anti drug and alcohol movement. It seems to fly in the fact of your objectivist leanings.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  CBJ 1 week, 4 days ago
                Privatize the roads and the problem will take care of itself. Most road owners would not allow driving while drunk or driving without insurance.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ewv 1 week, 4 days ago
                  Privatizing roads is not an excuse for ignoring criminal behavior. It does not take care of itself.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by  $  CBJ 1 week, 4 days ago
                    I never said it was or did.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by ewv 1 week, 4 days ago
                      You said "Privatize the roads and the problem will take care of itself." No, it doesn't, and no, it is not an excuse to ignore the very real problem of criminal behavior by claiming it "takes care of itself". Yes, you did say that.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by  $  CBJ 1 week, 4 days ago
                        If roads are privatized, the owners will require drivers to be sober and insured. Violations will be a breach of contract and, potentially, criminal conduct. While violations will sometimes occur, the "problem" of what to do about drunk drivers will no longer exist, because objective standards and remedies that do not violate anyone's rights will be in place.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by ewv 1 week, 4 days ago
                          You started with "Most road owners would not allow", leaving the rest unaccounted for. But the appeal to those who do is irrelevant. There is no "problem of what to do about drunk drivers" -- they are committing crimes and dealt with accordingly, just like shooters, anywhere they do it around other people. That does not "violate anyone's rights" and does not require a "contract' in a convoluted appeal to private roads, which does not "take care of itself" -- it still appeals to criminal law. That excursion is an example of libertarian rationalism that can't grasp the essence that most people have no difficulty with -- except to follow the point of convoluted libertarian rationalism. Drunk driving and shooting at people are crimes.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by ewv 1 week, 4 days ago
                If you run into a crowd shooting at random we don't have to wait until you hit someone before it is considered a crime and you are stopped. The same goes for drunk drivers. Even Hilary supporters can figure that out. Trying to package that with "prohibition" and a "mania" is an evasion.

                Objectivism is not libertarian subjectivism and hedonism.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by term2 1 week, 4 days ago
                  I could go along with people or officers overpowering a shooter, but if no physical harm was done, I don’t see criminal persecution being warranted.

                  If one gets a dui, it’s common now to get years of probation during which time you cannot drive with ANY blood alcohol at all- not the 0,08 that any normal person can have
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by  $  CBJ 1 week, 4 days ago
                    So the police should return the gun to the shooter and let him continue with his behavior until someone is actually harmed? If physical harm is the sole criteria for criminal prosecution, then you could argue that no one has the right to overpower the shooter either. I doubt that even most Objectivists would agree with either position.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by term2 1 week, 4 days ago
                      I would have to think about this one. I would overpower him in the interest of self—defense. I wouldn’t give him the gun back, but I couldn’t really justify it right now
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by ewv 1 week, 4 days ago
                        How about "self defense"?
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by term2 1 week, 4 days ago
                          I am ok with self defense if the violence is against me or could escalate to that
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by ewv 1 week, 4 days ago
                            And that doesn't justify not giving him his gun back? Or the police not giving it back? Or putting him away so he can't use another one to the same thing?
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by term2 1 week, 4 days ago
                              I think I would take his gun for sure. If he said he was going to kill me, and I believed him, I would probable kill him first. Not sure I could justify it, but I think that’s what would happen
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                              • Posted by ewv 1 week, 4 days ago
                                You can't justify killing someone in self defense when he is trying to kill you?
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                • Posted by term2 1 week, 4 days ago
                                  I would do it if in the situation I think. Justification would depend on the intent and ability of the perp. I would err on the side of overestimating the intent and ability of the perp.

                                  In the case of drunk driving, there is no intent to injure me. If it was my road, I would not allow drunk people to drive on my road, pretty much as the government does now, BUT criminal penalties would only apply as a result of actual injury to a victim
                                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by ewv 1 week, 4 days ago
                      "Even most Objectivists"? It flatly contradicts Objectivism. Objectivism is not a form of fringe anarchy.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by  $  CBJ 1 week, 4 days ago
                        Objectivists can and do regularly disagree about what constitutes initiation of force. In this case the issue concerns the nature and extent of reckless endangerment.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by ewv 1 week, 4 days ago
                          There is no "disagreement" within Objectivism over threats from drunks and shooters. It's the kind of endless how-many-angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin arguments typical among libertarians.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by ewv 1 week, 4 days ago
                    The harm is recklessly shooting at people, threatening their lives. That is why you would be overpowered and stopped. More likely, and more appropriately, the "overpowering" would consist of shooting you as soon as possible to stop you before you killed someone. If you lived you would be properly put away for a very long time.

                    Likewise, having your license revoked for drunk driving is punishment for the crime. The suspension prevents you from doing it again because you have proved by your own actions that you can't be trusted to drive. If you had pulled a stunt like that when you first went for your driver's license you would not have been allowed to complete the test and would never have received a license.

                    Are you trying rationalize the elimination of laws against drunk driving because you're a drunk? There is no rational basis for it. Were you drinking before writing this? You did not get those screwy ideas from Ayn Rand, or any other mental process connected to reality, but your statements are now public for all to see. They suggest that you are someone who should be watched. Whether or not you understand what is wrong with them, if you engage in the activities you want to be innocent you will in fact be charged with a crime and treated accordingly. Civilized society would not put up with it, and neither would anyone else, right down to gangsters you would threaten.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by term2 1 week, 4 days ago
                      Actually I don’t drink or do drugs If the roads were privately owned, I think one would have driving privileges revoked by the road owner for dui, but no criminal proceedings unless damage or injury. I would not want to be on a road with someone who was drunk. What I object to is the criminal aspect of current dui law when there is no victim
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by  $  CBJ 1 week, 4 days ago
                  Subjectivism and hedonism are not fundamental characteristics of libertarianism. As a matter of fact, some libertarians are also Objectivists.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by ewv 1 week, 4 days ago
                    Subjectivism and hedonism are characteristic of the a-philosophical libertarians. Libertarianism is not Objectivism. Ayn Rand rejected and denounced the libertarian movement for good reason. Only libertarian in the vaguest sense of pro-freedom is Objectivist political philosophy "libertarian". No one should expect to find Objectivism in the a-philosophical libertarian movement, especially the Libertarian Party and its candidates.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by  $  CBJ 1 week, 4 days ago
                      A political party is not a philosophy club, and the libertarian movement of 1972 is not the libertarian movement of 2019. The Libertarian Party is no longer considered "fringe", our views are increasingly respected and debated, and that's due in large measure to decades of hard work and dedication to freedom on the part of the LP's activists and candidates. Many of us in the party are Objectivists, and most others, whatever their differences, believe philosophically in individual liberty. Perhaps our willingness to take the fight for liberty into the political arena is why libertarianism, as a movement, has gained more acceptance by the general public than has Objectivism.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by ewv 1 week, 4 days ago
                        The Libertarian Party remains a fringe party that is not seriously debated, let alone accepted. It's a joke, as recently illustrated by the two clowns Johnson and Weld chosen as the leaders. It's "acceptance" by the few consists of subjectivists such as those obsessed with drugs and whose "acceptance" does not matter.

                        No, it is not a "philosophy club" -- it has no basis in philosophy applied to reality at all. The sneering "philosophy club" trivializing philosophy only admits the complete lack of understanding of the role philosophy as a serious requirement for political change.

                        No, it does not have "Objectivists". It has some members claiming to have some interest in Objectivism, without understanding, as it dishonestly claims an association with the thinker Ayn Rand who emphatically denounced any such association with her ideas.

                        An example of the lack required understanding and acceptance of Objectivism is in the thinking at the Libertarian Party.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by  $  CBJ 1 week, 4 days ago
                          Ad hominem attacks are not arguments, and the 4,500,000 people who voted for Johnson and Weld were for the most part intelligent people voting their convictions. Do you consider them inferior to those who voted for Hillary or Trump?
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by ewv 1 week, 4 days ago
                            Johson and Weld were buffoons. That is not an "ad hominem attack", it's an observation of fact. Yes, there is something wrong with those who seriously supported them, except perhaps for those who concluded the whole thing was a farce and voted for Weld and Johnson so as to not have to write in Mickey Mouse.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by  $  CBJ 1 week, 4 days ago
                              “Johnson and Weld were buffoons.” “Yes, there is something wrong with those who seriously supported them . . . “ (I assume I am included in that group.) “It's ‘acceptance’ by the few consists of subjectivists such as those obsessed with drugs and whose ‘acceptance’ does not matter.“ (I assume I am included in that group too.)
                              I think this pretty much fits the definition of “ad hominem”. And your characterization of the Libertarian Party as “a fringe party that is not seriously debated” is demonstratably false. Here’s a partial list of people and publications that endorsed Johnson and Weld in the 2016 election, according to Wikipedia:
                              Newspapers: Chicago Tribune, The Detroit News, New Hampshire Union Leader, Richmond Times-Dispatch, Winston-Salem Journal.
                              Performers: Drew Carey, Penn and Teller, Melissa Joan Hart, Joe Rogan.
                              Directors/screenwriters: Heywood Gould, David Lynch.
                              Scholars: Deirdre McCloskey, Distinguished Professor of Economics, History, English, and Communication at the University of Illinois at Chicago; Jeffrey Miron, Senior Lecturer and Director of Undergraduate Studies of the Harvard University economics department, Director of Economic Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, former Department of Economics chair at Boston University; Michael Munger, professor of political science and economics and former chair of Political Science department at Duke University.
                              If you’re still willing to write off the LP as a “fringe” party, that’s your privilege, but the facts say otherwise.
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                              • Posted by ewv 1 week, 4 days ago
                                Everyone know that the Libertarian Party is a fringe party that had no serious role in the election. Please drop the fantasizing. Describing it is as what it is is not an "ad hominem argument". Again, your sneering term "philosophy club" trivializing philosophy only admits the complete lack of understanding of the role philosophy as a serious requirement for political change. Ayn Rand emphatically denounced the liberarians for good reason, long before the Libertarian Party had sunk to the likes of Johnson and Weld. It is not Objectivist.
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                • Posted by  $  CBJ 1 week, 4 days ago
                                  The Bandwagon Fallacy (also, Argument from Common Sense, Argumentum ad Populum): The fallacy of arguing that because ‘everyone,’ ‘the people,’ or ‘the majority’ (or someone in power who has widespread backing) supposedly thinks or does something, it must therefore be true and right.” -- http://utminers.utep.edu/omwilliamson...

                                  The Ad Hominem Argument (also, "Personal attack," "Poisoning the well"): The fallacy of attempting to refute an argument by attacking the opposition’s intelligence, morals, education, professional qualifications, personal character or reputation, using a corrupted negative argument from ethos. http://utminers.utep.edu/omwilliamson...

                                  Also, I never said the Libertarian Party is Objectivist.
                                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 2 weeks, 3 days ago in reply to this comment.
    Drunks killing people on the highway are not "victimless". When their criminal behavior is detected they are properly stopped. The police can stop other sources of driving to endanger, too, when it is observed. Some forms are amenable to objective tests to prove a state of fog so the behavior does not have to become even more dangerously extreme before it can be established. Threats are not "victimless crimes". They are dealt with in law, not subjective "slippery slopes", in order to avoid the libertarian anarchist arbitrary use of force to stop them.

    "Peaceful coexistence is impossible if a man has to live under the constant threat of force to be unleashed against him by any of his neighbors at any moment" -- Ayn Rand.
    "When you deal with the threat of force, nothing can answer it but armed force" -- Ayn Rand.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by LibertyBelle 2 weeks, 4 days ago
    Why don't they just put everyone under arrest who has just walked past a bar or past someone who was drinking, if a specially-trained dog can smell it?--And to make it easier to punish offenders, why not just declare that, ipso facto, proof of guilt? Why even bother to have a trial in the first place?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Flootus5 2 weeks, 5 days ago
    Remember the WKRP in Cincinnati episode where Doc on air performs repeated tests for reaction time and accuracy by some State cop while increasingly getting drunk? And the results where he got better and faster with increasing alcohol intake. I can attest, this is true, but up to a level that will differ by the individual, and within a range of content. After that range limit, performance for anybody will drop rapidly and there can be the many known serious consequences.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by term2 1 week ago
      DUI laws should affect drivers licenses, but as long as there is no injury, I think the criminal DUI laws should be repealed. Doesnt criminality require a victim?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Stormi 2 weeks, 6 days ago
    We have a rsh of stupid drivers in the Midwest. They cn't even properly handle a McD drive thru. Pickup trucks seem to regularly run stop signs. Idiots turn left off one way streets from the RIGHT land, in front of cars in that lane. Texting while driving is a MAJOR issue. Now, add alcohol impairment in combination with any of the above, and you have dad people. Of course, our satte requires insurance, but does not verify it, so many of those accidents cost the driver nothing! Of course there our morons, like the one who floored his new Corvette and took out a utility pole, or the speeder who too his Camaro through a stop sign into the path of a semi. I don't really care what they do to them, as they both killed great cars, lock them up!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by term2 1 week ago
      Not much different in Las Vegas. Terrible drivers who do things all day without even being drunk. Mostly because of inattention and the desire to make split second major driving decisions without regard to physics or the presence of other drivers on the road.

      Given the number of billboards advertising lawyers , I would say that drunk driving is one of the least problems here in terms of the number of accidents.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo