Seriously, what are you talking about? Alcohol impairs your ability to do a lot of stuff, including seeing properly and reacting quickly. We know this. I can be quite an enjoyable feeling. It's why we drink in the first place. We introduced DUI laws and the number of people who die on the roads went down. It's not a knee-jerk reaction, it's bleeding obvious and it's perfectly reasonable to presume that drunk driving will result in more accidents occurring because we have a lot of data that says it does. And for "data" you can read "dead people" if you like. Honestly, go back and read what you just wrote and see if you think it's as stupid as I do.
In Vic its zero BAC/drugs for all transport workers (truckies, cabbies, etc). No leftovers from last night allowed whatsoever. As for drugs, Vic has lollypop drug detecting sticks as well as breathalysers for random tests so chances of detecting impaired people on either is equally likely. No preference given to drugged up types over older Ive never had a problem drinking and driving types. Penalties for either are not minor and are excaserberated by repeat offences.
I can't believe I am about to agree with Big A.D. Somehow using the curtailment of a freedom to not criminalise drink driving is absurd. What next, once we have a bill of rights with "a right to bear arms" we should be able to do so also drunk in a public place? I know people that are down right dangerous with a weapon sober let alone full of grog. Wether we like it or not, driving a motor vehicle is not a right it is a priveledge when you are driving on a road that you don't have 100% ownership of. On private property? fill ya boots! there are enough shockers on the roads already without people being allowed to use them pissed. Should we also allow unlimited speed zones around schools? Just as long as you don't hit anyone there shouldn't be a problem doing 150km/h in a road train past a primary school right? Come on guys, there's one thing to be "extreme" by being a libertarian but it's a whole other thing to be that nuts that those sorts of views will GUARANTEE that these ideals we share in limited government, sound money, anti socialism etc will remain on the fringe for ever.
Quite right. It's just a small price to pay for the freedom the state grants you isn't it. When you put it like that, why can't people just shut up and pay the price for their freedom? But on the other hand, one might even more reasonably say "Oh God, why don't they just leave me alone and stop threatening me! Everyone with two neutrons to rub together knows that freedom means one acts under their own volition not under threat of punishment." Honestly, I think we are a mature enough nation to at least trial voluntary voting and analyse the affects of it or perhaps even put it to a referendum. But this pretending that coercion of the state is an expression of freedom and if you don't like it either fit in or FO, is really quite pathetic. Btw, did you vote in the poll? (See my signature to participate)
Regulation and maintenance of the public commons in the interests of the people is definitely an appropriate role of government. However, one should also observe that that is the very power that is being abused by governments to continually erode the freedoms enjoyed by the public. It is this "kettling" tactic of constraining freedoms into smaller and smaller areas of life that creates "extremists" from normal and reasonable people.
If you re-read what I posted drink driving was one example, my point being putting others at risk isn't acceptable. As someone who has lost an immediate family member to a drink driver, I personally think anyone who touts the whole freeman (idiotic) idea that everyone is free to do absolutely anything they like provided there is no actual harm, is totally wrong. I hardly think preventing drink driving can be related to pre-crime. Can you honestly imagine what the roads would be like without any road rules, the only rule being that no actual harm is done to others? No traffic lights, no give way signs, no speed limits, drink driving is OK. There's too many idiots in this world to make this idea work.
I'm not an idiot and I know exactly what I wrote but in your one sidedness againt Libertarians you chose to NOT quote the parts where I said DUI regulations are 100% fine. Libertarians aren't stupid. Of course drugs and alcohol affect people. Should people be allowed to take all the drugs and alvohol they want? Yes. Do the owners of roads and businesses have a right to not want drunk or drug affected people on their property or workplace? Yes. It is a common part of contracts including the contract between people driving on government roads. Does the government have the right to take away someone's liberties in the expectation that harm will happen? No.
And if I'm not being obvious enough, freedom does not mean using someone else's capital property in ways they don't want. So for roads, speed limits, driving tests, road rules etc are perfectly fine because the owner of the capital sets the rules of use. You are free to accept those rules or not. You are also free to publically discuss your opinions of those rules to get "better" ones. People are not free to go onto a worksite with dangerous chemicals and equipment and skylark not because it is anti-freedom but because it is someone else's property and on their property they should be able to set whatever rules of use they want. Edit: So banning drink driving is not pre-crime (with drink driving itself breach of contract). Banning alcohol or arresting someone who's drunk on the presumption they will drive and there's a higher risk they'll crash is pre-crime.
While not exactly a no rule jurisidiction I nevertheless find this interesting: http://gimundo.com/news/article/no-road-rules-policy-gets-rid-of-traffic-accidents/ I'm not convinced that no rules would work however on occasion I used to witness a set of traffic lights break down at a very busy intersection near my work. In the absence of any specific rule about who has right of way ALL the car drivers took it in turns and were extremely courteous. A few cars would move across from one direction. Then the cars following would stop and let cars from another direction go through with each side (there were 4) taking it in turns. No incidents, lots of traffic going straight through and turning across other lanes of traffice and yet no rules either. The only caveat I might add is the area I worked in was one of the more affluent in Sydney and I daresay most of the drivers had a higher level of education - although I have also seen these same people do plenty of stupid things behind the wheel of a car (in spite of rules against it) so I'm not sure that means anything!
Phffffft...... There are lots of things I don't have the "right" to do. I don't care , I wasn't going to do them anyway. Does this make me a zombie? There are lots of things I don't have the "right" to do. I don't care , I do them anyway. Does this make me an extremist? An extreme zombie or zombified extremist?
^ Currently it makes you a law breaker and there's the potential for you to be prosecuted even if only a low risk (and if you write or support the rules to forcibly stop others doing personal things that you don't want to do then you are immoral as you seek to infringe on the inalienable rights of others).
^ So you can have your property and/or liberty taken away for doing nothing more than everyone else but happened to be in a time and place where a policeman decided to enforce the law against you (maybe because he didn't like your face).
sure, but you don't need to break the law for this to happen. Guilty or innocent, makes very little difference. Luckily. I have a very likeable face.
Now you are changing the topic to one of enforcement (and I think you're just being a smart arse because you like to be one). Guilty or innocent makes a very big difference. In well functioning justice systems (like in Australia) you have recourse if you are falsely arrested and imprisoned. In arbitrary legal systems (like in Australia) where the laws are written without true moral underpinnings then you get unjust, immoral, unequal laws (like in Australia). The recent Muhamed Haneef case is a very good example of all of this. Whether the compensation can ever be enough is an entirely separate issue again.
All these extremist libertarians just ask them . Extremists ? lol extreme powder puffs they would self regulate like little fluffy puppies
sorry if it sounds smart arsey, I didn't intend it to.Guilty or innocent does make a big difference, in theory. In practice not so much. If you get charged with breaking the law, if you are guilty or innocent, your chances of being treated fairly by the system are the same. I believe innocent (that is innocent of the offense they are charged with) people are prosecuted and persecuted by the system all the time. I don't believe the justice system in Australia is a well functioning justice system. I believe there are plenty of people being punished for offences they didn't commit. I also believe there are many more (just about everyone) not being punished for offences they did commit.
Where i am atm & a lot of places in asia have very few road rules & are rarely enforced .They never book you for speeding . For a start they only have 125cc motorcycles & couldnt catch you if they wanted to . It really breeds awareness on the roads . I have seen less accidents here than in oz by a mile because people are fully aware of others & animals people, double parking on bends ,the local fish vendor stopping his bike wherever he wants to sell something etc . People are everywhere & the lines on the road are guidelines & mostly for decoration . In oz ive found that people drive around with their head up their anus thinking that nothing is going to happen & when someone deviates from the norm ...BANG ....accident . While here 99% of drivers & riders are ready for anything hence the lack of accidents .. The rules have lulled them into a false sense of security in oz
But its the principle. If its alright to tolerate just a "small" infringement of liberty, in your eyes, well where should we draw the line? And like Kris says, protesting against the corruption of it all by not turning up is a valid form of protest, except for the fact that its illegal. Valid forms of protest shouldn't be illegal. You know, I just think its so transparent for these left-wing Labor supporters to froth at the mouth against even floating the idea of voluntary voting. But the way I feel is, if you know you can't win without relying on the forced votes of people who otherwise wouldn't vote, like these left-wingers obviously realise, then you don't deserve to be in power anyway. Compulsory voting divorces the political class from the mainstream, because the political class doesn't HAVE to connect with the people in order to win their votes, because everyone is forced to vote anyway, and with forced preferences as well, the choice ultimately comes down to a Lib/Lab binary anyway. Obama in 2008 shows that if a person is charismatic enough and visionary enough people will willingly vote in droves.
