It depends on whether its Utilitarian or not.
Exactly, it's a trade-off. We don't have a drink drive limit of zero, even though theoretically this could be the safest.
Not quite. Disbanding all law and order would be saying the drunk driver who kills will not be charged. It's about moving goalposts. At the moment we criminalise people who go over a certain limit - libertarianism would say "OK that's fine, just don't do anything naughty while you're past that limit".
You know, for somebody who is constantly questioning what libertarianism is and what role it could play in mainstream society, you're awfully comfortably with making sweeping generalisations about what libertarians believe in.
You might still have to pay for them though.
I agree, the majority of roads would probably reflect the majority opinion. However it could also be more flexible (or maybe you could call it less consistent) than what we have now, and for any road to get support from you, you'd need to opt in.
They are referencing a previously held discussion in these forums where some have proposed that driving drunk, by itself, should not be illegal. It's not a new point of discussion.
I am aware of that. But I have noticed that KSaiyu has a habit of questioning what libertarian views on a subject might be, and then telling everyone what those views are. And given that he tends to characterise libertarianism in such a way that it seems absolutely ludicrous to the point of being anarchistic, the cynic in me questions his motives. If he wonders what views libertarians might hold on the subject, how is he in any position to then declare what those views are?
Except that you don't know what libertarians think, so you're in no position to tell them what they think. After all, you have already fundamentally misunderstood libertarianism by characterising it as aiming for a society with no form of organisation or order. You are clearly trying to discredit libertarianism by immediately rushing to its most extreme form and pointedly ignoring whatever the actual libertarians put forward in this thread.
Depends on the circumstances of the accident.
Why do they have to be at odds? A man can cheat on his wife but still donate to charity, can he not? To deny that people can and do sin is ridiculous, no matter what your politics. But considering that a libertarian ideal is legalizing many sinful activities, libertarians would clearly have no misconceptions about people being sinful. They just don't think it should be illegal to be sinful in ways that affect no one else.
If your conclusion is no government or regulation of any kind then you have the disconnect. Take things point by point, not how you assume that would make the overall mindset. To use your far-right extreme example (why you went there instead of sticking to libertarianism is confusing, by the way), a person can be an anti-Semite but that doesn't mean they think the holocaust was a good idea. They just don't like Jews. Far right conservatives in the US don't like homosexuals, but very few of them are on board with the idea of killing homosexuals.
That's anarchy. In libertarianism there would be consequences for damage caused by drink driving, but no legislation to stop drink driving in the first place. Correct?
It's hardly confusing since you've demonstrated what I was trying to prove. If a country adopted a far right government I would criticize that society (like I am with the hypothetical libertarian country) - I wouldn't say "all far right individuals think like this", same as I haven't said that about all libertarians.Foolkiller
Which is not libertarianism.
For some of us, yes. We don't believe a guy who had one more glass of wine than the government approves of should have his life completely screwed up for actually doing nothing wrong.
But your concept of a libertarian country is as inaccurate as thinking that if a majority of individuals don't like Jews they would become fascists.
It depends on how you define limits. Amount of alcohol? No. Ability to drive safely, then yes. A guy driving recklessly would possibly be stopped. A guy driving in his lane and not bothering anyone is no different than anyone else, no matter what is in his system.
I don't think so, to me it's not really much different to any other case of negligence and we can apply a reasonable person test to it. A reasonably prudent person would probably drive if they had a Bud Light with their chicken wings a half hour ago. They wouldn't drive if they've been shotgunning beer all night. If a drunk driver swerves onto the sidewalk and hits a pedestrian, we can probably argue that the driver wouldn't have hit the pedestrian if they exercised the caution a reasonable person would and didn't drive drunk. If the drunk driver is driving safely and hits another driver who ran a red light at a blind intersection, that's neither the fault of the drunk driver, nor the driver's drunkenness.
The same as any other negligent act that can cause harm. A libertarian society would not have a BAC limit, nor would drunk driving in and of itself be a crime. The libertarian view is that it's no different than any other unsafe driving, you can cause danger to others by being distracted by drinking water while driving, fiddling with your gps, texting, eating, etc. what matters is whether or not you're driving safely. If you're driving safely it doesn't matter what you're doing in the car. If you're swerving all over the road it doesn't matter if it's because you're drunk, tired, fiddling with the radio, or eating lobster, what matters is you're swerving all over the road.
But that's how it already works now. If a drunk driver is driving safely and within the rules, they won't get caught unless they happen to drive through a DUI checkpoint. If they're driving unsafely, they'll be pulled over, and if they cause an accident the police will respond.
No it wouldn't, the police would pull you over for driving unsafely, or would respond to an accident. The rest would happen in court just like any other case of negligence. It's not up to the police to hash out the details or go through a 4 step negligence test, they pull you over if you're breaking the law, possibly arrest you, and then it goes through the courts.
It doesn't matter, if you're driving unsafely you're driving unsafely and the police would pull you over (and possibly arrest you) for that.
It's similar, but we have the deterrent of if you are over the limit, you will be penalised. You only have to look at the culture shift in attitudes to drink driving after this was introduced to see the positive effect it has had.
Unfortunately from past experiences I don't share the same faith as you in the humble bobby.Noob616
....giving them the power. How do you prove I was driving unsafely? CCTV? Fair enough, what happens if I say there was a bee in the car?Noob616
Utilitarianism doesn't work on libertarians, and a libertarian society wouldn't consider this a valid function of government. Laws in a libertarian society are about protecting the rights of citizens. To a libertarian, murder should be illegal because it violates your right to life, whether or not it deters murderers is irrelevant. In this case, drunk driving isn't an inherent rights violation so there's no justification to arrest people for it. However, if you accidentally hit someone with your car, and it can be proven that it wouldn't have happened "but for" your drinking (and thus your negligent disregard for another's rights), it's a more serious crime.
I don't really understand what your fear is with it though. Whether or not your drinking was a contributing factor isn't up to the police to decide, you wouldn't be arrested for drunk driving because there would be no crime for drunk driving. You'd be arrested for whatever traffic violation happened, whether that's driving recklessly, running someone over, speeding, or hitting another car, and the rest would happen in court. If you shoot someone the police don't arrest you and sentence you to life in prison, they arrest you because they have probable cause you've committed murder and then you'll be prosecuted in court. I don't see how this is any different.
They already have this power, police don't need ironclad proof to detain you, they need reasonable suspicion that you're involved in a crime to pull you over, and need probable cause to arrest you. An officer observing a car swerving all over the road is probable cause that a crime is being committed, because swerving all over the road is a crime. As it is now, they pull you over for swerving, give you a breathalyzer, and then arrest you for drunk driving. Without a drunk driving law, you'd be pulled over for swerving, arrested for reckless driving, and the officer would likely note if you were drunk.
Don't you live in a country that allows randomly stopping drivers just to check their IDs? I might be thinking of one of the other European countries.
It's still reckless driving. The cause is unimportant. You swerved in a dangerous manner (crossing the lines, loss of grip, etc) and it was witnessed by an officer.
Only because you are trying to make it that way.
Years before a drunk went the wrong way on the interstate and plowed into a bus head-on I was a young-in in school being taught that it was bad and that we should tell our parent's that it is bad. I remember riding in my neighbor's car while their dad was driving with a beer and saying something to him. The attitude change started long before the new laws were enacted. Same for smoking, conserving water/energy, and recycling. Some of those changed without a single law being passed.
Cop saw you swerve. Today or under your new super-fearful imagined society, you get pulled over and charged with reckless driving. Bee be damned. From there it is up to the courts to determine if the bee is a factor in excusing you from violating the law. One could argue that if something in the car occurs that you should pull off the road to deal with it rather than swerve around while driving at speed. You can argue act of nature and hope the courts agree. The police do not determine your guilt. Courts do. That would not change.
