Libertarian Party: Your Thoughts?

[KSaiyu]

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.

That's where we disagree. I see government as a force for good, if the powers are limited (much more so than they are now).

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.

Using the example of my handcuffing on NYE imagine all cops were allowed to carry tasers (they are trialling this in some forces).
Now imagine they yelled stop and I didn't hear.
Now imagine everyone (including the cops) had the right to carry guns.

It's not hard to see bad scenarios turning worse with simple misunderstandings. It would occur rarely, but you go from virtually impossible to possible with a few tweaks to the law.

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.

Then it goes to court, and the question is whether or not you were driving recklessly, not whether or not you were drunk. The prosecution would have to prove that you were driving recklessly, and you would try to either disprove that or create reasonable doubt that you were. You could try to say there was a bee in the car, but I doubt that would be accepted in court as a very thorough defense.

God, the less I talk about the court's incompetence the better.

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.

I don't know if they can do that. I hope not.

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.

True, which would be a whole lot less likely on a Friday and Saturday night if we had drink drive limits.

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.

My mom is trying to stop smoking, not because it is illegal somewhere but because she is scared of the cancer.

Yeah, but it's still nowhere near as effective as legislation

Again this is probably down to priorities. I think we have a pretty acceptable trade off in terms of public health vs personal liberties at the moment.

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.

And if you need evidence, keep in mind that libertarians would want cameras on all police and their cars in order to keep them in check.

Could I ask for them in uniforms too. I've been told by a cop that my dad is an axe wielding maniac wanted for multiple murders by them in the past.

 

[Keef]

That's where we disagree. I see government as a force for good, if the powers are limited (much more so than they are now).

I see government as a force.

 

[Joel]

That's where we disagree. I see government as a force for good, if the powers are limited (much more so than they are now).

That's fine, I'm just saying that in a libertarian society whether or not something is for the overall "greater good" is irrelevant to whether or not the government should do it.

Using the example of my handcuffing on NYE imagine all cops were allowed to carry tasers (they are trialling this in some forces).
Now imagine they yelled stop and I didn't hear.
Now imagine everyone (including the cops) had the right to carry guns.
It's not hard to see bad scenarios turning worse with simple misunderstandings. It would occur rarely, but you go from virtually impossible to possible with a few tweaks to the law.

Where I'm from all cops carry guns and as far as I know they all carry tasers. They aren't tasering and shooting people en masse and I don't really think it's a big issue. I still don't really know what that has to do with drunk driving laws or how cops would be serving as judge and jury for not being able to arrest you for drunk driving.

God, the less I talk about the court's incompetence the better.

So you'd rather the same incompetent courts have the power to lock people up for drunk driving?

Could I ask for them in uniforms too. I've been told by a cop that my dad is an axe wielding maniac wanted for multiple murders by them in the past.

That's what the proposals are mostly, that police would have to wear a camera on their chest at all times while on duty.

 

[FoolKiller]

Using the example of my handcuffing on NYE imagine all cops were allowed to carry tasers (they are trialling this in some forces).
Now imagine they yelled stop and I didn't hear.
Now imagine everyone (including the cops) had the right to carry guns.

It's called America, and it is why we are trying to get them to put body cams on.

But don't worry, you don't need guns and tasers to use excessive deadly force. Ask Rodney King, Kelly Thomas, or Eric Garner.

True, which would be a whole lot less likely on a Friday and Saturday night if we had drink drive limits.

But what about the guy who had a couple of beers and isn't swerving?

Yeah, but it's still nowhere near as effective as legislation

Are you suggesting that reduced smoking rates in Scotland are due to legislation? As I can tell from some quick research the public smoking legislation passed in 2006. According to the Scottish government's own statistics the decrease in smoking rates began long before then, and even appears to have slowed down since.

30.7% to 25.4% from 1999-2006. ~.75% decrease per year
25.4% to 23.1 from 2006-2013. ~.33% decrease per year

Legislation works alright, just not the way you think it does.

You see, politicians love to say X decreased by X% since legislation was passed. They rarely say what the trend was before the legislation was passed.

Now, why would we see the decreasing trend before 2006? Well, in 1999 is when the US government sued tobacco companies for deceptive practices in regard to the health dangers in tobacco usage, which was a debate that had been in the public spotlight for the better part of a decade at that point. See, the public already knew the dangers and were acting on them.


I can show the same trends in drunk driving in the US. The trend of drunk driving fatalities was headed down before new laws were passed in the 1990's.

Ultimately, this comes down to one of my favorite Penn Jillette quotes: Just because it is a good idea doesn't mean the government should do it.

Again this is probably down to priorities. I think we have a pretty acceptable trade off in terms of public health vs personal liberties at the moment.

It would sure be interesting to see if the trend in smoking in Scotland would have continued as before legislation. Public health and personal liberties would have won. At a minimum, if the reduced decrease was completely unrelated to legislation, you would have broken even on the public health side without compromising personal liberties.

Could I ask for them in uniforms too.

Body cams are worn on the uniform. That is what I was talking about. Right now people are calling for them but the police are fighting it.

I've been told by a cop that my dad is an axe wielding maniac wanted for multiple murders by them in the past.

Cool story. And the courts said?

I'm not saying that the cops are 100% trustworthy. Look around and you will find I am quite the opposite. That said, nothing I have proposed would give them anymore power than they already have, and I want them held more accountable for their actions.

 

[KSaiyu]

But what about the guy who had a couple of beers and isn't swerving?

It's tough, but I'd rather have the law be harsh on him than foster attitude to drink driving

Are you suggesting that reduced smoking rates in Scotland are due to legislation?

Perhaps. It would be impossible to measure the effects of taxing, advertising, packaging and bans through the years so we can't reasonably conclude people would have kicked the habit at the same rate if we passed absolutely no legislation since Sir Richard Doll's study.

Is NYC vs the rest of USA down to factors other than legislation?

Cool story. And the courts said?

I dunno. They left with the screwdriver and I left confused.

I'm not saying that the cops are 100% trustworthy. Look around and you will find I am quite the opposite. That said, nothing I have proposed would give them anymore power than they already have, and I want them held more accountable for their actions.

They'd have more power to abuse. See my example with all cops having access to guns.

 

[FoolKiller]

It's tough, but I'd rather have the law be harsh on him than foster attitude to drink driving

Why? What did he do wrong?

Perhaps. It would be impossible to measure the effects of taxing, advertising, packaging and bans through the years so we can't reasonably conclude people would have kicked the habit at the same rate if we passed absolutely no legislation since Sir Richard Doll's study.

Is NYC vs the rest of USA down to factors other than legislation?

Let's start with the fact that smoking is at all time lows all over the US, despite smoking bans and taxes not being universal.

As for NYC, their smoking rates have recently been climbing. The laws are still in place. Even city officials blame the rise on decreased available funds for awareness campaigns. If the laws were responsible then this shouldn't happen at all. The bans exist. The prohibitively high taxes exist (but that just created a black market that resulted in a man being choked to death - saving lives through increased police brutality!)

I dunno. They left with the screwdriver and I left confused.

So, no arrests or convictions? You lost a screwdriver. It's called property forfeiture. It exists now, obviously.

They'd have more power to abuse.

I just said that nothing I proposed would give them more power than they have now, and your responses is basically saying, "Uh-huh." It's like I'm talking to my daughter.

See my example with all cops having access to guns.

What about it? Our cops have guns.

Even without any form of weapon cops can be abusive.

How would a cop needing a reason to even check you for alcohol, and having to follow the same criteria we have today, give them any more power? It actually gives them less power. They couldn't do checkpoints, road blocks, or bust a guy for sleeping it off with the car running to stay warm.

You still haven't explained how it gives them more power. You can repeat it all you want, but that doesn't actual explain it.

 

[KSaiyu]

Why? What did he do wrong?

This is the trade-off. Just like the incompetent or drunk doctor - they haven't done anything wrong yet, but there are checks in place to stop there being too many who will do something wrong.

Let's start with the fact that smoking is at all time lows all over the US, despite smoking bans and taxes not being universal.

As for NYC, their smoking rates have recently been climbing. The laws are still in place. Even city officials blame the rise on decreased available funds for awareness campaigns. If the laws were responsible then this shouldn't happen at all. The bans exist. The prohibitively high taxes exist (but that just created a black market that resulted in a man being choked to death - saving lives through increased police brutality!)

To get to that point prior to the climbing rates. What was that sharper decline relative to the rest of America due to?

So, no arrests or convictions? You lost a screwdriver. It's called property forfeiture. It exists now, obviously.

This time no. Doesn't change the fact that they abused their power.

I just said that nothing I proposed would give them more power than they have now, and your responses is basically saying, "Uh-huh." It's like I'm talking to my daughter.

What about it? Our cops have guns.

Give me statistics about every lawful and unlawful killing by cop in America and I would think twice about giving all of our cops the power to abuse the right to carry a gun.

How would a cop needing a reason to even check you for alcohol, and having to follow the same criteria we have today, give them any more power? It actually gives them less power. They couldn't do checkpoints, road blocks, or bust a guy for sleeping it off with the car running to stay warm.

You still haven't explained how it gives them more power. You can repeat it all you want, but that doesn't actual explain it.

They'd have the power to make a judgement call. At the moment it's clear cut - over the limit, scientifically proven and we arrest you. In your instance it would have to be "this guy, in our estimation is a danger on the roads, it may be due to alcohol, we'll arrest him because we think this is the case".

 

[FoolKiller]

This is the trade-off. Just like the incompetent or drunk doctor - they haven't done anything wrong yet, but there are checks in place to stop there being too many who will do something wrong.

Yet is the key phrase. You worry about cops abusing their power but use the argument that they should have the power to see someone engaging in an activity that might lead to wrong doing and accuse them of wrongdoing already. This mentality is why trying to buy too much sinus medicine gets you investigated for meth in my state. Guess what argument they used to pass that law or the law that states that if you buy three of the dozen items used to make meth within a timeframe is suspicion of meth production.

To get to that point prior to the climbing rates. What was that sharper decline relative to the rest of America due to?

Sticker shock when it jumped from $3.50 a pack to $15 a pack. They have begun to adjust their budgets accordingly, it would seem.

This time no. Doesn't change the fact that they abused their power.

Happens all the time in any system. The point is, the cops are not the deciding factor in guilt. No one went to jail or was punished in any way unjustly. I'm not saying that can't happen, but ultimately the cops never determine your guilt. Courts do.

Give me statistics about every lawful and unlawful killing by cop in America and I would think twice about giving all of our cops the power to abuse the right to carry a gun.

Why? Our cops do it without guns all the time. Guns aren't the problem.

They'd have the power to make a judgement call. At the moment it's clear cut - over the limit, scientifically proven and we arrest you. In your instance it would have to be "this guy, in our estimation is a danger on the roads, it may be due to alcohol, we'll arrest him because we think this is the case".

Um, they do that now. If they get to the scene of an accident and one of the drivers appears to have been drinking they are charged with suspicion of DUI. How is this more power?

Do your cops show up at a drunk driving accident and just drop both drivers off at the hospital and tell them cheerio?

And at what point did anyone, anywhere, in anyway claim that they wouldn't have to prove that alcohol is in the system of a driver? NO ONE has said the cops get to show up and go, "Well, I think he might be drunk. No breathalyzer needed. I say so. That's good enough. Courts? What courts? I'm Judge Dredd, I am the court."

Even if they arrest someone under suspicion, arrest does not determine guilt. Never has and no one is saying it should. If it works like that in your area then your courts are more screwed than any police abuse you fear.

Police abuse power, but no one is giving them a new power here. They have to prove alcohol was consumed and limits exceed legal safe tolerances before they can go around arresting people.

I don't know where you think the cop now just gets to decide that it is a factor without any proof.

 

[Joel]

Why does it matter how American cops use their guns if the idea is to arm cops in the UK? Wouldn't the more relevant comparison be with German, Austrian, Dutch, or French police?

 

[LeMansAid]

Is the Christian view of mankind being inherently sinful at odds with the very useful (in spruiking libertarianism) view that most people are inherently good, generous, and helpful?

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.

Wouldn't inherently sinful mean that we can expect people to do wrong, while libertarianism would be much more a logical proposal without that expectation? Now, I don't think that people are inherently sinful, but others do. Don't know if you do.

Believing that humans are naturally drawn to wrong-doing is a very awkward fit with the idea of trusting that they will generally do the right and good thing, for me.

 

[FoolKiller]

Wouldn't inherently sinful mean that we can expect people to do wrong, while libertarianism would be much more a logical proposal without that expectation? Now, I don't think that people are inherently sinful, but others do. Don't know if you do.

Believing that humans are naturally drawn to wrong-doing is a very awkward fit with the idea of trusting that they will generally do the right and good thing, for me.

People will always do wrong. Some will be horrible excuses for humans and others will just be kind of rude. No libertarian I know of has said otherwise.

The very fact that libertarians believe people should suffer the consequences of their actions shows that your awkward scenario is false.

I suspect that you are smart enough to know it as well.

 

[LeMansAid]

People will always do wrong. Some will be horrible excuses for humans and others will just be kind of rude. No libertarian I know of has said otherwise.

The very fact that libertarians believe people should suffer the consequences of their actions shows that your awkward scenario is false.

I'm not talking about crime and punishment though, that's for when the horse has already bolted. A common libertarian argument is that most people will usually do the right thing regardless of laws. I don't think that believing that all humans are innately drawn to wrong-doing sits at all well with that. As I don't subscribe to the latter, it's merely a curio though.

 

[FoolKiller]

I'm not talking about crime and punishment though, that's for when the horse has already bolted. A common libertarian argument is that most people will usually do the right thing regardless of laws. I don't think that believing that all humans are innately drawn to wrong-doing sits at all well with that. As I don't subscribe to the latter, it's merely a curio though.

For the last time: They do not believe humans as a whole are inherently going to do wrong or right. Some humans will do wrong and some will do good. If you screw up your life by doing things that society frowns upon it is your responsibility to deal with the consequences. If you see the guy living on the street and choose to help him you can do that.


There is no inherently right or wrong humans in libertarian philosophy, just that some people will make good or bad choices. Libertarians are about individuals. That doesn't leave room for an inherent behavior of humans as a whole.

 

[Omnis]

The be-all, end-all on the subject:



Link to the paper: http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/09/hans-hermann-hoppe/smack-down/

 

[LeMansAid]

There is no inherently right or wrong humans in libertarian philosophy, just that some people will make good or bad choices. Libertarians are about individuals. That doesn't leave room for an inherent behavior of humans as a whole.

That's actually pretty close to a good explanation of my point. My point being that the Christian philosophy DOES have a view of humans as a whole.

They (libertarians) do not believe humans as a whole are inherently going to do wrong or right.

I agree, and I never suggested that. Only that it's a good fit for libertarians to believe that humans are not innately drawn to wrong-doing in presenting libertarianism as an option.

Not directly on the subject, but I think that this comment from Danoff is one that presents a rationale that is often put forward by libs.

Nonsense, people do absolutely amazing things when they have free time, energy, and resources.

That was in response to someone saying "An idle mind is the devil's playground. We'll probably be seeing an accelerated decay of society". Kind of fitting that there's "devil" in there.

 

[FoolKiller]

That's actually pretty close to a good explanation of my point. My point being that the Christian philosophy DOES have a view of humans as a whole.

Also keep in mind that Christian (and most monotheistic religions) philosophy considers a lot of acts sinful that a libertarian would have zero issue with. A Christian libertarian might say that it is sinful to use the lord's name in vain but that it is someone's right to do that.

Also, keep in mind that Christian's believe that humans have free will, the ability to make their own choices and decisions and that they will have to deal with the consequences of those acts in the afterlife.

That sounds very libertarian to me, with an afterlife aspect added in for fun.

They (libertarians) do not believe humans as a whole are inherently going to do wrong or right.

I agree, and I never suggested that.

You didn't?

Is the Christian view of mankind being inherently sinful at odds with the very useful (in spruiking libertarianism) view that most people are inherently good, generous, and helpful?

I'm not talking about crime and punishment though, that's for when the horse has already bolted. A common libertarian argument is that most people will usually do the right thing regardless of laws. I don't think that believing that all humans are innately drawn to wrong-doing sits at all well with that. As I don't subscribe to the latter, it's merely a curio though.

Only that it's a good fit for libertarians to believe that humans are not innately drawn to wrong-doing in presenting libertarianism as an option.

You're are using two different lexicons to describe wrong-doing. Much like a libertarian will support legalized drugs, but not advocate their use, a Christian libertarian can believe humans should be allowed to act sinfully, but not advocate sinful acts or be willing to do them themselves.

Not directly on the subject, but I think that this comment from Danoff is one that presents a rationale that is often put forward by libs.
That was in response to someone saying "An idle mind is the devil's playground. We'll probably be seeing an accelerated decay of society". Kind of fitting that there's "devil" in there.

Due to the pervasive nature of religion in human society to assume the use of the term "devil" definitively implies religious connotations is ridiculous. Unless they were being very literal about the devil, it is no different than an atheist saying, "Oh my god," or "Good lord."

 

[LeMansAid]

You didn't?

I really didn't. Read veeeeery carefully. Don't ignore words, and don't add words, in your head.

Due to the pervasive nature of religion in human society to assume the use of the term "devil" definitively implies religious connotations is ridiculous. Unless they were being very literal about the devil, it is no different than an atheist saying, "Oh my god," or "Good lord."

Pointing out "devil" was merely meant as a cute aside. It was Danoff's quote that was the real point there, as an example of the way that libertarians often push their trust in humanity.

You're are using two different lexicons to describe wrong-doing. Much like a libertarian will support legalized drugs, but not (necessarily) advocate their use, a Christian libertarian can believe humans should be allowed to act sinfully, but not advocate sinful acts or be willing to do them themselves.

Assuming that with the word I added in there it better describes your view, I agree.

I'm not suggesting that a Christian libertarian is an oxymoron or impossibility, just that libertarianism is a much more logical prospect without the Christians' tarring of all humanity.

 

[FoolKiller]

I really didn't. Read veeeeery carefully. Don't ignore words, and don't add words, in your head.

Not sure how I added or ignored words, but you implied the hell out of it, repeatedly.

I'm not suggesting that a Christian libertarian is an oxymoron or impossibility, just that libertarianism is a much more logical prospect without the Christians' tarring of all humanity.

Wait, is all this just to call Christians illogical?

Let me go back to your original question and make my answer very simple.

Is the Christian view of mankind being inherently sinful at odds with the very useful (in spruiking libertarianism) view that most people are inherently good, generous, and helpful?

No.

 

[LeMansAid]

No.

I value your opinion.

 

[KSaiyu]

Why does it matter how American cops use their guns if the idea is to arm cops in the UK? Wouldn't the more relevant comparison be with German, Austrian, Dutch, or French police?

Quite. What guarantees are there that if our cops all carried we wouldn't descend into the mess America has with police shootings. What is wrong with what we have now?

Sticker shock when it jumped from $3.50 a pack to $15 a pack. They have begun to adjust their budgets accordingly, it would seem

So legislation?

Um, they do that now. If they get to the scene of an accident and one of the drivers appears to have been drinking they are charged with suspicion of DUI. How is this more power?

Which is easily proven with a drink drive result set against a drink drive limit. Here they have the power to say the drinking caused the bad driving. How do you prove this if there is no limit, and how do you prove it was reckless driving in the first place?

Do your cops show up at a drunk driving accident and just drop both drivers off at the hospital and tell them cheerio?

No, but see above.

And at what point did anyone, anywhere, in anyway claim that they wouldn't have to prove that alcohol is in the system of a driver? NO ONE has said the cops get to show up and go, "Well, I think he might be drunk. No breathalyzer needed. I say so. That's good enough. Courts? What courts? I'm Judge Dredd, I am the court."

Even if they arrest someone under suspicion, arrest does not determine guilt. Never has and no one is saying it should. If it works like that in your area then your courts are more screwed than any police abuse you fear.

Police abuse power, but no one is giving them a new power here. They have to prove alcohol was consumed and limits exceed legal safe tolerances before they can go around arresting people.

I don't know where you think the cop now just gets to decide that it is a factor without any proof.

We move from a system of automatic guilt by being over the limit to having to present evidence to hopefully prove that the drink was the cause. It would shift the burden of proof away from the concrete (a scientific result of being over the limit) to the challengeable (testimony of the police + a breathalyzer result)

 

[Famine]

Which is easily proven with a drink drive result set against a drink drive limit. Here they have the power to say the drinking caused the bad driving. How do you prove this if there is no limit, and how do you prove it was reckless driving in the first place?

We move from a system of automatic guilt by being over the limit to having to present evidence to hopefully prove that the drink was the cause. It would shift the burden of proof away from the concrete (a scientific result of being over the limit) to the challengeable (testimony of the police + a breathalyzer result)

You've misunderstood.

There is no limit to create an automatic offence of "being over the limit" - but the limit to be guilty of premeditation or negligence for any other offence is zero.

 

[KSaiyu]

That's a limit we arrive at as a society. I'd say we are pretty happy with the current one, even if some road safety campaigners want to lower it.

 

[FoolKiller]

So legislation?

That has created a black market, illegal importation, guys selling "loosies" on street corners like it's cocaine (and the violence and death resulting from these new criminal enterprises), and what appears to now be failing in an attempt to create a de facto ban, then sure.

Let's follow the logic and ban tobacco products. Drunk driving is bad? Put a breathalyzer on every car ignition and guarantee it never happens.

Which is easily proven with a drink drive result set against a drink drive limit. Here they have the power to say the drinking caused the bad driving. How do you prove this if there is no limit, and how do you prove it was reckless driving in the first place?

Who said there is no limit to determine inebriation after an accident?

We move from a system of automatic guilt by being over the limit to having to present evidence to hopefully prove that the drink was the cause.

Wait, you mean they would be innocent until proven guilty? OH GOD, NO!!! The entire legal system will collapse.
You've convinced me. Automatic guilt is the way to go. China/North Korea style.

It would shift the burden of proof away from the concrete (a scientific result of being over the limit) to the challengeable (testimony of the police + a breathalyzer result)

Oddly, that is how it works now. At least here. And yes, a breathalyzer test over the limit alone is not enough to find a defendant guilty if they have a decent lawyer who knows how to show the faultiness of the testing machines.

That's a limit we arrive at as a society. I'd say we are pretty happy with the current one, even if some road safety campaigners want to lower it.

Flimsy reasoning. Society agreeing and being happy does not make it right. I can think of a few minority groups willing to testify to that.

 

[LeMansAid]

@Keef, @FoolKiller

The latest installment in the adventures of our libertarian senator. The one you've both looked at longingly.
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...senator-david-leyonhjelm-20150305-13w6vp.html

Senator David Leyonhjelm has become the first Australian politician to break with the bipartisan push for constitutional recognition for Indigenous Australians, saying their identification in the nation's foundation document would represent a "perverse sort of racism".

I thought I was indifferent on this issue, but he's got me thinking that I may have a more active opinion on it. Regardless though, I do love having this guy around.

 

[Keef]

@Keef, @FoolKiller

The latest installment in the adventures of our libertarian senator. The one you've both looked at longingly.
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...senator-david-leyonhjelm-20150305-13w6vp.html




I thought I was indifferent on this issue, but he's got me thinking that I may have a more active opinion on it. Regardless though, I do love having this guy around.

He's right. Does any other ethnic group get mentioned specifically in the Australian constitution? Does the Australian constitution define with "ethnicity" actually means? It's a pretty amoebous term.

The government has no business defining ethnic boundaries. It is human nature to categorize, of course, but what you do with those categorizations is what matters. There is nothing wrong with a person being white, black, native American, or aboriginal Australian or whatever you call it, or whatever other category you might come up with. But when an institution of authority takes these social constructs and uses them to mold policy and consequently to benefit, hurt, and even alienate people belonging (or not belonging) to certain categories, then you have a problem.

The only way to be fair to all groups of people is to not reference any of them and instead focus on all people as individuals.

 

[LeMansAid]

The only way to be fair to all groups of people is to not reference any of them and instead focus on all people as individuals.

I did think "Ah, do it. I don't care", but it's our constitution, it's meant represent what we're all about. While I think it was only ever intended to be recognition rather than a basis for any differentiated treatment (though we already have that anyway), I'm still not ok with even that level of enshrined differentiation.

 

[KSaiyu]

That has created a black market, illegal importation, guys selling "loosies" on street corners like it's cocaine (and the violence and death resulting from these new criminal enterprises), and what appears to now be failing in an attempt to create a de facto ban, then sure.

Let's follow the logic and ban tobacco products. Drunk driving is bad? Put a breathalyzer on every car ignition and guarantee it never happens.

The difference is in potential to harm others. Sure there is passive smoking, but drunk driving can wipe out a family in far less time. We will never eliminate the risk, but as it is we have reduced it to acceptable levels.

Who said there is no limit to determine inebriation after an accident?

How would this be decided? Wouldn't it be arbitrary?

Wait, you mean they would be innocent until proven guilty? OH GOD, NO!!! The entire legal system will collapse.
You've convinced me. Automatic guilt is the way to go. China/North Korea style.

Oddly, that is how it works now. At least here. And yes, a breathalyzer test over the limit alone is not enough to find a defendant guilty if they have a decent lawyer who knows how to show the faultiness of the testing machines.

Not automatic guilt, but the reasonable doubt is increased massively.

Flimsy reasoning. Society agreeing and being happy does not make it right. I can think of a few minority groups willing to testify to that.

In principle, however our government may be on the sauce this election year with this Bill:

Motorists suspected of drink-driving will be no longer be able to demand a blood or urine test under plans to close a legal loophole used to cheat the system.

The results of roadside breath tests will be binding on all motorists, including those who fail by only a narrow margin.

The move is in response to ministerial concerns that many drivers are attempting to “buy time” to sober up by asking for a sample to be taken by a doctor. This takes place at a police station and drivers can be left waiting for hours until a doctor arrives.

The reforms are outlined in the government’s Deregulation Bill and are expected to come into force in April. The bill also requires convicted drink-drivers to take medical tests to prove that they are not alcohol-dependent before being allowed to drive.

Robert Goodwill, the transport minister, said: “Tackling drink-driving is a priority for the government and we are taking steps to strengthen enforcement, such as removing the automatic right for drivers who fail a breathalyser test to demand a blood test.”

 

[FoolKiller]

How would this be decided? Wouldn't it be arbitrary?

You're trying to read too much into my suggestion. It's as if you think libertarian = anarchist = no rules, so thus there would be no line where we can say alcohol may have been a factor.

There is nothing wrong with the current limit. However, hitting that limit is not automatic guilt. It is just a charge that the driver can fight in a court of law under the assumption of innocence. Even if an accident happens and one driver was inebriated, it does not mean it was his fault. If he gets hit by a truck running a light his inebriation plays no role. If he hits someone then it takes his accident to a criminal charge.

The other factor you don't seem to be considering is insurance. I can almost guarantee that if we didn't just bust people for having had a couple of beers before driving that the moment an inebriation charge appeared the insurance would either refuse to cover the accident or would cancel all coverage altogether. It would be similar to how they treat reckless driving.

Not automatic guilt, but the reasonable doubt is increased massively.

And? For someone who complains of being harassed by police and falsely accused, you sure seem to like the idea of making a legitimate defense harder.

 

[slow_rider]

I disagree with libertarianism on quite a few issues.

#1 - Libertarianism offers no preventative legal measures. No regulation means that wrong-doers can only be punished AFTER someone has been harmed, instead of putting in place a structure that could prevent the harm in the first place (e.g. banning lead paint in infant chew toys as opposed to suing a company after a child suffers brain damage). The only way any change occurs in a libertarian society is if someone is seriously injured or killed.

#2 - Libertarianism assumes that consumers can realistically be expected to do research into every single product they purchase to make sure it is safe and being produced in an ethical manner. The truth is that nobody has the time or resources (e.g. having a lab to run chemical tests for toxins) to investigate every product, and most people would unknowingly buy dangerous products without some regulatory body like the FDA or USDA doing the research for them. And even if those regulatory bodies aren't perfect, they're better than no investigation being done at all.

#3 - Libertarianism doesn't realize that so-called "personal responsibilities" have impacts on society as a whole. You may think you are the only person who pays for the decision not to wear a helmet on a motorcycle, but if you die in an accident society actually bears most of the cost in terms of paying for first responders, coroners, accident clean up crews, investigations into the cause and fault of the accident. Now if you want to live in a society where none of that happens and the wreck isn't cleaned up, your corpse isn't removed from the road, etc., you would be ideologically consistent. I don't think many people would want to live in that world though.

 

[Exorcet]

I disagree with libertarianism on quite a few issues.

#1 - Libertarianism offers no preventative legal measures. No regulation means that wrong-doers can only be punished AFTER someone has been harmed, instead of putting in place a structure that could prevent the harm in the first place (e.g. banning lead paint in infant chew toys as opposed to suing a company after a child suffers brain damage). The only way any change occurs in a libertarian society is if someone is seriously injured or killed.

The preventative measures move from government to non government. If the negative effects of lead paint are widely known, then people aren't likely to try and sell lead painted toys. They can try and lie about the toys being lead painted, but that's exactly as now.

#2 - Libertarianism assumes that consumers can realistically be expected to do research into every single product they purchase to make sure it is safe and being produced in an ethical manner. The truth is that nobody has the time or resources (e.g. having a lab to run chemical tests for toxins) to investigate every product, and most people would unknowingly buy dangerous products without some regulatory body like the FDA or USDA doing the research for them. And even if those regulatory bodies aren't perfect, they're better than no investigation being done at all.

You can have a FDA, just without the F. It wouldn't be government run, it could also be checked against a competing entity that does the same thing.

It's totally unrealistic to expect people to make lab reports about everything they buy, but that doesn't mean that there will be no source of information at all.

Consumer Reports is an American magazine published monthly by Consumers Union since 1936. It publishes reviews and comparisons of consumer products and services based on reporting and results from its in-house testing laboratory and survey research center. They accept no advertising, pay for all the products they test, and, as a not for profit organization, they have no shareholders. It also publishes cleaning and general buying guides. It has approximately 7.3 million subscribers[2] and an annual testing budget of approximately US$21 million.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_Reports

#3 - Libertarianism doesn't realize that so-called "personal responsibilities" have impacts on society as a whole. You may think you are the only person who pays for the decision not to wear a helmet on a motorcycle, but if you die in an accident society actually bears most of the cost in terms of paying for first responders, coroners, accident clean up crews, investigations into the cause and fault of the accident. Now if you want to live in a society where none of that happens and the wreck isn't cleaned up, your corpse isn't removed from the road, etc., you would be ideologically consistent. I don't think many people would want to live in that world though.

Death in an accident isn't automatically a fault for not wearing a helmet. What happens if you die with a helmet? What happens if you're walking across the street and have a heart attack or you're hit by a micro meteor and are instantly killed?

Your last line sums it up. People are willing to pay for corpse free roads, so there is no inconsistency here. Goes double if it so happens that the cleaning services are privately owned.