Recommended Posts

In JTS's discussion of the Fantasies of Concealed Carry, Selene and I accused each other of confirmation bias. We both offered facts. As Ludwig von Mises noted about capitalists and socialists, they tend to agree on the facts: at a certain time and place, a given good or service had some known price. They disagree on what the facts mean.

I grant that Selene is pretty good with a gun. He says that he never misses. I offered several cases where highly trained users (police officers) did miss, egregiously. To me, that raises a deeper question.

Should we punish drunk driving? Simply being inebriated while operating a motor vehicle does not necessarily cause automobile accidents. Also, we seem to have few if any facts or anecdotes similar to Selene's from people who claim to have a million safe miles while drunk behind the wheel. If we did, would that change the argument for criminalizing DUI and DWI?

Many communities have laws against discharging a firearm. Here in Austin, Texas, I am confident that not all of the New Year's Eve fireworks came from Black Cat. That is an example of wanton misuse of a firearm. I doubt that anyone lost their right to keep and bear arms. But we demand more of drivers than we do of gun owners. Not paying your speeding tickets (whether or not damage ensued) will cost you your license. How does someone lose their concealed carry permit?

When I worked for Carl Zeiss, one of the other sales engineers was also working on his private pilot's license. Waiting for a meeting, we talked about the requirements; and our manager said that it was easier to get a pilot's license in America than a driver's license in Germnay. And, as has been pointed out, Germany's gun laws did not prevent a school massacre, a two-hour rampage that took 16 lives in 2002.

The deepest question, then, might be: why have laws at all? "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" applies to every law. When libel is outlawed, only slanderers will enjoy freedom of speech.

I believe that laws are common statements of social contract stating the general expectations of the community for the definition of individual rights and responsibilities. You can claim that the laws are wrong, unjust, non-objective, or whatever, and you can claim that natural law, God's law, or the theories of Plato, Aristotle, Locke, Hobbes, Marx, or Rand better inform you. You cannot deny knowledge of the laws. (Granted that today, with Homeland Security, we may well have secret laws. That is a different problem.)

In our society, we are all pretty clear that driving a car while under the influence of alcohol is so inherently dangerous that no one can do it well enough. Here on MSK's OL, however, we are not bound by what is. We are free to consider what could and should be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting question. A guy I know has frequently argued that drunk driving should not be illegal as long as the driver doesn't crash into or hurt anyone, and I have frequently disagreed with him.

Drunk driving and gun ownership are obviously two very different issues. Driving drunk directly decreases control behind the wheel and increases the chance of the driver killing someone accidentally. Simply owning a gun does not kill someone without making the active choice to shoot them (though of course there are some accidents).

I think people have a right to get drunk, carry a gun, and drive - just not simultaneously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting question. A guy I know has frequently argued that drunk driving should not be illegal as long as the driver doesn't crash into or hurt anyone, and I have frequently disagreed with him.

And rightly so. DUI is a clear case of Reckless Endangerment. At the very least a tort and misdemeanor and if serious enough a felony.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you attempt to micromanage risk by replacing intelligence and self control with rules you create contempt for rules and less self responsibility. You are trying to fix irresponsible behavior and instead create more. You can't replace individual minds with a hive mind.

http://www.planetizen.com/node/26983

http://chrisguillebeau.com/3x5/unnecessary-traffic-lights/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael:

For the record, you raised the issue of confirmation bias. I, some outside observers might have thought I was clever in using argumentative jujitsu and turned your employment of "confirmation bias" and reversing it upon you...

In JTS's discussion of the Fantasies of Concealed Carry, Selene and I accused each other of confirmation bias.

A....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was thinking about this today too; drunk driving is a better example, though. I was thinking whether pointing a gun at someone should be legal or not if you don't pull the trigger, or actually coerce them to do something.

As long as intent is not considered when a mistake does happen, and killing a person, no matter how it happens, is punished equally in all cases, then you'd think people would take their own precautions not to get into those situations.

And then again, people still drive drunk and still get into accidents even though it's illegal.

I guess it depends what you think the purpose of laws are.

Bastiat said it was to enforce justice... but for what purpose? Why kill someone for murdering someone else? Is it a utilitarian thing? If people know they will be killed for murdering someone, they will at least try really hard not to get caught.

I don't even know why utilitarianism doesn't mesh with individualism. Isn't it consistent with Rand's ethics to get rid of murderers for the sake of society? Or is there a better, more ethical reason to do it--one which holds man's life as the standard of morality?

It depends, again, on how you define society, I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can legally drive drunk on your own property.

--Brant

One one's own property a driver is not a menace to the public at large.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can legally drive drunk on your own property.

--Brant

One one's own property a driver is not a menace to the public at large.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Not necessarily true, but not my point.

--Brant

Brant I did take your point here, but what do you mean by "not necessarily true"? How could you endanger the public at large (ie not yourself or your own family) if you drive drunk on your own property, assuming nobody is trespassing to be endangered (they would then not be the public at large but just intruding criminals I assume)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can legally drive drunk on your own property.

--Brant

One one's own property a driver is not a menace to the public at large.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Not necessarily true, but not my point.

--Brant

Brant I did take your point here, but what do you mean by "not necessarily true"? How could you endanger the public at large (ie not yourself or your own family) if you drive drunk on your own property, assuming nobody is trespassing to be endangered (they would then not be the public at large but just intruding criminals I assume)?

Something could happen on your property that spills over to another's property.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Carol:

Action A: You are driving drunk on your property;

Action B: You accelerate going up an upgrade on your property;

Action C: You lose control of the vehicle and you go airborne; and

Action D: You hit the proverbial bus load of pregnant nuns on their way to the community sing while traversing the public highway abutting your land...

Ergo...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Carol:

Action A: You are driving drunk on your property;

Action B: You accelerate going up an upgrade on your property;

Action C: You lose control of the vehicle and you go airborne; and

Action D: You hit the proverbial bus load of pregnant nuns on their way to the community sing while traversing the public highway abutting your land...

Ergo...

Reckless endangerment is a tort and a misdemeanor on or off private property.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would make for a very interesting court case anyway. First up, test the bus driver for drugs and alcohol himself, and who is/are the father of those nuns' babies ...?

This is why I love you...lol.

You perfectly took the pass of the comedic baton and streaked to the punchline....hmm to many phallic symbols in that statement...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I counted four .. but then I have led a sheltered life.

And therein relies the erotic race and the passing of the baton...

Smart lady you are...to "manage" your widow image into an erotic scenario with four (4) phalluses...oops, was I not supposed to notice that?

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see that we have drifted. ... Some of the earlier comments touched on the essential problems.

You can legally drive drunk on your own property. --Brant

One one's own property a driver is not a menace to the public at large. - Ba'al Chatzaf

Not necessarily true, but not my point. --Brant

Brant I did take your point here, but what do you mean by "not necessarily true"? How could you endanger the public at large (ie not yourself or your own family) if you drive drunk on your own property, assuming nobody is trespassing to be endangered (they would then not be the public at large but just intruding criminals I assume)? - Duance

You invite people over for a party and while driving drunk on your own property, you hit someone, or someone else also DWI in their vehicle on your private property. The specifics are not important. The issue is endangering other people. Alone on his island, Robinson Crusoe's concerns were his own. Once Friday came to the island, other objective requirements were automatically created if each is to live man qua man in society.

You speak of driving a car. Here in Texas, we have ranches big enough to fly around over and people do so, without federal pilot's licenses because they are on private property. Maybe 10 or 15 years ago, some young cattle baron killed himself flying beyond his limits at a private party. Case in point. What if someone (else) had been injured? You can say that this is just a tort. But we have far too many instances of people assaulted and killed at "private" parties, wedding receptions, barbecues, etc., in owned or rented spaces. Private property is not absolute.

It used to be - and still is - that your property is defined as a cone from the center of the Earth infinitely out into space. I think that the Vulcans would disagree. So, you have that problem to resolve.

Even if you could, you still would not have absolute privilege (literally "private law") of domain on your own property.

That being true, if you can have a handgun on your own property, can you have a nuclear bomb? What is the difference?

I am not sure that one exists and that it comes down, ultimately, to objective context, with a reasonable person (or twelve of them) deciding on the facts in each case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't drive drunk on public roadways. The owners of same have made that in itself criminal. If the owners were private parties presumably they could let you drive drunk if willing to accept civil responsibility. Of course, the state could make it illegal anyway, but that'd be philosophically debatable. In actuality I suspect the owners of a private highway privately patrolled to be many times more stringent in enforcement than public owners to the extent of judging your competence to drive both in respect to your driving skills and in letting you go on the road in the first place. The actual sense of freedom would be much less, especially when you pay the damn toll.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So is retaliatory force always better than preventative?

Generally speaking "preventative force" is initiation of force and rights' violating. While "better" doesn't have to be utilitarian oriented, in the way you use it it is. The way I would use it is my philosophy is "better" than yours and not just because you strenuously and completely avoid philosophical argumentation.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you attempt to micromanage risk by replacing intelligence and self control with rules you create contempt for rules and less self responsibility. You are trying to fix irresponsible behavior and instead create more. You can't replace individual minds with a hive mind.

I think Mikee summarized laws best.

All law is subjective. But on the topic of drunk driving, blaming alcohol for reckless driving is as naive as blaming guns for shooting deaths. The law only weighs intoxication. An objective, rational person would only consider judgement. Otherwise the decision of the drunk who, at a .25 BAC, decides not to drive is equal to that of the drunk who decides at a .25 to drive... and kills someone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now