Ron Paul on the Aurora Shooting

. Originally Posted by The2Dogs

Dude, you're all over the map.

If someone drives drunk and causes no accident then what's the freakin problem? Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

If someone fires a shotgun in a playground full of children and no one is injured, there's no freakin problem either, right?

If someone drugs your wife, fucks her, but does not hurt her in any way, and when she wakes up she has no recollection of what happened, then no freakin' problem, right?

Tell that to the dead person.

So i'll ask you again the question i posed to you that you ignored. If a cop pulls me over for speeding and sees that i'm so drunk that i can't even stand up straight, he should just give me my speeding ticket and send me on my way?

I shouldn't assume, but i will anyways. You're a Libertarian, right? If so, it's black/white attitudes like yours that turn people off to Libertarianism.

Though i'll give ya credit. I doubt you're the only one in here who feels the way you do, but at least you've got the guts to admit it. Originally Posted by Doove

Libertarians do not oppose drunk driving laws. People have a right to use the roads without the risk of someone driving in a dangerous manner. Driving while intoxicated is dangerous to the others on the road.

Libertarians would support a persons right to get drunk up until the point where their action infringes on someone else's rights. In this case the right to use the road safely. That is why they also oppose drug laws as long as the persons actions do not infringe on the rights of others. They do not support drug use. They just support the right of a person to be stupid as long as they are not taking someone else's rights away.

If someone fires a shotgun in a playground full of children and no one is injured, there's no freakin problem either, right?

If someone drugs your wife, fucks her, but does not hurt her in any way, and when she wakes up she has no recollection of what happened, then no freakin' problem, right? Originally Posted by Submodo

WOW. WTF. ?

You guys are wasting your time, if their parents couldn't teach them personal responsibility, you sure as hell can't explain it to them here.

You guys are wasting your time, if their parents couldn't teach them personal responsibility, you sure as hell can't explain it to them here.

So true.

That is the point. We have allowed our society to have excuses for not taking personal responsibility.
The idea that if you drive drunk and nobody is hurt then nor harm has been done is flawed.
So nothing happened that time so you decide you can do it again because nothing happened that time.
But you don't really know that nothing happened because you are drunk.
The idea that you can repeat a bad behavior just because you got away with it is no different than playing Russian roulette and pointing the gun at someone else every other pull of the trigger..

Libertarians do not oppose drunk driving laws. People have a right to use the roads without the risk of someone driving in a dangerous manner. Driving while intoxicated is dangerous to the others on the road. Originally Posted by Laz

Doesn't Ron Paul (and don't libertarians in general) oppose EPA regulations? How is the mere threat of my water being poisoned any different than the mere threat of my car being rammed from behind?

Libertarians would support a persons right to get drunk up until the point where their action infringes on someone else's rights. In this case the right to use the road safely.

The road is perfectly safe right up until the point where someone crashes into me. So what tangible right is being infringed upon if the drunk driver drives in a perfectly safe manner?

That is why they also oppose drug laws as long as the persons actions do not infringe on the rights of others. They do not support drug use. They just support the right of a person to be stupid as long as they are not taking someone else's rights away.

So if someone might flip out on PCP and go on a violent rampage - where does that fall in your determination of other's rights being infringed upon?

Doesn't Ron Paul (and don't libertarians in general) oppose EPA regulations? How is the mere threat of my water being poisoned any different than the mere threat of my car being rammed from behind?

Not all regulations. There is a difference between an accident and damage caused by negligent behavior. You can't be safe from everything but you do have the right not to be put at risk by negligent behavior. Libertarians support holding those responsible for things accountable.



The road is perfectly safe right up until the point where someone crashes into me. So what tangible right is being infringed upon if the drunk driver drives in a perfectly safe manner?

The increased risk of having to share the road with a driver that is dangerous because of negligent behavior. Being on the road will have risk enough without that added risk.


So if someone might flip out on PCP and go on a violent rampage - where does that fall in your determination of other's rights being infringed upon? Originally Posted by Doove

If they go on a violent rampage they can be held civilly and criminally liable. If they remain in their own house and bother nobody else then it is their business. I am sure Libertarians would not support legalizing a drug where the result of its use is a violent rampage that puts others at risk.

Theater, you say, theater?

No, it is not theater, but it may seem that way to people who choose to remain fair away from the tragedy and the tears and the aching hearts and the destroyed lives of the people directly involved.

Those incidents were another reminder of the insanity that this world is going deeper into!

"Freedom is not defined by safety."

What couldn't be more obvious.

The problem with this world is that most people are timid, and just want to be told what to do. Most people want to be followers, and those individuals who figure this out are able to make at lot out of it.

btw more people die every week on roads in Texas from traffic accidents so people might try to put this stupid event in Aurora into perspective.

Aurora is theater, "terrorism" is theater.

It's all just an illusion. Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

I am a libertarian and I do not have a problem with passing of laws against DUI. I however have a problem with the law being mandated by the federal government. It is not the responsibility of washington to dictate to the states what there limits should be or how they will enforce those laws. There is a federal limit that applies to federal land like US parks etc. However, the feds will withhold money from the states for not doing things like passing dui laws with at least .10 as a limit or seatbelt laws. (NH is the only state to refuse this) I do have a problem with that.

As a libertarian my mantra is my rights end where yours begin. That means I have the right to drink but not the right to operate my vehicle in an unsafe manner. I also have no problem with cities passing ordinances that outlaw unsafe actions like fireworks under certain conditions. Passing laws that protect public safety is fine within reason, However, too often the laws are written in a lazy manner such that it just blanketly prohibits an action which need only be limited.

Anyone else wish to play? COG? Anyone? Originally Posted by Doove

You piss and moan all the time about my post count. Then when I don't reply, it's "Where's COG?" Screw you, you brought up this strawman, you knock him down. Dr. Paul didn't mention a damn thing about drunk driving. You are using this strawman to intentionally distort the meaning of what Dr. Paul was trying to say. But if we take the Saint Obama out of context, even when we haven't, Doofie jumps all over it.

No. I'm not playing your stupid game. Have fun.

No. I'm not playing your stupid game. Have fun.

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Seems like you just did.

As for Laz, if you're too lazy to properly format your response, making it a pain in the ass to respond back to you, forget it. Suffice it to say, you're twisting yourself in knots.

And if there are no consequences? I'm still considered to have committed a crime, yes?



Yeah, ok, and you never drive over the speed limit.



Exactly.

Anyone else wish to play? COG? Anyone?

Do you think there should be laws against driving while intoxicated? Yes or no? Originally Posted by Doove

Yes. If you drive while impaired you have committed a crime. Just like if you are going 40 in a 30. The difference between the 2 is the level of severity which is determined by civil authorities.
I am responsible for my own actions. I routinely speed and am usually the designated driver on New Years because I choose to not to drink and drive.

As for Laz, if you're too lazy to properly format your response, making it a pain in the ass to respond back to you, forget it. Suffice it to say, you're twisting yourself in knots. Originally Posted by Doove

Fine with me. I have never claimed to be eloquent. But responding to your drivel is not something that is important to me.

"Not all regulations. There is a difference between an accident and damage caused by negligent behavior. You can't be safe from everything but you do have the right not to be put at risk by negligent behavior. Libertarians support holding those responsible for things accountable."

COG can correct me if i'm wrong, but i don't think you've got that right. Ron Paul's idea of regulation is, to my understanding, "if you harm someone, they can sue you". Anything beyond that is the government playing nanny. We need to "trust" people to do the right thing because "legislating" the right thing is just the government imposing it's will on people.

In other words, even though i shouldn't do something, being told not to do it by the government is just some big huge imposition that takes away my freedom.

Telling people they can't do something that puts me at risk isn't part of their equation. Telling people they can't do something that actually harms me is all they're worried about.

"The increased risk of having to share the road with a driver that is dangerous because of negligent behavior. Being on the road will have risk enough without that added risk."

Again, it seems to me that libertarian philosophy is that driving isn't negligent, no matter what state of well being you're in. "How dare the government tell me when i can and can't drive my car!" Until you do something that harms someone else, you've done nothing wrong. Putting someone at an "increased risk" is not harming them. It's increasing the risk of harming them, but it's not harming them.

Some people can no doubt drive better than others when they are drunk. And the government should let each individual person decide at what point they're BAC level renders them dangerous. And trust them to act accordingly. But if they screw up, and harm someone, then yeah, they should be held accountable.

Isn't that how libertarianism works?