. Originally Posted by The2DogsDude, you're all over the map.
If someone drives drunk and causes no accident then what's the freakin problem? Originally Posted by theaustinescortsIf someone fires a shotgun in a playground full of children and no one is injured, there's no freakin problem either, right?
Tell that to the dead person.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.
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
If someone fires a shotgun in a playground full of children and no one is injured, there's no freakin problem either, right?WOW. WTF. ?
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
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 LazDoesn'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?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.
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
"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
Anyone else wish to play? COG? Anyone? Originally Posted by DooveYou 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.
And if there are no consequences? I'm still considered to have committed a crime, yes?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.
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
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 DooveFine with me. I have never claimed to be eloquent. But responding to your drivel is not something that is important to me.