4 ms·

Ah yes the mises, where government infringes on our right to drive drunk. https://mises.org/library/legalize-drunk-driving https://mises.org/library/legalize-d

Ah yes the mises, where government infringes on our right to drive drunk. https://mises.org/library/legalize-drunk-driving https://mises.org/library/legalize-drunk-driving

johnisgood 7y ago
Ah yes, another comment that fails to address the issues with the mentioned article. And... what? Right to drive drunk? Where did you get that from? If you have anything accurate to say regarding the article and you would like to have a discussion about it, please do so. You will get cookies for quotations.
- millstone 7y ago
  I got it from the headline which is literally “legalize drunk driving.” No surprise these clowns hope to legalize lead in food too.
  - johnisgood 7y ago
    I will ask you again, with what exactly do you have an issue? Saying "I got it from the headline" is not enough. Please give me more than the title or headline. I need specifics. Calling them clowns is unnecessary and does not do you any good.
    - millstone 7y ago
      "government in a free society should not deal in probabilities. The law should deal in actions and actions alone, and only insofar as they damage person or property." Drunk driving should be legal because sometimes you make it home safe. Lead in food should be legal because some people will eat it and not get sick. Putting others at risk isn't a crime, the government should not deal in probabilities. That job falls to "insurance companies to assess on a competitive and voluntary basis." Cripes, what a totally fucked up worldview.
      - johnisgood 7y ago
        The two scenarios are not comparable. But yeah, we should fine people and put them in metal cages (and fuck their life up in the process) because their value is up by a negligible amount. I could drink a glass of wine and potentially fail the test which is based on an arbitrary value which is dependent on many factors that is extremely unique to one individual, and it is not OK to fuck their life up for what they did not do. Apparently you do not have to display the behavior related to drunk driving to have your life ruined, that is the problem. Punish for the behavior (we already do) displayed, not some arbitrary value that may or may not mean anything. Cripes, what a totally fucked up worldview. I sincerely hope that you will have a taste of your poison one day.
        sokoloff 7y ago
        The behavior displayed that is being punished is consuming alcohol and getting behind the wheel.
    - megous 7y ago
      While race argument seems kind of neat, it's just correlation. Being black <-> crime. With DUI, there's a clear causation. Alcohol in blood will make you lose coordination and slow your reflexes. More alcohol, the worse it gets. And reaction is individual. That will increase the probability the driver will harm someone. So it's different. Should government deal in probabilities? Depends whether you want it to do prevention or not. All prevention is basically dealing with probabilities. > why not ticket the swerving or recklessness and leave the alcohol out of it? Why indeed. Argument ad absudrum: Swerving may not lead to an accident either.
      - johnisgood 7y ago
        > With DUI, there's a clear causation. Alcohol in blood will make you lose coordination and slow your reflexes. More alcohol, the worse it gets. And reaction is individual. That will increase the probability the driver will harm someone. The values they use to punish you is completely arbitrary (probably varies from state to state) and we do not take any other factors related to the individual into account which is important if we are not so keen on ruining other people's lives. Look for behaviors that show there are issues with coordination regardless of substances. We can do that. We already do it. We do not need to punish based on arbitrary values. You could fail the test and yet have perfect coordination. See my issue? It gets even more problematic when you consider alcoholics who are actually better off drinking vs. not drinking when it comes to coordination and reflexes. Anyway, the emphasis, in my opinion, should be on behaviors that indicate loss of coordination, reflex issues, etc. not some arbitrary value. It works well with prevention, too, so there is no need to give up on that. > Argument ad absudrum: Swerving may not lead to an accident either. I agree, but depending on the situation, it could easily indicate that there is an issue regardless of the substance used. Anyway, thank you for the calm-headed response.
        megous 7y ago
        I guess it's easier and feels more scientific/less arbitrary to regulate on some numbers that come out of seemingly objective test. Typical roadside walk the line test might not be all that objective, as it's judged by the eye of the officer, and some people may be better walking the line, while still having reduced reflexes and being a increased danger on the road. Though, I'm not an expert and despite this feeling arbitrary, there may have been studies comparing effectiveness of various forms of testing on predicting the harm of DUI, or comapring breathalizer with the walk the line test, or touch your nose test or whatever. I'm not for locking people up, but I also prefer safer roads. And what helps and what does not may not be all that obvious on the larger more aggregate level.
  - Mirioron 7y ago
    Read the actual article then. It's a criticism that the federal government doesn't have this right from the constitution. It also explains that in the case of drunk driving what's criminalized isn't harm to people, but an increased potential to harm people. If you have principles that say that racial profiling is wrong because you shouldn't punish people that haven't harmed anybody, then this principle should also apply to drunk driving. Note that I am against drunk driving, but it does cause an inconsistency in my principles. Also, isn't it silly to dismiss mises articles because a person posted an article in 2006? Would you think it's fair if somebody dismissed all of your opinions going forward because of one opinion you held in 2006?
    - sokoloff 7y ago
      > It also explains that in the case of drunk driving what's criminalized isn't harm to people, but an increased potential to harm people. If you have principles that say that racial profiling is wrong because you shouldn't punish people that haven't harmed anybody, then this principle should also apply to drunk driving. Racial profiling is wrong because being of a particular race does not by itself represent any greater risk of harm to anyone else. Not analogous to driving while impaired, IMO, so your principles are likely more intact than you might think. Surely no one is arguing that you can walk down main street firing your gun into the air and as long as no one is struck by a bullet and no property is damaged, we're cool.
      - asark 7y ago
        Getting some premise or early bit of reasoning wrong, or taking something for granted that really deserves some prior justification (assuming such exists), then building a whole castle atop that foundation of sand is basically mises.org's whole thing, FYI.
dang 7y ago
Please don't take HN threads further into ideological warfare. It's the last thing we want here. Long, tedious tit-for-tat ideological battles are right out. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Ah yes the mises, where government infringes on our right to drive drunk. https://mises.org/library/legalize-drunk-driving https://mises.org/library/legalize-drunk-driving

johnisgood 7y ago

Ah yes, another comment that fails to address the issues with the mentioned article. And... what? Right to drive drunk? Where did you get that from? If you have anything accurate to say regarding the article and you would like to have a discussion about it, please do so. You will get cookies for quotations.

millstone 7y ago
I got it from the headline which is literally “legalize drunk driving.” No surprise these clowns hope to legalize lead in food too.
- johnisgood 7y ago
  I will ask you again, with what exactly do you have an issue? Saying "I got it from the headline" is not enough. Please give me more than the title or headline. I need specifics. Calling them clowns is unnecessary and does not do you any good.
  - millstone 7y ago
    "government in a free society should not deal in probabilities. The law should deal in actions and actions alone, and only insofar as they damage person or property." Drunk driving should be legal because sometimes you make it home safe. Lead in food should be legal because some people will eat it and not get sick. Putting others at risk isn't a crime, the government should not deal in probabilities. That job falls to "insurance companies to assess on a competitive and voluntary basis." Cripes, what a totally fucked up worldview.
    - johnisgood 7y ago
      The two scenarios are not comparable. But yeah, we should fine people and put them in metal cages (and fuck their life up in the process) because their value is up by a negligible amount. I could drink a glass of wine and potentially fail the test which is based on an arbitrary value which is dependent on many factors that is extremely unique to one individual, and it is not OK to fuck their life up for what they did not do. Apparently you do not have to display the behavior related to drunk driving to have your life ruined, that is the problem. Punish for the behavior (we already do) displayed, not some arbitrary value that may or may not mean anything. Cripes, what a totally fucked up worldview. I sincerely hope that you will have a taste of your poison one day.
      - sokoloff 7y ago
        The behavior displayed that is being punished is consuming alcohol and getting behind the wheel.
  - megous 7y ago
    While race argument seems kind of neat, it's just correlation. Being black <-> crime. With DUI, there's a clear causation. Alcohol in blood will make you lose coordination and slow your reflexes. More alcohol, the worse it gets. And reaction is individual. That will increase the probability the driver will harm someone. So it's different. Should government deal in probabilities? Depends whether you want it to do prevention or not. All prevention is basically dealing with probabilities. > why not ticket the swerving or recklessness and leave the alcohol out of it? Why indeed. Argument ad absudrum: Swerving may not lead to an accident either.
    - johnisgood 7y ago
      > With DUI, there's a clear causation. Alcohol in blood will make you lose coordination and slow your reflexes. More alcohol, the worse it gets. And reaction is individual. That will increase the probability the driver will harm someone. The values they use to punish you is completely arbitrary (probably varies from state to state) and we do not take any other factors related to the individual into account which is important if we are not so keen on ruining other people's lives. Look for behaviors that show there are issues with coordination regardless of substances. We can do that. We already do it. We do not need to punish based on arbitrary values. You could fail the test and yet have perfect coordination. See my issue? It gets even more problematic when you consider alcoholics who are actually better off drinking vs. not drinking when it comes to coordination and reflexes. Anyway, the emphasis, in my opinion, should be on behaviors that indicate loss of coordination, reflex issues, etc. not some arbitrary value. It works well with prevention, too, so there is no need to give up on that. > Argument ad absudrum: Swerving may not lead to an accident either. I agree, but depending on the situation, it could easily indicate that there is an issue regardless of the substance used. Anyway, thank you for the calm-headed response.
      - megous 7y ago
        I guess it's easier and feels more scientific/less arbitrary to regulate on some numbers that come out of seemingly objective test. Typical roadside walk the line test might not be all that objective, as it's judged by the eye of the officer, and some people may be better walking the line, while still having reduced reflexes and being a increased danger on the road. Though, I'm not an expert and despite this feeling arbitrary, there may have been studies comparing effectiveness of various forms of testing on predicting the harm of DUI, or comapring breathalizer with the walk the line test, or touch your nose test or whatever. I'm not for locking people up, but I also prefer safer roads. And what helps and what does not may not be all that obvious on the larger more aggregate level.
- Mirioron 7y ago
  Read the actual article then. It's a criticism that the federal government doesn't have this right from the constitution. It also explains that in the case of drunk driving what's criminalized isn't harm to people, but an increased potential to harm people. If you have principles that say that racial profiling is wrong because you shouldn't punish people that haven't harmed anybody, then this principle should also apply to drunk driving. Note that I am against drunk driving, but it does cause an inconsistency in my principles. Also, isn't it silly to dismiss mises articles because a person posted an article in 2006? Would you think it's fair if somebody dismissed all of your opinions going forward because of one opinion you held in 2006?
  - sokoloff 7y ago
    > It also explains that in the case of drunk driving what's criminalized isn't harm to people, but an increased potential to harm people. If you have principles that say that racial profiling is wrong because you shouldn't punish people that haven't harmed anybody, then this principle should also apply to drunk driving. Racial profiling is wrong because being of a particular race does not by itself represent any greater risk of harm to anyone else. Not analogous to driving while impaired, IMO, so your principles are likely more intact than you might think. Surely no one is arguing that you can walk down main street firing your gun into the air and as long as no one is struck by a bullet and no property is damaged, we're cool.
    - asark 7y ago
      Getting some premise or early bit of reasoning wrong, or taking something for granted that really deserves some prior justification (assuming such exists), then building a whole castle atop that foundation of sand is basically mises.org's whole thing, FYI.

dang 7y ago

Please don't take HN threads further into ideological warfare. It's the last thing we want here. Long, tedious tit-for-tat ideological battles are right out. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html