To clarify my rationale... with the existence of public property, one must consider that each individual who is part of the "public" has equivalent rights on that property as every other individual. Any action that is taken by an individual on that property that would alter another person's own choice of action against their will is therefore an infringement on the rights of said person. I don't think it needs to be said that if drunk driving were permitted, there would be a lot less drivers on the road at night due to fear of a collision.It might be a broad statement, but is a true statement, and a statement that highlights the complexities of public property.
To clarify my rationale... with the existence of public property, one must consider that each individual who is part of the "public" has equivalent rights on that property as every other individual. Any action that is taken by an individual on that property that would alter another person's own choice of action against their will is therefore an infringement on the rights of said person. I don't think it needs to be said that if drunk driving were permitted, there would be a lot less drivers on the road at night due to fear of a collision.
I think you're missing my point; saying that it's an issue of public property that would be solved if all property were private is flipping the issue/process on its head. There is an optimal balance of safety to danger which people are willing to accept on the roads. The government annexation of the roads simply short circuits the means by which this balance is found. It doesn't confer any rights to anyone to that property or its use, nor does it eliminate the underlying reality of scarcity of resources. You could likewise say as long as we're going to have theft then we may as well all get an equal and opposite share of the booty. The underlying point you're missing is that public ownership is in and of itself illegitimate, and as such doesn't give you or me or anyone else any rights to or on the confiscated property. It is taken by force and kept that way. Your view implies public ownership is a morally and ethically valid property system; it isn't. And as the government takes the property by force, your 'rights' on it are likewise what can be secured through political force, and need not be equal in any way to anyone else's.
As to the rest of your argument, one cannot calculate the value of human lives the way you do, since the value is always relative. For you to make a cost-benefit calculation of making drunk driving legal, you would need to apply a value to each individual killed, and presume to know how many (or few) people were killed as a result of not arresting drunk drivers.
If that is the case then how are more productive means of production ever discovered if they must all be known in advance? I need know no such thing; all I need to know is people want a certain level of safety on the roads per their investment in them, and try to find the best means for delivering that product under conditions of free choice.
xahrx, if I felt like my driving abilities were impaired, I wouldn't drive, but that seldom happens when drinking.
whardwick: "To clarify my rationale... with the existence of public property, one must consider that each individual who is part of the "public" has equivalent rights on that property as every other individual. Any action that is taken by an individual on that property that would alter another person's own choice of action against their will is therefore an infringement on the rights of said person. I don't think it needs to be said that if drunk driving were permitted, there would be a lot less drivers on the road at night due to fear of a collision." It might be a broad statement, but is a true statement, and a statement that highlights the complexities of public property. That is why public property (especially a road) requires such strict laws and regulations. There are certain instances where, on public property, a dispute between two people can be resolved as a matter of "who was here first?", but there are other instances where this simply is not enough. And when I say "any action", I mean physical action, i.e. an action that would displace another person physically. As to the rest of your argument, one cannot calculate the value of human lives the way you do, since the value is always relative. For you to make a cost-benefit calculation of making drunk driving legal, you would need to apply a value to each individual killed, and presume to know how many (or few) people were killed as a result of not arresting drunk drivers.
"To clarify my rationale... with the existence of public property, one must consider that each individual who is part of the "public" has equivalent rights on that property as every other individual. Any action that is taken by an individual on that property that would alter another person's own choice of action against their will is therefore an infringement on the rights of said person. I don't think it needs to be said that if drunk driving were permitted, there would be a lot less drivers on the road at night due to fear of a collision."
It might be a broad statement, but is a true statement, and a statement that highlights the complexities of public property. That is why public property (especially a road) requires such strict laws and regulations. There are certain instances where, on public property, a dispute between two people can be resolved as a matter of "who was here first?", but there are other instances where this simply is not enough. And when I say "any action", I mean physical action, i.e. an action that would displace another person physically.
I'd like to chime in here. The point is not for any one of us to decide how much an individual life is worth, as that is the same problem that the government has. The problem with government is it's often all or nothing (as someone as previously noted).
Alcohol has the feature of when a certain amount has been consumed (and it differs for each person), it impairs judgement. It impairs your judgement and motor skills whether or not you are driving a car. When some people use drugs/alcohol, they commit crimes. Does this mean we should punish the use of the drugs or the crime? That's the issue here with drunk driving.
Drunk driving is neither safe nor unsafe. Many people who drunk drive are dangerous. Many people who drunk drive are safer as they are aware that they are drunk and drive more carefully. The problem with a blanket ban is the same with the now blanket ban on drugs (and prohibition quite some time ago). There may be negative effects to using drugs, but I'm fairly certain that most people on this forum would agree that the government has wasted an enormous amount of resources with the "war on drugs".
It's the same here. SInce there is a blanket ban on drunk driving, there can be no way for the market to sort things out. Resources are wasted. To what extent? We can't know as there is a blanket ban.
No one is making a cost benefit calculation about the value of an individual life. What would happen is each individual would make that analysis for himself. Do you want to drive on a road that has a speed limit of 90 mph? I know of plenty of highways in MA where people do that even though it is illegal. In a free market, people who prefer roads with limits of 55mph will drive there, and people who want to drive on roads of 90mph will do that. With drunk driving, it would be no different. There will be areas (probably near bars) where people would be okay with it. There will be areas that aren't. Each individual will way the pros and cons himself.
I'd like to link to a video of Milton Friedman. It's on a different subject, but a lot of what he says actually applies here too.
PS I know, I know, he's not perfect, but it's still worth listening to IMHO
We shouldn't be trying to centrally plan road legislation.
We don't actually know what the outcome of full-blown competition among private roads would be. And this sort of issue is where aprioristic, deontological libertarianism differs from Chicagoan law-and-economics, where the risk imposed by drunk drivers is more explicitly calculated.
P.S. This debate is becoming increasingly moot: driverless cars are the wave of the future!
"I'm not a fan of Murray Rothbard." -- David D. Friedman
"xahrx, if I felt like my driving abilities were impaired, I wouldn't drive, but that seldom happens when drinking."
It's a scientific certainty that your abilities are reduced, you're just lucky enough to have not been in an extreme enough position to have them tested. And I do wonder if you'd accept the same argument from a drunk driver who took away your ability to walk, or killed someone you love. There are indeed drugs which increase our abilities, steroids being an example. Alcohol is not one off them. When drinking or outright drunk you may not be the most threatening thing on the road, granted. That doesn't mean you haven't deliberately made a decision to drive and put the safety of others at risk, which you have, and done so with knowingly diminished capacity. You can bullshit yourself all you want about your driving abilities, and I've heard the same from many a person, and they're all full of it. You are wrong.
You may not be the biggest risk on the road, you are a bigger risk than you would have been sober, even if you are being more careful because you do not control the circumstances which you are faced with. That means careful or not, if you end up in a situation where quick response times and good judgement are called for, you will be less likely to make a timely and good decision. And I know you disagree. You are wrong. And here's hoping you never have to use a spatula to scrape the remains of one of your mistakes off the road to present to their parents while you explain to them you drive perfectly fine drunk. Though in my experience people with your opinion rarely learn that lesson until you have to do just that.
Whether or not there's a net benefit to safety in the police going after drunks has no bearing on whether or not drinking and driving is in and of itself a moral or ethical choice. It isn't. It is immoral and unethical. The effects on the macro risk levels drunk driving does or does not add to the road and the most cost effective ways to mitigate them don't take away from the fact that on an individual level it's a stupid, immoral, unethical, disgustingly belligerent thing to do to your fellow drivers and pedestrians.
property rights.
If I owned a road I would not allow drunk drivers on it
Just following the posts, I noticed some more interesting points , such as finite resources, of which I had not considered. But I think there are two key elements to this issue.
1. Under our current system of public roads, is making drunk driving illegal permissible? Despite the problems and arguments against such a policy, I think that it is perfectly allowable for government to make drunk driving on public roads illegal. Is that the best choice? Not necessarily. But they can if they so wish, at least as I see it.
2. Should drunk driving be illegal, regardless of whether or not it is permissible?
I think I would answer yes the the first question, although for the second question I am still skeptical. The question would be more easily answered, I think, if we had a private road system.
I agree. Permissible simply isn't the word I'd use. They've socialized the roads, they hold them by force in essence, they do whatever they want and are willing to back up with force.
>It's a scientific certainty that your abilities are reduced
I thought some people improve after a small amount of alcohol. For example, someone who is a seasoned alcoholic or a nervous wreck who drinks a small amount to calm them down. Also, drunks are more resistant to dying from shock, so in some cases being extremely drunk might be the only thing that saves your life. Statistical science-based predictions seem great if you are an insurance actuary but do they really make sense in making juristic decisions?
>That doesn't mean you haven't deliberately made a decision to drive and put the safety of others at risk, which you have, and done so with knowingly diminished capacity.
If your capacity is diminished enough then it may have been automatism rather than human action, i.e. a choice. If some person secretly drugged you, then they may be to blame for the consequences; if you drugged yourself then it's your problem.