I found this article by Rockwell:
http://mises.org/story/2343
His argument is summed up with this statement from his article:
"Now, the immediate response goes this way: drunk driving has to be illegal because the probability of causing an accident rises dramatically when you drink. The answer is just as simple: 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. Probabilities are something for insurance companies to assess on a competitive and voluntary basis."
I think this reasong sets a dangerous precedent. What if you try to shoot a man but your gun jams. Are you not guilty of anything? What if you attempt to shoot a man but the bullet misses him by an inch and he escapes. Have you committed any crime?
CaptainMurphy: I think this reasong sets a dangerous precedent. What if you try to shoot a man but your gun jams. Are you not guilty of anything? What if you attempt to shoot a man but the bullet misses him by an inch and he escapes. Have you committed any crime?
What it doesn't get into is - private roads. As there would be in a free society. They can set the limit at whatever speed they want, make sure you have insurance before using their road, you are sober if they wish... whatever. :)
The only danger set by the reasoning by Lew Rockwell, is to the state and gang of thieves who wish to punish people for non crimes.
I drink a few beers, drive home from a mates place, park the car, go to sleep.
Simply add the same scenario, except being pulled over by a cop and breathe tested, and taken to jail for being over the limit, fined, loss of license etc.
Seriously - who is the victim?
The police don't set up roadblocks to verify if you are trying to shoot someone but your gun jammed.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Conza88:What it doesn't get into is - private roads.
When we move from the 2 dimensional "road" plane to personal travel by air, teleport, or into 3 dimensional space such as outside the atosphere, private road theory will be fairly irrelevant. I think our ideological descendents will have a good laugh at how obsessed we were with justifying and determining road ethics.
The two are not comparable unless you can prove that driving drunk is equal to trying to cause an accident.
Also, it is not illegal to try to shoot someone because the probability of shooting someone rises dramatically when you try to shoot him/her. See how ridiculous that sounds?
the act of getting in a car to drive it increases the probability of a crash
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
liberty student: Conza88:What it doesn't get into is - private roads. When we move from the 2 dimensional "road" plane to personal travel by air, teleport, or into 3 dimensional space such as outside the atosphere, private road theory will be fairly irrelevant. I think our ideological descendents will have a good laugh at how obsessed we were with justifying and determining road ethics.
The invention of the car didn't make walking irrelevant.
Drink driving should be by default legal, however, if someone doesn't want people to use an automobile on his/her property under the influence of alcohol, then s/he has every right. Equally, if I'm muslim or mormon, then saying you can't drink alcohol in my house is equally acceptable.
The difference between libertarianism and socialism is that libertarians will tolerate the existence of a socialist community, but socialists can't tolerate a libertarian community.
Conza88: What it doesn't get into is - private roads. As there would be in a free society. They can set the limit at whatever speed they want, make sure you have insurance before using their road, you are sober if they wish... whatever. :)
I agree that privatization would solve this situation easily, but I still think it's an interesting problem to look at given the constraints we live under.
I didn't actually mean for this thread to be about drunk driving specifically. I'm more interested in his fundemental statement that, given a government, it should not be concerned with probabilities, only with actions- violations of person or property.
In concept I agree with him; if government can deem something illegal given that it has a certain probability to cause damage, then law is essentially arbitrary. Next thing you know it's gonna be illegal to smoke in your own home.
But on the other hand, I think to the scenario of shooting at someone and missing. There's no damage to person or property, but I don't know if I could accept that no crime was committed.
One could try and argue that the difference is intent, but if government is to judge by actions alone, intent is irrelevant. Even if we ignore that hurdle, there are still problems- What exactly is intent? If I decide to kill someone, is that intent? If I draw up plans? If I gather all the tools I need? Where can the line be drawn non-arbitrarily?
CaptainMurphy: Next thing you know it's gonna be illegal to smoke in your own home.
Next thing you know it's gonna be illegal to smoke in your own home.
Whoops:
Silicon Valley town bans smoking at home
Maybe a good test for "criminality" would be an ability to show damage to life, property, etc. The burden of proof should be on the one making the charge. Getting shot would be a crime. Getting shot at, but being missed would not be ... there was no loss of life, property, or limb. True, being shot at might be offensive to some, but nobody would have a legal right not to be offended in a future state-less society.
liege: Maybe a good test for "criminality" would be an ability to show damage to life, property, etc. The burden of proof should be on the one making the charge. Getting shot would be a crime. Getting shot at, but being missed would not be ... there was no loss of life, property, or limb. True, being shot at might be offensive to some, but nobody would have a legal right not to be offended in a future state-less society.
By that reasoning it seems that you would have no right to defend yourself if you were getting shot at, that is, until you were hit. That does not seem right. Is that how you see it?
liege:Maybe a good test for "criminality" would be an ability to show damage to life, property, etc. The burden of proof should be on the one making the charge. Getting shot would be a crime. Getting shot at, but being missed would not be ... there was no loss of life, property, or limb. True, being shot at might be offensive to some, but nobody would have a legal right not to be offended in a future state-less society.
You're wrong. Praxeology teaches us that all action has a subjective aspect, you can't merely analyse it in terms of it's physical consequences. To do so would be absurd. To borrow an example from Hoppe (I think) if I calculate that lighting will strike in 10 seconds at a certain location, and tell you to walk there, at which point you are hit by the lighting and die, do you really believe that I am not responsible?
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
CaptainMurphy:I agree that privatization would solve this situation easily, but I still think it's an interesting problem to look at given the constraints we live under.
I don't agree. It's not a solution to the underlying moral issue. Private/public/whatever, it is still a question of rational self-governance. As a road-owner would you allow or disallow drunk driving? That's the question.
Far too often in these debates the "private" card is played as if it helps us one bit as human beings in productive communities ... "Problem solved", we say. "The solution is that any solution goes ... because of freedom." To my mind, libertarianism is a highly moral doctrine - libertarians (well, me) do not live in a vacuum. We are functional human beings in communities. I mean, we're a flock animal, for goodness sake. I want to coorporate on free and equal terms with my fellow man. My point is that rational moral considerations are even more needed in a free world of autonomous agents.
So ... the question should be: Is drunk driving, by a reasonable ethical principle, immoral? (And this is the question I submit to you ... I don't have the answer).
- And don't give me the "anything goes"-line. Libertarianism, Austrian economics, the ideas of Ayn Rand concerning capitalism etc. are highly moral considerations with a clear altruistic bend (even if it does not require of the individual to act altruistically, the argument for, lets say, free and unhindered exchange of services, goods, and ideas, is clearly that not just one individual would prosper, but all individuals would prosper). -
Or lets discuss something related: Why do you feel that privatization is the answer? To me, privatization is the beginning of a free, moral society ... not the end.
Forget drunk driving.
Tear down the stop signs!
"As long as there are sovereign nations possessing great power, war is inevitable."
The answer is in your Rockwell quote: "The law should deal in actions and actions alone, and only insofar as they damage person or property." Pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger is an action. Having alcohol in your bloodstream is not.
Issues like these can be really tough. On one hand drunk driving in and of itself leaves no victims. In this sense it's compatible with libertarian ethics. On the other hand, envision a stateless society where roads are private. Would you be comfortable on a road at night where people could be driving around with a blood alcohol level of 0.2? Maybe you would, maybe you wouldn't, but is it far-fetched to say a lot people wouldn't be comfortable driving on such a road? And if those people are willing to pay for its enforcement, then private road owners will accomodate. This could come in the form of an explicit blood alcohol limit or fall under the blanket of a more general policy against reckless driving. It's for this reason I don't champion articles like this, even though I agree with it. I think it reinforces the notion that anarchy is lawlessness. All my subjective opinion of course.
liberticity: liege: Maybe a good test for "criminality" would be an ability to show damage to life, property, etc. The burden of proof should be on the one making the charge. Getting shot would be a crime. Getting shot at, but being missed would not be ... there was no loss of life, property, or limb. True, being shot at might be offensive to some, but nobody would have a legal right not to be offended in a future state-less society. By that reasoning it seems that you would have no right to defend yourself if you were getting shot at, that is, until you were hit. That does not seem right. Is that how you see it?
No that is not how I see it. I was confuting the idea of "criminality" with restitution I think. I made no argument about not being able to defend yourself. What I was trying to say is that you have no basis for exacting restitution if you can't show damage. You have every right to defend yourself when getting shot at, you just don't have a claim for damages against anyone until you actually take a bullet.
The idea I think I was trying to get across is that drunk driving is illegal because the state says it damages society. Although society is not a real person, and even if it was that person isn't damaged until run over by a drunk driver, thats the rationale behind this and all victimless crimes. I don't think this is a good basis for law.
GilesStratton:To borrow an example from Hoppe (I think) if I calculate that lighting will strike in 10 seconds at a certain location, and tell you to walk there, at which point you are hit by the lighting and die, do you really believe that I am not responsible?
This is kind of an absurd argument. Yes, you are responsible. But so is the guy whom you told to walk into lightning. Why did he just take your advice? Were you a complete stranger to him? Was he your friend? Did he trust you? Did you have a conversation about this? What was said? There are so many unknowns here that its difficult to say who is responsible. I can't remember the last time someone walked to the exact location I told them to within the exact timeframe I had planned. Come to think of it, I can't remember the last time I accurately calculated the precise time and location of a lightning strike. Does Hoppe have a more realistic scenario in mind when dealing with difficult subjects like this? I hope this isn't taken personally, but I'm not going to consider my position refuted by a ridiculous scenario whose probability of occuring is next to nothing.
liege: liberticity: liege: Maybe a good test for "criminality" would be an ability to show damage to life, property, etc. The burden of proof should be on the one making the charge. Getting shot would be a crime. Getting shot at, but being missed would not be ... there was no loss of life, property, or limb. True, being shot at might be offensive to some, but nobody would have a legal right not to be offended in a future state-less society. By that reasoning it seems that you would have no right to defend yourself if you were getting shot at, that is, until you were hit. That does not seem right. Is that how you see it? No that is not how I see it. I was confuting the idea of "criminality" with restitution I think. I made no argument about not being able to defend yourself. What I was trying to say is that you have no basis for exacting restitution if you can't show damage. You have every right to defend yourself when getting shot at, you just don't have a claim for damages against anyone until you actually take a bullet.
If someone tries to shoot at you and you shoot back and kill them, then the shooter must have been committing a crime in order to justify defense against it. But if attempting to shoot someone (i.e there is a probability that you will injure them) is a crime in itself, then you can't say that the law should deal only in absolutes, or only in cases where property rights are violated.
CaptainMurphy:If someone tries to shoot at you and you shoot back and kill them, then the shooter must have been committing a crime in order to justify defense against it. But if attempting to shoot someone (i.e there is a probability that you will injure them) is a crime in itself, then you can't say that the law should deal only in absolutes, or only in cases where property rights are violated.
I think a good basis for law, as far as identifying who is a criminal, would be to show what damage he/she has caused before labeling them as a criminal and then trying to exact some sort of restitution (either on behalf of a specific person, or society itself) from them. This is a case against victimless crimes, like drunk driving.
CaptianMurphy:I think this reasong sets a dangerous precedent.
Maybe. But more dangerous than labeling people criminals who have actually done no damage to anyone or anything? The victimless crime seems like a far more dangerous precedent than reacting to actions by people. Victimless crimes turn mutually consenting adults into criminals in thousands of different ways.
I agree with Mr. Rockwell. The law should not deal in probabilities, only actions. To that end I agree with Frederic Bastiat as well, in that the law should be negative in nature, only reacting to injustices. Bastiat said that the law should not cause justice to reign, but only to prevent injustice from reigning.
liege: CaptainMurphy:If someone tries to shoot at you and you shoot back and kill them, then the shooter must have been committing a crime in order to justify defense against it. But if attempting to shoot someone (i.e there is a probability that you will injure them) is a crime in itself, then you can't say that the law should deal only in absolutes, or only in cases where property rights are violated. I think a good basis for law, as far as identifying who is a criminal, would be to show what damage he/she has caused before labeling them as a criminal and then trying to exact some sort of restitution (either on behalf of a specific person, or society itself) from them. This is a case against victimless crimes, like drunk driving.
Maybe I'm not understanding you, but if one is only a criminal based on the body/property damage he has caused, then a man has no right to self-defense unless he is first injured. If I shoot at you and miss, then I have done nothing criminal by this logic. If you shoot back at me and hit me (after making the reasonable assumtpion that I might try to shoot you again), then you are the criminal, but clearly this doesn't seem right.
CaptianMurphy:I think this reasong sets a dangerous precedent. Maybe. But more dangerous than labeling people criminals who have actually done no damage to anyone or anything? The victimless crime seems like a far more dangerous precedent than reacting to actions by people. Victimless crimes turn mutually consenting adults into criminals in thousands of different ways. I agree with Mr. Rockwell. The law should not deal in probabilities, only actions. To that end I agree with Frederic Bastiat as well, in that the law should be negative in nature, only reacting to injustices. Bastiat said that the law should not cause justice to reign, but only to prevent injustice from reigning.
This is why I find it interesting to think about this stuff, because I don't know where I stand.
ama gi: Forget drunk driving. Tear down the stop signs!
Traffic lights as well. What a waste to wait idle at a red light while no one is driving through the intersection.
But waste and extortion are natural outcomes of government.
CaptainMurphy:Maybe I'm not understanding you, but if one is only a criminal based on the body/property damage he has caused, then a man has no right to self-defense unless he is first injured. If I shoot at you and miss, then I have done nothing criminal by this logic. If you shoot back at me and hit me (after making the reasonable assumtpion that I might try to shoot you again), then you are the criminal, but clearly this doesn't seem right.
I am not equating self defense with restitution. They are two separate things. You are not a criminal if it cannot be shown to a jury of your peers (or arbitrator) that you have trespassed against someone's life/property. If you have, then you owe restitution, and in the modern state, you are a "criminal"--which means you pay the state, either in fines, prison time, or both.
You always have the right to self-defense. Do you think that the rest of society would condemn you if you attacked someone who pulled a gun on you, whether it was unloaded, fake, drawn without intent to fire, a water pistol, etc? Criminal is a legal term that is applied after the fact, i.e. in a court of opionion or law, and ultimately determines who you owe restitution to. Criminality and restitution have nothing to do with justified self-defense.
liege:I am not equating self defense with restitution. They are two separate things. You are not a criminal if it cannot be shown to a jury of your peers (or arbitrator) that you have trespassed against someone's life/property. If you have, then you owe restitution, and in the modern state, you are a "criminal"--which means you pay the state, either in fines, prison time, or both.
If someone shoots at you and misses, have they trespassed against your life or property? Does it matter if the shooting is intentional? And for that matter, does intention matter if they do hit you?
If you suscribe to a Rothbardian definition of criminal then it would be someone who agresses against you or your property. Under that definition I would argue that shooting at someone constitutes an act of agression against them whether you hit them or not. If you hit someone unintentionally then you would be liable for the damages that you have caused to them.
PMix: If you suscribe to a Rothbardian definition of criminal then it would be someone who agresses against you or your property. Under that definition I would argue that shooting at someone constitutes an act of agression against them whether you hit them or not. If you hit someone unintentionally then you would be liable for the damages that you have caused to them.
This makes sense, but then how you define 'aggression' is crucial, and tricky to pin down.