Do people here think drunk driving should be a crime? If you accept the non-aggression principle axiomatically, wouldn't arresting a drunk driver be using force against someone who isn't aggressing against anyone?
Well, I would support the privitazation of the roads, so the road-owners could regulate the alcohol content of the drivers. If anyone is harmed by drunk driving, they or their family members could simply sue the drunk driver for damages.
shazam:Well, I would support the privitazation of the roads, so the road-owners could regulate the alcohol content of the drivers. If anyone is harmed by drunk driving, they or their family members could simply sue the drunk driver for damages.
Off topic question, but would all roads have tolls under any sort of anarcho-capitalism?
CaptainMurphy: shazam: Well, I would support the privitazation of the roads, so the road-owners could regulate the alcohol content of the drivers. If anyone is harmed by drunk driving, they or their family members could simply sue the drunk driver for damages. Off topic question, but would all roads have tolls under any sort of anarcho-capitalism?
shazam: Well, I would support the privitazation of the roads, so the road-owners could regulate the alcohol content of the drivers. If anyone is harmed by drunk driving, they or their family members could simply sue the drunk driver for damages.
Well, it would depend on what the owner of the road wanted. Presumably, the owner of the road would maximize his profit by having a toll. However, in the need to please customers, the quality of the road would increase tremendously. However, I must admit I am fairly new to anarcho-capitalistic theory myself, but I heard Walter Block has some good essays on this topic.
CaptainMurphy:If you accept the non-aggression principle axiomatically, wouldn't arresting a drunk driver be using force against someone who isn't aggressing against anyone?
If you accept the non-aggression principle axiomatically, wouldn't arresting a drunk driver be using force against someone who isn't aggressing against anyone?
That's how I see it. If the current laws could be done away with, would you be in favor of stiffer penalties for those who do harm another person's property or self as a result of their being drunk?
Regarding the question of private ownership of roads and the setting of rules for access, allow me to play devil's advocate for a moment. Currently, the general public, through their representatives in the legislatures, provides for the funding and planning of roads. Assuming this to be true, the general public 'owns' the roads, yes? If the public owns the roads, can't the public then, again through their representatives, determine the rules for access?
I read an article from Lew Rockwell where he argues against drunk driving laws. I respect Rockwell, and I don't think drunk driving should be treated as a criminal matter, but I don't see how one can say either way whether such restrictions should or should not exist. Couldn't a private road owner stipulate that road customers not consume alcohol as a condition for access to its road? And couldn't a private owner further stipulate as a condition for access that road customers could be subject to, say, a breathylizer if the customer's driving was observed to be erratic?
Of course it wouldn't be treated as a criminal matter, more like a breach of contract. An intoxicated driver could simply be escorted off the property and subject to a fine as a condition to future access. If a banned user "snuck" back I suppose he could now be subject to arrest since this could be dealt with as a trespass.
I think this is a question only the free-market can answer. Owners that are too over-bearing risk alienating customers and losing them to competitors, while owners that are too lenient in this regard risk losing customers to competitors whose safety feel threatened and don't want to share the road with intoxicated drivers. I think market forces would find the optimal balance between the two.
(Disclaimer: I'm not sure about any of this--I'm just putting my thoughts out there for criticism or validation).
CaptainMurphy:Off topic question, but would all roads have tolls under any sort of anarcho-capitalism?
Network business models generally sell you connections instead of fares. For example you pay a monthly fee for unmetered internet access, and your ISP pays to send data through the long-range carriers by buying bandwidth in bulk.
Most roads would be financed by selling access to the destination, like your house or any other building, directly to the owner of that destination. Tolls would apply only to special demand shortcuts, like expressways, or to zones where driving demand severely exceeds supply, like central London.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
If the road owner has a business or leases property along his road he might prefer to make the use of the road free.
When you think about what kinds of reasons would lead someone to build a private road in the first place you realize many of the existing public roads would not have been built and may not be viable as private roads.
CaptainMurphy:Do people here think drunk driving should be a crime? If you accept the non-aggression principle axiomatically, wouldn't arresting a drunk driver be using force against someone who isn't aggressing against anyone?
It seems to me that simply exposing others to an demonstrable degree of risk without the insurance to cover for that risk would constitute some form of aggression. Imagine your neighbor loading his revolver and playing Russian Roulette with your head. Would you not be entitled to sue even if you were lucky and he did not actually kill you? In that sense, driving (even sober) might still require the driver to obtain liability insurance.
Insurance companies would certainly impose restrictions and/or charge premiums on clients for their physical condition: illness, intoxication, old/young age. This is similar to how private protection agencies would impose "laws" on the behavior of their own clients as condition for coverage. Of course, road owners could place additional restrictions just as any property owner or corporation of property owners could impose "house rules" within a community.
An observation: working in a factory while drunk is currently not a criminal offence, yet employers tend to treat it as grounds for termination, which is usually clearly defined in the employment contract. As far as I know it works. My father - who is a construction entrepreneur in Hungary - usually carries a breathalyzer and uses it when someone looks "strange", and it did happen that he fired someone because he was drunk.
(Not because he was less productive this way, but because construction is a dangerous work and under current laws he, the employer is held responsible if a drunken employee is careless and hurts himself. If it was only about the productivity and not about this thing he probably would have tolerated it once or twice. But he clearly does not want to go in jail if some drunken moron falls down from the scaffolding, so he does not tolerate it.)
After 2-3 such occasions it never happened again in the last 10 years so I figure it works.
Not sure this allegory is perfect though, as I have some reservations about the privatization of roads - can I explain them here or should find a more fitting forum topic for that?
josh m:I think this is a question only the free-market can answer. Owners that are too over-bearing risk alienating customers and losing them to competitors, while owners that are too lenient in this regard risk losing customers to competitors whose safety feel threatened and don't want to share the road with intoxicated drivers. I think market forces would find the optimal balance between the two.
If there were enough people that forced off of the safe roads maybe a business would develop an alternate road system, unsafe roads for unsafe drivers. Maybe it would be a dirt path instead of paved, not patrolled very heavily, people could drive while moderately intoxicated, and it would probably be bought on cheaper property and because of that would probably take awhile longer to get where you needed to go. Maybe the road would lead from the suberbs to the edge of the city where drivers would park their car in a giant parking lot for the day (as their driving privledges on the safer city roads were revoked) and a taxi would picked them up and take them to their job. And at the end of the day they could pay for a taxi to take them back to the parking lot and would from there drive home. All without using the road system they were kicked off of.
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Free Software Foundation
Any road (under private ownership) that permitted drunk driving would find cooperative insurance companies in short supply, so it seems unlikely that any major roadway would not restrict such risky behavior to some degree. I think that the previous poster is right: alternate roadways might be available for people who want to take such risks, at their own expense. But I doubt they'd be very common.
Pro Christo et Libertate integre!
Drunk driving would be dealt with on a road to road basis, I suppose. In order to drive on a certain roadway, you'd have to contractually agree to a set of rules ("laws") set forth by the owner(s). Owners, most likely, would impose some sort of restriction on drunk driving. Of course, they don't necessarily have to, but as MacFall wrote above, they "would find cooperative insurance companies in short supply." Profits would probably also suffer because people would be hesitant to drive on such an unsafe road. The contracts would be adjudicated by a private court, to which you would contractually agree to be tried under if you were found guilty of driving drunk, and there probably would be a private protection agency ("police force") contracted out by the owners who would patrol the roadway on the lookout for drunk drivers and other such offenders. The degree of the punishment would be stipulated in the contract to which you agreed.
I'd pay for my road with advertising. I see in a contractual society, that there will likely be public roads, like town/city, or state. It would be the case though that drivers would likely choose freely, the private roads. The private ones would likely be better made, and maintained. I guess cameras would help the owners/insurers, if A person is holding his hand over one eye, this is a good sign, aside from the speeding, weaving, hard-breaking , or, drivin' like my illiterate girlfriend.
Individualism Rocks