Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Should DUI be illegal?

Rate this topic


BRG253

Recommended Posts

If I go into a relatively public place, pull out a gun, and start circling slowly and firing off shots at random, I'm not posing a purposeful threat to other people, but what I *AM* doing is creating a serious risk of harm to other people by my negligent actions. I am, in fact, imposing upon them the direct threat of harm without directly interacting with them in any *other* capacity, and while my intent is not to harm them, simply to enjoy firing a gun while getting dizzy, the risk is tangible.

This is ludicrous. Firing a gun into a crowd is a direct threat to other people's lives. Under the circumstances, it is impossible to determine what your intentions are, and so one must assume you are trying to kill people (there is no other conceivable reason to do this recklessly dangerous activity, and if you are indeed trying to kill people then I must defend my life, and so that is the assumption one must logically act under). So, since you are apparently trying to kill people, and get kill you in self-defense. Whether you were actually trying to do so is irrelevant, the only basis of information I have is that you are shooting into a crowd (and that justifies defense). Now, suppose it was your property, and you didn't harm anyone, and they got control of you and you apologize. Well, no harm no foul, you didn't actually cause any damage, so you can't be put on trial for anything.

If you are driving drunk, then what do others see? A car that's a little wobbly, maybe going a bit too fast. What should they assume from that? That you are probably not paying too much attention, and they should back way off you so as to give themselves time to react to any possible accidents. They do NOT properly think that you are aiming to kill people. The only reason to think you were doing that is if you were veering off and making pedestrians jump out of the way, or swerving into the other lane just as cars pass you on the other side of the road (and hadn't been doing such things sans pedestrians and cars). So you aren't trying to initiate force against others, just being stupid and reckless. Obviously, in both cases of random gun firing or drunk driving, if you ever actually harm someone, then you are to be held to account. The key difference is that drunk driving does not justify the use of defensive force and random gun firing does (and that alone will keep people from doing that activity). Making drunk driving illegal (or random gun firing, or any other act which is not itself a use or overt threat of force) would itself be a use of force against an innocent person. The only difference is whether or not a given reckless act justifies the use of defensive (rather than retaliatory, after the fact) force; that depends on the facts of the case at hand (drunk driving, no; gun firing, yes).

The freedom to act does not give us the freedom to act negligently. We cannot morally shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater because we feel like it. We cannot morally shoot randomly because we feel like it. We cannot morally drive our cars when we can't operate them properly. None of those actions may be intended to harm anyone, but they nevertheless initiate the threat of physical harm.

The freedom to act is the freedom to act in any way except to initiate or overtly threaten force. Shouting fire in a crowded theater should be legal, because it is not an initiation of force. Of course, you are probably violating several people's property rights by doing so (theater owners, other customers), and so should be punished for that. You can shoot randomly because you feel like it, but be prepared to get justifiably shot in return since no one else knows you aren't trying to hit people (and so their use of force would be justified given all available information). We can legally drive cars when we can't operate them properly. The only conditions bounding your actions are 1) the rules of the property owner and 2) the ban on initiation or overt threat of force.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The idea of banning certain actions on the road because of their scientifically "provable" danger is the same thing as claiming that a computer can accurately guess all of existence surrounding a vehicle as it is driving, and make all driving calculations and decisions for you. It is absurd. I can decide what is safe and what is not for myself, and no one else is able to do that while I drive but me.

Those who are for more driving rules strike me as those who are not especially aware as they drive right now and who want to keep it that way. Everyone else is supposed to watch out for them. From where I sit, the fact is that all supposed hazards on the road, drunks included, are easily avoided using a common principle: complete awareness of all activity, one's own included, within crashing distance. If, as on back country roads at night, all activity cannot be determined, drive accordingly! Drop speed, or don't drive altogether, whatever you think is necessary.

The strongest argument I see both for and against road rules is turning public roads into private ones. That way, rational interests of both parties are bartered back and forth until real road rules are established that everyone is happy with. I have posted before that drunks are so obvious to me way before they come within crashing distance. I am certain bargain-basement (or even regular) private roads would exist that permitted drunks. All drivers would be aware, as they should on public roads already, and any property damage possibly incurred by a drunk would be paid by the drunk.

Edited by JASKN
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is ludicrous. Firing a gun into a crowd is a direct threat to other people's lives. Under the circumstances, it is impossible to determine what your intentions are, and so one must assume you are trying to kill people (there is no other conceivable reason to do this recklessly dangerous activity, and if you are indeed trying to kill people then I must defend my life, and so that is the assumption one must logically act under). So, since you are apparently trying to kill people, and get kill you in self-defense. Whether you were actually trying to do so is irrelevant, the only basis of information I have is that you are shooting into a crowd (and that justifies defense). Now, suppose it was your property, and you didn't harm anyone, and they got control of you and you apologize. Well, no harm no foul, you didn't actually cause any damage, so you can't be put on trial for anything.

If you are driving drunk, then what do others see? A car that's a little wobbly, maybe going a bit too fast. What should they assume from that? That you are probably not paying too much attention, and they should back way off you so as to give themselves time to react to any possible accidents. They do NOT properly think that you are aiming to kill people. The only reason to think you were doing that is if you were veering off and making pedestrians jump out of the way, or swerving into the other lane just as cars pass you on the other side of the road (and hadn't been doing such things sans pedestrians and cars). So you aren't trying to initiate force against others, just being stupid and reckless. Obviously, in both cases of random gun firing or drunk driving, if you ever actually harm someone, then you are to be held to account. The key difference is that drunk driving does not justify the use of defensive force and random gun firing does (and that alone will keep people from doing that activity). Making drunk driving illegal (or random gun firing, or any other act which is not itself a use or overt threat of force) would itself be a use of force against an innocent person. The only difference is whether or not a given reckless act justifies the use of defensive (rather than retaliatory, after the fact) force; that depends on the facts of the case at hand (drunk driving, no; gun firing, yes).

The freedom to act is the freedom to act in any way except to initiate or overtly threaten force. Shouting fire in a crowded theater should be legal, because it is not an initiation of force. Of course, you are probably violating several people's property rights by doing so (theater owners, other customers), and so should be punished for that. You can shoot randomly because you feel like it, but be prepared to get justifiably shot in return since no one else knows you aren't trying to hit people (and so their use of force would be justified given all available information). We can legally drive cars when we can't operate them properly. The only conditions bounding your actions are 1) the rules of the property owner and 2) the ban on initiation or overt threat of force.

What about the fact that in driving a car, you are forcing your way onto and along the highway, forcibly occupying space, and forcibly requiring others to avoid you. If you do it recklessly, such as driving drunk, you are using force recklessly, akin, I suppose, to shooting that gun while in a crowd. If you agree that such people are justly shot, you must agree, to be consistent, that the DUI should be arrested.

When you describe the measures other should take when they see someone apparently driving drunk, you explicitly recognize that unusual measures are necessary for those others to remain safe! You are admitting that drunk driving is evidence of a threat. Only, for some reason, you put the responsibility of negating that threat on the innocent and responsible people who deny themselves the pleasure of driving buzzed.

Notice that we don't arrest people for lounging under the influence, voting under the influence, or speaking publicly under the influence, etc., even though we disapprove of (some of) those. Note that driving under the influence is legal on private property.

Instead of focusing on its being a prohibition against drinking, think of it as a prohibition against recklessness. Driving when drunk is objectively reckless. Compare it with other forms of reckless driving. You wouldn't allow people to drive the wrong way on an expressway, claiming that until they caused a wreck, they hadn't done anything wrong, would you?

-- Mindy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought my point is pretty obvious. Your argument could be applied to -anything-. Does that mean that we should make everything illegal? Seems like it, if you want to claim your argument to be a valid reason to make DUI illegal.

Yup, I got it the first time, and still don't think it's a valid comparison.

If I couldn't avoid passing by a couple of thousand plank wielding individuals every day, I'd sure welcome knowing that there's a law against 'wielding a plank in public while drunk.'

We drive on the roads making an implicit assumption of trust - that every other driver is proficient, aware, and sane.

(Like me and you).:thumbsup:

While accidents are always going to happen, the well-documented danger of drunken driving is an increased risk that is non-negotiable, and partly preventable by law enforcement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You wouldn't allow people to drive the wrong way on an expressway, claiming that until they caused a wreck, they hadn't done anything wrong, would you?

-- Mindy

He might. After all what is the source of anyone's authority to define what is the "right way" and "wrong way" when no consent has been given?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no real answer to this question. Government has already violated our rights by appropriating our property for the construction and maintenance of public roads, and a natural result of that action is that government must regulate the manner in which we use those roads. One act of tyranny, once accepted as justifiable, necessarily leads to others. Obviously, if all roads were private, the property owners would decide what is an acceptable use of their roads. In the case of public ownership, there is no standard of use that would best protect individual rights, as the very existence of the question depends on a violation of rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no real answer to this question. Government has already violated our rights by appropriating our property for the construction and maintenance of public roads, and a natural result of that action is that government must regulate the manner in which we use those roads. One act of tyranny, once accepted as justifiable, necessarily leads to others. Obviously, if all roads were private, the property owners would decide what is an acceptable use of their roads. In the case of public ownership, there is no standard of use that would best protect individual rights, as the very existence of the question depends on a violation of rights.

The question of the taxes that construct public roads is actually separate from the question of can government own property and administer it. Government can own property and administer it and so it is not a legitimate part of opposing tyranny to crusade against traffic laws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question of the taxes that construct public roads is actually separate from the question of can government own property and administer it. Government can own property and administer it and so it is not a legitimate part of opposing tyranny to crusade against traffic laws.

But if your property is ill-gotten, then you making rules about it is unjust, as it isn't really yours. They stole money to build roads. Now they claim to own the roads. They don't though, as the roads were bought with stolen money (and very blatantly so, it isn't a question of tracking down money). So while one may legitimately make rules about one's legitimate property, the government, at this stage, cannot as it doesn't have any legitimate property. that doesn't mean that it shouldn't make rules, as rules are necessary as a result of their theft, but it does mean that the whole enterprise is illegitimate. Traffic laws are bad because government roads are bad, but they must go together. Either we have government roads and traffic laws or we have private roads and no traffic laws (rather rules applied by property owners).

So while you are right that the mere fact that public roads are funded illegitimately does not mean that we shouldn't have traffic laws on illegitimately-government roads. But that doesn't make traffic laws legitimate, it simply means they are coupled in their illegitimacy with government roads, and that as goes the one, so goes the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But if your property is ill-gotten, then you making rules about it is unjust, as it isn't really yours.
From which it follows that until we have that perfectly moral and ideal government that we are striving for, government action is always immoral and can never be just; and there is no point in trying to morally evaluate what the government does -- the government is always wrong, and we can just go about our business knowing this. It would be wrong for the government to prohibit driving drunk, and it would be wrong for the government to allow people to drive sober. It is just plain wrong for the government to allow people to drive, or to permit people to drive. Who's to say that the hypothetical "rightful owner" would not elect to prohibit driving altogether, or require people to be drunk to use their roads?

You've using the "teaspoon of sewage" fallacy -- that immorality in a fundamental choice means that all subsequent choices are immoral.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You've using the "teaspoon of sewage" fallacy -- that immorality in a fundamental choice means that all subsequent choices are immoral.

You're right, that isn't correct. Though, I do think that those later choices are only moral given the original immoral choice, and that given a different choice (say, no taxes) then they would lose their moral legitimacy (unless they are moral for another, independent reason). Would that be correct?

As for the primary topic, it seems that it hinges on what qualifies as a "threat" of force. To respond to Mindy's criticism, there is a difference between a "threat" in the sense of a necessary risk, and a threat of force. So, in the case of a car, I would say someone driving recklessly is a case of a threat in terms of a risk, rather than a threat of force in the morally significant way. An overt threat (shooting a gun in my direction) is fundamentally different than a risk of harm (for example, driving badly, which is really what DUI is about). By getting in a car and driving, one is accepting certain risks and also to abide by certain rules (the rules set by the owner). So long as one does not violate any traffic laws (which are necessary for order on the streets), then there is no problem with driving under the influence. If you do violate traffic laws, then you are already in trouble, and should only be punished for the violation you actually committed. DUI is about preemptively punishing people before they ever actually committed a legitimate crime, in the hopes for reducing the number of such legitimate crimes. It is akin to banning guns because guns make it easier to kill people.

My argument from before probably wasn't the best. This one is much stronger, in my opinion, and really gets to why I have a problem with laws against DUI then what I've said before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nanite, David,

While these arguments have merit in vacuo - I think you are skirting the issue.

This is not a question of property rights.

Imo, it is a question of which is rational. To drive with diminished capacity, is irrational - and if that were your own business that did not affect anyone else, of course, should be legal.

The larger picture is that if I can drive drunk, why can't I then do anything else I want, which could mean not adhering to the highway code, running a vehicle that is a potential risk to others - or ultimately not even requiring driving lessons and a licence.

It's interesting this, because it raises the whole subject of anarchism, which I believe falls flat because it is premised on the fact that I might be rational and self- responsible to a high degree, but how do I know you are?

How do I know your tolerance for alcohol, for instance; or simply your ability to steer round a corner. You can do what you choose with your own life, but you have no right to risk mine.

No, my life (and my car) has value, and whoever the owner of the road, public or private, I would rationally expect some agency to enforce minimum standards of road use, before I drove.

I often wryly say (looking at the large number of idiotic drivers) that most people have it back to front. They could be the biggest conformists around, in their lives, but when they get in a vehicle suddenly transform into individualists.

I can't speak for you, but roads are one place I expect rule of law, and conformism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nanite, David,

While these arguments have merit in vacuo - I think you are skirting the issue.

This is not a question of property rights.

Imo, it is a question of which is rational. To drive with diminished capacity, is irrational - and if that were your own business that did not affect anyone else, of course, should be legal.

The larger picture is that if I can drive drunk, why can't I then do anything else I want, which could mean not adhering to the highway code, running a vehicle that is a potential risk to others - or ultimately not even requiring driving lessons and a licence. ...

Why require driving lessons or a license? We have laws that say how you must drive (examples- speed limits, turn signals, lights, signs, lanes, etc.). If you don't drive like that, you are justly fined (given the present government system of roads). If you enforce the other laws on the road, laws against drunk driving or mandating a license are unnecessary. People who don't want to suffer the punishments and risks that come with violating traffic laws will take driving courses and perhaps take a test to show (to themselves) that they are competent, and they'll avoid driving drunk. Both such things, to me, are laws which exist solely as a deterrent to breaking other laws, and to me that is both silly and an illegitimate practice. If you have a law which is legitimate (no murder, stop at red lights), enforce it and you have no need of other laws (such as no guns, or no DUI). Indeed, having laws whose only purpose is to deter people from breaking the major laws (the ones where you are ACTUALLY threatening or harming others) is a "slippery slope" shaped more like a cliff than a gentle hill. For, if you allow them, you allow infinite violations of rights because for example: alcohol increases likelihood of committing a crime, drugs increase likelihood of crimes, poor education increases likelihood of crimes, poverty itself increases the likelihood of someone committing a crime, etc. There's no objective dividing line once you say you can pass laws that, when broken, harm no one, and only serve as deterrence measures for real crimes.

I don't think it has anything to do with anarchy, and everything to do with what objective law is and should be. It is about barring the initiation of force. DUI is not an initiation of force in the context of driving, breaking traffic laws (stop signs, lights, lanes, etc.) is. And so DUI should not be a crime, while breaking traffic laws should be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the primary topic, it seems that it hinges on what qualifies as a "threat" of force.
Alright, I agree that this is how most people have framed the issue, and I disagree with that analysis, for the reason you cited (overgeneralization of "initiation of force" to "risk"). Your current analysis has a problem. By getting in a car and driving, one is accepting only certain mild risks, and one that you do not accept (one that is implicitly, indeed explicitly covered by the law) is the risk of getting whacked by a drunk; or getting whacked by a guy driving 200 mph. I certainly do not agree to share the road with dangerous drivers of any variety. Of course on a privately-owned road, the owner might explicitly allow drunk driving, or insane-weaving type driving, even though that would be an irrational decision, not related to the function of roads (There are facilities for certain kinds of highly risky behavior on the road, and they're called 'racetracks'). But that would be the road-owner's right: I simply would never use such a road. I would use the road where the rules of conduct are rationally related to the purpose of roads, namely getting from one place to another. I would not willingly accept such unnecessary risks, and of course you do not have a right to force me to accept those risks.

Your argument is apparently based on the premise, a false one, that you have the right to do anything on public property, short of initiating force, i.e. you have the same property rights to public property that you have to your own private property. The only context where you have an unfettered freedom to act as you please, limited only by liability for damage caused by others, is on your private property. It is irrational to contend that public roads are, in any way, your own private property, and if the road system were sold off, the roads would not become your personal property. Instead, they would become the property of some business concern, which would establish contractual terms of use, which would include rules against reckless driving, speeding, and drunk driving.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your current analysis has a problem. By getting in a car and driving, one is accepting only certain mild risks, and one that you do not accept (one that is implicitly, indeed explicitly covered by the law) is the risk of getting whacked by a drunk; or getting whacked by a guy driving 200 mph...

Your argument is apparently based on the premise, a false one, that you have the right to do anything on public property, short of initiating force...

I agree with what you wrote about public property and the nature of driving, but I do not agree that it applies to my current argument. My argument is simply this: there are traffic laws regulating how one must drive. There have to be rules about driving patterns, or there will be total chaos. As the government claims ownership over roads, and every rational person knows there would need to be some traffic rules regardless of private or public ownership of roads, then the government can, so long as it claims ownership, make traffic rules. Now, what type of rules are appropriate? My reply is that rules governing the actual driving itself so as to maintain some order while having flexibility. We need speed limits (I tend to think that most are too low as of now, but that is beside the point). We need traffic control signs and lights, and we need lanes, rules about how one must drive (use of turn signals, etc.). If you have those, a law against drunk driving is unnecessary. If I'm driving drunk, but haven't violated any traffic laws (for example, a legitimate one might be one against "erratic" driving, such as weaving around inside a lane), then what wrong have I committed? All the problems with drunk driving come from the breaking of other (objectively necessary) rules of the road, such as erratic driving, speeding, ignoring signage, etc. It's superfluous.

Government shouldn't be in the road business. But it is. So long as it is, it must make rules, because rules are necessary for driving (or at least, would exist in a market). But a rule against drunk driving is a rule that isn't necessary for driving, as someone who is drunk but hasn't violated a traffic law cannot be said to be doing anything wrong (as they are not yet driving in a manner dangerous to others). There are rules against traffic collisions, and there are rules about speed, method of driving, etc. So long as one obeys those rules, one is not, as Mindy argued, doing the vehicular equivalent of firing a gun into a crowd. One is obeying the rules of the road, and so would be, in that analogy, merely carrying a weapon in a crowd, and is not threatening anyone. If you violate traffic laws, then you have begun firing (and are thus a threat), and when you hit someone, well you've hit someone. Carrying isn't a violation of rights (its just a risk), firing is a threat. That's the difference between driving drunk and driving erratically, and the two should not be conflated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All the problems with drunk driving come from the breaking of other (objectively necessary) rules of the road, such as erratic driving, speeding, ignoring signage, etc. It's superfluous.
I see: well, I don't think that it is deeply necessary to have a law specifically addressing intoxication, as opposed to more general cognitive impairment. In the current political and legal context, the question is whether dangerous driving (not limited to DUI) has become effectively legal, or do police still have the ability and the mandate to get dangerous drivers off the road. Or are they limited to only certain egregious actions. So I don't have an opinion whether subsuming DUI under more general "dangerous driving" would be as effective.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is such a thing as subjecting people to greater-than-usual risks without their consent. It makes sense to illegalize that. This is why I cannot keep large amounts of plutonium in my garage. This is why I cannot play Russian Roulette with someone else's head instead of my own.

DUI also subjects other people on the road to greater-than-usual risks, and so it is proper for the government to ban it on the same basis.

Under a system of private road ownership, a private road owner could choose to allow DUI on his roads, but he would have to specifically inform drivers of the added risk so that they could consent to it.

In today's government, DUI is a political football, and some modern-day prohibitionists are altering its definition beyond what is objectively defensible. For example:

  • The BAL is continuously being decreased. The standard was 0.1% for a long time, now in some states 0.02% is sufficient to get you in trouble, even though there is very little impairment at such a low BAL.
  • In some states you can be arrested for DUI just for leaving a bar with car keys in your pocket.
  • In many states you cannot sleep it off in your car. Being in your car is a DUI, even if the engine isn't running. There was a case in Texas where a man tried to sleep it off in a car that wasn't even operable. He was still convicted of DUI.

A lot of the government's non-objectivity is due to the precautionary principle, which Gus Van Horn has written about a few times. The "precautionary principle" advises deliberate over-reaction to risks. This is why people can be arrested for making ice bombs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I'm driving drunk, but haven't violated any traffic laws (for example, a legitimate one might be one against "erratic" driving, such as weaving around inside a lane), then what wrong have I committed?

You violated the law against drunk driving.

What makes a law invalid is violating a right. You are claiming a right to drive while drunk. But in fact, you have no right to drive at all that is a privilege granted by the state by licensing procedure, a permission that can be revoked. Even if roads were private a similar relation would hold between any driver and the road owner. Since there is a causal relation between being drunk and bad driving the laws against drunk driving can be justified by the negative consequences of bad driving. Blood alcohol content is objectively measurable and is the cause of drunkenness, therefore it is better to write law in terms of blood alcohol content that the more slippery concept of drunkenness.

This whole thread is just a reprise of the age of consent topic. "Why am I only an adult at 18 instead of being individually assessed for my own level of maturity. Age 18 is arbitrary and unfair." Substitute driving skill and alcohol tolerance for maturity and age 18 for the DUI laws. The answer is the same, the objection misidentifies as arbitrary that which is not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see: well, I don't think that it is deeply necessary to have a law specifically addressing intoxication, as opposed to more general cognitive impairment. In the current political and legal context, the question is whether dangerous driving (not limited to DUI) has become effectively legal, or do police still have the ability and the mandate to get dangerous drivers off the road. Or are they limited to only certain egregious actions. So I don't have an opinion whether subsuming DUI under more general "dangerous driving" would be as effective.

The reason it is necessary to have specific laws against DUI is the same reason that we need specific laws at all, which is that people must be able to know ahead of time what is and isn't allowed. Fatigue is another factor leading to cognitive impairment and accidents, but it lacks an objective measure, and is only poorly predictable. I would assume that in certain extreme cases, the fact that the driver knew he was dangerously fatigued could be proved, and then he would be held to a higher level of criminal misconduct. In the case of drinking and driving, it is specific, voluntary behavior that creates the greater risk, not loss of condition, which illness or fatigue involve.

-- Mindy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason it is necessary to have specific laws against DUI is the same reason that we need specific laws at all, which is that people must be able to know ahead of time what is and isn't allowed.
This does not justify having a specific law against DUI. Would you propose, analogously, that there must be a slew of specific and separate laws against murder with a gun, murder with poison, murder with a knife, murder by fire and so on? I presume not. The danger of such a concrete-bound, "list all of the possibilities" approach to law is the rule expressio unius est exclusio alterius, and the consequence that if you fail to explicitly enumerate a particular type of wrongful conduct, it is therefore legal. That is why the law is, or should be, expressed in terms of the relevant general concepts, not a list of specific instances.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Come on, it's a simple problem with a simple answer:

You have the rigth to risk your life in any way you want for any reason at all. You do not have the right to risk other people's lives. It's that simple.

You want a good analogy? Here's one: should it be illegal to randomly discharge firearms into the air?

Consider, a bullet fired upwards at an angle will return to earth at a similar angle at terminal velocity; given that bullets have low-air resistance shapes and are designed to be stable in flight, terminal velocity is rather high. Therefore they can 1) do property damage if they strike a house, a car, etc and 2) kill or injure people they happen to strike.

So, yes, it should be illegal, because it risks the lives and property of other people. It's an act that shows reckless disregard for other people's rights.

Same with DUI, it's reckless driving and dangerous to others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have the rigth to risk your life in any way you want for any reason at all. You do not have the right to risk other people's lives. It's that simple.
So for example do do not have the right to transport gasoline past other people, since it risks their lives. You do not have the right to drive at speeds of 60 mph since that risks other people's lives. Selling life-saving drugs that might interact with other drugs, fatally, is risky, and you have no right to do that. It's that simplistic.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You violated the law against drunk driving.

What makes a law invalid is violating a right. You are claiming a right to drive while drunk. But in fact, you have no right to drive at all that is a privilege granted by the state by licensing procedure, a permission that can be revoked. Even if roads were private a similar relation would hold between any driver and the road owner. Since there is a causal relation between being drunk and bad driving the laws against drunk driving can be justified by the negative consequences of bad driving. Blood alcohol content is objectively measurable and is the cause of drunkenness, therefore it is better to write law in terms of blood alcohol content that the more slippery concept of drunkenness.

This whole thread is just a reprise of the age of consent topic. "Why am I only an adult at 18 instead of being individually assessed for my own level of maturity. Age 18 is arbitrary and unfair." Substitute driving skill and alcohol tolerance for maturity and age 18 for the DUI laws. The answer is the same, the objection misidentifies as arbitrary that which is not.

So your position is that any law about driving is perfectly fine, and that the government could agree only to only allow green cars on the road, because it's their property and using it is a privilege? And you wouldn't have any problem, nor a right to claim that it is unjust, because, after all, it's not MY property so I just have to accept the decision.

I am saying, NOT that laws against drunk driving are by their nature immoral (when considered in the context of a government-owned road system), but that they are unnecessary and superfluous. They claim that drunk driving is a threat because drunk drivers force others to behave differently is false. They do not do so, unless they start violating other traffic laws, like rules on speed limits, lanes, traffic signals, etc. A rule against "weaving" within a given lane is also legitimate, as it means that others on the road cannot know where you are actually trying to go, or what you will do, with any precision whatsoever. If you aren't doing any of that, then you are driving reasonably well and aren't threatening anyone else with your driving at this point. If you can be shown to be driving recklessly, that is having control over the vehicle (and the only legitimate evidence that that is the case is you actually driving the vehicle in a manner which is reckless, i.e. speeding, weaving back and forth within a lane, crossing lanes without turn signals, veering into oncoming traffic, etc., as otherwise the police have no reason to stop you), then you should be fined/arrested. Indeed, one point that I think should be made is that, excluding traffic stops, police officers do not just randomly pull people over for DUI, but rather pull over those who are violating other traffic laws in some fashion. If you are going the speed limit, using signals properly, and not weaving back and forth, you aren't going to get pulled over for DUI, as there is no evidence of it.

Laws against DUI are not, given our present conditions (i.e. exempting those from the moral evaluation), invalid. They are superfluous, in my view, and so should be eliminated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So your position is that any law about driving is perfectly fine, and that the government could agree only to only allow green cars on the road, because it's their property and using it is a privilege? And you wouldn't have any problem, nor a right to claim that it is unjust, because, after all, it's not MY property so I just have to accept the decision.

If roads were private that is exactly the position you would be in. Since they are not, you have recourse through the government to try to get arbitrary laws removed. Since DUI laws are not arbitrary, you will likely not succeed in getting those repealed.

The laws against DUI are preemptive and preventive in nature, they are aimed at preventing accidents. That is the same rationale as used for the entire licensing system in the first place. All of the arguments you have made could be directed against licensing. They could be applied to the rule about which side of the road to drive on, or the interpretation of those groovy colored lights used for traffic control. They could be applied to maritime "rules of the road". All of these examples are of the same type of law having the same justification. Why do you pick on DUI laws?

And what does superfluous mean in this context? What is the distinction between superfluous law and non-superfluous law? The only distinctions I can think of are that law should not violate rights, should not be non-objective, and should not be arbitrary. DUI laws meet those three criteria.

Maybe you have difficulty with the idea that the law can be improved over time instead of being eternally fixed by deduction from first principles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...Why do you pick on DUI laws?

And what does superfluous mean in this context? What is the distinction between superfluous law and non-superfluous law? The only distinctions I can think of are that law should not violate rights, should not be non-objective, and should not be arbitrary. DUI laws meet those three criteria.

Maybe you have difficulty with the idea that the law can be improved over time instead of being eternally fixed by deduction from first principles.

I pick on DUI laws because they are not necessary given all the other laws on driving. I don't see the need for them. That is all. Take away DUI laws, and the road system keeps functioning just fine (if you enforce the other laws), even as a government owned system. And so I don't see why we should add another regulation which, in a just society, shouldn't exist. Also, your comment on licensing is true. All such laws should be gotten rid of, and roads privatized. But the thread is specifically targeted against DUI.

I don't see what "improving law over time" has anything to do with it really. If you could explain how that could apply, I'd like to know. DUI laws have no place whatsoever in a just society, as the government wouldn't own any roads (except perhaps those on military bases, but they own the whole base, so that'd be very very different). They aren't necessary given you enforce the other laws already in place for driving. So I view them as "superfluous", more than necessary, a greater restriction on individual action than is necessary in our mixed-economy society.

Another item of note is that we both agree there should be no DUI laws at all in an ideal system, and that it should be up to the owner. So we are both against DUI laws, we simply disagree about whether they should be repealed now or when we privatize the roads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Take away DUI laws, and the road system keeps functioning just fine (if you enforce the other laws), even as a government owned system. ...

I don't see what "improving law over time" has anything to do with it really. If you could explain how that could apply, I'd like to know.

These two points are related. Without DUI laws the road system would not keep functioning "just fine" as the standard of what "just fine" is has changed. The conclusion of what is acceptable changed over time and the law changed accordingly. The possibility of changing laws in response to changing knowledge would seem repellent to a rationalist mindset.

DUI laws have no place whatsoever in a just society, as the government wouldn't own any roads (except perhaps those on military bases, but they own the whole base, so that'd be very very different). They aren't necessary given you enforce the other laws already in place for driving. So I view them as "superfluous", more than necessary, a greater restriction on individual action than is necessary in our mixed-economy society.
No, the function of DUI laws is to prevent accidents due to alcohol impaired driving. Other bad driving laws are after the fact retaliatory actions, many coming into play only after someone has been harmed. Those are different functions. Various elements of bad driving cause accidents so those are criminalized both for the sake of justice and a hoped for deterrent effect that results in fewer accidents. Drunk driving causes bad driving, so criminalizing DUI has a deterrent effect that results in fewer accidents. A law need not wait until someone gets harmed if there is causal link between a certain action and its consequences.

Perhaps your premise is that a just law must be retaliatory or retributive?

Another item of note is that we both agree there should be no DUI laws at all in an ideal system, and that it should be up to the owner. So we are both against DUI laws, we simply disagree about whether they should be repealed now or when we privatize the roads.
We don't agree yet. I would favor DUI regulations on a private road, but they would be more a matter of contract law instead of criminal law. If there were no DUI laws, criminal courts would still need to decide whether a specific act of driving while under the influence of alcohol reaches any of the standards for criminal negligence; the legal question does not go away it transforms from a legislative definition to a judicial precedent. This is not an improvement in any sense, and it lacks the benefits to accident prevention a clear law would bring.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...