He Ain’t Hurtin’ No One…

Print Friendly

A reader writes: “If drunk drivers were allowed to drive at 5 m.p.h. on the shoulder of the road, things would be a whole lot better and safer all around.”clover 1

It’s a damn fine idea!

He “ain’t hurtin’ no one” … so why not leave him be?

Let the drunks safely gimp themselves home. It jibes with the NAP principle: No harm, no foul.

But, it does not jibe with the moralistic hectoring of the Clover Mind, which really wants to punish people most of all. Not “keep us safe.” Control us – and punish us when we resist or defy control. When any of us do something they do not like. Which affronts their Puritanical (but now secularized) urge to compel uniformity – and stamp out heterodoxy. Everything must be one way… their way.

Or else.

If that were not the case, then they – Clovers – would not object to the proposal above. A drunk driver cautiously making his way home, his car barely moving at walking speed, presents no significant danger to himself or others – to property or persons. I suppose it’s possible a child  (to anticipate the Cloveritic cry sure to erupt) might by playing on the shoulder at 2 a.m. after last call – but it’s unlikely. Mailbox posts are more threatened, but I’d rather deal with a knocked-down mailbox every now and then than a uniformed thug scrum hassling me for no reason because someone else might be “drunk” driving.

The real danger as regards drunk driving is that the system provides every incentive for drunks to drive … at normal road speeds. Indeed, slightly faster than normal road speeds. Because to drive exactly the speed limit – or below the speed limit – in the wee hours of the morning is like throwing buckets of bloody chum in the ocean. It’s guaranteed to draw the attention of cops. So, the drunk driver drives faster in order to avoid being noticed. Rendering him a real danger to himself and others – just the opposite of the case were he to “walk” his car home at 5 MPH or so on the shoulder.clover king

But, the Clover will cry, he shouldn’t have been driving at all! Perhaps – except here again the Clovers have set up an impossible Catch 22. In the first place, they have managed to dumb-down the legal definition of “drunk” driving to absurdity. A drink or two over the course of a meal is sufficient. It probably won’t result in any meaningful impairment of a person’s capability to safely drive home.  But it is sufficient to cross the BAC threshold at which point one may be cuffed and stuffed. Which is not .08 BAC, incidentally. In most states, a BAC level of .06 or even .04 is sufficient legal pretext to arrest a person for “drunk” driving. A .08 BAC is merely presumptive drunk driving – while lower BACs require additional evidence of “drunkeness” to establish the fact (such as a cop’s say-so).

Well, ok – then maybe  just sleep it off in the car. The parked car.  Surely, that’s responsible and “safe.” Even if the occupant’s BAC is .16 and he is well and truly soused, if the car’s parked then he is utterly harmless. Ergo, the law should be pleased.

He ain’t hurtin no one…. so leave him be.

But of course it will not. If a person is found sitting in his parked car – even if he is asleep in the back and the engine’s stone cold – he may still be arrested and carted off to a cell for the crime of drunk driving. Hence, another incentive for the drunk to drive. Because he is more vulnerable sleeping it off in his car. He’ll be there – in the same place – all night long. His odds of avoiding the drunk driving bust are improved if he actually drives while drunk.    clover 3

In effect, anyone who drinks at all has become a “drunk” as far as the law is concerned. Just as we’ve all become presumptive criminals – terrorists – even. An offhand joke is sufficient to land one in a cell for 24 hours. Just ask the Peanut Butter Terrorist.

John Adams once said:

“It is more important that innocence be protected than it is that guilt be punished, for guilt and crimes are so frequent in this world that they cannot all be punished.
But if innocence itself is brought to the bar and condemned, perhaps to die, then the citizen will say, ‘whether I do good or whether I do evil is immaterial, for innocence itself is no protection,’ and if such an idea as that were to take hold in the mind of the citizen that would be the end of security whatsoever.”

His was a re-stating (and refining) of the comment attributed to Thomas More – Henry VIII’s unfortunate (because eventually headless) Lord Chancellor – in the classic drama A Man for All Seasons:

William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!

More also said: “I do none harm, I say none harm, I think none harm. And if this be not enough to keep a man alive, in good faith I long not to live.” I might add to this: Or arrested, waylaid, fine, hassled, caged.

So much wisdom – lost on the conscience of our age.

People who are innocent of having caused anyone else any harm are now routinely treated as if they had in fact caused harm. Which is evidence that harm isn’t the criteria – despite the Cloveritic protestations about “safety,” “security,” “the children” and so on. The critera is simply, “Do as I demand” … because it is demanded.

Conform. Submit. Obey.

Or be punished.

It is the new American creed.

Throw it in the Woods?

Share Button

eric

Author of "Automotive Atrocities" and "Road Hogs" (MBI). Currently living amongst the Edentulites in rural SW Virginia. 

  212 comments for “He Ain’t Hurtin’ No One…

  1. Runawayslave
    February 16, 2013 at 1:35 pm

    Its all over, there is but the storm.

    • L
      February 18, 2013 at 6:46 am

      So Eric,

      With this reasoning, is it ok with you if someone goes into any town or city or next door to you and shoots their guns up in the air? After all nobody gets hurt until a bullet comes down and hits them and the chances of that happening are small. Although everyone in the area is at risk, until someone is injured it’s no big deal right?Clover

      • February 18, 2013 at 10:25 am

        L,

        There’s an old saying that hard cases make bad law. Yours is an appeal to emotion – using hysteria. You paint a picture of unlikely mayhem, use that to establish the idea of actual harm done – and then use that as the pretext for prior restraint.

        Even in a totalitarian state, there is risk. In fact, far more risk – to your life – than in a free state. Can risk be reduced? Yes, in two ways: By individual people exercising good judgment – and when they err, being held accountable (moral hazard). Or, by prior restraint – the use of force to prevent them from exercising judgment or punishing them for doing so, even in the absence of their having caused any actual harm. In the case of the former, there will arise occasional harms done. But those who have not done anything to cause harm never need worry about being harmed by the state – the most lethal inflicter of harm in human history. In the case of the latter, everyone is harmed – because everyone is presumed to have either committed harm or that whatever action they may take will necessarily cause harm – even though it has not actually done so yet (and may never).

        Do you see?

        Yours is the Clover’s call to the Great Collective – a paean to “society,” “the children,” “security” and “safety” – the words used by every authoritarian state to justify what it does to individuals who’ve harmed no one.

        And who therefore have a right to be left alone unless they do otherwise.

      • Mike Latoris
        February 18, 2013 at 6:30 pm

        False equivalency.. much?

        • Mike Latoris
          February 18, 2013 at 6:35 pm

          BTW, my comment is aimed at “L” and his false equivalency “Mujahadeen Celebratory Fire” Lol.

      • Bob Robertson
        February 18, 2013 at 10:31 pm

        Dear L,

        Having lived in San Jose, California, where plenty of people celebrate New Years by firing their guns into the air, I can say from Experience that it’s a non-issue.

        Let me guess, you’ve never lived in such a place?

        Even Mythbusters did a bit on this one, A bullet, fired at a high enough angle, has negligible horizontal momentum. It loses its vertical momentum to gravity, and the terminal velocity of the slugs are not enough to kill anyone.

        The answer is, as all answers really are, strict liability. IF someone is going to shoot into the air, THEN there is a safe way to do so: Straight up.

        Those that endanger other people deserve to be held liable for that endangerment, which the drunk driver going slowly, or the celebrator firing up into the air, are not doing.

        • JdL
          February 18, 2013 at 11:00 pm

          Even Mythbusters did a bit on this one

          See below for a discussion of the MythBusters segment.

          A bullet, fired at a high enough angle, has negligible horizontal momentum.

          Which is completely irrelevant to its velocity when it lands back on earth.

          IF someone is going to shoot into the air, THEN there is a safe way to do so: Straight up.

          *Sigh*

          Since there’s apparently confusion, let me state once again that I AGREE with Eric that people should be charged only with what damage they DO, not what damage they MIGHT do.

          It does not help make this point to propagate specious arguments about what is risky and what is not.

      • February 19, 2013 at 2:55 am

        I like the thinking behind the law. An unintended consequence of this would be to distort the way people select bars and places where they drink.It might draw businesses dependent on alcohol sales for profit closer to the suburbs.

        • John Illinois
          February 20, 2013 at 2:35 am

          The officials claim that drunk drivers are involved in “almost” half of fatal accidents. “almost” means less than, doesn’t it? Says a whole lot about sobriety, doesn’t it?

          • DownshiftFast5to1
            February 20, 2013 at 3:19 am

            A Person uses a word All the time and thinks they know what it means. Psft. I’d forgotten that I’d learned the true meaning of ‘Almost’ long ago in a coed-prision not far away, John Illinois.

            Thanks for the reminder. Words have meaning, and it matters.

            Definition of ALMOST
            : very nearly but not exactly or entirely

            Also, how do ya like my new nic? It’s got new snow tires just like the new Mustang I was next to in traffic today which was all covered in snow and ice.

            I imagine the new Mustang handles as well in the snow as the old, but I didn’t read the E.P.A. article,… and I digress OT.

            - IndividualAudienceMember

            Note to Webmaster:

            I wish the icons of the People who comment here would trigger some audio in stereo.

            Of thier own chosing, or of a list by the webmaster, except for when the clover icon appears, then maybe darth vader music would apply? Customized ringtones of a sort?

            The music Will Grigg selected on facebook was the highlight of being on facebook. Now that I’ve left facebook, there’s a great big hole like I saw once on a piston. Other than that, I’m good.

          • February 20, 2013 at 10:25 am

            Hi John,

            Yup –

            If you removed all the non-harm, non-crime DUI/DWIs from the record – you know, the people who didn’t crash or anything but simply got caught with some arbitrary percentage of alcohol in their system – my bet is the number of “drunk” driving incidents would be half to two-thirds what is reported.

            It is of a piece with the eructations about “gun violence.” Take the statistically rare but luridly horrible incident and blow it up such that enough people come to believe there’s mayhem of that sort happening routinely, all over the country. Having whipped up the Fear, appeal to Unreason – and demand “we” impose draconian policies to “stop the madness.”

            The same tired tune plays over and over and over…

      • Tor Munkov
        February 20, 2013 at 4:23 pm

        Oooh, you got him now, L, turn that old screw good and hard now, yahh-surr!

        Some Humans Ain’t Human – John Prine

        Some humans ain’t human. Some people ain’t kind. You open up their hearts. And here’s what you’ll find.

        A few frozen pizzas. Some ice cubes with hair. A broken Popsicle. You don’t want to go there.

        Some humans ain’t human. Though they walk like we do. They live and they breathe. Just to turn the old screw.

        They screw you when you’re sleeping. They try to screw you blind. Some humans ain’t human. Some people ain’t kind.

        http://www.youtu.be/BBFVHLgBz2A

        • skunkbear
          February 21, 2013 at 1:48 am

          Tor, I am glad to see someone else appreciate John Prine. He is a thoughtful and talented song writer. One of my favorites from JP is Sam Stone with lyrics like “There’s a hole in daddy’s arm where all the money goes, Jesus Christ died for nothin’ I suppose.”

          Of course such articulate music simply cannot be compared to the brilliance of Lady Gaga.

          Have you heard of James McMurtry? He is the son of Larry McMurtry the author of Lonesome Dove, The Last Picture Show and many other novels.

          James can craft a helluva song and that is why he is my favorite musician. If you like JP you will like JM.

          • Tor Munkov
            February 21, 2013 at 7:25 pm

            The energy flows where our attention goes.

            Every moment spent listening and enjoying outside their Psychopath Circus weakens them and strengthens us.

            Here’s some Video slideshows illustrating James McMurtry songs I’ve enjoyed.

            Land of Milk & Honey
            http://www.youtu.be/iW1kV0wF9mU

            Childish Things
            http://www.youtu.be/1nhVUsgRLsI

            Just Us Kids
            http://www.youtu.be/OH5hTwWgHp0

            Super Baal Bloody Sunday 47

            Their Nooze Psycychle runnin 24 hour
            Super-Baal Vampires suck the power
            With a billion blackhearts behind a Billion screens
            The world goes dark down in New Orleans While Katrina creeps on long white legs And eats the souls of cocooned dregs

    • Ray Brenner
      February 19, 2013 at 12:51 am

      Tell the late Rachel Yoder that a bullet fired into the air is all harmless fun. Sometimes you are such an asshole you blow my mind.

      • February 19, 2013 at 1:34 am

        Hi Ray,

        Please, no personal attacks. You’re welcome to argue whatever angle you like – but calling someone an asshole isn’t much of an argument.

      • Tor Munkov
        February 20, 2013 at 9:34 pm

        Dear Ray,

        I’m pretty sure since Rachel is Amish, she and her family would prefer you not tell her community anything whatsoever. Or pass any laws about her. Or even speak her name ever again. Just because some reporter intruded into their community, doesn’t mean they want you to have anything to do with them.

        Little Kid Shot With Paintball Gun
        http://www.youtu.be/gGkUHxmU1ik

  2. Tor Munkov
    February 16, 2013 at 3:59 pm

    That is truly brilliant. A drunk driving “speed”.

    Another idea, if cars had a push button activated “coupler” that came out when needed. That way, another driver could drive your car home for you, pulling your car along as a passenger car.

    Railway Couplings
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railway_coupling

    Spectrum of Social Status & Social Decision Making
    -3 we are debt ridden & bankrupt
    +3 we are solvent with plenty of real assets

    Worst
    -3 Authoritarian committee consensus law
    -2 Clover emoting, wishing, and beggin
    -1 Political populism using collectivized property
    0 Inflationary debt instrument consumerism
    1 Use of certificates of silver/gold/commodities less fee
    2 Silver/gold hard money value exchange
    3 Foundrymen/farmers create needed goods for yourself
    Best

    Our pathetic condition exists because we lack true assets
    http://www.plata.com.mx/mplata/articulos/articlesFilt.asp?fiidarticulo=162

    • Runawayslave
      February 17, 2013 at 12:37 pm

      Tor this is what i am actually in the process of doing producing all my own food(not quite there yet), using hard money when doing business with real people(fuck the gov subsidized corporations, if they want monopoly money they can have it). Traveling freely, is a big problem bc the gestapo Nazi cocksuckers are all over the place. So, for now even though i own a truck im hoofing it or bumming rides(amerika aint it great?). Any way your correct sir self sustainability is the key to true freedom, our ancestors knew this naturally. How crazy is it that sustainability is even a concept our forefathers would have just called it life? What a world.

    • Don Cooper
      February 18, 2013 at 1:50 pm

      “Another idea, if cars had a push button activated “coupler” that came out when needed. That way, another driver could drive your car home for you, pulling your car along as a passenger car.”

      That would be hilarious! What a stigma. “Hey Billy, isn’t that Bobby’s car getting drunk towed?”

      ROFL. That’s one step down from the drunk van. At least with the drunk van if you can get in and out w/o anyone seeing you, nobody knows you’re in the van.

      • February 19, 2013 at 7:31 pm

        They have such a device already. It’s called a tow truck.

  3. BrentP
    February 16, 2013 at 4:57 pm

    A drunk is not even allowed to walk home for the control freaks have passed laws and/or created case law against drunks walking or bicycling home. The later, bicycling, I believe in some states can be charged as DUI. Remember a bicycling is not driving and doing so drunk would probably result in only the drunk being hurt, but it’s still something they can nail someone for.

    • Jake
      February 19, 2013 at 12:41 am

      That is correct at least in Ohio. A close friend of mine went through the whole DUI scheme for bicycling to the corner store for another 6 pack. Sad world.

  4. jjb
    February 16, 2013 at 7:49 pm

    Man I wish more of the moo-cows would realize this as it’s so true. It’s like a school play yard for adults with monitors everywhere. I’m sick and tired of everybody being treated like a child these days. Case in point, A friend of mine was tailgating with a couple buddies at a concert a couple of summers ago. They were in the parking lot at a casino in South Lake Tahoe with their truck stereo going hangin’ out waiting for the show to start. Barbequeing and knockin back some brews when the leo’s on horseback roll up on them. They got dui’s! No fucking shit! It was “justified” because their keys were in the ignition. He later got it down to a wet reckless after a thousand dollar attorney, “court costs”, and of course the fines and probation with the insurance coming in the back door.

    • Ed
      February 17, 2013 at 12:39 am

      ” I’m sick and tired of everybody being treated like a child these days.”

      I am too. As Cedric said in one of his routines; “I’m a grown-assed man”.

      I don’t like being told what to do, especially by some skinhead youngun who could be my grandson. Fuck the Po-lice. Fuck the politicians, and especially fuck the sheep who cheer them on.

      • Runawayslave
        February 17, 2013 at 12:40 pm

        I second that emotion with all my heart “Fuck them, fuck them all”

        • Ed
          February 17, 2013 at 6:50 pm

          As we said when I was a lad in the ’60s, “Fuck’em all but six and make those six pallbearers” ;-)

  5. Tor Munkov
    February 16, 2013 at 11:46 pm

    Great Dictator’s Speech – We Are Not Machines – Ron Paul ’12

    “I’m sorry, but I don’t want to be an emperor. That’s not my business. I don’t want to rule or conquer anyone. I should like to help everyone – if possible – Jew, Gentile – black man – white. We all want to help one another. Human beings are like that. We want to live by each other’s happiness – not by each other’s misery. We don’t want to hate and despise one another. In this world there is room for everyone. And the good earth is rich and can provide for everyone. The way of life can be free and beautiful, but we have lost the way.

    Greed* has poisoned men’s souls, has barricaded the world with hate, has goose-stepped us into misery and bloodshed. We have developed speed, but we have shut ourselves in. Machinery that gives abundance has left us in want. Our knowledge has made us cynical. Our cleverness, hard and unkind. We think too much and feel too little. More than machinery we need humanity. More than cleverness we need kindness and gentleness. Without these qualities, life will be violent and all will be lost….

    The aeroplane and the radio have brought us closer together. The very nature of these inventions cries out for the goodness in men – cries out for universal brotherhood – for the unity of us all. Even now my voice is reaching millions throughout the world – millions of despairing men, women, and little children – victims of a system that makes men torture and imprison innocent people.

    To those who can hear me, I say – do not despair. The misery that is now upon us is but the passing of greed* – the bitterness of men who fear the way of human progress. The hate of men will pass, and dictators die, and the power they took from the people will return to the people. And so long as men die, liberty will never perish. …..

    Soldiers! don’t give yourselves to brutes – men who despise you – enslave you – who regiment your lives – tell you what to do – what to think and what to feel! Who drill you – diet you – treat you like cattle, use you as cannon fodder. Don’t give yourselves to these unnatural men – machine men with machine minds and machine hearts! You are not machines! You are not cattle! You are men! You have the love of humanity in your hearts! You don’t hate! Only the unloved hate – the unloved and the unnatural! Soldiers! Don’t fight for slavery! Fight for liberty!

    In the 17th Chapter of St Luke it is written: “the Kingdom of God is within man” – not one man nor a group of men, but in all men! In you! You, the people have the power – the power to create machines. The power to create happiness! You, the people, have the power to make this life free and beautiful, to make this life a wonderful adventure.

    Then – in the name of democracy – let us use that power – let us all unite. Let us fight for a new world – a decent world that will give men a chance to work – that will give youth a future and old age a security. By the promise of these things, brutes have risen to power. But they lie! They do not fulfil that promise. They never will!

    Dictators free themselves but they enslave the people! Now let us fight to fulfil that promise! Let us fight to free the world – to do away with national barriers – to do away with greed*, with hate and intolerance. Let us fight for a world of reason, a world where science and progress will lead to all men’s happiness. Soldiers! in the name of democracy, let us all unite!”

    *libertarian definition of greed = the taking of property and freedom from another person through force.
    **feel too little = the inhumanity that allows men to accept loot they know was taken from other men by force.

    • Runawayslave
      February 17, 2013 at 12:46 pm

      I would change the word democracy that stuff sucks i dont want any but awesome vid it gave me goose bumps. I think that the no borders idea is good to a point as long as that language doesnt overflow into private property. also unity is great when its for a righteous cause for all but sucks ass when united in evil.

    • Larry`
      February 17, 2013 at 2:45 pm

      Thanks Tor for the video link. A powerful message that people need to hear. I have grabbed the youtube link and will be passing it on to my email list. Thanks again.

  6. Olaf Koenders
    February 17, 2013 at 1:45 am

    Every year during Christmas and Easter holidays, I spend most – if not all – of my time locked up inside my home if possible, simply to avoid the inevitable flooding of the roads with clovers and, law enforcement hiding behind shrubbery looking for people that can think for themselves and just want to stay out of everyone’s way.

    I’ve been passed by cops who at some 50k over the limit, aircon running, shotgun cop pointing speed laser through side glass at every car they overtake. That’s completely beyond the operator’s manual for any speed measuring device, but they tend to get away with it.

    Think about it – you’re barely over the limit but you now have a cop car doing a smoking U turn and chasing after you at near 200k. Where’s the safety in that clover? Now there’s 2 WHOLE CARS SPEEDING! Do yourselves a favour and take the blue pill.

    I’d much rather have clovers behind me, because WHEN they crash (not IF), it will be of no consequence to me. Besides, a motorcycle at high speed is a small, fast moving target that’s really hard to hit. Many clovers have tried, but thankfully failed over the last 27 years.

    I reckon that all new cars are speed-limited by the chip so that the cops can catch up, having NOT been speed limited.

    Why the hell should I be locked away in my own home because clovers believe that staring at their speedo ensures they don’t speed and then crash, causes them to tire and run off the road anyway. The cops then blame “speed”, ensuring the lie and the cashflow continues.

    I have to laugh when arrogant Officer Dolt on the news authoritatively pukes that there’ll be more cops and speed detection etc. on the roads these holidays, with double-demerit points. The road toll always seems to climb higher every year.

    Again, we get the same Officer Dolt “warning” us that 10k faster makes no difference. BUT, many major freeways here are 110k instead of 100. Why so if it makes no difference Officer Dolt?

    I just wanna be free of this crap. I have the Constitutional Right to travel public roads unencumbered. Unfortunately, getting that through the heads of clovers, cops and corrupt courts is another story.

    • Nick S
      February 17, 2013 at 3:48 am

      Me too Olaf. I try to avoid driving during certain holiday periods or late at night because I get tired of having to run the gauntlet of the Highway Gestapo.

      It is nice to drive and just imagine that I still live in a free country, not a police state.

    • February 17, 2013 at 10:29 am

      Hi OLaf,

      “I just wanna be free of this crap…”

      You and me (and many others)… .

      I’ve mentioned before my recurrent fantasy: That a Libertarian genius physicist will prove Einstein wrong about FTL travel. Or figure out some way to end-run it (as via use of wormholes, natural or man-made).

      So we can get the hell outta this place (paraphrasing Jimmie).

      Imagine it: A new Earth, somewhere beyond the reach of Clovers. Where we – liberty minded critical thinkers – could go and be left in peace. To live and work as we wish – dealing with one another cooperatively and freely. Where the only sin/crime is the use of aggressive violence.

      Over the past decade, hundreds of exo-planets have been discovered. Several have already been found that are rocky-type, similar to Earth in size and composition – and in the habitable zone relative to their sun, such that liquid water ought to be present on the surface.

      There are probably thousands (if not millions) of “earths” in our Milky Way galaxy alone. It is staggering – and tantalizing.

      So close… yet still so far away.

      For now.

      • Chas
        February 17, 2013 at 12:11 pm

        To paraphrase, ummm, me – FTL is a bitch.
        What makes you think the begging/thieving little runt Clovers won’t follow? These NE YankeeTwit Parasites have infested The South and brought their parasite culture here after destroying their own planet – NE YankeeTwit Amerika. The problem with Clover parasites is that after they “shit where they eat” they move on to a cleaner environment and do the same thing there. They are Locusts and Stink bugs.

        • dom
          February 17, 2013 at 1:44 pm

          Clovers are way worse than stink bugs.

        • Eric_G
          February 17, 2013 at 2:22 pm

          This is exactly why we can’t have nice things.

        • February 17, 2013 at 3:27 pm

          Hi Chas,

          Yeah, but the galaxy is a big place. The universe, incomprehensibly big. Lots of places to flee to – and have a damn good chance of being able to live your life free of them. Consider the analogy of colonial/frontier America. If you went West of the Mississippi circa 1780 you could expect to live free for the majority of your life – and even rural “13 states” colonial America was so diffuse and depopulated that living Clover-free (or nearly so) was a pretty feasible thing.

          I’m optimistic.

          • MoT
            February 17, 2013 at 3:42 pm

            I’d make it a precondition that anyone who wanted to flee with me would have to renounce any “ideas” about the collectivism and the world that was or face being sent back with no chance of returning. If they whined about some sort of retribution I’d have them shot on the spot.

          • February 17, 2013 at 6:31 pm

            I like the solution of Rand’s hero in Atlas Shrugged.

            Don’t let anyone in the group who isn’t known to be one of us.

            And make the one “law” immediate banishment for any violation or suggested violation of the NAP.

          • Chas
            February 17, 2013 at 9:11 pm

            Ahhh…But just when you think you are safe from them, they infiltrate when you are not watching and take over…Like stink bugs but way worse as Dom points out. (BTW – Anyone know how to get rid of the little bastards?)

            P.J. O’Rourke refers to them as “proud beggars and sniveling brats”. I think they are more like tapeworms looking for a tasty intestinal track.

          • BrentP
            February 18, 2013 at 7:58 am

            The problem is that the initial opening of the planetary frontier would mean people voluntarily signing up but then being committed to the group for the effort to succeed. Which is fine, because it is a voluntary contract.

            I think it would take a generation or more before a suitable voluntary society to come about. Before then it would be a contractual society just to survive. Nobody would likely make it on their own. The trouble is the children of the first generation or more would be subject to a contract they never agreed to.

            I suppose a earth-like planet could be found, in which case I suppose people could go off and live in the woods. I simply think it would likely be more harsh and difficult than that.

          • February 18, 2013 at 10:39 am

            Probably –

            But, to elaborate my fantasy a bit:

            Libertarian genius figures out a way to leave Earth that is absolutely radical in terms of conventional physics. As in, no need of elaborate and massively expensive chemical rocket motors to lift a craft into space, etc. Something along the lines of “stepping across” the barriers that separate our universe from other universes (string theory, the multiverse, etc.). He does not publicize his discovery. He merely invites likely people. Imagine it!

            Now, also keep in mind that our era is a technological era. Even if it were not possible to bring actual technology across the distances, human minds contain the necessary knowledge to – in short order – erect a very agreeable civilization, even assuming they start from scratch. Assuming plentiful raw materials, food/shelter would be elaborated far more successfully than by the New World explorers of 500 years ago. And mind, they’d be free of government – and Clovers. Imagine what that would allow, in terms of human potential.

            Just idle day dreaming, I know. But it’s a very pleasant daydream, is it not?

          • methylamine
            February 19, 2013 at 2:12 pm

            One small bummer: yes, there are probably millions of Earth-like planets.

            But FOOD will be a problem; there may well be life, but will it be edible? Doubtful, unless you buy into creation/simulation or the recursive idiocy of panspermia. The amino acids may not be our classic 20, the trace mineral balances might be completely out of whack. The soil organisms will also probably not be compatible with our plants.

            So we’ll have to do a little terraforming–it won’t be easy at first.

            I don’t mind. I’ll work ’till I’m a bent-over broken old gnome…if I know I’m FREE, and my children are FREE!

          • Chas
            February 19, 2013 at 4:09 pm

            But…But…Who would build the Roads??!!
            Whaaaa…Sniff-Sniff.

          • Chas
            February 19, 2013 at 4:15 pm

            It seems to me that only about 5% of Earth population has the advanced mindspace for logic and reason and are the only people who can build and survive a freewill/free-choice civil society. 95% of Earthlings are too primitive to survive civilization and have to cry and beg (vote) for violent humanoid apes to steal for them.

          • February 19, 2013 at 4:57 pm

            Hi Chas,

            I think you’re on to something there – though I think the percentage is increasing (slowly but surely).

            It may be that liberty-mindedness is a mutation of sorts; that Cloverism (collectivism) is the “normal” human mindset.

            It’s up to us to see to it that our mutation spreads!

          • BrentP
            February 19, 2013 at 7:18 pm

            Cloverism can’t be the norm.
            Look at all the things that have to be done to sustain it.

            Government schools.
            organized religions.
            social manipulations.
            television.
            movies.
            books, newspapers….

            it takes a constant effort to create and maintain cloverism by the powers that be.

            It can’t be the natural state.

            Look at small children. Before the schools get a hold of them. Has anyone ever met a child clover? A clover under the age of five? They don’t exist.

            It’s an artificial state created so sociopaths can have control.

            Again, I repeat myself. libertarians and sociopaths see how to control others. The libertarian tries to bring up others around him, to free them. The sociopath pushes them down, to enslave them.

            It’s the angel and devil on one’s shoulders thing I suppose.

            The masses prefer following the devil because he has candy and fun without work.

          • methylamine
            February 19, 2013 at 7:56 pm

            @Brent–

            Yes, absolutely! People are MADE into Clovers…through a painful, expensive process antithetical to the nature of Man.

            They are then kept in that state by an even more expensive doling out of panem et circenses for life.

            Remove those external forces, and I think Cloverism will recede to the minority.

          • Chas
            February 19, 2013 at 8:07 pm

            The expanded mindspace for logic and reason takes mental effort that the little Clovers aren’t willing to expend…It hurts their fragile little heads. The path of least resistance is parasitism so little Clover takes this easy path and votes for violent apes to do their stealing for them…Pathetic scumbagz. Primative parasitism/collectivism is the result of infantile laziness…A refusal to expend mental effort and grow up.

          • February 20, 2013 at 10:53 am

            Hi Chas,

            Yes – and also some are just unintelligent. Our resident Clover, for example. On the other hand, there are Clovers who appear to be intelligent – for example, the Canadian Clover redistributionist Rene who plagued these pages a few weeks back. So it’s not entirely a function of IQ. But they are all mentally defective in the sense that they are unable or unwilling to acknowledge or accept the proposition that “a is a” – that reality is. That theft is theft. That there is wrong – and illegal. And that they are not necessarily the same things. Etc.

            What you get with Clover is a mish-mash of rote positions believed in – but never examined in the light of reason. Whatever they believe is not the result of conscious evaluation. It is a sort of animal response – “sit, boy!” Good boy! Nothing more.

            They do as they’ve been told – and expect others to.

            And when someone doesn’t, it incites fear, then rage. The response of an animal who sees another of its kind “getting away” with it.

          • Chas
            February 20, 2013 at 2:08 pm

            Most of the freedom-minded/runaway black slaves in the south were turned in by fellow slaves – sucking up to/licking the hand of Massa. The same weak animal mentality of scumbag Clovers that lack the mindspace for adult reason and civilized ethics. WHat is truly disgusting is that they excelled in their little government public schools because they are good at rote memorization. They are NOT intelligent but can only recall memorized bits of data – they cannot use their little brains to reckon reality or integrate concepts.

        • liberranter
          February 17, 2013 at 9:46 pm

          The problem with Clover parasites is that after they “shit where they eat” they move on to a cleaner environment and do the same thing there. They are Locusts and Stink bugs.

          Yep, exactly. This is why interstellar travel and recolonization elsewhere, even if it were technologically possible, would eventually fail, just like the “American experiment” has failed. Humans are humans, no matter the time and place. Cloverism is an inescapable part of human nature.

          But I agree with Eric on one thing: we can always dream, can’t we?

          • methylamine
            February 19, 2013 at 2:15 pm

            Solution: Just keep moving!

            I just read a brilliant sci-fi novel, The Long Earth, that posits a similar idea.

            A bright teenager discovers a simple trick to stepping “left” or “right” into a different part of the multiverse; endless unpopulated Earths with very minor variations.

            Libertarian porn, in other words!

      • Mike in Spotsy
        February 17, 2013 at 4:26 pm

        Hi Eric. Interesting thought about “a Libertarian genius physicist.” There was indeed such a one: Petr Beckmann. Although he never proved Einstein wrong about FTL travel, he did question relativity theory and made some very strong arguments against its validity. Many physicists agree with him.

        Beckmann believed that the aether, supposedly disproven by the Michelson-Morley experiments and others, does exist and that it consists of the local gravitational field. His theory is just as consistent with observed phenomena, such as the bending of light in a gravitational field, as relativity.

        Beckmann’s theory has many fascinating implications, though I don’t understand the physics well enough to know whether FTL travel is one of them.

        Beckmann published a libertarian and scientific newsletter called “Access to Energy” that I was sometimes able to get my hands on during the 80s. He died in 1993.

        • February 17, 2013 at 6:27 pm

          Thanks, Mike –

          I recall the name; I’m going to look him up… .

          On Einstein: He was never able to reconcile his macro physics with the physics of the quantum level (the much sought-after unified field theory) and – IIRC – it bothered him tremendously for the rest of his life.

          I suspect there’s more to the workings of reality than most of us can even conceive – including the possibility of traversing vast distances that currently seem insuperable obstacles to human colonization of the galaxy.

        • February 17, 2013 at 8:36 pm

          Dear Mike,

          Petr Beckmann!

          Now there’s a “blast from the past!”

          I was a subscriber to Access to Energy. I had every copy ever published. He used pink paper. Legal sized if I recall. That was his trademark.

          I gave away my entire collection to a libertarian friend when I moved.

          • Mithrandir
            February 19, 2013 at 2:17 am

            Wasn’t he in a movie or 2? ;)

            Who are you going to call?

          • February 19, 2013 at 7:31 am

            Dear Mith,

            Petr Beckmann does sound a lot like Peter Venkman, doesn’t it?

        • Chas
          February 17, 2013 at 9:19 pm

          An aether *MUST* exist.
          It will be proven to exist.

          • Pam Probst
            February 19, 2013 at 4:29 am

            The ‘aether’ does exist, and plasma scientists are proving it. Check out Thunderbolts.info and the Thunderbolts Project on YouTube for lots of fascinating science. The Thunderbolts folk are the best at explaining it to non-plasma physicists in an informative and fun way.

            Btw Eric, love your blog.

          • February 19, 2013 at 11:12 am

            Hi Pam,

            Thanks!

            And: I’m just an amateur “hobbyist physicist” (I enjoy reading/trying to learn as much as I’m capable of comprehending, etc.) but – as per Brent – I start to wonder when conventional physics has to resort to one creaky/clumsy add-on after another to maintain itself. It reminds me of the tortured rationalizations once used to prop up the earth-centered solar system idea!

          • BrentP
            February 19, 2013 at 6:31 am

            The moment “science” had to invent the terms “dark matter” and “dark energy” to make their system work they admitted that the aether existed. They unwittingly validated countless people who spent their time trying to harness it.

          • methylamine
            February 19, 2013 at 2:29 pm

            I start to wonder when conventional physics has to resort to one creaky/clumsy add-on after another to maintain itself.

            Eric, exactly!

            God I wondered why I was feeling blue this weekend, turns out it’s because I was missing my daily intravenous dose of EPAutos and its fine audience!

            I freely admit the math of “string theory” and “M-theory” is beyond my paltry barely-differential-equations knowledge.

            But I’m very, very suspicious; as we say in programming, “If it’s Baroque, fix it!”

            Any theory that’s too delicately elaborate just smells wrong. Contrast the Rube Goldberg meanderings of string theory–and its experimentally unprovable propositions–with the sheer beauty, simplicity, and symmetry of Maxwell’s four equations…not-so-jokingly paraphrased as “And God said, Let there be Light.”

            They’re perfect; four simple statements that describe all of electromagnetism.

            And as for “dark matter” and “dark energy”–c’mon guys, is it SO HARD to admit we’ve been wrong and just re-examine “ether”?

            It truly is the same set of mental contortions required for geocentrism.

            Eric thanks for pointing it out–you absolutely nailed it!

          • Chas
            February 20, 2013 at 2:21 pm

            Thank You Pam!

            Great Info!

        • Trevor H.
          February 18, 2013 at 8:08 am

          The Access to Energy newsletter still exists as a pro science. pro technology, free market oriented newsletter. It is published by Arthur Robinson, a chemist at the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.

          Information concerning subscription details can be easily found by doing an Internet search.

          • February 18, 2013 at 10:30 am

            Access to Energy… !

            Yes! I remember! Wow, that takes me back… I used to read that in college!

      • methylamine
        February 19, 2013 at 12:46 am

        It WILL happen, Eric.

        It’s our destiny; in the next cycle, after we’ve defeated the psychopaths again, we’ll experience a prosperity the world has never seen before.

        The psychopaths are trying to undo the Renaissance, to reverse the Enlightenment ideals of human freedom and return us to the millennia of serfdom.

        But they’re losing, and they’ll lose. It will be painful for a while–but can you imagine today’s technology and knowledge, unfettered, the bridle loosed…can you imagine how fast we’ll advance?

    • Ed
      February 17, 2013 at 6:58 pm

      “I’ve been passed by cops who at some 50k over the limit, aircon running, shotgun cop pointing speed laser through side glass at every car they overtake.”

      Maybe a little off-topic, but my wife came home recently and said her eye was burning and aching. She said a local cop, out fishing on the interstate passed her and when she looked left at him, something flashed from his window and nearly blinded her.

      The rest of the drive home, her vision on the left eye was blurred and then the eye started to ache and burn. I wondered if the cop had aimed a speed laser at her as he passed.

      Do those things actually emit a laser beam that could cause an eye injury?

      • Olaf Koenders
        February 17, 2013 at 9:13 pm

        Speed laser uses 904 nanometer laser light. This being in the near infrared is almost invisible and I doubt would cause any injury let alone be seen. However, many years ago I came across a parked cop in suburbia that was using a laser and I could clearly see a red light beam in my eye. I don’t know if this was a “spotting” beam for aiming this particular model but at 50 metres it didn’t hurt.

        It could have been sunlight glinting off a mirror or a window, if caught in the eye at the right angle might cause some sort of “welding flash”. Ya think the bastard used a bright camera flash or something?

        • Ed
          February 18, 2013 at 1:41 pm

          “Ya think the bastard used a bright camera flash or something?”

          Maybe, since it was after dark and it wouldn’t have been sunlight reflecting off of anything. My wife’s eye didn’t look injured to me, but what do I know? I can’t feel what she was feeling in that eye. If I was Bubba Clinton, I might could feel her pain. ahaha.

  7. Tor Munkov
    February 17, 2013 at 3:02 am

    Aint Hurtin Nobody – John Prine

    John Prine Bio
    http://www.jpshrine.org/biography/prine_QnAf.htm

    “It was March of ’93. I had no new songs. Just a bunch of ideas and the studio booked at two the next afternoon. At about four a.m. the previous evening I wrote “I Ain’t Hurtin’ Nobody” — a song about a fellow, Lucky LaRue, who was walking down the street thinking about his sweetheart. Not making the world a better place, but certainly not screwin’ it up. “He ain’t hurtin’ nobody, He ain’t hurtin’ no one.” When I reached the bridge of the song, I looked out my window at Los Angeles at about 5:30 a.m. and figured about six million seven hundred thousand and thirty three lights were on. That’s when I knew we were on our way to a new album.”

    Aint Hurtin Nobody Lyrics – (The NAP Song)

    I’m a walkin’ down the street like Lucky Larue. Got my hand in my pocket I’m thinkin’ ’bout you. I ain’t hurtin’ nobody.
    I ain’t hurtin’ no one.

    There’s three hundred men in the state of Tennessee. They’re waiting to die, they won’t never be free. I ain’t hurtin’ nobody. I ain’t hurtin’ no one.

    Six million seven hundred thousand and thirty-three lights on.
    You think someone could take the time to sit down. And listen to the words of my song.

    At the beach in Indiana I was nine years old. Heard Little Richard singing “Tutti Frutti.” From the top of a telephone pole. I wasn’t hurtin’ nobody. I wasn’t hurtin’ no one.

    There’s roosters laying chickens and chickens layin’ eggs. Farm machinery eating people’s arms and legs. I wasn’t hurtin’ nobody. I wasn’t hurtin’ no one.

    Perfectly crafted popular hit songs never use the wrong rhyme.
    You’d think that waitress could get my order. Right the first time.

    She’s sitting on the back steps just shucking that corn. That gal’s been grinning since the day she was born. She ain’t hurtin’ nobody. She ain’t hurtin’ no one.

    I used to live in Chicago where the cold wind blows. I delivered more junk mail than the junkyard would hold. I wasn’t hurtin’ nobody. I wasn’t hurtin’ no one.

    You can fool some of the people part of the time. In a rock and roll song. Fifty million Elvis Presley fans. Can’t be all wrong.

    • Ed
      February 18, 2013 at 1:44 pm

      John Prine comes up with some great lines, doesn’t he? My favorite line from one of his songs is “But if heartaches were commercials, we’d all be on TV”

      • Tor Munkov
        February 20, 2013 at 4:51 pm

        That’s some of the last lines of “Come back to us Barbara Lewis.”

        In Spite of Ourselves – John Prine – Cover Version
        http://www.youtu.be/UOkENo8Ln58

        [male]
        She don’t like her eggs all runny. She thinks crossin’ her legs is funny. She looks down her nose at money. She gets it on like the Easter Bunny…

        [female]
        He ain’t got laid in a month of Sundays. I caught him once and he was sniffin’ my undies. He ain’t too sharp but he gets things done. Drinks his beer like it’s oxygen…

        [male]
        She thinks all my jokes are corny. Convict movies make her horny. She likes ketchup on her scrambled eggs. Swears like a sailor when shaves her legs…

        [female]
        He’s got more balls than a big brass monkey. He’s a whacked out weirdo and a lovebug junkie. Sly as a fox and crazy as a loon. Payday comes and he’s howlin’ at the moon…

        Paradise – John Prine – Cover Version
        http://www.youtu.be/v2VGdr7Ux48

  8. Tim
    February 17, 2013 at 3:55 am

    As someone that has worked as an emergency responder (EMS) at countless DUI motor vehicle collisions, I am strongly against drunk driving and am all for DUI laws being on the book and arresting those that are DUI. However I agree that the government has taken it too far and have caused more harm then good. First off, I do believe the .08% BAC is a fair level of intoxication as which is should be considered illegal to drive, if above that. I DO NOT agree with charging something with DUI if they are under that, unless there is solid evidence that they are a high likely hood to cause harm, such as video of them speeding, running red lights, swerving in to oncoming lanes of traffic, falling asleep while driving, causing an accident, etc. All because a cop says you were driving improper shouldn’t be cause to arrest someone for DUI regardless of BAC level, especially when dash cams in police cars are just about used in every department. A DUI should only apply to those on a motorized vehicle capable of speed limits, such as a car, truck, van, suv, motorcycle, etc. A drunk person on a segway, moped, kids electric scooters, bicycles etc. should not constitute a DUI. They shouldn’t be able to charge someone with a DUI for sleeping in their vehicle drunk as long as they are parked and the vehicle isn’t in a driving gear. I do not agree though that they should be allowed to drive 5mph on the shoulder of the road and not get in trouble, although they may not cause any harm to people perse, they could still cause harm to property, including mailboxes, and no one should have to worry about it being legal to drive on the shoulder of the road knocking down mailboxes and signs, causing who knows how much in property damage total to who knows how many people, just in order to allow a drunk person to get home without getting arrested.

    • BrentP
      February 17, 2013 at 5:10 am

      What about driving while incompetent? What sort of penalties and government intrusions into our lives to do you support to end that? Or are those just ‘accidents’?

      If someone runs a red signal because they were too busy reaching for their kid in the backseat and smashes into a car it’s just the same as if they ran a red light because they were drunk to the victim. The victim is just as hurt, his property just as damaged. Both drivers made a bad decision that impaired their driving, yet only one will go to prison for it.

      Why only have a couple/very few select reasons for bad driving carry such huge penalties? Is it not the bad driving that is the problem? We are told to just accept the bad driving. That we must always drive to get out of the bad drivers’ way. So why does that change if the bad driver has a BAC higher than some arbitrary value?

      As to 0.08 BAC, it’s a number on MADD’s progression to neo-prohibition. Before MADD got taken over by prohibitionists all research for decades showed real impairment at 0.1 BAC and above. I haven’t looked at this for a few years, but even well after 0.08 became law the data still showed the real impairment was 0.1 BAC and above. 0.08 is the same thinking that puts a 55mph speed limit on flat open interstate.

    • Tor Munkov
      February 17, 2013 at 6:01 am

      Take Your Stinkin’ Paws Off Me You Damn Dirty Ape!

      Some apes in the movie Planet of the Apes were hardliners and brutal oppressors. Other apes believed in showing compassion and only oppressing humans who broke the “Ape Laws.” I despise both types of apes, because they degraded their whole planet and brought untold misery to so many generations.

      The only good thing about Apes who insist on using force against their betters is that these systems go bankrupt and fail when the humans are exhausted. Ape men who live off loot taken by force will not long survive on their own. It is of great comfort that they are mortal.

      I know that you and all who are like you will soon die off, and be despised for many generations, for all the misery you have brought to humanity.

      There really is nothing else to say to you except TYSPOMYDDA! -Take Your Stinking Paws Off Me You Damn Dirty Ape!

    • February 17, 2013 at 9:49 am

      Hi Tim,

      “First off, I do believe …”

      Your belief is irrelevant – or ought to be. At least as regards laws that involve the application of force against other people. Belief is for church.

      All that ought to be relevant are facts. Did this person lose control of his vehicle? Whether the person was drunk, senile or texting – irrelevant. Because ultimately, the why doesn’t matter. What matters is they hit you – for whatever reason. As Brent pointed out, when someone sober misjudges a traffic signal and hits you, it’s a mere “accident.” If the same thing happens and the person has had a few drinks, now it’s “drunk driving.” Why should one be treated with kid gloves and the other severely? In both cases, the person’s lack of judgment led to loss of control of their vehicle and damage/injury to another.

      And, conversely – many “drunk” drivers haven’t hit anyone. Done anything to anyone. Not even to mailboxes. They have merely been found to have a certain (claimed) BAC level. Yet they are punished with great severity – while people (tens of thousands of them every year) cause major “accidents” each year and get no more than a minor traffic ticket, if they get anything at all. Just?

      “…causing who knows how much in property damage total to who knows how many people..”

      These are sweeping – and sloppy – generalizations, Tim. Do you like being blamed for the actions of other people? I don’t. I prefer to be treated according to what I have done – and not done. If I (just to make a point, not saying I actually do this) can drive my car competently – as evidenced by not crashing it, by maintaining control of it at all times – even with a few beers in me, then why should I be molested by the law? Why do you accept this arbitrary, government-issued notion of “drunk” driving that doesn’t actually require any evidence of the person’s poor driving? No testimony that the person was weaving or wandering. No requirement that any actual harm be demonstrated. Hell, the accused could have the cop testify that his driving was faultless. But if he blew a .08 at a “sobriety checkpoint,” he’s a “drunk” driver, regardless.

      Do you see anything wrong with this picture?

      “…no one should have to worry about it being legal to drive on the shoulder of the road knocking down mailboxes and signs.”

      I never advocated they not be held responsible for any damages they may cause. I’ve merely argued that it’s vicious – and ultimately counterproductive – to charge such with “drunk driving,” or to put them in the position of having to drive (see point about arresting people for sleeping it off in a parked car) in the first place.

      • Runawayslave
        February 17, 2013 at 1:08 pm

        I just wanted to add that even if you are swerving all over the road until you actually damage something no big deal. I have the driving skill to avoid you so im good.

      • Olaf Koenders
        February 17, 2013 at 9:29 pm

        Hell, the accused could have the cop testify that his driving was faultless. But if he blew a .08 at a “sobriety checkpoint,” he’s a “drunk” driver, regardless.

        Do you see anything wrong with this picture?

        I don’t know how it is in the USSA, but in Oz the BAC limit is now 0.05 in every state (they used to differ between 0.05 and 0.08 – stupid really). Note that it’s the “limit”. 0.049 and they’ll let you go, however, if you’re right on 0.05 then you have to front court.

        Speed limits are “limits” too, but you don’t have to go to court for going the speed limit. Control freaks. Something wrong with that picture too.

    • Runawayslave
      February 17, 2013 at 1:02 pm

      The whole point is that there shouldn’t be any non crime laws period. If you have not damaged anyone else, no harm no foul. why is this so hard for ppl. We do not need police at all period if you are to feeble to defend yourself, then maybe you should try real hard to be the nicest person you can so others will volunteer to defend you or of course hire your own private security force. I don’t need no stinkin’ cops of any kind and personally i don’t need no stinkin’ medics either. I’m a careful and responsible human, I take care of me.

      • methylamine
        February 19, 2013 at 2:36 pm

        Precisely.

        No Victim, No Crime.

        Period.

        Anything else is prior restraint, and inevitably leads to tyranny.

        @Tim:

        Tim, you started it perfectly with “I believe…” That is irrelevant. I believe many things; but I may not force others to believe the same.

        Nor may I use the guns and thugs of the State to enforce what “I believe…” either.

        The result is obvious: the growing tyranny we live under today.

    • liberranter
      February 17, 2013 at 9:57 pm

      First off, I do believe the .08% BAC is a fair level of intoxication as which is should be considered illegal to drive, if above that.

      That all depends on the individual, their general health and their physiology (height, weight, age, etc.). As I’ve said before, a .08 BAC in a 6-foot, 5-inch 300-pound man might make no difference whatsoever in his motor skills because his body metabolizes alcohol on a more efficient basis. On the other hand, a 5-foot, 98-pound woman with the same BAC might be seriously impaired or comatose.

      Again, you cannot adopt a one-size-fits-all standard here, but government routinely does just that – for the obvious reason that “safety” or “truth” aren’t concerns. Just locking as many people up as they can, on any pretext they can grab.

  9. MoT
    February 17, 2013 at 3:38 pm

    If “safety” were Leviathans true concern then they’d be actively taking people home from the clubs, etc. Instead of waiting till that moment comes where they can exercise their roid raging vindictiveness. Whatever happened to the likes of Sheriff Andy and Mayberry RFD? Didn’t they have the town drunk sleep it off peacefully? What’s wrong with that?! No… What we have are angry totalitarians who live to tell you what to do, how to live, when to shit.

    • February 17, 2013 at 3:41 pm

      Excellent point, MoT –

      Otis the drunk was harmless. Andy didn’t abuse him or charge him with any crime; he kept him safe by letting him sleep it off in the jail (not locked).

      Today, it’s all about dominance and control – and punishment.

      • Rooney
        February 18, 2013 at 1:20 am

        I think the clover mindset is being misinterpreted here. It’s about banning everything with the POTENTIAL to do harm. Even activities and possessions that in the hands of a reasonably competent and sober(serious) human being pose no threat to anyone.

        It’s why you now see warning labels on hammers.

        Personally I’m waiting for my lil handipersons new and exciting rubber hammer tool set with the patented Nerf (TM)nails in rainbow colors.

        • February 18, 2013 at 10:48 am

          “It’s about banning everything with the POTENTIAL to do harm. ”

          Exactly.

          And – as I’m sure you’ll agree – the problem with that is it’s uncertain and subjective. Almost anything can be asserted might cause harm. It’s possible, for example, that I might lose my balance while walking down the sidewalk and fall onto a small child, crushing him with my bulk. Should I therefore be required to wear a gyroscopic suit of some sort to prevent that from happening? Perhaps baby carriages should be fitted with airbags? All enforceable by men with guns, of course.

          On the other hand, there is objectivity and fact – certainty – when someone actually causes someone else harm. You can see it, you can point it out. It’s there. Not maybe, not could-have. Rather: He did.

          Which seems more reasonable and fair as regards bringing forth the men with guns? Someone might – or he did?

          Jefferson put it this way:

          “I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.”

        • MoT
          February 20, 2013 at 4:37 am

          You’ve got to be kidding me! Labels on hammers? Sweet Baby Jebus! I’m going to the hardware store tomorrow so I’ll take a look and see if it’s so.

          • February 20, 2013 at 10:13 am

            Eventually, Sandusky was recognized as a predator – not a benefactor. I hope the same dynamic plays out with regard to the government.

      • Tor Munkov
        February 18, 2013 at 3:36 am

        UN compliant, ATF/OSHA mandatory, safety outfit for use while drinking intoxicating beverages.

        http://nowimagrownup.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/bubble-wrap.jpg

      • Ryan
        February 18, 2013 at 5:16 am

        Otis had his own key!

  10. JdL
    February 18, 2013 at 11:52 am

    I am virulently anti-cop*, but feel I must make the point that someone driving at 5 mph on the shoulder is NOT safe, any more than a car parked on the shoulder is safe. Speed doesn’t kill, but speed differential can and does. Slow drivers are often the most dangerous; this is especially true when the crawler is in one of the usual driving lanes, but is not eliminated if the driver is on the shoulder. And what if there’s someone changing a flat tire up ahead?

    *Not anti-cop per se, but anti-cop when they act like criminal thugs, which amounts to 95% to 99% of the time.

    • February 18, 2013 at 12:03 pm

      Hi JDL,

      As a reformed minarchist conservative, one of the last intellectual obstacles I overcame was coming to accept that any use of force prior to actual harm done is always and necessarily illegitimate – and the proverbial camel’s nose under the tent. What begins as “reasonable” restrictions or prior restraint soon become anything but reasonable – as all of us here plainly comprehend. And why? Because if you cannot establish definitively that an actual harm has been done – then you have opened the door to the idea of punishing people for things not actually done. Victimless “crimes.” The essence of tyranny.

      And before you know it, here we are – having to assume the “I surrender” pose and accept our crotches being handled by blue shirted goons in the name of “safety” – and all the rest of it.

      I’ll reprint the Jefferson quote posted earlier:

      “I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.”

      That is my philosophy.

      • Runawayslave
        February 18, 2013 at 12:43 pm

        Here, here, my good man. Spot on.

      • JdL
        February 18, 2013 at 1:46 pm

        “I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.”

        That is my philosophy.

        That’s all well and good, but you’re not addressing my point. In the column, you stated,

        A drunk driver cautiously making his way home, his car barely moving at walking speed, presents no significant danger to himself or others – to property or persons.

        This is false. Any 4000 pound hunk of steel that is moving quickly RELATIVE TO THE FLOW OF TRAFFIC is a danger. This definitely includes extremely slow and stopped vehicles.

        • February 18, 2013 at 2:54 pm

          Hi JDL,

          You can certainly make a case that “x” might be risky/riskier than “y.” It may very well be so. But what I’m driving at is that might and may are insufficient reasons to punish someone.

          Look: A farm tractor operating on the road at 5-10 MPH is no different than our hypothetical inebriated driver trying to make his way home. We don’t criminalize the tractor – or the slow-moving RV… or the slow-moving cyclist. Right? Why criminalize the slow driver? So long as he’s not deliberately trying to impede traffic – and makes the effort to yield, etc. – and of course, hasn’t actually harmed anyone or caused anyone any damage – leave him be!

          Like Jefferson, I’d rather accept a “riskier” society that’s also a free society.One in which they can’t legally bother you until you’ve actually done something.

          • JdL
            February 18, 2013 at 3:11 pm

            Like Jefferson, I’d rather accept a “riskier” society that’s also a free society.One in which they can’t legally bother you until you’ve actually done something.

            I agree. My only dispute was with your assertion that slow driving is not risky.

        • truk44
          February 18, 2013 at 9:16 pm

          And what about sober drivers converging on each other in 4000 lb ‘hunks of steel’ at 60 mph with just a few feet to spare? Isn’t that just a little bit risky or dangerous as well? But most of us as motorists do that without really thinking about it, don’t we?

          Just to illustrate the point further, every year in the UK, roughly 2.7 million people injure themselves – more 5000 deaths which, incidentally, is more than the annual total of ‘road-deaths’ – by engaging in risky or dangerous behaviour in the home such as, for example, taking a bath, using a vacuum cleaner, switching a kettle on or using a gas stove. What are ‘we’ to do? Regulate their behaviour in order to lessen the risks?

          In the human condition at least, risk and danger are purely subjective terms; and yes, you’re right, driving slowly is risky although considerably less so than driving fast which, if I’m not mistaken, is the point Mr Peters is trying to make.

          Therefore, the argument ought not to be about the potential outcomes of risky or dangerous behaviour – because any kind of human activity is risky to one degree or another – but about actual outcomes. That is to say, if harm has been – or has not been – caused to others and/or their property.

          No harm done? No crime: as, I’m sure, most commentators on this article will agree.

          • JdL
            February 18, 2013 at 9:52 pm

            No harm done? No crime: as, I’m sure, most commentators on this article will agree.

            Most commentators, including me, in the post immediately above yours.

            You’re not, I hope, claiming that if a person asserts that behavior X is not dangerous, no one should challenge that assertion, even if it’s wrong?

            I’m not an expert in the causes of traffic accidents, but someone I knew quite well worked for a state highway department and said that statistics he had access to clearly demonstrated that slow drivers are implicated in more accidents than fast drivers.

          • February 18, 2013 at 10:05 pm

            I’ve got no issue with offering corrective advice when you (or anyone feels the urge). The issue – for me – is when does it become justifiable to use force, to punish someone? As I see it, such is only justifiable when a victim can be produced or some harm demonstrated against either persons or property (or both).

            Absent that, punishment is based on supposition. On hypotheticals. He might have… what if? … . a dangerous road, that.

            It is of course tempting to take the exaggerated/extreme case – the sloshed asshole weaving all over the road (and so on). Such cases do exist – I readily concede the point. However, hard cases do make bad law. And in the real world, most of these situations are far grayer. The person has been drinking, say – but he’s not weaving and appears to be able to control his car. And so on.

            The bottom line is, simply: Do we wish to live in a society where he might can be criminalized? Not harmful actions – just possibilities asserted as potentially harmful?

            Innocence can be re-stated as “he did none harm.” And criminality can be re-stated as “he caused harm.”

            I am very uncomfortable with the idea of punishing any man who “did none harm” – even though he may have (if left to proceed), even if it seemed likely and may in fact have been likely. Because those are not actualities. Not certainty. And to punish a man before he has actually caused him – on the basis that he may, or almost did (according to someone else’s utterly unprovable assertion) is to take the fast lane to tyranny.

          • JdL
            February 18, 2013 at 10:30 pm

            Dang, Eric, did you miss my agreement with you on this point? You seem to be holding me up as someone to rail against when, as I said, my only dispute was over the assertion that slow driving is not dangerous.

            On a privately owned highway, of course, the owner could make any rules he pleases, and our only recourse would be to take another highway, or build a better one ourselves.

          • February 18, 2013 at 11:15 pm

            We’re cool!

            I was mostly playing catch-up after a day spent outside, trying to make the most of a warm spell before another ice storm rolls in tomorrow morning….

          • February 18, 2013 at 11:17 pm

            Many of the problems champions of liberty must cope with today are the result of the “mixed economy” in which property rights have been severely compromised and confused.

            So-called “public” roads and other “public” property are among the worst.

            They make solutions consistent with the NAP difficult, and perhaps impossible.

            The fault however, is not with the NAP.

            It is with the ambiguities created by past violations of the NAP, that created “public” roads and “public” property.

          • BrentP
            February 19, 2013 at 4:59 am

            Let’s imagine for a moment that government confined itself to monopolies in the key areas that statists fall back to. Would that not be a vast improvement?

            While the state being the state will leverage anything to get big again from an argument standpoint I found that leaves statists speechless. They don’t know what to do when I just go back at them that if the government confined itself to things like road building it would be a vast improvement.

            The reason is that they are playing ‘ask the libertarian anything’ to get on the offensive. So don’t go on the defensive. A libertarian road system takes way too much explaining and teaching and thus why the statist does it. Another way to throw them off balance is to just refer them to the vast amount of writing done on libertarian roads and keep going with the main discussion/debate.

          • February 19, 2013 at 7:25 am

            Dear Brent,

            I know.

            We’ve all been there.

            I only mention it to have it on the record, and because this forum is different, inhabited as it is by fellow market anarchists.

    • Don Cooper
      February 18, 2013 at 1:43 pm

      I’m not anti-cop or anti-state. I’m anti-anything that makes a conscious decision to violate my god-given rights for their profit. Any criminal trying to steal from me. It’s just that cops and the state are the ones doing that the most.

      • February 18, 2013 at 3:01 pm

        “I’m anti-anything that makes a conscious decision to violate my god-given rights for their profit

        Italics added.

        Hell, for any reason.

        Leave people alone – unless they’ve injured you in some way. Not hurt your feelings. Not offended your values. Not done otherwise than you believe they ought to – for “safety” or any other reason. But only if they have in some way injured your physical person or your physical property.

        Simple. Easy.

        Right.

        • JdL
          February 18, 2013 at 3:23 pm

          Another good reason to privatize roads, and let each road’s owner establish rules which make his customers as happy as possible. Hell, there could even be highways advertised as “Clover’s Wet Dream” where everybody meanders along at a snail’s pace, blocking the left lane, tailgating, etc. I’d probably get on the road sold as “The American Autobahn”.

          • February 18, 2013 at 7:40 pm

            I’ve honestly got no issue with slow-movers, if they do the proper thing and yield. What makes a person a Clover is not slow driving. It is the obdurate determination to force others to accommodate his pace.

          • JdL
            February 18, 2013 at 9:03 pm

            I agree. “Left Lane Cruising” is my biggest pet peeve on the highway. “Speed up or pull over!” I demand, but of course the bozo can’t hear me. I spent a brief amount of time as a driver training instructor, and one of the things we stressed was that it’s vital to know exactly where any other vehicles are nearby. And, of course, to get out of other people’s way whenever possible (which is at least 90% of the time).

            As for slow drivers, yes, they’re no problem if they’re courteous (keeping right) and traffic isn’t too heavy. Under heavy traffic conditions, other drivers’ reactions to them are a definite traffic hazard; it gives me the willies watching people cut into the passing lane, going way slower than the car coming up from the rear in that same lane. I suppose you could say that’s not the fault of the slow driver, but people DO get stuck behind him and DO want to get around as soon as a feasible gap comes along. I’d prefer to drive on a (private) highway with a fairly high minimum speed posted by the owner.

  11. Don Cooper
    February 18, 2013 at 1:06 pm

    In Alaska and the UK you can’t even be drunk IN the bar.

    http://abcnews.go.com/US/illegal-drunk-alaska-bars-law/story?id=15330748

  12. Don Cooper
    February 18, 2013 at 1:09 pm

    Texas too! Arrested and beaten for having a drink in a bar

    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2010/03/texas-racist-laws-drinking-while-brown

  13. Mark
    February 18, 2013 at 1:26 pm

    Is drunk driving really a problem? Here’s a little analysis that struck me back in the mid-80s. Nationwide Insurance ran an ad in National Geographic that stated:
    “Nearly 40% of traffic fatalities involve alcohol”. Since advertising has to be factually correct(even it it’s misleading) let’s break this down.
    “Nearly 40%” means LESS THAN 40%. How much less? We have no way to know EXACTLY but, let’s say 39%.

    “Involve alcohol”. this term is defined by the State of NC as meaning ANYONE that is involved has a measurable alcohol level in their bloodstream. Someone with a .01 standing on the sidewalk is run over by a sober driver is included in the 39%. What percent of the 38% falls into the under .08(to use that as the Drunk Standard)? Let’s say 1/3, now we’re down to 26% where someone was actually DRUNK.

    Was the person that was DRUNK driving the vehicle that was at fault? Again, we can only speculate but, let’s use th 1/3 of the time no. We’re down to about 17% of fatalities where the driver is legally drunk.

    That means that 83% of the time a fatality occurs where drunkeness was NOT “at fault”. Can you say that drunkeness was the CAUSE? How? If 83% happen without it, who is to say it would not have happened even IF there was no alcohol involved. Perhaps in half the cases the wreck would have occured despite alcohol consumption which puts us at under 10% are actually cause by a drunk driver BECAUSE they were drunk. this mean 90% of fatalities can’t be pinned on Demon Rum. If the DUI Clovers trotted that out they’d never get their police state tactics off the ground. Much better to scream falsehoods like a banshee to shackle the masses.

    • Ed
      February 18, 2013 at 1:52 pm

      “Nearly 40% of traffic fatalities involve alcohol”

      And that was in the ’80s. Now, with gasahol in our tanks, probably nearly 100% of all traffic fatalities involve alcohol. Even the ones where the fatality is caused by Porky beating somebody’s head in at a traffic stop, involve alcohol since they drove into the situation using gasohol.

      I might be onto something. Maybe I have a bright future in advertising.

      • BrentP
        February 18, 2013 at 5:06 pm

        Entirely true about how alcohol related is a padded number. All it takes is having a passenger who had a drink in one of the vehicles driven by a sober driver. Even the sober driver who isn’t at fault.

        • MoT
          February 20, 2013 at 4:34 am

          Much like how all the victims of a drone strike are classified “combatants” by virtue of the fact they died near the scene.

    • Don Cooper
      February 18, 2013 at 2:06 pm

      I wonder if they include cops who have alcohol in their system and engage someone in an erroneous chase ending in an accident.

      Of course it’s the old legalized crime in play again. They say a cop can show up for work .049 BAC because he might have had a glass of wine with dinner before an overnight shift. ROFL!

      So rather than forbidding drinking alcohol before ANY shift they say it’s completely acceptable if you’re working the overnight shift because you have to eat dinner and a cop can’t eat dinner without wine.

      “if a cop were drunk on the job, supervisors would intervene”

      Really? What if the supervisor is drunk too? The news is funnier than fiction.

      http://www.thefix.com/content/chicago-police-officers-work-half-drunk91289

      • Shazaam
        February 18, 2013 at 3:36 pm

        Last time a M.A.D.D. fund raiser called, I listened politely to the schpiel about the progress they were claiming. i.e. 15,000 traffic fatalities/year to 10k/year.

        I then proceded to suggest that M.A.D.D. rename itself to Mothers Against Damaging Doctors and focus on a real problem: The 250,000 deaths per year attributed to medical errors and prescription medications.

        She hung-up on me.

        Puritans are always deathly afraid that someone, somewhere might be having fun.

        • liberranter
          February 18, 2013 at 9:00 pm

          Puritans are always deathly afraid that someone, somewhere might be having fun.

          Or that someone is in possession of a piece of impolitic truth, as was the case in your conversation.

        • MoT
          February 20, 2013 at 4:33 am

          Ah! You’re a Mencken fan as well?

      • liberranter
        February 18, 2013 at 9:05 pm

        I wonder if they include cops who have alcohol in their system and engage someone in an erroneous chase ending in an accident.

        I doubt it. As scribes for the State and its enforcers, these statisticians don’t pay any attention to anyone other than us Mere Mundanes. As far as they’re concerned, cops and their employers are paragons of untarnished virtue.

        The reality, of course, is that Officer Oinky and his fellow badged thugs are some of the worst offenders when it comes to DUI/DWI. (I’ve probably posted here in the past about the restaurant-bar in Anne Arundel County, Maryland that my wife and I used to patronize when we lived there, a place that would become a just-off-duty local swine hangout after “official” closing time. The bartenders would tell us some real horror stories about how these clowns would stagger out of the place, smashed, at 3:00 AM, get in their cars, and drive off.)

    • skunkbear
      February 18, 2013 at 4:12 pm

      Mark, you are correct about the vagueness of “involving alcohol” statistics.

      When I was in The Suck (USMC) virtually anything and everything was “alcohol related” and for which one could be labeled as having a substance abuse problem and get sent to rehab.

      You could be in a bar drinking a soda with your wife and some guy insults her and you smack him down and it will be labeled an alcohol related incident because it took place in a bar. This was an actual case. The guy was sent to rehab and had it in his record.

      Statistics are a liar’s best friend.

  14. Don Cooper
    February 18, 2013 at 1:39 pm

    WHO report:

    Diarrhoeal diseases cause far more deaths than traffic accidents.

    You have a better chance of shitting yourself to death than being killed by a car. Where’s the outrage over deadly diarrea?

    Somebody’s gotta stop that shit.

    http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs310/en/index.html

    • Ed
      February 18, 2013 at 1:56 pm

      “Somebody’s gotta stop that shit.”

      That’s funny as hell. Reminds me of the rant by Fred Ward’s character in “Off Limits”:

      “You boys are floating in a little boat on a river of shit, but you reach out and pick up one particularl turd. You say “This turd? Well, this turd pisses me off. I’m gonna DO somethin’ about this turd.”

      Ahaha. That’s some funny shit.

  15. Ed
    February 18, 2013 at 1:59 pm

    Here’s the text of a bumper sticker from the ’8os:

    “Hell yes, I’m drunk. Did you think I was a stunt driver?”

  16. Tor Munkov
    February 18, 2013 at 2:14 pm

    This contrived injustice goes on, because They think 316 million crazy Americans will be a buffer from them paying for Their real financial crimes. The Obamas, the Bloombergs, and the rest are living off borrowed Rothschild money they never intend to repay.

    We the people need only demand that our soldiers and policemen redeem themselves and serve their true function as agents of justice. We will unravel all the obfuscation and deliver each and every official debtor and human collateral to the appropriate creditor.

    Policemen will need to apprehend Sasha & Malia Obama and deliver them to the Navy. Policemen will need to apprehend Georgina & Emma Bloomberg and deliver them to the Navy. The Navy needs to put them on an aircraft carrier and deliver them to the Rothschilds.

    TPTB intend to use us as collateral, and to sacrifice our lives to their creditors. David Cameron & Angela Merkel and all the rest need to settle up with the Rockefellers. The European police and soldiers need to deliver Ivan, Nancy,
    Arthur, & Florence Cameron to the Rockefellers. They need to deliver Daniel, & Adrian Sauer(Merkel) to the Rockefellers.

    The war on terror is really about all the debt to Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern nations. We need only deliver to them the entire Bush Family, and let them serve as collateral until someone repays the debt owed to them.

    War is a racket, but this time, we’re going to win, not the propaganda machine. How ever many lives are lost, and property is destroyed is immaterial.

    Our current peace is being obtained at the price of our individual freedom. This peace comes at too high of a price. The way towards true peace is to deal honestly with other men and nations, by making those who make promises honor their debts.

    We the people will show ourselves true sovereigns by holding our supposed leaders accountable for their actions and borrowings. Let them be held until the last penny is repaid.

    Regardless of the effects on our economy. Justice must be done. Men must honor their monetary commitments and make good on the unauthorized borrowings, it is the only choice. A just people will earn their just freedom only through just resolve and just action.

  17. truk44
    February 18, 2013 at 3:45 pm

    Actually, the reason I refrain from drinking and driving is that I always seem to spill the bloody beer when driving round corners!

    Apologies in advance if anyone – clovers especially – is offended by the humour.

    • Don Cooper
      February 18, 2013 at 9:43 pm

      “Apologies in advance if anyone – clovers especially – is offended by the humour”

      Google Steve Hughes and being offended. He’s got a great bit.

  18. Steve Schmidt
    February 18, 2013 at 4:04 pm

    Eric, I always enjoy reading this site, thanks.
    But I must side with clover here.
    Reckless behavior puts others at risk and thus is not protected by our natural rights.
    Sometimes the use of the word “reckless” is grey.
    For example, at my corner stop sign reckless drivers blow through it and around a blind corner putting young children at risk. Maybe those drivers have special skills. But I call it reckless.

    • February 18, 2013 at 7:38 pm

      Hi Steve,

      The crux of the issue – and I know it’s a tough one, because I wrestled with it myself for a long time – is that if you accept the notion that it’s ok to punish people before they’ve actually done anything to cause harm, you have accepted the dangerous idea of prior restraint – of victimless “crimes” – and that idea will be expanded on. Look around at what America has become. It all derives from acceptance of the idea that “safety,” “security” – or (as you yourself put it) “the children” – justify putting the cart (punishment) before the horse ( actual harm done). This is anathema to the health of a free society – to liberty itself.

      Will people do bad things? Will harm that might have been avoided occur? Of course. And it will happen regardless of “the law.” However, if you accept punishing people for non-crimes (crimes not yet committed) then even worse things will happen. Bad enough that the occasional irresponsible schmuck gets drunk and hurts someone. But he’s a piker compared with what government can – and has – done to ruin the lives of millions upon millions of innocent human beings.

      Think about it.

      • Don Cooper
        February 18, 2013 at 9:40 pm

        Life is a dangerous proposition. We’re all dying from the day we’re born, our lives are threatened every day and none of us get out of here alive.

        No amount of laws will change that. If laws against murder and rape deterred people from murdering and raping, there’d be no murder or rape.

        Laws against something most people wouldn’t day anyway does not deter them since it’s not something they would do in the first place, nor does it deter the outlaws because they live outside the law.

        Who could a breaking and entering law possibly deter? Maybe a bunch of kids out hooliganing it up but that’s about it.

        So certainly laws against drinking and driving will not deter people from drinking and driving. Nor should it.

      • February 18, 2013 at 11:08 pm

        Dear Eric,

        “But he’s a piker compared with what government can – and has – done to ruin the lives of millions upon millions of innocent human beings. ”

        This is exactly right.

        Funny how clovers and sheeple are always so eager to jump to the conclusion that leaving people free “might result in harm,” but are so stubbornly unwilling to recognize that preemptive and preventive law has in fact resulted in incomparably greater harm.

        Their ability to connect the dots and imagine the risks is selective and one-sided. It is applied only in a manner as to erode liberty. It is never applied in a manner as to prevent tyranny. They are only able to imagine the dangers of “too much freedom.” But their imaginations abruptly fail them when they are asked to imagine the dangers of too much power.

        • BrentP
          February 19, 2013 at 4:44 am

          Not only do they fail to recognize the greater harm. They find the solution to the problems government makes through its power and interventions to be more of the same.

    • Rooney
      February 21, 2013 at 1:40 am

      Case in point.

      Last night I was on my way to the video store to return some movies. I was using surface streets on which the speed limit was 30 mph. While I was running at the limit some guy started tailgating me but I refused to be intimidated into going faster. The reasons for that were that it was dark, we have an infestation of antlered urban field rats at a couple of irrigation ditches that run both parallel and across the street I was on, we also have young kids in dark clothing on their way to and from the skateboard park on this poorly lit route, and I had plenty of time before the store closed.

      When we hit the Tee intersection stop sign at the end of the street I signaled a right and came to a full stop. The tailgater whipped out from behind me, blew the stop sign, and hung a left. He had a pizza delivery sign on top of his vehicle.

      Did it bother me? Nope…not one damn bit. There was no harm done.

      I may be making progress in becoming accustomed to the libertarian mindset…(chuckle)

  19. Shazaam
    February 18, 2013 at 4:05 pm

    The local cop shops are very militant about checking for “Driving under the influence”.

    So, when I’m out late and in no particular hurry, I make it a point to drive 5-10 mph below the limit and very, very carefully.

    And I get pulled over when I drive like that (after midnight). Often. (more often at the end of the month for some strange reason) ;)

    Cop-baiting, a new sport. Couple of fun examples:

    I argued with a cop for 20 minutes when he pulled me over for “not using my turn-signal”. I asked whom was I supposed to be signaling to? Besides the patrol car sitting in the gas station (closed) with it’s lights off? (They are required to keep marker lights on) Of course I was pulled over because “it was the law”. He would not admit that he was fishing for drunks. I asked is the town was that broke that he was revenuing for turn-signal violations? And he claimed that wasn’t why I was pulled over. So, I demanded the ticket. He refused. Told me to get on my way. I pointed out that was what I was doing when he pulled me over for a turn-signal “violation” and demanded the ticket again. He just returned to his car. I guess he knew I’d frame such a ticket and parade it around….. At least I kept that cop tied-up for a while and thus the streets were a mite safer for the duration.

    Another cop came flying-up outta no-where and rode my bumper for the 1/2 mile before I turned onto my street (a dead-end cul-de-sac). He must have been giddy with joy, that one. (there is a tavern I pass a mile before the turn.) He hit the lights and pulled me over. He demanded to know why I turned onto a dead-end street. Didn’t seem to hear me when I said I lived there. Asked if I’d had anything to drink that evening. Naturally I said yes, I think my last cup of coffee was at about 8 PM. After he thought it over, he demanded my license, and I pointed-out that my address was the house near the end of the street. He went back to his car to call it in and returned after a couple of minutes tossed the license back without saying a word and stomped off….

    Ah the fun and games….

    btw. I had a pack of teenage boys in the car for the one with the turn-signal. And I’m sure their sniggering was not helping the cop’s dignity. (I was having a problem keeping a straight face because of all that snickering)

    • February 18, 2013 at 7:32 pm

      Hat tip to you, sir!

      That one made my day – bravo!

    • liberranter
      February 18, 2013 at 9:20 pm

      This sounds like a variation of cop-baiting that I describe in a previous thread here: http://ericpetersautos.com/2013/01/30/the-mind-of-an-enforcer/ (posted February 3, 2013 at 10:28PM). I can imagine the smoke, heat, and scent of seared fatty grey matter emanating from Porky’s ears during these exercises.

    • MoT
      February 20, 2013 at 4:29 am

      Of course that whole “driving under the influence” line of scat gets me all the time. Influence? Why yes!… Under the influence of God, joy, desperation, you name it! How absurd.

      • February 20, 2013 at 9:13 am

        Dear MoT,

        Ditto “pro-choice.”

        Funny how most of the “pro-choice” crowd is only “pro-choice” on a single issue, but nothing else.

        Not “pro-choice” about how to defend one’s own life with weapons of one’s own choice.

        Of course the flip side is also true. The “pro-life” crowd is just as bad.

  20. Dave Webb
    February 18, 2013 at 4:15 pm

    It is really all about money. The legal system is hungry for your money, drunk! Whether or not you are actually drunk or not doesn’t really matter.
    All of us at one time or another have been in a bar or nightclub.
    The bartender has the right to cut you off at any time you appear to have to much to drink. Then what happens?
    What should happen doesn’t. I suggest that everyone should have to check their car keys with the bartender BEFORE we start having a good time. I also suggest that cab fare might be a good idea before we have a few drinks. Of course that is not going to happen.
    I suggest motel rooms to sleep it off near the clubs. Get your car keys in the morning after some breakfast. That all costs a little bit of money. The average cost of a drunk driving ticket is a lot more.
    One reason we need this kind of cushion is the number of drunks that have ruined lives on the road. But that would hold the bar responsible for its clientele!
    If people want to drink, I have no problem allowing them to do so. I have a real problem with people becoming irresponsible for their behavior. I have no problem with someone stopping for drink after work. I have a whole lot of problems with some one becoming stinking drunk and killing someone.
    At what point are people not capable of good judgment? It varies from person to person. At what point is it an addiction. No two people are alike.
    Your genetic background has a lot to do with it.
    I care less about someone getting drunk. I care a lot about what happens when that person does get drunk. The responsible thing is to take them out of circulation until they are capable of taking themselves home.

  21. Don Cooper
    February 18, 2013 at 4:19 pm

    Whenever I talk to a mindless, liberal tool about doing away with gov’t the first thing they always say is: “but who would build the roads?”

    Have you seen the fucking roads? Do they really believe there’s no one else who can do it?

    • rEVOLutionary
      February 18, 2013 at 6:15 pm

      When I sit in the I-270 parking lot headed toward the DC Beltway every morning (except for gummint holidays like today) I wonder how anyone can believe that private enterprise could NOT do a better job with the roads. See Walter Block on this subject.

      • Ed
        February 18, 2013 at 6:41 pm

        “See Walter Block on this subject.”

        Oh no, not Walter Block. Please, anybody but Walter Block. His usual column consists of a word for word replay of a long email exchange that goes on and on until half the human race has run screaming from the tedium.

        Lord help us, here comes…….WALTER BLOCK!!!! Block starts his drone and people all around, in a 20 mile radius start to stagger, eyes glazing over, eyelids drooping, falling head foremost into a sodden sleep, bonking their heads on the concrete….

        Help.

        • JdL
          February 18, 2013 at 6:53 pm

          All of which, of course, is irrelevant to whether Block is making sense. I’ve glazed over reading some of his columns, but generally find his logic to be right on target.

          • Ed
            February 18, 2013 at 7:06 pm

            Yeah, I’m probably too dumb to follow what he’s saying. He got Ron Paul’s crowd pissed off pretty good at the convention, I heard. He started in with that line about how a fetus was trespassing in the mother’s womb, so she had a right to evict the baby by killing it.

            I guess that makes sense to some people, but the crowd booed him.. I heard they booed his ass halfway off and he almost bled to death.

            Anyway, to me he’s just unbearably tedious. given that, it doesn’t matter to me whether he’s making any sense. I can’t read his writing long enough to get to the part where he starts making sense.

          • JdL
            February 18, 2013 at 9:12 pm

            He was definitely smarting from that booing! I had a brief e-mail exchange with him after he posted the column describing the debacle. I think it’s fair to say that he didn’t exercise the best possible judgement in championing the “trespassing” argument in front of that crowd. ;-)

      • Don Cooper
        February 18, 2013 at 9:00 pm

        Yup. Walter is a friend of mine. I had him on my radio show once. We discussed his book “defending the Undefendable”.

        I studied economics under Bruce Benson at Florida State and Walter was collaborating with him and Jim Gwartney at the time.

        http://www.blogtalkradio.com/qaoss/2011/02/26/qaoss-talk-radio

    • methylamine
      February 20, 2013 at 3:57 am

      Ah Don, I’m dying! “But who would build the roads?”…”Have you SEEN the fucking roads??”

      Classic line, thank you.

      I had a mini-discussion about “essential” government services with a coworker today. His favorite was government school; my god, could he have chosen an easier target? I burst out laughing and said “Wow, you picked something government does even worse than the post office, are you kidding?”

      He had the decency to look a little ashamed.

      There’s not much left for them to be proud of; the honest clovers will start coming around. That may be only 20% of them, but it’s another good crowd on our side.

      • BrentP
        February 20, 2013 at 4:48 am

        Tonight I am being insulted on the evil book of face because I dared question the motivation of the federal government for getting children into schools at age 4. By just repeating what the government/foundation folks write. That they want the children earlier to lessen the influence of the parents. No the government people don’t have their interests in mind… they are selfless, it’s about the children…

        Once again I am kook and worse because I learned something outside of the acceptable programming.

        Why I bother with people I don’t know…. I suppose it improves my own thought processes but I doubt its worth the aggravation ;)

        • MoT
          February 20, 2013 at 4:50 am

          Whenever you state the obvious they put their hands over their ears and start shouting you down. That’s called “dialogue” in their twisted noggins.

        • February 20, 2013 at 10:11 am

          Confirmation bias is a powerful thing… and these people have been powerfully conditioned. The near hysteria that erupts at any deviation from the received orthodoxies is startling sometimes. Until you remember that you’re not really dealing with awakened human beings. The proverbial switch has not only never been flipped on – it’s been duct-taped to the “off” position.

          • BrentP
            February 20, 2013 at 2:25 pm

            After that thread the same person who started it comes around with report on how the american public was lied into GWB’s war in Iraq…. it’s this sort of thing I think that causes me try and put that further seed out there. But it probably is nothing more than ‘team’ sports.

            I got sarcastic and called it a “conspiracy theory”. That the loving government doesn’t lie to people or manipulate them. :) I ended with something about it being nice that the mainstream media finally got around to reporting it. For the lolz I searched infowars for the first mention of ‘curveball’ being unreliable. Earliest I found in a minute or so was 2005 and that article mentioned it like it was a known fact. Mainstream media, a decade too late.

          • February 20, 2013 at 2:40 pm

            I very clearly remember noticing the way the reportage literally did a parking brake right-turn shortly after nahhnlevven… all of a sudden – it felt like overnight – the talk was All Saddam All The Time. I thought: Can people be that dumb? Won’t they notice the clumsy bait-and-switch? That Saddam/Iraq isn’t the same as Osama and the Taliban? That The Chimp was obviously using nahhnlevven as the pretext for doing what he had clearly “decided” he wanted to do even before nahhnlevven?

            WTF?

            And yet, it worked.

            All A-rabs are “radical Islamist” towelheads anyhow… right?

    • Rooney
      February 21, 2013 at 1:51 am

      I can…

      I was a foreman on a paving crew for 15 years.

      I can.

      • Rooney
        February 21, 2013 at 2:01 am

        Sorry…I got my comment in a bit late. Let me clarify..

        “But who would build the roads?”

        I can.

  22. skunkbear
    February 18, 2013 at 4:30 pm

    Tor, “Men must honor their monetary commitments and make good on the unauthorized borrowings…”

    Yes, men must be honest in their dealings and honor their just debts but that is so only when the money is also honest which it is not thanks to the very banksters who claim we owe them. Fiat money makes for a fiat debt. WE owe them nothing.

    But I do support your idea of sending them all the cretins you listed.

  23. skunkbear
    February 18, 2013 at 4:32 pm

    Tor, “Men must honor their monetary commitments and make good on the unauthorized borrowings…”

    Yes, men must be honest in their dealings and honor their just debts but that is so only when the money is also honest which it is not thanks to the very banksters who claim we owe them. Fiat money makes for a fiat debt. WE owe them nothing.

    But I do support your idea of sending them all the cretins you listed.

  24. skunkbear
    February 18, 2013 at 4:37 pm

    Sorry about the double post. I was trying to respond to tor at 2:14 and did not see it at the end.

  25. Tor Munkov
    February 18, 2013 at 4:43 pm

    What will the world do without America? Who will replace our sexy beasts like Beyonce & Candy Crowley?

    Eurovision 2013 Girls Aint Hurtin No One
    Zlata Ognevich – Ukraine – КУКУШКА (Cuckoo)

    Natalie Horler – Germany – Glorious

    Anouk – Netherlands -Lovin Whiskey

  26. L
    February 18, 2013 at 4:43 pm

    I appreciate your reply. I agree with your idea that if drunks would just drive real slow on the shoulder then leave them alone. The problem with that is they don’t. When someone gets drunk they use poor judgement. They are just like a bullet in the air in a populated area, hurting no one until they do. I would expect the police to stop someone from shooting in the air because they are endangering others. The same holds true with drunk drivers, they are a danger to everyone on the road and the bullet they are driving is just as dangerous to the public. Freedom comes with responsiblity. You can’t put me and my family at risk and call it your right.

    • rEVOLutionary
      February 18, 2013 at 6:38 pm

      You missed the whole point of the article. They DON’T drive slowly, because if they do, they KNOW they will be stopped. If they try to drive at a “normal” speed, they MIGHT get away with it.

    • February 18, 2013 at 7:25 pm

      Hi L,

      You’ve made a number of generalizations – and assumptions – that I’d like to call your attention to.

      “When someone gets drunk they use poor judgement.”

      Define “drunk.” Really, what is meant by the term is: Impaired by alcohol such that it negatively affects an individual’s ability to drive competently/safely. But – as has been explained by me and others at length – there are people whose driving indicates they aren’t meaningfully impaired. They’re not weaving; they haven’t hit anyone. Yet – legally – they will be regarded as “drunk” if they are found (at a probable cause-free “sobriety checkpoint”) to have a BAC level above a certain threshold. Meanwhile, perfectly sober – but inept/reckless – drivers are either ignored or given minor tickets, even when they cause an accident.

      Fair? Reasonable? Not as I see it.

      “They are just like a bullet in the air in a populated area, hurting no one until they do.”

      You advocate punishment based on what if and might – not did – exactly the thing I was criticizing at in my article.

      “Freedom comes with responsiblity.”

      Indeed. But that’s not what you are advocating. I agree people should be held responsible for what they do. You, on the other hand, want to hold them responsible for things they haven’t done.

      “You can’t put me and my family at risk and call it your right.”

      And I submit that you can’t take away my rights (or anyone else’s) by making vague assertions about what someone might do.

      Did it ever occur to you, sir, that there are all sorts of things you might do that could put someone at risk? At least, the assertion can be made – and cannot be denied. Something might indeed happen.

      Do you really wish to have men point guns at you and threaten to put you in a cage not for anything you’ve done, not for any harm you’ve caused… but because some other person doesn’t like what you’re doing? Because they judge it to be “risky”?

  27. Don Cooper
    February 18, 2013 at 4:45 pm

    Agreed. If I borrow money from a friend I have a real debt. He earned that money, it is his and I owe it to him.

    Banks loan money they don’t have and didn’t earn. It’s counterfeit credit. They create it; it’s counterfeit. How can a bank loan something that doesn’t belong to them and/or isn’t real? It’s tantamount to me stealing my neighbor’s Rolex knockoff and loaning it to you as a real Rolex.

    It’s both theft (as the inflation tax is) and counterfeit.

    Also, bank “contracts” are not contracts at all. A contract mandates that both parties are aware of the terms of the contract and agree to them and no one part can unilaterally change those terms, which banks do all the time.

    Banks will regularly change interest rates, billing cycles, fees, credit limits whatever they want and if you refuse to agree to the new terms post-facto then they’ll report you to a “credit agency”.

    It’s just more legalized theft enforced by the state.

    • JdL
      February 18, 2013 at 9:30 pm

      Back when I had a horrendous credit card balance, one of the big banks offered a teaser: substantial loan with a great interest rate for the life of the loan. Their strategy was that to specify that ANY late payment caused the loan to revert to the usual ridiculous interest rate. But I was careful to make payments on time. So, after a year or so, they pulled another trick out of their A**: suddenly the minimum monthly payment was three times what it had been before. My cash flow wouldn’t accommodate that, so I had to find financing elsewhere. I did follow through on a promise to close my checking account with that bank, and ironically they ended up getting sued for what they’d done and I might get some token settlement as part of a class action suit. Most bank shenanigans don’t result in lawsuits or any sort of accountability, of course; more’s the pity.

    • skunkbear
      February 19, 2013 at 12:43 am

      Don, it is good to see someone who understands the racket that is fractional reserve banking. Lending “money” that does not exist then inflating that “money” by “printing” more of it(arbitrarily putting more ones and zeros into the matrix)then charging a perpetual interest rate that – in the words of Bruce Springsteen – “…no honest man can pay”. And for which no honest man would lend.

      • skunkbear
        February 19, 2013 at 12:46 am

        Bad quote on Bruce and Atlantic City. Should read: “… no honest man could ever pay”.

        I like to be accurate.

  28. Don Cooper
    February 18, 2013 at 4:48 pm

    They’re also afraid of the truth. It’s conducive to their agenda.

  29. Don Cooper
    February 18, 2013 at 4:49 pm

    They’re also afraid of the truth. It’s not conducive to their agenda.

  30. Don Cooper
    February 18, 2013 at 4:56 pm

    “They are just like a bullet in the air in a populated area, hurting no one until they do”

    A lot of assumptions in that statement. What is “a drunk”? Who decides that? Prove that everyone who meets that arbitrary defintion is like a bullet in the air.

    But the last phrase is the best: “hurting no one until they do”. CORRECT! How do you justify punishing someone for doing something wrong (violating rights) before they’ve done something wrong?

    Because you’re afraid? Sorry, your fear has nothing to do with my ability to drive in any state. Nor are you feelings basis for a just law, just the opposite.

    BTW: a bullet up in the air is harmless. They proved it on Myth Busters. It falls down to earth according to F=ma and the mass of a bullet is so small that even if it hit you on the head the force woudn’t be much more than a thump. So firing off guns up in the air, even in a populated area, is not dangerous at all. Only if you point it at someone.

  31. Steve Victor
    February 18, 2013 at 5:12 pm

    Eric seems to have ignored the issue as posed. I call it “the problem of pain,” and it should be addressed. My response to it is simply that people should be held accountable for their actions. It is unacceptable to say “I’m sorry, it was an accident” after shooting bullets into the air and they fall and kill people. It is an intuitively dangerous act and as much a crime as premeditated murder, IMHO, and it should be punished as such. Once people realize this, very few will shoot guns into the air.

    This is not the same, however, as “driving under the influence.” Most drivers can handle two drinks and drive reasonably well. It is possible to have an accident under such circumstances with alcohol NOT being a contributing factor (although the powers-that-be would work hard against that contention). However, if you DO run over and kill someone while CLEARLY drunk, once again the punishment should be the same as that of a premeditated murderer. Knowledge of this will cause people to think twice before having a third drink.

    So, back to the problem of pain. Is it better to attempt to prevent deadly accidents via enforcement of a low legal blood-alcohol level, or to punish offenders after the fact? It’s not a simple matter. I know, for example, that I’d rather have my father alive than run down by a drunkard who’ll spend 30 years in prison; so maybe if he’s caught driving at .08 before actually harming anyone, a year in the clink might dissuade him from doing so in the future. This is the state’s position.

    However, to me, freedom trumps everything else, but– with freedom comes responsibility for one’s actions. In a free society (which we sadly do not have), there would be no “prior restraint” laws of any kind. People would accept responsibility for their actions; drunks would, unfortunately, occasionally kill people and pay a very heavy price. Despite the potential sorrow, I’d rather live in that world than this one.

    • Tor Munkov
      February 18, 2013 at 6:01 pm

      “It is unacceptable to say “I’m sorry, it was an accident” after shooting bullets into the air and they fall and kill people. It is an intuitively dangerous act and as much a crime as premeditated murder, IMHO, and it should be punished as such. Once people realize this, very few will shoot guns into the air.”

      That is the funniest thing I have read in a long time. Thank you Steve Victor.

      One question, why is it people like you always have such a hard-on for being addressed by the author of the blog? Eric must answer. Eric is ignoring my issue.

      I hope the Ad Council’s next cause is bullets shot at an angle. You seem to be really on something about that one.

    • BrentP
      February 18, 2013 at 6:26 pm

      Let us assume that the premise that people alter their behavior not by reason, but by fear of punishment. That all good and responsible behavior stems from a fear of being punished. That is how society operates so let us presume for the sake of argument that it works.

      If the punishment is on the risk of a bad act or on the bad act what difference does it make? Both should keep the person in line if his motivation is fear of punishment. By using risk it sends a very strange message. If you’re sober you can drive like crap and not be punished in any meaningful way for it. If you do it with a certain BAC or above you get punished severely. Thus, we end up with sober bad drivers. Risk of a collision has probably actually increased because the standard is having BAC below X and speed below Y instead of driving well.

      With fear of punishment being the supreme way of holding society together and making better people, why not just punish bad driving severely? After all it is usually some trivial error that brings about a DUI bust. A driver making no worse of a mistake, driving no worse than many sober people. So why not just punish the trivial error severely? If it is really a sign of impairment what difference does it make if that impairment is due to alcohol, poor motor skills, not paying attention, one’s natural condition, etc and so forth? Get the “dangerous” driver off the road and be done with it.

    • Don Cooper
      February 18, 2013 at 6:33 pm

      “if you DO run over and kill someone while CLEARLY drunk, once again the punishment should be the same as that of a premeditated murderer”

      Premeditated murder means just that. If your intent was not to premeditatively kill someone how do you charge them with it? With that logic then if you fall asleep behind the wheel even though you are sober, you too have committe premeditated murder. If you are fiddling in your glove box, or reading a billboard or turning to yell at the kids in the back, premeditated murder.

      Where does your broken logic end? Just punish ever crime as if it were premeditated murder and we’d be in a crimeless society?

      Or do you suggest annointing a council of high priest to make all those arbitrary decisions like what “Clearly” means and what is tantamount to premeditated murder and what isn’t. Drinking is, tired isn’t. Talking on your phone is, drinking a coke isn’t.

      Which branch of the gov’t do you work for Steve?

  32. Steve Victor
    February 18, 2013 at 5:15 pm

    I saw that Myth Busters episode. When shot STRAIGHT UP into the air, the bullets fluttered down relatively harmlessly. NOT SO when fired at AN ANGLE; the verdict in that case was that those can and DO KILL.

  33. Mark
    February 18, 2013 at 5:19 pm

    DUI laws should be called what they are, as should drug prohibition laws: Criminal Justice[sic] System Full Employment bills. Because what it comes down to is not criminals or justice, it’s all about The System.

  34. Trish
    February 18, 2013 at 5:58 pm

    I remember in the 80s, when all this Mothers Against Drunk Drivers stuff was just getting started, and I saw a dorm room poster that said, “Drunks Against Mad Mothers.” Even now, after giving birth, I still get a smile on my face thinking of that poster.

  35. charlie
    February 18, 2013 at 6:03 pm

    It is the great unspoken truth that law enforcement is not about safety or protection or goodness, but it is about enriching the law enforcement/judicial system.

  36. rEVOLutionary
    February 18, 2013 at 6:09 pm

    Sustainability, or self-provision, even if it were possible (how do you produce your own salt, for example? distill your sweat?)will allow only for the most basic survival. Prosperity requires the free market, production using comparative advantage, as the economists call it, and free exchange. Money (real money, not pieces of paper or computer digits) greatly facilitates this process of exchange. But no government intervention is required. That’s why They don’t like it.

  37. JdL
    February 18, 2013 at 6:15 pm

    BTW: a bullet up in the air is harmless. They proved it on Myth Busters. It falls down to earth according to F=ma and the mass of a bullet is so small that even if it hit you on the head the force woudn’t be much more than a thump.

    I haven’t seen the MythBusters show, but IF the earth had no atmosphere, the bullet would return to the ground at the same velocity it left the muzzle, which could unquestionably be fatal. The terminal velocity of an object falling through air is dependent upon mass and effective surface area. I’ve heard, but don’t know for sure, that large diameter bullets can fall at speeds that can be fatal, so now I’m curious. Do you have a link for the MythBusters segment? I did a quick search on their site but came up empty.

    • JdL
      February 18, 2013 at 6:30 pm

      Found it:

      http://mythbustersresults.com/episode50

      They actually mark this “BUSTED / PLAUSIBLE / CONFIRMED” and go on to say “To date, this is the only myth to receive all three ratings at the same time.” One of the comments links to:

      (in German) which supposedly demonstrates lethal terminal velocities in 9 mm bullets.

      I forget how we got on this OT subject, and have no particular axe to grind with respect to falling bullets, but I’d be reluctant to conclude that they’re not dangerous.

      • Ed
        February 18, 2013 at 6:58 pm

        The way we got onto this O/T discussion of bullets was when some asshole equated drunk driving with shooting up into the air.

        I think it’s called a logical fallacy or something like that. Somebody says that a drunk driver hasn’t committed a crime by driving drunk until someone is hurt. Some asshole then says that a drunk driver might as well be shooting bullets into the air.

        That’s actually more like a non sequitor, but I’m probably wrong.

  38. Fenimore neon
    February 19, 2013 at 12:25 am

    A guy at one of those DUI classes I had to take when I lived in the USSA some years ago got a DUI, and I am not kidding, in his motorized wheelchair! Another guy he knew got a DUI on a horse!!!
    Forever The Enemy of the State.

    • dom
      February 19, 2013 at 12:31 am

      I’ve had friends get DUIs on scooters and I’ve even come close on a bike. Already have the T-shirt for one in a car, but never have I heard of on a horse. That is awesome!

    • BrentP
      February 19, 2013 at 5:08 am

      I think I’ve read about a motorized wheel chair case once. I believe they were going to proceed on protections for the disabled or something along those lines.

      The DUIs on horses… read about one or two of those too. The horse isn’t even a vehicle. It’s got it’s own intelligence and self preservation. Horses even know their way home. Drunk horse riding usually only hurts the rider when he falls off.

      • Fenimore neon
        February 19, 2013 at 7:14 pm

        These laws are meant to “protect” ourselves. That is how they phrase it I’m sure. A lot like how in Amerika you get charged with a felony for attempted suicide. I asked someone in a letter the other day…name one thing positive that the government of Amerika has done? Just one.

        • methylamine
          February 20, 2013 at 4:08 am

          name one thing positive that the government of Amerika has done? Just one.

          Demonstrated again, 70 years after the first Nazi government, just how dangerous and terrifying a fascist government is.

          It will just take a while for everyone to realize it’s an object lesson in tyranny; right now, it’s still called “Daddy”…until he comes home real drunk one night and beats the shit out of them.

          • MoT
            February 20, 2013 at 4:41 am

            The US FedGov and the Citizenry’s “relationship” is of such a sick dysfunctional level that it makes Sandusky, well… look like a piker Boy Scout.

          • fenimore neon
            February 21, 2013 at 5:38 am

            And yet, Sandusky was a creation of the fault of “authority.” Someone’s kid had already told his mom what was up in that situation, and she had gone to the police, and even though Sandusky admitted to “showering naked with the boy, and hugging him,’ the cops literally told him “not to do it again.”
            Then it becomes more Joe Paterno’s fault than the cops who knew about it before a football coach. I emailed Rick Reilly the columnist for Espn, everyone at ESPN, Sports Illustrated, Jim Rome, asking why none of them blamed the cops…..and not one single reply.
            For the best analysis on the State and its inconsistencies, read Larken Rose’s The Most Dangerous Superstition.
            There is NOTHING a cop has ever done that has ever helped anyone.

          • BrentP
            February 21, 2013 at 2:30 pm

            All too correct fenimore. The statist never sees the failure or complicity of the state only that more government is needed to protect us. More government to protect us from the very people it teamed up against us with, the very people it systematically and naturally failed to protect us from before.

            I usually find myself making this argument with regard to the evil corporations which would supposedly rule over us if government went away. The problem being it is through government working with them or giving them a pass that they have always gained their advantage. It is the same boiled down to even individual criminals as you use it. It’s about people who enjoy the protections of the state to violate the rights of others.

  39. Merry
    February 19, 2013 at 12:56 am

    Gubmint creates more reasons to drive drunk. The SOBs require a liquor license that it outrageously expensive in most locales. No more neighborhood bar a few blocks away or around the corner where one could walk home. Heaven forbid one should get to know their neighbors!

    • February 19, 2013 at 1:13 am

      Dear Merry,

      Excellent example.

      So often the negative effects of cloverite controls are sufficiently indirect that people fail to connect the dots.

      That does not make them any the less real however.

  40. truk44
    February 19, 2013 at 1:33 am

    Okay, slighty OT, I know, but given that this is a motoring website, here’s some light-hearted entertainment, which still sends a one (or two) fingered message to the state and its lickspittle agents of coercion.

    The first car depicted is a supercharged BMW (E46) M3 CSL. The second is – as I believe – a stock BMW (E39) M5. For the connoisseurs amongst us, we note the distinctive tone of the snarling straight six of the M3 and the unmistakeable baritone rumble of the M5′s V8.

    Enjoy!

    • dom
      February 19, 2013 at 3:09 am

      Best roadrunner video I’ve ever seen! Billy straight tore it up.

      ABSOLUTELY EXCELLENT

    • methylamine
      February 20, 2013 at 4:43 am

      Yup. It’s probably the last BMW I’ll own–the new ones are just not DIY-able anymore. But dear god it’s fun!

      The ECU is adaptable. After you beat on it for a few miles, it starts advancing the cams and timing more aggressively; they get faster, the faster you drive. Notice how the engine note changes toward the middle of his drive, getting harsher? The M5′s S62 engine is the most soulful engine I’ve ever driven. It’s like a loyal dog, that just WANTS to please and tries to give that little extra.

      I haven’t driven one, but I’m hoping the Boss 302 delivers the same way. It should–identical specs (5 liter quad-cam V8), revs higher, more horsepower…in a lighter car.

      Used prices are coming down.

      Maybe when the dollar collapses I can trade a Krugerrand or two for one? Go out Mad Max-style :)

  41. GO
    February 19, 2013 at 1:42 am

    You can drive down the road “as a normal prudent person would but, “if you have a BAC of 0,08 or above you are gulity of Drunk driving.” Doesn’t seem quite right to me.

  42. jeffersonianideal
    February 19, 2013 at 1:04 pm

    The truth is, there are plenty of responsible people who can successfully and safely operate a motor vehicle under the influence of a certain amount of alcohol and do it better than a stone cold sober driver while texting, using a cell phone or preoccupied in some other way. In fact, the hand-eye coordination or attention span of some drivers is so naturally impaired, they essentially present more of a safety risk than very competent drivers with a couple of drinks in their system.

    I have driven under the influence of alcohol only twice since obtaining my driver’s license. I was between 18 and 20 years of age during the time of these occurrences. The legal age for purchasing alcohol was 18 back then. Throughout the journey home via secondary roads as well as an interstate highway, I never endangered myself or another driver. I remember being absolutely focused on one thing, safely maneuvering my motor vehicle until it was parked in my driveway.

    A friend of mine who is also a cop was taught at the police academy that a typical person is able to drive while intoxicated 80-90 times before being caught by law enforcement. That would indicate those so-called drunk drivers probably made it home safely, unhampered and possibly without incident until a representative from the bacon brigade impeded his/her progress with a roadside checkpoint or lucky hunch resulting in a traffic stop.

    • February 19, 2013 at 1:27 pm

      Exactly so, Jefferson.

      But individual responsibility – individual treatment of any kind – is not what they want. What they want is collective guilt. And prior restraint (pre-crime) based on that. “Someone” (anyone, a theoretical construct) might be “drunk” (or whatever). Accordingly, everyone must be treated as presumptively drunk. Even if a given individual is not actually drunk – that is, shown evidence of functional impairment – he will be treated as such regardless.

      • L
        February 25, 2013 at 7:01 pm

        eric, please help me to understand where you are coming from. I believe you doing something that endangers me violates my rights. It is hard for me to agree that it’s ok for someone to drive drunk and they should be left alone unless they crash and kill someone.

        I can’t imagine you would feel the same way if someone was speeding through your neighborhood sliding sideways around corners, going 80-100 mph through school zones where your kids walk and he was doing it on a daily basis. I know my senario is far fetched, I made it that way on purpose, my point is; someone acting reckless puts others in danger even if no one is killed I don’t want someone doing that in my neighborhood just like I don’t want someone getting drunk and then trying to operate a machine called a car when I’m on the road.

        Seriously, please help me understand. Is the only point that the police are needed is after a crime has been committed or when someone puts others in danger prior?

        And to those on here that want to do nothing but degrade someone for their comments; not everyone who loves freedom may be at YOUR level of understanding, get off your high horse once in a while and teach, the students are here and you are running them off why?

        • Don Cooper
          February 25, 2013 at 7:17 pm

          Of course a credible threat to your rights justifies your defense of those rights. No one in their right mind would stand there while a stranger points a gun at them and says: “I’m going to kill you”. That is a credible threat and a violation of your rights.

          But that’s not what ‘drunk driving’ is. What is drunk driving? Is it a particular BAC? Is it drinking anything before driving? Is it weaving in and out of traffic? My ex-wife does that and she doesn’t drink at all.

          Is bad driving – for any reason – a threat to your rights? If that were the case then we’d need to get my ex-wife and my 84-year-old father off the road.

          Also, is there criminal intent? A rights violation is not a crime unless there’s criminal intent, that’s why they call it an accident. If someone is the cause of an auto accident for any reason, they have violated your rights and need to be held responsible somehow but if it was an accident then it is not a crime.

          Bottom line: you cannot punish someone for doing something wrong before they’ve done something wrong or else you end up with the abusive “legal system” we have now full of pre-crime, crystal ball looking, all knowing laws that ruin people’s lives.

        • methylamine
          February 25, 2013 at 7:32 pm

          I’ll have to think about that one a little before I give a quick answer, “L”. A guy sliding around a corner at a 100 might constitute the “pointing a loaded gun at your head”.

          But as you point out–it’s far-fetched. The situation doesn’t occur very often; and the act would very quickly lead to disaster, removing him from the game.

          On the other hand, driving “drunk” as defined by the State–with a perfectly manageable for many BAC of 0.10–happens frequently…and the results are NOT disastrous.

          And there we get “prior restraint”–draw an arbitrary line, “0.10 BAC is drunk driving”, and 99% of the cases prosecuted would never have led to disaster…ruining those peoples’ lives for nothing.

          The 100mph-school-zone character? It’s common sense. In fact that act is much like heading out with a BAC of 0.25 it’s so far out there–and the guy with the .25 BAC will much more likely end in disaster.

          Do I then approve of raising the “drunk driving” BAC to 0.25?

          NO.

          Again, prior restraint–which does much more harm via tyranny than it prevents in disaster.

          Bottom line–yeah, I’m saying you must accept risk and danger to live free…and responsibility for your own actions!

          0.25BAC guy, and 100mph school-zone guy, will both get what’s coming soon enough. I’m bitterly sorry for the kids though.

          But laws don’t stop idiots from doing idiotic things–they only strengthen tyranny.

          Do you think 0.25BAC guy is stopped by today’s laws? No; he’s inveterate. Only now his sin is compounded by the sin of punishing innocent people.

        • February 25, 2013 at 7:38 pm

          Hi L,

          “I believe you’re doing something that endangers me violates my rights”

          Italics added.

          Belief is subjective. You may believe that driving faster than the speed limit (as an example) “endangers” you – or “violates your rights.”

          But that doesn’t make it so.

          Some people believe that people who smoke pot ought to be put in jail.

          But that doesn’t make it right.

          Evidence of harm done – an actual injury to an actual person or his property (or, as Don points out, objective proof of intent to commit harm, such a contracting for a hit man) – that’s what’s necessary to establish that a crime has been committed (or is about to be committed).

          No victim – no crime. No harm – no foul.

          Now, there is a secondary matter. The “perfect world” assumption. Critics (of the Libertarian Non Aggression Principle) will say: But if you wait until someone has actually done something (before you restrain/punish them) then all sorts of bad things will happen.

          Yes, they sometimes will. As they do now. As they always will – under any system of human interaction. People will always make mistakes – and there will always be those who commit crimes (real ones, with actual victims).

          The issue is, simply, whether we want a society in which everyone is guaranteed the certainty of being controlled – and punished – for harms they have not done caused on top of the possibility of their being held accountable for any harms they actually have caused.

          • L
            February 25, 2013 at 10:03 pm

            Ok, Traffic laws would be non existant in a libertarian run world then?

          • February 25, 2013 at 11:12 pm

            L,

            The only legitimate laws are those comporting with natural law; for purposes of this discussion, laws which impose accountability upon those who cause injury to others (either their persons or property).

            What you’re worried about – I hope – is holding people who cause harm accountable. I’m in complete agreement.

            But the way to do that is to… hold individual people individually accountable for any harm they cause. That is something very different from restricting what I may do on the basis of what someone else might do.

            If I lose control of my vehicle and the result is injury to you/your car, then I should be held accountable.

            But please, don’t hold a gun to my head because you don’t believe I should be driving faster than an arbitrarily selected number on a sign. Or because I ignored a sign that forbade me to turn right at a red light (even though I did so safely).

            Do you see?

          • BrentP
            February 25, 2013 at 10:19 pm

            What became traffic laws and certainly signs/signals and more were mostly created in a libertarian fashion before the government took them over.

            What we see today is the result of decades of neglect and political destruction of a system that was established privately by volunteers back in the early days of motoring.

          • methylamine
            February 25, 2013 at 10:19 pm

            @L:

            wrong question.

            The right question is: who owns the road you’re driving on, and what are HIS rules?

            Walter Block wrote an exhaustive treatise on private roads.

            There would be variation, but I imagine the “rules” would quickly converge on what was actually the better balance between speed, carrying capacity, and safety.

            Some fun outliers would be the owners of roads out in West Texas; no speed limits, for instance!

        • BrentP
          February 25, 2013 at 8:31 pm

          Best thing I can suggest is vehiclarly riding a bicycle in traffic. That’s the quickest way I know of showing that the reason the driver is driving badly is simply irrelevant without getting hit. Well if the lesson goes as planned anyway.

          I am offended that when a sober driver does something stupid and harms me, my recourse is limited and his punishment is nonexistent. But if he had an arbitrarily high BAC then he gets punished. Severely. Civil case is probably a slam dunk. It doesn’t make sense.

          If you are concerned about bad driving, penalize bad driving severely, not just bad driving when X but not when Y.

    • Don Cooper
      February 25, 2013 at 7:24 pm

      I’ve been driving after drinking since I was 19. On a number of occassions I’ve left my car parked and either taken the drunk van, walked or taken public transportation. Sometimes, I’ve even volunteered to be the DD.

      But normally, I drive myself out, I drive myself home. And you know what? I do just fine. Almost 30 years incident free drunk or sober. How many decades are needed to prove a point?

      The majority of people drive after drinking. They have to. How else are they going to get home? There doesn’t exist enough taxi’s, busses, DD’s or drunk vans. On any given Friday night in Atlanta there could be a million plus people out drinking. The logistics don’t add up if everyone with a BAC of .08 or higher were not to drive themselves home. It’s a logistical impossibility. Somebody’s gotta drive; and they do and they do just fine.

  43. Olaf Koenders
    February 21, 2013 at 1:32 am
  44. Tor Munkov
    February 22, 2013 at 6:01 pm

    Gay Vatican Official caught on tape. The cover up of all the assorted Vatican Official deviancies has forced the Pope to resign.

    Hopefully, he is the last Pope, no more will be chosen, and all the captive dioceses and churches will be turned loose from the corrupt entangling leviathan demon known as the Vatican.

    http://www.youtu.be/TRoJ6B9goKA

    Why is one evil always replaced with a new evil? The Catholic Church is weakened but the Protect Your Children Foundation which has posted this video malevolently lies in wait eager to usurp its place. Why do people feel the need to join groups whose primary purpose is the use aggression against others.

    - – - -

    Primary Demons

    Beelzebub- a prince of the Seraphim, just below Lucifer. Beelzebub, along with Lucifer and Leviathan, were the first three angels to fall. He tempts men with pride and wrath and is opposed by St. Francis of Assisi.

    Leviathan- a prince of the Seraphim who tempts people to give into heresy, and is opposed by Saint Peter. He tempts men with gluttony, greed, lust.

    Asmodeus- a prince of the Seraphim and reportedly continues to be one, burning with desire to tempt men into wantonness and lust. He is opposed by St. John the Baptist.

    Berith- a prince of the Cherubim. He tempts men to commit homicide, and to be quarrelsome, contentious, and blasphemous. He tempts men with wrath and envy. He is opposed by St. Barnabas.

    Astaroth- a prince of Thrones, who tempts men to be lazy and is opposed by St. Bartholomew. He tempts men with sloth.

    Verrine- a prince of Thrones, just below Astaroth. He tempts men with impatience and is opposed by St. Dominic. He tempts men with greed and envy.

    Gressil- the third prince of Thrones, who tempts men with impurity and is opposed by St. Bernard. He tempts men with lust and gluttony.

    Sonneillon was the fourth prince of Thrones, who tempts men to hate and is opposed by St. Stephen. He tempts men with wrath.

    The Seven Virtues of Immanuel Kant’s Fairyland Neverwasworld

    Chastity – Purity, knowledge, honesty, wisdom

    Temperance – Self control, justice, honor, abstinence

    Charity – Will, benevolence, generosity, sacrifice

    Diligence – Persistence, effort, ethics, rectitude

    Patience – Peace, mercy, ahimsa(non-injury), sufferance

    Kindness – Satisfaction, loyalty, compassion, integrity

    Humility – Bravery, modesty, reverence, altruism

    - – - -

    IMHO the desire to uphold societies adherence to the “seven virtues” has brought about seven fold more misery and destruction than have any of the “seven sins” of Lust, Gluttony, Greed, Sloth, Wrath, Envy, Pride, or the “two discontinued sins” of Acedia(neglect of duty), and Vainglory(unjustified boasting)

    - – - -

    Maximum Strength of Demons By Month

    Belial in January
    Leviathan in February
    Satan in March
    Belphegor in April
    Lucifer in May
    Berith in June
    Beelzebub in July
    Astaroth in August
    Thammuz in September
    Baal in October
    Asmodai in November
    Moloch in December

  45. Don Cooper
    February 28, 2013 at 5:10 pm

    Some definitions say that stealing is taking something that you have no right or legal authority to take. Some refer to it as a “legal right”.

    A legal right is an impossibility. If some legality is required for you to take something then it must be that, that thing does not belong to you or else there’d be no need for the legalities.

    The legalities mean that you want to take something that doesn’t belong to you so you either have to come to an agreement with the owner (contractual permission/a privilege) or it’s stealing.

    A “legal right” is just a political construct to try and legitimize their theft on the part of the state.

    • Tor Munkov
      February 28, 2013 at 5:25 pm

      From the sacred sty one hears much squealing and arrogant oinks about officious stealing.

  46. Tor Munkov
    February 28, 2013 at 6:15 pm

    UN-4-Given

    My new blood joined this earth. And quickly was subdued.
    Through constant pained disgrace. A new boy learned their rules.

    With time that child drew in. Their whipping boy done wrong.
    Deprived of all my thoughts. My young self struggled on. And on.

    Until my new renown. A vow unto my own.
    That never from that day. My will they’ll take away.

    Now what I’ve felt. What I’ve known. Ever shines through in what I’ve shown. I’ve never been. I never see. What you wanted me to be.

    I’m ever free. I’m ever me. Now I dub thee UN-4-given

    You dedicate your lives. To ruining of mine.
    Won’t try to please yourself. You bitter men and swine.

    Throughout all time the same. You battle constantly.
    You wound but cannot win. I live at peace effortlessly
    While you no longer care. You just prepare to die.
    Just old man pigs dying regretfully.

    What I’ve felt. What I’ve known.
    Ever shined through in what I’ve shown
    Ever free. Ever me. So I dub thee UN-4-given

    You labeled me. I’ll label you. So I dub thee UN-4-given.

    http://www.youtu.be/0zFYxEINsdY

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *