Che Guevara: Idiot liberal hero.

[MSimon]

But what about the guy who was mowing his lawn? Or my two dead uncles from the drunk driver?

A certain amount of sh*t happens in life. Some of it will happen to you. Some of it to relatives. Some to friends some to neighbors. Some will seem to get more than their fair share. Others will seem to lead a charmed life.

And I see your point about the guy mowing the lawn. If lawn mowing was outlawed that guy would be alive today (unless a snake in the grass had got him).

As far as I can tell it is dangerous being alive. And that so far there is no sure protection except to surrender to the Maker and life eternal. Amen. Hallelujah. Praise the lord. Unfortunately for the Maker I'm not quite ready for that particular surrender.

[MSimon]

But what about the guy who was mowing his lawn? Or my two dead uncles from the drunk driver?

Does not the blame for their deaths lie elsewhere than themselves?

They were not paying attention.

They fell prey to a common syndrome: "We have laws against it. It can't happen."

[Diogenes]

But what about the guy who was mowing his lawn? Or my two dead uncles from the drunk driver?

A certain amount of sh*t happens in life. Some of it will happen to you. Some of it to relatives. Some to friends some to neighbors. Some will seem to get more than their fair share. Others will seem to lead a charmed life.

And I see your point about the guy mowing the lawn. If lawn mowing was outlawed that guy would be alive today (unless a snake in the grass had got him).

As far as I can tell it is dangerous being alive. And that so far there is no sure protection except to surrender to the Maker and life eternal. Amen. Hallelujah. Praise the lord. Unfortunately for the Maker I'm not quite ready for that particular surrender.

All of what you say is true, but it does however miss the point.

The Libertarian philosophy is to let everyone do pretty much what they want but with one qualification. "That it harm none."

To people who believe the ship is so big that no amount of drilling holes in it will ever sink it, this qualifier basically means nothing at all, because they simply cannot conceive that individuals pursuing their own happiness can possibly have a severe detrimental impact on others.

It is a disconnect between the ideas of cause and effect. Because often times most people cannot see the connection between cause and effect, they do not believe there is one.

In the case of drunk drivers killing people, or cigarette smokers burning down houses and acres of land, the connections become more obvious. Even so, society is willing to tolerate these cases of individual vices causing public danger and damage. This is only because the incidents are within the current tolerance level, and in most cases affect "someone else." Were they more common, a threshold would be reached, and people would demand some action be taken to stop it.


It is axiomatic to me that some people can handle their liquor and are also responsible with their lit cigarettes. It is also axiomatic to me that some portion of the population will always be irresponsible, regardless of what they do. As a result of the 14th amendment and common law, we are required to see people as equal in terms of rights and privileges and therefore we have to treat the sensible people and the idiots the same.


This tends to translate to wanting to ban the stupid people from foolish behavior and punishing the responsible people as a result.

Suppose we tried a different approach? How about using the same method we use for other practices whereby someone can hurt or injure others, such as driving a car, or carrying a gun?

Just a thought experiment. How about a Liquor license? How about a tobacco license ? ( actually, drivers licenses serve that purpose already to some extent.) To be suspended in the event of abuse?

Everyone can qualify automatically, but do something stupid, and you lose the freedom to indulge.

Here is sort of an example of what i'm talking about.




I will be interested to hear your notions as to why this idea might be wrong.

[Diogenes]

But what about the guy who was mowing his lawn? Or my two dead uncles from the drunk driver?

Does not the blame for their deaths lie elsewhere than themselves?

They were not paying attention.

They fell prey to a common syndrome: "We have laws against it. It can't happen."

99.9% of the time, mowing grass in your front yard does not require constant fearful looks towards the roadway, nor should it.

[MSimon]

99.9% of the time, mowing grass in your front yard does not require constant fearful looks towards the roadway, nor should it.

I'm of the opinion that paying attention is a full time occupation. I can understand not wanting to pay the price. But then to complain?

[Skipjack]

In the case of drunk drivers killing people, or cigarette smokers burning down houses and acres of land, the connections become more obvious.

There is a flaw in your logic. Drunk driving is actually already prohibited.
So the driver was willing to break the law already when he was driving drunk, so I am not sure that a general prohibition of alcohol would have changed a thing.
Most drunk drivers are very aware of the fact that they should not be driving anymore, especially those that have so little control that they will go off the road so far that they will kill someone who is mowing his lawn.
We have had the same stupidity here in Austria, when they lowered the legal limit:
A drunk driver with 2.5 perimille alcohol in his blood ran into a group of children. Our ever smart politicians took that as a reason to lower the legal limit from 0.8 to 0.5 permille.
You see the flaw in the logic there?
It was already illegal anyway. Making it a little more illegal would not have changed a thing.

[Diogenes]

In the case of drunk drivers killing people, or cigarette smokers burning down houses and acres of land, the connections become more obvious.

There is a flaw in your logic. Drunk driving is actually already prohibited.
So the driver was willing to break the law already when he was driving drunk, so I am not sure that a general prohibition of alcohol would have changed a thing.
Most drunk drivers are very aware of the fact that they should not be driving anymore, especially those that have so little control that they will go off the road so far that they will kill someone who is mowing his lawn.
We have had the same stupidity here in Austria, when they lowered the legal limit:
A drunk driver with 2.5 perimille alcohol in his blood ran into a group of children. Our ever smart politicians took that as a reason to lower the legal limit from 0.8 to 0.5 permille.
You see the flaw in the logic there?
It was already illegal anyway. Making it a little more illegal would not have changed a thing.

Sometimes I think I need to pray to the patron saint of incomprehensibility! Saint Karl Popper, if you can hear me, please make my words understandable!


The license idea, (and it is only an idea, I haven't thought it through completely) is discriminatory. (that means it discriminates between idiots and responsible people) By requiring a liquor license to buy alcohol, you are utilizing the merchants as the first order of defense. If a person tries to buy a beer, (or liquor), the merchant asks to see their liquor license. If they don't have one, or it's suspended, they cannot sell to the individual in question.

Since liquor stores (at least in my state) already check your drivers license for age requirements, it would be relatively simple to have another box on the license for liquor.

If you get a ticket for Open container, Public intoxication, Drunk Driving, Drunk and Disorderly, etc. Your liquor license is suspended pending resolution by the court, and if convicted, suspended for whatever term the court sees fit. (and "For Cause")

You may think that individuals will get their buddies to get liquor for them, and you would in fact be correct. If this occurs, the buddy is assuming legal responsibility for their actions, and in the event of a drunk driving accident, the "buddy" becomes an accessory before the fact.
The same for any merchant that sells to the prohibited individual.

This method might work, because the product is legal, and the prohibited group is relatively small. It is in the merchant's (and buddies) best interest to go along with the program.


Does anyone see a downside to this idea ?

[Diogenes]

99.9% of the time, mowing grass in your front yard does not require constant fearful looks towards the roadway, nor should it.

I'm of the opinion that paying attention is a full time occupation. I can understand not wanting to pay the price. But then to complain?

A few years ago, Taco Bell had some interesting posters hanging in their restaurants. It featured endangered animals. One of the posters which I found most interesting was that of the "Endangered Cuban Crocodile."

The reason I found this interesting is because the crocodile is well known to have lasted eons in history with very little evolutionary change. It is a quite efficient killing machine, and various manifestations of it survive all over the world.

The thought occurred to me that if the "Cuban Crocodile" is endangered, there can be only one reason why it's endangered. It's endangered because the Cubans probably kill every one they see on sight. Not being Rich and Stupid like us, they rightly see the creature as a predator, and have no desire whatsoever for either themselves or their families to be a meal for this thing.

This methodology strikes me as being imminently sensible, and should be utilized in every situation of a like sort, which brings us back to irresponsible Drunk Drivers.


Yes, we can be constantly on the lookout for the crocodile lurking near our homes, or we can eradicate them and make them endangered.
You might prefer the former method, but I prefer the later! (notice how neatly I tied all of this together? )

[MSimon]

Your liquor license is suspended pending resolution by the court, and if convicted, suspended for whatever term the court sees fit. (and "For Cause")

Breathing licenses would solve most problems including illegal fermentation.

[Skipjack]

The license idea, (and it is only an idea, I haven't thought it through completely) is discriminatory. (that means it discriminates between idiots and responsible people) By requiring a liquor license to buy alcohol, you are utilizing the merchants as the first order of defense. If a person tries to buy a beer, (or liquor), the merchant asks to see their liquor license. If they don't have one, or it's suspended, they cannot sell to the individual in question.

Ok, I somehow missed the liquor license idea. I can see your point with that one.
A few concerns:
1. It would cost a lot of money, government officials having to take care of this, paperwork, etc.
2. It would be impractical in a lot of situations. I see it absolutely ridiculous to ask for a liquor license from a guy who wants to order a bottle of wine in a fancy restaurant, e.g.
I also would find it very ridiculous at parties. So you want to ask your friends liquor license every time they want to take a scoop out of the bowl of self made fruit bowle (no idea what you call that there, but I know you have it)? I just cant see that happening, sorry.
Having to show it, when you want to buy alcohol at a store or if you want to enter a bar that serves hard alcohol. That would make sense. I would not go further than that though.

[Diogenes]

Your liquor license is suspended pending resolution by the court, and if convicted, suspended for whatever term the court sees fit. (and "For Cause")

Breathing licenses would solve most problems including illegal fermentation.

When a person's breathing starts killing other people, you will have a point. Till then, it is a fallacy of false equivalency.


Apart from that, you are not telling me what is wrong with the idea other than that you don't like it.

[Diogenes]

The license idea, (and it is only an idea, I haven't thought it through completely) is discriminatory. (that means it discriminates between idiots and responsible people) By requiring a liquor license to buy alcohol, you are utilizing the merchants as the first order of defense. If a person tries to buy a beer, (or liquor), the merchant asks to see their liquor license. If they don't have one, or it's suspended, they cannot sell to the individual in question.

Ok, I somehow missed the liquor license idea. I can see your point with that one.
A few concerns:
1. It would cost a lot of money, government officials having to take care of this, paperwork, etc.

It might, but if it does, it's entirely because of the incompetence and inefficiency of government. We already have boxes on our driver's licenses stating that we don't need glasses. What does it cost to administrate another box exactly like that one ? It ought to be virtually nothing.

2. It would be impractical in a lot of situations. I see it absolutely ridiculous to ask for a liquor license from a guy who wants to order a bottle of wine in a fancy restaurant, e.g.
I also would find it very ridiculous at parties. So you want to ask your friends liquor license every time they want to take a scoop out of the bowl of self made fruit bowle (no idea what you call that there, but I know you have it)? I just cant see that happening, sorry.

It's up to the "buddy" if they want to assume legal responsibility for someone else's drunk driving. If I knew I could get an accessory to manslaughter for letting my buddy drink my liquor, I would spend a serious amount of time considering the ramifications first.

Having to show it, when you want to buy alcohol at a store or if you want to enter a bar that serves hard alcohol. That would make sense. I would not go further than that though.

What do you think about someone taking responsibility for another person's drinking? If they are going to supply someone with liquor without verifying the person is competent to drink it safely, shouldn't they bear some responsibility for any damage that might result?

Didn't we have a discussion earlier about insurance, in which several people thought individuals should be financially responsible for any car accident prior to the fact? Should not this same belief apply to a condition that actually INCREASES the chance of an Accident?


Lack of insurance does not cause accidents. Drinking does.

[Skipjack]

What do you think about someone taking responsibility for another person's drinking? If they are going to supply someone with liquor without verifying the person is competent to drink it safely, shouldn't they bear some responsibility for any damage that might result?

Uhm, how about the person that is not allowed to drink taking responsibility for himself?
Why would anybody be required to babysit this person?
If your drivers license has been taken, then it is you who has to comply to not driving. You cant make the guy that borrowed your the car responsible for that.

Didn't we have a discussion earlier about insurance, in which several people thought individuals should be financially responsible for any car accident prior to the fact? Should not this same belief apply to a condition that actually INCREASES the chance of an Accident?

Yes and? I dont get the connection at all. Sorry. It is already illegal to drink and drive. So what is the point?
But it cant be the responsibility of everybody on this planet to babysit other people. What is next? Are we supposed to spy on each other?
Hey, I think I saw my neighbour drive his car after he was drinking. I think I should tell the police.... That will end up in DDR STASI system. That cant be it.
No, there is law enforcement that has a job and they can check people if they have been drinking and see whether they have a license (if this were to become the law). If not, these people get to pay a hefty fine, or something like that.
Just dont overdo the whole matter. Alcohol is not "the devil".

[Diogenes]

What do you think about someone taking responsibility for another person's drinking? If they are going to supply someone with liquor without verifying the person is competent to drink it safely, shouldn't they bear some responsibility for any damage that might result?

Uhm, how about the person that is not allowed to drink taking responsibility for himself?

Saint Karl Popper! Please help me!


Did you miss the part where I mentioned that whomever is not allowed to drink was ticketed first for doing something stupid?
Initially, everyone is assumed to be responsible for themselves. It is only after someone has demonstrated that they are NOT responsible, do they lose their alcohol license.

Why would anybody be required to babysit this person?
If your drivers license has been taken, then it is you who has to comply to not driving. You cant make the guy that borrowed your the car responsible for that.

No one has to babysit this person. They merely have to answer for their conduct if they abet this person in breaking the law.

If you give a school child a loaded gun, you will be responsible if he kills or injures someone. Same thing with a drunk and booze.

Didn't we have a discussion earlier about insurance, in which several people thought individuals should be financially responsible for any car accident prior to the fact? Should not this same belief apply to a condition that actually INCREASES the chance of an Accident?

Yes and? I dont get the connection at all. Sorry. It is already illegal to drink and drive. So what is the point?

You say people should be financially responsible IF they have an accident.

I say people should be legally responsible if they contribute to CAUSING an accident.

But it cant be the responsibility of everybody on this planet to babysit other people. What is next? Are we supposed to spy on each other?

Where does this line of thinking come from? You don't have to babysit anyone. You just have to be responsible for your own conduct. If you give a demonstrated public menace alcohol, you are simply involving yourself in his future accident.

If you want to do this, go ahead. It's your choice. I personally would think long and hard before making such a choice, because it is not worth my time in jail and loss of money just to indulge an irresponsible friend. If he doesn't have an accident, then you've won the gamble.

Hey, I think I saw my neighbour drive his car after he was drinking. I think I should tell the police.... That will end up in DDR STASI system. That cant be it.

You have no responsibility for this unless YOU gave him the drink. Of course if the man is driving recklessly, it is your civic duty to try and prevent him from hurting anyone, even if you didn't give him the drink.

No, there is law enforcement that has a job and they can check people if they have been drinking and see whether they have a license (if this were to become the law). If not, these people get to pay a hefty fine, or something like that.
Just dont overdo the whole matter. Alcohol is not "the devil".

I'm not claiming alcohol is the devil. I'm not trying to eliminate it at all. I am merely suggesting that we use the same logic for alcohol that we use for everything else that is dangerous.


Nowadays you have to have a license to use dynamite. You have to have a license to perform surgery. You have to have a license to dispense drugs. You have to have a license to drive a car, or a truck, or an airplane.

Why is this? Because all these things can KILL other people.

[Skipjack]

Initially, everyone is assumed to be responsible for themselves. It is only after someone has demonstrated that they are NOT responsible, do they lose their alcohol license.

Yeah, but you can not make EVERYBODY else responsible for this guy, once he has done something stupid. It is idiotic. I for my part would find it VERY, VERY irritating if I had to ask people for their papers before handing them a drink at a party. That is absolutely idiotic.