Masks don't impair judgment. All factors equal, a bank robber in a mask or without has the same reaction time, the same distance and speed evaluation ability. Rockwell is using a false argument. Alcohol does indeed change these parameters. The guy behind a mask is still sober, in this scenario.
"Bank robbers may tend to wear masks, but the crime they commit has nothing to do with the mask. In the same way, drunk drivers cause accidents but so do sober drivers, and many drunk drivers cause no accidents at all. The law should focus on violations of person and property, not scientific oddities like blood content."
Yes, sober drivers cause accidents, too, as Rockwell mentions. Also, as Rockwell mentions, there are some drinking drivers who operate just fine. Rockwell's schtick about not dealing in probabilities is silly. Every day you get on the road is, in itself, a probability. How do you, personally, want to share that probability? Do you, personally, want to share that probability with stupid sober and stupid drunk drivers, or would you rather reduce, at least, the stupid drunk ones so you can better concentrate on avoiding entanglements the stupid sober ones? What makes your life a little easier? Or, if you take Rockwell's over-extension of Libertarian personal responsibility, is it your own darn fault if you're croaked because you didn't effectively simultaneously deal with both whilst crossing the street? Rockwell might hit you in that crosswalk. From the tone of his article, he may be drunk and free to do it. Of course, he'll face his consequences, being the personally responsible Libertarian as he espouses to be. *Afterwards*, being the key point. <g> |
