SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Libertarian Discussion Forum

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: freeus who wrote (135)6/30/1998 2:49:00 AM
From: Rob Lyman  Read Replies (1) of 13056
 
>>If you can drink and/or take drugs and be a good driver, the government has no business bothering you. When a govt is into "prevention" we are all in big trouble.

Only hurting people, hurting someone else's property (not your own) or stealing someone's property is a crime.
Or ought to be.<<

Hmmm. I agree that neither drinking/drug taking nor automobile driving are acts which should be prohibited by government. The problem I have is the activity of doing both at the same time -- it seems that this dual activity is clearly putting others into danger, and hence should be prevented.

Following this line of reasoning further leads to all kinds of seemingly indefensible behaviors. For example, would you tolerate firing a shotgun in a crowded mall? Both firing a shotgun and being in a crowded mall are reasonable activities, but doing them together clearly puts others at considerable risk. From your perspective, this act should be protected (unless, of course someone is "accidentally" wounded in the process of this dangerous act -- in that case a crime has been committed and I guess, the shooter should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law).

Please clarify this for me. Would you argue to protect these types of behaviors?
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext