Libertarian Discussion Forum Message Board

STOCKTALK

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 Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: freeus who wrote (135)	6/30/1998 9:45:00 AM
From: MeDroogies	Read Replies (1) of 13056

Freeus, there is - without a doubt - a need to prevent proven potential harm. To just say that drunk driving is okay because nothing has happened is to turn a blind eye to the rights of the people who are unknowingly put at risk. Your story about the killer is a perfect example...he should have been jailed, IMHO. Threats constitute a violation of privacy and safety. To expand your scenario, Neville Chamberlain was the only real Libertarian hero of WWII because he did nothing to stop the "threat" of Hitler, which is the right and proper thing. Clearly, that scenario was wrong, as Hitler had made his intentions quite clear and Chamberlain was hoping for the best to occur...that Hitler was bluffing. I, for one, do not want to be driving on roads which are populated TO ANY DEGREE by drunk drivers who WON'T face penalties. The lack of a penalty would allow more people to drive drunk - increasing by some magnitude the number of injuries and fatalities to non-drinking individuals. It is perfectly acceptable to imbibe and impair oneself, but if the net result of that impairment is to put others at risk, then you have violated the rights of those other people.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next