OrangeDragon wrote:He means Randian Libertarian. Specifically a policy that a victimless crime isn't an actual crime, and that the self can never be the victim of ones own actions in a criminal sense.

Putting the echo aside, that's (the first premise) bollocky - as a 'lawless bugger' the crimes of my youth were definitely victimless, yet I benefited from them in various marvellous ways. This was the judge's view, and he sought to redress that imbalance with an invitation for a custodial holiday.

I'm still chewing the second premise, that seems like an 'angels on a pinhead' discussion to me.

You yanks are weird, by the way. You do mean, of course, Rand as in Rosenbaum, the anti-Christian?

Edit: you removed the echo, which killed my witticism. Bastard.

OrangeDragon wrote:As said by someone else, perfectly:

If our ultimate goals are to reduce driver impairment and maximize highway safety, we should be punishing reckless driving. It shouldn't matter if it's caused by alcohol, sleep deprivation, prescription medication, text messaging, or road rage. If lawmakers want to stick it to dangerous drivers who threaten everyone else on the road, they can dial up the civil and criminal liability for reckless driving, especially in cases that result in injury or property damage.

Brother, I'm all for that, but remember, Mr. Ultra-Libertarian - all those reckless actions are subject to "restrictions" toward personal behavior - which any self-respecting "Libertarian" is dead set against.

Your battle cry: "Leave us the fuck alone! We alone can determine what we can do - not some meddling govt. agency!!" Uh huh...right...gee, let's ban seat belts, child safety seats, helmets, etc. - they all infringe on "personal liberty" after all...

You want to lump all the other actions that cause road accidents into the drunk driving category. That don't play, homey. Why? Drunk driving related accidents trump, by a huge margin, all other causes for accidents (especially those causing death to innocents). Do the research yourself.

I am impressed Dag. Thought you were already passed out, but you are still a live and kicking. An upstanding guy like yourself just what this lawless country needs -- from religious bashing to DUI; but secretly makes his way to Wat Phnom when no eyes are around to fulfill the urge

StroppyChops wrote:

dagenham wrote:Damn dude, for a highly educated Libertarian you can be incredibly dim...

Genuine question, help me out here - in Australia Liberal and Labor (yes, without the u for some odd reason) are the two major political parties, although nobody cares any more. What do YOU mean when you say 'Libertarian' in this context?

Well, there are differing degrees of what can be called a "Libertarian" - this has nothing to do with right/left oriented politics. The root word here is "liberty", the liberty to choose one's personal behavior.

Radical Libertarians want no legal restrictions whatsoever toward pursuing their own self-defined notion of happiness. The often added qualification is "as long as it doesn't hurt others or impede someone else's liberty". They often rail against the ever-encroaching "Nanny-Sate" as our own dear OD does...even going as far as supporting the "right" to "try" to drive drunk - as long as you don't get caught or kill someone (as OD has so clumsily articulated)...

In fact, this desire to flee the nasty incompetent tortuous Authoritarian Monolith led by the (ever so slightly) liberal black-skinned mythical Muslim Obama has driven quite a few blokes out of the US...OD apparently one of them...more a kind of leaving one's own country as opposed to a kind of attraction to another country...

And then the line continues to someone who might simply be resistant to the most draconian govt. measures that intrude upon one's lifestyle. "Libertarian Light" peeps will still support sensible laws such as auto safety measures, food and medicine oversight, etc...

And, yes, my high school best friend and 3 other students were killed by a comrade of OD's - a Libertarian drunk exercising his right to drive impaired, but I guess he got caught. Before then he was completely innocent (right, OD?), or rather just lucky he didn't kill earlier. This was way before toughened drunk driving laws were drafted and I can't remember what happened to him.

The tragic aspect to this issue is that many lives are lost because of drunks not wanting to be "inconvenienced", not wanting their "personal liberty" to be challenged. Silly and deadly combination. I hate all drunk drivers with a passion...because there is never, ever a valid reason to drive drunk...the cost/benefit ratio is beyond description...ask some families who have lost loved ones...

dagenham wrote:

OrangeDragon wrote:As said by someone else, perfectly:

If our ultimate goals are to reduce driver impairment and maximize highway safety, we should be punishing reckless driving. It shouldn't matter if it's caused by alcohol, sleep deprivation, prescription medication, text messaging, or road rage. If lawmakers want to stick it to dangerous drivers who threaten everyone else on the road, they can dial up the civil and criminal liability for reckless driving, especially in cases that result in injury or property damage.

Brother, I'm all for that, but remember, Mr. Ultra-Libertarian - all those reckless actions are subject to "restrictions" toward personal behavior - which any self-respecting "Libertarian" is dead set against.

Your battle cry: "Leave us the fuck alone! We alone can determine what we can do - not some meddling govt. agency!!" Uh huh...right...gee, let's ban seat belts, child safety seats, helmets, etc. - they all infringe on "personal liberty" after all...

You want to lump all the other actions that cause road accidents into the drunk driving category. That don't play, homey. Why? Drunk driving related accidents trump, by a huge margin, all other causes for accidents (especially those causing death to innocents). Do the research yourself.

A) you don't have to ban safety devices... but an adult should be allowed to choose if they risk their own life or not. I can choose to skydive, but not to ride a bike without a helmet? Please.
B) Actually, that's a weak argument about those statistics because we don't have an accurate system of reporting (or even catching) if a person was texting while driving and caused an accident. same with sleep deprivation, medication (not just prescription), and road rage. alcohol has a telltale test, and is regularly tested for in an accident where the individual seems suspect. Reading an SMS while driving isn't tested for and can't be proven... I feel that looking down at a phone in one's lap while driving is much more likely to cause them to hit _________ in front of them than having drank 4 beers would have. And I'm sure if it were tested, you'd find it to hold true... since looking at the road while impaired is at least a little better than not looking at the road at all.

And the thing you STILL can't seem to wrap your furiously biased little head around is the difference in punishing an action and punishing a result of one. Reckless driving, such as swerving around on the road, is the result... and punishable. Not the action of texting and driving/drinking and driving/etc. But actually BEING reckless... as a result of those things.

Looks like someone DID to the research, and you're chasing the wrong ambulance!

http://www2.potsdam.edu/alcohol/files/D ... Drunk.html

Driving a vehicle while texting is six times more dangerous than driving while intoxicated according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). The federal agency reports that sending or receiving a text takes a driver’s eyes from the road for an average of 4.6 seconds, the equivalent -- when traveling at 55 mph -- of driving the length of an entire football field while blindfolded.

Texting while driving a vehicle has now replaced drinking while driving as the leading cause of accidents and deaths of teenage drivers.

dagenham wrote:And, yes, my high school best friend and 3 other students were killed by ... a Libertarian drunk exercising his right to drive impaired, but I guess he got caught.

I'm really sorry to hear that, man. I lost high-school and then youth group friends to drink driving also, there is no justice, it just sucks.

OrangeDragon wrote:Looks like someone DID to the research, and you're chasing the wrong ambulance!

http://www2.potsdam.edu/alcohol/files/D ... Drunk.html

Driving a vehicle while texting is six times more dangerous than driving while intoxicated according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). The federal agency reports that sending or receiving a text takes a driver’s eyes from the road for an average of 4.6 seconds, the equivalent -- when traveling at 55 mph -- of driving the length of an entire football field while blindfolded.

Texting while driving a vehicle has now replaced drinking while driving as the leading cause of accidents and deaths of teenage drivers.

Bullshit! It doesn't address the "numbers' of peeps killed/injured as a result of the other activities compared to drunk driving, just the physical reality of the degree of impairment. I'm sure drunk drivers cause more accidents in terms of numbers than does texting. C'mon now...

The bottom line really is that you sound like a desperate and arrogant drunk trying to defend driving under the influence. It's sad and pathetic - grasping at straws to rationalize despicable behavior. Amazing really.

OrangeDragon wrote:Looks like someone DID to the research, and you're chasing the wrong ambulance!

http://www2.potsdam.edu/alcohol/files/D ... Drunk.html

Driving a vehicle while texting is six times more dangerous than driving while intoxicated according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). The federal agency reports that sending or receiving a text takes a driver’s eyes from the road for an average of 4.6 seconds, the equivalent -- when traveling at 55 mph -- of driving the length of an entire football field while blindfolded.

Texting while driving a vehicle has now replaced drinking while driving as the leading cause of accidents and deaths of teenage drivers.

Does that mean you will continue to condone drinking heavily AND driving because texting while driving kills more people, OD?

Joon wrote:

OrangeDragon wrote:Looks like someone DID to the research, and you're chasing the wrong ambulance!

http://www2.potsdam.edu/alcohol/files/D ... Drunk.html

Driving a vehicle while texting is six times more dangerous than driving while intoxicated according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). The federal agency reports that sending or receiving a text takes a driver’s eyes from the road for an average of 4.6 seconds, the equivalent -- when traveling at 55 mph -- of driving the length of an entire football field while blindfolded.

Texting while driving a vehicle has now replaced drinking while driving as the leading cause of accidents and deaths of teenage drivers.

Does that mean you will continue to condone drinking heavily AND driving because texting while driving kills more people, OD?

No, it means that pursuing one 'pet' aspect and ignoring the others is ridiculous. If he saw someone texting in their car I'm willing to bet he'd never fly off the handle like he does at the idea of someone having a couple of beers and driving away. He'll probably claim he would, but he's full of it. Because if that were true he couldn't stand to live here... as that shit goes on CONSTANTLY in Phnom Penh. It's why he doesn't make threads bashing people for talking about their smartphones and accuse them of "probably texting and driving with them", but will jump all over people talking about drinking and accuse them of "probably drinking and driving".

He's a missionary... much as he talks shit on them. He preaches and proselytises harder than any jehovah's witness he criticizes for doing it.