| | So where do we draw the line? That's what this discussion comes down to, doesn't it?
Re my post 33, I assume everyone here accepts that we must base our laws & police powers on principle, and not pragmatism or expediency? As I see it, if the principle first approach is dismissed then there is no basis for discussion; because without principle anything goes and hey, your opinion is as good as mine and we just have to trust our feelings on any given matter. Right?
So, let's try our drunk driving friend again. Has he committed a crime by simply being drunk? No. Has he committed a crime by driving his car while drunk? Yes? No? If yes, then what's the principle that the law is based on? Obviously on the principle that his unsober state may lead him to cause damage while driving.
Steven's point is that the act of driving drunk, in itself, should not be enough to make his actions unlawful. However, if he hits a pedestrian then he has definitely broken the law. Now, that doesn't mean he couldn't have hit a pedestrian if he was stone cold sober, but it's assumed that he is *more liable* to hit someone if drunk. I'd agree with that.
But here's my problem. Is the mere fact that you're more disposed to do something because of your physical, psychological or emotional state reason enough for your actions to be regulated by the state? Well, is it?
If it is, then where do you draw the line? And, upon what principle?
If I drive my car, drunk or otherwise, in a manner that presents a *clear & present danger* to those around me, then I think I should be stopped, either by the police or anyone else who feels the need.
But let's say I was driving dangerously because I had a bad dose of the flu and was on meds. Obviously, I'm crazy to drive. It's dangerous for me & others. But if a cop pulls me over, questions me and discovers that I'm simply very ill and not say, drunk, then I'm not arrested or fined or anything else. I'm let go. But, why? Drunk or ill, the act of driving in both cases is premeditated, & you could argue that the ill person's actions are *more* carefully considered than the drunk's.
This just ain't semantics. It's the type of issue that's central to liberal thought. Under what circumstances should the state regulate and based upon what principle? If that's too difficult then let's just all throw our hands up in the air and trust our feelings. But let's not moan when we have our legislators do the same thing in an area that affects our individual freedoms. After all, they're just trusting their feelings, gut reactions, faith, whatever.
Ross
|
|
