The Problem of "Crime"

Dean, I've read your post over several times, and I'm still not sure what it is that you're saying. Could you state your point directly and explicitly, so that I at least know what it is? Are you saying that there is no way to know how drunk you have to be in order to be a danger to some one? If that is your point, I would agree that it's a judgment call. But the same thing holds for someone with bad eyesight. How bad does it have to be in order for the person not to be allowed on the road? You have to draw the line somewhere. If someone's vision cannot be corrected beyond 20/40, should he not be allowed to drive? Or does it have to be 20/60? There are probably some reasonable guidelines for how good your vision has to be, but simply because there is no hard and fast rule written in stone somewhere is no reason to allow anyone on the road no matter how poor the person's eyesight is. The same applies to other standards of driver competence. Would you allow a five-year old to drive a car? A ten-year old? A fifteen-year old? At some point, you have to say, here are the standards that we require in order for someone to be considered competent to operate a motor vehicle. If he or she does not meet those requirements, then the person cannot be permitted to drive. You have to have some standards, don't you?

- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer
on 5/06, 8:51pm)

Post 21

Saturday, May 6, 2006 - 9:37pm

My main point was that attempted murder is not murder, and that they should not in general have the same exact punishment.

I don't care about DUI. Measure driving competence by ability to drive from point A to point B without destroying anything and not getting in other's way, not by age, handicap, etc.

Post 22

Sunday, May 7, 2006 - 7:37am

What I find interesting about the legal issue of drunk driving is that one day the technology will make the whole issue moot.

I don't know if anyone here followed the DARPA challenge held in Nevada this past year? It was a race of automated robot cars driving across the desert on a 147 mile course that was windy, with very bumpy roads and obstacles along the way. 4 teams were able to successfully have their robot finish the course. One day we'll have automated cars driving to us to work, or driving us home from a bar if we've had too much too drink. I can't wait :)

But right now the DUI laws are very draconian again, to bar owners if which I have a bar in my hotel. If someone is served too much alcohol in my bar, and they drive home and injur themselves or someone else, I am held *criminally* and civily* liable. These are called DRAM SHOP laws. Serving someone who *appears* over the legal limit is also a crime. There are so many people who hide their intoxication so well, that determining when someone is right over that blood alcohol limit becomes impossible. To make matters worse, (not related to DUI) if someone who is underage who presents an ID that is a very well done fake, I'm still held liable if he is served alcohol. There are some recourses we can take if we are not sure if someone is underage, a recent law that was passed that allowed us to escape culpability is a riot to read. This is a regulation that entails taking a picture of someone a bar owner suspects is underage before serving to escape culpability. Here it is:

The proposed regulations included that:

The photo of the person whose age is in question be made either with film or by digital camera that has a built-in date and time stamp in working condition. The use of either a film camera or digital camera would give the retailer the option of using the equipment that is most adaptable for the permittee, their agent or employee, taking into account the cost and the technical ability of the camera user. The necessity for having a workable date and time stamp would allow the permittee to document the actual date and time that the age of the person was questioned and would provide documentary evidence in support of the permittee, their agent or employee. In addition, to allow this choice would give the permittee the ability to store and keep these photos in a safe and economic manner.

The photo must be accurate as to date and time. This regulation requirement would provide the retailer, and later, if necessary, a trier of fact with accurate information regarding the sale or dispersal of alcohol to a minor. It would protect the permittee, their agent or employee, if there was a question as to whether the photo being submitted is relevant to the sale of alcohol to a minor by its �capture� of the date and time.

The use of color film showing how the minor and the identification used appeared at the time that the age of the purchaser was being questioned. It would also take into account the fact that black and white film would be unable to provide this distinctive and relevant information. The use of color film would provide the permittee, their agent or employee, and if necessary, the trier of fact with the best possible evidence of how the person appeared and the detail of the license or identification card used. Licenses, for example, have distinctive color patterns and the use of color film would provide the best evidence necessary for documenting the license or identification card used.

The photo would be taken with the person holding the driver�s license or identity card provided to the permittee or permittee�s agent or employee as proof of age. The desired result of matching the person with the license and/or identity card would be achieved and would provide documentary evidence of this connection.

The photo size would be relevant in that it provides the retailer, and if necessary, the trier of fact with a large enough photo to discern physical characteristics of the person whose age is in question. The size of the photocopy of the license would allow the retailer, and if necessary, with the ability to examine the identification used. In some instances, a fake identification can be detected by looking for a blending of colors on the license or identification card. The colors should be crisp, sharp, and very distinctive. An examination of the ink used in the printing should be conducted; ink used in legitimate forms of identification should not bleed onto other colors or parts of the card.

The photograph would be in a format, or be taken against a background, that accurately depicts the height of the person being photographed. Most states, including Connecticut, issue driver licenses and identity cards that indicate the height of the person. This regulation would compel the permittee, the permittee�s agent or employee with comparing the height of the person presenting the license or identity card with the height listed on the license or identity card. This requirement would give the permittee, his agent or employee, with a tool to assist in verifying a legitimate license or identity card.

The photocopy of the driver license or identification card, both front and back, would be available for inspection. It has been demonstrated that while the front of a license or identity card may appear flawless, counterfeiters sometimes merely photocopy the reverse side and that the lettering is blurred and indistinct.

The photocopy of the license or identity card would depict the length and width of the card being used. Licenses and identity cars issued by states have specific and measurable dimensions and would assist the retailer in attempting to identify a true and legitimate license and or identity card.The photocopy of the person�s driver�s license or identity card would have to be clear and easily readable, including all identification letters and numbers.

An examination of a driver�s license, particularly a Connecticut driver license, reveals that there are distinguishing features on the various types of licenses available in Connecticut. For instance, the nine-digit license number assigned to each license is coded based upon the date of birth of the licensee. It is vitally important for permittees, their agents and employees, to be able to examine the license and examine the nine-digit number in an effort to verify the date of birth with the appropriate numbering. In addition, there are numbers on the license and /or identity card that identify (by code) where the license or identity card was issued.

The photocopy of the person�s driver�s license or identity card would contain the printed name and signature of the permittee, agent or employee who took the photograph and photocopy, and an attestation that this person examined such driver�s license or identity card from front to back. This regulation allows the trier to fact to know the identity of the person responsible for the acceptance of the identification is question and places a justifiable obligation on the part of the permittee, his agent or employee, to examine the license and attest to that examination.

(Edited by John Armaos on 5/07, 7:41am)

Post 23

Sunday, May 7, 2006 - 10:57am

Talk about guilty until proven innocent!! What has happened to our vaunted system of American justice, in which the burden of proof is on the accuser with the accused needing to do nothing in order to be exonerated if the burden of proof is not met?

- Bill

Post 24

Monday, May 8, 2006 - 9:43pm

John Armaos wrote: Michael perhaps I didn't make myself clear enough about the dam we bought.

John, I understand and appreciate your frustrations. We all share them. There is no doubt that the largest imaginable fraction of government regulations are stupid, useless, and counter-effective. They waste time and money and achieve the direct opposite of the putative goals.

My point -- in a general, philosophical inquiry into the nature of "crime" -- was that being required to build a dam as a consequence of construction is not a unreasonable -- without context. A landowners association could require it. Your ultimate landlord could as well, if you lease, and so on. We externalize these idealizations in a socialist society. The "government" (so-called) demands these things. You might have little control over the internal operations of that group. However, you do have the choice to build or not. And the fundamental question remains: in a rational society, should you be required to take preventive action to avoid a potential damage to the property of others?

JA: ... when I said "WE", I was refering to me and business partners ...
Yes, and I took that "we" and played it off against the other meaning of "we" and I apologize for being oblique.
It is in fact a different, interesting, problem, whether and to what extent several individuals can jointly "own" something. If I want to sell you security service, how many signatures do I need on the contract? Who is empowered to speak for the group? What if you have 1000 "owners"? I understand that as interesting as these may be, they are not the problem from your side of the table, and again, I apologize for not being explicit.

JA ."It's my PROPERTY."

Well, no, not really, because it is JOINTLY owned. Maybe several of them were OK with the dam, but you were not. In any case, some of it may be yours by right -- some share of the profit and loss; some fraction of the responsibility [if that is metaphysically possible] -- but it is not your property. The problems attendant with "joint ownership" (so-called) have not been investigated from an Objectivist perspective.

JA: And also, you say "When you choose to associate with other people, you accept the metaphysical fact that your freedoms end where their rights begin ...

Do you deny that this premise is true?

JA: Does anyone on this forum think the regulation of the number of trees ... handicap accessible ramps ... minibar permits ... sexual harrasment ...

On the one hand, we are all with you on this. On the other hand, there is a deeper issue. The concept of a proprietary community -- a privately owned and privately controlled parcel, like a shopping mall or Disney World -- does not preclude silly rules. Owner co-ops require the trimming of lawns and regulate the colors of exterior (and interior!) paints.

The question here is what constitutes crime. I believe that in every society -- even in an Objectivist utopia -- there will be outcasts. You validate that claim.

JA: provide jobs for 60 people ...

You are preaching to the choir, John, but this is not about you. It is just an abstract discussion that I started in hopes of investigating a basic question: What constitutes "crime"?

Post 25

Tuesday, May 9, 2006 - 8:47am

Michael wrote:

It is in fact a different, interesting, problem, whether and to what extent several individuals can jointly "own" something. If I want to sell you security service, how many signatures do I need on the contract? Who is empowered to speak for the group? What if you have 1000 "owners"? I understand that as interesting as these may be, they are not the problem from your side of the table, and again, I apologize for not being explicit.

I trust then you haven't studied all of the differing types of legal ownership? There are corporations, partnerships, and some more newer legal entities such as LLC's (limited liability corporations) and LLP's (limited liability partnerships), who speaks for the group is predetermined when one of those legal entities is created. If there is a corporation, it means the owners do not operate the business, so depending on the nature of the business, for example let's say we're a factory that sells widgets, then the management of the corporation is empowered to enter contracts for selling widgets, the management becomes duly authorized agents for the company, and are authorized to enter contracts. For capital investments, bank loans, etc, in a partnership usually all individuals who are in the partnership must agree to this type of contract. Anyone else can enter a contract pertaining to the good or service the business is selling if they have been duly authorized as an agent. For example, my bartender is authorized as an agent of my business, the bartender is empowered to execute a contract with a bar patron when a drink is ordered.

JA ."It's my PROPERTY."
Well, no, not really, because it is JOINTLY owned. Maybe several of them were OK with the dam, but you were not. In any case, some of it may be yours by right -- some share of the profit and loss; some fraction of the responsibility [if that is metaphysically possible] -- but it is not your property. The problems attendant with "joint ownership" (so-called) have not been investigated from an Objectivist perspective.

No Michael you are mistaken, it is my property. I am one of the property owners so the statement is still true. First off I know none of them were OK with shelling out 30,000 dollars as a bribe. I speak to them all on a regular basis, I think I know how they feel when they see a bill like that. Would you be ok with that? Second, it is metaphysically possible for multiple individuals to enter into a contract of ownership. There is zero problems with "joint ownership" from an Objectivist perspective, "joint ownership" requires a contract that all parties involved voluntarily sign. There is no collectivist ideal here, all parties involved voluntarily entered into an agreement.

JA: And also, you say "When you choose to associate with other people, you accept the metaphysical fact that your freedoms end where their rights begin ...
Do you deny that this premise is true?

No Michael I do not. I disagreed with how you applied this metaphysical fact to reality. Unless you really mean to say people have a right to tell me I must have 7 trees in my parking lot? I'm disagreeing on where you implied their rights begin. Their rights do not begin by telling me I must have 7 trees in my parking lot. You have taken my words out of context. I'd ask you to please re-read my post.

On the one hand, we are all with you on this. On the other hand, there is a deeper issue. The concept of a proprietary community -- a privately owned and privately controlled parcel, like a shopping mall or Disney World -- does not preclude silly rules. Owner co-ops require the trimming of lawns and regulate the colors of exterior (and interior!) paints.

Ah! Now I know where your confusion lies. Owner co-ops may have silly rules, but they are agreed to by voluntary contract. I believe you are confusing that with some kind of collectivist ideal or with the metaphysical fact of where rights end and begin. My hotel belongs to a franchise, we have rules that we must abide by in order for us to keep that name. Should we fail to meet with those standards that we agreed to abide by, then we lose the franchise name. We abide by these rules because we have entered into a contract with the franshise corporation. The contract stipulates what the standards we must meet in order to keep the brand name, in return we get advertising, marketing, a central reservations system, etc. This is far different than the government mandating rules that do not protect individual rights. The franchise does not have rights to tell me how to run a business without a contract.

The government's role is to protect individual rights, this is not at all the same. I am forced to put 7 trees in my parking lot. I am forced to make the entire building inside and out handicap accessible (Thanks George Bush Sr. for that wonderful law). There was no contract signed, there is no benefit that I get out of that. That is an initiation of force. Not a voluntary agreement where multiple parties mutually benefit from said agreement.

Now it would be different if say a company approached me and wanted to rent a good number of hotel rooms from me for a long time. And if they said part of the agreement, they want to stipulate that I plant enough trees in my parking lot to reach 7 trees total. (For some reason the company feels they would benefit from having 7 trees in my parking lot while their workers stayed in the hotel) I could take a look at that offer, (I would weigh the benefit of the revenue from that contract to the cost of planting trees) then if I feel I could make a profit even with that stipulation, I'd enter into the agreement. Do you see the difference? The company that wants to rent my rooms does not have the right to tell me how many trees I must have. No one does. Even with a contract, I can break a contract so long as I compensate the breachee of the contract with any losses the breachee may suffer from.

Post 26

Tuesday, May 9, 2006 - 10:12am

Dean, in Post 21, you wrote,

My main point was that attempted murder is not murder, and that they should not in general have the same exact punishment.

Okay. I understood that. What I was confused about is your reasons for saying so. As I said in Post 18, If a person is responsible only for his choices, not for whether they succeed or fail, and what is open to his choice is only the attempt, not its success or failure, then on what grounds do you punish him less for a failed attempt than for a successful one? Isn't his moral transgression just as grave in the one case as it is in the other?

You also wrote,

I don't care about DUI. Measure driving competence by ability to drive from point A to point B without destroying anything and not getting in other's way, not by age, handicap, etc.

But there's more to driver competence than that, isn't there? A 12-year old might be able to satisfy those criteria on a driving test, say, but how responsible would he or she be in adhering faithfully to the rules of the road; in staying within the speed limit, in making sound decisions under difficult conditions, in not responding emotionally to unexpected events, etc.? We have enough problems with the typical teenage driver as it is, let alone with someone who has even less maturity.

Also, the issue of judgment is relevant to drunk driving. A person who is heavily intoxicated has impaired judgment and reflexes, which can seriously affect how well he or she handles an automobile. The person may be able to drive from Point A to Point B on a driving test while sober, but be much less capable of doing so while intoxicated. I once saw a guy who was so drunk, he was literally staggering from one edge of the sidewalk to the other, until he fell down between two parked cars. After he managed to get up, he got into one of the cars, and drove off. Do you not see a problem here?

- Bill

Post 27

Tuesday, May 9, 2006 - 10:23am

Bill, I hope you got my private email that a mutual friend has been trying to reach you. If you didn't, please contact me.

Post 28

Wednesday, May 10, 2006 - 7:05am

Michael M loves to tweak people and play word games. Sometimes he is a lot of fun, sometimes it is a bit over the top.

I hate those damn handicap laws. All that good parking space is wasted - and half the people with those tags should not even have them anyway.

Post 29

Wednesday, May 10, 2006 - 5:12pm

There is a table reserved for the handicapped in one of the cafeterias at my university, which is always empty even when every other table is being used. Of course, no one dares sit there, pending the arrival of a handicapped person. So we have a table that never gets used. I've thought of sitting there, but I suppose I'd be cited for a violation, even if no handicapped person wanted to use it. Why don't they have a rule, as they do on buses, requesting that people give their seats to elderly or disabled passengers? If no one elderly or disabled boards the bus, then you can sit there. But I suppose they feel it's too much of a hassel to move in the middle of a meal. Still, I don't get it. Handicapped people are presumably able to move around, otherwise they couldn't get to the table in the first place. Well, if it's being used, they can go somewhere else, which is what I have to do, even when the table isn't being used, if no other tables are available. Yeah, I know, I'm being insensitive! But it's pretty ridiculous when the table is never in use anyway. In the rare situation in which a handicapped person enters the cafeteria and there are no tables available, he or she can go elsewhere. Why is that an injustice??

- Bill

Post 30

Wednesday, May 10, 2006 - 5:58pm

Lol, Bill it's not an injustice and what you describe is evident everywhere there is something handicap accessible. My hotel is required to have a certain number of handicap rooms. I'd say we get about half a dozen requests a year for a handicap room, that's out of 20,000 room nights rented per year. We are able to rent it to someone who is not handicap but we usually rent those rooms last because non-handicap guests find the room strange and generally don't like them. (They don't like the lower door handles, the handle bars in the tub, the sloped sink, etc) Our handicap parking spots are also rarely taken. For such a rare number of handicap customers, we would offer the tiny percentage of them free valet. But really the amount of money spent for such a small number of people is just absurd. I'm willing to go out of my way to accomodate someone who needs physical help but the incredible financial burden a business has to endure for such a small number of people is just unfair and really wreaks of altruism. I can't believe a Republican President is responsible for such a tremendous cost our economy has suffered.

Not to mention they're not exactly handicap anymore if everything is made more comfortable for them, it takes away the meaning of handicap doesn't it?

Post 31

Wednesday, May 10, 2006 - 7:12pm

JA: trust then you haven't studied all of the differing types of legal ownership? There are corporations, partnerships, and some more newer legal entities such as LLC's (limited liability corporations) and LLP's (limited liability partnerships), who speaks for the group is predetermined when one of those legal entities is created.

Which of them would exist in a system of objective laws? This has already been a discussion here in this regarding "corporations" as having originally been creations of monarchic states. In our time, other limited liability entities ( LLC, LLP) is granted by the state, but not by the marketplace. I understand how they work -- boards; officers; partners -- but like the interaction between the Supreme Soviet and Politburo, there is a disconnect between the internal operations of these entities and the facts of reality. The Catholic Church recently chose a new pope. Objectivists might have some basic questions surrounding that event.

Post 32

Friday, May 12, 2006 - 12:46pm

True, LLPs and LLCs are granted by the state. But voluntary contracts of co-ownership is not granted by the state, those contracts are only enforceable because of the state, i.e. courts and civil law. Otherwise there is no final arbiter and we live in a state of anarchy. I don't mean to confuse the discussion with LLPs and LLCs as they are government inteferences of the free market. My only point was that business partnerships are not statist ideals nor do they violate Objectivist principles of laissez-faire Capitalism. As far as calling it co-ownership, it boils down to what you mean by that. I own a percentage of the hotel, I do not co-own 100 percent of the hotel with my partners. I merely own a percentage that when and if the hotel is sold, or when it generates profit, I am entitled to that percentage share.

Post 33

Saturday, May 13, 2006 - 8:54am

John, I do not disagree with what you say, and that is the reason why I have been trying to put this into a wider context -- according to the topic -- of "what do you mean by crime?"

You might say that it is a "crime" that you are required by the government to plant trees, though you would do so contractually, and the difference is your choice in the matter. You feel that the government is coercing you into planting trees, being ADA compliant, and so on. We all dislike coercion. That is the reason why all along, I have been seeking the boundary of choice-coercion. To an objective observer -- a rational being from another planet -- a smart crystal, say -- who has no cultural context, your choice to accept the limitations of the group you belong to, i.e, the neighborhood, or nation, or city, or corporation. Therefore, absent coercion, there is no "crime."

Post 34

Saturday, May 13, 2006 - 9:10am

The crime should not be drinking as such but the way you act when driving a car, under the influence or sober. They have consistently lowered the DUI standards from 0.20 to 0.10
to 0.08 in most states and even 0.05 in several European countries. This is strictly a drug regulatory policy designed to boost police coffers by criminalizing more people.
Many people may be over the arbitrary limits but take care to drive safely and should not be subject to arrest and auto seizure, etc. This
is the John Hospers legal paternalism nonsense and is antithetical to the whole concept of individual rights.
If a person kills another in a vehicular mishap they can and should be prosecuted for actual homicide. The penalty should be for the actual crime.
On the FBI agents, many of them have been engaged in illegal activities such as the drug war, infiltrating legal leftist or rightist political groups, questionable so-called white collar crimes and many other laws that violate individual rights. Their covers should be blown. The whole effort against organized crime only arises because of the laws banning drugs, prostitution, loansharking, betting, all
of which would not exist in a free society.
On criminal intent, yes, it's bad but the actual
completion of the deed is worse and is properly punished more severely. It is horrible
that someone wishes to kill someone but that they successfully do it is worse.

Post 35

Saturday, May 13, 2006 - 2:07pm

Well, well, look what the cat dragged in! Mike Hardesty, past master of the poisoned pen letter, what are YOU doing on this forum?! Is it the ghost of my Objectivist past coming back to haunt me? Or are you really here in all your infamous anti-American glory?! Evidently, the latter. So, let's see if you have anything sensible to say on THIS topic! You write,

The crime should not be drinking as such but the way you act when driving a car, under the influence or sober.
As if driving under the influence had no effect on the way you act when driving a car. Mike, you need a course in what is commonly called "common sense," a deficiency of which seems to pervade nearly everything you write, unless, of course, you've been WRITING Under the Influence (what influence is that?), which wouldn't surprise me. Your Honor, I pulled Mr. Hardesty over, because he was WUI and a danger to other writers on this forum. [gag]
They have consistently lowered the DUI standards from 0.20 to 0.10 to 0.08 in most states and even 0.05 in several European countries. This is strictly a drug regulatory policy designed to boost police coffers by criminalizing more people.
Of course, of course. Public safety had nothing to with it. This was just one more statist conspiracy to abrogate our rights. Tell that to the mangled victims of these intoxicated killers. Oh, that's right, you can't. They're dead. But, of course, we have to wait until they're actually killed before we can do anything about it.
Many people may be over the arbitrary limits but take care to drive safely and should not be subject to arrest and auto seizure, etc.
The point is that when a driver is intoxicated, he is incapable of careful driving, because his alcohol sopped brain has impaired his reflexes and judgment. Hello!
This is the John Hospers legal paternalism nonsense and is antithetical to the whole concept of individual rights.
You don't have a right to endanger the lives of others by driving a car when you cannot properly control it, any more than I have the right to play Russian roulette with your life by spinning the chamber of a gun that is loaded with a single bullet, pointing the gun at you and pulling the trigger. The fact that I may not kill you is irrelevant.
If a person kills another in a vehicular mishap they can and should be prosecuted for actual homicide. The penalty should be for the actual crime.

Oh, I see, we can't take preventive action; we have to wait for the fait accompli. That makes a lot of sense, doesn't it! It also makes your views on foreign policy a lot more intelligible.

On the FBI agents, many of them have been engaged in illegal activities such as the drug war, infiltrating legal leftist or rightist political groups, questionable so-called white collar crimes and many other laws that violate individual rights. Their covers should be blown.

I think the FBI has a proper function. For example, if a Muslim group is suspected of planning a terrorist attack, the FBI is perfectly justified in gathering information in order to prevent it. The same with rightist and leftist groups with violent agendas. When the Ku Klux Klan was attacking black churches, the FBI had a proper role in infiltrating that organization. The same with leftist organizations, radical environmentalist groups and animal rights activists suspected of orchestrating attacks against research labs.

On criminal intent, yes, it's bad but the actual completion of the deed is worse and is properly punished more severely. It is horrible that someone wishes to kill someone but that they successfully do it is worse.

We have to make a distinction between "worse" morally and "worse" existentially. Yes, a successful attempt is worse than a failed attempt existentially, but not worse morally. As I argued in a previous post, a person is responsible only for his choices, not for whether they succeed or fail, and since what is open to his choice is only the attempt, not its success or failure, there is no basis on which to punish him less for a failed attempt than for a successful one. His moral transgression is as grave in the one case as it is in the other. For example, if I point a loaded gun at you with the clear intent of killing you and pull the trigger, but the gun misfires, my moral transgression is the same as if the gun had not misfired, and, accordingly, my punishment should be the same.

What if I kill someone while driving recklessly? Should my punishment be the same as if I were driving recklessly but had not killed anyone? Here, I think, we have a different situation, because the degree of negligence in the case of vehicular homicide may differ from one in which a motorist is caught driving recklessly but has not harmed anyone in the process. At any rate, we have no evidence that the motorist in the second case would have been so reckless as to run someone down. We cannot therefore accuse him of the same moral gravity. But if the same choice to commit a wrong is evident in a failed attempt as in the case of a successful one, then the punishment should be the same.

- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer
on 5/13, 7:37pm)

Post 36

Saturday, May 13, 2006 - 3:00pm

A little nit-picking here perhaps, Bill, but have to side with Hardesty on the DUI bit - you're trying to do a "one size fits all" crap - no go - we're all individuals, with all that implies, including physiological differences of sustainability.....

Post 37

Saturday, May 13, 2006 - 3:32pm

Bill, is this supposed to be a reasoned argument on your part ? More like reading Binswanger and Schwartz on Rothbard, you
try debunk your own strawmen. Not everyone who drinks is impaired or impaired
in the same way. Since I already postulated that vehicular killing should be treated as a homicide, your comments are besides the point. Not being able to muster any semblance you are reduced to the lowest form of humor, sarcasm.
Anti-American because I oppose the statist
and murderous policies of this infamous government which you apparently equate with
hatred of America ! Pathetic, Bill.
You received a BA from UCB in 1973 when they were fairly common and then started calling yourself a "philosopher." Your philosophy consisted of retread Randroidism
mixed in with Hospersian dimestore linguistic analysis. Your only original argument was on determinism, not a particularly convincing one but the best that you could. Most laws are not concerned with public safety, Billy, but are in fact measures to abrogate our individual rights. The DUI laws are a remnant of prohibition, if they were serious about vehicular killing this would be treated as homicide as I advocated. If a person is actually driving erratically it is one thing to
stop him but not if they aren't. Most DUI
examples are not that of the falling down drunk you recently postulated. Mostly they
are a revenue gimmick like seat belt laws
which violate the rights of people who have committed no crime. Drinking is not a crime.
Well, again, you are wrong about intent. The moral transgression when you ACTUALLY kill someone is worse than intent. But perhaps
your little Catholic boyhood where you were taught that evil thoughts are the same as evil actions still overrides reason here.
I was never part of your Objectivist past, you used to hold forth at a small diner and bill yourself as a philosopher whenever Hospers deigned to publish one of your sophomoric
ventures in triviality. I stopped contact with you in early 77 because I found you to be a bad tempered insufferable bore & poseur.
I wouldn't call it a hate letter. Next time I saw
you in 1985 you sent me some stupid thing you wrote on anarcho-capitalism and I did properly read you the riot act.
Since you have contributed nothing to the foreign policy or historical debates, I really don't think your opinion matters. It's just the same old Archie Bunker Streetcorner Conservative views that you have always held.
Your ignorance of the actual history of the FBI shows again in your failure to deal with the specifics that I criticized them out. You bravely came out against Al Queda.
Bravo, Billy ! What a man !
By preventative or administrative law you are endorsing the transgression against someone who has not committed a crime.
By your logic we could lock up all black males and the crime rate reduction would justify it. Or just lock up everyone.
We do not need an FBI. 90% of what they take credit for is done by local law enforcement and if you read the history of
COINTELPRO you would realize that the FBI took illegal actions against organizations that had committed no crime. Efren Zimbalist
Jr series was not accurate in its betrayal of the
FBI and they along with the CIA should have been abolished a long time ago. Read Howard Zinn's A People's History of The US, read something besides your braindead neocon pubs.
Since the US State is a rogue state and the leading terrorist state in the world, I really don't need apologias from not particularly
bright defenders like yourself.

Post 38

Saturday, May 13, 2006 - 4:02pm

Bill, that guilty until proven innocent nonsense is exactly what you endorse in the DUI laws.
Robert, I did a point by point rebuttal to Bill's
ad hominem attacks and statist legal paternalism arguments. Hopefully, it will show up here soon.

Post 39

Saturday, May 13, 2006 - 7:09pm