TexasCHLforum.com

03Lightningrocks wrote: ↑Fri Nov 27, 2020 12:35 amUnfettered drug use and distribution would undoubtedly lead to more crime as those who become addicted and slowly destroy their lives would soon have to rely on taking those funds from others to feed their addiction. Again, one could argue that we all suffer from those who choose to take drugs. I suppose the question is if drug laws do anything to dissuade drug use. Maybe some kind of regulation similar to alcohol but then you are right back to government involvement.

There are no laws requiring helmets in Texas. One issue I have with not requiring seat belts is that insurance rates would be significantly higher due to higher claim costs from those not wearing seat belts. One is far more likely to suffer injury in an accident when not buckled up. In essence, we all would pay higher insurance so people can choose to live vicariously while performing a task that is again, a privilege, not a right. One could easily make the argument that choosing to not wear a seat belt inflicts financial harm on everyone.

The problem I have with this type of argument (generalized harm to society) is that they can be used to justify anything. They are based on a real moral question of whether or not I owe anyone else in society a duty. But look more closely at the other parts of the question and they fall apart anyway. In the first one, we have already stipulated that no crime committed while under the influence of the drugs, or to get the money to pay for the drugs, is excused simply because there was drugs involved. A burglary or robbery is a crime and why the person committed the crime should make no difference to the penalty. This will do more to lower the drug use, IMO, than any drug law does.

In the second question, you are concerned about the effect on insurance rates. But that presumes that we would still have mandatory insurance, which would not match with my proposed law scheme. As a matter of fact, under the concept of contributory negligence, you might see claim values go down. You caused the accident but their decision to not wear a seat belt contributed to the injuries. They are then responsible for the portion of the injuries attributed to their decision not to wear seat belts.

And as a very minor technical correction, we do require motorcycle helmets in Texas. You are exempt from the requirement if you meet two conditions:
1. You are at least 21 years of age
2. You either have health insurance to pay for your injuries OR you have completed a motorcycle safety foundation learn to ride course.

Police cannot stop someone just to see if they have health insurance or have passed a course, but they can check it if they stop them for some other reason.This has the net effect of making helmets optional for those over 21 in most cases, but for older riders or people without the motorcycle endorsement on their license, they are much more likely to be required to have a helmet. Interestingly, if they have a helmet on, the police can stop them to see if it is a properly approved helmet. They can also stop to see if the person is 21 if they do not have the helmet on.

03Lightningrocks wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 7:33 pmI was with you all the up to the part about DWI/DUI. Unfortunately there are a VERY large number of folks out there who would drive intoxicated if not for the threat of going to jail. Driving is NOT a right, it is a privilege and as such is a legitimate activity to be regulated by laws. Waiting until some idiot kills my family to put a stop to them driving under the influence just does not cut it.

This is the problem with my trying to be internally consistent and logical. I don't particularly like drunks, having been hospitalized by one in the past. But if I am to believe in the concept of no harm - no foul, I have to say that I don't see a problem with driving drunk if no one has any close calls or accidents. from it.

Compare it to another offense, if it makes it easier to see. If I am driving at three in the morning and am the only car moving in a neighborhood, why should I stop at a red light and wait for the light to cycle? Why not just make sure the way is clear and go through it? If I drive through it at 5:30 p.m. during rush hour traffic, I might make it but would have so many close calls, that it should be illegal. To me, the same basic concept goes for the DWI. If I drink at my neighborhood bar, and drive home at 2;00 a.m. in a neighborhood and don't hit anything or cause any close calls scaring other people, what harm have I caused?

If it helps, please know that I realize we cannot just change the laws to this concept right away. Our society will take years of education to get to this point. Using the DWI as a continuing example, one of the causes of our DWI problem are the rest of the alcohol laws. So, if we take a really good kid, who grew up obeying the law, he has had no alcoholic drinks until his 21st birthday. And then we expect him to magically be able to understand how alcohol affects his body and be able to handle it and recognize it as he starts to drink. But one of the problems with alcohol being a central nervous system depressant is that it will affect the drinker's judgement. And that takes some experience to be able to handle. So we would need to ease into the new legal situation and let people grow up with different rules.

Basically, I have to educate people that freedom is dangerous and requires you to be responsible for your actions. While I do believe that almost all people could handle this, I think many will require an adjusting period. As with many significant changes, this has to be planned carefully and eased into over a period of time.

K.Mooneyham wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 12:03 pmMalam in se vs malam prohibitum?

Yes, i am not a big fan of malum prohibitum at all.

cbunt1 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 23, 2020 9:00 pmNot sure where I land on the official right/left Continuum.

I think the problem of trying to place most people on the right left continuum is that it is what logic calls a false dichotomy. Most people do not realize that it is a dichotomy because they think of it as a continuous line allowing for multiple choices. I think it is still a dichotomy because it doesn't allow for people who do not belong on the line.

For example, where on the line do you put true libertarians? Are they right wing because they believe in no limits on guns or left wing because they believe in no limit on immigration? In reality, the political spectrum is at least a plane, if not three dimensional (to keep within the geometric analogy).

My beliefs are more simply stated. I believe in freedom. Government's sole function is to protect me from predators, either external like an invading army or internal like criminals. It is not to protect me from my own decisions. It is not to protect me from nature or to help me if something else does happen to me. I don't like taxes, but I recognize that they are necessary for even those minimal functions of government.

And this gets me to what I think a crime should be. The only crimes that we should have are those where my actions cause harm to another person. It might be physical injury, it might be financial injury, and it might be mental injury (though this last requires extreme care - offending someone is not an injury but threatening them is). And if there is not a specific person that can be shown to be harmed, it should not be a crime. So, to use the previously mentioned DWI example, driving with any alcohol in your system should not be illegal unless it causes an accident. A distinct near miss causing a person to think the accident was imminent though they took action to avoid it could still be illegal, but just driving home from the bar with no close calls or accidents would be fine even if the driver's BAC was .24.

So, I think Oregon was right even if it was the wrong reasons - no drugs should be illegal. If you want to kill yourself by sticking a needle in your arm, you should be allowed to. This doesn't excuse committing any other crime to pay for the habit but the habit should not be illegal.

And to put this in line with the original concept of the thread, I do not believe in any positive rights, just negative rights. You have the right to be free of others interfering in your life but you do not have the right to any other person's work output, either directly or through the government collecting taxes to pay for it.