TexasCHLforum.com

Soccerdad1995 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 2:56 pm Some things are challenging, like impaired driving. But maybe we could start with a simple premise. Laws should not be passed to keep up from harming only ourselves, or those other adults who are consenting to participate in the action.

That would take away laws against drug use / sale (to adults), mandatory seat belt / helmet use (again for adults), etc. That alone would save us a ton of rss that we currently spend on enforcing those laws.

Unfettered 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.

jason812 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 7:23 pm

srothstein wrote: ↑Mon Nov 23, 2020 11:25 pm
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.

With all you wrote but especially this. Have you noticed generally a crime against the government is punished harsher than a physical crime against a fellow man?

Maybe I'm a Constitutionalist and not Libertarian. I could almost call the Libertarian party the anarchy party. No borders would be just that, anarchy. While we have too many laws, they seem to want no laws.

I 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.

Middle Age Russ wrote: ↑Fri Nov 20, 2020 9:24 am Another absolute truth is that those we loosely term Liberals these days are NOT liberal in the classic sense. The Left is instead Progressive, or Statist, or Collectivist, or Socialist, and all of these put the collective "good" -- as defined by those in power -- over the individual Rights of the People. As such, if Conservative is the other end of the scale, Conservatives put the individual Rights of the People over the "good" of the many.

Perfect description in the difference between the two.