Restriction of rights and left/liberalism versus right/conservatism.

[srothstein]

Malam in se vs malam prohibitum?

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

[jason812]

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.

[03Lightningrocks]

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.

[jason812]

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.

I forgot to cut out the DWI part. That would be the same as saying its OK to shoot a gun in the air on the courthouse square and as long as the bullets didn't hit anybody, you good. There is potential to harm someone but thats harder to figure out. Some traffic laws are needed but not all. If you don't want to wear a seat belt, fine with me, just don't ask me to pay for the straw for your wheelchair when you become a lawn dart out the windshield.

[03Lightningrocks]

[srothstein]

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.

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.

[Middle Age Russ]

WIth certain caveats, I am with srothstein. The caveats are important, though... The first caveat is that generally speaking citizens understand that Rights and Liberty require citizens to be responsible -- and accountable for their actions. Harm someone else in any way and it is up to you to make them whole again if at all possible. The second caveat, perhaps really part of the first, is that generally speaking citizens should be counted on to respect the Rights and Liberty of others. Their Rights and Liberty are EVERY BIT as important as yours, and your actions should respect that. The third caveat is that, generally speaking, citizens will behave rationally and from a common understanding of morality and ethics.

In recent history, citizens have readily ceded their Rights and Liberties to Government through various laws and regulations. Many of these laws and regulations would be completely unnecessary if the caveats listed above held true. Alas, they do not hold true due to generations of Government Education, consistent messaging from media sources, apathy due to comfortable living conditions and a variety of other reasons. The switch was thrown in the American consciousness the minute Representatives became viewed as Leaders and then created a Political Class. It'll take a reversal of this condition -- with attendant compensation reforms and term limits to bring back part-time citizen legislators instead of career politicians -- to move us back toward the Rights and Liberty this nation was founded on. We have to find ourselves again as citizens requiring a strictly limited set of Government responsibilities -- and recognizing all other responsibilities are on us -- to get there. I don't see that changing while we are, relatively speaking, fat and happy. The Enlightenment came as a response to the abuses of tyrannical leaders, and we may need a dose of abuse to again weigh individual Rights and Liberty above collective comfort.

[BigGuy]

We will continue to spiral down the drain toward socialism until the American citizen is willing to take responsibility for themselves. The last two generations have been raised to believe the Government is responsible for their safety and prosperity.

[philip964]

The Right has been associated in the past with repressing sexual freedom.
The Left has championed it.

The Right has been associated in the past with repressing drug freedom.
The Left has championed it.

To me the Right likes tried and true methods to solve issues. If it’s not broke don’t fix it. For example the constitution.

To me the Left likes new ways to solve issues. For example communism.

I like pragmatism, do what works. Which can embrace both sides at times.

I also like freedom. So should you be free to kill yourself with drugs? Shout fire in a movie theater?

The Left and Right switch sides. No doubt in colonial times the Right supported the monarchy. The Left wanted freedom from the monarchy. The Republicans supported freedom from slavery. Later the Republicans opposed a war with The Nazis.

I think the best guidance comes from a well know person who Is credited with the golden rule.

[Soccerdad1995]

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.

[K.Mooneyham]

SNIP

To me the Left likes new ways to solve issues. For example communism.

There is NOTHING new about communism. The Communist Manifesto was written in 1848, so it is technically new-er than the Constitution. However, 1848 is obviously quite a long time ago, and communism has been tried in a whole bunch of places and proven not only to not work, but to be about as detrimental as a system can be to the people forced to live under it...with the emphasis on forced.

[03Lightningrocks]

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.

[srothstein]

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.

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.