How Government Whittles Away Freedom

[bobevenson]

The U.S. National Transportation Safety Board recommended Tuesday that states lower their threshold for drunken driving from 0.08 to 0.05 blood alcohol with the goal of reducing alcohol-related fatal chrashes, which have held steady for much of the past 15 years.

[Ginkgo]

The U.S. National Transportation Safety Board recommended Tuesday that states lower their threshold for drunken driving from 0.08 to 0.05 blood alcohol with the goal of reducing alcohol-related fatal chrashes, which have held steady for much of the past 15 years.

We actually went from .08 to .05 about thirty years ago.

Ginkgo

[bobevenson]

The U.S. National Transportation Safety Board recommended Tuesday that states lower their threshold for drunken driving from 0.08 to 0.05 blood alcohol with the goal of reducing alcohol-related fatal chrashes, which have held steady for much of the past 15 years.

We actually went from .08 to .05 about thirty years ago.

Ginkgo

Why should the givernment stop at .05? Drop it down to 0.0, and people will be afraid to drive after a single beer. It's the same with guns. You give the government any concession at all, and it will never be enough, so you might as well draw a line in the sand from the very beginning.

[Ginkgo]

The U.S. National Transportation Safety Board recommended Tuesday that states lower their threshold for drunken driving from 0.08 to 0.05 blood alcohol with the goal of reducing alcohol-related fatal chrashes, which have held steady for much of the past 15 years.

We actually went from .08 to .05 about thirty years ago.

Ginkgo

Why should the government stop at .05? Drop it down to 0.0, and people will be afraid to drive after a single beer. It's the same with guns. You give the government any concession at all, and it will never be enough, so you might as well draw a line in the sand from the very beginning.

It is a no win situation for governments and the judiciary trying to balance negative liberty against positive liberty. The demand for the recognition of rights will invariably result in some other group complaining that their rights have now been compromised.

http://www.plato.stanford.edu/entries/l ... -negative/



Ginkgo

[bobevenson]

Your link doesn't come up, but there is only one kind of liberty, and that's the liberty of living one's life without interference from the government other than for negative behavior that directly impinges upon the lives of others.

[Ginkgo]

Your link doesn't come up, but there is only one kind of liberty, and that's the liberty of living one's life without interference from the government other than for negative behavior that directly impinges upon the lives of others.

There is actually two because it is impossible to have one without the other, except perhaps in a totalitarian society.

[bobevenson]

Your link doesn't come up, but there is only one kind of liberty, and that's the liberty of living one's life without interference from the government other than for negative behavior that directly impinges upon the lives of others.

There is actually two because it is impossible to have one without the other, except perhaps in a totalitarian society.

When I talk about liberty, I'm talking about human rights, my friend.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.






...............................................................................




This is an interesting topic.





If passed, these lower blood alcohol rates would devastate restaurants, bars & grilles. These businesses are extremely fragile now because of the extended downturn in the economy.


On top of that, get-togethers at friends and relatives homes would be greatly impacted and would become even more seldom. Birthdays, summer cook-outs, holidays ALL have an element of alcohol for most Americans.



Still, it is indisputable that ANY drinking of alcohol greatly impairs one's ability to drive. That is an undeniable fact.






...it is interesting that at the same time more & more states are making marijuana legal.


Perhaps smoking & driving is the new thing?





..............................................................................................................




.

[bobevenson]

Still, it is indisputable that ANY drinking of alcohol greatly impairs one's ability to drive. That is an undeniable fact.

No, that's an absolute lie.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.


Perhaps YOU feel like you can drive better after a few...but...



...............................................................That might be streeeetching the truth.


Alcohol impairs your judgement.


Alcohol slooooows down your ability to react.



Alcohol affects your motor skills; your eye-hand coordination.




.

[bobevenson]

Bill Wiltrack wrote: "Still, it is indisputable that ANY drinking of alcohol greatly impairs one's ability to drive. That is an undeniable fact." That's a fat lie coming from a thick tongue. You are saying that a sip of beer greatly impairs your ability to drive. Were you drunk when you wrote that, or are you just plain stupid?

[Bill Wiltrack]

.


If drunk or stupid are the only two choices I have I'm going to go with stupid.


Stupid would be more right more often.


In my defense,... it is indisputable that ANY drinking of alcohol greatly impairs one's ability to drive. That is an undeniable fact, are connotative statements. I could argue that I am right.



....too, you may be overreacting a bit. I think you can understand my gist so to speak.






........................................................................





.

[Ginkgo]

Your link doesn't come up, but there is only one kind of liberty, and that's the liberty of living one's life without interference from the government other than for negative behavior that directly impinges upon the lives of others.

There is actually two because it is impossible to have one without the other, except perhaps in a totalitarian society.

When I talk about liberty, I'm talking about human rights, my friend.

If you are talking about human rights then in instance you are probably talking about 'natural rights', or those rights contained within the first 10 amendments ts to the U.S. Constitution. However, this only changes the argument to a legal one because we still need to view these rights in terms of positive and negative.

In other words, natural rights need to be given a means of meaningful expression and the only way of doing this is through law and legislation. Once we have undertaken this codification process, we are then confronted with some type of positive and negative implication. That's what happens in a democratic society.

[bobevenson]

If you are talking about human rights then in instance you are probably talking about 'natural rights', or those rights contained within the first 10 amendments ts to the U.S. Constitution. However, this only changes the argument to a legal one because we still need to view these rights in terms of positive and negative. In other words, natural rights need to be given a means of meaningful expression and the only way of doing this is through law and legislation. Once we have undertaken this codification process, we are then confronted with some type of positive and negative implication. That's what happens in a democratic society.

You can mince words all day long, but you can never refute that government is, always has been, and always will be the the natural enemy of liberty.

[bobevenson]

You may be overreacting a bit.

I am not overreacting. For the government to say that a particular level of blood alcohol makes you unfit to drive is pure lunacy. For a particular level of blood alcohol, some people will be able to meet any driving standard you specify, while others fail miserably. To base driving fitness on a blood alcohol level is preposterous beyond belief, and anybody who supports this kind of law has absolutely no respect for liberty or human rights.