For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
bobevenson wrote: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.
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 wrote:bobevenson wrote: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
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.bobevenson wrote: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.Ginkgo wrote:bobevenson wrote: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 wrote: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.
When I talk about liberty, I'm talking about human rights, my friend.Ginkgo wrote:bobevenson wrote: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.
No, that's an absolute lie.Bill Wiltrack wrote:Still, it is indisputable that ANY drinking of alcohol greatly impairs one's ability to drive. That is an undeniable fact.
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.bobevenson wrote:When I talk about liberty, I'm talking about human rights, my friend.Ginkgo wrote:bobevenson wrote: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.
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.Ginkgo wrote:
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.
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.Bill Wiltrack wrote:You may be overreacting a bit.