Should all vehicles have mandatory breathalyzers installed?

the system has a major flaw but the authorities havent figured it out yet..your truck has a clutch but you would have to make the ignition system work to get it to run..and it doesnt take much macgyverism to bypass it

 

Some people could bypass anything. I mean some people do rob banks successfully and bypass all the security, but that doesn't mean that the security measures in place are still a 'bad idea' in theory. Nothing has a 100% success fate.

- - - Updated - - -

What 'you want's not really that important when it comes to solving problems in this country. Some libertarians on this board have said they don't want a military, and would rather people pay for their own private military contractors if they want defense from terrorism, but tough beans for them. They need to grow up and realize they aren't that special and the world doesn't exist to hand em everything they want on a platter just because they whine loud enough.

If you can give a good reason why you wouldn't want then go right ahead, if not then no one cares what you have to say, because you're not interested in actually solving any issues in this country, just in acting like a spoiled kid who's never been spanked and thinks the world revolves around them.

If you want to give a real pros/cons argument to something, then go right ahead - if your only argument is "i don't like it" then build a bridge and get over with it. Sell your car and ride a bike, you aren't entitled to own a car to begin with unless you want to build your own, it's a privilege.

 

No one is forcing you to buy or rent a place to live. Does that mean your residence should be required to have government surveillance in it? I mean if we're going to violate the fourth amendment lets just go all out. Why bother having rights if your property requires a search before you can use it?

Sayings are fun, but why don't you address these items? Why would any of them not be acceptable? They follow your logic so I'm not sure why you don't support them.

I fail to see why consent is a concern. If you want to save lives through government then why does it matter if someone say they are willing to take a risk? Also by this standard why are cars and other pollutants allowed? I didn't consent to breathing in car exhaust, yet others are forcing it on me. I never had a choice.

No, libertarians base their philosophy on the idea that people should generally be free to live as they wish so long as they don't harm others and the government should not get involved until an actual wrong is being committed. Rather than see individuals as guilty until proven innocent as you are assuming with required DUI tests, libertarians tend to believe that people should be considered innocent until proven guilty. You only think it's irrational because the ideas of freedom, small intrusiveness government, and innocence before guilt are foreign to you. Rather than see the government as a sandbox which gives people the infrastucture to grow, you see it as a tool to enforce your will on others. Until you can see past your own beliefs you will continue to see libertarians as irrational. I say it is you who is irrational though, as you are not even trying to follow a straight line of thought. There seem to be no rules, just what you think is best.

Oh I know the difference, I'm simply providing you an example of laws that can be created with the logic you have put forward. You may not like it but when you base your beliefs off of what you think is best rather than a principled system you can easily justify anything, and at that point why bother with rights or any guarantee of separation between you and your property and government? That's the point I'm making. Utilitarianism to such a degree goes against the very concept of a free nation because it doesn't care about freedom at all, only what seems to be the best solution to a (likely non-)problem. Liberal policies are great examples of your belief system in action, filled with unintended consequences and people feeling like their freedom has been stepped on for no reason as well as wasteful of resources.

- - - Updated - - -

Why even go that route? At the point that it's installed on every car the infrastructure to monitor them would be such a nightmare that you'd certainly be able to disable it without issue. Instructions would be all over the internet.

 

That's apples to oranges, and I would not support surveillence because I can think of ways in which it would cause demonstrable harm. Ex. A corrupt employee spying on your email could steal your identity, or financial information if it was included in your emails.

I gave my reasons. Being out in the sun only harms the person doing it. And being in a contact sport is a choice, being a victim of a drunk driver is not.

You see everything in terms of black and white, I see things in shades of gray - that's the difference.

I have guidelines, I just don't see everything in black and white like many libertarians do. Too much consistency is just as bad as having none at all. Take a look at PETA for example - they'd probably rather have the entire human race die off than dare experiment on lab rats because in their mind "harming animals is morally wrong 100% of the time".

Instructions on how to make pressure cooker bombs are on the internet, that doesn't mean that making and detonating a weapon of mass destruction should be legal. But hey if it came down to it, it'd be better to just police the internet more than to use the existence of the internet as a justification for anarchy.

 

you are not disabling it just bypass the start up procedures..

 

You give conservatism a bad name.

 

This is a hypothetical scenario. What if it was a state govt passing this legislature rather than the federal govt - I was talking about a specific type of legislature, not a specific govt enforcing the law.

But tell me how trying to prevent crime is not 'conservative'.

 

So its all fine and dandy if your precious states passed these ridiculously oppressive laws.

 

Better idea, if arrested for drunk driving make it attempted murder and then have a mandatory minimum sentence (at least five years) eliminate the ability to plea bargain it down.

 

What's oppressive about it, be specific?

- - - Updated - - -

I disagree - "attempted murder" means the person intended to try to kill a person (ex. tried to run someone over with his car), so that'd be stretching the definition of murder or attempted murder.

 

With the explicit condition that a person has been convicted of a DUI, yes, I agree. I knew several people convicted of DUI's that continued to drive and some of them wound up causing additional accidents and some of them didn't. To get caught while driving intoxicated in reality means that you drove while intoxicated at least 10 times in the past.

 

How about your "collective" SEVERELY punish individuals who ACTUALLY violate someone else's natural rights...
INSTEAD of ceding the state MORE and MORE and MORE authority to layer on MORE and MORE and MORE [rent seeking] feel good, blanket, preemptive punishment laws on the off chance someone's natural rights MIGHT be violated.

What was your opinion on the progressive left's gun grabbing hysteria after Sandy Hook?

What you're suggesting in the OP is absolutely no different.

 

I agree, although I do take a drink once in a while, I never drive when impaired.

Anyone who gets caught DUI, throw their ass in jail for 5 years.

If they cause an accident while DUI, crucify them upside down along the side of the road with a sign on them that reads "This is what happens to DUI's"

And leave them there till the crows pick their bones clean.

That'll get people's undivided attention.

 

I don't get it, so being crucified is less of a 'violation of someone's rights' than having a car breathalyzer? I don't see the logic here.

- - - Updated - - -

I disagree - I'd say if someone was advocating banning cars, or banning cars that go over a certain top speed just to 'prevent accidents', that'd be a fairer comparison.

 

The best law breaking deterrent is police presence.

In Australia, every police car has a breath analyser and the police have the power to stop any motorist for a breath analysis, even if no law has been broken. Police also set up breath analysis stations (which Aussies affectionately call the 'Booze Bus") and pull motorists over in mass.

Public holidays like Xmas and Easter are renown for high driving fatalities, so the Booze Bus is extremely visible. One can go a year without being pulled over, then get pulled over twice in the same day. I've been pulled over within 20 minutes on the same night. Most drivers in Australia don't mind being pulled over, it only takes about 30 seconds, occasionally police will do a licence check, and the police are usually in good humour.

 

NO. NO. NO!!!. If one ACTUALLY harms someone else (violates their natural rights) because they chose to drive under the influence, THEN make it attempted murder, etc.

Why give the state more arbitrary authority to severely punish you for harming NO ONE?

"common good"?

 

They were advocating blanket banning so called "assault rifles" to "prevent" another Sandy Hook. Identical.

You're a "common good" state collectivist. My initial comment stands.

 

It's not apples an oranges, it's the same thing; searching people under the assumption that they are guilty. Certainly we both agree that such a search could be harmful, but were we are having an issue is on with our property rights and governments authority to conduct searches. To that end both scenarios are the same.

So that is your line then? It's a respectable line, that you can do as you wish so long as you don't hurt others, but I'm curious because I want to know how you can justify searching everyone that drives because a small population chooses to drink and drive and an even smaller part is injured by this, but when it comes to individuals making choices that may endanger themselves you're fine with them being harmed and killed. It could, however, be said that someone who walks outside has a reasonable expectation of being hit by a drunk driver the same as they do getting skin cancer. We all know that drunks are out there, and that so long as we walk along and cross the street we can be injured or killed by drivers drunk or sober. Of course the logical conclusion of this, if we're going to go into utilitarian land, is to ban POVs. Drunk drivers aren't exactly the cause of all or even most traffic accidents and fatalities.

No I understand the shades of gray are there, I simply have my principles. There is a point where I will not agree with something because I see it as crossing a line. Requiring people to be searched before using their property is one of those lines. Yeah it may save a few lives, but it sets up the precedence for pointless utilitarian invasion which will likely be be a meaningless, costly pain in the ass that could result in my imprisonment if I don't follow the new pointless rules, much like what you are proposing.

PETA violates their own principles; their VB uses insulin that comes from animal products. That and all the animals they kill. Anyway you are confusing seeing black and white with having principles. They are two entirely different things. People seeing black and white are the same people who ask me why I'm for legalizing murder when I say there should be less law. Having principles is why I oppose being searched before using my property.

You missed my point, and brought up a side issue that I'll try to avoid (how the term WMD has become meaningless). The point is that enforcement would be difficult and expensive. How do you ensure every car in America has a breathalyzer installed and that it is functioning properly? How do you ensure that people haven't simply bypassed the system?

 

Then a better answer still would be the bartenders assuming responsibility. You have a certain number of shots, you blow.

 

How about just outlawing any drinking and driving, that way you don't have to worry about this level or that level.
Any alcohol at all in your blood and you do a year in jail, and lose your license for 10 years.
And the second offense is really serious.

 

Absolutely not . It's amazing how many Americans are willing to sacrifice freedom for a false sense of security .

 

Spacecricket,

you should set up your own precrimes unit under Obama. Get the Tom Cruise haircut and it would be just like minority report.

 

Precrimes is such a perfect word to describe the times. I'm always amazed bt the myriad ways people will justify their own enslavement.

 

What about undercover sting operations designed to catch child predators online, do you consider that tyrannical?

 

If you can explain what 'right' would be taken away if a car was equipped with a breathalyzer then I'm game for that. Comparing it to gun grabbing is a bad analogy because it wouldn't prevent anyone from owning or driving a car. It'd be more akin to the restriction on felons (even non-violent felons) owning guns.

Not to mention there were no statistics that backed up that legal assault weapon owners had a high rate of using them to commit murder.