You’re saying that BAC is arbitrary but recklessness is recklessness (if I read you right). That I agree with.

I’ve always thought the BAC was a stupid way of determining whether someone’s driving drunk or not.

And if anyone didn’t smell a rat when legal limit was lowered from .1 to .08…

The person who killed that family is guilty of murder (or manslaughter perhaps). The drunk driver who pulverized my father’s vertebrae was guilty of assault.

My point is that a drunk driver who has not injured anyone is no different than a tired driver who hasn’t hurt anyone, or a driver eating a burger who hasn’t hurt anyone, or a driver talking on a cell-phone who hasn’t hurt anyone.

I am not a big fan of preventative laws…

Stephen,

You’ll note that I consider Paris Hilton to have been guilty of tresspassing since the road-owners, in this case an organization calling itself the State of California have a rule that people are not permitted to drive on theipr property with more than a certain amount of alcohol in their veins.

If an agent of a road owner sees someone driving recklessly and hazarding his bosses customers, certainly it is appropriate for him to intervene. Again, in my perfect world this would be handled by fines, perhaps even confiscation of the offending vehicle for serial tresspassers.

You’ll note that while I explained Lew Rockwell’s postion, I extended his analysis to come up with very different conclusions.

As to the street corner randomly firing a gun, it depends. Where are the bullets going, who owns the patch of ground he’s standing on?

So long as the bullets are landing on his own property and are coming nowhere near another person, then yeah, let him plink away. If he’s shooting close enough to people that they feel concerned for their safety, then no, I don’t think he should be permitted to do it. If he does not own the land where his bullets are landing, then of course not, unless he has the owners’ permission. Ditto if he doesn’t own the patch of land he’s standing on.

With that being said, if someone was firing a gun randomly in my neighborhood, and I had the means to stop him, I would, simply because he’s probably violating all three limitations simultaneously. Realistically, I probably would lack the means to stop him and would follow Sir Robin’s brave example.

“I think he is right. So it is not so much the BAC, it is what it leads to. If it leads to actual (not probable) reckless driving then action can be taken. The same can be applied to the guy randomly shooting. He can be punished for that but in the context of this point should he be arrested for carrying a gun because there is a probability that he might shoot it off randomly? Of course not.”

I don’t disagree with any of that. You seemed to have clarified your position by stating that reckless driving is reason enough for action to be taken. It seems that others who have commented here believe that even reckless driving is okay as long as no one gets hurt.

I want to also point out that I was very specific in my examples. I did not mention anything about a BAC level or about an armed citizen carrying a gun (which I whole heartedly support). My examples were not dealing with probabilities but actions (reckless driving and recklessly shooting a firearm)which would be clear and present dangers to the life, liberty, and property of others.

I generally agree that the precautionary principle is a very dangerous one. If taken to an extreme, no one could do anything at anytime without the government’s permission. But if we go too far to the other extreme, anarchy, everyone can do what they want when they want regardless of if the life, liberty, and/or property of others is threatened, this is just as dangerous an extreme.

“So if this is really about impairment, ability, and safety, we’re looking at telling a LOT of currently licensed drivers that they have no business being on the road”.

Exactly! : )

I think a license is too easy to get and at certain ages, people should have to have driving tests if they want to be renewed.

And the difference between the top 20% of drivers and bottom 20% of drivers in terms of ability to drive skillfully and safely is even greater than the difference between your average person ’sober’ and ‘drunk’.

So if this is really about impairment, ability, and safety, we’re looking at telling a LOT of currently licensed drivers that they have no business being on the road.

“Should they have their driver’s licenses revoked too?”

I would say yes to that question. In the case of your friend, it was stupid on her parent’s part to keep giving her a car. 4 cars and 4 crashes before graduating, you would think that by then she wouldn’t even have enough points left on her license to have one.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/drunkdriving.html

I think he is right. So it is not so much the BAC, it is what it leads to. If it leads to actual (not probable) reckless driving then action can be taken. The same can be applied to the guy randomly shooting. He can be punished for that but in the context of this point should he be arrested for carrying a gun because there is a probability that he might shoot it off randomly? Of course not.

The precautionary principle is a bad idea in government. That something bad might happen is not a reason to enact prohibitions. Global warming and gun control are fine examples of this. The problem is that the precautionary principle could be used to justify not getting out of bed in the morning (because something bad might happen) while at the same time justifying not staying in bed (such a sedentary lifestyle might be bad for you). It is rubbish and a bad way of going about legislating things or punishing people.

I have friends and acquaintances who have been in wreck after wreck. One acquaintance was in her 4th car by the time she graduated high school…all caused by her.

Such people, though driving unimpaired by alcohol, are nonetheless more reckless and less able to respond to emergency situations than others.

Should they have their driver’s licenses revoked too?

THIS TIME!!! That’s called being lucky is all. So we should just let people go and keep being lucky until their luck runs out and THEN do something about it?

“Science Daily — New Haven, Conn. — Imaging studies of the brain when it is under the influence of alcohol reveal that different areas of the brain are impaired under high and low levels of alcohol, according to a Yale study published in Neuropsychopharmacology”.

“They speeded up, especially on corners, where most people slow down, and crashed more often into other vehicles.”

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/11/041121215442.htm

“Science Daily — Drivers beware! New research published today in Applied Cognitive Psychology finds that even having just one stiff drink can make you ‘blind drunk.’”

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/07/060721203820.htm

Why do you limit your question to a representative of the State? Is the voluntary society so outside your imagination (odd, considering libertarian posturing) you can’t expand the question and answer it yourself?

Let me get this straight: if a police officer sees a person driving erratically, swerving, or otherwise drives in a manner which threatens others on the road, the police officer has no moral authority to pull this person over because s/he is only a potential harm? Do you also believe that an individual should be able to stand on a street corner and randomly fire a gun (not taking aim at anyone or anything in-particular) without being arrested provided that s/he doesn’t hit anyone or anyone’s property?