I don't post much, but need to vent/breathe and write something with the hope that someone will read this. My ex just got a 7th DUI a/k/a drunk driving. He was on probation while kinda skating on his, 4th, 5th, and 6th, which he served concurrently in prison for 22 months.
Anarchy and drunk driving @Mr. Fix's opine wanted.
I'm not Mr Fix, but I must respond to the implied question; Does anarchy address criminal behavior such as piloting a missile while drunk? Anarchy is best described as a form of government without the need or desire for rulers, while recognizing the need for a code of acceptable conduct with penalties for infractions. Banishment seems appropriate for this miscreant for the health of the community. This punishment is and was practiced, by anarchic communities to great effect. Think of being turned out of your family/village with the clothes on your back and if lucky a sack lunch, facing the world totally alone; with the assurance any further contact would be considered hostile and deadly force could be used to thwart the attack.
literally means without a king or ruler. It doesn't mean chaos.
One has the right, under natural law, to live and do as they wish - - as long as they do not harm others or violate their natural rights.
Does a repeat drunk driver have to actually kill or cripple someone before he is incarcerated ? No, he has proven himself a clear & present danger to others.
It sounds like you made the right choice in making this individual an 'ex'.
Some people refuse to be helped and refuse to change.
i know of a guy in NC who got life for his 10th conviction.
the sentencing guidelines they use are absurd. The are based solely on blood levels. Booze is like any other drug. The more your used to it the less it's effect ur ability. It doesn't take into account tolerance. Some folks can be falling down drunk after 2 drinks ans other can function well after many many more.
Plus if you have a drop in you and are in an accident. Your guilty regardless of the facts. Not only that, you can be charged for walking under the influence ....
If he was only arrested and found guilty for DUI, than both Libertarians and Anarchists believe that the state does not have the authority to arrest through force a person who has not destroyed any property, not injured anybody, and there is no loss of human life. The crime as stated is simply that he was driving under the influence of a substance that the state has outlawed being in your blood while participating in certain activities. My comments only relate to DUI and not any other crime that may have been committed.
Essentially, DUI is criminalizing the content of your blood. The government has two ways of finding DUI persons 1) Random road checks, an overt violation of the Constitution 2) Pulling one over for what the state deems as dangerous driving (A pre-emptive act which is not embraced by anarchists and most versions of libertarian )and/or for being suspected of other violations and then the police determine that you show indications of being drunk.
The issue of drunk driving for anarchists and libertarians is same as texting while driving. Libertarians acknowledge the statistics that texting is extremely dangerous. But they also acknowledge that more laws against texting is not a deterrent. Obviously, somebody with 7 prosecutions is not deterred by the law. So they are right on. Again, nothing in the constitution about phones and Facebook. In short, they don’t believe that government authority, and force should be how these things are handled, texting or drinking.
Unfortunately, the complexity of the case doesn’t end there because one has to decide whether driving is a privilege or a right for the application of a legitimate authority’ (vs defecto authority) to come in to assert power over an offender. There are two sides to that argument but currently the Supreme court considers driving on common roadways an inalienable right. So much so that the Supreme Court has decided that no license issued by the state is necessary to drive on common roads. Try telling that to the guy with a gun and a badge who is stopping you.
But here is the rub as it applies to drunk driving.
"The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a common right which he has under his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Under this constitutional guaranty one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct."
And while Libertarians will tell you that if no crime has been committed (act against another) than a law preventing a non-crime is unnecessary authority. I can't argue that point but that only handles the criminal element not the tacit social contract which calls for an “orderly and decent manner” which might imply in a safe manner, none of which have been adequately defined. The issue law cannot handle is the fact each person has a different capability. Safe driving for Dale Uncer is different than it is for Granny. In a society where anarchy rules, it is up to the individual to determine what he can safely do and not do. Clearly, all those who texted or drank and killed others did not have the ability to determine for themselves whether or not their actions were dangerous.
I personally have an issue with people that text and drive while blasted. However, my view on those things including not much compassion for those that risk the life of others by giving a shout out on Facebook, is different from my looking at it from a standpoint of natural law.
I think Green Lantern summed it up up fairly well. Anarchism is based on common law.
So while I believe it's wrong criminalize the contents of somebody's blood, you can certainly hold anyone accountable for their actions, but only if there's a victim involved.
When injuries or property damage occurs, somebody is liable. But if there are no victims, there is no crime.
I've been sober now for nearly 30 years, but prior to that, I probably would have failed a breathalyzer at any point in time.
I didn't just have a drinking addiction, I also had a driving addiction. Seems like I was always running from myself.
In all irony, in those days, I was probably less dangerous with a good buzz, then I was detoxing, which would create convulsive shaking, and hallucinations.
My compulsive drinking started when I was only seven years old and I started driving my car the day after I turned 16.
When I was 29, and after logging nearly 1,000,000 miles stone cold drunk, I learned how to do it without a decent buzz. I must say, that was a rather terrifying experience.
I know society has been trained to think that anyone with a blood alcohol content above a legal limit is driving a weapon that will inevitably kill someone. I consider that to be propaganda, when a cop finds a drunk driver, it's a windfall profit for the town.
I still drive the same car that I drove the day after I turned sixteen. My father has wrecked it. My mother has wrecked it.
My wife has wrecked it, and my daughter has wrecked it. I just keep fixing it, because I seem to be particularly attached to that car.
I have yet to put a scratch in it, and have never considered myself a danger to anyone. There were countless occasions when the authorities would have thought very differently.
Don't do to other people things that you would not like done to you.
It's the only real law society needs.
I've posted on this particular topic countless times on DOTS, and I'm not even sure why I only now discovered this thread.
You'd think I would have recognized my name in the title of the forum by now.
I'm sorry it took so long.