What Do Libertarians Say?

[beantownbubba]

Yeah, I'm gonna risk it. Call it an experiment to see if we can have a civil, substantive convo.

There's a new law in MA that prohibits texting while driving.

OT1H, it seems like yet another unnecessary regulation, right? I personally would like to believe that there's no reason for a law like this, just legislating common sense.

OTOH, it appears people have NO common sense. We all know people who text while driving, we've all probably seen people in the next lane doing it. Hell, some of the people reading this undoubtedly text while driving.

Presumably we can agree that texting while driving is flat out dangerous. And not just to the texter. In fact it's probably more like drunk driving, where it seems the drunk always survives, but the family of 5 in the mini van is all dead. So shouldn't we, the general public, be protected from stupidity and dangerous behavior which it has been widely proven WILL occur if people are left to their own, ummm, devices? Or should freedom and less government win out?

I'd really like to think we don't need this law, I don't want to think that this law is a good idea, but I can't quite get there. What sayeth you, oh wise freedom fighting libertarians?

[Smitty]

I don't text so it doesn't really affect me one way or the other, but some things are just pointless to argue about when it comes to public safety. Is it worth giving up your right to text behind the wheel to save someone's life? I'd say so. The only "problem" I see with this is it would be hard to enforce.
Seat belt laws, OTOH, are an entirely different story, but it's a pointless argument so I won't go there.

[Flea]

Quite frankly, it wouldn't break my heart if cops could issue citations for anyone observed using a cell behind the wheel.

[The Black Canary]

Oh BigDaddy I knew you were going to bring this up!!!!

The old woman, after appeal still got $800K for hot coffee on her VJJ, cause she did not think hot coffee meant hot and now every place that serves hot coffee now has to have a written warning on their cups that their hot coffee is hot. Common sense didn't apply then, so why would it apply now.

[LuthierJustin]

I think most libertarians would be for this law, what do libertarians stand for? No law impeding life, liberty or freedom, and this law isn't. If libertarians ran the country there would still be speed limits because some people are too stupid to follow the rules of the road and you don't want them crashing into you at 120 mph. There would still be seatbelt laws, if you get into an accident and get thrown 200 feet, 1. its a mess to clean you off the road, lots of tax payer dollars gone to waste, and 2. its a hazard for other divers. Libertarians are about logic.

[Steve French]

Yeah, I'm gonna risk it. Call it an experiment to see if we can have a civil, substantive convo.

There's a new law in MA that prohibits texting while driving.

OT1H, it seems like yet another unnecessary regulation, right? I personally would like to believe that there's no reason for a law like this, just legislating common sense.

OTOH, it appears people have NO common sense. We all know people who text while driving, we've all probably seen people in the next lane doing it. Hell, some of the people reading this undoubtedly text while driving.

Presumably we can agree that texting while driving is flat out dangerous. And not just to the texter. In fact it's probably more like drunk driving, where it seems the drunk always survives, but the family of 5 in the mini van is all dead. So shouldn't we, the general public, be protected from stupidity and dangerous behavior which it has been widely proven WILL occur if people are left to their own, ummm, devices? Or should freedom and less government win out?

I'd really like to think we don't need this law, I don't want to think that this law is a good idea, but I can't quite get there. What sayeth you, oh wise freedom fighting libertarians?

We just passed that law here this year. Basically the problem is common sense is not common.

No handheld mobile phones here while driving either.

[Steve French]

Oh, and we drive on the correct side of the road i.e. left.

[The Black Canary]

I think most libertarians would be for this law, what do libertarians stand for? No law impeding life, liberty or freedom, and this law isn't. If libertarians ran the country there would still be speed limits because some people are too stupid to follow the rules of the road and you don't want them crashing into you at 120 mph. There would still be seatbelt laws, if you get into an accident and get thrown 200 feet, 1. its a mess to clean you off the road, lots of tax payer dollars gone to waste, and 2. its a hazard for other divers. Libertarians are about logic.

This is a MA state law that goes into effect tomorrow I believe and we do have seat belt laws. Not a lot of logic here in MA, have you heard of "The Big Dig?"

[Zip City]

Right. Libertarians are generally in favor of laws where one person's actions affect another's negatively, but against laws that prohibit activity that isn't harmful to anyone but the person doing it.

[The Black Canary]

Right. Libertarians are generally in favor of laws where one person's actions affect another's negatively, but against laws that prohibit activity that isn't harmful to anyone but the person doing it.

Isn't that sort of Amish? While the act itself may harm another it is the person doing the act that is actually harming themselves?

[LuthierJustin]

Oh, and we drive on the correct side of the road i.e. left.

its only correct because you're backwards

[Smitty]

Right. Libertarians are generally in favor of laws where one person's actions affect another's negatively, but against laws that prohibit activity that isn't harmful to anyone but the person doing it.

Isn't that sort of Amish? While the act itself may harm another it is the person doing the act that is actually harming themselves?

Wow that scrambled my brain the first two times I read it.

[Zip City]

the idea is that if you smoke pot in your home while eating Cool Ranch Doritos and watching Donnie Darko, it should be legal.

if you smoke pot and then go to work and run a forklift, it should be illegal

[Steve French]

the idea is that if you smoke pot in your home while eating Cool Ranch Doritos and watching Donnie Darko, it should be legal.

if you smoke pot and then go to work and run a forklift, it should be illegal

if you harm someone while under the influence. If you just drive it really slowly and say "Wow, all these boxes are AMAZING colours, and hey is anyone hungry" then no harm, no foul.

[Erdlivz]

Seems dangerous as hell. I find myself doing it, at times. Motorcycle helmets, seat belts, cell phones. To me the texting while driving is the only one that harms others. Enforce that shit! Hell, in a year or so (I think Ford already has a car capable) we'll be able to update Facebook, text someone and so forth by voice through a dashboard console or on the fucking iPhone 5 next July that will snag me in and unload my cash, again.

[Fool No Where]

I'm not sure I'm libertarian, but i'll take a dip. Wreckless driving is already illegal. Unless you have enough cops enforcing existing laws, cell phone laws seems little more than political posturing. As far as the protecting us from other morons argument, perhaps we should do a better job of not shortening the sentences of convicted morons before we concern ourselves with otherwise law abiding citizens.

[The Black Canary]

I'm not sure I'm libertarian, but i'll take a dip. Wreckless driving is already illegal. Unless you have enough cops enforcing existing laws, cell phone laws seems little more than political posturing. As far as the protecting us from other morons argument, perhaps we should do a better job of not shortening the sentences of convicted morons before we concern ourselves with otherwise law abiding citizens.

Part of the reasoning, now mind you I have only started briefing case law so bear with me. If you cause an accident and are found at fault, but it can be proven via dumping the other parties phone that they were indeed texting on their phone then the liability is less and you may even have cause for wreckless behavior causing extreme bodily harm and emotional distress.

Because techincally you should not have been texting while driving, so therefore; you are at fault since you should not have been on the road at that time to begin with ergo, if you were not there, on the road, texting there would have been no accident, because you were not suppose to be there.

I could also be completely off and need to use my law dictionary more!!!!

[Zip City]

Certainly if we had European DUI laws then we'd have far fewer fatalities in this country.

[beantownbubba]

I'm not sure I'm libertarian, but i'll take a dip. Wreckless driving is already illegal. Unless you have enough cops enforcing existing laws, cell phone laws seems little more than political posturing. As far as the protecting us from other morons argument, perhaps we should do a better job of not shortening the sentences of convicted morons before we concern ourselves with otherwise law abiding citizens.

Yeah, FNW, that was one of the thoughts I had - don't existing laws like reckless driving or driving to endanger cover this? I think the counter argument is that given how commonplace texting actually is, maybe it's not even considered reckless, or more to the point, maybe a jury would conclude that it's not even though you were in an accident. Perhaps this type of law can be read as really saying "we as a society have concluded that texting while driving is inherently reckless." Or let's look at it another way, outside the accident context: You're just driving along texting, miraculously staying in your lane and a cop sees u. Can he cite u for reckless driving in the absence of a specific texting law? Should he be able to?

[sactochris]

Is it true that a libertarian is a republican who smokes pot?

[Penny Lane]

Certainly if we had European DUI laws then we'd have far fewer fatalities in this country.

because of the lower BAC level? just wondering...

[Cotter]

What are the penalties associated with it? Are they as harsh as drunk driving?

Me, I'm for anything that takes away from drunk driving enforcement.

[bovine knievel]

Me, I'm for anything that takes away from drunk driving enforcement.

I think folks need to practice their drunk driving skills.

[Zip City]

What are the penalties associated with it? Are they as harsh as drunk driving?

Me, I'm for anything that takes away from drunk driving enforcement.

I think first time offenders get mandatory 90 days in jail. It's pretty harsh.

Consequently, the # of DUI arrests/fatalities is miniscule

[Cotter]

What are the penalties associated with it? Are they as harsh as drunk driving?

Me, I'm for anything that takes away from drunk driving enforcement.

I think first time offenders get mandatory 90 days in jail. It's pretty harsh.

Consequently, the # of DUI arrests/fatalities is miniscule

Really? 90 days for texting?

I think I've read somewhere that texting while driving is magnitudes more dangerous than driving with a .08, so I guess it would make sense, now if the associated fine was 4k, plus high rate insurance......hmmmm...

[Cotter]

Me, I'm for anything that takes away from drunk driving enforcement.

I think folks need to practice their drunk driving skills.

Not to hi-jack, but I'm a better driver at a .20 BAC than my mom is sober....

But around here, if you peel, you just gotta get yer buddy to pull you out of the ditch....if you know the right backroads to cruise!

[Zip City]

What are the penalties associated with it? Are they as harsh as drunk driving?

Me, I'm for anything that takes away from drunk driving enforcement.

I think first time offenders get mandatory 90 days in jail. It's pretty harsh.

Consequently, the # of DUI arrests/fatalities is miniscule

Really? 90 days for texting?

I think I've read somewhere that texting while driving is magnitudes more dangerous than driving with a .08, so I guess it would make sense, now if the associated fine was 4k, plus high rate insurance......hmmmm...

I'm not talking about texting. I'm talking about DUI.

90 days seems to be an exaggeration as I do some research, but the tolerance level is certainly much lower.

For example, Sweden:

For first offense with no aggravating circumstances, fines are imposed. For a BAC level between .02 and .10, the amount of the fine is determined by income level as well as BAC level and the circumstances.

For BAC level between .03 and .10, licenses may be revoked for 2 to 12 months depending on the circumstances and the BAC level. Above .10, a minimum 12 months and a maximum 36 months loss of license.

If BAC level is greater than .10, imprisonment for 1 to 2 months. A drunk driver who causes an accident involving a fatality can be imprisoned up to 6 years.

[wrekkr]

Me, I'm for anything that takes away from drunk driving enforcement.

I think folks need to practice their drunk driving skills.

when i turned 16 we had other place to drink than cruising back roads. . . .

[beantownbubba]

.02??!! In Europe??? .02's gotta be less than baseline normal there - they still drink at lunch!

[Cotter]

In 2008, at any given moment, over 800,000 Americans were texting, making calls, or using a handheld cell phone while driving during the daytime. With distracted driving killing nearly 6,000 Americans in the same year, it's no mystery that cell phone use is risky for drivers.

•Each year, 21% of fatal car crashes involving teenagers between the ages of 16 and 19 were the result of cell phone usage. This result has been expected to grow as much as 4% every year.

Interesting.....

The number of fatalities in teenage drunk-driving crashes has declined 34 percent since 2000 and is down 73 percent since tracking began in 1982, going from 4,214 in 1982 to 1,720 in 2000 and 1,130 in 2008, a record-low level. There were over 3,000 fewer teen drunk-driving fatalities in 2008 than in 1982.

13,000+ deaths attributed to drinking and driving.



So...texting, at worst, is only 1/2 as bad as drunk driving.