Thread: Individual mandate is unconstitutional...

Originally Posted by Dick Martin

OK. Translate that into something meaningful. You are saying that if Joe Drunk gets hammered and then drives in to a bus load of kids it just a matter of "Oh well, too bad. He was just exercising his freedom."?

No. The translation is: Cause is not Effect.

There is a difference between driving drunk and causing an accident. What is greater is the RISK of causing an accident. Joe Drunk can get hammered and not cause an accident. Why do we punish people for potential damages in this case but not others?

I can understand the argument that driving fast in a winter storm is negligent, while driving drunk and causing an accident is gross negligence but that does not mean driving drunk = actual damage. Criminal and civil law require actual damages except in "conspiracies," e.g., conspired to commit murder. Even then, usually an actual murder has occurred. This is fundamentally different than "attempted" murder. A drunk driver is grossly negligence not deliberately trying to cause an accident.

On a side note, I am really opposed to our justice system that has our government benefit but not the victims of certain crimes. For instance, if someone is caught drunk driving, they have to pay a fine. If that person hit a bus like you said, why doesn't the fine for being drunk go to the victims?

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

No. The translation is: Cause is not Effect.

There is a difference between driving drunk and causing an accident. What is greater is the RISK of causing an accident. Joe Drunk can get hammered and not cause an accident. Why do we punish people for potential damages in this case but not others?

I can understand the argument that driving fast in a winter storm is negligent, while driving drunk and causing an accident is gross negligence but that does not mean driving drunk = actual damage. Criminal and civil law require actual damages except in "conspiracies," e.g., conspired to commit murder. Even then, usually an actual murder has occurred. This is fundamentally different than "attempted" murder. A drunk driver is grossly negligence not deliberately trying to cause an accident.

On a side note, I am really opposed to our justice system that has our government benefit but not the victims of certain crimes. For instance, if someone is caught drunk driving, they have to pay a fine. If that person hit a bus like you said, why doesn't the fine for being drunk go to the victims?

So, then, your morality is that it is only wrong if there is death, mayhem, & destruction?

Originally Posted by Dick Martin

OK. Translate that into something meaningful. You are saying that if Joe Drunk gets hammered and then drives in to a bus load of kids it just a matter of "Oh well, too bad. He was just exercising his freedom."?

No - you nail Joe Drunk to the wall for the harm he actually caused, and for exercising very poor judgment.

However, if Joe Normal has a beer or two with dinner and then drives home normally without causing anyone any harm, but gets pulled over 5 feet from his house because there's a DUI checkpoint, and blows a .08 - what has he actually done wrong? Not what COULD have happened - what actually DID happen? Who was harmed (other than Joe Normal of course)?

Originally Posted by Dick Martin

So, then, your morality is that it is only wrong if there is death, mayhem, & destruction?

I would say "harm" not the extremes you pointed out. If there has been no harm, what has been done wrong? What business is it of yours what i do as long as I do not harm anyone?

Originally Posted by EricOKC

No - you nail Joe Drunk to the wall for the harm he actually caused, and for exercising very poor judgment.

However, if Joe Normal has a beer or two with dinner and then drives home normally without causing anyone any harm, but gets pulled over 5 feet from his house because there's a DUI checkpoint, and blows a .08 - what has he actually done wrong? Not what COULD have happened - what actually DID happen? Who was harmed (other than Joe Normal of course)?

what if joe normal is 15-17 beers deep and is falling over drunk, but still manages to start his car and by a stroke of dumb luck, safely makes it all the way home. did he do anything wrong by exhibiting such risky behavior?

Originally Posted by EricOKC

I would say "harm" not the extremes you pointed out. If there has been no harm, what has been done wrong? What business is it of yours what i do as long as I do not harm anyone?

Yet in another thread there is great outrage that a home owner who loses his home and doesn't pay off the mortgage is some sort of bad person, yet there is no one else harmed. Not the new owner, not the bank, no one. How come people are upset? If the rule is "no harm, no foul" then why are people upset that a family doesn't pay their mortgage?

Originally Posted by bg85

what if joe normal is 15-17 beers deep and is falling over drunk, but still manages to start his car and by a stroke of dumb luck, safely makes it all the way home. did he do anything wrong by exhibiting such risky behavior?

Wrong? Nope. Stupid? Yes.

As you said - he makes it safely home. Nothing and nobody was harmed.

Why should poor judgment which harms nobody be illegal?

Originally Posted by Dick Martin

Yet in another thread there is great outrage that a home owner who loses his home and doesn't pay off the mortgage is some sort of bad person, yet there is no one else harmed. Not the new owner, not the bank, no one. How come people are upset? If the rule is "no harm, no foul" then why are people upset that a family doesn't pay their mortgage?

Being upset about something is not the same as a legal penalty is it?

I am quite upset that you're allowed to vote, for example. However, I wouldn't even consider legally preventing you from doing so.

Originally Posted by EricOKC

Wrong? Nope. Stupid? Yes.

As you said - he makes it safely home. Nothing and nobody was harmed.

oh, okay. at least you're honest.

Originally Posted by EricOKC

Why should poor judgment which harms nobody be illegal?

this should be obvious...the fact that driving drunk is illegal deters people who would otherwise drive drunk from doing so. this results in less innocent injuries and deaths. the risk presented from drunk driving is high enough so that it can be considered wrong to do so.

Originally Posted by EricOKC

Wrong? Nope. Stupid? Yes.

As you said - he makes it safely home. Nothing and nobody was harmed.

Why should poor judgment which harms nobody be illegal?

So, the morality here is "If you didn't get caught, it didn't happen"?

This is a value to teach your children?

Originally Posted by bg85

oh, okay. at least you're honest.

And consistent. Yay me.

Originally Posted by bg85

this should be obvious...the fact that driving drunk is illegal deters people who would otherwise drive drunk from doing so. this results in less innocent injuries and deaths. the risk presented from drunk driving is high enough so that it can be considered wrong to do so.

Sure it does - just like murder being illegal keeps people from doing that too...

That may have been the original intent, but what has happened NOW is, the standard is so low, that yes my friend, your average man who has 2 beers with dinner is legally drunk when he leaves the restaurant.

Originally Posted by EricOKC

That may have been the original intent, but what has happened NOW is, the standard is so low, that yes my friend, your average man who has 2 beers with dinner is legally drunk when he leaves the restaurant.

so because the standard is so low, your solution is to do away with a standard altogether? why not simply make the standard more realistic?

Originally Posted by EricOKC

Sure it does - just like murder being illegal keeps people from doing that too...

Not clear whether you are suggesting to the contrary, but that is in fact the case. All you have to do to see this, is look at the murder rates in traditional, pre-state societies that had no laws against murder. Justice (such as it was) took the form of vendetta in such societies, i.e. someone murders a member of your family, you are honor-bound to kill the one who did it, and then their family will kill you, and then your family will kill someome from their family, etc.

Passing responsibility for this to the state and establishing rules of law has resulted in a huge decline in murder rates. Murder being illegal does indeed keep people from doing that -- not a hundred percent, obviously, but the percentage of deterrence is actually very high.