What sort of policy do you support regarding breathalyzer interlocks on cars?

[Craig234]

Of course, sometimes a good idea is just before it's time, and is resisted because people dislike change.

But sometimes, it's because it's just a bad idea.

I am not entirely opposed to the idea of mandatory breathalyzer interlocks. But the devil would be in the details, and there are a number of other actions I'd want to see taken at the same time.

I'm open to that. I agree there are details to get right.

Which is why the state has no valid reason forcing people to wear them.

Yes, they do.

IMO, your position is ideological libertarianism, that ignores the merits of the issue in favor of dogma about 'you can't have the government do that' regardless of the benefits.

It's sort of like the difference in arguing a tax increase with somoene who looks at the effects, versus someone who is 'simply against tax increases' as dogma.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

IMO, your position is ideological libertarianism, that ignores the merits of the issue in favor of dogma about 'you can't have the government do that' regardless of the benefits.

That's correct, it is ideological libertarianism. If it only affects me, then it's none of your business.

Your position is ideological liberalism.

 

[Craig234]

That's correct, it is ideological libertarianism. If it only affects me, then it's none of your business.

Your position is ideological liberalism.

No, mine is not. See my sig, by the way, for my position on ideology.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

No, mine is not. See my sig, by the way, for my position on ideology.

Ideology is also indispensable, as ideology is just another way to say ancillary assumptions, and ancillary assumptions are essential to coming to any sort of conclusion.

Instead, I think, the questioning of ideology is our friend.

As per the OP: I think it would be worth the lives saved if everyone had to breathalyzer (or maybe something more accurate) to start a car. After that, if you drive under the influence (by cheating the system or drinking while driving) then you should be guilty of attempted second degree murder and penalized as such.

 

[GreenMeters]

There are merits to having breathalyzers as mandatory equipment in all vehicles. I do wonder how easily they'd be circumvented, though. How hard would it be to create a device that exhales the appropriate mix and temperature of oxygen, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and water vapor to fool the system? A better solution might be some kind of game that tests your reflexes, which would also address issues of driving while sleep impaired, but might not address the case of someone pounding a bunch of shots then jumping right into the car.

Maybe the best bet is for Google to hurry up with the self-driving cars.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

No, mine is not. See my sig, by the way, for my position on ideology.

You're free to put whatever you like in your sig, and believe whatever you want.

If you support forcing people to do things "for their own good", I consider you an ideological liberal. Most other people would as well (except, perhaps, other ideological liberals, lol.)

 

[Craig234]

There are merits to having breathalyzers as mandatory equipment in all vehicles. I do wonder how easily they'd be circumvented, though. How hard would it be to create a device that exhales the appropriate mix and temperature of oxygen, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and water vapor to fool the system? A better solution might be some kind of game that tests your reflexes, which would also address issues of driving while sleep impaired, but might not address the case of someone pounding a bunch of shots then jumping right into the car.

Maybe the best bet is for Google to hurry up with the self-driving cars.

If is was possible to create an easily available supplier of gas to fool the device and the device couldn't prevent it, it would suggest this is not the way to go.

I'm not at all sure it is possible to make such a gas device practically of that the dector can't be designed to prevent its use.

These are the 'details' that need to be checked before proceeding.

Well that, and overcoming the rabid and massive public opposition to doing it.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

If breath won't work, clearly the only solution is mandatory blood-draw alcohol testing interlocks with DNA analysis and retinal pattern matching to ensure the driver is the one doing the test.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

If breath won't work, clearly the only solution is mandatory blood-draw alcohol testing interlocks with DNA analysis and retinal pattern matching to ensure the driver is the one doing the test.

Hyperbole eh? Breath works, as it makes it so honestly-confused citizenry know if they are about to violate the law and thus makes the criminal act of drunk-driving an intentional one; one for which attempted second degree murder is a reasonable penalty.

If you support forcing people to do things "for their own good", I consider you an ideological liberal. Most other people would as well (except, perhaps, other ideological liberals, lol.)

This definition makes everyone in favor of seat-belt laws an "ideological liberal".

But even from a more conservative perspective: would not requiring a bit of safety equipment that will breathalyzer you (ie not ignition locked; just so you can choose to test yourself) be a very reasonable addition to our already extensive car-safety standards?

 

[werepossum]

I'm torn. On the one hand, I don't want to impact anyone's personal freedom until it's been proven that they have an issue with driving drunk. On the other hand, I personally have gotten behind the wheel while inebriated and unable to accurately judge my level of intoxication. I have plenty of friends who have admitted to driving drunk at some point in their lives, and only one of them was ever caught for DUI. It's a small measure that could positively impact DUI accident and fatality statistics, and it's not a serious imposition on freedom as driving while intoxicated is already an illegal act. I still don't know how I feel about making it mandatory, but I might be tempted to get such a device for my own car to ensure that I'm making responsible choices (granted, it's been years since I ever drove intoxicated, but you never know what you're liable to do if you get just drunk enough to not realize how drunk you really are). It seems the pros outweigh the potential cons, but I'm really on the fence on this one.

I did that exactly once. My reaction was to simply not ever get drunk, and I haven't in the last thirty-four years.

I think it should always be an option if the judge thinks it is needed and should be mandatory upon second conviction. I'm frankly more concerned about people being allowed to plea bargain to multiple first offense DUI, clearly flouting the intent of the law.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Hyperbole eh? Breath works, as it makes it so honestly-confused citizenry know if they are about to violate the law and thus makes the criminal act of drunk-driving an intentional one; one for which attempted second degree murder is a reasonable penalty.

I was kidding, of course.

This definition makes everyone in favor of seat-belt laws an "ideological liberal".

Why yes, it does.

But even from a more conservative perspective: would not requiring a bit of safety equipment that will breathalyzer you (ie not ignition locked; just so you can choose to test yourself) be a very reasonable addition to our already extensive car-safety standards?

The breathalyzer is actually more sensible than the seat belt laws, from that perspective.

Seat belt laws are pure nannyism. I say this as someone who never drives without a seat belt, and never did before they were mandatory.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

I was kidding, of course.



Why yes, it does.



The breathalyzer is actually more sensible than the seat belt laws, from that perspective.

Seat belt laws are pure nannyism. I say this as someone who never drives without a seat belt, and never did before they were mandatory.

But most people from your father's generation didn't wear seat-belts; and they needed the law because they were, in fact, ignorant.

Indeed; there are many many things that we are ignorant of in our modern life, and not knowing what is best for us is constant occurrence. I knew numerous red-necks that thought wearing a seat-belt was BAD for you because it's better to be "thrown from the car" in the case of a role-over. A law that helps maintain the health and welfare of the population has been a good idea since the old-testament.

That said, it should take a superior empirical argument to limit individual freedom; today we implement laws on the back of minor-concerns about potential safety.

 

[Jaskalas]

IMO, your position is ideological libertarianism, that ignores the merits of the issue in favor of dogma about 'you can't have the government do that' regardless of the benefits.

Then pray we all fall to the "dogma" of liberty. Lest we forget ourselves, who our founders were, and what all Americans since those days have fought and died for.

Americans forget themselves and their country when they seek an easy answer under the guise of benefits.

It is easy to treat men differently, is it not? I fear we've come to the point of all men being created equal, until weighed and measured. When the government has its hands in every pocket it's their business to no longer treat us equally or fairly. It's their business to forget the Constitution and no longer remain a nation of law or of people - but of mob rule.

Today the mob fetches drunks and has them sing a tune. What tune will you sing the day they come for you?

• I posit that we risk mob rule and we no longer even pretend to treat men equally.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Lest we forget ourselves, who our founders were, and what all Americans since those days have fought and died for.

already rich and powerful men interested in growing their own power.

In all of the history of the world, this is the only reason people fight each-other on a national level; a reason that continues on today.

 

[ManBearPig]

Definitely after a 2nd DUI, I would keep it installed at least five years. One DUI I'm a bit torn but probably would still favor.
Where the heck is the Google self driving car already so I don't have to worry about having a second glass of wine or beer when dining out?

I wouldn't mind it required after one DUI. Seems like it's infringing on personal freedoms a bit, sure, but when someone is doing something that is not only dangerous for themselves, but my family and I, then it's not so big a deal.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

I did that exactly once. My reaction was to simply not ever get drunk, and I haven't in the last thirty-four years.

I think that's commendable, honestly. It's difficult to realize that you might have a problem and make positive steps to correct it. But is that a standard that you expect every other driver on the road to hold? Are you willing to bet your life on it?

It's one thing to be the person who drives inebriated; that's obviously on you, and something that you need to be held accountable for. But the person who is hit by a drunk driver has done absolutely nothing wrong. They were unlucky to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. If we have a method to vastly reduce the number of drunk drivers on the road without inhibiting the freedoms of sober drivers, isn't that something worth investing in? What freedom is obstructed through the use of mandatory breathalyzers that isn't similarly compromised through mandatory seat belts and helmets? Is the monetary cost actually that large if it becomes mandatory on all cars?

What are the arguments against such a law? I'm trying to compose arguments for them in my head, but I think there's some I'm clearly missing out on.

 

[Craig234]

You're free to put whatever you like in your sig, and believe whatever you want.

If you support forcing people to do things "for their own good", I consider you an ideological liberal. Most other people would as well (except, perhaps, other ideological liberals, lol.)

You sure do like the 'I'm right because some people agree with me' argument.

It's not valid, of course.

We could get into a discussion of what ideology is, but I'm not in the mood. It would show you you are not correct.

I don't 'support forcing people to do things for their own good' as a universal statement. Some things I do, some things I don't.

Yes, there are times I say 'we can save thousands of lives with seat belt laws because some people are too clueless to put them on without one' and look at the 'downside', the 'infringinement on their freedom', and see how trivial that is, and decide that it's worth doing - as a rational opinion.

Someone could suggest 'people drown every year at the beaches, let's save those lives by ending public access', or 'people are killed by race driving which is nothing but entertainment, let's ban that as a sport', and I'd look at the pros and cons, and say the problems are a tragedy, but the issue doesn't justify taking those measures. My point isn't that my opinion is 'right' on the issues, but that it's not one based on ideology. It's based on the actual effects of each side of the policy.

Hence my analogy to raising taxes, between people who look at the effects, versus ones who 'just don't like tax increases' as a matter of dogmatic ideology.

Of course, the ideological people don't call it ideology usually, they'll misuse the word 'principles' probably. 'I'm standing by my principles! No new taxes!'

Same thing with any issue they're dogmatic about - gay marriage, fluoride in the water, blacks in their colleges, whatever, they're taking a position on 'principle'.

 

[Craig234]

Then pray we all fall to the "dogma" of liberty. Lest we forget ourselves, who our founders were, and what all Americans since those days have fought and died for.

Americans forget themselves and their country when they seek an easy answer under the guise of benefits.

It is easy to treat men differently, is it not? I fear we've come to the point of all men being created equal, until weighed and measured. When the government has its hands in every pocket it's their business to no longer treat us equally or fairly. It's their business to forget the Constitution and no longer remain a nation of law or of people - but of mob rule.

Today the mob fetches drunks and has them sing a tune. What tune will you sing the day they come for you?

• I posit that we risk mob rule and we no longer even pretend to treat men equally.

First, they came for the drunk drivers, and I said nothing, for I don't drive drunk.
Next, they came for the cell phone users while driving, and...

No, sorry, I do not consider the melodramatic card being played of 'the people who gave their lives to protect our freedoms' as being about not using a device to start a car.

There are substantive freedoms, and there are nutjobs.

Some people have forgotten how to tell the difference. The word 'nutjobs' isn't meant to insult or be aimed at anyone here, it's referring to people like I mentioned before who said they want to secede from the US because it's become a dictatorship without freedom and their leading example was how in Texas they can still text and use cell phones while driving.
It's just the accurate word for that mindset as I view it. Any less would be like trying to discuss the guy who shot Gayy Giffords without using a negative word.

We can see places with real lack of freedom - Cuba, China, the old East Germany, North Korea... Uganda or Iran if you're gay... Afghanistan if you're female...

But what I see from some here are equating those issues of freedom with using environmentally bad light bulbs, drinking big sodas, not wearing a helmet on a bike.

Your post sounds paranoid. The type that says 'all taxes are theft', with language about 'the government's hands in your pockets' making the constitution meaningless.

Government secures freedom for the people. It's why the founding fathers former it, and it's why we've had freedom ever since. It's the organization representing the people.

It has costs. It taxes to pay those costs.

Unfortunately, it's not perfectly 'fair'. Some people are more powerful than others, some groups get advantages over others, and sometimes the government is used to do things that aren't fair. But that's inperfection, not tyranny. Those taxes are not 'theft', they're 'the price for civilization' to quote Justice Brandeis.

Where they're unjust let's try to fix that - but not pretend the answer is to treat our government as if it were a dictatorship, as if the fact that those who refuse to pay the reasonable taxes on the grounds they're 'tyranny' and can in extreme cases get arrested 'at the point of a gun' are the same as dictatorships where basic freedoms can get you 'disappeared' 'at the point of a gun' where the phrase is actually reasonably used.

 

[Craig234]

If breath won't work, clearly the only solution is mandatory blood-draw alcohol testing interlocks with DNA analysis and retinal pattern matching to ensure the driver is the one doing the test.

Your sarcastic, facetious tone is not helpful nor approproiate for this forum.

No, I'm not upset, just wanted you to recognize what an overreaction looks like.

I understand - which some may not at times, cough cough - the point you were making and that your sarcasm was just intended to make a reasonable point, not to 'insult'.

It sounds like we agree, the devices could be impractical and a bad idea, depending.

 

[Craig234]

Then pray we all fall to the "dogma" of liberty.

By the way, I know of no 'dogma of liberty'. Libertarianism is quite a different animal.

'Dogma of liberty' is more the sort of propaganda phrase dogmatic followers of an ideology would use to make their dogma sound better.

It's awfully simplistic. For example, there's only so much beach property. It can be legally protected for public access; or owned by a few wealthy people. Which one is 'liberty'?

 

[randomrogue]

They should simplify the law. If you drive under the influence you lose your license forever. If I had to be more reasonable a drivers license suspension of several years for the first offense and permanently on the second.

Where I live they have ZERO tolerance. You can't even drive the day after drinking since the limit is so low. I think it's 0.01. A hangover could get you in trouble. A hangover DUI will get you thrown in prison for about 6 months. Drunk driving will get you 2 years. Then there's fines.

I have friends in the states who got 3 DUIs. I have a friend who I think got 2 and still got a job as a police officer. Our system is way too lax.

 

[Craig234]

They should simplify the law. If you drive under the influence you lose your license forever. If I had to be more reasonable a drivers license suspension of several years for the first offense and permanently on the second.

Where I live they have ZERO tolerance. You can't even drive the day after drinking since the limit is so low. I think it's 0.01. A hangover could get you in trouble. A hangover DUI will get you thrown in prison for about 6 months. Drunk driving will get you 2 years. Then there's fines.

I have friends in the states who got 3 DUIs. I have a friend who I think got 2 and still got a job as a police officer. Our system is way too lax.

I'm gonna repeat my quote of Mencken, 'there's a solution for every probblem that is neat, simple and wrong'.

With crime, such a solution is increasing the punishment.

Hate drunk drivers? First offense ban driving for life!

Hate thieves? Cut off one hand - then the other if they repeat!

Murderers? Add torture and THEN execute them!

Rapists? OK, you got the point.

This is a 'natural reaction' to people being simple in trying to 'solve' problems.

It's generally a bad idea and not nearly as effetive as people think. A fallacy they make is thinking they sure wouldn't want those punishments so it would deter them - not understand that it's not as if the person doing the things above says 'execution, go ahead and commit the murder but torture and execution, well, then no'.

Sorry but good policy is harder than just reaching for the lowest hanging fruit and increasing penalties. You have to do a better effort to find what works.

And I'll put another plug in here for my solution of the alcohol testing devices on all cars.

By the way, consider the real implications of the 'ban for life' on driving. Do we really need thousands or more people who do that terrible thing and get caught so harmed for life?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Today the mob fetches drunks and has them sing a tune. What tune will you sing the day they come for you?

I'm having trouble with the implication here that drunk drivers are some sort of victims.

If you want to drink, great. Just don't do something while drunk that has a high chance of killing people. It has nothing to do with "mobs".

But most people from your father's generation didn't wear seat-belts; and they needed the law because they were, in fact, ignorant.

This statement in and of itself betrays a particular ideological viewpoint -- that people have the right to declare others "ignorant" and then make laws that protect them "for their own good".

And it's fine if you have that viewpoint, but equally fine for others to believe it is invalid.

You sure do like the 'I'm right because some people agree with me' argument.

Well, it's better than your general tack, which seems to be "I'm right because I said so". I mean, really... saying your opponents are ideological and you are not? It's just silly.

The point is not that I'm right because people agree with me. The point is that your viewpoints are strongly on one side of the political spectrum, which makes the suggestion that you are not ideological rather hard to swallow.

We could get into a discussion of what ideology is, but I'm not in the mood. It would show you you are not correct.

My, such confidence! Well, I guess it's easier to just declare yourself the victor of a debate rather than actually having it.

I don't 'support forcing people to do things for their own good' as a universal statement. Some things I do, some things I don't.

Then you hold some ideologically liberal viewpoints, and not others.

Yes, there are times I say 'we can save thousands of lives with seat belt laws because some people are too clueless to put them on without one' and look at the 'downside', the 'infringinement on their freedom', and see how trivial that is, and decide that it's worth doing - as a rational opinion.

It's no more or less a rational opinion than "people have a right to decide for themselves if they want to do something dangerous that might end their lives".

It's just a difference in ideology.

Someone could suggest 'people drown every year at the beaches, let's save those lives by ending public access', or 'people are killed by race driving which is nothing but entertainment, let's ban that as a sport', and I'd look at the pros and cons, and say the problems are a tragedy, but the issue doesn't justify taking those measures.

Yes, you might. But there are no right or wrong answers here, just different opinions based on different viewpoints. Some people would have no problem shutting down public access to beaches. Most would not.

This is why numbers do matter, because people are going to assess the reasonableness of a position based on how in or out of the mainstream it is. It's not always the case that outliers on the spectrum of an idea are wrong, but they often are.

My point isn't that my opinion is 'right' on the issues, but that it's not one based on ideology. It's based on the actual effects of each side of the policy.

The fact that you feel entitled to make decisions for others on issues that do not affect you is inherently ideological.

Hence my analogy to raising taxes, between people who look at the effects, versus ones who 'just don't like tax increases' as a matter of dogmatic ideology.

Once again, your views are no less ideological than anyone elses. It's just unfortunate that you can't seem to understand that.

Of course, the ideological people don't call it ideology usually, they'll misuse the word 'principles' probably. 'I'm standing by my principles! No new taxes!'

So, if I'm to understand this properly:

1. You get to decide that others are ideological.
2. You get to decide that you are not.
3. Nobody else gets to decide you are ideological.
4. Anyone who decides to say they themselves are not ideological is "misusing words".

I can't recall seeing a more clear example of a double standard.

Your sarcastic, facetious tone is not helpful nor approproiate for this forum.

It was a joke. That's why there was a smiley.

 

[randomrogue]

I'm gonna repeat my quote of Mencken, 'there's a solution for every probblem that is neat, simple and wrong'.

With crime, such a solution is increasing the punishment.

Hate drunk drivers? First offense ban driving for life!

Hate thieves? Cut off one hand - then the other if they repeat!

Murderers? Add torture and THEN execute them!

Rapists? OK, you got the point.

This is a 'natural reaction' to people being simple in trying to 'solve' problems.

It's generally a bad idea and not nearly as effetive as people think. A fallacy they make is thinking they sure wouldn't want those punishments so it would deter them - not understand that it's not as if the person doing the things above says 'execution, go ahead and commit the murder but torture and execution, well, then no'.

Sorry but good policy is harder than just reaching for the lowest hanging fruit and increasing penalties. You have to do a better effort to find what works.

And I'll put another plug in here for my solution of the alcohol testing devices on all cars.

By the way, consider the real implications of the 'ban for life' on driving. Do we really need thousands or more people who do that terrible thing and get caught so harmed for life?

I'm going to politely disagree. Look up European drunk driving laws. There are like 8 countries that have a 0.0% tolerance. They just don't put up with this shit. Drunk drivers kill something like 30% of all traffic fatalities. It's a HUGE problem. If you make people think twice before breaking the law they will.

If you drink and drive and have to sit in prison for 6 months the chances of you ever doing it again are going to be pretty slim. If you drink and drive have to pay a $1000 fine and $1000 in class costs then go free your incentive to not drink and drive is very low. Of ALL my friends in the States only one has never had a DUI. I know a couple that have 3.

Adding more costs to cars and more hassles because a bunch of asshats can't take a cab home is not a good solution. That's punishing everyone for the fews mistakes. It's not equatable to seat belts or helmets at all since that's designed to simply save your own life. Drunk driving kills other people. Cars are weapons in the hands of drunks. Countries like Finland understand this and have an aggravated DUI charge for people blowing above 0.1% if I remember correctly.

Just make the consequences significant enough so that "drunk driving" isn't something you do for fun in places like Arkansas anymore. Yeah I said it. My friends in Arkansas drunk drove for sport on boring weekends since they had nothing better to do in high school.

There is zero reason to drive drunk. Even a drunk person would think twice if they knew they were going to sit in jail because they were too cheap to spend $50 on a cab.

 

[Craig234]

Well, it's better than your general tack, which seems to be "I'm right because I said so". I mean, really... saying your opponents are ideological and you are not? It's just silly.

Charles, in a friendly discussion, when one person really just 'doesn't get it', the thing to do is probably just to say that and wish them well on the issue and move on.

And that's what I'll do here.

But one bit of an attempt to help you with it - so, you think it is just impossible for one person in the discussion to not be ideological while the other is? Don't answer that.

Just don't mischaracterize my position further - I'm dropping it, let's both do so.

The point is not that I'm right because people agree with me. The point is that your viewpoints are strongly on one side of the political spectrum, which makes the suggestion that you are not ideological rather hard to swallow.

There is no 'political spectrum'. Any position from 'far left' to 'far right' to 'middle' to something not on either 'side' can be 'correct' - you can't be limited to 'you have to only say what's on your part of the spectrum'. If you're a 'liberal' with a 'left' position on something, that doesn't automatically mean it's 'ideologically' reached. It might be correct. When two people are having a more rational discussion that can be discussed.

The 'political spectrum' is a convenient device for some things - but ultimately limited.
It's nice for a shorthand when people fall within its definitions - but can be overused.

There are dogmatic liberals - people who do reach positions that way. Some. But like I said, let's drop it. There's a point the discussion is constructive, and a point it's not.