Anti-drinking activists drunk with power

When I was awakened early this morning, I made the mistake of turning on the TV in the hope of being bored into drowsiness so I could go back to sleep. I turned on C-SPAN, thinking that boring speeches would do the trick.

Big mistake. Instead of boring speeches, I was greeted by passionate, in-your-face activists from M.A.D.D. The hard core of that organization consists mostly of people who have lost a family member because of an accident with a drunk driver, and who have clearly sublimated the normal grief which accompanies the death of a loved one into political activism. They think that their loved ones died because of lax laws, and they press for endlessly tougher laws, which they claim will stop drunk driving.

M.A.D.D. activists are now pushing to make drunk driving a felony, and to lower the blood alcohol level standard for DUI from .08 (already lowered from .10 thanks to MADD activists) down to .04.

.04 is the BAC you'd get from a glass of wine.

It doesn't take much imagination to see that this would create a gigantic new group of felons.

Now, I do not defend drunk driving. But the direction in which this hysteria is going -- making driving after a glass of wine with dinner a felony -- is simply an outrage. This isn't a crackdown on drunk driving; it is neo-prohibitionism.

The M.A.D.D. speakers were also calling for a return to the 55 mph speed limit, because drunk drivers are said to be much more dangerous at high speeds. Saying that because drunk drivers are more dangerous at higher speeds no one should be allowed to drive at high speeds makes about as much sense as saying that because drunk drivers are dangerous in cars, no one should be allowed to own a car. In typical nanny state fashion, this would punish the many for the crimes of the few, and another example of the national kindergarten mentality I have complained about till I'm blue in the fingertips. Also, this argument makes the ridiculous assumption that drunk drivers (who are already violating the law by drinking and driving) will somehow be law-abiding and not exceed the speed limit. (Right. Like criminals planning armed robbery or murder will nonetheless be deterred by gun control laws.)

Aghast, and now finding myself far too awake for that hour, I continued to watch M.A.D.D. on C-SPAN and I heard the repeated claim that "drunk driving is a violent crime." Is it? Certainly, it is irresponsible as well as negligent to get behind the wheel after having too much to drink, but aren't a lot of people saying it is also irresponsible and negligent to drive while talking on the phone? Or while putting on makeup and disciplining the kids? How about getting behind the wheel when it is clear from your conduct that you don't know how to drive? (Something I see all the time in this student town, btw.) How about mentally-impaired people driving? Or people who are completely lacking in basic motor skills, and who lack spatial awareness?

Impaired driving is never a good thing, but my worry is that once we start calling irresponsibility and negligence "violent crime," the term will lose its meaning. If I dig a hole in my yard to repair the sewer pipe and negligently forget to cover it, sure, someone could fall in and get hurt, but have I committed a crime of "violence"? If (as M.A.D.D. activists insist) getting behind the wheel after a glass of wine constitutes a crime of violence, then almost any form of negligence could be.

The stuff I saw last night made it clear to me that regardless of its original mission, M.A.D.D. has now become a theater of the absurd. It is yet another example of what happens when activists get together:

...single-issue activists often associate with -- and tend to exclusively surround themselves with -- other like-minded, single-issue activists. The result is what many call an echo chamber -- or "the choir." But I think "echo chamber" and "choir" are less than accurate terms, because the implication is that people are simply getting together and agreeing with each other in groups. When group dynamics are factored into single issue fanaticism, a lot more happens than mere group agreement. Because people are naturally competitive, many activists want to prove to the group that they are not only devoted to the cause, but more devoted than the others. This leads to extreme hyperbole, and the taking of positions which normal people would consider laughable.
However, it would be a mistake to laugh these people off.

M.A.D.D.'s political clout is so enormous that just last year, they almost got their own leader to head the NHTSA (which would have made him the "highway czar"):

Charles "Chuck" Hurley is the head of Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD). He's also a totalitarian nanny-stater who wants arbitrary check lanes and a 55 mph national speed limit. Hurley also hearts a .04% Blood Alcohol Content limit, which would make you DUI after one drink. Oh, and he has ties to the red light camera industry.
The Washington Times editorialized against him, and other voices sounded the alarm. At the time Eric Peters warned that "when Big Things are going on, little things often slip by unnoticed."
Why be worried? For openers, Hurley is a former leader of Mothers Against Drunk Driving -- arguably the most unreasonable and totalitarian-minded "special interest" in all of D.C. Its original mission -- a public campaign to make driving drunk unacceptable -- has metastasized into a crusade against any consumption of alcohol whatsoever. The legal standard for "drunk" driving has already been lowered to .08 BAC -- a level well below the .10 and up at which people have actual accidents as opposed to running afoul of "sobriety checkpoints."

But even that isn't enough. MADD wants the legal threshold reduced to .04 BAC, which would turn anyone who had a glass of wine over dinner into a "drunk driver" as far as the law was concerned -- and subject them to penalties more severe than those applied to many violent felons.

Hurley was the chief cheerleader for this grossly disproportionate, factually unsupportable crusade. As NHTSA head, expect him to push the MADD agenda as far as he can -- including mandatory in-car alcohol detectors for everyone, not just those already convicted of DWI. "Sobriety checkpoints" -- where random people are randomly subjected to Gestapo-like stop and frisks, for absolutely no reason other than they happened to be driving on a particular road at a given time -- will be stepped up.

Putting him in charge of the NHTSA would have been like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse. What would have stopped him from slanting official statistics to favor M.A.D.D.'s activist agenda? As things stand now, NHTSA and M.A.D.D. engage in statistical flim-flammery to deceive the public. "Alcohol-related fatalities" is one example:
For some time, the NMA has taken on the lonely role of objecting to certain elements of MADD, SADD, BADD, DADD, RADD, etc. campaigns against drunk driving. (For the 300th time, we are not in favor of drunk driving.) Admittedly, our stands have been pretty radical, e.g., police should have probable cause to stop and test motorists, BAC standards should be reasonable, and that people charged with DWI should have access to a fair trial.

We have also objected to the use of terms and statistics that are deliberately designed to deceive the public and build support for the political and financial benefit of certain organizations and agencies. One of our favorites is NHTSA's "alcohol-related fatalities".

This statistical misnomer implies that virtually any measurable amount of alcohol in a victim's system is clear evidence that alcohol was the cause of the fatality. A pedestrian, with one drink, run over on the sidewalk by a sober driver becomes an alcohol-related fatality. By the time MADD gets done massaging the message, "alcohol-related" becomes "killed by drunk drivers."

These statistics seem almost designed to conceal whether or not the alcohol was actually responsible for the accident, because often the police test everyone involved in an accident. And even though it is quite conceivable that a driver with a BAC of .08 was not at fault in any way (say his car was broadsided by a driver who ran a stop sign), the accident will still be considered "alcohol related." And if they lower the DUI BAC to .04, there is going to be a huge uptick in alcohol related accidents.

Geez. You'd almost think these people wanted more "alcohol-related" fatalities.

Isn't that almost like a conflict of interest?

Last year Reason's Radley Balko warned that the Hurley appointment would politicize the NHTSA by putting activists in charge:

With Hurley in charge, MADD's goals will become NHTSA's goals. That's troubling because at heart, MADD is an activist organization. The groups once-admirable goal of raising public awareness about drunk driving has over the last several years morphed into a zealous, evangelical teetotaling campaign. When a coalition of college presidents recently asked for nothing more than a new debate over the federal drinking age last year, for example, MADD called on parents to boycott the presidents' schools. MADD has supported prison sentences for parents who allow alcohol consumption at chaperoned parties for underage teens, and fought efforts to allow underage veterans to have a beer on base after returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. Even MADD's founder, Candace Lightner, has renounced the group, calling them "neo-prohibitionists."

MADD is no longer merely a group of concerned mothers raising awareness. They've become very powerful, pushing for laws based on questionable data and that involve real trade-offs between safety, privacy, and individual freedom. That's what makes the organization's close relationship with the government so troubling. Hurley isn't the first MADD exec to make the jump to NHTSA--or the other way around. MADD regularly receives funding from the federal government. Members of MADD have even been known to help man and run sobriety checkpoints. MADD also runs many of the mandatory classes DWI convicts are forced to attend (and pay for).

Fortunately, the nomination was killed -- but for the wrong reasons.

M.A.D.D. is out of control, and they have way too much power. And if they are in fact making money on every DUI arrest as is claimed, then no wonder they want the BAC lowered.

The more "drunk drivers" there are, the more M.A.D.D money there is!

UPDATE: Many thanks to Glenn Reynolds for the link, and for quoting from this post. Glenn is absolutely right to call M.A.D.D. "another example of a non-profit gone wrong," which "should disband, now that their work is basically done." Instead of disbanding, though, they're being subsidized by the taxpayers. (Like this anti-M.A.D.D. site, I thought that was supposed to be illegal....)

Your comments welcome, agree or disagree.

(Incomplete link fixed.)

posted by Eric on 09.24.10 at 05:27 PM


Hysteria is the prime mover behind all contemporary social activism.

These are the smart, progressive people.

Brett   ·  September 24, 2010 7:39 PM

And no, as violence requires intent to do harm, drunk driving is not violence. Those who think it is are confusing violence with all physical trauma.

I would submit that the ostracism, excessive taxation, prohibition of smoking even on private property, and general self-righteous derision heaped upon tobacco users is just such an hysterical over-reaction to a problem over-emphasized to the point of falsehood as lamented here.

No one who didn't smoke gave a damn about that tyranny while it was developing, or they gleefully joined in. Yet all the while, the same people with the same mind set were preparing to use the precedent to gore further oxen.

The governing classes have criminalized us all by statute. Few of us are really criminals who intentionally violate others' rights.

Our very laws are crimes.

Brett   ·  September 24, 2010 7:50 PM

"There's no way to rule innocent men.
The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals.
Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them.
One declares so many things to be a crime
that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."
Ayn Rand

Frank   ·  September 24, 2010 10:45 PM

We need a militant highway safety group to go after some of the senior citizen drivers around here. Many of them are half blind, deaf, and have the reflexes of a 20 year old, when the aforementioned 20 year old has had a case of beer for lunch.

Craig   ·  September 25, 2010 1:58 AM

That's why I support DAMM: Drunks Against Mad Mothers

Make everything a felony, that way no one can vote or own firearms.

Mr. Bingley   ·  September 25, 2010 8:07 AM

This isn't a crackdown on drunk driving; it is neo-prohibitionism.

Which is precisely why MADD's founder, Candy Lightner, said she ended up leaving the group.

MrBuddwing   ·  September 25, 2010 11:08 AM

My band has a song about this,our guitar player wrote it as a protest against MADDs neo-prohibitionist agenda
Two Lane Hiway (Drivin' & Drinkin'):

Fred   ·  September 25, 2010 11:24 AM

The statistics are misleading at best. To wit, say you have a drunk motoring down the highway minding his own business. A station wagon with six nuns, at fault, pull out into his path and everyone is killed. You have seven "alcohol related" deaths, although only one person was drinking and didn't cause the accident. The statistics don't mean much.

Buster   ·  September 25, 2010 11:28 AM

As a non smoker, I know the anti-smoking laws violate many what used to be called rights.

As for the terrorist organization known as MADD, if they truly wanted to solve the drunk driving problem they would show up at bars every weekend to volunteer to drive the worst one home. But, hey, why try to solve the problem when you can make it look worse to further your agenda of hate and revenge?

They are power hungry activists, plain and simple. They are the American version of the Taliban.

Al Patterson   ·  September 25, 2010 11:36 AM

Like Craig I have been a card carrying member of DAMM (Drunks against Mad Mothers) since Joe Bob of "Joe Bob Goes to the Drive In" fame first started that august organization. I thought it was obvious then what MADD was about - small minds acquiring power.

Tom   ·  September 25, 2010 11:41 AM

Sorry Buster:

I don't know where you're from but in most of the US in your scenario the drunk driver caused the accident. Heck in some states, a drunk parker legally parked on the side of the road can cause an accident when a car crashes into them because the brakes fail or a tire blows out of the other driver falls asleep at the wheel. Sure they're all alcohol related deaths, but you cannot say the drunk driver didn't cause it, because responsibility for causing the accident has been established by law to lie with the driver who was drinking.

max   ·  September 25, 2010 11:46 AM

Y'know as a social conservative, I agree with you, Eric, about this being excessive.

But then I'm reminded that as a libertarian (not you) said to me about supporting the Iraq War 'it doesn't affect me (terrrorists)'.

And you know, I don't drink alcohol. Personal reasons in part. I used to be very angry a long time ago and ANGRY plus beer is a bad combo.

So this doesn't affect me.

And then I notice how a lot of libertarians have gone out of their way to mess with socons even tho' we agree with them 80-90% of the time.

And so on a principled basis, I have to say, you're right; on a practical basis, I have to say this issue is #274 on my priority list, right after my deep concern for something or other.

Now, if libertarians did not go out of their way to poke at socons, I might be more interested.

Tennwriter   ·  September 25, 2010 11:51 AM

Should also investigate the linkage between MADD and the company that supplies the breathalizer ingnition lock devices.

Sotiredofitall   ·  September 25, 2010 12:06 PM

"on a practical basis, I have to say this issue is #274 on my priority list, right after my deep concern for something or other."

And that's why libertarians don't like social cons. You don't really have anti-authoritarian principles, and we don't really agree with you 80-90% of the time.

You don't drink, so you really don't care about creeping tyranny that will impact even you, at some point. Therefore, we have very little common ground, in any practical sense.

Barry D   ·  September 25, 2010 12:07 PM

Buster, you really should stop insulting the Taliban by comparing them with MADD.

At least the Taliban is organized to commit mayhem in the name of an actual religious scripture. MADD merely wants to put us all in jail over our failure to conform to their own personal preferences.

Richard Fagin   ·  September 25, 2010 12:12 PM
M. Simon   ·  September 25, 2010 12:38 PM

1. I can remember when the limit was .15 (circa late 1970s), which I would agree was too high. .10 seems reasonable.
2. Going lower than that, I'd like to see some serious studies of how often a serious accident is caused by someone with BA under .10, .08, or whatever.
3. Re: your suggestion that if they are serious, they'd give rides home from bars -- locally there is a program (a non-MADD program) to do just that on holidays. One year the local MADD director gave the press a statement that she opposed the idea, because while it reduced the risk of drunk drivers on the road, it encouraged drinking!!!

David Hardy   ·  September 25, 2010 12:49 PM

Your argument would be more persuasive if you yourself didn't play fast and loose with the facts. You do not get to a .04 after a glass of wine -- not unless you're talking about a much bigger than normal glass or MUCH higher than normal alcohol content. Or, I suppose, unless you're a tiny person. A normal 4oz glass of wine consumed over an hour dinner by a a 120lb female would get her to about a .02. Make that a 180lb man and you're less than a .01.

There are several online BAC calculators you can look at. One decent one is It seems pretty unbiased (they even include a link to help you find a lawyer if you get arrested for DUI).

Second, if you DO get to a .04, you probably SHOULD NOT be driving. All of the science on this demonstrates that impairment begins far below a .08. Much of the world has a much lower BAC limit. Finland - .05. Germany - .05. Greece - .05. India - .03. Israel - .05. Japan - .03. Russia - .05. Taiwan - .05.

Even wine-loving France and Italy are .05.

Drug-loving Netherlands are .05.

I don't care whether you like MADD or not, but you do a disservice to reasoned debate when you present inaccurate or misleading facts.

Spoons   ·  September 25, 2010 12:50 PM

Now, if libertarians did not go out of their way to poke at socons, I might be more interested.

And if socons weren't so interested in using government guns and jails to solve social problems (Cultural Socialism) libertarians would have no beef with them.

M. Simon   ·  September 25, 2010 12:51 PM

My concern with MADD is not just whether the legal limit is .08, .05, or whatever. It's that, no matter what they jam down our throats, I know damn well that it's not the end of the story.

If they get .04 and a felony, they'll be fighting for .01 and the death penalty. It's just who and what they are.

Barry D   ·  September 25, 2010 12:53 PM

Before you send your money to any non-profit
check their 990 tax return. You'll see the
names and salaries of their 10 highest paid
personnel. You'll find out why they don't go out of business. There are more people in the homelessness business than are actually homeless. There are more people in the HIV/AIDS business than people who have HIV/AIDS. The Red Cross blood bank in New York sold the blood collected after Sept.11,2001 to Europe to make money.

ptl   ·  September 25, 2010 1:01 PM

Libertarians, like Samurai, have a Single Value Ethical System. Like Samurai, who can be instructed by their shogun to 'kill your family and yourself', any SVES can be twisted into serious moral problems.

Socons have as values Virtue, Freedom, and Long-term Cultural Viability. This sometimes results in the seeming the they have no clear principles to the naive or prejudgiced observer.

I read the platform of a proposed libertarian oriented new political party. I agreed 93% with it. Considering that I was supposed to have an 83 or 86% agreement with Fred Thompson, and would have happily voted for him, I can say that the libertarian mindset is problematic, and that the problem in this relationship is on the libertarian side.

There is a difference between 'having a beef' and 'poking at'. We always have differences with others, and thus can be said to have a beef with them. But when you spend your time poking at them, you are deliberately seeking out, and spending excessive time to do so on the differences. Thus I have a beef with libertarians when I disagree about giving heroin to six year olds, but when I come to Classical Values to enlighten them, I am poking at them. Of course, I poke in an attempt to lessen the incidence of deliberate provocation and bigoted contempt and naive moralizing from the Libertarians in the future.

So please, 'stop imposing your morality on me.' And learn that if you want your issues dealt with respectfully, you might want to show respect to your partners in rolling back socialism.

Tennwriter   ·  September 25, 2010 2:18 PM

I don't believe in a "legal limit" or any drunk driving laws whatsoever (I know, string me up, right?). The law should only punish demonstrably reckless driving. The fact is that some people can drive better drunk, generally in proportion to their tolerance, and intelligence.

Mark Lindholm   ·  September 25, 2010 2:29 PM

after seeing the aftermath of a wreck and the authorities say it was alcohol related because there was a beer bottle in the ditch nearby,i lost all respect for these groups. the beer bottle was litter and in no way related to the wreck.

joe from houston   ·  September 25, 2010 2:33 PM

There are both many things that can impair one's driving and a wide range of driving conditions. There were many times when I drove home at 40mph on an empty 6 lane Hillcrest Road in Dallas after a night of drinking because I wasn't sure my reaction time was fast enough for 60mph on a relatively busy US-75. Unfortunately the law doesn't distinguish between driving drunk slowly on empty streets and the more dangerous situation of driving fast in rush hour traffic after a few happy hour drinks.

George B   ·  September 25, 2010 2:49 PM

As a statistician I am amazed at the misinterpretation on stats in public discourse. What I take from drunk driving statistics is how safe drunk drivers are! Not as safe as sober drivers for sure, but drunks don't crash as much as you are led to believe by the hype.

Jeff   ·  September 25, 2010 3:04 PM

Heroin to six year olds?

Straw man, anyone?

Bary D   ·  September 25, 2010 4:33 PM

BTW "social con" doesn't simply mean someone who lives a relatively conservative lifestyle. I have a wife, a house, some dogs, and I don't go around getting drunk or high. I'm a libertarian because of my beliefs about the use of government force to control the private behavior of others.

"Social con" also refers to someone's beliefs about using government force to control the private behavior of others. It means that they're okay with it, provided they're forcing people to adhere to a certain set of values. "Social liberals" in the US tend to be fine with government force used in this way, too, but enforcing a different set of values.

If you say you are a social con, it means something other than that you have a house in the 'burbs.

And a libertarian, on principle, opposes the use of government force to control private behavior of individuals.

That's not a 10% difference, and to me, "I have no real problem with government force, as long as it's in support of something I happen to like" is not principled.

Barry D   ·  September 25, 2010 4:45 PM

One more thing...

An example, gay marriage, positions of course a bit simplified out of necessity.

Social Conservative: Our traditions don't include gay marriage, the marriage tradition as it has existed is vital to our society, therefore the law will define marriage as one man and one woman, and ban any other arrangement.

Social Liberal: Gays can't help who they are, and we need to force other people to accept them and their lifestyles, therefore the law will define a gay marriage as equivalent to a straight one.

Libertarian: Whatever we consider to be virtuous needs to be left to non-government entities like churches, families, or individuals, therefore the government's sole role in marriage should be to enforce voluntary contracts, i.e. civil unions for all, marriage is a religious or personal commitment, not a government function.

These are VERY different points of view, and based on very different principles. A libertarian might find homosexuality to be revolting, but the principle involved is one of when government force is appropriate. The government, and the society, does not OWN the individual, and cannot force him/her to be "virtuous" by its definitions, for private behavior short of a crime with an involuntary victim (murder, theft, fraud...).

Barry D   ·  September 25, 2010 5:16 PM

So please, 'stop imposing your morality on me.'

Well that is easy for libertarians. We just want to leave you alone. Perhaps your might care to reciprocate?

Of course there is an alternative:

Obama/Keyes vs Kerry/Bush

You see, if the socons don't want to leave us alone there are always Communists we can vote for. Given the choice between Cultural Socialism and Economic Socialism I tend to lean towards the Economic Socialists. As did a lot of Republican voters in the Keyes/Obama race.

So what is it? Give up Cultural Socialism or wind up with economic socialism? Which half of the pie do you really want?

M. Simon   ·  September 25, 2010 11:15 PM

I think it's time to dispense with the idea of tax-free non-profits. Outfits like MADD, Greenpeace, NOW, etc, etc, are just waging war on us with our money. These groups are not serving the public, they are serving their own egos. Screw 'em.

Buck O'Fama   ·  September 25, 2010 11:25 PM

Social Conservatives are excellent at building coalitions with libertarians (swing voters generally in the USA) and then "We Won" takes over and we get another dose of the Marxists when the Social Conservative impulse gets too much..

The dynamic will play out again I fear. Well it is not actually a fear. More like a certainty. Socialists of all stripes seem to have a hard time resisting Power and Control.

What ever. I'm used to it by now and agitate accordingly.

M. Simon   ·  September 25, 2010 11:26 PM

What is to prevent the criminals currently in charge of heroin distribution from giving it to six year olds?

Libertarians would prefer it be sold in drug stores where access by six year olds would be more limited.

As in: it is easier for kids to get illegal drugs than legal beer.

Prohibition doesn't mean unavailable. It means distributed by criminals.

Just as Economic Socialists are easily fooled by words so too are Cultural Socialists. Belief is such a powerful thing untainted by reality. I find it interesting.

M. Simon   ·  September 25, 2010 11:33 PM

M. Simon:
Economic socialists are morphing into socons.
No salt in food. Don't get fat. Don't smoke cigs - anywhere. No trans-fats. No pit bulls. Don't feed wild animals. No trail bikes on publicly owned land. Your child needs ritalin.
And above all, stay out of the sun...

Frank   ·  September 26, 2010 2:01 AM

I've read a number of L. Neil Smith's books, and the first one in his WM. 'Bear' series had six year olds with guns.

And you're a statist theocrat if you want to use the power of gov't to stop selling heroin to six year olds.

This is not a strawman. Its an illustration of the weakness of SVES.

Social cons and Libertarians tend to arrive at roughly the same location by somewhat different routes. So, yes, it is a 10% difference.

You're just insisting that everyone think exactly like you do.

And of course, you should be well aware that socons and solibs differ by about an order of magnitude by the amount of social control they want.

Gay marriage is one of the 10%, and in a reasonable political discussion, its somewhere around number 59 on the priority list.

As a libertarian, you want the gov't to enforce contracts (morality), stop me from stealing your stuff (morality), and you want to stop me from enslaving you by taxes or by more direct means (morality). I should be free, free I tell you, free to lie to your face, stab you in the back when you walk off on me in disgust, and then free to chain your injured body to my lawnmower and get out my whip...Mow my lawn, Libertarian! Or get a taste of Mr. Whip! I tell you again 'stop imposing your morality on me'.

And yes, I'm becoming more aware that given a choice between Economic Freedom to a large degree and Social Freedom to a lesser but still large degree vs. Econ Socialists and Social Socialists that a fair number of Libertarians would choose the less free across teh board. This makes them something, sure not Libertarians. They're guided by hatred of the good, I suspect, or by hatred of the square to be charitable. In any case, people like this need to be tossed overboard.

Um, to the next writer. Prop 8 was more popular than Republicanism in California. In other words, R's were weighed down by libertarians. Ronald Reagan was vastly more successful and effective than Goldwater. See Ann Coulter's latest article for what that means.

M. Simon, I'd be willing to give a try to a state to end the drug war in exchange for Libertarian help to do the Libertarian thing, and end Abortion. BTW, this is a fair deal because socons are way bigger than libertarians. And because libertarians already ought to be out with Operation Rescue.

And perhaps you're right that it would limit their access better....that, btw, is not a libertarian arguement you just made. Its a socon arguement. Its a pragmatic, this works probably, so we ought to try it, arguement. And that, my friends, is what Conservatism is to a very large degree...its a collection of ideas that work.

And you lot ought to be pleased by that, because so much of Conservatism is Libertarian. We agree so much not because we wholly agree with your principles, although we do some, but also because much of your ideas work in the real world which is the acid test. So you got a good theory, its just not completely correct in every last part.

Tennwriter   ·  September 26, 2010 2:28 AM

And Frank, I'd be fine with allowing all of those. You can eat as many transfats as you want, and if you want a pit bull, as long as you keep him away from me, or my kids, I'm cool. Of course, if he steps foot on my property, then I'm legally allowed to kill him if I think he's a danger...which I do.

I am familiar with dog owners who don't want to restrain Fido,a nd expect me to be restrained when Fido growls at me. I rather like my grandma's POV.

She got a dog from a neighbour. It growled at her. She told her boys to take it back of the barn and shoot it. They did.

Tennwriter   ·  September 26, 2010 2:36 AM

Interesting article, was curious if you would permit me to link to it in a article im currently creating for my own site? Thanks

criminal attorney   ·  September 29, 2010 11:05 PM

Post a comment

April 2011
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30


Search the Site


Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link


Recent Entries


Site Credits