Hysteria is the prime mover behind all contemporary social activism.

These are the smart, progressive people.

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.

"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

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.

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

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

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.

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'):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jd3i_aP0dJM

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

"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.

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.

'lanched

http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/106779/

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!!!

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 www.bloodalcoholcalculator.org/. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Heroin to six year olds?

Straw man, anyone?

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.

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...).

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?

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.

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.

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:
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...
OR ELSE.

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.

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.

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