Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: Persevero
It would help.

Not the question. Again: would that satisfy you?

Please see my full answer

I did, as you know because I responded to the rest of your answer:

But I support the arrest, and the removal of driving privileges from, EVERY person who drives impaired.

The issue is not impaired driving but your imposition-of-costs argument. Again: I'm talking about innocent people suffering and dying in accidents that wouldn't have happened if the car wasn't on the road. Are you willing to continue imposing those costs on others for your right to drive (unimpaired) for the sake of driving?

Your reply?

281 posted on 02/21/2012 11:58:51 AM PST by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 280 | View Replies ]


To: JustSayNoToNannies

” But I support the arrest, and the removal of driving privileges from, EVERY person who drives impaired.

The issue is not impaired driving but your imposition-of-costs argument. Again: I’m talking about innocent people suffering and dying in accidents that wouldn’t have happened if the car wasn’t on the road. Are you willing to continue imposing those costs on others for your right to drive (unimpaired) for the sake of driving? “

Yes. Because if you take just me off the road, the odds are 100% that people will still suffer and die in car accidents.

You’d have to take EVERYONE off the road to insure that no one suffers or dies in car accidents.

Now, you could make a law that no one can “pleasure drive,” that would have to be legally defined, but, is unenforceable. Because everyone who wanted to pleasure drive would only have to say they were headed to the store. Unless you got an infallible lie detector to apply to everyone driving.

Then again, if people aren’t allowed to pleasure drive, what would they do instead? Would the activities they choose to do instead be more lethal than pleasure driving? Quite possible.

-Since pleasure driving is not a statistically bad risk. It is a very low risk activity.

All activities and inactivities have risk. How high risk are we willing to tolerate? Will we allow a blindfolded man to run with a running chainsaw through a crowd? No. High risk. Will we allow a man to saw through a tree on his property? Yes. Low risk.

You might note, insurers don’t ask you, do you pleasure drive? But they do ask, do you use drugs? Ever convicted of a felony?

Do you know why they ask that? I think you do.


283 posted on 02/21/2012 1:03:37 PM PST by Persevero (Homeschooling for Excellence since 1992)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 281 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson