We don’t believe in COLLECTIVE GUILT and COLLECTIVE punishment. You don’t punish Johnny for something Jimmy did.... even if Johnny and Jimmy read the same books, watch the same movies, belong to the same political party and hang out with the same friends.
Ah yes, the old "you're a collectivist" argument that libertarians trot out when they get backed into a corner.
Sorry old man, but there's nothing "collective" about holding a person accountable for engaging in an individual activity which is well-known to contribute harm to others. Your example is simply non-sequitur to the discussion.
Strictly from a libertarian perspective, it’s debatable whether drunk driving (as opposed to vehicular homicide) should be against the law.
And that's an example of the reason why I consider libertarians to be, generally speaking, irresponsible children.
1) Driving has ALWAYS been considered a PRIVILAGE not a RIGHT (Unlike reading or viewing material...which is generaly considered a 1st Ammendment Right)
You've not heard of unenumerated rights, via the 9th amendment?
2) Regulation of Driving applies to use of PUBLIC Property ( as opposed to what happens in the privacy of your own home)
True enough, but non-sequitur to this discussion, since driving on your own property doesn't have the potential to harm somebody who is somewhere other than on your property. Drug users who takes hits at home, however, have a much higher likelihood of going off their own property to harm somebody somewhere else - i.e. their behaviour at home still presents a likelihood that they will adversely affect other people elsewhere. Hence, you argument fails.
3) The correlation between driving under the influence and grave harm to others is OVERWHELMING. There is virtualy NO SAFE way to operate a motor vehicle while drunk if other individuals may be present. {I’d challenge you to make that case for some of the activities you want to regulate)
It is untrue that there is an overwhelming instance of drunk driving ending up in grave harm to others. In many cases, people drive drunk and do not cause harm to others. We only hear about the cases where they DO cause harm, but rarely if ever the cases where they DON'T. It is true, however, that the practice has the POTENTIAL to do so, each and every time it is done. Which is my whole argument.
Likewise, we know that certain types of narcotics are closely linked with the commission of violent crimes, and that this is so because the addicts commit the crimes in an effort to obtain the drugs to satisfy their adiction. To deny this link is to simply ignore the mountains of evidence which have been gathered and seen for decades. Hence, many drugs, at least, present a very real, though often potential, danger to other memebrs of society when they are used.
This is the same reason we outlaw [RELIGION]. It has already killed thousands - i.e. presented ACTUAL HARM. We regulate it despite the fact that not everybody who [PRACTICES RELIGION] is necessarily always going to harm someone by doing so - i.e. there is only the POTENTIAL for them to harm someone. There’s no logical difference”
If every time a person practiced their religion, they actually presented a potential threat of harm to others, I would agree with you. However, there is no basis for making an argument that the practice of "religion", per se, even carries with it this potential, whereas with drugs, a person is ALWAYS opening his or herself to addiction that can potentially lead to the commission of violent crimes, and with pornography, a person is ALWAYS leaving his or herself open to a addiction which can spin out of control and result in violent sex crimes. There is nothing in "religion" itself which presents this same sort of likelihood, so actualy, there IS a logical difference.
“You’ve not heard of unenumerated rights, via the 9th amendment?”
So you are trying to contend that driving a motor vehicle is ONE of these?
“Drug users who takes hits at home, however, have a much higher likelihood of going off their own property to harm somebody somewhere else “
Not proven. There is no greater likelihood that users of many illegal drugs will leave thier own property then a driver.... drunk or otherwise. In fact, given the differences between how certain drugs work and alcohol works....the likelihood is probably LESS.
“If every time a person practiced their religion, they actually presented a potential threat of harm to others, I would agree with you. However, there is no basis for making an argument that the practice of “religion”, per se, even carries with it this potential, whereas with drugs, a person is ALWAYS opening his or herself to addiction that can potentially lead to the commission of violent crimes, and with pornography, a person is ALWAYS leaving his or herself open to a addiction which can spin out of control and result in violent sex crimes. There is nothing in “religion” itself which presents this same sort of likelihood, so actualy, there IS a logical difference.”
I would argue that history provides AMPLE evidence to prove you wrong.... to cite but a few examples: The Aztecs, The Muslim expansion of the 7th - 9th century, The Crusades, The Spanish Inquisition, The English Civil War, The Troubles in Northen Ireland, Henrey the VIIIth, the Salem Witch Trials, 9-11.
I could argue, rather convincingly, that the use of many recreational drugs or of pornography had a FAR smaller incidence of harm to others then the practice of religion.
How many people that smoked the occasional joint in college or bought the occasional plaboy even ended up addicts, let alone went out and injured some-one because of it?
Compare that to the number of people that have gone out and killed some-one because they believed God wanted them to do so.
Heck look around the world today. How many people were killed in the last year because of porn? How many were killed because they were “infidels”?