[Illbay]

Oooookay, then why is it NOT okay to have laws against driving drunk that include blood-alcohol restrictions? That's "pre-emptive," right?

I REPEAT: Saddam hasn't actually TERRORIZED us yet, so how can we "preempt" him? We haven't the right.

It's one way or the other. I believe that we can enforce laws that pre-empt bad guys. Your Libertine philosophy says that you can't, not until it is provably harmful. Can't "prove" that Saddam's possession of the means for our destruction would DEFINITELY be harmful.

Back in the box.

[Physicist]

Oooookay, then why is it NOT okay to have laws against driving drunk that include blood-alcohol restrictions? That's "pre-emptive," right?

For the same reason we haven't nuked the CDC in Atlanta for carrying stocks of smallpox. Some people can hold their liquor.

I REPEAT: Saddam hasn't actually TERRORIZED us yet, so how can we "preempt" him? We haven't the right.

Of course he has. You haven't been paying attention.

[OWK]

Oooookay, then why is it NOT okay to have laws against driving drunk that include blood-alcohol restrictions? That's "pre-emptive," right?

The public (being owner of the roads), IS entitled to establish the terms and conditions pursuant to access of their property. INCLUDING restrictions on operation of a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol. I have never suggested otherwise.

[MadameAxe]

The over-the-ever-shrinking-but-currently-.08 limit guy who gets in his car may be stupid (or even - gasp! - capable of driving well in his "impaired" condition) but he does not consciously intend to kill anyone.

Saddam Hussein is an evil dictator who has clearly indicated that he wants to eradicate us all, and who has been amassing pathologic agents, uncontrollable once released, that have no other use than to cause death.

Do you really not grasp the difference?

[OWK]

I REPEAT: Saddam hasn't actually TERRORIZED us yet, so how can we "preempt" him? We haven't the right.

Apparently Mohammed Atta's meetings with Iraqi intelligence in the weeks leading up to the events of 9-11, escaped your notice.

[OWK]

It's one way or the other. I believe that we can enforce laws that pre-empt bad guys. Your Libertine philosophy says that you can't, not until it is provably harmful. Can't "prove" that Saddam's possession of the means for our destruction would DEFINITELY be harmful.

I'm beginning to think that others are correct.

You really are a silly little man.

[donh]

I REPEAT: Saddam hasn't actually TERRORIZED us yet, so how can we "preempt" him? We haven't the right.

Wrong analogy from an irrelevant field of discourse. The correct analogy would be with someone who gets your wallet because he points what you foolishly presume is a loaded gun at your head. Getting what he wants using force does not require that he pull the trigger. The correct field of discourse is relations between countries, which libertarian political philosophy largely fails to address, and libertarian practical politics usually addressed with George Washington's warnings about foreign entanglement. Paving and striping Iraq, if that seems the course safety dictates (which I doubt), is prohibited by pacifist ideology, not libertarian ideology.