Osborn VS. Kame - Landmines and DUI's

[Kamehameha34]

I recently PMed Osborn about what I see as an inconsistency in his views. We decided to take it to a special debate because of the character limit.

He holds that it should be legal to drive under the influence, because having a law against it is redundant. Any harm that could come from it could be punished with existing laws.

I maintain that the same is true for landmines. Here is where our PM'ed conversation left off:

Quote by: Kamehameha34 But aren't both used as tools, by humans, to kill? What each specific object was designed for isn't necessarily relevant - because an object can fulfill any number of purposes that it wasn't designed for. A landmine can be placed so that it will only kill those who deliberately tresspass - such as those who proceed to enter someone's property despite numerous signs warning tresspassers of the aforementioned explosives. Just as a car can be driven so that it would only accomplish a legal objective - to take person X from point A to point B. It's not necessarily a "humans vs. landmines" argument, because humans both place landmines and drive cars. The dispute lies in the difference between a drunk driver and a landmine. A person has the ability to swerve and miss a pedestrian, true, but there is still a possibility - with the impaired motor skills of the driver - that such an effort wouldn't make a difference. My question is this: If both situations could lead to the death of innocents, why do you propose that one remain illegal while another be legalized? One may have the potential to cause more death than another, true, but at what point should we deem something "illegal"? How many lives have to be in danger for something to be considered a crime?

[Osborn F Enready]

Kameha said: He holds that it should be legal to drive under the influence, because having a law against it is redundant. Any harm that could come from it could be punished with existing laws.

WOAH!

I didn't say driving under the influence should be LEGAL, I said that DUI or DWI laws are not necessary.

Simply not wanting to have laws that in themselves make a case of double jeapordy, does not mean I think something should be legal, as opposed to illegal.



Allow me, if I may to clearly state what my argument is.

DUI and DWI laws are laws that affect "DRIVERS", or operators of motor vehicles.

Traffic laws are also laws that affect drivers, or operators of motor vehicles.

When an accident occurs, there is a means of determining WHO is at fault, and there is no reason that DUI or DWI presents a unique case deserving of its own laws, or unique style of double penalty.

Am I saying that I encourage, or condone driving while under the influence of any drug, legal or not? No.

I am saying there is no need for laws that result in punishment for addiction, as opposed to punishment for crime.

Addiction is a medical problem, not a crime.

Also, not all DUI DWI cases, are caused by addicts, but by occassional drinkers who don't know their limit, or don't take it seriously, but that is no reason to penalize them anymore than the crime they committed deems necessary.

I will reply back to your first post, tomorrow.

[Kamehameha34]

I didn't say driving under the influence should be LEGAL, I said that DUI or DWI laws are not necessary.

Sorry I didn't clarify. When I say "DUI", I mean driving intoxicated/under the influence exclusively. The point I'm trying to get at is potential harm - not what happens in the event of actual harm.

I am saying there is no need for laws that result in punishment for addiction, as opposed to punishment for crime.

I don't think addiction is the issue. The law punishes concurrently drinking and driving.

[Osborn F Enready]

Kameha said: My question is this: If both situations could lead to the death of innocents, why do you propose that one remain illegal while another be legalized?

Because, in the case of the "drivers" who have accidents, there are rights and laws that allow blame to be found, and trials held. Citing the person at fault for the crime, is the proper thing to do once rights have been violated.

Why should the act of drinking prior to driving be a penalty in and of itself, when we all know there is a legal "limit", which would lead one to believe that it is not only socially acceptable, but legally acceptable to drink " a little " but still drive. Why should the "actions not directly related" have any effect on the crime, or penalty, whatsoever? This is a matter of guilt pushing, or blaming inanimate objects for responsibility. The beer didn't make the person drink it, the person chose to drink the beer, even though the person knew the affects of the beer, so why is the beer a part of the penalty? The crime is that the person irresponsibly operated equipment, and caused damage, injury or death of others or their property, cause and effect.

The crime is not "operating a motor vehicle under a specific substance", it is operating a motor vehicle irresponsibly, regardless of whether it was because they were drinking, dropped their hamburger on the floor, or tuning their radio, or fell asleep.

I don't see the reasoning for special treatment for "being under the influence" of anything.

Kameha said: One may have the potential to cause more death than another, true, but at what point should we deem something "illegal"?

At the point someones right are infringed.

I don't think items, objects, or substances should be "deemed" illegal to own, unless they are items that even in proper use, pose a significant threat to INNOCENT life. What is a "significant threat"? What is "innocent life"?

Significant threat would be an item or object, or substance, that even when handled properly, by professionals, has a measureable potential and warrantable record of causing harm, unprovoked, without an offensive action.

Radioactive Waste for example, or weapons grade plutonium, does not take an offensive action to be harmful, it only takes a slight accident in the wrong place to pose an extremely significant risk, not from explosion, but from contamination of land, water and eventually, life in the area. That is a mass threat, which warrants strict regulation. Nitro Glycerine, is much the same due to its stability issues, and potential for explosion from rapid temperature change, or neglect, or simply adverse conditions out of the control of the handlers.

Innocent life: I would define innocent life, in this context, as someone not directly involved in the actions taking place.

A land mine, poses significant threat to innocent life, no matter who uses it, or how well the area is marked. Markers can be removed, mines can be forgotten or left for others, and mines are "dumb" objects of death, meaning, once they are activated, there is no turning back unless you KNOW how to disarm it, and of course, you know its there.

In these cases, often times the handler stands a higher chance of being a victim than the average bystander, just from percentage of handling being significantly higher, therefore their use alone signifies a requirement of responsibility above and beyond that covered by standard rights.
Landmines use to society, are also very low in value, as armed guards and other means of area defense technology has provided, could easily replace land mines, and make their use outdated and un-necessary.

Cars on the other hand, have very little potential to be used as a weapon of mass destruction, or as a mass killing weapon, or injuring weapon, in any stretch of the operation of normal use, individually. While it is possible to take, or risk multiple lives in a car, it is not the same thing for many reasons. The risk associated with sharing the roads, is a common risk that we all share by driving and getting cars. That risk must be assumed by taking to the road, or you simply couldn't take to the road, and should be petitioning to have roads removed from your financial obligation. Your obligation on the road is to be in control of your actions to the point where you don't risk others, and obey posted traffic laws that are guidelines on how to meet that goal. This task changes once you have passengers also, and carries additional responsibility, since you are also in physical control of their lives as well. While we all may agree that people shouldn't drive unless they are in "possession of their full abilities", how do we create a measure of what constitutes "full abilities"? Should every traffic stop perform some test of "abilities", and if so, why, because INNOCENCE is assumed until guilt is proven, and if people have a drivers license, vehicle, and registration, they have met the REQUIREMENTS to be on the road, and should be assumed innocent until proven guilty, or provably observed to be breaking the law by sworn oath testimony.

A person is charged with being in control of a car, if they are operating it. If they fail to operate it safely, then that is what they should be punished for, not for whatever "aided" them in their pursuit of inattention to their actions.

A landmine is a piece of property, that can be owned, surely, like a car. However, a landmine does not "require" control to be operated, and instead, is quite the opposite. It is meant to be "set" and left to operate remotely, which means any number of random events may happen that lead to the detonation of the mine, for the wrong purposes. Also, land mines are quite dangerous to store in number, and pose a risk whether armed or not. Cars pose little to no risk, when not running, in gear, with the brakes set.

Kameha said: How many lives have to be in danger for something to be considered a crime?

It is not simply about "danger", since danger to humans is a natural factor, even without the doing of other humans. Its about the context of assumed risk for an individual, and what is the boundary of that assumed risk liability.

Individuals have a right to own most anything, but certain things pose such a significant risk to surrounding life, and they are products only of mechanized societies, that they deem public oversight and regulation.

I, even as a strict libertarian in the issue of property rights, privacy and the overall belief that individuals are responsible for themselves, concede that certain things pose such significant risk that they DEMAND by nature, regulation and oversight. I have already mentioned a couple, and there aren't many more, but none would be possible, or are necessarily feasible or prudent to have in the first place. Most of them wouldn't even be here if people of the world would have long ago recognized the need for INDIVIDUAL defense, and not shrugged the duty to government collectives, states and national governments. Now that we have allowed the problems to exist however, we must deal with them until they can be rectified.

[Osborn F Enready]

Kameha said: Sorry I didn't clarify. When I say "DUI", I mean driving intoxicated/under the influence exclusively. The point I'm trying to get at is potential harm - not what happens in the event of actual harm.

So, wait. I need this clarified.

How do make laws concerning "potential".

A chainsaw has infinitely more potential to cause harm than a full whiskey bottle. The whiskey can be drank by one person, or a few people, who may "potentially cause harm", but the chainsaw can be refilled with gas and oil, and restarted, over and over again.

Does this mean that since chainsaws have such potential to harm, we should strictly regulate, tax and pass laws against them?

My point is this.... you can't punish people for potential crime, or having a potential to commit crime. You can punish people for committed crime.

You can stop a person who is driving erraticly, because they aren't displaying responsible operation of a vehicle. You can't stop them because you suspect them of possibly driving erraticly at a later time, because you have a gut feeling about them, or because you saw a car "similar" to that one in a bar parking lot one hour ago.

Our nation is built on the ideal of innocent until proven guilty, and individual equality under the law. We have an explicit right to trial by jury, and a right to privacy. We have the right to NOT say anything that could possibly be used to incriminate ourselves, much like we have the right to not be subject ourselves, or forced to testing that could incriminate ourselves. That equality under the law, means we have equal rights to NOT be harrassed and assumed guilty, until our innocence can be proven, once we are stopped, imprisoned, and issued a court date.

In other words, if a person is witnessed by a policeman to be pulling their car out of a bar parking lot, during bar hours, they have to assume the driver is innocent, in full control of their faculties, and operating legally, unless they are given a clear sign that that is not the case. (illegal tags, or unlawful operation, etc)

That is just the issue of individual rights, and it has to be observed, or scrapped. They can't claim you have the right, and then claim you don't have the right to be assumed innocent. It is illogical and philosophically flawed beyond repair to say so, and having it in that fashion, would directly violate the accepted meaning of the term "right" as given, in the context of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

[Kamehameha34]

Why should the act of drinking prior to driving be a penalty in and of itself, when we all know there is a legal "limit", which would lead one to believe that it is not only socially acceptable, but legally acceptable to drink " a little " but still drive. Why should the "actions not directly related" have any effect on the crime, or penalty, whatsoever? This is a matter of guilt pushing, or blaming inanimate objects for responsibility. The beer didn't make the person drink it, the person chose to drink the beer, even though the person knew the affects of the beer, so why is the beer a part of the penalty? The crime is that the person irresponsibly operated equipment, and caused damage, injury or death of others or their property, cause and effect.

The same could apply for landmines.

The only truly illegal use for landmines (the law forbidding them aside) is killing of the innocents. If you use them to kill those who tresspass against you, then punishing the use of landmines is equivalent to punishing drinking and driving.

Both are legal behaviors, (or should be, based on the constitutional definition of government) that could lead to illegal activity.

I'm not necessarily attacking drunk driving - I'm asking why you deem landmines illegal based on your standards.

Significant threat would be an item or object, or substance, that even when handled properly, by professionals, has a measureable potential and warrantable record of causing harm, unprovoked, without an offensive action

.

"Measurable potential"? That's a bit circular. I was asking you to specifically define the quantifier in "significant threat". How many lives have to be at risk in order for an activity to be considered illegal? How dangerous, statistically, does something have to be?

A land mine, poses significant threat to innocent life, no matter who uses it, or how well the area is marked. Markers can be removed, mines can be forgotten or left for others, and mines are "dumb" objects of death, meaning, once they are activated, there is no turning back unless you KNOW how to disarm it, and of course, you know its there.

So make it illegal to remove landmine markers, or to engage in any activity that amounts to negligence in the use of landmines.

Landmines use to society, are also very low in value, as armed guards and other means of area defense technology has provided, could easily replace land mines, and make their use outdated and un-necessary.

Are you saying that the government has the right to proscribe something for being unnecessary?

Cars on the other hand, have very little potential to be used as a weapon of mass destruction, or as a mass killing weapon, or injuring weapon, in any stretch of the operation of normal use, individually. While it is possible to take, or risk multiple lives in a car, it is not the same thing for many reasons. The risk associated with sharing the roads, is a common risk that we all share by driving and getting cars. That risk must be assumed by taking to the road, or you simply couldn't take to the road, and should be petitioning to have roads removed from your financial obligation. Your obligation on the road is to be in control of your actions to the point where you don't risk others, and obey posted traffic laws that are guidelines on how to meet that goal. This task changes once you have passengers also, and carries additional responsibility, since you are also in physical control of their lives as well.

Couldn't the same be said (even moreso) for someone who knowingly (due to markers) tresspasses upon someone else's landmine-infested property?

A landmine is a piece of property, that can be owned, surely, like a car. However, a landmine does not "require" control to be operated, and instead, is quite the opposite. It is meant to be "set" and left to operate remotely, which means any number of random events may happen that lead to the detonation of the mine, for the wrong purposes.

The owner controls the environment in which the mine is set. If it is placed so that it poses no danger to anyone not on the property, and if markers are placed warning tresspassers, I see a restriction of landmines as an imposition on property rights.

Also, land mines are quite dangerous to store in number, and pose a risk whether armed or not. Cars pose little to no risk, when not running, in gear, with the brakes set.

That danger would be exclusive to the owner of the landmines - he isn't imposing on the rights of anyone else.

[Kamehameha34]

My point is this.... you can't punish people for potential crime, or having a potential to commit crime. You can punish people for committed crime.

I agree wholeheartedly. That's why I'm making the landmine - drunk driving parallel not to denounce drunk driving as what should be an illegal activity, but to defend the use of landmines in defending one's property.

[Osborn F Enready]

Ok wait Kame.

I have to make this point crystal clear, so there is no more confusion about it.

DUI, DWI laws are not necessary, because traffic laws ALREADY are in place to site the person at fault. The law already states that in order to operate a motor vehicle, you must have "control" of the vehicle, which means not only physical control via the input controls of the car, but also mental control of your faculties.

Getting rid of DUI or DWI laws does NOT change that.

A person who is drunk and kills or injures someone, or their property, would STILL be sited if they were at fault for the accident. What CAUSED them to not be in control of their faculties is NOT a concern, it is simply information that CAN be used to ascertain the "mental impairment" of the driver at the time. It should not be a charge in and of itself, is my argument.

Ok....

Now, to your points.

You would be correct if you alledge that my expressed philosophy is incomplete because I don't view landmines as a legitimate means of property defense, in the strictest sense. The fact is though, in the strictest sense, I DO support the use of landmines as property defense. The reason I admit there is valid argument against the use of landmines for property defense is because of the "state of our nation".

To interpret the laws in the strict sense would be the proper, and the correct way to do it, since that is what was intended, and that can be ascertained from reading the writings of the forefathers. Their philosophy was complete, in that sense, as is mine.

I however, do recognize the FACT that our nation currently, is in no position to argue from that point (due to hypocritical laws that have set past precedents) nor is it ready to accept the application of that point into practice, due to the polarized state of our union, especially in current times.

So, for example:

If a bill were to be offered in Washington tomorrow, that allowed individuals to use landmines for home and property defense, I would not raise one argument against the bill, and I would in fact vote to support it, because it is philosophically correct, as well as inherantly within the rights of the individual to defense. I would also though, at the same time, not expect such a bill to gain any acceptance among the majorty parties, or the public at large now, who have come to accept and EXPECT the nanny state climate to prevail.

By the same token, if a bill came up tomorrow in the Congress to further increase the penalties for DUI, DWI, I would fight that from the word go, because it is built on flawed premise, and I alledge doing more HARM than good to society.

Kameha said: I'm not necessarily attacking drunk driving - I'm asking why you deem landmines illegal based on your standards.

In all honesty, I can't deem landmines illegal by MY standards, only the standards I perceive will or will not be accepted by the overwhelming majority based on historical voting trends, as well as views currently polled on individual rights. The fact is, people today are considering the idea that individuals DON'T own their lives, which is beyond contemplation for me, since the natural and obvious fact is that we each own our own lives, once capable of grasping what life is, and our roll in it, as can only be defined by the individual.

Kameha said: "Measurable potential"? That's a bit circular. I was asking you to specifically define the quantifier in "significant threat". How many lives have to be at risk in order for an activity to be considered illegal? How dangerous, statistically, does something have to be?

That can't be done without context though Kameha, and there are a million factors that could affect that context, and outcome, for ANY given situation.

Please, give me an example, and I will show you how and where I draw the line if you wish.


Here is one example:

In a small town of 500 residents, 1 resident owns land that is directly over the citys only incoming water supply. That 1 resident is using his land as a privately owned small business, repairing cars out of his large garage for local residents and businesses.

After years of working in that situation, the city on a routine water supply analysis finds out that the incoming water supply is becoming tainted enough to cause possible injury between the time it enters the canal under the garage owners residence, and the time it exits the canal, meaning the source of the pollution is obviously within the zoned land the garage owner has possession and legal rights over.

This is significant enough, given the relevant facts (town population, number of water sources available, definite proof of area of where the problem exists, and measured, quantifiable threat) to warrant the intrusion of the mans rights if he refuses to comply with the city on attempting to rectify the problem. Why? 1 man is solely perpetrating, (by pollution) or preventing (by refusal to cooperate or find the problem or source of pollution on his land) the city from finding and removing the source of pollution. In other words, 1 mans rights can't trump the rights of 499 men who are suffering directly from the upholding of 1 mans rights. How are they suffering? They are suffering in land value, since the land value won't be as high if there is no access to clean water, which there was when the land was purchased and developed and still could be if it weren't for one man holding up the investigation of pollution source. They are suffering in quality of life, since a valuable necessity which surely affected their purchasing the land, has been removed or tainted beyond value. They are suffering because their ability to live and prosper is being directly affected by one man who may or may not be at fault, refuses to comply with even investigation of the source of the pollution.

The fact remains to be found if the man is guilty of causing the source of pollution, or simply "in the way" of finding the source of pollution. This fact can't be ascertained until the land can be examined, the water source pollution verified and the necessary factual arguments are constructed.

In this case you have to look at everything, including assets and investments in the area. Surely the assets invested by 499 individuals, surely meet or are greater than the assets made by 1, which means that 499 lives, and rights are in the balance against 1 who has a valid argument based on property rights. Also, there has to be attempt at willful negotiation, and agreements to "repair or replace" to "satisfactory" condition any and all damage to the property owner for investigation and rectification of the problem, unless of course, the landowner is at fault, in which case there may be an issue of damages or reparations due to injuries caused or damages caused from irresponsible disregard for the rights of others, via pollution.

In this case I think both the 499 people, and the 1 person have valid property rights arguments, so there must be pre-agreement into "damages caused" during the investigation must be handled in a certain way, depending on the results. If the 1 man is guilty as being the source of the pollution, he can be cited for infringing the rights of others, through willfull neglect. If the 499 find that a natural source is the cause of the pollution, they should be cuplable for fully restoring the property of the 1 man to its pre-investigation condition, minus the pollution source. The facts must be ascertained before guilt can be construed, or the "costs" can be allocated to the parties responsible for them.

In this case, the potential for risk was to 499 lives, from a possible 1 or 0 lives being to blame. It wouldn't matter what the "size" of the risk is if it is 1 life or more placed in a position of having their rights infringed directly by the rights or actions of another. In this case, the rights of one man were the legal obstacle of the other 499 men, but it still doesn't justify removing the mans rights, simply bargaining for what is reasonable, under the circumstances involved.

[Osborn F Enready]

Kameha said: I agree wholeheartedly. That's why I'm making the landmine - drunk driving parallel not to denounce drunk driving as what should be an illegal activity, but to defend the use of landmines in defending one's property.

Valid argument.

Driving while intoxicated is irrelevant, since being in control of your faculties is a pre-requisite for legal driving and "having control" over ones vehicle.

Even without laws that specifically target intoxication, the facts exist to show that intoxication impairs judgment, so it goes WITHOUT SAYING that intoxication is not legal, whether or not there is a law to clarify such, specifically. That is why I am arguing AGAINT DUI DWI laws, because only an individual can determine when an intoxicant is having an effect. He should be held responsible for his decision of "his faculties", not what he decided to consume or not.

On the other hand, in the argument of property rights, I have a right to defense of those rights using lethal force if necessary. This IMPLIES to mean that the use of landmines is fully and totally legal for defense purposes if done without risk to those OFF the owned land. That is a valid argument to which I can't find fault with, though I have attempted to find that fault using the logic provided by others on the issue.

Regardless of legality, philosophical correctness stand as the truth which it is. The problem with law is when the clear logic of the philosophy that backs it, stumbles over inconsistency in precedent and practice. In our system, this is, and has always been a major problem if the public fails to address them immediately upon being made law or precedent.

What you have just played out here with me, is proof of that fact, in my opinion.

Job well done Kameha.

[Kamehameha34]

You would be correct if you alledge that my philosophy is incomplete because I don't view landmines as a legitimate means of property defense, in the strictest sense. The fact is though, in the strictest sense, I DO support the use of landmines as property defense. The reason I admit there is valid argument against the use of landmines for property defense is because of the "state of our nation". To interpret the laws in the strict sense would be the proper, and the correct way to do it, since that is what was intended, and that can be ascertained from reading the writings of the forefathers. Their philosophy was complete, in that sense, as is mine. I however, do recognize the FACT that our nation currently, is in no position to argue from that point (due to hypocritical laws that have set past precedents) nor is it ready to accept the application of that point into practice, due to the polarized state of our union, especially in current times.

I do agree that the political climate in America disappates any possibility of landmines being legalized.

That can't be done without context though Kameha, and there are a million factors that could affect that context, and outcome, for ANY given situation. Please, give me an example, and I will show you how and where I draw the line if you wish.

I agree with the assessment of your example.

You also seem to agree that a person has dominance over his own legal property - and if any of his actions extend past his property as to imfringe upon the rights of another, then those actions are still illegal.

I don't think that applies to landmines, though. They can be contained within the property of the operator. Don't get me wrong - there should be limits. Someone in New York shouldn't be able to use a landmine to defend his garden - because the blast radius extends past his personal property to the point where it would inevitably imfringe upon the rights of others.

Someone living in an unpopulated segment of Montana, however, should have full rights to the use of landmines in defense of his property - so long as his property is clearly marked and the landmines have no potential to harm any non-tresspassers.

On the other hand, in the argument of property rights, I have a right to defense of those rights using lethal force if necessary. This IMPLIES to mean that the use of landmines is fully and totally legal for defense purposes if done without risk to those OFF the owned land. That is a valid argument to which I can't find fault with, though I have attempted to find that fault using the logic provided by others on the issue. Regardless of legality, philosophical correctness stand as the truth which it is. The problem with law is when the clear logic of the philosophy that backs it, stumbles over inconsistency in precedent and practice. In our system, this is, and has always been a major problem if the public fails to address them immediately upon being made law or precedent. What you have just played out here with me, is proof of that fact, in my opinion. Job well done Kameha.

Pleasure debating this with you. Would you mind if I opened this thread up, so other members could share their opinion on this issue?

[Osborn F Enready]

A pleasure on this end to Kameha, and I don't mind the opening of the thread in the least.

[Kamehameha34]

...

[Kamehameha34]

....

[Kamehameha34]

.....

[Kamehameha34]

...and 15.

[Kamehameha34]

Oops - Ok this is the unlocking post :)