Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Back To the Bars
Yesterday's column by Steve Chapman, in which the Chicago Tribune scribe argued for keeping the drinking age where it is, drew a large amount of criticism and disagreement from reason regulars.
In a week where we discussed college presidents backing a lower drinking age and bizarre school theatrics aimed at scaring kids sober, let's close out the topic with a column from reason contributor and Denver Poster David Harsanyi:
It's regularly pointed out that young adults can volunteer to serve in Iraq but are prohibited from buying a beer. But young adults are also free to produce children (many children). A young adult can plan the entire course of his or her life by the age of 21. A young adult can serve on a jury and determine the fate a fellow citizen. If a young adult chooses, he or she can act in pornographic films, gamble nightly, smoke several packs of cigarettes or, in some places, even engage in the truly depraved act of becoming a politician.
Yet this same young adult is breaking the law when ordering an appletini?
|8.22.08 @ 9:42AM|#
I vote for pitchforks and torches, myself.
But I'm old-fashioned like that...you kids these days got "rails"
and such. Spoiled!
|8.22.08 @ 9:42AM|#
Nick, can you please tell us what deal with Satan requires you to print Chapman's dreck?
Nigel Watt|8.22.08 @ 9:47AM|#
Also, the only law you're breaking when ordering an appletini is the law of good taste. Get a very dry and enjoy it.
|8.22.08 @ 9:49AM|#
Ditto
Ditto
Ditto
You're still not getting it Nick. That Chapman article wasn't the
first to draw criticism. It wasn't the second, or third or forth,
this month even. Purt near everything he writes is crap. And his
crap appears twice as often as anyone actually on the staff.
Oust Steve Chapman AlReady
OSCAR OSCAR OSCAR
|8.22.08 @ 9:52AM|#
Enough of this. Let's just lock up everyone in an institution until they are 18. Separate institutions for boys and girls, too. Under the guardianship of nannies who will keep them safe from harm and any evil thoughts like free will, liberty, etc. Then, at 18, turn them loose on society. I'm sure we could recruit tens of thousands of guardian nannies: busybodies, health freaks, safety nazis, God's ministers and priests.....oh, wait a minute.
|8.22.08 @ 10:02AM|#
I like Chapman on occasion. I say keep him. I give him credit for at least having some numbers to back his opinion, rather than most that share his opinion that solely rely on something subjective like morality.
|8.22.08 @ 10:06AM|#
Chapman's got pictures of him before the jacket.
It can't be bad enough to allow Chapman's crap.
|8.22.08 @ 10:09AM|#
if i cant drink a beer at 18 iam not going to iraq to be killed send the ones that make the laws
|8.22.08 @ 10:16AM|#
Yeah it's a nice article, but there's nothing new there. I
suspect this is just an attempt to placate us with the massive
screw up that was Steve Chapman and his article yesterday.
Feeling guilty much, Nick?
Abdul|8.22.08 @ 10:21AM|#
Yesterday's column by Steve Chapman, in which the Chicago
Tribune scribe argued for keeping the drinking age where it is,
drew a large amount of criticism and disagreement from reason
regulars.
Resistance to Gengis Khan's occupation of the city drew a large
amount of criticism and disagreement from Mongol hordes.
Citizen Nothing|8.22.08 @ 10:22AM|#
Wow. This crowd is hard to please. I think it's great that a guy like Harsanyi is writing columns like this in the Denver Post. I guarantee that his in-box is filling up with e-mail from outraged WATCers.
|8.22.08 @ 10:29AM|#
Steve Chapman's articles appear to have wider distribution than other Reason writers. He advances the brand. And it doesn't hurt that he gets people riled up every now and then.
New World Dan|8.22.08 @ 10:34AM|#
Let's compromise and just throw out the federal drinking
age.
Personally, like any good white person, I'm all for copying the
Canadian model: a drinking age of 19. Keeps a lot of alcohol out of
high schools, but keeps it in college. Really, I'm for a 19 age of
majority in general.
Junter Klops|8.22.08 @ 10:38AM|#
What is this crap reason is allowing to be published on its
blog?! Arguing against keeping the minimum drinking age at
21! That is something I would have expected to find in some lousy
libertarian magazine, not in my favorite conservative nanny-state
magazine!
Nick should be fired for posting this garbage.
Nigel Watt|8.22.08 @ 10:38AM|#
New World Dan, as a 19-year-old, I can tell you that's fucktarded. Nothing magical happens when you turn 19. Or 18. Or 17. Age of a majority is a broken concept.
|8.22.08 @ 10:39AM|#
In Germany they let kids drink but they don't let them drive
until they are 18.
Germans also designed the "Shamwow".
|8.22.08 @ 10:39AM|#
What ever happened to the notion that a law which is universally disobeyed is by definition a bad law? Am I the only person who ever believed that?
|8.22.08 @ 10:43AM|#
NWD - there isn't a federal drinking age...that's the trap. The
fed has pulled the purse strings to make the states dance in rhythm
(to mix my metaphors a bit(.
Anyway, I vote we boot off Chapman and bring some cranky paleo in
to write. Maybe my good buddy D. Justin Raimondo :-D ?
|8.22.08 @ 10:44AM|#
What ever happened to the notion that a law which is
universally disobeyed is by definition a bad law?
What happened is that the government realized that universally
disobeyed laws are a great source of fines for revenue. You also
might want to look at speeding laws. If everyone breaks them,
everyone can get nailed for it and pay up. If they could outlaw (or
tax) "thingy",
they would.
Elemenope|8.22.08 @ 10:44AM|#
Junter is still clearly trapped in Bizarro Reason. And
yet his comments made it to this plane.
Sounds like something H.P. Lovecraft would write about. Which
brings us to the thread below...
|8.22.08 @ 10:46AM|#
Really, I'm for a 19 age of majority in general.
Silly rabbit! Dissent is not allowed. You must be re-educated.
Nietzsche|8.22.08 @ 10:49AM|#
Dissent is not allowed.
The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in
higher regard those who think alike than those who think
differently.
|8.22.08 @ 10:50AM|#
You turnin' troll on us A.O.?
Nah, man...just trying to shake up the threads a little. Chapman's
a mainstream col. with little depth (as demonstrated by yesterday).
DJ Raimondo at least would mandate a permanent cosmo/paleo cage
match.
What happened is that the government realized that universally
disobeyed laws are a great source of fines for revenue. You also
might want to look at speeding laws. If everyone breaks them,
everyone can get nailed for it and pay up. If they could outlaw (or
tax) "thingy", they would.
Hm, I'm reminded of a quote (which I throw up here enough that
everyone's tired of it, but oh well):
The only power any 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.
|8.22.08 @ 10:53AM|#
Really guys, it wasn't that bad of an article. Whatever problems it had were problems of ideology, not technical or rhetorical skill, as some people are arguing. Are those of you complaining really that wedded to the idea of never having to read anything you disagree with in Reason?
|8.22.08 @ 10:56AM|#
Steve Chapman's articles appear to have wider distribution
than other Reason writers. He advances the brand. And it doesn't
hurt that he gets people riled up every now and then.
As a long-time Tribune subscriber who's been reading Chapman for
years, I think you're on the right track. Much like how pro-choice
and pro-life advocates tend to shoot themselves in the foot by
taking extreme positions, many libertarians make the same mistake
in advocating their own positions. Chapman may not pass the litmus
test of many libertarians, but he's appealing to the typical
newspaper reader, not the typical H&R commenter. While I
totally disagree with him on the drinking age issue, I think he's
one of the most effective ambassadors of basic libertarian
policy.
Junter Klops|8.22.08 @ 10:58AM|#
I am OK with reading things I disagree with on Reason. In fact, I am secretly a utilitarian and found myself somewhat agreeing with Chapman until I read the comments and you guys forced me into being a their-heads-will-roll anarchist again. Thanks guys!
ktc2|8.22.08 @ 10:59AM|#
Completely o/t:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/wayoflife/08/22/mf.campaign.slurs.slogans/index.html
But a really FUN read on the dirty negative campaigns of Adams and
Jefferson.
|8.22.08 @ 10:59AM|#
Are those of you complaining really that wedded to the idea
of never having to read anything you disagree with in
Reason?
Yes. You got a problem with that?
|8.22.08 @ 11:01AM|#
Really guys, it wasn't that bad of an article.
Really, it was:
Among the qualities that make 18-year-olds such good soldiers
are their fearlessness and sense of immortality-traits that do not
mix well with alcohol.
Give me a break...that's about the most substance-free and
ridiculous comment I've read all week.
Elemenope|8.22.08 @ 11:04AM|#
Are those of you complaining really that wedded to the idea
of never having to read anything you disagree with in
Reason?
I read things here that I disagree with all the time. There is a
huge difference between provocative and stupid.
That difference is Steve Chapman.
|8.22.08 @ 11:05AM|#
It's not a matter of disagreeing with it. It's the matter that it wasn't written from an ethical point of view, but rather a utilitarian point of view. I know other people don't get upset when certain writers here pretend there isn't a problem when there is, and prefer to take the "X isn't a problem" opposed to the "even though X is a problem, we still shouldn't do Y" route. It's ok to be utilitarian as long as you're up front about your motives. But don't then pretend like your opinion rises out of ethics.
Elemenope|8.22.08 @ 11:09AM|#
Yet this same young adult is breaking the law when ordering
an appletini?
Yah! The laws of good taste. If you want a Jolly Rancher, go suck
on one. If you want a drink, make it taste like a drink.
|8.22.08 @ 11:10AM|#
Age of a majority is a broken concept.
Its an arbitrary line, sure, but arbitrary lines have the virtue of
being very clear.
If we go to a case-by-case age of majority based on the maturity
(whatever that is) of each person, whether a person has the
freedoms and responsibilities of an adult is never clear, either to
themselves or (more importantly) to the people they deal
with.
In this case, I think an arbitrary line is the way to go.
|8.22.08 @ 11:12AM|#
If you want a drink, make it taste like a drink.
As always, this is
appropriate here.
D.A. Ridgely|8.22.08 @ 11:17AM|#
Yanno, I'm not a big fan of Chapman and I strongly disagree with that column. But, aside from the obvious "it's your publication, run whatever the hell you want" point, fergawdsakes never let Warren get the idea he has any influence around here. I'd probably have to subscribe just so I could cancel my subscription then.
Elemenope|8.22.08 @ 11:18AM|#
As always, this is appropriate here.
Kids in the Hall is as usual, brilliant. My personal fave was the
"God is dead...and we have found his body!" skit.
As far as drinks that taste like candy, the only one I can really
get behind is Amaretto, and that stuff has an out: it smells like
cyanide.
|8.22.08 @ 11:19AM|#
Epi,
"Girl Drink Drunk" is my 2nd favorite Kid In the Hall sketch. We
watched it in the office the other day because the students hadn't
seen it before.
This, though,
is my favorite.
|8.22.08 @ 11:20AM|#
Oust Steve Chapman AlReady
OSCAR OSCAR OSCAR
Warren, China called. They'd like to borrow your notes.
|8.22.08 @ 11:22AM|#
Youtube's blocked here, but is that "My New Haircut",
Episiarch?
No, Kids in the Hall, but "My New Haircut" is brilliant in
its own right. "I'm gonna get swelled"--genius.
Rhywun|8.22.08 @ 11:23AM|#
a drinking age of 19. Keeps a lot of alcohol out of high schools
The drinking age in Germany is 16. I went to a German high school
when I was 17 and dammit all there weren't rivers of alcohol
flowing around everywhere like I expected.
|8.22.08 @ 11:25AM|#
I'm partial to Bruce McCulloch's absurdist sketches myself, but honestly, when the Chicken Lady and the Bearded Lady go watch Rooster Boy strip and scream "we can drink anything we want--we're FREAKS!", I almost passed out from laughing.
Brian Defferding|8.22.08 @ 11:26AM|#
I remember here in Wisconsin, when I was in high school, the issue of dropping the drinking age to 19 came to the table. During this time, a house party was broken up by police at University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh, which caused students to riot up and down mainstreet causing tons of damage and vandalism. The bill was scrapped. >__
Rhywun|8.22.08 @ 11:31AM|#
The bill was scrapped.
...thus ensuring more underground house parties and scare-stories
of 20-year-old "children" choking on their own puke.
God, people are fucking stupid.
|8.22.08 @ 11:35AM|#
Damn, that argument must now and forever be referred to as the
"Chapman Smackdown".
Its nice to know that nanny state douches lurk even in the most
libertarian of corners. Someone has to think of the kids.
dhex|8.22.08 @ 11:41AM|#
DJ Raimondo
"you know, i like some of his earlier tracks but the bassline
always sounds like 'israel' being repeated over and over
again."
|8.22.08 @ 11:42AM|#
I think the discussion of drinking age, and drunk driving laws
in general, brings up an interesting libertarian debate. In almost
every case, liberty trumps utility, because the amount of utility
gained by restricting liberty is insignificant. However, the
question stands: Is there an amount of possible danger caused by an
activity that can warrant making it illegal? If 50% of people from
18-20 were running people down every time they got drunk (I know
they aren't), would it then be reasonable to restrict their
freedoms? I don't buy into the statistics in this case, and even
so, the utility is minimal at best, so I agree any adult (whatever
we determine adult to be) should have all the rights of adulthood.
That still leaves me wondering, though, if there is a certain level
of danger posed by an activity that would actually allow it to be
regulated under libertarian standards. Anyone have an opinion on
that?
Also, in NJ the legal age to buy tobacco is 19. Fuck that.
|8.22.08 @ 11:50AM|#
Is there an amount of possible danger caused by an activity
that can warrant making it illegal?
I think so, yes. "Negligent" anything (discharge of a firearm, for
example) is basically outlawing an activity not for the harm it
just caused, but for the harm it is likely to cause.
Junter Klops|8.22.08 @ 11:57AM|#
That still leaves me wondering, though, if there is a
certain level of danger posed by an activity that would actually
allow it to be regulated under libertarian standards. Anyone have
an opinion on that?
This is one of the reasons people want to outlaw child porn. It is
too likely that the child would have been forced into it against
their will, and also too hard to tell if they actually consented or
not. Some people don't even think children can consent to
anything.
robc|8.22.08 @ 12:03PM|#
RC Dean,
Ditto drunk driving. Some are in favor of only charging those who
actually harm others, but I see value in the negligence aspect too.
Its also why I think there needs to be a range of DUI charges.
Something like:
.08 - fine
.12 - misdemeanor
.16 - felony
Im not arguing for those specific numbers, they are just an
example. The break points should be based upon statistics, but it
would be something like that. The point being that people driving
with a .08 arent driving down the wrong side of the interstate into
school buses. They are a slighly increased danger, just like
someone going 15 over the limit or something.
|8.22.08 @ 12:03PM|#
RC Dean -
Right, but what is the threshold of "negligent". Some states have
cellphone bans while driving. Is the danger posed by driving on a
cell phone enough to be considered being negligent while driving? I
am trying to discern some meaningful line where danger trumps
liberty. It is tough, especially because without such a line, it
very easily becomes a slippery slope argument (as fluffy argued in
the previous thread regarding Chapman's article). Libertarians,
despite saying that liberty is paramount, have some sense that
ridiculous amounts of possible danger caused by some activity could
still be made illegal. They just seem to set the danger bar way
higher than everyone else, and rightly so.
|8.22.08 @ 12:05PM|#
re: ClubMedSux
"I think he's one of the most effective ambassadors of basic
libertarian policy."
The problem is when the masses start getting confused about whether
Chapman represents "libertarian policy".
Wasn't Mr Chapman #23 on reason's list of why Chicago is the worst
city in America?
|8.22.08 @ 12:08PM|#
If 50% of people from 18-20 were running people down every
time they got drunk (I know they aren't), would it then be
reasonable to restrict their freedoms?
If, by this, you mean, "Try them in court, and throw their stupid
asses in jail" for the crime of Running People Down, yes; it would
be reasonable to restrict their freedom.
Drinking not same as "Running People Down". Similarly, shooting
heroin not same as "Burglarizing Homes to Pay Heroin Bill".
kinnath|8.22.08 @ 12:10PM|#
Is there an amount of possible danger caused by an activity
that can warrant making it illegal?
Getting drunk enough kill yourself -- darwin award and our thanks
for cleaning up the gene pool.
Getting drunk and killing someone else with a car -- a premeditated
act of random violence.
Getting drunk -- not a crime
Driving drunk -- not a crime
Hurting someone else (drunk or not) -- a crime
Simple, no?
|8.22.08 @ 12:13PM|#
Everyone who automatically conflates "drinking" and "drinking and driving" begs for their opinion to be ignored. Smearing the two ideas together is just neo-prohibitionist clap-trap scare tactics.
Kolohe|8.22.08 @ 12:19PM|#
What is really baffling for me is that Chapman had an article criticizing what he called libertanian paternalism not even three weeks ago. Where he takes pretty much the opposite side of every argument he made in yesterday's article.
|8.22.08 @ 12:20PM|#
However, the question stands: Is there an amount of possible
danger caused by an activity that can warrant making it illegal? If
50% of people from 18-20 were running people down every time they
got drunk (I know they aren't), would it then be reasonable to
restrict their freedoms?
Well, I don't think its just a question of what percentage
of whatever age group drive drunk.
One issue with that kind of thing is the availability (or lack
there of) of other means of combating the problem - for example
increased patrols near college bars to look for erratic drivers, or
all-night public transit from redlight districts.
Another thing is - if there are going to be regulations,
can they come up with some that will be minimally burdensome. For
example, they could have some special license for bars that serve
18-20 year olds - requiring them to check for car keys and hold
them until the drunk person has a cab there for him/her or
something. I'm not proposing that, but it would be an improvement
over the current system.
This is one of the reasons people want to outlaw child porn. It
is too likely that the child would have been forced into it against
their will, and also too hard to tell if they actually consented or
not.
Not exactly....
Some people don't even think children can consent to
anything.
This is more precisely the argument. I don't know about "anything",
but I don't think a child can give valid consent to having
sex - gray areas with adolesents(sp?) aside.
|8.22.08 @ 12:44PM|#
Right, but what is the threshold of "negligent".
Its kind of slippery, I admit, and does not really submit to any
mathematical forumula (a 10% increase in the risk of death,
etc.).
In liability situations, negligence nearly always comes up after
actual harm has occurred. Without harm, there just isn't a civil
suit to determine whether negligence occurred.
Criminal law, though, often crosses over to prevention of harm
through crimes related to negligence, conspiracy, attempt, etc.
Negligence in a criminal setting is something like engaging in an
activity that any normal person would know posed unacceptable risks
to others.
Of course, that just pushes the question back to "whats an
unacceptable risk to others", but nobody said this was going to be
easy.
Adam|8.22.08 @ 12:55PM|#
re: RC Dean
"Of course, that just pushes the question back to "whats an
unacceptable risk to others", but nobody said this was going to be
easy."
That's why we should only make actual harm, rather than potential
harm, a crime.
Negligence strays too often into the realm of prior restraint. Our
legal system is built on retroactivity, for good reason.
|8.22.08 @ 1:00PM|#
Jeez, you fuckers are hard on Chapman.
What do you want, a goddamn echo chamber around here? I say let him
stay.
NO OSCAR
NO OSCAR
NO OSCAR.
I read his column on the drinking age yesterday, and he made
several valid points.
For me to poop on.
|8.22.08 @ 1:02PM|#
Driving drunk -- not a crime
WTF?
So, I suppose you think shooting a firearm off randomly in a public
square is OK, provided no bullets actually hit anyone.
Naga Sadow|8.22.08 @ 1:27PM|#
In theory, I support lowering the drinking age from 21 to 18. As a bartender, I hate serving anyone under 24. Damn kids don't know how to tip, ask me stupid questions like "You know how to make a martini?", and "How are the Mai Tai's here?", and expect me to know all the hot spots around Biloxi(I do but I don't want losers following me when I get off work). But the worst group? Bachlorette parties! All want separate checks, worthless tippers, and half of em want me to make a "special" drink for em'.
Adam|8.22.08 @ 1:35PM|#
re: Jaime
Exactly. If you don't cause any injury, what is the crime?
Now, if you do something stupid like that and someone gets hurt,
then by all means, we should throw the book at you.
No harm, no foul.
kinnath|8.22.08 @ 1:52PM|#
WTF?
So, I suppose you think shooting a firearm off randomly in a public
square is OK, provided no bullets actually hit anyone.
Always an interesting question.
|8.22.08 @ 1:56PM|#
That's why we should only make actual harm, rather than
potential harm, a crime.
So if your neighbor takes a shot at you, and misses, no crime?
Dagny T.|8.22.08 @ 1:56PM|#
I didn't think I wanted to read another rehashing of the
drinking age thing, but nobody said there would be Kids in the Hall
links! I love those crazy Canadians.
Girl Drink Drunk is good, but the Work at the Bank one might be my
fav.
|8.22.08 @ 1:59PM|#
That's why we should only make actual harm, rather than
potential harm, a crime.
So if your neighbor takes a shot at you, and misses, no
crime?
OK, let's make it actual OR intended harm. You know, like,
attempted murder.
kinnath|8.22.08 @ 2:04PM|#
So if your neighbor takes a shot at you, and misses, no
crime?
And there's the next step.
We start with depraved indifference (shooting blindly into a public
space -- not defined yet whether its empty or crowded) and then
step our way up to an actual intended effort to harm someone (which
more than likely failed due to incompetence).
This is why no one can have a rational discussin on the first
question.
kinnath|8.22.08 @ 2:25PM|#
From Wikipedia: Criminal offenses can be broken down into
two general categories malum in se and malum prohibitum.
Shooting a gun into an empty public square at 2 am is malum
prohibitum. Same act a lunch time is malum in se.
The overall philosophical question is how to prevent someone from
shooting a gun into a public square at a time when the probability
of harm is very high.
One solution is to make the likelyhood of punishment very high and
the punishment itself extreme. This prevents all but the sociopath
from shooting a gun into a public square at lunch.
The problem with this approach is it requires surveillance of the
public square when people are there (a resource burden) and leaves
an open question of when some act become evil when the space
between good and bad is filled with grey.
Another solution to ban shooting a gun in public spaces at any
time. The advantage of this solution is there are no grey areas.
Nice and discrete, fire a gun, commit a crime. Yet when it comes
time to punish people, we either adopt a zero tolerance policy and
throw someone in jail for most of his/her life for shooting a gun
into an empty public square at 2 am. Or make a value judgement at
time of sentencing whether or not this act in question was really
evil or just a violation of the rules. You have not eliminated the
problem with grey areas, only shifted the time when you need to
determine whether or not an act is evil.
The other big problem I see with the malum prohibitum concept is
where to you stop. If it's illegal to shoot a gun in a public
space, then why does anyone need a gun in a public space. Besides
if we ban guns in public spaces we can just set up metal detectors
and it will be much easier to find criminals than having resources
standing around until someone actually shoots a gun.
No doubt it makes my intestines churn a bit to say that firing a
gun into an empty public space is not a crime. But I do actually
believe that the world would work better if the law only bans acts
of intential harm (whether act is succesful or not) and then punish
those that break the law.
Making things that might cause harm just leads down a slippery
slope where some committee decides what is harm, what probablity of
harm is the threshold for crime, etc etc etc.
Adam|8.22.08 @ 2:53PM|#
Well said, kinnath.
This is one of those areas of libertarian philosophy that on its
face scares most people, because it's "extreme". But when you start
rationally dealing with the details of where the law starts and
stops, the "extreme" view is the only one which stands up to
rationality.
Same goes for the drinking age debate. People's objections to
lowering it are mostly based on emotion and hysteria, not on reason
and logic.
kinnath|8.22.08 @ 3:25PM|#
This is one of those areas of libertarian philosophy that on
its face scares most people, because it's "extreme".
Liberatian philosophy: Let people be free; hold people responsible
for their acts.
T|8.22.08 @ 3:37PM|#
Liberatian philosophy: Let people be free; hold people
responsible for their acts.
Yup, that second half is the part that scares people.
Brian|8.22.08 @ 3:58PM|#
I like Naga's point - and to expand on it, in theory the
under-21s -can- vote, but in practice they don't.
Therefore, I suggest jacking the drinking age up to Naga's 24 to
give bartenders a chance at better tips, until such time as 18-21
voter turnout reaches the levels of the bigger-tipping old farts
who'll return to the bars with the girly-drink bimbos having been
dispatched.
|8.22.08 @ 4:25PM|#
I think the drinking age should be lowered, but that doesn't mean I want a bunch of obnoxious little bastards drinking in *my* bar.
Fluffy|8.22.08 @ 4:26PM|#
So, I suppose you think shooting a firearm off randomly in a
public square is OK, provided no bullets actually hit
anyone.
Well, we should also arrest everyone who has ever driven while
being prescribed antidepressants:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/08/080817223434.htm
|8.22.08 @ 5:37PM|#
OK, let's make it actual OR intended harm.
We criminalize behaviors that have a high likelihood of harm to to
reduce their frequency.
Failing to do so infringes on my liberty by decreasing the
likelihood that my life will be free from harm due to the
jackassery of others.
|8.22.08 @ 7:13PM|#
Today I've been mulling the question about whether or not we should make dangerous acts illegal, or instead simply hold responsible those that harm others while performing dangerous acts. Kinnath says it well in the breakdown about shooting in a public square; people should be held responsible for the crimes they actually commit, not may commit. On the other hand, Tbone brings up a good point about the possibility that it is a public good to prevent jackasses from hurting random people in public. Without some meaningful limit on how far the prevention can go, however, you get into the slippery slope. The best I can come up with is either to remove laws like drunk driving laws, which prevent possible, or probable, damage, or to leave it up to the smallest forms of government to decide. It seems with things like drunk driving, which could be argued as a public good that can only be achieved through government, but requires a weighing of liberty lost against a public good, should be the responsibility of either towns, counties, or at worst, states. This solution, of course, depends on whether or not you accept that there is any sort of cost-benefit analysis to be done between liberty and security, and that if the risk to public security is too great, we can restrict liberty to fix it. If you don't accept that any security could justify loss of liberty, then I guess drunk driving itself shouldn't be a crime either. It's a hard pill to swallow, but logically, it is a pretty sound argument.
|8.22.08 @ 7:48PM|#
Person A shoots randomly into a public square and doesn't hit
anyone.
Person B shoots randomly into a public square and hits
someone.
If the only reason for the difference is better
luck in the case of person A, then I don't think it makes
sense to charge B with homocide/assult with a deadly weapon/etc;
while letting A completely off the hook.
Another example could be burying landmines in a public park and
then walking away. Once you do that, it no longer makes sense to
say "Take responsibility for whether your landmines harm anyone".
The outcome of whether they harm someone or not no longer depends
on your present actions - and you already committed the act that
would make you "responsible" if they do.
The basic idea here is: Act X does not necessarily harm
others, it will only do so when condition Y is met. Condition Y is
reasonably likely, one doesn't know whether it will be met at the
time of performing X, and the X performer does not control whether
Y obtains. This is one of the (relatively few) types of cases when
I'd say its ok for the government to criminalize acts which are not
always - in themselves - harmful to others.
Drinking doesn't fall into this category, since you still control
your own actions even when drunk.
I would argue that drunk driving does fall into that category -
since one no longer has the ability to drive carefully if one is
sufficiently intoxicated. However, this leaves open some questions.
What BAC does one need to reach this point? Is it different for
different people? Should police only enforce such a law against
those actually seen driving dangerously? Etc.
|8.22.08 @ 7:50PM|#
We criminalize behaviors that have a high likelihood of harm
to to reduce their frequency.
Failing to do so infringes on my liberty by decreasing the
likelihood that my life will be free from harm due to the
jackassery of others.
Hm, well, what "percentage decrease" is tolerable to you and what
isn't?
How is that not arbitrary? And how is that not a simultaneous
invitation to the Control Freaks and Nanny Wannabes out there to
suddenly start manufacturing specious "studies" to demonstrate the
"high likelihood of harm" from activities X, Y and Z?
After all, most people think there's a "high likelihood of harm"
from secondhand smoke...these people are also, unfortunately,
voting idiots. But the restraint on liberty is *totally*
justifiable under your metric.
miche|8.22.08 @ 7:50PM|#
My oldest daughter called me this afternoon to tell me about a New Orleans cop buying a drink for her 20 year old friend and then ticketing her for drinking under age.
|8.22.08 @ 7:55PM|#
I would argue that drunk driving does fall into that
category - since one no longer has the ability to drive carefully
if one is sufficiently intoxicated
I think you almost answered your own question: it is not the act of
driving drunk that is determined by the sheer luck of "A who
Crashes" and "B who does not". It's dangerous, aggressive driving
that has a probability approaching 1.0 that said dangerous driver
is going to hurt or kill someone.
People don't realize the honest-to-god slippery slope DUI put us
on. It's justified checkpoints, bans on cellphones, random stops
just to "shake down" innocent drivers, patent lies on the part of
the police that they "sense the presence of alcohol" so they can
tear the seats out of your car and take you to county for the night
for no good reason other than they didn't get laid.
The sheer panic about DUI has also led to the absurdity (in my
state, anyway) that:
conviction of DUI = 1 year suspended, buncha fines bla bla
refusal to comply with Breathalyzer and field tests = six months
suspension and buncha fines.
oh yeah, and the legislature has authorized the forcible withdrawal
of blood on those suspected of DUI (who already have two or more
convictions of DUI)...how long do you think it's going to take to
expand that to "first-time suspects"?
The dirty secret of society is that DUI is a lot like masturbation:
a lot of people do it, and no one admits to it.
|8.22.08 @ 8:46PM|#
The reason we cant prosecute person "A" in the scenario where A
and B shoot into a square, A hits no one, B hits someone, is
because they did not actually harm someone. B, however, did harm
someone, and should be punished for it. The idea here is that
neither will be blindly shooting into crowded squares because of
the high likelihood of them getting convicted of some sort of
crime. It is also unsafe for a libertarian to say we should assume
that a dangerous act which does not harm someone only failed to do
so because of luck on the performer's part.
There are two slippery slopes when dealing with the argument of how
much danger is necessary to regulate a risky action. One, when
saying that there is some amount of danger which, if likely enough,
could justify regulation. This could be argued on the grounds that
it is a public good to prevent extremely unsafe behaviors, such as
the firing a gun into a square scenario, or drunk driving.
The other slippery slope comes with the argument that we should
only criminalize behaviors that actively violate the rights of the
victims, not merely have the chance to. This stance would make
drunk driving and firing the gun into the square legal, but you are
responsible for any crimes committed while performing this risky
act. The slippery slope here occurs when you get into questions
about blatantly dangerous acts. For instance, using this logic,
there should be no law against driving on the wrong side of the
road, or against purchasing rocket launchers, as long as you didn't
actually commit a crime with them.
|8.22.08 @ 9:30PM|#
I think you almost answered your own question: it is not the
act of driving drunk that is determined by the sheer luck of "A who
Crashes" and "B who does not". It's dangerous, aggressive driving
that has a probability approaching 1.0 that said dangerous driver
is going to hurt or kill someone.
What question did I almost answer? When one is driving with a very
high blood alcohol level, one will be unable to avoid driving in a
manner that is dangerous. That's a fact about the effect of alcohol
on one's ability to be coordinated. Although there are
still the questions I brought up at the end of my last post.
People don't realize the honest-to-god slippery slope DUI put
us on.
Perhaps not. But that slope may be more horizontal and have less
friction than you think.
With the exception of bans on driving while on a cell phone (which
I'm not where I stand on), everything you mention in your post is
about enforcement methods, possible invasions of privacy, and
sentencing. While those are important issues, they arise even
crimes that clearly violate the rights of others. So pointing that
stuff out doesn't show that the underlying law is unjust.
The dirty secret of society is that DUI is a lot like
masturbation.....
I guess I've been a menace to society for years, especially during
high school :)
(I know, I know, that is not what you meant)
The reason we cant prosecute person "A" in the scenario where A
and B shoot into a square, A hits no one, B hits someone, is
because they did not actually harm someone. B, however, did harm
someone, and should be punished for it. The idea here is that
neither will be blindly shooting into crowded squares because of
the high likelihood of them getting convicted of some sort of
crime.
But that deterrent effect would be even greater if A could be
prosecuted, since the only way to avoid prosecution would be to
avoid getting caught. If only B could be prosecuted, the chances of
avoiding prosecution would be greater. And A is not morally
innocent, so penalizing A would not be unjust.
It is also unsafe for a libertarian to say we should assume
that a dangerous act which does not harm someone only failed to do
so because of luck on the performer's part.
Well, I'm more of a Classic Liberal myself. But in any event,
sometimes it is obvious that the harm only didn't happen because of
luck. See my burying landmines example.
|8.22.08 @ 9:32PM|#
Oops.
My last post should read:
"Perhaps not. But that slope may be more horizontal and have
more friction than you think."
|8.22.08 @ 9:57PM|#
BG, that brings us back to the original question of: What is the
appropriate level of, or potential for, danger to public safety
that an act must pose to require regulation? There seems to be some
line drawn between things like eating and driving, which could
impair you, talking on a cell phone and driving, which seems to be
a moderate impairment, and drinking and driving, which is a
definite impairment if you are drunk. What is the justification for
distinguishing between mildly impairing acts, such as eating,
moderate, such as cell phones, or major, such as being drunk?
Without that, it becomes a slippery slope of nanny-state type
regulation. Arguing the opposite, that only acts that do actual
damage should be criminalized, has the problems you mentioned plus
provides no justification for laws that seemingly make sense, such
as laws against driving on the wrong side of the road.
There seems to be some level of "unsafe" that we are trying to
balance against freedom to do as you please, or as RC Dean put it
earlier, "unacceptable risk to others". Maybe it is the purpose of
local government to decide the appropriate ratio of risk to freedom
for their populations. I am trying to figure out a logical,
objective answer to the question, but I haven't been able to do it
yet.
|8.22.08 @ 10:10PM|#
BG - Also regarding your "If A and B randomly shoot into a square" argument, you can't hold people responsible for crimes they haven't committed. If I make the statement, in dead seriousness, that I will commit some crime if I roll a die and it comes up 6, but then roll it and it comes up 1, should I be prosecuted for that crime? Is allowing the commission of a crime to be up to chance criminal in and of itself?
|8.22.08 @ 11:16PM|#
BG - Also regarding your "If A and B randomly shoot into a
square" argument, you can't hold people responsible for crimes they
haven't committed. If I make the statement, in dead seriousness,
that I will commit some crime if I roll a die and it comes up 6,
but then roll it and it comes up 1, should I be prosecuted for that
crime? Is allowing the commission of a crime to be up to chance
criminal in and of itself?
If you "make the statement, in dead seriousness, that (you) will
commit some crime if I roll a die and it comes up 6"; you would
still have to take the additional acts of committing that crime
after rolling a 6. And you might change your mind. If you take some
overt action towards committing that crime after rolling a 6, that
is when it is ok to intervene to stop you (and impose
penalties).
However, lets say you rig some system where there is a gun pointed
at an innocent person - hooked up to a computerized firing system -
which is in turn hooked up to a camera. The setup is such that if
you roll a 6, the gun will fire and kill the person. In that case,
merely rolling the die would be criminal. No further action on your
part would be needed if were to roll a 6.
Of course, another issue with the A and B firing into a public
square thing would be: what if one fired when it was crowded and
one when it was not? In that case luck might not
be the only factor accounting for a difference in
outcome. In an earlier post, I didn't address this, but rather I
addressed the case in which the two were equally crowded (and all
other such factors are equal). But yeah, that could complicate
things.
BG, that brings us back to the original question of: What is
the appropriate level of, or potential for, danger to public safety
that an act must pose to require regulation? There seems to be some
line drawn between things like eating and driving, which could
impair you, talking on a cell phone and driving, which seems to be
a moderate impairment, and drinking and driving, which is a
definite impairment if you are drunk. What is the justification for
distinguishing between mildly impairing acts, such as eating,
moderate, such as cell phones, or major, such as being drunk?
Without that, it becomes a slippery slope of nanny-state type
regulation. Arguing the opposite, that only acts that do actual
damage should be criminalized, has the problems you mentioned plus
provides no justification for laws that seemingly make sense, such
as laws against driving on the wrong side of the road.
There seems to be some level of "unsafe" that we are trying to
balance against freedom to do as you please, or as RC Dean put it
earlier, "unacceptable risk to others". Maybe it is the purpose of
local government to decide the appropriate ratio of risk to freedom
for their populations. I am trying to figure out a logical,
objective answer to the question, but I haven't been able to do it
yet.
Hmmm..... Let me think about that, and perhaps get back to you
tomorrow.
AM|8.23.08 @ 6:44AM|#
There seems to be some level of "unsafe" that we are trying
to balance against freedom to do as you please, or as RC Dean put
it earlier, "unacceptable risk to others". Maybe it is the purpose
of local government to decide the appropriate ratio of risk to
freedom for their populations. I am trying to figure out a logical,
objective answer to the question, but I haven't been able to do it
yet.
That's easy. There isn't a way. Arbitrary lines are
necessary.
Not everything is a slippery slope.
By the "no harm no foul" logic:
Person A fires a gun into a crowd. No one is hurt. No wrong has
been committed.
Legislator A passes a law that you agree with, but you are
disturbed by the possible logical extensions of the law. These
extensions are not considered; you do not slip on the slope. No
wrong has been committed.
To condemn a law for the harm it could possibly lend itself to in
the future, and not what it actually does, is to condemn person A
for just firing the gun, and not whether or not he harms
anyone.
If you want to buy the "slippery slope" argument, you must
acknowledge the wrongness of the potential for harm.
VM|8.23.08 @ 9:48AM|#
Person A fires a gun into a crowd. No one is hurt. No wrong has been committed.
Episiarch | August 22, 2008, 1:59pm | #
That's why we should only make actual harm, rather than potential
harm, a crime.
So if your neighbor takes a shot at you, and misses, no
crime?
OK, let's make it actual OR intended harm. You know, like,
attempted murder.
they hashed this! c'mon, AM, get with the PM!
(keed keeed, cept can't follow your statement.)
|8.23.08 @ 10:00PM|#
Wow, no wonder no one votes for Libertarians.
Guys--it's quite obvious that NONE of you are law students. Go read
up on the history of why we have the set-up we do. You might
understand a bit better. Allowing people to get away scott-free
with carrying out reckless behavior simply because through the luck
of the draw they managed to not kill someone that time simply
encourages them to think that they can continue out said reckless
behavior in the future. Did you ever know a drunk who wasn't
convinced he could handle himself perfectly well?
We tried it your way already, and it doesn't work.
(And before you decide to chuck out over 1500 years of
jurisprudence, you might want to study exactly what it is you are
insisting that we throw out.)
Adam|8.23.08 @ 10:07PM|#
re: Grumpy Realist
a lot of libertarianism involves throwing out the existing
jurisprudence....and why not?
legal systems rely upon precedent, sometimes to a fault. Look at
all of the blatantly unconstitutional things we've got now, such as
the drug war. The only thing holding the whole system together is
an unwillingness to challenge a few bad precedents.
Just because people decided something a long time ago doesn't make
it right.
AM|8.24.08 @ 3:23AM|#
grumpy realist:
Quite right.
You tell someone that you want to legalize marijuana and they are
interested. You tell them that you want to legalize prostitution
and they smile and nod. You tell them you want to legalize drunk
driving and they never talk to you again.
I am just glad that many libertarians don't subscribe to this
inanity. Or at least I hope so. I never really see them argue with
the "no harm no foul" people when it comes up. In hindsight, they
are probably smarter for it, as this is just a ridiculous
argument.
dpsc|8.24.08 @ 3:32AM|#
BG saya: "Is it different for different people? Should police
only enforce such a law against those actually seen driving
dangerously? Etc."
It almost certainly is different for different people. One of my
best friends has been driving drunk on a daily basis for many
years. He finally got popped a couple of years ago, and there was
hell to pay because his daughter (still a minor) was in the car.
He's an exceptionally good driver, and is pretty used to being a
bit over the limit. He's probably safer than the average driver up
to at least twice the legal limit.
The problem is that there's no easy way to determine that that's
the case. What are you going to do, have "drunk driver's license"
tests (though that could be fun, and a lucrative reality show)?
I've come to the strange position of supporting the laws that
popped him (in essence- I might not support the details of those
laws, or where they set the limit), while thinking it would be
better if he weren't popped.
I guess I think that if you fire into a crowd you ought to be
stopped from doing so again, because it's really hard to tell if
you are William Fucking Tell.
|8.24.08 @ 11:03AM|#
Grumpy, just because you say we aren't law students (I am
planning to be, but am undergrad at the moment), doesn't mean the
current law isn't logically sound. The reason drunk driving is a
logical issue, compared to firing into a crowd randomly, is that
they are fundamentally different issues. Actions that pose direct
danger to the public by their very nature should be criminalized at
the behest of the population if they vote it so. I think it is up
to the people to decide their threshold of "safety" they want to
sacrifice liberty for.
Drunk driving is not an action that poses direct danger to the
public by its very nature. To be unsafe by nature, a danger must be
posed by every person performing the action as long as possible
victims of the action are present. Just like eating and driving,
drinking and driving is not necessarily dangerous by its nature.
You can't ban an act preemptively because some of those people
committing that act *might* be doing something unsafe.
If I get into the care in the middle of the night, yea I hope that
I don't pass any people who are wasted drunk driving. However,
during the day, I hope that I don't get hit by soccer mom's yelling
at their kids, people eating or reading while driving, watching TV
in their cars, etc etc etc. None of these things are dangerous by
their nature, so we cannot prosecute every person who performs
these actions. Once they lead to an action unsafe act, we can then
punish them for doing so. Being absolutely wasted an unable to
operate a vehicle should not be a crime because you are wasted, but
because you are unable to operate the vehicle. If you operate your
vehicle poorly, that is unsafe and a crime. There is no reason to
single out drunk people for operating a vehicle poorly, especially
not *before* they are doing it. That would be like having Sandwich
Checkpoints along the road to arrest you for eating, even if you
can do it perfectly fine while driving.
|8.24.08 @ 11:08AM|#
As a small addendum, I want to respond to your reference to libertarians sounding reasonable when they want to legalize pot and prostitution, and sounding crazy when they come out with stuff like legalizing drinking and driving. Issues like this are important for libertarians to consider, but definitely not the priority considering all the other losses of liberty we have endured. Basically, this would be at the end of the list of issues to get on a stump about. However, that does not make it any less of a logical argument.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245