Definitely. Especially speeding. Device use will get there eventually and I think viewed similar to drunk driving in time. But maybe not before driverless cars and we can post on t-nation the whole trip instead of just at stoplights.
I do think DUI’s should be scalable. Aren’t they in most states? Again I’m not familiar with the laws on a lot of this stuff. H with two beers should be punished less than H with 12. For speeding I would just like to see the limit be consistent. If the limit is 75 pull people over for 77 and watch them drive 75. But I don’t like a 75 mph speed limit in the first place. Fucking leave earlier. And yes I’m a hypocrite as I don’t drive the speed limit sometimes. Better mpg and less likelihood of fatal accidents. We didn’t need to go from 70 to 75 in Kansas.
If the punishments for speeding and the public attitude towards them were consistent with DUI, you would have more visibility to who speeds. They would miss work due to being in a cell after being arrested for their act.
Do you believe that it is in the best interest of society to create a system that punishes crimes fairly?
I don’t believe the world is fair, but I do think we should strive for a fair society.
Or we could spend our time trying to cure cancer rather than help drunks stay out of jail. What’s so hard about using Uber?
I don’t know about punishments. I believe getting in an accident while using a device makes the punishment worse. I think most people think those who text and drive are assholes.
Seriously? Why? Didn’t you have SOME libertarian leanings back during Obama’s presidency? You’re a full-on nanny statist now? You really trust the Donald that much?
Except it’s really easy to not drive drunk. I consume alcohol with friends regularly and we avoid driving drunk. Because it’s really, really easy. Why do we need to ban alcohol because some people are morons?
You make it seem like it’s bad luck or unavoidable. It’s insanely easy.
I’d like to see roadside executions for everything that offends my sensibilities. Text and drive? Bang! You’re dead, Asshole. Swerve a little? Bang! Another dead asshole.
It’s a nanny statist to want a speed limit? I’m guessing your anti-government beliefs make you think we shouldn’t have one?
I still have libertarian leanings on some things. Just not things that are fucking moronic. Thinking we shouldn’t have speed limits fits the fucking moronic category. I’m simply shocked that libertarianism isn’t more popular if these are the type of things they think.
I don’t believe Donald trump had anything to do with the change nor Obama.
This is separate from what I am arguing. I am arguing that the punishments and societal views are inconsistent.
Should we all just work on the most important issue, then when solved just move down the list of importance? I don’t think this is a wise approach. How many great discoveries were made while not working on the most important problem of the time?
You always want to go off on these weird tangents or invent positions for others. DUI’s aren’t about offending sensibilities. They are about safety for others on the road. I know we should all be free to use cocaine, drive 200 mph and all the other things we should be able to do in libertopia where everyone is free and no one every has to think of others.
And that’s why libertopia doesn’t exist. Because no one wants to live in that society.
Some of us don’t believe the state should have the power to kill its citizens. Now, if a drunk crashes into your car and kills your kid, feel free to put one in his head.
I think it’s perfectly reasonable to think other highly dangerous activities behind the wheel should be viewed like DUI’s. Most dangerous behind the wheel activities are easily avoidable.
I think another obvious conclusion you could come to is that punishments for speeding and device use are about right, and that the DUI is punished too high in some cases (it should be scalable based on intoxication).
Both your stance and this proposed one would be logically consistent.
Further digging into data would be required to determine which one is both correct and logically consistent.
My stance is that the punishment should be based on your risk to others, and I don’t believe that is what we currently do.
Then we wouldn’t have to worry about poor people driving. But ignoring all that do you think in current society in America that speed limits shouldn’t exist?