Libertarians can be complete ****s
Dear Libertarian Alliance,
The description that you give for yourselves as ”the radical free market and civil liberties think tank and pressure group” sounds relatively harmless, but in my humble opinion it might need changing as it doesn’t quite convey your utter stupidity to the outside world. Yesterday, you sent out a press release calling on the Government to repeal all laws against drinking and driving. I’m assuming that this was a publicity stunt, seeing as anyone who actually believes this would be an acceptable course of action is clearly very very very thick.
Your plan is this: Drivers should be free to drink as much alcohol as they like before and while driving, and the Police should be allowed to intervene only if a driver appears from his actions to be a danger to other road users or if he causes an accident (not quite sure why it was only ‘he’ rather than ‘he/she’? – Ed). Dr Sean Gabb, your Director, added: “The current law on drinking and driving is a prior restraint law. It can only be enforced by indiscriminate stops and searches. Most of the drivers stopped are not driving erratically and do not test positive. This is a breach of the Common Law prohibition of searches and seizures, except by judicial warrant and on evidence of some specific criminal behaviour. Moreover, every officer assigned to looking for drivers over the limit is one officer fewer to catch real criminals. This is specially the case at Christmas, which has lately become carnival a time for burglars and muggers. There are fewer officers around to deter them, and fewer to go looking for them after the event. Much of the propaganda against drinking and driving has nothing to do with reducing injuries to life and property, and everything to do with making it harder to enjoy a drink in good company. If we want to reduce the number of deaths on the roads, drinking and driving should not in itself be a crime. It should be possible for a person to drink a bottle of whisky, get into a car and drive away – and the authorities should have no power to stop this. Punishment should only come if a driver is so erratic that he is plainly dangerous - or if an accident is caused. But it should then in this latter case be very severe punishment. In general, we believe in real punishments for real crimes. Unless a real crime can be shown, we believe in telling the police to mind their own business.”
There are some issues raised by Dr Gabb that might warrant discussion. For example, no-one wants the police to be unduly diverted from stopping crime, nor do they want to be hassled for no apparent reason. However, the remainder of your logic is so utterly contemptible and flawed that I don’t really know where to start. You state that the “propoganda” around drink-driving “has nothing to do with reducing injuries to life”. Oh, really? Even a basic Google search throws up evidence of impairments to visual functions, vigilance, reaction times, psychomotor skills, perception, drowsiness, attention and other cognitive tasks caused by alcohol, in addition to evidence of a clear relationship between blood alcohol levels and the probability of being involved in an accident. Your conclusion that “if we want to reduce the number of deaths on the roads, drinking and driving should not in itself be a crime” is the most astonishing and frankly disturbing load of b***s*** that I’ve heard in a long time. If you take speeding as a comparison, there is not that much evidence that speeding itself kills – it’s dangerous driving that kills people rather than speed in many cases. However, you have wilfully distorted this by suggesting that everything is fine until someone is swerving wildly across the road or has ploughed into another car, despite them unquestionably being a greater risk to other drivers (the fact that they are a greater risk to themselves is beside the point). Once you get into a car after consuming alcohol, you are by definition impaired – it is only the degree of impairment that changes as you consume more. Obviously some people can hold their booze better than others, but that’s why the drink-drive limit allows people to consume a small amount of alcohol because a complete ban would be unnecessarily harsh. To further suggest that the police don’t have enough resources to monitor drink-driving so they should instead focus on catching “real criminals” is an argument to increase police resources, not legalise drink-driving. Morons.
To suggest that it is acceptable to down a bottle of vodka and then jump in a car is at best morally reprehensible. The sad truth is that you’ve taken a few genuine concerns about stop-and-search, drink-drive campaigns and traffic police resources and warped them into some childish, irresponsible and desperate publicity grab designed to attract attention (which, thankfully, the MSM refused to provide) rather than address issues in a level-headed manner. There are some topics where the evidence is questionable – climate change being a prime example – but no-one in their right mind has ever suggested that alcohol doesn’t make you more dangerous on the roads. I know that not all libertarians are the same and I can only hope that the majority distance themselves from your idiocy. Even so, this pathetic ‘Why can’t the government leave us alone and let us drink vodka and whisky before driving home’ charade is just grotesque and undermines the commendable debates that other libertarians try to engage in.
Yours in irritation,
A.Tory
Witanagemot Blogs
When I was learning to drive many years ago, the instructor carried out an experiment with us, We did a session on a training “car” and our performance was noted. We were sent away for 30 mins and had 1/2 pint of bitter. (Self bought) We then returned and the same bit of film was run. each member of the course returned a poorer result.
A true libertarian recognises one’s duty to society without being coerced. It is clearly irresponsible to take any mind-altering so-called “leisure” potion when driving a ton of metal on the road. What Dr. Gabb (MD?) is suggesting is not libertarian- it is anarchic.
“What Dr. Gabb (MD?) is suggesting is not libertarian- it is anarchic. “
Is he being paid by someone else to tarnish the Libertarian cause?
@JuliaM – Dr. Gabb graduated in history (Wiki) so probably not MD.
1. Does Dr. Gabb drink?
2. Does Dr. Gabb drive?
3. Would Dr. Gabb drink a bottle of scotch and drive?
4. Does Dr. Gabb drink a bottle of scotch and drive?
5. Would Dr. Gabb, himself, like to be able to drink a bottle of scotch and drive.
Serious questions, the answers to which would reveal much.
Actually, this is not new. Sean Gabb has raised this one before. In principle his logic is sound – if someone causes death or injury because their faculties are impaired, then they are prosecuted under the offences against the person’s act which carries much stiffer penalties. They have also failed in their common law duty of care, so could be sued as well by the victim.
I don’t think the wording is particularly helpful as a sensible driver (and motorcyclist) will avoid drinking any alcohol before taking to the road due to the impairment as GOM mentions above.
The biggest single problem with Gabb’s argument is that as a society we have become used to lots of little laws regulating in limited fields that we cannot think laterally. A mature society peopled with individuals who exercised their common law duty of care and personal responsibility simply wouldn’t need drink drive laws, because they wouldn’t do it – and those who did would face decades behind bars because they would be prosecuted using a much harsher law.
He is right with his reasoning, but his assessment of our society and its reliance on a myriad of regulations telling us not to do things before we do them is way off.
Sometimes, for pure devilment, I’ll throw the Gabb drink driving argument into a discussion to see what sort of reaction I get. If nothing else, I make people think a bit about their outlook… And I derive some mild amusement in the process.
Sort of agreed. I refuse to drive if I’ve had a beer. The point is, drink-drivers are deliberately endangering innocent third parties. But the flipside of relaxing drink-driving laws must be far more severe punishments if you ever cause an accident (which is what LR is ‘driving’ at). In fact, they could make them a bit more severe anyway.
GOM, right there with you.
Julia, his bizarre and un-libertarian attitude has left me wondering the same thing.
Talwin, agreed on all counts.
Longrider, that’s why I raised the speeding issue because in that instance, you can argue that the regulations are neither necessary nor help save lives – which contrasts sharply with drink-driving.
Mark, I’m personally very sceptical about raising drink-driving limits because some people can be seriously affected (visibly so) after a drink or two.
@Mark Wadsworth – I do understand where you and Longrider are coming from with this. And, normally, I do what I can to avoid to avoid the a-child-might-be-run-over, or someone-could-get-killed justifications for law-making.
But often society isn’t ‘mature’, and lots of people don’t ‘exercise a duty of care’ or ‘personal responsibility’. And if a driver is allowed to drive when pissed and does seriously injure or kill someone, there’s not much consolation in knowing he/she may (sic) get hammered in court.
Offences designed to ‘prevent’ are commonplace: lots of attempts, conspiracies, threats, and the like.
And what about any number of things like duff tyres if there’s no consequence; driving on a footpath, or going through lights on red and so on. Not suggesting these things are necessarily a big deal. Just saying.
I am a libertarian and don’t endorse this proposal. It’s too soon and there are thousands of crimes to abolish (and as Longrider points out, an adult sense of responsibility to rebuild) before we get to this issue.
Still, you have completely missed the point. You have restated the arguments (e.g. “To suggest that it is acceptable to down a bottle of vodka and then jump in a car is at best morally reprehensible”) in what appears to be a wilfully misleading way. You seem to assume than that everything not expressly forbidden by law is somehow endorsed by society. Such an assumption leads inevitably to ever increasing layers of authoritarianism.
If someone drinks, takes drugs or otherwise wilfully impairs their own capacity, then drives and injures a third party he should be punished severely. He took the decision to impair his capacity and should suffer the consequences just as if he had deliberately chosen them. I don’t think there’s a specific law against driving with your eyes closed, but if someone was fool enough to do it they would be both prosecuted and sued for negligence if someone was hurt.
At least Labour has an openly collectivist ideology to justify treating all individuals as irresponsible fools to be mistrusted by default. What’s your excuse?
Very well said.
Talwin, the issue of prevention is always a thorny one from an authoritarian/libertarian perspective. Dr Gabb is right that setting a drink-drive limit is an example of the government flexing its muscle, but defining when this is and isn’t appropriate is not always easy. That said, I think drink-driving is one of the more straightforward situations.
Tom Paine, I do not assume “that everything not expressly forbidden by law is somehow endorsed by society.” We are dealing with a very specific issue in drink-driving. I am not in any way treating everyone like fools – I am merely drawing the line at never condoning people drinking however much alcohol they want, knowing that they, by definition, pose an ever greater risk to the rest of society by doing so. I think knocking back a bottle of spirits before jumping behind the wheel of a car is indeed morally reprehensible and even reckless, but you don’t have to agree with that to think Dr Gabb is wrong.
beware people that proffer labels about themselves!
We have a simple law that makes it an offence to drive whilst under the influence of alcohol – with the bar set at a particular level of blood alcohol. On the reasonable grounds that above that level most people are then a risk to other people.
We had a system whereby the police were only able to stop drivers if they had reasonable suspicions – and we had a system of double testing the positives back “at the station”, which is effectively giving people the benefit of the doubt.
I don’t think there was anything unlibertarian about that. It had an impact on the levels of road accidents attributable to drink. There were regular debates about how the police applied the reasonable suspiocion test, and that might have benefitted from a more democratically accountable police force, but otherwise the system was good
what I object to is the removal of the “benefit of the doubt bit”, and the removal of the stopping with reasonable suspicion bit – because 1) the level is arbitrary, and affects different people in different ways, and 2) stopping people at random is against the fundamental principle of innocent until proven guilty. I am sure that the stuff this chap is spouting does not help the libertarian cause, but there is a debate to be had here.
But often society isn’t ‘mature’, and lots of people don’t ‘exercise a duty of care’ or ‘personal responsibility’. And if a driver is allowed to drive when pissed and does seriously injure or kill someone, there’s not much consolation in knowing he/she may (sic) get hammered in court.
The problem with laws designed to prevent is that all too often they don’t. People who are inclined to drink and drive won’t necessarily refrain because there is a specific law prohibiting it – otherwise there would be zero offences. So we are back to the after the event prosecution. Gabb’s logic is that the offences against the persons act is a better tool. Those who would not drink and drive because it is irresponsible wouldn’t anyway – law or no law.
That said; unfortunately, our society has become so infantilised, swathes of folk do feel that they need laws to tell them what not to do. What a sad reflection on our society.
It seems to me that when the state starts telling people how they should behave, rather than leaving it to their own best judgment, then people must necessarily become more irresponsible. The infantilised society is an irresponsible society made up of people who are only concerned with whether what they’re doing is illegal or not, and not whether it is morally wrong or not.
Consider the following: you’re at home with a few mates knocking back whisky galore, when one of them collapses on the floor frothing at the mouth. There’s a hospital ten miles away. You try phoning for an ambulance, but your phone is dead or you can’t get a signal. You’re absolutely plastered and twenty times over the limit. Do you 1) put the invalid on your back seat and drive to the hospital anyway, or 2) refuse to do so because it’s illegal to drive over the limit?
Dr Gabb’s sentiments reminds me of my own when I was a teenager.
‘You’re absolutely plastered and twenty times over the limit. Do you 1) put the invalid on your back seat and drive to the hospital anyway, or 2) refuse to do so because it’s illegal to drive over the limit? ‘
Or 3) Refuse to do so because you are highly likely to cause an accident, potentially injuring or killing yourself and/or your incapacitated friend and/or an innocent 3rd party.
Or 3) Refuse to do so because you are highly likely to cause an accident, potentially injuring or killing yourself and/or your incapacitated friend and/or an innocent 3rd party.
Are you highly likely? Are you even likely? The way you express it, it sounds as if people who’ve had a pint or three too many regularly and routinely end up in ditches.
But they don’t. I’ve been driving for over thirty years, and sometimes I’ve driven while drunk. I have never had a single accident driving while drunk. The only two accidents I’ve had in my entire driving experience I put down to 1) inexperience (the driver side door swung open), and 2) not driving with full care and attanetion (because somebody was trying to open the passenger door). Both were comparatively minor accidents in which nobody was injured.
And I expect my experience will be confirmed by most other drivers. Having a few pints makes you more likely to have an accident. But only slightly more likely. That is, rather than negotiating the roads successfully 99.99% of the time, you’ll do so 99.5% of the time. You make it sound like it’s only 10% of the time. And it isn’t.
I suspect that you don’t drive. Or that when you do drive, you’ve never touched a drop of anything, and so you have no idea what it’s like to drive while drunk.
“Dr Gabb’s sentiments reminds me of my own when I was a teenager.”
Some of us put away childish things when we become adults. Others take literally the the Brian Adams song, “18 till I die” as a blueprint for life.
“If someone drinks, takes drugs or otherwise wilfully impairs their own capacity, then drives and injures a third party he should be punished severely.”
Too often, innocent victims including car passengers, are killed, maimed or brain-damaged for life. Is locking up the driver for 4 1/2 years compensation to them or their immediate family? The old Norse Law made the perpetrator responsible (Brent Njal, anyone?)for the welfare of the victims’ family if the victim was the head, or the payment of wergild (lit. Deathgold) or a period of indenture as a servant if the guilty party was impoverished. A court and jury decided both guilt and punishment. The guilty party could either accept the verdict or embrace outlawry, which in medieval Europe was as good as a death sentence. Thus, while justice was seen to be impartial, atonement was both personal and inculcated responsibility.
Hayek ( The Road to Serfdom) has much to say on the difference between the Rule of Law, as a philosophical concept, and the practice of Law by the collectivist State. He points out, as have contributors above, the difference between the Rule of Law as a means of enabling society to flourish, and Law as a means of controlling society to carry out a centrally conceived “plan”. I suggest that the past 13 years more than demonstrate the difference. Too often , using Law as a control leads to a contempt of Law and an ever-increasing infantilism amongst the population. If you add to the mix an inability to properly punish and guide those who break the Law, as is arguably the case in contemporary Britain, then a liberal society is put under considerable strain.
Drinking is legal
Driving is legal
Drinking and driving being illegal is based only on the
!Assumption” that an offence “MAY” occur,hardly a worthy
concept in any society which proclaims Democracy and justice.
Leaving the DDR without permission was an offence so they
built a wall to prevent a crime being committed
Are we saying those who support the breathalyser yearn the
collapse of the wall. As for the acclaimed popularity by the
so called majority,so was the NSDAP
If 90% of you want to stroll down the path of good intentions,
go ahead ,but ,please ,no whimpering when you see the depot.
No way a Libertarian
My own related blog post.
Frank,
You start with
‘You’re absolutely plastered and twenty times over the limit.’
Then change it to
‘Are you highly likely? Are you even likely? The way you express it, it sounds as if people who’ve had a pint or three too many regularly and routinely end up in ditches.’
The rest of your ‘argument’ becomes irrelevant at this point, as you started with ‘plastered’ and moved to ‘couple of pints’ Not the same thing. I’d say being ‘plastered’ would lead you to be more likely.
I do drive and don’t drink. You, on the other hand, sound as though you routinely drink and drive and even sound quite proud of it.
Last year, an elderly woman backed her Buick through the front door of my office. She caused significant property loss, but fortunately no clients of mine were using the door at the time. Things could have been worse.
By the way, she was stone-cold sober.
Sean Gabb elaborates on his argument here
http://www.seangabb.co.uk/flcomm/flc015.htm