Texting and Driving is a RIGHT!

[Cow Poke]

As you'll see right off -- I'm speaking "against" the Title.

You can almost BET that the "slow driver" holding up the line has got his face buried in his iPhone or Android, texting, playing Angry Birds, or whatever... or you've seen somebody veer nearly off the road or almost into oncoming traffic.

I'm thinking it should be perfectly legal to shoot their tires out as you pass.

OK, maybe not shoot their tires out, but is anybody opposed to stricter laws against texting while driving, or otherwise being distracted by your handheld mobile device while driving?


As an aside -- MOST people are TOO STUPID to text and drive!

[Outis]

As you'll see right off -- I'm speaking "against" the Title.

An interesting use of bait and switch. Yes, texting and driving is a hazardous activity, and I agree that necessary measures should be taken by the legislatures.

[Christianbookworm]

The UK has a pretty brutal psa...

[Christianbookworm]

Hope it's not too brutal. But it does get across the point that texting while driving kills.

[Cow Poke]

Well, I'm particularly interested to see if any of my libertarian friends believe it IS a "right" to text and drive.

[Outis]

Well, I'm particularly interested to see if any of my libertarian friends believe it IS a "right" to text and drive.

Broadly speaking, Libertarians are primarily concerned with rights as a hypothetical construct, and prefer their arguments untrammeled by minor concerns such as facts, reality, or common sense. I doubt you will receive any substantive answers, though if you do receive answers defending this supposed "right," I caution you to be careful if you drive where the respondents live.

[Cow Poke]

Broadly speaking, Libertarians are primarily concerned with rights as a hypothetical construct, and prefer their arguments untrammeled by minor concerns such as facts, reality, or common sense. I doubt you will receive any substantive answers, though if you do receive answers defending this supposed "right," I caution you to be careful if you drive where the respondents live.

This response was worth starting the thread.

[Truthseeker]

Broadly speaking, Libertarians are primarily concerned with rights as a hypothetical construct, and prefer their arguments untrammeled by minor concerns such as facts, reality, or common sense. I doubt you will receive any substantive answers, though if you do receive answers defending this supposed "right," I caution you to be careful if you drive where the respondents live.

??? Example, please? Note, if someone who is following the non-aggression principle owns a toll road, part of his contract with the users of the road may include a prohibition against text driving, or provide penalties for it in case of accidents.

[Outis]

??? Example, please? Note, if someone who is following the non-aggression principle owns a toll road, part of his contract with the users of the road may include a prohibition against text driving, or provide penalties for it in case of accidents.

Having had previous (and plentiful) experience in debating with libertarians, I cordially invite you to go fly a kite. I have no time to deal with, nor interest to tolerate, the libertarian habit of re-defining common English words to suit their convenience, nor with their refusal to see the real world outside of Ayn Rand and Lew Rockwell.

It should be noted that I do not know you. To the best of my knowledge, unless we've interacted on another forum, we are complete strangers. Thus, if you are NOT a libertarian, I will cheerfully apologize for applying the above statement to you, and will gladly discuss the issue with you.

[KingsGambit]

Well, I'm particularly interested to see if any of my libertarian friends believe it IS a "right" to text and drive.

I've seen some libertarians argue that drunk driving should be legal because unsafe driving is already against the law as it is, so it's a redundant law and if you can safely drive drunk you should be able to.

[Cow Poke]

I've seen some libertarians argue that drunk driving should be legal because unsafe driving is already against the law as it is, so it's a redundant law and if you can safely drive drunk you should be able to.

Interesting.

DWI arrests are supposed to be initiated upon the observation that a vehicle is being driven unsafely -- drifting left of center, over correcting, driving too slowly, weaving, etc.... so there needs to be some kind of "probable cause" for the officer to stop the vehicle. Then there's the "sobriety tests" designed to evaluate the reaction of the individual to stimuli, and finally, the breathalyzer tests which simply corroborates the officer's decision to arrest.

So, I think this would be a weak argument. There are, of course "functional alcoholics", and I have run into a few. But the officer wouldn't even have stopped the vehicle without some reason to believe it was being driven in an unsafe manner.

ETA: in many regards, somebody texting while driving may appear the same as somebody who is driving while intoxicated. The difference, of course, is that the texter CAN put the handheld device down, and return to driving safely.

[KingsGambit]

Interesting.

DWI arrests are supposed to be initiated upon the observation that a vehicle is being driven unsafely -- drifting left of center, over correcting, driving too slowly, weaving, etc.... so there needs to be some kind of "probable cause" for the officer to stop the vehicle. Then there's the "sobriety tests" designed to evaluate the reaction of the individual to stimuli, and finally, the breathalyzer tests which simply corroborates the officer's decision to arrest.

So, I think this would be a weak argument. There are, of course "functional alcoholics", and I have run into a few. But the officer wouldn't even have stopped the vehicle without some reason to believe it was being driven in an unsafe manner.

ETA: in many regards, somebody texting while driving may appear the same as somebody who is driving while intoxicated. The difference, of course, is that the texter CAN put the handheld device down, and return to driving safely.

Yeah, the main reason I don't buy it is because people always overestimate their ability to do things, and everybody would just think, well, of course I can drive safely drunk (people already do that as it is and just hope they don't get caught). The same thing would go for texting, I think.

[Zymologist]

Broadly speaking, Libertarians are primarily concerned with rights as a hypothetical construct, and prefer their arguments untrammeled by minor concerns such as facts, reality, or common sense. I doubt you will receive any substantive answers, though if you do receive answers defending this supposed "right," I caution you to be careful if you drive where the respondents live.

I loosely consider myself a libertarian, and I hate it when people text and drive. And no, I don't think people have a "right" to drink and drive, either. Just saying, you may want to be careful with the broad-brushing there. It's very easy to characterize your debate opponents as idiots, but it doesn't really reflect well on you.

[Truthseeker]

no time to deal with, nor interest to tolerate, the libertarian habit of re-defining common English words to suit their convenience, nor with their refusal to see the real world outside of Ayn Rand and Lew Rockwell.

Right, say something then forbid its discussion. Time to make a post but no time to consider responses. Defining words so as to advance an argument is common; far from being an uniquely libertarian practice. Refusal to accept reasonable re-definitions or reasonably refined definitions--phooey!

Let me note that I am no admirer of Ayn Rand. I thought her novels Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead were weird. As for Lew Rockwell, I wonder why Outis think he's unrealistic in some way.

[Truthseeker]

I've seen some libertarians argue that drunk driving should be legal because unsafe driving is already against the law as it is, so it's a redundant law and if you can safely drive drunk you should be able to.

Mark Crovelli? He's written a few articles discussing drunk driving. I'm not certain I'm allowed to give you links to them, but I think I can quote something from one of his articles:

Another option would be to simply recognize the fact that people are responsible for their actions, and only fine and incarcerate them if they actually cause harm to another person. Yes, this option would mean that we would have to leave drunk drivers alone unless they actually hurt someone, just as we now do with drivers who are sleepy or are decrepitly aged. But, is this not the same standard that we employ in other areas of criminal law? We do not deem it morally or legally acceptable for the police to raid the poorer areas of our cities to search out and incarcerate people they think will become criminals one day, simply because the poor are more likely to commit certain crimes. We do not deem it morally or legally acceptable for the police to round up and imprison people according to race, based upon the fact that certain races commit disproportionate amounts of crime. Why, then, do we allow the state to do precisely this to drunk drivers, based solely on the assumption that drunk drivers may harm other people, when we would condemn it if it was done to any other segment of society?

Both justice and freedom demand that we choose the latter option, and not the option of treating one group of people as potential criminals, all in need of incarceration.

But suppose the libertarian owner of the toll road is anxious to maintain the safe reputation of the road. He might set up a system to observe people using the road. If in the judgment of the operators of the system Joe Blow is driving so as to seem endangering other people, the owner or his employees would try to stop him and ban him henceforth.