tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post8895299668944932766..comments2017-04-13T04:47:21.148-06:00Comments on Pro Libertate: Private Vices, Public CrimesWilliam N. Grigghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14368220509514750246noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-57617980152095491872007-06-28T14:55:00.000-06:002007-06-28T14:55:00.000-06:00Having once performed a law enforcement function, ...Having once performed a law enforcement function, in which I was obliged to process folks for DUI, I recall overhearing a comment from one of the military contract lawyers for our community. In effect, he said blood alcohol content was meaningless, because some individuals were not necessarily incapable of driving when they might blow .08. As the one who had to file observation reports, I was literally required to lie about physical incapacity when it was not that bad in some subjects.Brokenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12866635425857133740noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-59206092863587552702007-06-28T13:30:00.000-06:002007-06-28T13:30:00.000-06:00"If some preening, overfed, tax-devouring chair-po...<I>"If some preening, overfed, tax-devouring chair-polluter who wears a dress to work sent my elderly father to die in prison for a non-violent offense, I would be severely tempted to track that “judge” down and curb-stomp his ugly, arrogant face. Permanent disfigurement would be a condign punishment for a judicial crime of that sort."</I><BR/><BR/>These may have been the sweetest words I've ever seen in print!<BR/><BR/>Will, I'm glad I stumbled onto your blog (from LewRockwell.com)!!fishnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-82478584104247327642007-06-28T10:52:00.000-06:002007-06-28T10:52:00.000-06:00Hi Will,Great write-up. I've got a few comments, b...Hi Will,<BR/><BR/>Great write-up. I've got a few comments, but I want to start by apologizing for any perceived brazen tone in some of my last comments. You mentioned rolling Spooner around your palate, and in a response I said you should do just that. A friend of mine who read the comments recently said that knowing me he understands how I'd say such a thing and not mean it offensively, but he noticed that without knowing me and my usual tone, what I said might have come across as patronizing or mocking-- definitely not my intent, so if you perceived it that way I apologize and want to assure you I did honestly mean you should roll Spooner around on your palate some more because I believe you will, like I did, find him to be a shocking flavor, at first, but one that a refined gentleman such as yourself can eventually acquire a taste for.<BR/><BR/>With that being said, then, I want to hearken back to our previous comment exchange on the Brown post and say, in regards to your latest Spooner quote: "Delicious!"<BR/><BR/>As I read this latest post about the SWAT raid, I immeadiately began to think of the secondary tragedy in the scenario (the primary being the couples' violation and destruction of their property), the fact that if the couple sued for damages, they'd end up simply suing people completely unrelated to and not responsible for the SWAT-style debacle. And much to my pleasure, you ended up covering that very notion no sooner had the thought completely formed in my mind.<BR/><BR/>This is yet another problem with publicly-financed police specifically, and publicly-financed services in general... when wrong-doing occurs, the agents of the State are often absolved of responsibility, the costs instead being socialistically passed on to people who do not share in the blame. It's not fair and it's not right. Perhaps the reasoning is that, as agents of the State, which supposedly represents the people, the people then are the truly responsible parties. But that would only be true if the association and representation were voluntary, which it's not.<BR/><BR/>Unfortunately, there is no "easy" solution to this endemic problem short of de-socializing it (ie, returning police/security provision to a private, voluntary affair). No matter how hard one may try, and no matter how pure in intent one may be, one can not make non-market goods and services behave as if they belong to the market. The market isn't perfect in and of itself, but you'll never get the public sector to behave as perfectly as the market no matter how many rules, regulations and policies you put into place.<BR/><BR/>I was also happy to see you take the "DD is not a crime" stance, as well. I remember reading an article by Lew Rockwell, <A HREF="http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/drunkdriving.html" REL="nofollow">Legalize Drunk Driving</A> a few years ago and was simply <I>shocked</I> that anyone could defend such a practice. But then I stopped listening to my emotions and started considering it logically. Next thing I know, I am arguing the same principle against 4 clueless people at a party a few weeks ago. A lot of people have a hard time swallowing an issue like that because "it's the law" and they can't seperate "the law" from what is right... scary, yes, but it almost makes sense at this point. Things couldn't be this bad if most people were able to seperate the two in their minds.<BR/><BR/>I don't know if you know of Charley Hardman, a former LRC contributor, but he tends to be particularly incensed by the DUI scandal and has done a number of good posts on the topic recently and in the past. Check out <A HREF="http://saltypig.com/blog/2007/06/accuracy-is-unreliable.htm" REL="nofollow">this one</A>, which, like many, are simply outrages he's highlighted from the <A HREF="http://www.duiblog.com/2007/06/13/report-breathalyzers-outdated-unstable-unreliable/" REL="nofollow">DUI blog</A>. I think if you click his "criminals in uniform" or "mad" tags below his posts, you'll find more on the subject. He's a bit coarse with the language, but you're an adult, I'm sure you can handle it.<BR/><BR/>ps. Is that a She-Cop in SWAT-regalia in the pic you attached, two metal-domes to the left of the shield-bearer? That deserves a big ol' LOL. Give... me... a... BREAK!TAYLORhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18270678440957992085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-14148125384344521272007-06-28T07:16:00.000-06:002007-06-28T07:16:00.000-06:00If you have a blood alcohol level of .2 and are dr...If you have a blood alcohol level of .2 and are driving fine, except that you are speeding, you should not be charged with DUI or whatever. We should punish reckless driving. Regardless of how much a person has had to drink, if he is driving recklessly then I have no problem punishing him. To have a set standard, .08, is dumb.Zacharyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05334525584242029389noreply@blogger.com