The problem with that argument is that it assumes driving is a RIGHT. It's not a right, it's a PRIVILEGE. A 21-year-old who legally obtained a drivers license has every "right" to drink alcohol. He also has every "right" to drive his car. But if he does both of those things at the same time and gets caught, he can lose his license even if he doesn't cause an accident. However, according to extreme libertarian logic, a cop shouldn't legally be able to pull over someone who is chugging a can of beer while driving if that person isn't swerving or crashing into anyone. That's ridiculous.
Like people who text behind the wheel, many drunks believe that driving while "buzzed" is no big deal because they've managed to do it many times before. And the only thing that might make them think twice about doing it is the fact that its illegal. If the law only punished those people AFTER they hurt someone, than that's just too little too late.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2010-05-21 08:52 pm (UTC)A 21-year-old who legally obtained a drivers license has every "right" to drink alcohol. He also has every "right" to drive his car. But if he does both of those things at the same time and gets caught, he can lose his license even if he doesn't cause an accident. However, according to extreme libertarian logic, a cop shouldn't legally be able to pull over someone who is chugging a can of beer while driving if that person isn't swerving or crashing into anyone. That's ridiculous.
Like people who text behind the wheel, many drunks believe that driving while "buzzed" is no big deal because they've managed to do it many times before. And the only thing that might make them think twice about doing it is the fact that its illegal. If the law only punished those people AFTER they hurt someone, than that's just too little too late.