Originally posted by sigma:
If drunk drivers had sirens and big flashing signs on them that say "I'm a drunk driver move away" we might not have to have a law.



Sure. Good thing all those smokers throughout the decades have had those "My smoke might kill you" neon signs.


Originally posted by sigma:
One does not have the opportunity to go somewhere else and avoid a drunk driver before you are killed. Nor can you politely ask that the drunk driver not drive before you are killed.



How many times have you asked someone to put out their cigarette because you didn't want to breathe their second-hand smoke? Most extend their middle finger, I would imagine. Some would be considerate and comply, but only some. Not all.

Yes, one does have the opportunity to go somewhere else and avoid being killed by a drunk driver. Don't go near a road, off-road path, or body of water, and you won't have to worry about it. Just the same as choosing not to go near anywhere someone might be generating some tasty second-hand smoke.


Originally posted by sigma:
And most importantly, note the difference between government regulating what a people can and cannot do within their own business, and the government regulating what people can and cannot do on government property (roads).



Sure. Better yet, let's note the fact that in both cases, drunk driving and smoking, it's a question of whether or not one person's choices can be allowed to endanger the safety of another person. This is where government performs its function ΓΆβ?¬β?? by helping to establish policies (read: laws) that protect individuals' rights without infringing on other people's rights.


ZenTroll --The original Subaru troll!-- Minneapolis, MN '04 Subaru 'You. Outside. Now.' (Stg II+) '78 Camaro Z-28 (406 ci w/lots of fun bits) '05 Yamaha R1 '03 Suzuki SV1000S "Where are we going and why are we in this handbasket?"