|
|
|
Increased
Public Awareness
Sam Aurelius Milam III Back in October of 2009, I was getting a ride to town with somebody. The radio in the car was tuned to the local NPR station and I tried my best to ignore the drivel that often passes for news nowadays, even on NPR. Therefore, I wasn't listening carefully enough that I can remember the exact number that was mentioned by the man who was being interviewed. I think that he said two decades. I'm not sure. For the purposes of this article, I'll just assume that it was two decades. So, the man said something like, 'after two decades of our efforts to increase public awareness, we're making some progress on the drunk driving issue.' I didn't exactly choke or gag. I didn't want to start an argument with the person who was giving me a ride so I did manage to keep my mouth shut. Also, it's usually a waste of my effort and an insult to my intelligence to argue with the consequences of increased public awareness. Some people call it increased public awareness or maybe even progress. The best thing that I can call it is brainwashing. Like many other things, drunk driving is irresponsible. However, in and of itself, drunk driving is a victimless crime. That is, driving drunk doesn't cause any harm. Having accidents causes harm. An accident is harmful whether or not anyone involved in the accident was drunk. So, the harm results not from a person driving drunk but from a person having an accident. That simple truth is so obvious, so self-evident, that the failure of people to recognize it surpasses understanding. This is where some beneficiary of increased public awareness always objects that a drunk driver is more likely to cause an accident. It's possible to calculate the probability of an accident within a population of drunk drivers. It's also possible to calculate the probability of an accident within a population of sober drivers. However, the probability of such an accident within a population of sober drivers might not necessarily be lower than it is within a population of drunk drivers. That's because the distinction of drunk drivers vs. sober drivers is entirely artificial to the extent that it ignores a lot of other circumstances that can also affect a person's ability to drive safely. If, for example, each of the drivers within the population of drunk drivers was not otherwise impaired while each of the drivers within the population of sober drivers had just had a terrible argument with his wife and had just picked up a lovely blonde female hitchhiker who was showing a lot of cleavage, then the probability of an accident within the population of sober drivers might be higher than the probability of an accident within the population of drunk drivers. To claim that the probability of an accident is higher within a population of drunk drivers than it is within a population of sober drivers, without considering other relevant circumstances, is an invalid statistical analysis. Even in a carefully designed statistical analysis, the calculations don't prove that accidents will happen. They only predict a probability of accidents within a population of drivers. Not only that, statistical calculations don't apply to individuals. They apply only to populations. Thus, the belief that a particular drunk driver is likely to cause an accident is entirely intuitive. It isn't possible to prove that, merely as a consequence of being drunk, he will ever cause an accident. He might drive drunk to a ripe old age and never cause an accident.1 Lacking any proof that he will ever cause any harm, there isn't a cause of action against him. Generally, there isn't any legitimate basis for punishing a drunk driver for no reason other than that he was driving drunk. To do so is like punishing a father for child abandonment merely because there's a calculable probability of child abandonment within a population of fathers. Remember the old Constitutional Patriot adage. There isn't a cause of action until there's a victim. It isn't legitimate to punish somebody for something that he might do. Punishment must never be administered merely for capabilities. It must be administered only for consequences. Even if the probability of an individual drunk driver causing an accident could be calculated, the present methods of apprehending such drunk drivers would still violate the fundamental principles of liberty.2 Those principles apply not just in the courts. They apply at all times, in every circumstance, without exception. For example, there's the self incrimination principle. A man must never be re-
For PayPal payments, use editor@frontiersman.my3website.net.
|
quired to provide information that might be used
against him but that's exactly what happens during a sobriety test.
More generally, the principle of remaining silent provides that a driver
doesn't have to provide any information at all, whether or not it might
be used against him. Then there's the burden of proof principle,
according to which the accuser must bear the burden of proof. Thus,
a driver doesn't have to prove that he isn't drunk. A suspicious
cop has to prove that a driver is drunk and he has to do it without the
driver's help.
So, a manic agenda promoted by a bunch of loony women (MADD) with too much time on their hands and no understanding at all of the principles of liberty or of the consequences of their behavior has resulted in a huge increase in the repressive powers of the present police state. The persecution of drunk drivers rivals even the anti-sex, anti-smoking, and anti-drug madness. It's an outrageous example of mindless repression in the pursuit of a lame-brained and misguided witch hunt masquerading as a worthy cause. Letter to the Editor
—Tom; Redwood City
Thank you for your comments. They deserve replies on several different points. I'm not analyzing the Bible. I'm using it in self-defense, to try to get the Christians to leave the rest of us alone. As I noted in my article, Christians might discount my own writings as the ravings of an infidel. They can't discount the teachings of their own Bible. Since you're willing to accept the idea of a Father, a Son, and a Holy Spirit, then why not consider the idea of a Father, a Son, and a Mother? Indeed, since you accept the idea of a Father and a Son, it seems irrational to reject the idea of a Mother unless, of course, the Holy Spirit is female. In either case, if there's a son, then God reproduces. If you advocate a Father and a Son but no Mother, then are you suggesting that God reproduces asexually? If that's the case, then why use the masculine gender? Why not advocate a Progenitor, a Progeny, and the Holy Spirit? Finally, you're ignoring Genesis 1:27. The divine image isn't male and holy spirit. The divine image is male and female. Regarding Christian attitudes toward human sexuality, consider these questions. Would most Christians be happy if all of the various prohibitions against such things as prostitution and adultery were repealed? Would they like for there to be topless bars and sex clubs in town? Would they approve of unrestricted access to "adult" book stores and sex shops over at the mall? If not, then you might ponder whether it's just the radical Christians who regard human sexuality as being obscene. Maybe it's all of them. I know a good, honest, and generous man who answered a woman's solicitation in the classifieds. She wanted "an open and honest relationship, starting with phone sex." After several such conversations, they arranged a meeting. When he arrived at the designated location, he was arrested. The woman had been a cop. The conversations had all been recorded. He's now a convicted felon and was even required, for a while, to register as a sex offender. He didn't even do anything. He just talked. Such are the consequences of "radical" Christian attitudes toward human sexuality. I'm trying hard to not despise the Christians for their foul accomplishments in the name of God. The Christians aren't making it easy. Now, I've come full circle, back to my thoughts near the beginning of this collection of comments. If not for the rest of us, then for their own future best interests, Christians need to learn to leave the rest of us alone and mind their own business. —editor
For PayPal payments, use editor@frontiersman.my3website.net.
|
Acknowledgments My thanks to the following: SantaClara Bob; Lady Jan the Voluptuous; my mother; and Dewey and Betty. — editor
Court Quotes From Humor in the Court and More Humor in the Court, by Mary Louise Gilman, editor of the National Shorthand Reporter. Forwarded by Don G.
Funny Signs Original Source Unknown. Forwarded by Don G.
Frontiersman Subscriptions and Back Issues — Printed copies of this newsletter, either subscriptions or back issues, are available by application only. Cancellations — If you don't want to keep receiving this newsletter, then print REFUSED, RETURN TO SENDER above your name and address and return the newsletter. When I receive it, I'll terminate your subscription. Reprint Policy — Permission is hereby granted to reproduce this newsletter in its entirety or to reproduce material from it, provided that the reproduction is accurate and that proper credit is given. I do not have the authority to give permission to reprint material that I have reprinted from other sources. For that permission, you must go to the original source. I would appreciate receiving a courtesy copy of any document or publication in which you reprint my material. Submissions — I solicit letters, articles, and cartoons for the newsletter, but I don't pay for them. Short items are more likely to be printed. I suggest that letters and articles be shorter than 500 words but that's flexible depending on space available and the content of the piece. Payment — This newsletter isn't for sale. If you want to make a voluntary contribution, then I prefer cash, prepaid telephone cards, or U.S. postage stamps. For checks or money orders, please inquire. For PayPal payments, use editor@frontiersman.my3website.net. The continued existence of the newsletter will depend, in part, on such contributions. I don't accept anything that requires me to provide ID to receive it. In case anybody's curious, I also accept gold, silver, platinum, etc. — Sam Aurelius Milam III, editor
For PayPal payments, use editor@frontiersman.my3website.net.
|
|
|