1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/9785/open-letter-to-mothers-against-drunk-driving/

Open Letter to Mothers Against Drunk Driving

April 13, 2009 by

It is not at all true that speed, alcohol, drugs, etc., are ultimately responsible for vehicular death. Rather, they are only the proximate causes. The underlying explanation is that the managers of the roads, those in charge of them, have failed to deal with these problems. With a system of private highways and streets, the various owners would compete with one another to provide service for their customers (including, preeminently, safety). Those who failed would be forced either to change the error of their ways or go belly up. FULL ARTICLE


Justin Larson April 14, 2009 at 9:35 pm

So this is what i gathered from the comments:

If someone makes it easy for someone to buy alcohol and consume it while driving its a matter of personal responsibility, but if the gov builds roads for them to drive drunk on, its the gov’s fault. Privatizing roads with both reduce the number of roads and not result in a monopoly…. right.

Buckley April 14, 2009 at 10:16 pm

I agree with what Greg said in an earlier post that the only way to stop drunk driving is not to have the drunk get into his or her car and start driving. No enforcement, public or private, can stop a drunk from driving once he or she gets behind the wheel. It is too late when that happens and it has nothing to do with freedom or liberty but pure responsibility. Something a lot of drunk drivers don’t seem to have once they get behind the wheel of their car. Not for themselves and not for anyone else.

Which gets to another good point stated by Jeff that the emotional and financial well being of the survivors of the victims of drunk drivers are tremendous and real and just can’t be chucked off as a meaningless by product of these all too ever present tragedies that occur in America it seems every week. If not punished in some meaningful way the drunk will continue on his or her own merry way getting a six pack of beer at a liquor store in the morning and continuing to drink all day long and then getting into his or her own vehicle with a fifty-fifty chance of causing some incredible damage if some unlucky person out there that has the misfortune to come accross the drunk driver at the wrong place and at the wrong time.

This doesn’t ,and shouldn’t, have anything to do with other reasons why automobile accidents, other than by drunk driving, occur or why roads should be privatized. It is about personal responsibilty. Something that should go alongside personal freedom.

A lot of people here and elsewhere may feel that death by drunk driving ,while very tragic, is just still an accident. And that we should not hold the drunk driver anymore responsible than any other reason for a automobile accident that ends up in death. That is, until, a drunk driver kills someone very close to you. That arguement then blows over pretty fast.

MB221 April 15, 2009 at 4:22 am

Buckley, you hit the nail right on the head:

“This doesn’t ,and shouldn’t, have anything to do with other reasons why automobile accidents, other than by drunk driving, occur or why roads should be privatized. It is about personal responsibilty. Something that should go alongside personal freedom.”

Couldn’t have said it any better myself! Personal responsibility comes with personal freedom, indeed. I think this is a core value in Libertarian and free-market philosophy, and something one must recognize (subconsciously at least) in order to truly understand and appreciate the brilliance and logical simplicity of free-market theory. The people who denounce free-markets as absolutely ludicrous and impossible, I believe, are merely recognizing the widespread lack of real personal responsibility that is so deeply ingrained in our culture (this is likely a subconscious recognition, twisted around and misinterpreted on its way to the conscious in the form of advocating more state control).

You know, waaay back in the day they believed in an ‘Eye for an Eye’, and something tells me that these people were MUCH more careful in their decision-making. Personal responsibility was probably TOO proliferate. Now you can just call up the insurance company or the lawyer and have them bail you out… for the right price of course. Oh yea, let’s not forget about the most recent inductee of that list of “bailer-outers”: the Federal Governement.

Why try and take on real responsibility and/or deal with consequences of your actions when you know you can get away with it? Why go get a job when you can claim welfare or social security? Why let your company go under when you can threaten ‘systemic risk’ with its demise? I see this as a cultural problem, with the federal government directly initiating, facilitating, and benefiting (expanding) from it.

We know where the problems lie, the question is what can we do about it?

toni lynn walker April 21, 2009 at 10:07 am


Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: