Very informative article.

Freedom is like a rock. People know they can't take it away from you, it's too heavy, and you'd notice, so they just chisel and chisel away whenever they get the opportunity.

So what else is new, they have anytime check points in North Carolina, I got stopped just down the street from going home.

If you drive 15 miles pass the speed limit, you do not get a chance to go to traffic school to get it off. They just suspend your license.

I heard enough stories that cops will give you a ticket at times whether or not you are in violation. They do that in Long Beach, California. Who wins, the cops.

One of the things I detest about MADD is that they make up their statistics.

Many is the time that one of their telemarketers would call and quote some outrageous figure - one person is killed every seven minutes due to a drunk driver - or something along similar lines.

If you every ask questions about how the data was gathered, over what time frame, in what geographic location, ect. they get very personally offended and hang up on you.

There's a gut feeling about the Police and the LP I have that needs to be exploited. When you see a cop behind you, you freak, right? 99% of people do, even if they are doing nothing wrong.

There's got to be a way to tie in that fear of the police with illustrating the sad state of liberty today. Everyone can relate to that feeling.

I have a idea for a storyboard about this - and another for a proposed "tame the police" proposal that may sound wacky but I'll put it out there anyway.

What if the LP came out with a "the Police must give (insert number here) of the proceeds from all misdemeanor fines levied in the jurisdiction to charity" proposal that took away the ability of the police to act like tax collectors for the governments they work for through traffic stops and other minor crimes?

It's wrong for local governments to fatten their coffers through speed traps and "auction the goods before one is proven guilty" property auctions before one is proven guilty of a crime. And they shouldnt be able to keep the proceeds of siezures made for themselves in any case. That should all go to charity as well.

I dont know if this is possible legally but I'd like to get opinions on it.

Regarding MADD:

I think that the drinking age in this country should be 18. If you trust someone to defend this country and your way of life, you should trust their ability to have a couple beers.

MADD says that the number of drunken driving deaths decreased significantly because of the higher drinking age. I say: OF COURSE IT DID! If you were to raise the legal drinking age to 30 you'd have even fewer drunk drivers because there'd be fewer people drinking. Perhaps that's what some in MADD want.

I don't defend drunken driving one bit, and I think that MADD's original mission of reducing drunk driving is a noble one, but not at the expense of Gestapo like tactics by police on law abiding citizens who drink occasionally.

http://www.frostywooldridge.com/articles/art_titanic_united_states_2003dec.html

Another well said reason to close borders.

I agree that the drinking age should be 18. If your old enough to die for your country then I think your old enough to make decisions about drinking.
Second I think the law should be at .08. Alcohol affects driving more than you think. I also that think that if the blood alcohol levels are .1 or above that there should be a stronger penalty. If anyone causes a fatality on the road and alcohol was a factor I think that the license should be suspended for a very long time.
Having said that, I am not against drinking the least bit. I go to the bar about once a week. There comes a point when people must take responsibility for their actions and if they don't they need to face real consequences not a slap on the hand cause people don't seem to learn from that.
I don't like the police traps however. I think that is unfair. In the case of speeding, in my town they hide behind buildings and sit places where the speed limit has just changed. On one of the main highways, the speedlimit is strictly enforced.
I've only been stopped by a check point once. That doesn't seem to be much of a problem where I live. If it happened frequently, I would not like that either.
So I am for stricter penalties for drunk driving and especially drunk driving that resulted in a fatality. But I am not for habitually set checkpoints that law enforcement sets up just to see how many people they can get in a night.
I am not sure what I think about effect of higher taxes on beverages . . . whether it would curb underage drinking or not. I doesn't seem that it would make that much difference. It would just end up costing the average, law abiding, responsible consumer more money and thats just plain not fair.

a more update article.
http://www.frostywooldridge.com/articles/art_2005oct10.html

I, too, agree that .08 is a good number. I've noticed my friends impaired driving at less(this is non-scientific, of course). Of course, forcing this .08 on state by threatening to cut highway funding is another matter entirely.

"There's a gut feeling about the Police and the LP I have that needs to be exploited. When you see a cop behind you, you freak, right? 99% of people do, even if they are doing nothing wrong.

There's got to be a way to tie in that fear of the police with illustrating the sad state of liberty today. Everyone can relate to that feeling."

I talked about this somewhat here Tim...
http://thatsridonkulous.blogspot.com/2005/07/too-much-respect-for-authority.html

My suggestion at the end...

*Note to LP members doing outreach* Tax Day Protest’s are fine, but why wait for one day out of the year to recruit libertarians, when standing outside your county courthouse after a night of traffic court could generate dozens each week. Let’s capitalize on those that have been shafted by the system. And I'm not denouncing traffic laws just to be clear. I'm talking about those walking out of court feeling that justice wasn't served, that their fines were exorbitant, or that safety...other than their own didn't factor into the violation.

Possible OPH booth location? Eh? Eh?

I don't think we should be concentrating on defining what is drunk. I think we should be defining liability and playing up the rights of the victims of drunk driving, making the criminals realize that they are endangering and harming their victims, not just failing to hit some mark on a breathalizer test.

One of the worst things about our current judicial system is that the victims don't hardly count at all. This is lunacy in my opinion. With the drunk driving laws, we should be concentrating on forcing the drunk driver who causes an accident to compensate his/her victim (not just paying for medical expenses and loss of time, but also paying a financial penalty for having violated the victim's rights) as the focal point of justice. A repeat offender should have to pay twice the penalty (or more) that he paid the last time. By relying on personal responsibility and tying their actions directly to the victim in this way, you can bet that drunk drivers will end up being much more interested in moderating their own drinking behavior and doing things like selecting designated drivers a whole lot more often.

Instead, the law treats a drunk driver's crime as a crime against the state, with micro-management of personal behavior by the cops.

Despite the claims of MADD, there are still far too many people hurt or killed by drunk drivers each year, and all the government regulation in the world can't change that fact. The nanny state approach simply doesn't work well. We need to reintroduce the idea to drunk drivers of their personal responsibility toward their victims instead.

Hey good Idea Rob. Can we set up a Libertarian Booth right in front of the Court House with flyers and why we should vote freedom?

As a 16-year-old, I can tell you that higher prices won't discourage underage drinking at all, nor will it discourage drunk driving. No law on a specific drinking age will be effective either.

I can also tell you that of my friends who drink quite often, none of them have ever gotten into an accident, because most of them are responsible enough to get somebody who hasn't been drinking to drive. Repeat drunk drivers should be fined heavily and put in jail. The rest of us who have some fun without hurting others should be let alone.

Thomas Jefferson (a lawyer) once said, "Know the law, and be well disposed to use it." Random checkpoints are a violation of your rights, enumerated by the 4th and 5th Amendments. See if the police officer knows your rights. Refuse to answer the question the officer asks. Refuse to summit to a breath analyzer without probable cause. Repeatedly ask him/her, "Am I free to go now?" Ask questions often. If you want to know your rights, check out the video
http://www.flexyourrights.org

Why do government regulations and road design create cars drunks can't drive?

"Hey good Idea Rob. Can we set up a Libertarian Booth right in front of the Court House with flyers"

That's the part that I'm unsure of. Can anyone answer this? Would the laws be different in every county? Are there certain distance requirements normally?

You might need a permit, but if they deny it, take them to court.

I plan on going to a meeting to discuss the booth set up by the court house. The person I shared this with likes the idea. So I hope the rest of you are going to follow. I think this is an excellent idea.

I would like to have registration available, with flyers.

As a person who use to be a former cop.. I can tell you that Drunk Driving is one of the more easy arrest that can be made.. My very first arrest was a woman who a) admitted that she had a stolen drink in the car, b) failed the five field sobriety tests that I gave her, c)Blew a .27 in the breath analyzer. (Pickled while standing is what the training sergeant called her)

But I agree with you all.. 18 actually should be the legal drinking age. I am in the military by trade.. I am amazed that Security Forces in the Air Force can be tasked to operate M-2 .50 caliber machine guns that are capable of brining down aircraft, guarding Billions of dollars worth of aircraft and equipment, deployments in Iraq of up to 200 days and be shot at... and they come back here in this country and can not even have a beer if they are not over the age of 21.. To me its a crime.

As far as the legal level of intoxication... there is alot of factors in that.. .08 is a good yardstick.. but I myself think .10 is more realistic.. but thats my personal opinion due to watching alot of people come out of bars in five years while patrolling.

MADD was always pestering the legislature in the state to lower the drinking level to .06, going above and beyond their own .08 standard that they love to tout..

I actually believe that some in the MADD organization wished for the return of the 18th Amendment.. I myself disagree.

TO EVERYBODY:

I was given a card by my business law professor in college and I keep it my wallet all of the time. I recommend all of you print this out and do the same. Here is what it says:

INVOCATION OF RIGHTS:
I wish to invoke all of my rights under the statutes and constitutions of the United States and State of Minnesota. I do not want to talk with anyone from law enforcement or participate in any lineup until I consult with a lawyer and he / she is present. I do not consent to a search of my person, property, or possessions under my control or in which I have an interest. I do not waive any of my legal rights.

Obviously replace Minnesota with your respective state. Read this off to any police officer who begins to harass you.

In addition to my previous post, I must add that I think most police officers out there are heroes who deserve our respect. Sure, there are plenty of them out there who overstep their bounds and who abuse the power that we give them, and that is wrong. But there are also many great cops who respect those boundaries and put their life on the line every day so we can go about living our lives.

Cops are people too, and if you get an attitude and become disrespectful to them, they will do the same to you. Most of them are just trying to do their jobs and keep us safe, but sometimes they cross the line and violate our rights and we need to remind them of where that line is.

My sentiments exactly. MADD has accomplished its was originally goal. I believe MADD should disband as it has done its thing. MADD must now become a prohibitionist organization. Let hope the public is not stupid enough to buy into that again.

I encourage you to put this in the Opinion Section of your newspaper. I have put several articles in the Kansas City Star this year. It gets good publicity and its time for a change in public sentiment about this issue.

I think the current glorification of the police and the military is a step along the road to a fascist America where the state knows all and you live your life for it instead of yourself.

If the LP wants to stop this, there are certain things to be done. Passing out Worlds Smallest Quizzes wont help. Getting a coherent national libertarian set of proposals to run on at every level along with a politically sellable platform will, along with many other things.

Of course, I'm no expert.

Adam if I need a lawyer I will surely keep your number. Hopefully I will never need a lawyer. Please G-d.

Everyone Please call your SENATORS, they want to pass an Anti-Hate speech law. Do not let them do this. It will mean the end to our FREE SPEECH.

I think we should sign a free migration treaty with Sweden, so that all of the businessmen and hard working people suffering under heavy taxes can move to the US and contribute to our economy, while all of our MADD nanny state neo-prohibitionists can find heaven there. There might be roughly equal numbers of people who would move in each direction....

"One of the worst things about our current judicial system is that the victims don't hardly count at all. This is lunacy in my opinion. With the drunk driving laws, we should be concentrating on forcing the drunk driver who causes an accident to compensate his/her victim (not just paying for medical expenses and loss of time, but also paying a financial penalty for having violated the victim's rights) as the focal point of justice. A repeat offender should have to pay twice the penalty (or more) that he paid the last time. By relying on personal responsibility and tying their actions directly to the victim in this way, you can bet that drunk drivers will end up being much more interested in moderating their own drinking behavior and doing things like selecting designated drivers a whole lot more often."
Libertarian TV

I totally agree with this statement. The victims do somehow get lost in the whole situation. It should be treated like a crime against the victim and not the state. However, I do feel that a loss of license for a significant amount of time should be a penalty, but that the rest of the punishment should come in the form of helping the victim, paying for as much damages as possible. Its kind of hard to put a price tag on a death though. Paying for the funeral would be a start. And maybe also requiring that they view the body.
If caught drunk driving twice I think it should be atleast 10 years (loss of license). I do not approve of extended jail time unless there is a fatality involved.
I think its fine to do what you want provding you do not become a danger to others or hurt them. Drunk driving is one of those things that make people dangerous on the road and that just isn't acceptable.

MADD cannot disband because its original mission was completed. Organizations like this only disappear when the people stop funding. In order to keep the money flowing, meet payroll it must expand its mission to justify its continued existence. Another example, "MOVE ON.ORG", funded by billionaire George Soros, was formed to oppose President Clintons impeachment, now claims it raised so much money for Kerry Campaign it has bought the leadership of the Democratic Party. These organizations are an economic enterprise and like any other business venture continue as long is it is profitable to do so and Washington is full of them.

"If caught drunk driving twice I think it should be atleast 10 years (loss of license). I do not approve of extended jail time unless there is a fatality involved."

Taking away driver's licenses is ineffective for obvious reasons.

"I think its fine to do what you want provding you do not become a danger to others or hurt them. Drunk driving is one of those things that make people dangerous on the road and that just isn't acceptable."

Agreed.

America seems to be really bad at differentiating between crimes with intention to harm (murder, pick-pocketing, ...) and crimes without intention to harm (drunk driving, underage drinking, smoking marijuana, ....). The law doesn't seem to mark a real enough distinction when deciding upon penalties. I also have a hard time with long jail terms for drunk driving.

There was an episode of Penn & Teller's Bullshit that dealt with this aspect of MADD.

Dear Matthew,
Im doing a research paper on MADD and it's current goals. Can you tell me where to find the quote attributed to Candy Lightner?