|
|
Post by pfbourassa on Dec 13, 2017 1:37:23 GMT
Here’s a thread I’ve been wanting to pull.
Generally, I think we should make the damaging act illegal, but not innocent behaviors that correlate with crime. Bitcoin can be used to make illegal purchases, but it’s not harmful on its own. The same case can be made for marijuana and many other activities.
But what about drunk driving?
We already have laws for “don’t hit people with cars,” so there’s no reason to outlaw the innocuous act of driving under the influence of achohol.
So why don’t I agree with myself? I see drunk driving as incredibly stupid, and reckless, and deserving of punishment. Is that just because I don’t enjoy drunk driving? Or is another difference between these examples?
Is this a rabbit hole worth venturing down, and then relating to dank memes?
|
|
|
|
Post by macecurb on Dec 13, 2017 1:46:46 GMT
My gut feeling on this is that it's largely a matter of enforcement practicality.
To go with the impaired driving example, drunk driving unto itself doesn't cause any accidents, but it massively increases the odds of an accident.
Impaired driving is illegal because we, as a society, are aware of and officially recognize the fact that impaired driving is a huge factor in harmful accidents.
Maybe there's some morality involved? If there is, I'm not really conscious of it. From a legislative standpoint, it's generally considered useful to try and prevent the more obvious contributory factors, along with punishing the effects after the fact.
|
|
14flash
Script Writer/Editor 
Posts: 100
|
Post by 14flash on Dec 13, 2017 2:50:24 GMT
I think a big difference is in whether the victim is complicit with the act. In order to purchase something illegal with Bitcoin, someone must be willing to sell something illegal for Bitcoin. The seller is complicit with the crime of trading whatever it is that's illegal.
With drunk driving, you endanger everyone you encounter on the road, and those are people who did not choose to die by getting hit by a car.
|
|
|
|
Post by Oriana on Dec 21, 2017 9:34:51 GMT
Here’s a thread I’ve been wanting to pull. Generally, I think we should make the damaging act illegal, but not innocent behaviors that correlate with crime. Bitcoin can be used to make illegal purchases, but it’s not harmful on its own. The same case can be made for marijuana and many other activities. Cash can be used to make illegal purchases, but it's not harmful on its own. Jars of honey can be used to make illegal purchases, but are not harmful on their own. There is a difference between something "correlating" with criminal behaviour and being "capable of being used for" criminal behaviour. But what about drunk driving? We already have laws for “don’t hit people with cars,” so there’s no reason to outlaw the innocuous act of driving under the influence of achohol. So why don’t I agree with myself? I see drunk driving as incredibly stupid, and reckless, and deserving of punishment. Is that just because I don’t enjoy drunk driving? Or is another difference between these examples? Driving under the influence of alcohol is not innocuous though. It risks the lives of anybody and everybody around you, as well as the state of the property you are driving. Which, if it is insured, threatens the bottom line of a third party as well as your life and your property and everyone else nearby's lives and property. Every time you drive drunk, you create a risk. Every time you trade bitcoin, you do not create a risk. Trading cryptocurrencies does not endanger the lives of the people around you, or of anyone else. IF people who drove drunk only did so in fully-paid uninsured cars that they own, in the middle of nowhere, with no animals or other property around, then the comparison would make sense. To go with the impaired driving example, drunk driving unto itself doesn't cause any accidents, but it massively increases the odds of an accident. Drunk driving does cause accidents. If you drive into a tree because you're drunk, that is an accident that has been caused by driving drunk. Impaired driving is illegal because we, as a society, are aware of and officially recognize the fact that impaired driving is a huge factor in harmful accidents. Because it causes accidents! Maybe there's some morality involved? If there is, I'm not really conscious of it. From a legislative standpoint, it's generally considered useful to try and prevent the more obvious contributory factors, along with punishing the effects after the fact. If you think that something is "harmful", and should be avoided, because harm is bad, there's morality and ethics involved in that statement. --- Pedantry aside, I think this is the wrong angle. Drunk driving is bad because it endangers the lives of others around you. You commit 9/100,000th of a murder and 3/100th of a serious assault with a deadly weapon or some other number like that. For context, that means that if you drive drunk 12 times (say, one weekend every month for a year), that's the equivalent of pointing a gun with 2/6 bullets in it at a person, spinning it, and firing. We know that drunk drivers account for approximately 1/3rd of drivers in car accidents that kill people ( www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html , www.intoxalock.com/ignition-interlock-devices/statistics/ ) and we know that to not-drive-drunk is not some crazy burden to impose upon a population. So, given that information, imposing a restriction on the drunk driving to prevent unnecessary deaths (like the 10,000+ in 2015 in the US, see CDC source link) is not some sort of crazy unreasonable request. What about coffee though? How many people have to die for you to get your coffee? If it's more than 9/100,000ths of a person, should you forego coffee? If it causes more harm than 3/100ths of a serious assault with a deadly weapon, should you forego coffee? What about your clothes? You can probably think of a thousand things (the computer I'm typing this in, my underwear, my glasses, any plastic thing nearby, etc) that have a human cost to them. The electricity you use has emissions. Climate change kills people. How responsible are you? >0.009%? How many things do we do literally every day that have human costs analogous to those of drunk driving, which we are totally cool with doing? |
|
