From: kurt@eskimo.celestial.com (Kurt Cockrum)
Subject: Re: DWI
Organization: >>> Eskimo North (206)-FOR-EVER <<<
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 17:30:51 GMT

In article <69020007@misty.boeing.com> hochberg@misty.boeing.com (michael hochberg) writes:
>Driving is a priveledge we earn by taking a test and drivers education
>classes.  It is not a right.      

The gov't has chosen to *define* it as a privelege, and you have fallen for
it.  Is having a job a privelege, too?  How does it come about that a
*privelege* is a necessary precondition for an *imperative* need?  [privelege
== driving, imperative need == job].  This is why this (and all most others,
at least after the missionaries came) society is so fucked.  It's *full* of
double binds, ambiguous codes of conduct, contradictions, hypocricy, pitfalls
and traps for the unwary.  It's a control freak's paradise.

>The government can restrict priveledges it gives, such as imposing the DWI
>laws on drivers.
>
>And if you don't buy that argument, I agree with Bill. Why does the guy 
>shooting a shotgun in the park get arrested even though he may never
>have hit anyone?  A person recklessly endangering other people must be stopped.

Yeah, but is all the follow-on stuff that happens once the guy is stopped
necessary?  I think a lot of that is just to gratify the punishment freaks,
who think that everybody must "pay the price".

>If you think that violates you rights, tough.  What about my rights?  I 
>have a right to drive without a bunch of drunks on the road.

Yes, yes, and I have a right not to be offended by seeing or hearing this or
that, and before you know it, we are all encased in a cocoon of restrictions
on personal conduct that would bring joy to any `30's Stalinist or
AnnLandersType.

You see, there are not just restrictions that make at least a minimal amount
of sense, like driving restrictions for intoxicated people (although I still
think these are silly and unnecessary if the basic premise is that people are
responsible for what they do); there are restrictions on things like public
nudity, for example, which has no conceivable harmful effects on others
[NB -- apparently it is now legal in New York state for women to appear in
public without tops, according to a recent court decision.  Probably a legal
aberration that will get quickly overturned], and, in really hot weather,
quite a sensible thing to do just for comfort's sake.

>Personally, I think we need much stricter DWI laws.  I think losing your license
>for 6 months on a first offense, and losing it forever on a repeat offense
>is appropriate.  And if the person is caught driving without a license,
>a minimum of 1 year in solitary confinement.

Oh, great.  The person still has to work, or support themselves in some
way.  In your zeal to punish you throw up obstacles that virtually guarantee
violating the 6 month/forever ban, and thence, off to jail for a year.
Of course, you can't be bothered with what happens after the year is up.
After all, they got themselves into this mess, they can get themselves out,
right?  Granted, DWI is pretty irresponsible, but this attitude tops that
by a mile.

I suppose that you, the CEO of BummerCo (say), are the kind of boss that,
upon hearing that somebody can no longer drive to work because of a DWI
conviction, fires them because they would be late all the time, or because you
don't want people with "character defects" working for you.  "Employees of
BummerCo are model citizens."

I don't think that government/society should be some inexorable, implacable
Moloch-like punishment machine that grinds up people who don't "fit in".
There is more to life than that.

[...]
-- 
kurt@grogatch.celestial.com (Kurt Cockrum)
Newsgroups: seattle.general