DRAFT?
I was going to break down the whole military issue at a later time. However, I thought I would leave this article as food for thought.Later, I will break down, from a former NCO's POV, exactly why this is a terrible thing. Its violation as a principle of Libertarian thought is obvious.
posted by James Christopher at 8:40 PM
1 Comments:
This is not about the military, but I wanted to mention it as it is the sort of thing that makes libertarianism very attractive to me:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/20/us/20drunk.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin
In case the link doesn't work, it is an article in the NYT about how some states are now requiring that people who have a drunken driving conviction have devices installed in their vehicle that force them to be breathalyzed before starting the car every single time. I have less problem with that than with the following statement: "Officials say interlocks for first offenders are not a panacea but will reduce repeat offenses. They say the next step will be a program to develop devices to unobtrusively test every driver for alcohol and disable the vehicle. The automaker Saab and a medical equipment company already have devices that may be adapted for that job."
I think the Libertarian Party could do a lot worse than emphasize the ways that the state is seeking to creep into every decision we make: not just smoking, but what foods can be served in restaurants and what perfectly normal people are doing before they drive. Is it going to be illegal to drink at all before driving? To drink, period?
Post a Comment << Home