Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-12-2018, 10:51 PM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
78,863 posts, read 46,596,242 times
Reputation: 18521

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by ohhwanderlust View Post
For example, rather than a flat range fine for drunk driving, that range could be the minimum (for those who make no/little income) while the standard formula would be say, the equivalent of 1/12 of their annual income accrued the previous tax year, including capital gains income. No deductions or anything else that would complicate things or offer loopholes.

That way, everyone would feel the heat if they drive drunk, regardless of how much money they had.

In turn, eliminate taxes on things like liquor. No reason to punish law abiding citizens.

Your thoughts?



NO!
Don't do the crime, if you cannot afford the time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-12-2018, 11:05 PM
 
Location: Santa Monica
36,856 posts, read 17,350,188 times
Reputation: 14459
Quote:
Originally Posted by Catgirl64 View Post
Not literally, but when you say it is not a crime, you appear to be defending it.
Not defending it. It's not a crime though. A crime requires a victim.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-12-2018, 11:08 PM
 
Location: Santa Monica
36,856 posts, read 17,350,188 times
Reputation: 14459
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
NO!
Don't do the crime, if you cannot afford the time.
A glorious example of conservative "tough on crime" rhetoric...demanding a pound of flesh for a non-crime.

The revenue collectors (the State) thank you for your support.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-12-2018, 11:10 PM
 
Location: Here and now.
11,904 posts, read 5,582,296 times
Reputation: 12963
Quote:
Originally Posted by No_Recess View Post
Not defending it. It's not a crime though. A crime requires a victim.
I know there are lots of things we disagree about, but this is the first time you have said something that really, honestly left me totally gobsmacked.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-12-2018, 11:32 PM
 
Location: Santa Monica
36,856 posts, read 17,350,188 times
Reputation: 14459
Quote:
Originally Posted by Catgirl64 View Post
I know there are lots of things we disagree about, but this is the first time you have said something that really, honestly left me totally gobsmacked.
Drunk driving in itself does not create a victim. No victim = no crime. Not a violation of the NAP.

However...

Your actions, whether intentional or not, that cause death or destruction of property are the two biggest NAP violations there are.

Vehicular homicide (manslaughter is more common) sentencing is pretty weak. Max is a a relatively small fine and 15 years in the joint. Most cases, assuming no major priors, get you 3-10 years (and we're overcrowded due to draconian drug laws so early release on parole is even more common). Once out you're free to move about the cabin (of life).

Did you know most folks get their licenses back after their time is up? Some immediately whiles others use a "hardship" clause to get it back in 5 years. Google stories of people killing someone, getting out, and doing it again.

So, that's what the State thinks about your property and life (one in the same to us anarchists). Not very much if you ask me.

Now let's take a look at what happens to someone who drives drunk and kills someone in my world...

You're uninsurable for the rest of your life. Nobody is going to take on your liability. Even if a company said ok your premiums would be astronomical to the point that hardly anyone could afford them. You'll never be able to form a contract or join an organization again for the rest of your life. Basically banished from society. Good luck securing a job, a haircut, or a renting/buying a home. It ain't happening. Like I said: banished.

As you can see I'm pretty confident that my way shows true respect to life and property. As always, the statist way is arbitrary and does nothing to punish bad people.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-12-2018, 11:33 PM
 
Location: Denver, CO
579 posts, read 367,483 times
Reputation: 1925
Quote:
Originally Posted by No_Recess View Post
"Drunk driving" isn't even a crime.

It is according to state law of all 50 states. Maybe not in your personal opinion, but in reality, it is.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-12-2018, 11:39 PM
 
10,181 posts, read 10,252,518 times
Reputation: 9252
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA View Post
I agree emphatically. Jail time and community service are both examples of the criminal having his time confiscated.

With fines, suddenly the guy on minimum wage has to work for a week as punishment, and the hedge fund manager has settled his account in an hour. Philosophically, I can't see that being fair.
Too bad.

That's how it works.

Equality for all criminals no matter how hard life will be for them after committing a crime.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-12-2018, 11:51 PM
 
2,362 posts, read 776,984 times
Reputation: 873
In principle it's a nice idea but in practice it would be too intrusive to enforce. Imagine getting a ticket and then needing to share your tax returns.

I think there should be a waiver for lower income folks, who if they prove their income is below a certain threshold, pay a reduced fine and get community service.

I also think for repeat offenders, they should just lose their license - no questions asked. So if the rich are content to constantly and flagrantly break the law because the fines are small, they will eventually be stopped that way.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-12-2018, 11:55 PM
 
Location: Santa Monica
36,856 posts, read 17,350,188 times
Reputation: 14459
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alonso Gil View Post
It is according to state law of all 50 states. Maybe not in your personal opinion, but in reality, it is.
Of course...I understand.

The revenue collectors need their schemes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2018, 12:00 AM
 
2,362 posts, read 776,984 times
Reputation: 873
Quote:
Originally Posted by No_Recess View Post
Of course...I understand.

The revenue collectors need their schemes.
Even for you hard-core libertarian types, you must realize that the roads are public property and governed by public rules. If you don't want to follow those rules, don't drive. If you drive and break the rules, you can consider it a form of trespassing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:29 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top