You don't "slow down the collapse" with floating abstractions promoting more competing statism (which we already have), with the gang warfare imagined to reduce Federal power. It makes no more sense than precipitating a collapse to get it over with as a means to recover from the collapse. Saying that you won't live long enough for the required intellectual revolution does not make the necessity go away. There are no shortcuts. What you can do for the duration of your life is to choose your location and circumstances to minimize the problems the best you can.

The harm is recklessly shooting at people, threatening their lives. That is why you would be overpowered and stopped. More likely, and more appropriately, the "overpowering" would consist of shooting you as soon as possible to stop you before you killed someone. If you lived you would be properly put away for a very long time.

Likewise, having your license revoked for drunk driving is punishment for the crime. The suspension prevents you from doing it again because you have proved by your own actions that you can't be trusted to drive. If you had pulled a stunt like that when you first went for your driver's license you would not have been allowed to complete the test and would never have received a license.

Are you trying rationalize the elimination of laws against drunk driving because you're a drunk? There is no rational basis for it. Were you drinking before writing this? You did not get those screwy ideas from Ayn Rand, or any other mental process connected to reality, but your statements are now public for all to see. They suggest that you are someone who should be watched. Whether or not you understand what is wrong with them, if you engage in the activities you want to be innocent you will in fact be charged with a crime and treated accordingly. Civilized society would not put up with it, and neither would anyone else, right down to gangsters you would threaten.

True, and without criminal courts getting involved except in cases of injury or property damage

You don’t understand my position. U get that you want an intellectual revolution. I hope the country listens to you, I really do. But I know that I won’t ever live to see it. In the meantime I want to slow down the collapse

I could go along with people or officers overpowering a shooter, but if no physical harm was done, I don’t see criminal persecution being warranted.

If one gets a dui, it’s common now to get years of probation during which time you cannot drive with ANY blood alcohol at all- not the 0,08 that any normal person can have

Subjectivism and hedonism are characteristic of the a-philosophical libertarians. Libertarianism is not Objectivism. Ayn Rand rejected and denounced the libertarian movement for good reason. Only libertarian in the vaguest sense of pro-freedom is Objectivist political philosophy "libertarian". No one should expect to find Objectivism in the a-philosophical libertarian movement, especially the Libertarian Party and its candidates.

Privatizing roads is not an excuse for ignoring criminal behavior. It does not take care of itself.

Subjectivism and hedonism are not fundamental characteristics of libertarianism. As a matter of fact, some libertarians are also Objectivists.

Privatize the roads and the problem will take care of itself. Most road owners would not allow driving while drunk or driving without insurance.

Wishful thinking is not a shortcut. There are no shortcuts bypassing an intellectual renaissance. Unprincipled pragmatist wishing for "competing statism" not only brings more statism, it does nothing to reduce the Federal statism. Statism is on the rise because people believe in it, not because there isn't enough "competition" between states for how to abrogate the rights of the individual in different "degrees".

If you run into a crowd shooting at random we don't have to wait until you hit someone before it is considered a crime and you are stopped. The same goes for drunk drivers. Even Hilary supporters can figure that out. Trying to package that with "prohibition" and a "mania" is an evasion.

Objectivism is not libertarian subjectivism and hedonism.

I stand corrected on the term 'states rights:. My argument was to take away most of the federel powers, thus reducing statism. Undoubtedly states would try to fill in the vacuum, but I would rather have competing statist governments than one overarching statist government.

In any event, this is not a fix for government in the USA. It is a just hopefully a way to delay the march to collectivism. Maybe you can wait for a complete transition to freedom in 100 years. I cant wait that long and would never see it.

If a person is killed by a "drunk", it is called murder. Its NOT driving while (drunk, tired, inattentive, etc.). If you kill someone with your car and its your fault, in my book they call that murder. There IS no crime until someone is hurt.

Half the people in the country voted for Hillary. Clearly the use of "most people" doesnt really make it right.

If you remove all the vehicles, there will be absolutely NO deaths caused by cars at all. Remove all pedestrians and we can eliminate all pedestrian deaths too. If these anti dui laws were so effective, there would be no need for current enforcement, since all the drunk people would be off the road. BUT, thats clearly not the case now, as it wasnt during prohibition.

The war on drugs is clearly a collectivist thing and is immoral in itself. Smoking out in your own house has NO VICTIMS at all.

I dont understand why you are so into the anti drug and alcohol movement. It seems to fly in the fact of your objectivist leanings.

There is no such thing as "states rights". It is an invalid concept. "Competing" statism in which states "compete with each other in the degree to which they infringe on individual rights" is not moral government and not a "right" of anyone. It does not even "shrink Federal powers", it is progressive increase of statism.

Such unprincipled thinking is hopeless. Advocating competing statism based on invalid concepts is no better than advocating a collapse in expectation that people will magically institute a proper government without regard to all the wrong ideas causing the problem in the first place. When people today migrate to a state that is in some way less onerous they proceed to vote for the same policies they just left, on the same false premises. That is "competing statism".

I am not "dude" and don't need to "wake up". Being killed by a drunk is not victimless. Taking drunks off the road has in fact helped to eliminate much of the carnage. It is not a secret conspiracy to impose prohibition and the "mafia", and is not a "mania". It doesn't make any difference who quit a private organization and this has nothing to with the libertarian mantra blaming the "drug war" for everything in sight. We are talking about laws preventing killing people by irresponsible drunks. Most people understand that holding those accountable for threatening and killing people through their own irresponsibility is good.

I agree there is no hope of splitting the country effectively at this point. Leftist thinking has permeated the country like metastatic cancer

What I really mean by “states rights” is simply a way to shrink federal powers and allow state governments to compete with each other in the degree to which they infringe on individual rights. Some states would be less collectivist and attract citizens. Others like California would turn into hell holes to be avoided.

Dude, wake up. The laws aren’t working to “save” people from drunk drivers. You admit it’s “still” a problem.

This is prohibition again. It didn’t work last time either, and isn’t working this time except to milk a lot of money from drivers, and cost us all a lot in terms of enforcement

Laws designed to “prevent” real crimes by arresting people for victimless crimes can’t work. Prohibition failed and created the mafia. The war on drugs is a dismal failure and created cartels and violence at home. Laws penalizing people for auto insurance lapses (victimless crime” fail to reduce the need for “uninsured” motorist insurance the list goes on and on.

Even the founder of MADD withdrew from the organization out of disgust that its goals had moved toward prohibition in general

There is no mania. People were being killed in large numbers because of irresponsible drunks. It's still a problem, which is why the laws are enforced. There are no signs of any attempt to reinstate prohibition.

There is no such thing as "states rights". Only individuals have rights. States do not "serve customers", they are supposed to protect our rights, but progressively "serve" pressure groups by imposing more and more demands for statism. Putting "competition into government" with "states rights" means "competing" statism. That is not an economic concept.

There are no geographical "two factions" into which the country could split. There are degrees of statism versus a remnant of respect for freedom spread within and across all states. Some states have a larger majority of more extreme statism. Even rural areas within states are increasingly welfare statist. Very few states could even in principle split from the rest as "right vs left", and they would still retain growing statism.

The country is being destroyed by the lack of ideas of reason and individualism accepted among the population. That is not solved by calling for the conservatives' collectivist "states rights" and "competing" state statism with no idea of the cause of the statism.

Yes. I think that the idea of states' rights is something that might get some competition into government, which would be good for us. Apart from that, we have the all powerful monopoly called the federal government. I would think if that doesnt happen, there will be a dissolution of the USA into at least two factions- left and right.

Ain't that the truth. That's one reason we should get rid of these government-created monopolies, and throw it open to laissez-faire.

Someone I decided I did not want to date.

I think that customer service will decide how private business works. In the end, the customer will decide how it should work for them. The problem with government is that it doesnt serve customers well, and its got a monopoly which cant change direction to do what the customers want.

I'm not saying we shouldn't have privately owned roads. I'm just saying that someone setting up a road like that would have to be careful. But then I guess there have been problems like that one railroads, too. In fact, I think that under a laissez-faire system, there might likely be a lot more little, local railroads.

It is complicated. Made even more complicated by not having privately owned roads.