I think the argument is that people are supposed to have a choice of school, but prisons aren’t supposed to be voluntary. “Okay, I’ll serve my time in the Hilton Deluxe prison complex, with private a private whirlpool bath in each room, daily back massage, etc.” Somehow I don’t think that would work.

Another interesting, but completely unrelated fact – seems that many of the wild pigs in my area are radioactive. You actually have to take them to the government for testing before you can eat them. Apparently the food they root around for is right at the depth that is contaminated from the fallout from Chernobyl…

Shooting wild dogs would not equate to dog fighting.

Try again.

Which reminds me, check out this dude who hunts the hogs with a home-made UAV. http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1478852

Okay, your turn.

The problem is when they pay lower taxes in Country A despite living and working in Country B. That’s like paying a Skoda dealer for a car and then grabbing one off the neighbouring Ferrari lot. It’s unfair on the other people in Country B, who are implicitly subsidising their existence.

This is especially irritating since the people and organisations who can take best advantage of tax havens tend to be those who are already pretty well off. Effectively what they’re doing is turning income/corporate tax into a regressive tax.

As far as I can tell, Mr Mitchell doesn’t even touch on this, which is odd given that it seems to be the central argument of his opposition. Anyone care to comment?

So,are you going to charge the SOBER driver with murder also?

That was exactly my argument in response to a recent local case.

In 2010, a man pulled out of the parking lot after a high school football game. It was dark, there were no street lights, and no crosswalks; traffic was heavy. A father and daughter darted across the road just as the driver pulled out; he hit both, and the father died (the daughter had a broken leg).

The driver tested exactly 0.08 BAC, so he was charged with one count of intoxication manslaughter, and one count of intoxication assault. Every police officer who was at the scene testified that they did not suspect he was intoxicated. He was convicted, and sentenced to seven years in prison.

A dozen years ago, before the prime facie standard of intoxcation was lowered, he wouldn’t even have received a ticket. If he was a tee-totaller or slobbering drunk didn’t seem to be at issue, since the primary cause of the accident was two pedestrians darting into heavy traffic in the dark.

Ah, but that’s the very reason for per se limits: ease of prosecution. That’s why an alcohol content of 0.08 is legally the same and being falling down drunk, while proving any actual impairment at that level is almost impossible.

That’s technically true for every crime. However, we can get the victim(s) revenge by ensuring a swift and terrible punishment for the perpetrator.

There, I fixed it for you.

Selective concern? The two provisions are consistent with the ethical treatment of animals and good stewardship of the ecosystem. We disincentivize participation in a cruel activity, and we humanely destroy an invasive and destructive species. There’s no dissonance here.

So,are you going to charge the SOBER driver with murder also?

In most cases, I would support that. I’m in favor of making any severely negligent homicide a capital crime on the grounds that severe negligence is functionally similar to an intent to kill. For example, someone who drives 100mph through a neighborhood with children has demonstrated implicitly that they have no concern for the welfare of their fellow man. Society has no obligation to grant them mercy.

I really think we just need to accept that there are going to be people who will drive impaired. And sometimes they will tragically harm others.

That’s technically true for every crime. However, we can get the victim(s) justice by ensuring a swift and terrible punishment for the perpetrator.

#12 DoubleU

I don’t understand conservatives, liberals or libertarians.

Schools run by the government are bad, they need to be privatized and run for profit to improve education, but privatized prisons run for profit are bad, so they need to be run by government? It is all so confusing.

Well, we don’t mind subjecting prisoners to government run stuff, but children haven’t done anything to deserve it.

Just kidding. I and most libertarians I know don’t have a problem with privatized prisons. The words, “for profit”, are not evil.

On the other hand, Arizona’s charging visitors was a government action.

With regard to the public versus the private sector, I think many people believe that libertarians see business as all good and government as all bad. That’s a mistake. The private sector is hardly free from corruption and sleazy players. What makes the private sector preferable is that people have the option to go to a different supplier. And that makes all the difference.

Never wrote that I’m opposed to the law. Just pointing out the selective concern over animal rights in the two laws, which were passed in the same legislative session.