login about faq

For those unaware, I am referring to the often Court-manded breathalizers installed in cars of repeat drunk driving offenders that will not start the car if you are not within the legal limit. As the argument goes, your drunk driving may endanger others lives, you don't have a "right" to drink and drive, and this is a highly effective preventative measure. An argument I have also heard from these individuals is: "putting these in cars will save lives, just like putting seat belts in cars saved lives. are you saying that the law making it illegal to drive without a seat belt is also unethical?"

asked Jan 04 '11 at 15:57

capitalistswine's gravatar image

capitalistswine ♦
218520

edited Jan 04 '11 at 16:31

Greg%20Perkins's gravatar image

Greg Perkins ♦♦
1002425618

Yes, it would be immoral, just as the laws mandating seatbelt usage are immoral. This is of a piece with the government not having the right to tell you what to eat, what work you may and may not do, or what to think.

Such a law is a presumption of guilt, requiring the car owner to prove his innocence every time he drives. It is also a violation of property rights, forcing the owner to pay for something whether he wants it or not. Furthermore, what's to stop the government there? Why not give every cop a remote control, and let them shut down cars at their own discretion?

(Jan 05 '11 at 16:49) deejf deejf's gravatar image

As I read the question, the issue is use of these devices in persons who have already been found guilty of driving while impaired on more than one occasion. There is, in these cases, proven guilt. The issue is whether this device can allow them to drive at all. Personally, I find that the device is too easily circumvented. After repeated episodes of impaired driving, the burden of proof is on the violator to prove that he or she can be trusted to drive NOT impaired.

(Jan 05 '11 at 18:55) ethwc ♦ ethwc's gravatar image

My question, for clarification, asks about the breathalizers (I was referring to the court-mandated ones as an example of what I meant specifically by car-installed breathalizers) as a PREVENTATIVE measure. However, if people also wish to discuss the court-mandated ones for repeat offenses then that is fine as well.

(Jan 06 '11 at 22:58) capitalistswine ♦ capitalistswine's gravatar image

I think that the ones directed at proven drunk drivers are fine but to extend that to everyone else as a preventative measure is to assume that they are guilty until proven innocent and is thus immoral and wrong.

(Jan 06 '11 at 23:06) Fareed Fareed's gravatar image
showing 2 of 4 show all

The purpose of government is to use force solely in retaliation against those who initiate force against others; that is, criminals.

Is it the initiation of force for the average person -- someone who is not being punished for drunk driving -- to not have a breathalyzer installed in in his car? The answer is clearly no, and so the government has no business mandating that everyone have one installed.

answered Jan 06 '11 at 20:17

Andrew%20Dalton's gravatar image

Andrew Dalton ♦
10009447

"Court-manded breathalizers installed in cars of repeat drunk driving offenders that will not start the car if you are not within the legal limit"

I agree with you but that was not the question. The question is for repeat offenders. these people have already taken violence in endangering the rest of us Is there anyone out there who has not had a friend or relative killed or severely injured by a drunk driver? I have had several.

(Jan 06 '11 at 22:26) ethwc ♦ ethwc's gravatar image

The original question is: "Would it be immoral for the government to mandate that breathalizers be installed in all vehicles?"

(Jan 06 '11 at 22:32) Andrew Dalton ♦ Andrew%20Dalton's gravatar image

but he goes on to explain "For those unaware, I am referring to the often Court-manded breathalizers installed in cars of repeat drunk driving offenders that will not start the car if you are not within the legal limit". I think he means for those guys specifically.

(Jan 06 '11 at 22:42) Fareed Fareed's gravatar image

Maybe the question is poorly written, but both the plain meaning of the main question, and the analogy to seatbelts, point to my interpretation.

(Jan 07 '11 at 05:53) Andrew Dalton ♦ Andrew%20Dalton's gravatar image

I agree with Andrew: the question title clearly asked about ALL cars getting them; the body was consistent with this, including a clarification of what device was being discussed (the brethalyzers installed for convicted drunk drivers), and then closed with an argument for their universal installation.

(Jan 07 '11 at 10:04) Greg Perkins ♦♦ Greg%20Perkins's gravatar image
showing 2 of 5 show all

Follow this question

By Email:

Once you sign in you will be able to subscribe for any updates here

By RSS:

Answers

Answers and Comments

Share This Page:

Tags:

×223
×161
×154
×104

Asked: Jan 04 '11 at 15:57

Seen: 1,754 times

Last updated: Jan 07 '11 at 10:04