but they do make such an event less likely.
I do not see how.
Nothing can keep us perfectly safe, can it?
Yet you insist that we must continue to limit the liberty of all out of fear that a few might abuse thier liberty.
Seriously, would you repeal all of the laws against DUI? What about laws against other actions that put the public at risk? Should it be OK to run red lights, race through neighborhoods, or play chicken?
Such laws are superfluous. Every possible action that a drunk can take to violate your rights is already illegal.
The same is true of the boulders rolling past you at the bottom of the canyon. They might hit you, so the such an eventuality is an appeal to fear and elicit an emotional response. I know they would elicit one from me, were I the one at the bottom of the canyon.
My example was to show that initiating the use of force against another was a violation of that individuals rights. Even if I substitute something non-threatening for the boulder, such as a wiffle ball or a feather pillow, the premise still supports the conclusion.
However, your examples all rely on the worst case scenario, "What if X happens? We should ban Y so that X is less likely to happen." If you make X a non-threatening consequence, the appeal to fear and consequences falls apart. Allow me to demonstrate:
"What if a drunk driver leaves the bar and makes it home safely without violating the rights of anyone? We should ban drunk driving so that such a consequence is less likely to occur."
Without fear, your argument falls apart.
You have to draw the line somewhere. The term DUI has to have a legal definition.
Speeding has a legal definition too, yet when asked about that you said,
Fast enough to be a danger on the highway. It is a judgement call, just like most decisions regarding traffic, and not a hard and fast number.
Both DUI and speeding have legal definitions yet one is strictly applied using a "hard and fast number" while the other is not... Such contradictions are not the result of using reason and logic to arrive at a conclusion but are inherent to conclusions based on emotion.
Oh, I think the desire to not share the road with drunks and fools is totally rational.
If you consider arriving at an emotional conclusion to be rational, then I must ask for your definition of "rational" as well.
Correct, which is why there are laws against running red lights, speeding, and assorted other imbecilic actions that endanger the public and thus violate our rights.
You are still using the words "endanger" and "violate" as though they are synonyms, even though I have shown that, by definition, they are not. Would you like me to post their definitions once again?
You gave your definition earlier. I'll see if I can find it.
I asked for your definition of force, several times now, will you provide one?
Nope. It only matters whether they are at fault or not. If they are, I'll sue the pants off of them.
Then all other laws are superfluous.
The vehicle code, however, is there to make it less likely that they will slam into my car in the first place.
Then you would have no objection to the state mandating breathalyzers on every motor vehicle, correct? Certainly that would "make it less likely" for a drunk driver to violate the rights others...
AHA, the definition of "force", from your post #102:
Again, I asked for your definition... I already know the definition I use, it's your definition that has yet to be included in the discussion.
Which explains how a car accelerates by pushing against the road, or how an airplane does so by the action/reaction formula.
How does that pertain at all to whether an action is a violation of rights? It seems to me that bringing up "force" simply complicates the issue unnecessarily.
Physical action is required to initiate the use of force against others and initiating the use of force against others is how rights are violated. If you still wish to disagree with these facts, then I will ask once again that you furnish at least one example of how rights can be violated without the use of force.
Should we also bring Boyle's Law into the discussion?
Be my guest.