Breathe or be jailed.

"Is it in any way justifiable to prevent crime in this way, especially where it is undeniable that it saves lives?"

Privatize the roads. Then such tests are a non-issue as it's simply their property, so it's their decision.

"...nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself..."

Forcing someone to breath is much like forcing someone to speak or prove innocence, assuming guilt before trial.

A crime is only committed when another individual(s) life, liberty and/or properties have been infringed upon. As with drunk driving, no crime has been committed. However, it is perfectly legitimate to make rules/laws that govern a highway as it is private/common property.

A public highway would be considered common property to some libertarian theorists. (see pro argument vs. con argument)

Let's agree with the pro argument for this issue's sake.

If a public road is common property and elected officials are the ones who govern it, then it's not anti-liberty to enforce laws such as reckless driving, speeding, failure to stop, etc. However, laws such as outlawing drinking and driving is a fallacy. Here the crime is that the driver may drive recklessly, whereas the aforementioned are examples of the driver driving recklessly. The latter is a direct visible threat to other "shared owners" driving on the road. You can see the imbecile driving next to you not using his blinker and swerving in and out of traffic. The aforementioned, however, represents no visible threat on the road, rather just a statistical possibility that one may arise. In the same notion, I've heard of statistics which show that most accidents are caused by drowsiness. Should it not then follow that we should force drivers to be tested for sleepiness because they may cause an accident?

On a private highway, much like a private enterprise requiring drug tests, you could force drivers to take the test or they'd have the option to leave your property and never use it again (e.g., in the private business sense, you will be fired). The issue with public highways is that the driver is also an owner of that highway and cannot be denied the right to use the highway unless they've committed a crime which is accompanied with punishment (i.e., drivers license suspension.)

Laws governing private property can be anti-liberty (e.g., forced drug testing, restriction on speech, expression, etc.) but laws governing public/common property must not be. Only if a crime against life, liberty or property has been committed, can a shared owner lose certain rights through trial. For example, the Civil Rights Act got if half right... [it got wrong] a black business owner shall have the right to expunge a KKK member from their business, and a Catholic church shall have the right not to allow atheists into their church. [it got right] A public beach, however, shall not have the right to expunge a KKK member or a black individual from their beaches. That would infringe on the individuals shared ownership rights.

These are great and complicated questions. They also have gray areas. No libertarian should go through life having not read the following books:

Frederic Bastiat's "The Law" (I recommend reading this first)

Murray Rothbard's "The Ethics of Liberty"

In my opinion the entire concept of random mandatory sobriety tests on public roads is incompatible with liberty. Not only that, the very idea of banning drinking & driving is incompatible with liberty. It's exactly the same as the idea that it is justified to ban marijuana because it harms some people.

On the other hand, using a vast network of sensors to identify and then scrutinize drivers who break rules is acceptable. Why care if failure to adhere to accepted road use protocols is due to alcohol, cell phone use, or some other cause?

What you are wondering about has been a question pondered by philosophers for centuries.

Check out this podcast for some of more well developed arguments: http://philosophybites.com/2011/09/philip-pettit-on-conseque...

Something that has occurred to me since the incident took place is that this is likely related to Health Care and can serve as a sign of what is to come if the US government doesn't get out of the health care business. It is related because the government in New Zealand is responsible for every citizens health care. It is in their best interest to make sure people don't end up in the hospital. Accidents are prevented by mandatory breath tests. Grotesque pictures of smoking side effects are required by cigarette manufactures on their packaging. Mandatory bike helmets and lights. In these and many other cases Government is trying to reduce it's health care overhead at the mass sacrifice of liberties that at first might seem unrelated. If governments usurp health care responsibility then liberty stealing preventative measures are sure to follow.

A number of people have voiced the opinion that "if it's not in America why should we care?" We might do well to look at other countries that are ahead of us in the socialism curve to see what we can expect if we continue down this road.

A great question to think on. Perhaps a view of property rights could be applied. If the road is a public road, then the public institution (elected or appointed to operate on behalf of the people) should control it in an accountable way. If they want to tear up the road, reroute it, direct traffic and stop cars that's fine. On the other hand, your vehicle is private property and should not be searched without probable cause (you indicate, or something about your property indicates, or a credible source indicates a law has been violated).

Likewise, your person belongs solely to you. Now, the things you do and say could incriminate you; the things you discard or leave behind could incriminate you; your biological waste, if left outside your person and property, is open for inspection and may incriminate you; the air you exhale could incriminate you.

What I have a problem with is being directed to "put this in your mouth." No, it's MY MOUTH! Or, "you must breath here" for this to work. No, I'm free to ACT AS I PLEASE! My conclusion is, the check-point breath test is not a dignified way to treat people ... it violates. If you agree, then we can do some things about it:

1. Avoid check-points ... I think knowing where they will be in advance is possible in some jurisdictions.

2. Avoid driving on public roads. Move, find a new home and/or job where you don't have to drive to work or the store.

3. Get active in your local government.

4. Get arrested and make your case to the judge. Write your elected officials and ask for their support. Build a neighborhood network of support. Try to get media involved.

5. Get over it, roll over, accept the inconvenience and accept that this measure of intrusion could creep into something bigger then wait for that time to fight your battle.

Do you want to be free?

Or under the thumb of a totalitarian??

Sure, these road blocks may save lives... but at what cost? You know, a lot less people would die tomorrow if they were put under house arrest and not allowed to leave their homes for 24 hours. And if it saves that many lives tomorrow, shouldn't we do it again the next day... and the day after that?? The question you have to ask yourself is... where do you draw the line? If they are randomly forcing people to submit to a breath test now, what will they do next?

In the U.S., we're supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. We're not supposed to be forced to incriminate ourselves. We're also not supposed to have to undergo "unreasonable searches". (I guess it depends on what you consider "unreasonable". I consider stopping and harassing random people with no probable cause to be unreasonable. Some people might think differently.)

With liberty comes responsibility. You cannot FORCE people to be safe.

If you accept the role of government to be: "safety", then there is no reason to oppose checkpoints, and no reason to oppose a requirement of license to become a parent. Safety concerns dictate that the government assume a person unsafe until shown otherwise, and then permission can be given. Conversely, If you view govt. as a protector of "freedom" because it is a RIGHT, then individuals are kept free to act of their own accord, without permission: and it is government that needs a reason in order to bar a person from free action. This is called : Presumption of Innocence", and it starts with requiring that police have PROBABLE CAUSE to stop you... Or to question your parenthood. Really! Is your wife OK with random drug testing for ALL pregnant women, and young mothers?

Police officers need to be better trained conversationalists. A person who is too impaired to drive will probably have trouble with in-depth conversation. You can engage someone in a conversation without infringing on their rights unless they really don't want to converse with you.

Ever talk to someone and conclude they had been drinking? It's not hard to do. If you learn body language, detecting deception, smelling for alcohol, etc. then you become keenly aware of when something isn't right. A cop can ask you "how's your night been so far?" An innocent enough question but a drunk person would usually try to formulate a lie and would look real shifty. This would warrant a few more questions at that point.

Reality of the situation is that drunk-driving should not be illegal. Each person should be responsible enough to determine whether they are able to drive, and bartenders should (but don't mandate it) intervene as well. If a drunk driver hits someone, the courts are there to attempt to create balance in such a situation. It's called a civil lawsuit and everyone has that available as a remedy. If you can't accept that there are dangerous drivers out there, stay off the road. When I lived in Vegas, I would steer clear of the casinos because it was already determined that 1 in 10 people leaving the casino were above the 0.10 BAC. Took me out of the way, but I took direct action to ensure my safety and reduce my risk without infringing on other's rights.

Higher penalties as a deterrent is one approach. However, (and perhaps I'm being naive) I happen to believe in my heart-of-hearts that if we truly lived in a free and prosperous society there would be much less crime overall.

For example, a free and prosperous society might need less alcohol to help numb the grim reality of a world with increasing government control and demand of family members time, ironically at the expense of trying to preserve the family unit.