|
General » rec.autos.driving » You have the Right to Drive
| Re: You have the Right to Drive [message #797665 ] |
Tue, 11 March 2008 19:41 |
|
In article <a7627f02-69d7-4cf6-ab3b-83e0548eb82a [at] i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
>On Mar 11, 9:59 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P)
>wrote:
>> In article <2ba20aba-1368-4fd9-ba26-20cd41427... [at] s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
>>
>> >Somehow, *you* claim to be able to tell the diference without being
>> >able to prove it.
>>
>> Well if you don't believe in individual liberty, individual rights, then
>> there can never be any proof.
>
>I guess when it gets down to assigning someone else a position, that's
>all the "proof" required, hmm?
Having trouble Ed? Looks like it. You assigned me the position of
being able to tell the difference between what is good for the general
welfare and what isn't, or is control. The fact is no one person, no
system of authority for that matter can know what is good for the
general welfare. However a system of authority can execute a system of
control, that's its business.
No one person, no system of authority can make a determination of what
is for the general welfare and what is not. What is good for the general
welfare comes from the aggregate of very many freely made individual
decisions. Determinations of what is good for the general welfare from
authority over-ride belief in individual liberty.
As to arguing that graduated licensing is control, well you snipped it
again. This time I'll just post the law:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/documents/062500050K6-1 07.htm
When you get to the meat of it, the actual graduations we have the
following:
(e) No graduated driver's license holder under the age of 18 years
shall operate any motor vehicle, except a motor driven cycle or
motorcycle, with more than one passenger in the front seat of the motor
vehicle and no more passengers in the back seats than the number of
available seat safety belts as set forth in Section 12.603 of this Code.
If a graduated driver's license holder over the age of 18 committed an
offense against traffic regulations governing the movement of vehicles
or any violation of this Section or Section 12.603.1 of this Code in the
6 months prior to the graduated driver's license holder's 18th birthday,
and was subsequently convicted of the violation, the provisions of this
paragraph shall continue to apply until such time as a period of 6
consecutive months has elapsed without an additional violation and
subsequent conviction of an offense against traffic regulations
governing the movement of vehicles or any violation of this Section or
Section 12.603.1 of this Code.
(f) No graduated driver's license holder under the age of 18 shall
operate a motor vehicle unless each driver and passenger under the age
of 19 is wearing a properly adjusted and fastened seat safety belt and
each child under the age of 8 is protected as required under the Child
Passenger Protection Act. If a graduated driver's license holder over
the age of 18 committed an offense against traffic regulations governing
the movement of vehicles or any violation of this Section or Section
12.603.1 of this Code in the 6 months prior to the graduated driver's
license holder's 18th birthday, and was subsequently convicted of the
violation, the provisions of this paragraph shall continue to apply
until such time as a period of 6 consecutive months has elapsed without
an additional violation and subsequent conviction of an offense against
traffic regulations governing the movement of vehicles or any violation
of this Section or Section 12.603.1 of this Code.
(g) If a graduated driver's license holder is under the age of 18
when he or she receives the license, for the first 12 months he or she
holds the license or until he or she reaches the age of 18, whichever
occurs sooner, the graduated license holder may not operate a motor
vehicle with more than one passenger in the vehicle who is under the age
of 20, unless any additional passenger or passengers are siblings,
step.siblings, children, or stepchildren of the driver. If a graduated
driver's license holder committed an offense against traffic regulations
governing the movement of vehicles or any violation of this Section or
Section 12.603.1 of this Code during the first 12 months the license is
held and subsequently is convicted of the violation, the provisions of
this paragraph shall remain in effect until such time as a period of 6
consecutive months has elapsed without an additional violation and
subsequent conviction of an offense against traffic regulations
governing the movement of vehicles or any violation of this Section or
Section 12.603.1 of this Code.
(h) It shall be an offense for a person that is age 15, but under
age 20, to be a passenger in a vehicle operated by a driver holding a
graduated driver's license during the first 12 months the driver holds
the license or until the driver reaches the age of 18, whichever occurs
sooner, if another passenger under the age of 20 is present, excluding a
sibling, step.sibling, child, or step.child of the driver.
Where is competence brought about through these graduations? I'm just
not seeing it. I see a bunch of legal controls but I see no actual
structure to build competence.
|
|
|
| Re: You have the Right to Drive [message #797666 ] |
Tue, 11 March 2008 19:58 |
|
On Mar 11, 11:41=A0am, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P)
wrote:
> In article <a7627f02-69d7-4cf6-ab3b-83e0548eb... [at] i29g2000prf.googlegroups.=
com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> >On Mar 11, 9:59=A0am, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P)
> >wrote:
> >> In article <2ba20aba-1368-4fd9-ba26-20cd41427... [at] s12g2000prg.googlegrou=
ps.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
>
> >> >Somehow, *you* claim to be able to tell the diference without being
> >> >able to prove it.
>
> >> Well if you don't believe in individual liberty, individual rights, the=
n
> >> there can never be any proof.
>
> >I guess when it gets down to assigning someone else a position, that's
> >all the "proof" required, hmm?
>
> You assigned me the position of
> being able to tell the difference between what is good for the general
> welfare and what isn't, or is control.
Actually, I didn't. I asked a question.
You can, if you wish, keep reasserting the same unproven claim. I am
not persuaded. Recast it in different terms and I'm still not
persuaded. Use logical fallacy to attempt to gain some upper hand?
Not persuaded.
The biggest indictment of your position is in your own words. You are
*for* a system like Germany uses.
Obviously, you are for "control" when it suits your own purposes. It
has always been thus - which is why your arguments to the contrary are
so easily dismissed. If it weren't *for your own words*, I might
actually think that you had a glimmer of a point hiding under all that
blustery rhetoric. But in the end, it's just a lot of wind.
But hey, what should one expect? You're from Chicago!
E.P.
|
|
|
| Re: You have the Right to Drive [message #797669 ] |
Tue, 11 March 2008 20:24 |
|
In article <04cfd62b-d398-4c66-839f-53cb1def0f94 [at] i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
>On Mar 11, 11:41 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P)
>wrote:
>> In article <a7627f02-69d7-4cf6-ab3b-83e0548eb... [at] i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
>> >On Mar 11, 9:59 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P)
>> >wrote:
>> >> In article <2ba20aba-1368-4fd9-ba26-20cd41427... [at] s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
>>
>> >> >Somehow, *you* claim to be able to tell the diference without being
>> >> >able to prove it.
>>
>> >> Well if you don't believe in individual liberty, individual rights, then
>> >> there can never be any proof.
>>
>> >I guess when it gets down to assigning someone else a position, that's
>> >all the "proof" required, hmm?
>>
>> You assigned me the position of
>> being able to tell the difference between what is good for the general
>> welfare and what isn't, or is control.
>
>Actually, I didn't. I asked a question.
I made an if statement. You either play the technicalities or you don't
Ed.
>You can, if you wish, keep reasserting the same unproven claim. I am
>not persuaded.
You'll never be. You're like gpstroll in that respect.
> Recast it in different terms and I'm still not
>persuaded. Use logical fallacy to attempt to gain some upper hand?
>Not persuaded.
You're sounding more and more like gpstroll.
>The biggest indictment of your position is in your own words. You are
>*for* a system like Germany uses.
Out of context again. I spoke only of the competency requirements not
bullshit about only having one passenger or going to the super-duper
driving school. I strip the Germany's system of its controlling aspects
only leaving competency requirements. I have corrected you multiple
times now yet you insist on this, your dishonesty has returned.
>Obviously, you are for "control" when it suits your own purposes.
So you think competency equals control? Competency is not the same as
giving government's police forces the ability to stop and demand papers
of someone to check if it is legal for them to be driving with the
number of passengers they have.
> It
>has always been thus - which is why your arguments to the contrary are
>so easily dismissed. If it weren't *for your own words*,
Your usual dishonest twisting. I did not accept the German system as a
whole, I accepted one facet of it, competency. that's it. Not their
system of driving schools, not their speed cameras, not their high fees
and taxes, not their punitive system, just that drivers be competent.
That does not require government control in the least. It could be some
sort of free market certification. It is not my fault you have a statist
mentality, that is of course if you weren't just being dishonest. Given
my previous corrections I lean to towards the later.
> I might
>actually think that you had a glimmer of a point hiding under all that
>blustery rhetoric. But in the end, it's just a lot of wind.
>But hey, what should one expect? You're from Chicago!
And Ed washes up on the beach with an insult.
Show me where the IL graduated licensing law actually makes a competent
driver rather than just controlling things like the number of passegers
until a person turns 18?
|
|
|
| Re: You have the Right to Drive [message #797670 ] |
Tue, 11 March 2008 20:39 |
|
On Mar 11, 12:21=A0pm, Ed Pirrero <gcmschem... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 11, 10:13=A0am, proffsl <prof... [at] my-deja.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 11, 9:50=A0am, Ed Pirrero <gcmschem... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Luckily, everyone except a small few boneheads understands that
> > > operating a motor vehicle is not something a child can do safely
> > > with reliability.
>
> > Now you contradict yourself. =A0Above, you said you didn't know if the
> > 10 year old could drive safely. =A0Now, you say they can not.
>
> That's right, I did just contradict myself. =A0Because I *know* that
> there are approximately zero ten-year-olds that have the mental
> accumen to drive safely, reliably, on public streets.
If someone does drive safely, what problem could you have with their
doing so?
> But, since your whole argument is absurd, expect other people to be
> logically rigorous is hypocrisy on your part.
My argument is that we have the Right to Drive safely
Nobody has the Right to do anything dangerously.
|
|
|
| Re: You have the Right to Drive [message #797672 ] |
Tue, 11 March 2008 21:32 |
|
proffsl wrote:
> On Mar 11, 12:21=EF=BF=BDpm, Ed Pirrero <gcmschem... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 11, 10:13=EF=BF=BDam, proffsl <prof... [at] my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > On Mar 11, 9:50=EF=BF=BDam, Ed Pirrero <gcmschem... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > Luckily, everyone except a small few boneheads understands that
> > > > operating a motor vehicle is not something a child can do safely
> > > > with reliability.
> >
> > > Now you contradict yourself. =EF=BF=BDAbove, you said you didn't know =
if the
> > > 10 year old could drive safely. =EF=BF=BDNow, you say they can not.
> >
> > That's right, I did just contradict myself. =EF=BF=BDBecause I *know* th=
at
> > there are approximately zero ten-year-olds that have the mental
> > accumen to drive safely, reliably, on public streets.
>
> If someone does drive safely, what problem could you have with their
> doing so?
Exactly! And this was your position that led necessarily to the
inescapable conclusion that you must allow infants, toddlers, dogs,
cats and amoebae to drive.
That is the logical destination for your line of thinking.
> > But, since your whole argument is absurd, expect other people to be
> > logically rigorous is hypocrisy on your part.
>
> My argument is that we have the Right to Drive safely
Only with a license. We=E2=80=99ve already proven that.
|
|
|
| Re: You have the Right to Drive [message #797673 ] |
Tue, 11 March 2008 21:59 |
|
In article <331ee820-50e9-4474-acb2-789e20b29ce3 [at] d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, k_flynn [at] lycos.com wrote:
>proffsl wrote:
>> If someone does drive safely, what problem could you have with their
>> doing so?
>
>Exactly! And this was your position that led necessarily to the
>inescapable conclusion that you must allow infants, toddlers, dogs,
>cats and amoebae to drive.
>
>That is the logical destination for your line of thinking.
>
>> > But, since your whole argument is absurd, expect other people to be
>> > logically rigorous is hypocrisy on your part.
>>
>> My argument is that we have the Right to Drive safely
>
>Only with a license. We=E2=80=99ve already proven that.
The question is how to check that a person can drive safely without
degrading driving to a government granted privilege dependent upon the
whims of whomever is in power.
Some sort of constitutional construct that actually limited government's
roll to skill and knowledge testing or maybe certification on the free
market. Both would require a mechanism to prevent a company or
government officer from selling DL's like a particular IL SOS turned
governor did.
|
|
|
| Re: You have the Right to Drive [message #797674 ] |
Tue, 11 March 2008 22:00 |
|
On Mar 11, 12:24=A0pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P)
wrote:
> In article <04cfd62b-d398-4c66-839f-53cb1def0... [at] i7g2000prf.googlegroups.c=
om>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> >On Mar 11, 11:41=A0am, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P)
> >
>
> >You can, if you wish, keep reasserting the same unproven claim. =A0I am
> >not persuaded.
>
> You'll never be.
Since you have not attempted to prove the very basis for your line of
reasoning, it makes it tough to even have an open mind. I'm waiting
for that one even oblique suggestion that graduated licenses aren't
exactly what they they say they are for, and instead are some
insidious means of "control". A quote from legislation's authors?
=46rom law enforcement? Anything?
No. Just an assertion - and circular reasoning from there. Which, of
course, you decry in your first response to me. I guess that's just a
case of DAISNAID.
Which doesn't matter in the least - you claim to be only for
"competency requirements", as though that is not somehow gov.
"control" over driving. The ONLY way it isn't "control", by your all-
encompassing definition, is if the testing is strictly voluntary, and
likewise the standards need not be met to be completely legal to drive
on a public road.
All I can do is LOL at the hypocrisy. You are for "control" when it
suits you. As in German-style "competency testing" for auto drivers.
Shall we delve into vehicle road-worthiness inspections? How about
lighting standards that "control" the types of lights we put on our
cars? I am almost sure I could dig up numerous examples of you
opining on what sorts of "controls" you would put into place.
Yeah. No logic, and no moral authority. What's your goal, again?
E.P.
|
|
|
| Re: You have the Right to Drive [message #797675 ] |
Tue, 11 March 2008 22:19 |
|
In article <48320ca2-340c-4f1b-bc8d-cef517d5f050 [at] e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
>On Mar 11, 12:24 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P)
>wrote:
>> In article <04cfd62b-d398-4c66-839f-53cb1def0... [at] i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
>> >On Mar 11, 11:41 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P)
>> >
>>
>> >You can, if you wish, keep reasserting the same unproven claim. I am
>> >not persuaded.
>>
>> You'll never be.
>
>Since you have not attempted to prove the very basis for your line of
>reasoning, it makes it tough to even have an open mind.
You don't even read what I type you just snip it and go 'I'm not
satisifed. How about you satisify me that it is the role of government
to tell parents when their kids can be out and about and control the
number of passengers in the cars they drive? That's how this society is
supposed to work, not the ass-backwards way where people have to argue
to keep scraps of their own lives and government out of their family's
business.
> I'm waiting
>for that one even oblique suggestion that graduated licenses aren't
>exactly what they they say they are for, and instead are some
>insidious means of "control". A quote from legislation's authors?
>From law enforcement? Anything?
I quoted the very law in IL itself. It's a series of control measures on
passengers and such. Nothing not a damn thing about driving skill except
as the excuse mentioned for the law. You just snip it and then whine I
didn't give it to you.
>No. Just an assertion - and circular reasoning from there. Which, of
>course, you decry in your first response to me. I guess that's just a
>case of DAISNAID.
Why is it that state control of everything is considered the norm while
those of us who just want to be left alone by government have to always
prove the case for freedom in a nation supposedly founded upon the
principle of individual liberty? Why don't you argue a clear case for
state control?
>Which doesn't matter in the least - you claim to be only for
>"competency requirements", as though that is not somehow gov.
>"control" over driving. The ONLY way it isn't "control", by your all-
>encompassing definition, is if the testing is strictly voluntary, and
>likewise the standards need not be met to be completely legal to drive
>on a public road.
>All I can do is LOL at the hypocrisy. You are for "control" when it
>suits you. As in German-style "competency testing" for auto drivers.
You snip my arguments, you don't address them, and then repeat the same
falsehood you've been corrected on. I specifically removed the German
system of expensive driving schools, I didn't accept their testing
method. Remember? Only that the competency be achieved. If certification
is desired there are ways to do this with out government controls on the
times of day you can drive and the number of passengers you may have.
Could you point out to me where the IL graduated licensing law brings
about driving skills? Opps nope, you can't. It's just a bunch of
controls on who they can have as passengers and how many passengers and
other nonsense that has nothing to do with driving skill.
>Shall we delve into vehicle road-worthiness inspections?
Red hering, but just for fun... FYI: There are none in IL. NONE. Just an
emissions OBD2 check for *SOME* cars. IL gets by just fine some how.
States that have inspections seem to have them as a bonus to force
business to mechanics.
>How about
>lighting standards that "control" the types of lights we put on our
>cars? I am almost sure I could dig up numerous examples of you
>opining on what sorts of "controls" you would put into place.
Red Hering. I'd explain it to you, but I think you already know why. Oh
what the hell... I'll give you a clue... defining brake lamps as red
doesn't control me or anyone else, it merely states a common form of
communication so that everyone may share the road equally. That is
something that state government is allowed to do.
>Yeah. No logic, and no moral authority. What's your goal, again?
Authority, that's what you want. Control. Control your neighbors.
Control those bad people. You can't even think outside of it. Your whole
mental process is confined by the notion of state control.
|
|
|
| Re: You have the Right to Drive [message #797676 ] |
Tue, 11 March 2008 22:54 |
|
Brent P wrote:
> In article <331ee820-50e9-4474-acb2-789e20b29ce3 [at] d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, k_flynn [at] lycos.com wrote:
> >proffsl wrote:
> >> > But, since your whole argument is absurd, expect other people to be
> >> > logically rigorous is hypocrisy on your part.
> >>
> >> My argument is that we have the Right to Drive safely
> >
> >Only with a license. We've already proven that.
>
> The question is how to check that a person can drive safely without
> degrading driving to a government granted privilege dependent upon the
> whims of whomever is in power.
It isn't at anybody's whim. There are standards in place, you pass 'em
you get your license.
> Some sort of constitutional construct that actually limited government's
> roll to skill and knowledge testing or maybe certification on the free
> market. Both would require a mechanism to prevent a company or
> government officer from selling DL's like a particular IL SOS turned
> governor did.
Don't know anything about that case. As for the former point, I don't
really disagree, as I told proffsl. My only disagreement is on his
untenable position that we already have some right to drive without a
license, which is plainly false. If he wants to change that
legislatively, more power to him; I could support that.
Licensing and registration also have a role in funding for roads, as
part of a system that is at least partly user-pay. That's also legit,
IMO.
|
|
|
| Re: You have the Right to Drive [message #797678 ] |
Wed, 12 March 2008 00:02 |
|
In article <792dc00d-843a-4586-851e-d05131f5d3dd [at] i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, k_flynn [at] lycos.com wrote:
>Brent P wrote:
>> In article <331ee820-50e9-4474-acb2-789e20b29ce3 [at] d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, k_flynn [at] lycos.com wrote:
>> >proffsl wrote:
>> >> > But, since your whole argument is absurd, expect other people to be
>> >> > logically rigorous is hypocrisy on your part.
>> >>
>> >> My argument is that we have the Right to Drive safely
>> >
>> >Only with a license. We've already proven that.
>>
>> The question is how to check that a person can drive safely without
>> degrading driving to a government granted privilege dependent upon the
>> whims of whomever is in power.
>It isn't at anybody's whim. There are standards in place, you pass 'em
>you get your license.
I guess you've missed all the non-driving reasons why the state can
pull a person's DL. That is where the whim comes in to play. State
governments seem to be increasing their rather parent like 'well you
can't drive now' punishments for things as time goes by.
|
|
|
| Re: You have the Right to Drive [message #797682 ] |
Wed, 12 March 2008 00:55 |
|
Brent P wrote:
> In article <792dc00d-843a-4586-851e-d05131f5d3dd [at] i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, k_flynn [at] lycos.com wrote:
> >Brent P wrote:
> >> In article <331ee820-50e9-4474-acb2-789e20b29ce3 [at] d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, k_flynn [at] lycos.com wrote:
> >> >proffsl wrote:
> >> >> > But, since your whole argument is absurd, expect other people to be
> >> >> > logically rigorous is hypocrisy on your part.
> >> >>
> >> >> My argument is that we have the Right to Drive safely
> >> >
> >> >Only with a license. We've already proven that.
> >>
> >> The question is how to check that a person can drive safely without
> >> degrading driving to a government granted privilege dependent upon the
> >> whims of whomever is in power.
>
> >It isn't at anybody's whim. There are standards in place, you pass 'em
> >you get your license.
>
> I guess you've missed all the non-driving reasons why the state can
> pull a person's DL. That is where the whim comes in to play. State
> governments seem to be increasing their rather parent like 'well you
> can't drive now' punishments for things as time goes by.
That's not whim. It's still a standard that's applied uniformly after
legislative deliberation. You might not like it (nor do I) but it
isn't whim. After all, the government is us. Get you neighbors to stop
demanding things like losing a license for not paying child support,
and it might go away.
Child support and other welfare repayments are the only thing I am
aware of non-driving related that can cost you your license. So you
have any others in mind? Otherwise, it doesn't really seem quite so
out-of-control as you portray it. If I stand to lose my license or
registration renewal becasue I failed to pay traffic tickets, that's
not unrelated.
|
|
|
| Re: You have the Right to Drive [message #797684 ] |
Wed, 12 March 2008 01:16 |
|
On Mar 11, 2:19 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P)
wrote:
> In article <48320ca2-340c-4f1b-bc8d-cef517d5f... [at] e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> >On Mar 11, 12:24 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P)
> >wrote:
> >> In article <04cfd62b-d398-4c66-839f-53cb1def0... [at] i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> >> >On Mar 11, 11:41 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P)
>
> >> >You can, if you wish, keep reasserting the same unproven claim. I am
> >> >not persuaded.
>
> >> You'll never be.
>
> >Since you have not attempted to prove the very basis for your line of
> >reasoning, it makes it tough to even have an open mind.
>
> You don't even read what I type you just snip it and go 'I'm not
> satisifed.
You are mistaken.
> > I'm waiting
> >for that one even oblique suggestion that graduated licenses aren't
> >exactly what they they say they are for, and instead are some
> >insidious means of "control". A quote from legislation's authors?
> >From law enforcement? Anything?
>
> I quoted the very law in IL itself.
It doesn't say anywhere in there that it's a means of gov. control.
> >No. Just an assertion - and circular reasoning from there. Which, of
> >course, you decry in your first response to me. I guess that's just a
> >case of DAISNAID.
>
> Why don't you argue a clear case for
> state control?
From circular reasoning to straw man. If you cannot use reason as a
foundation for your position, why should anyone take you seriously?
> >Which doesn't matter in the least - you claim to be only for
> >"competency requirements", as though that is not somehow gov.
> >"control" over driving. The ONLY way it isn't "control", by your all-
> >encompassing definition, is if the testing is strictly voluntary, and
> >likewise the standards need not be met to be completely legal to drive
> >on a public road.
> >All I can do is LOL at the hypocrisy. You are for "control" when it
> >suits you. As in German-style "competency testing" for auto drivers.
>
> You snip my arguments, you don't address them, and then repeat the same
> falsehood you've been corrected on.
Bzzzt. All that other stuff you carp on I have never mentioned. I
used the term "competency" *specifically* on purpose. I didn't say
how or where. You are setting up straw men to avoid the central
argument.
> >Shall we delve into vehicle road-worthiness inspections?
>
> Red hering, but just for fun... FYI: There are none in IL. NONE. Just an
> emissions OBD2 check for *SOME* cars. IL gets by just fine some how.
> States that have inspections seem to have them as a bonus to force
> business to mechanics.
>
> >How about
> >lighting standards that "control" the types of lights we put on our
> >cars? I am almost sure I could dig up numerous examples of you
> >opining on what sorts of "controls" you would put into place.
>
> Red Hering. I'd explain it to you, but I think you already know why. Oh
> what the hell... I'll give you a clue... defining brake lamps as red
> doesn't control me or anyone else, it merely states a common form of
> communication so that everyone may share the road equally. That is
> something that state government is allowed to do.
Still a control. Why have brake lamps at all? I mean, seriously -
why not make them optional equipment - good drivers will put them on,
for their own sake, right? How about headlamps? Let folks put on
whatever they feel like.
It is a tangent, but only a small one - it has to do with supposed
gov. control over our automotive lives, and your hypocrisy on the
subject.
> >Yeah. No logic, and no moral authority. What's your goal, again?
>
> Authority...
Straw man.
Pointing out the flaws in your logic does not imply I hold a
particular position.
If you have some logic on the subject, I'd love to see it. If all
you're going to do is delve further into logical fallacy, then why
bother?
In your next post, I'll snip everything unread after the very first
logical fallacy. But before that, I'll be happy to answer or address
any points made logically. Remember, no circular reasoning...
E.P.
|
|
|
| Re: You have the Right to Drive [message #797686 ] |
Wed, 12 March 2008 01:19 |
|
k_flynn [at] lycos.com wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>
>>In article <792dc00d-843a-4586-851e-d05131f5d3dd [at] i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, k_flynn [at] lycos.com wrote:
>>
>>>Brent P wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <331ee820-50e9-4474-acb2-789e20b29ce3 [at] d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, k_flynn [at] lycos.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>proffsl wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>But, since your whole argument is absurd, expect other people to be
>>>>>>>logically rigorous is hypocrisy on your part.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>My argument is that we have the Right to Drive safely
>>>>>
>>>>>Only with a license. We've already proven that.
>>>>
>>>>The question is how to check that a person can drive safely without
>>>>degrading driving to a government granted privilege dependent upon the
>>>>whims of whomever is in power.
>>
>>>It isn't at anybody's whim. There are standards in place, you pass 'em
>>>you get your license.
>>
>>I guess you've missed all the non-driving reasons why the state can
>>pull a person's DL. That is where the whim comes in to play. State
>>governments seem to be increasing their rather parent like 'well you
>>can't drive now' punishments for things as time goes by.
>
>
> That's not whim. It's still a standard that's applied uniformly after
> legislative deliberation. You might not like it (nor do I) but it
> isn't whim. After all, the government is us. Get you neighbors to stop
> demanding things like losing a license for not paying child support,
> and it might go away.
>
> Child support and other welfare repayments are the only thing I am
> aware of non-driving related that can cost you your license. So you
> have any others in mind? Otherwise, it doesn't really seem quite so
> out-of-control as you portray it. If I stand to lose my license or
> registration renewal becasue I failed to pay traffic tickets, that's
> not unrelated.
Underage drinking, nonpayment of all sorts of fines, etc. there's lots
of them but they vary by state.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
|
|
|
| Re: You have the Right to Drive [message #797688 ] |
Wed, 12 March 2008 01:29 |
|
k_flynn [at] lycos.com wrote:
> Child support and other welfare repayments are the only thing I am
> aware of non-driving related that can cost you your license. So you
> have any others in mind?
Dropping out of high school before graduating between the ages of 16 and
18. Having a failing GPA before one is 18. Underage possession of
EtOH. Possession of illegal controlled substance. Possession of weapon
or firearm on school property. School truancy in FL. Possession of
tobacco products (if under 18). Losing one's way while hiking in NH.
Selling EtOH to someone under 21 years of age.
This article has several examples of non-driving related ways one can
lose one's driving license:
<http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/2.02/dmv_pr.html>
I'm sure there are many more non-driving related ways to lose one's
license, but I don't feel like trying to find them all.
|
|
|
| Re: You have the Right to Drive [message #797705 ] |
Wed, 12 March 2008 03:07 |
|
In article <b091eba3-01ce-4fee-b7ca-1ba66621e68f [at] i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, k_flynn [at] lycos.com wrote:
>Brent P wrote:
>> >> The question is how to check that a person can drive safely without
>> >> degrading driving to a government granted privilege dependent upon the
>> >> whims of whomever is in power.
>>
>> >It isn't at anybody's whim. There are standards in place, you pass 'em
>> >you get your license.
>>
>> I guess you've missed all the non-driving reasons why the state can
>> pull a person's DL. That is where the whim comes in to play. State
>> governments seem to be increasing their rather parent like 'well you
>> can't drive now' punishments for things as time goes by.
>That's not whim. It's still a standard that's applied uniformly after
>legislative deliberation. You might not like it (nor do I) but it
>isn't whim.
It is the whim of the government. That is government excerising its
power because it has it to wield.
>After all, the government is us. Get you neighbors to stop
>demanding things like losing a license for not paying child support,
>and it might go away.
Government isn't interested in a message of freedom. Nobody that I know
of ever demanded such things, they were pulled from the asses of our
rulers as far as I can tell.
BTW: http://www.lewrockwell.com/reed/reed139.html
>Child support and other welfare repayments are the only thing I am
>aware of non-driving related that can cost you your license.
How about civil asset forfiture instead? That's what the government uses
on so many people for giggles...
> So you
>have any others in mind? Otherwise, it doesn't really seem quite so
>out-of-control as you portray it.
The most recent reason to lose a DL I read was for getting lost while
hiking in NH.
|
|
|
| Re: You have the Right to Drive [message #797709 ] |
Wed, 12 March 2008 03:26 |
|
On Mar 11, 9:07=A0pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P)
wrote:
> In article <b091eba3-01ce-4fee-b7ca-1ba66621e... [at] i7g2000prf.googlegroups.c=
om>, k_fl... [at] lycos.com wrote:
>
> >Brent P wrote:
> >> >> The question is how to check that a person can drive safely without
> >> >> degrading driving to a government granted privilege dependent upon t=
he
> >> >> whims of whomever is in power.
>
> >> >It isn't at anybody's whim. There are standards in place, you pass 'em=
> >> >you get your license.
>
> >> I guess you've missed all the non-driving reasons why the state can
> >> pull a person's DL. That is where the whim comes in to play. State
> >> governments seem to be increasing their rather parent like 'well you
> >> can't drive now' punishments for things as time goes by.
> >That's not whim. It's still a standard that's applied uniformly after
> >legislative deliberation. You might not like it (nor do I) but it
> >isn't whim.
>
> It is the whim of the government. That is government excerising its
> power because it has it to wield.
>
> >After all, the government is us. Get you neighbors to stop
> >demanding things like losing a license for not paying child support,
> >and it might go away.
>
> Government isn't interested in a message of freedom. Nobody that I know
> of ever demanded such things, they were pulled from the asses of our
> rulers as far as I can tell.
>
> BTW:http://www.lewrockwell.com/reed/reed139.html
>
> >Child support and other welfare repayments are the only thing I am
> >aware of non-driving related that can cost you your license.
>
> How about civil asset forfiture instead? That's what the government uses
> on so many people for giggles...
>
> > So you
> >have any others in mind? Otherwise, it doesn't really seem quite so
> >out-of-control as you portray it.
>
> The most recent reason to lose a DL I read was for getting lost while
> hiking in NH.
Even more priceless...dropping out of school in MO.
|
|
|
| Re: You have the Right to Drive [message #797712 ] |
Wed, 12 March 2008 03:33 |
|
In article <48826a5e-d856-40ea-9736-08c1a2f89e4f [at] 59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
>You are mistaken.
Well then, then you're being rather dishonest.
>> > I'm waiting
>> >for that one even oblique suggestion that graduated licenses aren't
>> >exactly what they they say they are for, and instead are some
>> >insidious means of "control". A quote from legislation's authors?
>> >From law enforcement? Anything?
>> I quoted the very law in IL itself.
>
>It doesn't say anywhere in there that it's a means of gov. control.
Now the laws have to say they are for controlling LOL? Stop being an
ass. I thought we could have a discussion but you just keep trying to
degrade it by throwing in insults, and doing crap like this. The law
doesn't say anything about government control in the section on murder
either.
>> >No. Just an assertion - and circular reasoning from there. Which, of
>> >course, you decry in your first response to me. I guess that's just a
>> >case of DAISNAID.
>> Why don't you argue a clear case for
>> state control?
>From circular reasoning to straw man. If you cannot use reason as a
>foundation for your position, why should anyone take you seriously?
I have. You simply reject it out of hand, you just refuse to respond
with a gpstroll like 'I'm not satisified'. I'm not satisified with your
total and complete lack of an argument and since you refuse to present
one this is not a discussion.
>> >Which doesn't matter in the least - you claim to be only for
>> >"competency requirements", as though that is not somehow gov.
>> >"control" over driving. The ONLY way it isn't "control", by your all-
>> >encompassing definition, is if the testing is strictly voluntary, and
>> >likewise the standards need not be met to be completely legal to drive
>> >on a public road.
>> >All I can do is LOL at the hypocrisy. You are for "control" when it
>> >suits you. As in German-style "competency testing" for auto drivers.
>> You snip my arguments, you don't address them, and then repeat the same
>> falsehood you've been corrected on.
>Bzzzt. All that other stuff you carp on I have never mentioned. I
>used the term "competency" *specifically* on purpose. I didn't say
>how or where. You are setting up straw men to avoid the central
>argument.
You aren't presenting an argument Ed. You just sit back and say 'I'm not
satisified', 'prove it', and your various out of hand dismissals and
insults.
>Still a control. Why have brake lamps at all? I mean, seriously -
>why not make them optional equipment - good drivers will put them on,
>for their own sake, right? How about headlamps? Let folks put on
>whatever they feel like.
>It is a tangent, but only a small one - it has to do with supposed
>gov. control over our automotive lives, and your hypocrisy on the
>subject.
I see... because I think we should follow decent engineering practices I
am hypocrite if I don't think government should be able to tell us when
and where we can drive and with whom. Interesting argument there...
Because I don't mind having red tail lamps I should also be for the
government telling us how to parent... Maybe what we should eat, what we
can read, what we can say too? So what you're saying is if there is the
least bit of regulation, if I say that the government should step in
when my neighbor steals from me instead of me going to beat his brains
in with a sledge hammer, then I have to allow that government to
watch me in my home or do anything else it feels like with regard to
controlling me and my decisions? All or nothing is what you are
apparently arguing here.
So what you are apparently offering me is the binary choice between a
society that is less controlled than bartertown (Madmax beyond
thunderdome) and one more controling than the soviet union where the
government can control anything it pleases to control. If I don't choose
complete and total survival of the fittest and ruthless madmax style
anarachy, I'm a hypocrit in your little absurd construct.
>> >Yeah. No logic, and no moral authority. What's your goal, again?
>>
>> Authority...
>Straw man.
>Pointing out the flaws in your logic does not imply I hold a
>particular position.
Here goes trim boy again,......
>If you have some logic on the subject, I'd love to see it. If all
>you're going to do is delve further into logical fallacy, then why
>bother?
I've presented a great deal of logic far more reasoned than anything
you've presented for the case of government control. You just ignore it,
on purpose because you'd rather have this bit of usenet fun than have a
real discussion. You like to sit back and get hard on as I try different
ways of explaining it to you while you purposely ignore the arguments
each time. Well Ed, I'm tired of writing for the sake of writing.
The fact remains, as I have explained to you oh so many ways, a teenager
can get a license when he is 16, not drive again until he is 18 and he
has satisified all the requirements of the graduated licensing example
of IL law and probably that of all the other states. He's no more
experienced than the day he got his license. Passenger controls is what
these laws are for the most part. The rest of controls as it varies from
state to state are as equally unrelated to driving skills.
>In your next post, I'll snip everything unread after the very first
>logical fallacy. But before that, I'll be happy to answer or address
>any points made logically. Remember, no circular reasoning...
How about you go fuck yourself? I will ignore any reply from you that
doesn't show how the graduated licensing teaches driving skills or
insures that teens have driving skills by their 18th birthday. No
circular reasoning, no 'for the children' bs, no 'general welfare' catch
alls, prove that graduated licensing actually increases driving skills,
that a teenager can't make it through the entire process as lacking
skill as the day he finished watching his last blood on the highway
film.
|
|
|
| Re: You have the Right to Drive [message #797743 ] |
Wed, 12 March 2008 04:45 |
|
On Mar 11, 8:07 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P)
wrote:
> In article <b091eba3-01ce-4fee-b7ca-1ba66621e... [at] i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, k_fl... [at] lycos.com wrote:
>
> >Brent P wrote:
> >> >> The question is how to check that a person can drive safely without
> >> >> degrading driving to a government granted privilege dependent upon the
> >> >> whims of whomever is in power.
>
> >> >It isn't at anybody's whim. There are standards in place, you pass 'em
> >> >you get your license.
>
> >> I guess you've missed all the non-driving reasons why the state can
> >> pull a person's DL. That is where the whim comes in to play. State
> >> governments seem to be increasing their rather parent like 'well you
> >> can't drive now' punishments for things as time goes by.
> >That's not whim. It's still a standard that's applied uniformly after
> >legislative deliberation. You might not like it (nor do I) but it
> >isn't whim.
>
> It is the whim of the government. That is government excerising its
> power because it has it to wield.
Absolutely not. It is the result of the legislative process, a
deliberative process that is answerable to the electorate. There is
nothing "whimsical" about it. Just calling it "whim" and "exercising
power" because it has power to wield sounds nice at the libertarian
party meeting, but it really isn't.
"Whim" would be if you were denied a license despite qualifying
because the guy behind the counter decides to yank your chain if he
doesn't like your haircut.
> >After all, the government is us. Get you neighbors to stop
> >demanding things like losing a license for not paying child support,
> >and it might go away.
>
> Government isn't interested in a message of freedom. Nobody that I know
> of ever demanded such things, they were pulled from the asses of our
> rulers as far as I can tell.
Then you haven't looked that far. There are many competing
constituencies and lobbies pushing their interests in state
legislatures all over the land. You have to play if you want your side
represented. Democracy is participatory.
> >Child support and other welfare repayments are the only thing I am
> >aware of non-driving related that can cost you your license.
>
> How about civil asset forfiture instead? That's what the government uses
> on so many people for giggles...
>
> > So you
> >have any others in mind? Otherwise, it doesn't really seem quite so
> >out-of-control as you portray it.
>
> The most recent reason to lose a DL I read was for getting lost while
> hiking in NH.
Yeah, I saw those. I don't like them either. But none of them are
government "whim."
|
|
|
| Re: You have the Right to Drive [message #797747 ] |
Wed, 12 March 2008 05:25 |
|
In article <c579ea32-1c11-4be4-9962-053df7a71447 [at] u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, k_flynn [at] lycos.com wrote:
>On Mar 11, 8:07 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P)
>wrote:
>> In article <b091eba3-01ce-4fee-b7ca-1ba66621e... [at] i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, k_fl... [at] lycos.com wrote:
>>
>> >Brent P wrote:
>> >> >> The question is how to check that a person can drive safely without
>> >> >> degrading driving to a government granted privilege dependent upon the
>> >> >> whims of whomever is in power.
>>
>> >> >It isn't at anybody's whim. There are standards in place, you pass 'em
>> >> >you get your license.
>>
>> >> I guess you've missed all the non-driving reasons why the state can
>> >> pull a person's DL. That is where the whim comes in to play. State
>> >> governments seem to be increasing their rather parent like 'well you
>> >> can't drive now' punishments for things as time goes by.
>> >That's not whim. It's still a standard that's applied uniformly after
>> >legislative deliberation. You might not like it (nor do I) but it
>> >isn't whim.
>>
>> It is the whim of the government. That is government excerising its
>> power because it has it to wield.
>
>Absolutely not. It is the result of the legislative process, a
>deliberative process that is answerable to the electorate. There is
>nothing "whimsical" about it. Just calling it "whim" and "exercising
>power" because it has power to wield sounds nice at the libertarian
>party meeting, but it really isn't.
Answerable to the electorate? Since when? The electorate in VA got all
pissed off, their state government gave them a giant 'fuck you'. Here in
C(r)ook county practically everyone has been pissed off. We get a 'fuck
you' from the county board.
Spare me the grade school fairy tales. Government stopped working like
that many years ago. Only in cases where people get really loud and
pissed off and there is like a 95% majority do they even begin to react
and then whatever the people want barely happens with the slimmest of
margins.
>"Whim" would be if you were denied a license despite qualifying
>because the guy behind the counter decides to yank your chain if he
>doesn't like your haircut.
He probably can if he's willing to lie. Government employees are often
the type that enjoy making people's lives miserable because their job
allows them to do so with the power of government behind them. Characters
like Homer Simpson sisters in law didn't come out of nowhere.
>> >After all, the government is us. Get you neighbors to stop
>> >demanding things like losing a license for not paying child support,
>> >and it might go away.
>> Government isn't interested in a message of freedom. Nobody that I know
>> of ever demanded such things, they were pulled from the asses of our
>> rulers as far as I can tell.
>Then you haven't looked that far. There are many competing
>constituencies and lobbies pushing their interests in state
>legislatures all over the land. You have to play if you want your side
>represented. Democracy is participatory.
PAY TO PLAY you mean. This isn't supposed to be a democracy where we
have to set up lobbies to protect individual rights, where we have to be
on guard and playing politics all the time. Trying to keep people in
power that won't take from the people. Not where there is a tyranny of
the majority. It is supposed to be a REPUBLIC where the _individual_ is
protected by the government being LIMITED.
For example, someone shouldn't be able to lobby the government to take my
property and give it to them. But thanks to decades of mis-education that
is no longer the case, it is now considered legitimate practice to lobby
government to take someone else's property and give it to you. (see the
new london decision)
A way a democratic republic fails is when the political process
determines more and more until there is so much corruption so much
misallocation of resources so much mismanagement it simply collaspes.
That's pretty much what you've laid out, that one has to spend his
resources on the political process all the time just to protect himself
from predators who are seeking the ear of legislators.
Nor is it a democracy in the sense of the political process where someone
lobbies oh, lets say for a ban on the automobile and there's a
"compromise" that only teenagers be banned from driving. Later on the
proposal is brought up again and there is another "compromise" and then
another and a nother.... and soon you have something like the smoking
bans and MADD's push towards neoprohibitionism.
>> >Child support and other welfare repayments are the only thing I am
>> >aware of non-driving related that can cost you your license.
>> How about civil asset forfiture instead? That's what the government uses
>> on so many people for giggles...
>>
>> > So you
>> >have any others in mind? Otherwise, it doesn't really seem quite so
>> >out-of-control as you portray it.
>> The most recent reason to lose a DL I read was for getting lost while
>> hiking in NH.
>Yeah, I saw those. I don't like them either. But none of them are
>government "whim."
It was pulled out of some legislature's ass. As far as I am concerned
that is a whim.
|
|
|
| Re: You have the Right to Drive [message #797749 ] |
Wed, 12 March 2008 05:54 |
|
On Mar 11, 10:25 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P)
wrote:
> In article <c579ea32-1c11-4be4-9962-053df7a71... [at] u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, k_fl... [at] lycos.com wrote:
> >On Mar 11, 8:07 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P)
> >wrote:
> >> In article <b091eba3-01ce-4fee-b7ca-1ba66621e... [at] i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, k_fl... [at] lycos.com wrote:
>
> >> >Brent P wrote:
> >> >> >> The question is how to check that a person can drive safely without
> >> >> >> degrading driving to a government granted privilege dependent upon the
> >> >> >> whims of whomever is in power.
>
> >> >> >It isn't at anybody's whim. There are standards in place, you pass 'em
> >> >> >you get your license.
>
> >> >> I guess you've missed all the non-driving reasons why the state can
> >> >> pull a person's DL. That is where the whim comes in to play. State
> >> >> governments seem to be increasing their rather parent like 'well you
> >> >> can't drive now' punishments for things as time goes by.
> >> >That's not whim. It's still a standard that's applied uniformly after
> >> >legislative deliberation. You might not like it (nor do I) but it
> >> >isn't whim.
>
> >> It is the whim of the government. That is government excerising its
> >> power because it has it to wield.
>
> >Absolutely not. It is the result of the legislative process, a
> >deliberative process that is answerable to the electorate. There is
> >nothing "whimsical" about it. Just calling it "whim" and "exercising
> >power" because it has power to wield sounds nice at the libertarian
> >party meeting, but it really isn't.
>
> Answerable to the electorate? Since when?
Every election day, actually. I've not missed an election since my
first one many years ago.
> The electorate in VA got all
> pissed off, their state government gave them a giant 'fuck you'.
I have no idea what you mean by that. It sounds like hyperbole based
on where you sit.
> Here in
> C(r)ook county practically everyone has been pissed off. We get a 'fuck
> you' from the county board.
I regard that as hyperbole. People still have to stand for election.
> Spare me the grade school fairy tales. Government stopped working like
> that many years ago.
That's the fairy tale. It still works that way.
> Only in cases where people get really loud and
> pissed off and there is like a 95% majority do they even begin to react
> and then whatever the people want barely happens with the slimmest of
> margins.
Perhaps you only think you know what the people want. I often see
solid constituencies for measures that pass. I see people in the
Capitol every day advocating their various positions.
> >"Whim" would be if you were denied a license despite qualifying
> >because the guy behind the counter decides to yank your chain if he
> >doesn't like your haircut.
>
> He probably can if he's willing to lie. Government employees are often
> the type that enjoy making people's lives miserable because their job
> allows them to do so with the power of government behind them.
That's more hyperbole, and an overworked stereotype.
> Characters
> like Homer Simpson sisters in law didn't come out of nowhere.
Right. They come from over-exaggeration of stereotypes. I can't
believe you're offering me cartoon characters as evidence.
> >> >After all, the government is us. Get you neighbors to stop
> >> >demanding things like losing a license for not paying child support,
> >> >and it might go away.
> >> Government isn't interested in a message of freedom. Nobody that I know
> >> of ever demanded such things, they were pulled from the asses of our
> >> rulers as far as I can tell.
> >Then you haven't looked that far. There are many competing
> >constituencies and lobbies pushing their interests in state
> >legislatures all over the land. You have to play if you want your side
> >represented. Democracy is participatory.
>
> PAY TO PLAY you mean.
I know what I meant. I mean you have to get in the game. If you sit at
home and piss and moan about the big bad government, you have little
to complain about. It's those who get out and do something who get
something done.
> This isn't supposed to be a democracy where we
> have to set up lobbies to protect individual rights, where we have to be
> on guard and playing politics all the time.
Well, actually yes it is. The Founding Fathers made it that way.
Surely as a libertarian you've heard the quote "Eternal vigilance is
the price of liberty." Now you seem to adviocate abandoning that and
staying to yourself.
> A way a democratic republic fails is when the political process
> determines more and more until there is so much corruption so much
> misallocation of resources so much mismanagement it simply collaspes.
Well, if you're going to have a representative republic form of
democracy, the very thing you decry is in fact absolutely necessary.
Because elected representatives of the people are making the
decisions, the people MUST be involved if they expect the process to
produce outcomes to their liking.
> That's pretty much what you've laid out, that one has to spend his
> resources on the political process all the time just to protect himself
> from predators who are seeking the ear of legislators.
It's not really that burdensome. I know a lot of fine people right now
working on some very contentious issues I am covering who are doing
quite a good job of it (speaking of New London, both cases I am
referring to involve use of eminent domain).
> >> >Child support and other welfare repayments are the only thing I am
> >> >aware of non-driving related that can cost you your license.
> >> How about civil asset forfiture instead? That's what the government uses
> >> on so many people for giggles...
>
> >> > So you
> >> >have any others in mind? Otherwise, it doesn't really seem quite so
> >> >out-of-control as you portray it.
> >> The most recent reason to lose a DL I read was for getting lost while
> >> hiking in NH.
> >Yeah, I saw those. I don't like them either. But none of them are
> >government "whim."
>
> It was pulled out of some legislature's ass. As far as I am concerned
> that is a whim.
Well, I don't regard your premise as anywhere near true, having seen
where things actually originate, so I can't accept your conclusion
either. It's nowhere close to anyone's "whim." In my experience that
just an inaccurate description.
|
|
|
| Re: You have the Right to Drive [message #797753 ] |
Wed, 12 March 2008 06:33 |
|
In article <50405328-8508-4456-a435-705dc5730fd8 [at] e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, k_flynn [at] lycos.com wrote:
>Every election day, actually. I've not missed an election since my
>first one many years ago.
We choose from different people who do the same things. If elections
could actually bring about change they would be illegal. (forget who
said that)
>> The electorate in VA got all
>> pissed off, their state government gave them a giant 'fuck you'.
>I have no idea what you mean by that. It sounds like hyperbole based
>on where you sit.
It's been discussed in this group. The abuser fees.
>> Here in
>> C(r)ook county practically everyone has been pissed off. We get a 'fuck
>> you' from the county board.
>
>I regard that as hyperbole. People still have to stand for election.
HA! Prince Stroger didn't face the primary.
>> Spare me the grade school fairy tales. Government stopped working like
>> that many years ago.
>That's the fairy tale. It still works that way.
Look deeper, strip off the skin.
>> Only in cases where people get really loud and
>> pissed off and there is like a 95% majority do they even begin to react
>> and then whatever the people want barely happens with the slimmest of
>> margins.
>Perhaps you only think you know what the people want. I often see
>solid constituencies for measures that pass. I see people in the
>Capitol every day advocating their various positions.
Those who are well funded and can put money in pockets and have the time
to spend their lives at the legislature and are arguing for things
agreeable to government and the powers that be. Meanwhile most people
have to work for living and aren't concerned about controlling their
neighbors.
Why is it that measures to reduce government never really get anywhere
but measures to expand it do? Think about it.
>> >"Whim" would be if you were denied a license despite qualifying
>> >because the guy behind the counter decides to yank your chain if he
>> >doesn't like your haircut.
>>
>> He probably can if he's willing to lie. Government employees are often
>> the type that enjoy making people's lives miserable because their job
>> allows them to do so with the power of government behind them.
>That's more hyperbole, and an overworked stereotype.
I find it hard to believe you've never encountered one. As for your
repeated hyperbole, the same could be said of your fairy tale and the
senario you created. Don't blame me for your 'guy at the DMV' 'example'.
>> >constituencies and lobbies pushing their interests in state
>> >legislatures all over the land. You have to play if you want your side
>> >represented. Democracy is participatory.
>>
>> PAY TO PLAY you mean.
>I know what I meant. I mean you have to get in the game. If you sit at
>home and piss and moan about the big bad government, you have little
>to complain about. It's those who get out and do something who get
>something done.
So, how should I support myself while I am waging this tilting at
windmills quest down in springfield? How should I do it? Court is held
durring working hours. Are you going to pay me for this effort towards
freedom? Who then? I need to eat, I need to put gas in the car. I need
to have a roof over my head. How should I go about this? And that's the
rub, the people that are willing to pay lobbying efforts are the ones
who will see a return on their investment. Freedom, liberty doesn't
offer that return on investment.
>> This isn't supposed to be a democracy where we
>> have to set up lobbies to protect individual rights, where we have to be
>> on guard and playing politics all the time.
>Well, actually yes it is. The Founding Fathers made it that way.
No they didn't. I suggest you read more.
>Surely as a libertarian you've heard the quote "Eternal vigilance is
>the price of liberty." Now you seem to adviocate abandoning that and
>staying to yourself.
So it is. But everytime someone speaks out to protect there's several
more people like you screaming 'kook'! I don't know why you think
pushing everything through the political process is a benefit to
society. All it does is expand the leach class and their power over you.
When will you be taxed and stolen from enough to stand up, to realize
that the government hasn't been working for the people for decades?
>> A way a democratic republic fails is when the political process
>> determines more and more until there is so much corruption so much
>> misallocation of resources so much mismanagement it simply collaspes.
>Well, if you're going to have a representative republic form of
>democracy, the very thing you decry is in fact absolutely necessary.
>Because elected representatives of the people are making the
>decisions, the people MUST be involved if they expect the process to
>produce outcomes to their liking.
People aren't involved because they found the process to be like tilting
at windmills. Have you ever even written a legislator? Ever?
>> That's pretty much what you've laid out, that one has to spend his
>> resources on the political process all the time just to protect himself
>> from predators who are seeking the ear of legislators.
>It's not really that burdensome. I know a lot of fine people right now
>working on some very contentious issues I am covering who are doing
>quite a good job of it (speaking of New London, both cases I am
>referring to involve use of eminent domain).
It's not burdensome to give up your income to go fight to save what you
already own from others lobbying the government to take it from you? On
the contrary, it should have never come up. We shouldn't need to buy the
protection of the political class. BTW, you do know what the government
did to people who fought in New London, right? (Hint: They got *NOTHING*
for their homes. The government decided to give them the value of their
homes at the begining of the court battle minus *RENT*, some ended up
OWING money to the government and losing their home) Yeah, fighting the
political class isn't burdensome at all... you get huge legal bills, you
can't actually hold a job or run a business while doing it, and
government is vindicitive in the end. No burden at all.
>> >Yeah, I saw those. I don't like them either. But none of them are
>> >government "whim."
>> It was pulled out of some legislature's ass. As far as I am concerned
>> that is a whim.
>Well, I don't regard your premise as anywhere near true, having seen
>where things actually originate, so I can't accept your conclusion
>either. It's nowhere close to anyone's "whim." In my experience that
>just an inaccurate description.
So then it's a conspiracy?
|
|
|
| Re: You have the Right to Drive [message #797764 ] |
Wed, 12 March 2008 15:39 |
|
On Mar 11, 7:33=A0pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P)
wrote:
> In article <48826a5e-d856-40ea-9736-08c1a2f89... [at] 59g2000hsb.googlegroups.c=
om>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> >You are mistaken.
>
> Well then, then you're being rather dishonest.
You didn't even make two sentences before breaking out the logical
fallacy.
Take your pick - ad hominem, or straw man. Maybe a little of both.
E.P.
|
|
|
| Re: You have the Right to Drive [message #797769 ] |
Wed, 12 March 2008 16:33 |
|
On Mar 11, 11:33 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P)
wrote:
> In article <50405328-8508-4456-a435-705dc5730... [at] e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, k_fl... [at] lycos.com wrote:
>
> >Every election day, actually. I've not missed an election since my
> >first one many years ago.
>
> We choose from different people who do the same things. If elections
> could actually bring about change they would be illegal. (forget who
> said that)
Whoever it is merely coined a bumper sticker phrase. You should see
the people running for elections!
> >> The electorate in VA got all
> >> pissed off, their state government gave them a giant 'fuck you'.
> >I have no idea what you mean by that. It sounds like hyperbole based
> >on where you sit.
>
> It's been discussed in this group. The abuser fees.
Still no idea.
> >> Here in
> >> C(r)ook county practically everyone has been pissed off. We get a 'fuck
> >> you' from the county board.
>
> >I regard that as hyperbole. People still have to stand for election.
>
> HA! Prince Stroger didn't face the primary.
You'll have to explain that one too, I'm afraid.
> >> Spare me the grade school fairy tales. Government stopped working like
> >> that many years ago.
> >That's the fairy tale. It still works that way.
>
> Look deeper, strip off the skin.
I'm involved in it. I know what I see.
> >> Only in cases where people get really loud and
> >> pissed off and there is like a 95% majority do they even begin to react
> >> and then whatever the people want barely happens with the slimmest of
> >> margins.
> >Perhaps you only think you know what the people want. I often see
> >solid constituencies for measures that pass. I see people in the
> >Capitol every day advocating their various positions.
>
> Those who are well funded and can put money in pockets and have the time
> to spend their lives at the legislature and are arguing for things
> agreeable to government and the powers that be. Meanwhile most people
> have to work for living and aren't concerned about controlling their
> neighbors.
>
> Why is it that measures to reduce government never really get anywhere
> but measures to expand it do? Think about it.
Because there are people out there demanding it.
> >> >"Whim" would be if you were denied a license despite qualifying
> >> >because the guy behind the counter decides to yank your chain if he
> >> >doesn't like your haircut.
>
> >> He probably can if he's willing to lie. Government employees are often
> >> the type that enjoy making people's lives miserable because their job
> >> allows them to do so with the power of government behind them.
> >That's more hyperbole, and an overworked stereotype.
>
> I find it hard to believe you've never encountered one.
Well, it's true. And I've been around a long time.
> As for your
> repeated hyperbole, the same could be said of your fairy tale and the
> senario you created.
I don't think so. I understand you have to defend your stereotypes but
then the rubber meets the road, it's mostly overstated bullshit.
> >> >constituencies and lobbies pushing their interests in state
> >> >legislatures all over the land. You have to play if you want your side
> >> >represented. Democracy is participatory.
>
> >> PAY TO PLAY you mean.
> >I know what I meant. I mean you have to get in the game. If you sit at
> >home and piss and moan about the big bad government, you have little
> >to complain about. It's those who get out and do something who get
> >something done.
>
> So, how should I support myself while I am waging this tilting at
> windmills quest down in springfield? How should I do it? Court is held
> durring working hours. Are you going to pay me for this effort towards
> freedom? Who then? I need to eat, I need to put gas in the car. I need
> to have a roof over my head. How should I go about this? And that's the
> rub, the people that are willing to pay lobbying efforts are the ones
> who will see a return on their investment. Freedom, liberty doesn't
> offer that return on investment.
You work with the people who agree with your positions and you find
the groups that represent them. There are common citizen lobbyists,
rights lobbyists, public interest lobbyists, driver interest
lobbyists... you work through them. Who do you think they're there for?
Who do you think formed these groups? People like you who got tired of
not acting on their beliefs. They're not all big money and big
business and big labor.
> >> This isn't supposed to be a democracy where we
> >> have to set up lobbies to protect individual rights, where we have to be
> >> on guard and playing politics all the time.
> >Well, actually yes it is. The Founding Fathers made it that way.
>
> No they didn't. I suggest you read more.
I suggest *you* read more!
> >Surely as a libertarian you've heard the quote "Eternal vigilance is
> >the price of liberty." Now you seem to advocate abandoning that and
> >staying to yourself.
>
> So it is. But everytime someone speaks out to protect there's several
> more people like you screaming 'kook'!
Huh? I haven't called you a kook, not even close. I just think you
aren't talking advantage of the tools the system gives you and you're
letting others who are active make the decisions for you... then you're
complaining about it.
> I don't know why you think
> pushing everything through the political process is a benefit to
> society.
That's how it's done in a commonwealth.
> All it does is expand the leach class and their power over you.
If that's who's at the table, that's who gets listened to.
> When will you be taxed and stolen from enough to stand up, to realize
> that the government hasn't been working for the people for decades?
More bumper stickers. The government IS the people.
> >> A way a democratic republic fails is when the political process
> >> determines more and more until there is so much corruption so much
> >> misallocation of resources so much mismanagement it simply collaspes.
> >Well, if you're going to have a representative republic form of
> >democracy, the very thing you decry is in fact absolutely necessary.
> >Because elected representatives of the people are making the
> >decisions, the people MUST be involved if they expect the process to
> >produce outcomes to their liking.
>
> People aren't involved because they found the process to be like tilting
> at windmills. Have you ever even written a legislator? Ever?
Yes. Have you?
> >> That's pretty much what you've laid out, that one has to spend his
> >> resources on the political process all the time just to protect himself
> >> from predators who are seeking the ear of legislators.
> >It's not really that burdensome. I know a lot of fine people right now
> >working on some very contentious issues I am covering who are doing
> >quite a good job of it (speaking of New London, both cases I am
> >referring to involve use of eminent domain).
>
> It's not burdensome to give up your income to go fight to save what you
> already own from others lobbying the government to take it from you? On
> the contrary, it should have never come up.
That's not true. For instance, the power of eminent domain has been a
government authority for many centuries, in common law. It's already
there.
> We shouldn't need to buy the
> protection of the political class. BTW, you do know what the government
> did to people who fought in New London, right? (Hint: They got *NOTHING*
> for their homes. The government decided to give them the value of their
> homes at the begining of the court battle minus *RENT*, some ended up
> OWING money to the government and losing their home) Yeah, fighting the
> political class isn't burdensome at all... you get huge legal bills, you
> can't actually hold a job or run a business while doing it, and
> government is vindicitive in the end. No burden at all.
One case, no matter how awful, doesn't define the system. I know of
owners who made out like bandits in eminent domain takings.
> >> >Yeah, I saw those. I don't like them either. But none of them are
> >> >government "whim."
> >> It was pulled out of some legislature's ass. As far as I am concerned
> >> that is a whim.
> >Well, I don't regard your premise as anywhere near true, having seen
> >where things actually originate, so I can't accept your conclusion
> >either. It's nowhere close to anyone's "whim." In my experience that
> >just an inaccurate description.
>
> So then it's a conspiracy?
<sigh> All of this sounds nice on a blog, but people are really out
there doing things in the real world instead of just sitting at home
complaining about stuff.
|
|
|
| Re: You have the Right to Drive [message #797770 ] |
Wed, 12 March 2008 17:18 |
|
In article <c6a37b15-ed43-4ae3-a2cd-37f79b56fa57 [at] i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, k_flynn [at] lycos.com wrote:
>On Mar 11, 11:33 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P)
>wrote:
>> In article <50405328-8508-4456-a435-705dc5730... [at] e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, k_fl... [at] lycos.com wrote:
>>
>> >Every election day, actually. I've not missed an election since my
>> >first one many years ago.
>>
>> We choose from different people who do the same things. If elections
>> could actually bring about change they would be illegal. (forget who
>> said that)
>
>Whoever it is merely coined a bumper sticker phrase. You should see
>the people running for elections!
I give up. I cannot compete with the TV for creating illusions.
>> HA! Prince Stroger didn't face the primary.
>
>You'll have to explain that one too, I'm afraid.
It's classic politics around here. Old man stroger has a stroke and the
primary is run. In C(r)ook county the dem primary is the election for
most offices. Old man stroger barely wins. basically the cheating of the
machine keeps his nomination. Old man stroger gets worse, he is not seen
or heard from. He drops out. The machine doesn't put the guy who nearly
beat old man stroger on ticket, they put Todd Stroger on the ticket. Of
course since who ever the D's put up is going to win in crook county
wide elections, we got stuck with this guy as county board president.
A similiar process is why you have barack obama running for president
today. Obama is a product of IL's corrupt political system. Once he won
the dem primary the republican dropped out. Then instead of putting up
the second place finisher in the primary the republicans ship in Alan
Keyes and put him up in an apartment in Calumet City (yes, the calumet
city mentioned in the move "The Blues Brothers"). Keyes being a clown,
results in handing the senate seat to Obama. I don't know who has been
guiding Obama upwards, but it just smells bad. .
>> Look deeper, strip off the skin.
>I'm involved in it. I know what I see.
Where is this fairy tale land? Montana?
>> Why is it that measures to reduce government never really get anywhere
>> but measures to expand it do? Think about it.
>Because there are people out there demanding it.
Nobody demanded the new sales tax increase in c(r)ook county except the
board president.
>I don't think so. I understand you have to defend your stereotypes but
>then the rubber meets the road, it's mostly overstated bullshit.
I take it you've not been anywhere with a population anything close to
c(r)ook county IL.
>> So, how should I support myself while I am waging this tilting at
>> windmills quest down in springfield? How should I do it? Court is held
>> durring working hours. Are you going to pay me for this effort towards
>> freedom? Who then? I need to eat, I need to put gas in the car. I need
>> to have a roof over my head. How should I go about this? And that's the
>> rub, the people that are willing to pay lobbying efforts are the ones
>> who will see a return on their investment. Freedom, liberty doesn't
>> offer that return on investment.
>You work with the people who agree with your positions and you find
>the groups that represent them. There are common citizen lobbyists,
>rights lobbyists, public interest lobbyists, driver interest
>lobbyists... you work through them. Who do you think they're there for?
>Who do you think formed these groups? People like you who got tired of
>not acting on their beliefs. They're not all big money and big
>business and big labor.
You mean the people who after two decades of work got the NMSL
repealed... yeah. one victory in the last 34 years. Other than that,
it's just 'compromise' where the loss is a little at a time. Eventually
whatever the leviathan wants it eventually gets. That's the reality.
>> So it is. But everytime someone speaks out to protect there's several
>> more people like you screaming 'kook'!
>Huh? I haven't called you a kook, not even close. I just think you
>aren't talking advantage of the tools the system gives you and you're
>letting others who are active make the decisions for you... then you're
>complaining about it.
Tools the system gives me... lol. You're not familiar with the IL system
are you?
>> I don't know why you think
>> pushing everything through the political process is a benefit to
>> society.
>That's how it's done in a commonwealth.
Here in the people's republic of IL the party of corruption controls
everything.
>> All it does is expand the leach class and their power over you.
>If that's who's at the table, that's who gets listened to.
The office holders are the leach class!
>> When will you be taxed and stolen from enough to stand up, to realize
>> that the government hasn't been working for the people for decades?
>More bumper stickers. The government IS the people.
Have you looked at the legislation the federal government has been
passing in the last few years? I have. I tell people what it is, I quote
it. they tell me I made it up. I've been told I 'made up' the
adminstrative court system. The people, when told what their government
is doing often scream 'kook', insisting that the legislation doesn't
exist. That due process hasn't been stripped, that everything is just
fine. Government is not the people. We are ruled, by rulers. The
majority want this war in Iraq to be over, the rulers tell us to go f
ourselves. The majority doesn't want illegal aliens sucking tax dollars
in aid and getting amnesty, about 49.9% of the rulers tell us to go f
ourselves. The vast majority doesn't want a lot of things that the
government does anyway.
If I believed for a second that the government is the people in the USA,
I would leave the next second. Because that would mean the people are
sick, twisted, evil people.
>> at windmills. Have you ever even written a legislator? Ever?
>
>Yes. Have you?
Many times. Would you like to read the blow off responses? The latest
one from Obama is a kicker. Didn't even address my objections to his
mandated foreign aid bill. The form responses from Durbin are a real
barrel of laughs. C(r)ook county board.... I got responses only from a
couple who wanted to make sure that I knew they voted against Prince
Todd. Tilting at windmills comes to mind...
>> >> That's pretty much what you've laid out, that one has to spend his
>> >> resources on the political process all the time just to protect himself
>> >> from predators who are seeking the ear of legislators.
>> >It's not really that burdensome. I know a lot of fine people right now
>> >working on some very contentious issues I am covering who are doing
>> >quite a good job of it (speaking of New London, both cases I am
>> >referring to involve use of eminent domain).
>>
>> It's not burdensome to give up your income to go fight to save what you
>> already own from others lobbying the government to take it from you? On
>> the contrary, it should have never come up.
>
>That's not true. For instance, the power of eminent domain has been a
>government authority for many centuries, in common law. It's already
>there.
Not true? now you are doing... it. Read up on the new london decision,
that's exactly what it's ruling is. The ruling is that a developer can
go to a local government and lobby that his development is for the
common good and then the local government can agree and then take the
land from the present owner(s) and give it to the developer. As far as
what happened to those who fight... well...
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=458 51
The June 23 Supreme Court ruling in Kelo v. City of New London gave the
town the approval to seize the residents' homes and transfer them to a
private party for development of an office complex. In the highly
controversial decision, the justices ruled 5-4 that the economic
development resulting from the eminent domain action qualified as
"public use" under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.
The city now says that since it won the case, the homeowners actually
have been living on city property since 2000 when it first began
condemnation procedures against them, so they must pay back rent ? to
the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars.
"It's a new definition of chutzpah: Confiscate land and charge back rent
for the years the owners fought confiscation," wrote Jonathan O'Connell
in the Fairfield County Weekly.
Not only is the city demanding rent, but the buyout offers on the table
are based on the market rate as it was in 2000, before most of the
growth in the current real-estate bubble.
<...>
The Kelo case is named after Susette Kelo, who owns a single-family
house in New London with her husband. Kelo was told she would owe around
$57,000 in rent.
"I'd leave here broke," Kelo told the weekly. "I wouldn't have a home or
any money to get one. I could probably get a large-size refrigerator box
and live under the bridge."
<...>
I give up... everything is fine... government is wonderful....
I discovered this article from 1998 today.... read about this wonderful
government and what it does for political purposes.
http://www.post-gazette.com/win/
|
|
|
| Re: You have the Right to Drive [message #797776 ] |
Wed, 12 March 2008 18:38 |
|
Brent P wrote:
> In article <c6a37b15-ed43-4ae3-a2cd-37f79b56fa57 [at] i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, k_flynn [at] lycos.com wrote:
> >On Mar 11, 11:33 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P)
> >wrote:
> >> In article <50405328-8508-4456-a435-705dc5730... [at] e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, k_fl... [at] lycos.com wrote:
> >>
> >> >Every election day, actually. I've not missed an election since my
> >> >first one many years ago.
> >>
> >> We choose from different people who do the same things. If elections
> >> could actually bring about change they would be illegal. (forget who
> >> said that)
> >
> >Whoever it is merely coined a bumper sticker phrase. You should see
> >the people running for elections!
>
> I give up. I cannot compete with the TV for creating illusions.
I don't watch TV; I am not living in an illusory world. The things I
am telling you, I witness and live. ISTM that you're the one not
venturing out and just making bumper sticker statements while stuff is
actually happening.
> >> HA! Prince Stroger didn't face the primary.
> >
> >You'll have to explain that one too, I'm afraid.
>
> It's classic politics around here. Old man stroger has a stroke and the
> primary is run. In C(r)ook county the dem primary is the election for
> most offices. Old man stroger barely wins. basically the cheating of the
> machine keeps his nomination.
Evidence?
> Old man stroger gets worse, he is not seen
> or heard from. He drops out. The machine doesn't put the guy who nearly
> beat old man stroger on ticket, they put Todd Stroger on the ticket.
Why should the vacancy committee put the person who lost on the
ticket? You're assuming this is a case of Miss America, where is for
any reason she cannot fulfill her duties, the one who came in second
steps up. Most voters didn't want the person who came in second, so
the appointment committee is free to pick a replacement. That's how it
works. Your suggestion is fraught with just as many potential
pitfalls... Suppose the second-place guy has the "fix" in but knows he
can't get enough voters to vote for him because he's a crook. He
arranges for the lead guy to step down, then in your scenario
automatically assumed the mantle of leadership merely because he came
in second. That's no good either.
> A similiar process is why you have barack obama running for president
> today. Obama is a product of IL's corrupt political system. Once he won
> the dem primary the republican dropped out.
I think there was a *bit* more to the story than that IIRC!
> Then instead of putting up
> the second place finisher in the primary the republicans ship in Alan
> Keyes and put him up in an apartment in Calumet City (yes, the calumet
> city mentioned in the move "The Blues Brothers").
Very familiar, my wife grew up near Calumet City and she had two
schnauzers named Jake and Elwood. :-)
> >> Look deeper, strip off the skin.
>
> >I'm involved in it. I know what I see.
>
> Where is this fairy tale land? Montana?
Nope. It's not a fairy tale. It's happening everywhere every day. Only
those who play can win. You're like the guy complaining about never
winning the lottery who never buys a ticket.
> >> Why is it that measures to reduce government never really get anywhere
> >> but measures to expand it do? Think about it.
>
> >Because there are people out there demanding it.
>
> Nobody demanded the new sales tax increase in c(r)ook county except the
> board president.
Very doubtful.
> >I don't think so. I understand you have to defend your stereotypes but
> >then the rubber meets the road, it's mostly overstated bullshit.
>
> I take it you've not been anywhere with a population anything close to
> c(r)ook county IL.
Wrong. To me it sounds more like you are just heavily invested in
bumper-sticker type stereotypes and have merely a 35,000-foot view of
the world. On the ground, there are people working to get what they
want, and that's how it's supposed to be. Things don't just
materialize.
> >> So, how should I support myself while I am waging this tilting at
> >> windmills quest down in springfield? How should I do it? Court is held
> >> durring working hours. Are you going to pay me for this effort towards
> >> freedom? Who then? I need to eat, I need to put gas in the car. I need
> >> to have a roof over my head. How should I go about this? And that's the
> >> rub, the people that are willing to pay lobbying efforts are the ones
> >> who will see a return on their investment. Freedom, liberty doesn't
> >> offer that return on investment.
>
> >You work with the people who agree with your positions and you find
> >the groups that represent them. There are common citizen lobbyists,
> >rights lobbyists, public interest lobbyists, driver interest
> >lobbyists... you work through them. Who do you think they're there for?
> >Who do you think formed these groups? People like you who got tired of
> >not acting on their beliefs. They're not all big money and big
> >business and big labor.
>
> You mean the people who after two decades of work got the NMSL
> repealed... yeah. one victory in the last 34 years. Other than that,
> it's just 'compromise' where the loss is a little at a time. Eventually
> whatever the leviathan wants it eventually gets. That's the reality.
Nope. It's everybody working for what they want and sometimes winning
and sometimes losing. Don't' forget there was a strong lobby on the
other side of the NMSL campaign working for *their* interests too who
are just as entitled as you are.
> >> So it is. But everytime someone speaks out to protect there's several
> >> more people like you screaming 'kook'!
>
> >Huh? I haven't called you a kook, not even close. I just think you
> >aren't talking advantage of the tools the system gives you and you're
> >letting others who are active make the decisions for you... then you're
> >complaining about it.
>
> Tools the system gives me... lol. You're not familiar with the IL system
> are you?
So let's hear about what you tried to do?
> >> When will you be taxed and stolen from enough to stand up, to realize
> >> that the government hasn't been working for the people for decades?
>
> >More bumper stickers. The government IS the people.
>
> Have you looked at the legislation the federal government has been
> passing in the last few years? I have. I tell people what it is, I quote
> it. they tell me I made it up. I've been told I 'made up' the
> adminstrative court system.
The administrative courts are hardly anything new. How would stuff get
done without them?
> The people, when told what their government
> is doing often scream 'kook', insisting that the legislation doesn't
> exist. That due process hasn't been stripped, that everything is just
> fine. Government is not the people. We are ruled, by rulers.
Ridiculous, in my experience. Government is the people. You're a bit
over the top with generalities.
> The
> majority want this war in Iraq to be over, the rulers tell us to go f
> ourselves. The majority doesn't want illegal aliens sucking tax dollars
> in aid and getting amnesty, about 49.9% of the rulers tell us to go f
> ourselves. The vast majority doesn't want a lot of things that the
> government does anyway.
So you say. We are a representative democracy, not a direct democracy.
> >> at windmills. Have you ever even written a legislator? Ever?
> >
> >Yes. Have you?
>
> Many times. Would you like to read the blow off responses? The latest
> one from Obama is a kicker. Didn't even address my objections to his
> mandated foreign aid bill. The form responses from Durbin are a real
> barrel of laughs. C(r)ook county board.... I got responses only from a
> couple who wanted to make sure that I knew they voted against Prince
> Todd. Tilting at windmills comes to mind...
Because you don't get what you want does not mean that the system does
not give people what they want. It just means someone who wanted the
opposite of what you want won.
> >> >> That's pretty much what you've laid out, that one has to spend his
> >> >> resources on the political process all the time just to protect himself
> >> >> from predators who are seeking the ear of legislators.
> >> >It's not really that burdensome. I know a lot of fine people right now
> >> >working on some very contentious issues I am covering who are doing
> >> >quite a good job of it (speaking of New London, both cases I am
> >> >referring to involve use of eminent domain).
> >>
> >> It's not burdensome to give up your income to go fight to save what you
> >> already own from others lobbying the government to take it from you? On
> >> the contrary, it should have never come up.
> >
> >That's not true. For instance, the power of eminent domain has been a
> >government authority for many centuries, in common law. It's already
> >there.
>
> Not true? now you are doing... it.
Huh? I think you missed the point I made. You said eminent domain
"never should have come up." In that case, you are arguing about a
well- | |
|
