You have the Right to Drive
proffsl
Brent P
> I agree - you DO have the right to drive. As long as your vehicle
> remains entirely on your own private property, you can drive it as
> much as you want and nobody can stop you, nobody can make you license
> it, nothing.
Scott, you do understand that DL's were not initially about competency on
the road nor are they today. Sure there is the appearance of that which
has been added over the decades, but it's more of an illusion than the TSA
is security. Licensing, like the TSA is about the power of government,
not our safety.
Ed Pirrero
> Licensing, like the TSA is about the power of government,
> not our safety.
Graduated licensing for teenagers is not about power, but directly
about safety. Overall, you may be headed in the right direction with
current standards, but not all drivers' licensing is about gov. power.
E.P.
Paul Hovnanian P.E.
In a perfect world, licensing is about safety. But until teenagers get
the equivalent of the AARP lobbying on their behalf, or the auto
industry pressuring lawmakers to maximize their customer base, its about
gov't officials kissing political contributors' posteriors.
--
Paul Hovnanian pa...@hovnanian.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Procrastinators: The leaders for tomorrow.
Harry K
So turn in your license and refuse to get another one.
Harry K
Ed Pirrero
> Ed Pirrero wrote:
>
> > On Mar 7, 5:21 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
> > > Licensing, like the TSA is about the power of government,
> > > not our safety.
>
> > Graduated licensing for teenagers is not about power, but directly
> > about safety. Overall, you may be headed in the right direction with
> > current standards, but not all drivers' licensing is about gov. power.
>
> In a perfect world, licensing is about safety. But until teenagers get
> the equivalent of the AARP lobbying on their behalf, or the auto
> industry pressuring lawmakers to maximize their customer base, its about
> gov't officials kissing political contributors' posteriors.
Except for the inconvenient fact that teens seem to live longer in
graduated-licensing states.
It really does make some sense. Driving, like a great number of
tasks, gets better with experience. So, you limit the inexperienced
to times of day when they will have the least adverse conditions. And
limit the passengers to limit the carnage. It makes logical sense on
it's face, and it seem to work statistically as well. Now, if teens
*did* have an AARP-alike, the roads would be slightly less safe. If
we could only get rid of AARP to keep some of those older folks off
the roads, we'd be slightly more safe again.
Then, bring on the real testing!
Yeah, I *am* dreaming.
E.P.
Brent P
Graduated licensing of teenagers is more so in line with the power
principle than a safety one if viewed as a parenting issue. Although people
believe its about safety it's passing on the duty of raising of children
to the government. Where the government sets the rules and the child's
limitations and not the parents. Is graduated licensing really any
different than other areas where the government has taken over parental
duties?
Brent P
> It really does make some sense. Driving, like a great number of
> tasks, gets better with experience. So, you limit the inexperienced
> to times of day when they will have the least adverse conditions.
Alternative solution: Start driving years earlier with a parent. By the time
they go out by themselves driving they are already experienced.
The age based prohibitions are really unfair to responsible teenagers
IMO. Of course this is a nation that thinks it's ok for a teenager to die
or get maimed in some foreign war for some old man's quest in global
politics but won't let him drink a beer. So I guess driving is one of the
smaller injustices.
Ed Pirrero
> In article <c2309571-5d34-4b4c-86a4-14127daaf...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> > It really does make some sense. Driving, like a great number of
> > tasks, gets better with experience. So, you limit the inexperienced
> > to times of day when they will have the least adverse conditions.
>
> Alternative solution: Start driving years earlier with a parent. By the time
> they go out by themselves driving they are already experienced.
Except that responsible parents are quite few. As long as we have
some sort of LCD licensing system, then nibbling at the margins is
about the best we can hope for. The enemy really isn't the gov. -
it's all of us, for accepting the system as it stands.
If it were up to me, we'd have a system like the Germans have.
> The age based prohibitions are really unfair to responsible teenagers
> IMO.
No matter WHAT the thing is being restricted, some folks on the
prohibited side of the line get screwed. I started my road-going when
I was 7. On a bicycle. At 10, I was moving tractors and implements
along county roads from field to field. At 14, I was driving dual-
axle no-synchro grain trucks from the fields to the elevators.
Turning 16 and getting my driver's license was nothing at the time -
I'll already been responsible for literally $100k+ of farm equipment
on the highways, and the beater Volvo wagon my dad gave me to get back
and forth was nothing in comparison.
But if I had never driven on the roads before, I could see how there
might have been trouble.
Still, in today's world, in urban areas, I see mostly benefits, and
few downsides, to graduated licensing. Hell, they do it for adults
and motorcycles in this state, so teens and cars is no big deal, IMO.
E.P.
Ed Pirrero
Yes. *My* safety is on the line. And hours of experience is a good
predictor of skill level. Don't let your blind hatred of the gov.
make you miss the benefits here - the public good is at stake.
E.P.
Brent P
I've been hit two teenagers, one guy who was ~20, and my mother was
hit by a teenager who fled the sceen just a couple months ago. If
anyone should be anti-teenage driving it *should* be me. Illinois
has graduated licensing and it hasn't made me feel safer at all.
Government doesn't care about our safety, it cares about itself and
like everything it takes over from the people it does a worse
job of it. There is no reason to suspect that irresponsible parents have
their kids follow these new laws of the state any more they have their kids
follow their rules. So the responsibility is passed on to the government's
police. Do you really think the police bother except when they are on
a fishing expedition or for sport anyway? Sure it might be some extra charges
if they catch the kid speeding or something.
I would also suspect that some boardline parents out of laziness just let
the state set the boundries for their children and police them when such
laws come into effect.
Experience can come many ways and government hasn't chosen an effective
method for that. Instead it has chosen a method that best allows it to insert
itself into the people's business. The idea of teaching kids to drive
starting at 14 seems a lot more effective to me than graduated licensing.
Brent P
>On Mar 7, 1:12 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>> In article <c2309571-5d34-4b4c-86a4-14127daaf...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
>> > It really does make some sense. Driving, like a great number of
>> > tasks, gets better with experience. So, you limit the inexperienced
>> > to times of day when they will have the least adverse conditions.
>>
>> Alternative solution: Start driving years earlier with a parent. By the time
>> they go out by themselves driving they are already experienced.
>
>Except that responsible parents are quite few. As long as we have
>some sort of LCD licensing system, then nibbling at the margins is
>about the best we can hope for. The enemy really isn't the gov. -
>it's all of us, for accepting the system as it stands.
Nibbling at the margins in such a way that it goes after the
politically most vunerable, the teenagers. That is because of the
government and how it functions.
>If it were up to me, we'd have a system like the Germans have.
I would to, except I would allow self-study or at the very least a
free market driving schools. I don't like the built in business for
the driving schools in the German system. People should be free to
gain the competence as they choose within reason.
>> The age based prohibitions are really unfair to responsible teenagers
>> IMO.
>No matter WHAT the thing is being restricted, some folks on the
>prohibited side of the line get screwed.
So long as the measure being used is something like age or political
connections.
> I started my road-going when
>I was 7. On a bicycle. At 10, I was moving tractors and implements
>along county roads from field to field. At 14, I was driving dual-
>axle no-synchro grain trucks from the fields to the elevators.
>Turning 16 and getting my driver's license was nothing at the time -
>I'll already been responsible for literally $100k+ of farm equipment
>on the highways, and the beater Volvo wagon my dad gave me to get back
>and forth was nothing in comparison.
>But if I had never driven on the roads before, I could see how there
>might have been trouble.
And my experience was being placed in a car without much clue what to
do beyond my basic rules of the road knowledge I picked up on my own from
bicycling. Drivers ed consisted of the wrestling coach not telling at all
what to do and when I decide to do something he didn't want (such as taking
the left fork of an expressway split instead of the right), screaming at me
and blood on the highway films.
I didn't feel like I knew enough to drive and took a long ass time
getting into it. I put myself on a graduated system.
>Still, in today's world, in urban areas, I see mostly benefits, and
>few downsides, to graduated licensing. Hell, they do it for adults
>and motorcycles in this state, so teens and cars is no big deal, IMO.
If I had it my way kids would get rules of the road training on bicycles
starting in about the second or third grade. The problem is the sheltering
and the prohibitions, it won't be solved with more sheltering and more
prohibitions.
Ed Pirrero
>
> Experience can come many ways and government hasn't chosen an effective
> method for that.
Stats argue otherwise.
> Instead it has chosen a method that best allows it to insert
> itself into the people's business. The idea of teaching kids to drive
> starting at 14 seems a lot more effective to me than graduated licensing.
That's the same sort of graduated system, just starting at a different
age.
E.P.
Ed Pirrero
> In article <ab421092-baac-4cc2-9d9f-4481a2df1...@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> >On Mar 7, 1:12 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
> >> In article <c2309571-5d34-4b4c-86a4-14127daaf...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> >> > It really does make some sense. Driving, like a great number of
> >> > tasks, gets better with experience. So, you limit the inexperienced
> >> > to times of day when they will have the least adverse conditions.
>
> >> Alternative solution: Start driving years earlier with a parent. By the time
> >> they go out by themselves driving they are already experienced.
>
> >Except that responsible parents are quite few. As long as we have
> >some sort of LCD licensing system, then nibbling at the margins is
> >about the best we can hope for. The enemy really isn't the gov. -
> >it's all of us, for accepting the system as it stands.
>
> Nibbling at the margins in such a way that it goes after the
> politically most vunerable, the teenagers.
I guess it's just a coincidence that they are also the very most
likely to have a collision.
> That is because of the
> government and how it functions.
Your conclusion doesn't follow. The reason it doesn't follow is
because stats show that
1.) Inexperienced drivers are the ones most likely to be in a
collision.
2.) In places that graduated licensing has been implemented, teen
crashes have been reduced.
Would you like to guess what the biggest killer of teens happens to
be?
> >If it were up to me, we'd have a system like the Germans have.
>
> I would to, except I would allow self-study or at the very least a
> free market driving schools. I don't like the built in business for
> the driving schools in the German system. People should be free to
> gain the competence as they choose within reason.
Agreed. You pass the written and the driving, and you get the
license. Doesn't matter where you came by the knowledge.
> >> The age based prohibitions are really unfair to responsible teenagers
> >> IMO.
> >No matter WHAT the thing is being restricted, some folks on the
> >prohibited side of the line get screwed.
>
> So long as the measure being used is something like age or political
> connections.
In this case, age happens to be very nearly correlated to experience.
And since a person may not legally enter into a contract until they
are 18, restrictions on driving under that age isn't discrimination,
per se. No more than truancy laws are infringements upon freedom of
movement.
> And my experience was being placed in a car without much clue what to
> do beyond my basic rules of the road knowledge I picked up on my own from
> bicycling. Drivers ed consisted of the wrestling coach not telling at all
> what to do and when I decide to do something he didn't want (such as taking
> the left fork of an expressway split instead of the right), screaming at me
> and blood on the highway films.
So, already, under the current scheme, I would have been screwed, with
all my driving experience, while you would have been allowed to get
your experience in a manner which would have allowed that under the
best range of conditions.
Doesn't change my viewpoint in the least.
> If I had it my way kids would get rules of the road training on bicycles
> starting in about the second or third grade. The problem is the sheltering
> and the prohibitions, it won't be solved with more sheltering and more
> prohibitions.
I don't know what you mean. Once folks become legal adults, the
graduated scheme is no longer in play.
E.P.
Nate Nagel
Right, makes more sense to get young drivers up to speed, so to speak,
before they find that they *need* to drive to function in society,
rather than making them wait until they're out on their own.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
Brent P
>On Mar 7, 4:15 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>
>> Experience can come many ways and government hasn't chosen an effective
>> method for that.
>
>Stats argue otherwise.
Reduce teen driving reduce teen collisions. Reduce driving because of a
lack of gasoline and the 55mph speed limit looks like it saved lives
too.
>> Instead it has chosen a method that best allows it to insert
>> itself into the people's business. The idea of teaching kids to drive
>> starting at 14 seems a lot more effective to me than graduated licensing.
>That's the same sort of graduated system, just starting at a different
>age.
Everyone learns at some rate, that's a given with *any* system. I just
favor systems that allow for more independence and more freedom over
ones that keep one more controled for longer.
Brent P
>> Nibbling at the margins in such a way that it goes after the
>> politically most vunerable, the teenagers.
>I guess it's just a coincidence that they are also the very most
>likely to have a collision.
Didn't say otherwise. I argue it isn't a function of age.
>> That is because of the
>> government and how it functions.
>Your conclusion doesn't follow. The reason it doesn't follow is
>because stats show that
>1.) Inexperienced drivers are the ones most likely to be in a
>collision.
Which matters not if they are 12 or 22. Where's the graduated licensing
for the immigrant who comes to this contry never having driven before at
age 25?
>2.) In places that graduated licensing has been implemented, teen
>crashes have been reduced.
Not per mile driven I'll wager.
>Would you like to guess what the biggest killer of teens happens to
>be?
They are bit young for heart disease and cancer to get them, a bit too
old for infant mortality. It's going to be the biggest killer because
its the most common activity that can have fatal accidents in the group.
>> >No matter WHAT the thing is being restricted, some folks on the
>> >prohibited side of the line get screwed.
>> So long as the measure being used is something like age or political
>> connections.
>In this case, age happens to be very nearly correlated to experience.
Of course it is, the government *MADATES* that it is. Let's say the
government made a law that says children under the age of 15 can't touch
a computer. Do you think that will make teens more or less experienced
with a computer at age 16?
>And since a person may not legally enter into a contract until they
>are 18, restrictions on driving under that age isn't discrimination,
>per se. No more than truancy laws are infringements upon freedom of
>movement.
So you are using an age restriction to validate an age restriction.
And truancy laws? Forced attendence in school is another can of worms
you probably don't want opened. Rather than hear you whine about OT,
I'll let it go if you give up on it.
>> And my experience was being placed in a car without much clue what to
>> do beyond my basic rules of the road knowledge I picked up on my own from
>> bicycling. Drivers ed consisted of the wrestling coach not telling at all
>> what to do and when I decide to do something he didn't want (such as taking
>> the left fork of an expressway split instead of the right), screaming at me
>> and blood on the highway films.
>So, already, under the current scheme, I would have been screwed, with
>all my driving experience, while you would have been allowed to get
>your experience in a manner which would have allowed that under the
>best range of conditions.
Best conditions? I self imposed the 'best conditions' on myself, that
doesn't mean its best for everyone or it should be government mandated.
>> If I had it my way kids would get rules of the road training on bicycles
>> starting in about the second or third grade. The problem is the sheltering
>> and the prohibitions, it won't be solved with more sheltering and more
>> prohibitions.
>I don't know what you mean. Once folks become legal adults, the
>graduated scheme is no longer in play.
Inexperience behind the wheel is inexperience behind the wheel at 16 or
18. If the issue is developing responsibility, delaying it further and
further out doesn't help anything. It just pushes it out further in age,
greater dependency. If the problem is that 16 year olds are
inexperienced behind the wheel technically and haven't developed a
sense of responsibility to a certain degree, the better fix is to start
the learning process earlier, not delay it further.
Ed Pirrero
> In article <eb01342b-0641-4cc3-8678-39eebbdcf...@n36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> >On Mar 7, 4:15 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>
> >> Experience can come many ways and government hasn't chosen an effective
> >> method for that.
>
> >Stats argue otherwise.
>
> Reduce teen driving reduce teen collisions.
Comparing raw numbers against rates is kinda cooking the books, don't
you think?
> >> Instead it has chosen a method that best allows it to insert
> >> itself into the people's business. The idea of teaching kids to drive
> >> starting at 14 seems a lot more effective to me than graduated licensing.
> >That's the same sort of graduated system, just starting at a different
> >age.
>
> Everyone learns at some rate, that's a given with *any* system. I just
> favor systems that allow for more independence and more freedom over
> ones that keep one more controled for longer.
You're the one advocating the longer system (start at 14.) Either
system ends @ 18. I'm still not getting what your objection is - the
current graduated systems seem fairly flexible, from what I have seen.
E.P.
Brent P
>On Mar 7, 5:42 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>> In article <eb01342b-0641-4cc3-8678-39eebbdcf...@n36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
>> >On Mar 7, 4:15 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>
>> >> Experience can come many ways and government hasn't chosen an effective
>> >> method for that.
>>
>> >Stats argue otherwise.
>>
>> Reduce teen driving reduce teen collisions.
>
>Comparing raw numbers against rates is kinda cooking the books, don't
>you think?
I've made no such comparison. However the comparison is always per year
for such things, all one needs to do to show a benefit is reduce the
exposure. Less teen driving achieves the goal as it is measured.
>> >> Instead it has chosen a method that best allows it to insert
>> >> itself into the people's business. The idea of teaching kids to drive
>> >> starting at 14 seems a lot more effective to me than graduated licensing.
>> >That's the same sort of graduated system, just starting at a different
>> >age.
>>
>> Everyone learns at some rate, that's a given with *any* system. I just
>> favor systems that allow for more independence and more freedom over
>> ones that keep one more controled for longer.
>You're the one advocating the longer system (start at 14.) Either
>system ends @ 18. I'm still not getting what your objection is - the
>current graduated systems seem fairly flexible, from what I have seen.
I didn't say it would end at 18 nor did I say it would be a graduated
license. I said the learning process should begin earlier and that way
by the time they are 16 there's no need for these restrictive measures.
I don't expect the graduated system to stay forever ending at 18 or
remain as flexible as it is. The genie is out of the bottle.
proffsl
Very well, and accurately, stated Brent.
And, given that virtually everybody will admit that government will go
to almost any extent to obtain more power for itself, I fail to
understand why they close their eyes so tightly against this prime
example which go so deeply into our everyday's lives. In fact, I see
driver licensing as being the "axis of corruption" in our government.
Scott's responce above was little more than a knee jerk reaction,
principally taught to him by government propaganda.
proffsl
I am sure you feel as if you have exercised an authoritative power
beyond what you are normally use to in this police state government we
live our restricted lives in, just as I am sure that doing so gives
you a false sense of achievement beyond what you are normally use to,
but I am not here to take directives.
I am here to debate the validity of my claims.
proffsl
Irresponsible people create irresponsible laws that create
irresponsible parents who create irresponsible children. Laws that
presume to do the parent's job are irresponsible by producing parents
who believe they don't have to do their job. Driver licensing laws
make the parents believe the state is doing their job of determining
of their child is mature enough to be allowed to drive, so the parents
surrender that decision to the state, often to their own demise.
Same thing applies to alcohol sales. In truth, I believe a 10 year old
should be able to walk into a liquor store and purchase alcohol. BUT,
before any of you fly off at the handle, in saying that, I AM NOT
saying that I believe 10 year olds should be consuming alcohol.
It is not the obligation or the duty of the alcohol dealer to do a
parent's job, yet the underage alcohol sales laws presume to move that
responsibility over to the alcohol dealers instead of the parents. It
is this shifting of responsibility that makes those laws
irresponsible, and that produces irresponsible parents and then
irresponsible children. The parents believe their responsibility is
covered by the laws, and consequently do not take an active part in
those aspects of their children's lives.
As a parent, if you have a child you can not trust in society, then
who do you think you are to impose that child upon that society and
expect it to do your job for you? No. If you have a child you can
not trust in society, then do not release that child upon society.
And, as a parent, you should expect to be held entirely responsible
for the things you child does in society.
Same thing goes with driving. If you have a child you can not trust
driving, then do not release that child upon society. If you do, you
should expect to be held entirely responsible for their actions behind
the wheel of a car.
Driving today has become a passage of liberty, which is at first
completely denied, and then suddenly thrust upon a child at some age
(usually 16). If driving was more gradually introduced to children,
they would have a better chance of becoming responsible drivers. Many
children today have never been behind the wheel of a car until the day
they are released upon the highways.
In this respect, Driver Licensing actually creates the problem with
younger drivers.
> > If I had it my way kids would get rules of the road training on bicycles
> > starting in about the second or third grade. The problem is the sheltering
> > and the prohibitions, it won't be solved with more sheltering and more
> > prohibitions.
>
> I don't know what you mean.
I think he means exactly what I discussed above.
proffsl
> In article <311e7928-e4c6-454d-bcb5-ac198c90e...@m34g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> >Would you like to guess what the biggest killer of teens happens to
> >be?
>
> They are bit young for heart disease and cancer to get them, a bit too
> old for infant mortality. It's going to be the biggest killer because
> its the most common activity that can have fatal accidents in the group.
Very good point! Depending on how their compiled and presented,
statistics can be very misleading, and often deliberately manipulated
to produce any desired impression. Not to completely invalidate all
statistics, but more often than not, their nothing more than garbage
numbers.
> >> >No matter WHAT the thing is being restricted, some folks on the
> >> >prohibited side of the line get screwed.
> >> So long as the measure being used is something like age or political
> >> connections.
> >In this case, age happens to be very nearly correlated to experience.
>
> Of course it is, the government *MADATES* that it is. Let's say the
> government made a law that says children under the age of 15 can't touch
> a computer. Do you think that will make teens more or less experienced
> with a computer at age 16?
I like the way you think Brent. Or, maybe I just like the fact that
you DO think.
And, as I said in a prior post, it is Driver Licensing which creates
the very condition which is turned around and used as the leading
excuse for Driver Licensing. And, once the Driver Licensing bamboozle
has been accepted, you'll notice that nobody speaks of eliminating
their need once a person has demonstrated that they are in fact
responsible drivers.
> >> If I had it my way kids would get rules of the road training on bicycles
> >> starting in about the second or third grade. The problem is the sheltering
> >> and the prohibitions, it won't be solved with more sheltering and more
> >> prohibitions.
> >I don't know what you mean. Once folks become legal adults, the
> >graduated scheme is no longer in play.
>
> Inexperience behind the wheel is inexperience behind the wheel at 16 or
> 18. If the issue is developing responsibility, delaying it further and
> further out doesn't help anything. It just pushes it out further in age,
> greater dependency. If the problem is that 16 year olds are
> inexperienced behind the wheel technically and haven't developed a
> sense of responsibility to a certain degree, the better fix is to start
> the learning process earlier, not delay it further.
Exactly! Exactly!
Harry K
Uhuh. Translated: "I don't have the balls to put my money where my
mouth is"
Harry K
webs...@cox.net
> Is graduated licensing really any
> different than other areas where the government has taken over parental
> duties?
It's not parental replacement. It's sorta common sense.
If you work to get a pilot's license, you fly with an instructor.
When he believes you are capable and safe, he signs you off to solo.
Then he monitors all your flights and sets restrictions he is
comfortable with. Eventually, if you don't run out of money, you fly
enough to convince an examiner that you won't kill yourself too
quickly. Only then do you get a pilot's certificate. Until you have
that certificate, you can't have ANY passengers; there's no one to
show off to.
Teens in groups don't pay that much attention to the driving. They
are easily challenged do to stupid things (especially the guys). Let
them get some experience alone before they have friends and nighttime
privileges.
gpsman
>
> Irresponsible people create irresponsible laws that create
> irresponsible parents who create irresponsible children. Laws that
> presume to do the parent's job are irresponsible by producing parents
> who believe they don't have to do their job. Driver licensing laws
> make the parents believe the state is doing their job of determining
> of their child is mature enough to be allowed to drive, so the parents
> surrender that decision to the state, often to their own demise.
That's about the dumbest shit ever posted to Usenet, but I'm willing
to concede it might be true in your case.
Stupid, lazy, irresponsible parents often raise stupid, lazy,
irresponsible kids, by example, and that isn't the responsibility of
the state.
-----
- gpsman
Brent P
>On Mar 7, 2:06 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>> Is graduated licensing really any
>> different than other areas where the government has taken over parental
>> duties?
>
>It's not parental replacement. It's sorta common sense.
No, it's the government taking over more control.
>If you work to get a pilot's license, you fly with an instructor.
>When he believes you are capable and safe, he signs you off to solo.
>Then he monitors all your flights and sets restrictions he is
>comfortable with. Eventually, if you don't run out of money, you fly
>enough to convince an examiner that you won't kill yourself too
>quickly. Only then do you get a pilot's certificate. Until you have
>that certificate, you can't have ANY passengers; there's no one to
>show off to.
Except in driving the government has replaced the instructor with a time
table. It doesn't matter if they've learned a damned thing, its all
based on age. To take your flying example further, you could fail to
show any competence in flying but since you aged enough you'd be passed
to the next step.
In your flying example the instructor knows the student very well, it is
a decentralized process. In driving, the parents are supposed to know
the teenager well. Far better than the government can ever know. The
parents make a decentralized decison based on the actual abilities,
temperment, responsibility, etc of their kid. The government can never
do that anywhere close to as well.
>Teens in groups don't pay that much attention to the driving. They
>are easily challenged do to stupid things (especially the guys). Let
>them get some experience alone before they have friends and nighttime
>privileges.
Nice group think there. Not every teen is that way. Of course if you
treat people like children for longer and longer it's not surprising to
see childish behavior at older and older ages.
Nate Nagel
> On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 23:32:44 -0600, tetraethylle...@yahoo.com
> (Brent P) wrote:
>
>
>>In article <10fd327c-9608-4af0...@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, webs...@cox.net wrote:
>>
>>>On Mar 7, 2:06 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>
>>>>Is graduated licensing really any
>>>>different than other areas where the government has taken over parental
>>>>duties?
>>>
>>>It's not parental replacement. It's sorta common sense.
>>
>>No, it's the government taking over more control.
>>
>>
>>>If you work to get a pilot's license, you fly with an instructor.
>>>When he believes you are capable and safe, he signs you off to solo.
>>>Then he monitors all your flights and sets restrictions he is
>>>comfortable with. Eventually, if you don't run out of money, you fly
>>>enough to convince an examiner that you won't kill yourself too
>>>quickly. Only then do you get a pilot's certificate. Until you have
>>>that certificate, you can't have ANY passengers; there's no one to
>>>show off to.
>>
>>Except in driving the government has replaced the instructor with a time
>>table. It doesn't matter if they've learned a damned thing, its all
>>based on age. To take your flying example further, you could fail to
>>show any competence in flying but since you aged enough you'd be passed
>>to the next step.
>
>
>
>
>>>Teens in groups don't pay that much attention to the driving. They
>>>are easily challenged do to stupid things (especially the guys). Let
>>>them get some experience alone before they have friends and nighttime
>>>privileges.
>>
>>Nice group think there. Not every teen is that way.
>
>
I that ever happens to me, I'll give them the chance to prove they're
responsible before assuming they're irresponsible.
I think that the worst thing you can possibly do to kids is to tell them
"oh, you're not old/mature enough to do that" based on nothing other
than age alone. I was helping my dad to electrical and plumbing work at
an early age, and helping my grandfather repair guns and reload both
rifle and shotgun cartridges. I imagine that that is a large part of
the reason that I'm not afraid to tackle many projects that most people
would call in a professional to do. If you treat your kids like
precious little snowflakes, they'll remain snowflakes their entire lives.
The trick, of course, is to make sure that they are aware of the
consequences if they make a mistake, and how to avoid common mistakes.
This is especially important with both firearms and driving (although
electrical, plumbing, gas, auto repair, etc. all have their own
consequences as well...) My point is if you let the conseqences petrify
you with fear, you won't ever be able to do anything. Just mitigate the
consequences up front, use proper precautions, and keep on rollin'
Now if you'll excuse me, I have a basement to finish rewiring, and a
bumper to straighten on the Ugly Truck (yeah, sometimes my DIY
prejudices create more work for me... but at least I'm not spending
lots of money on anything but tools, and good tools are forever!)
Nate Nagel
> enough not to stick their fingers into the wall sockets before you
> plug in any of those little plastic protectors? Will you also give
> them the benefit of the doubt before locking up the drain cleaner?
>
> Bad analogy, you say?
Yes.
> Teenagers are more aware than toddlers, and never do stupid, risky
> things? They aren't susceptible to peer pressure and raging hormones?
>
We all know how well abstinence-based sex ed programs have worked.
Better to clearly explain the possible courses of action and
consequences and say "if you really *MUST* (drive, pork that hot chick,
wire the garage for 240 for that sexy new plasma cutter, whatever) then
this is what you must to to minimize your risk." That at least gives
them a fighting chance of coming out OK even if they don't do 100% of
what you'd want them to do. If you just say "don't (do X)" they won't
understand why not, and go ahead and do it anyway when you're not looking.
> OK - you're the Dad! :)
Dear God I hope not :)
Brent P
>>Except in driving the government has replaced the instructor with a time
>>table. It doesn't matter if they've learned a damned thing, its all
>>based on age. To take your flying example further, you could fail to
>>show any competence in flying but since you aged enough you'd be passed
>>to the next step.
>Sounds like the "Social Promotion" we have in public schools.
Yes, it is much like the government schools.
>>>Teens in groups don't pay that much attention to the driving. They
>>>are easily challenged do to stupid things (especially the guys). Let
>>>them get some experience alone before they have friends and nighttime
>>>privileges.
>>
>>Nice group think there. Not every teen is that way.
>
>I can't WAIT for you to have teenaged kids, Brent. :)
What is that supposed to mean? People raised kids without government
guidelines for centuries.
k_f...@lycos.com
> On Mar 7, 1:01 pm, Harry K <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 6, 11:01 am, proffsl <prof...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > > Read about it at:
>
>
> > > and
>
> > >http://proffsl.110mb.com/I_Am_Always_Wrong.php
>
> > So turn in your license and refuse to get another one.
> I am here to debate the validity of my claims.
They have no validity; you lost those claims in three previous
identical threads over the last two years. All of your citations
contradicted you. You only have the right to drive with a license.
Ed Pirrero
> In article <311e7928-e4c6-454d-bcb5-ac198c90e...@m34g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> >> Nibbling at the margins in such a way that it goes after the
> >> politically most vunerable, the teenagers.
> >I guess it's just a coincidence that they are also the very most
> >likely to have a collision.
>
> Didn't say otherwise. I argue it isn't a function of age.
That's pretty nitpicky, even for you.
Sixteen is the minimum age for a DL, and not much experience accrues
before that, so *in reality* the lack of experience is a function of
age, *for the overwhelming majority of drivers*.
> >> That is because of the
> >> government and how it functions.
> >Your conclusion doesn't follow. The reason it doesn't follow is
> >because stats show that
> >1.) Inexperienced drivers are the ones most likely to be in a
> >collision.
>
> Which matters not if they are 12 or 22. Where's the graduated licensing
> for the immigrant who comes to this contry never having driven before at
> age 25?
Brain development comes mind. Look up the age of maturation of the
prefrontal cortex, and that region of the brain's function. Apply to
the skill of driving.
In this case, age makes a big difference.
> >2.) In places that graduated licensing has been implemented, teen
> >crashes have been reduced.
>
> Not per mile driven I'll wager.
That's the way I've seen it.
> >Would you like to guess what the biggest killer of teens happens to
> >be?
>
> They are bit young for heart disease and cancer to get them, a bit too
> old for infant mortality. It's going to be the biggest killer because
> its the most common activity that can have fatal accidents in the group.
And yet, in the early 20s, the death rate goes way down.
Strange.
> >> >No matter WHAT the thing is being restricted, some folks on the
> >> >prohibited side of the line get screwed.
> >> So long as the measure being used is something like age or political
> >> connections.
> >In this case, age happens to be very nearly correlated to experience.
>
> Of course it is, the government *MADATES* that it is. Let's say the
> government made a law that says children under the age of 15 can't touch
> a computer. Do you think that will make teens more or less experienced
> with a computer at age 16?
When computers come self-propelled and weighing two tons, maybe your
analogy would be apt.
> >And since a person may not legally enter into a contract until they
> >are 18, restrictions on driving under that age isn't discrimination,
> >per se. No more than truancy laws are infringements upon freedom of
> >movement.
>
> So you are using an age restriction to validate an age restriction.
You have made a very good point. Circular reasoning is never
persuasive.
So, with having been said, you claim that this is a government control
issue. I invite you to prove it with facts. Avoid circular
reasoning.
I seriously doubt you'll be able to even offer innuendo, much less
hard cites.
There are age restrictions on such things as eligibility to be POTUS,
age of consent, and minimum age for entering into contracts. Nobody
is pretending that one size fits all here, but surely some of these
age limitations exist for some reason other than government control.
E.P.
Ed Pirrero
wrote:
>
>
> I don't expect the graduated system to stay forever ending at 18 or
> remain as flexible as it is. The genie is out of the bottle.
Logical fallacy - slippery slope.
E.P.
Ed Pirrero
>
> Same thing applies to alcohol sales. In truth, I believe a 10 year old
> should be able to walk into a liquor store and purchase alcohol. BUT,
> before any of you fly off at the handle, in saying that, I AM NOT
> saying that I believe 10 year olds should be consuming alcohol.
Should 10-year-olds be driving?
E.P.
webs...@cox.net
wrote:
>
>
> No, it's the government taking over more control.
The government DOES control auto driver licensing. It's not taking
more, it's just changing the rules a bit.
> Except in driving the government has replaced the instructor with a time
> table. It doesn't matter if they've learned a damned thing, its all
> based on age. To take your flying example further, you could fail to
> show any competence in flying but since you aged enough you'd be passed
> to the next step.
You miswrote, or I am misinterpreting.
In flying, you MUST show competence at EVERY step, regardless of age
(You can solo a glider at 14, pilot's licenses require age 16, IIRC).
Other than that, age has nothing to do with it.
And you have to be a much better pilot to get a pilot's license than
you do car driver to get a driver's license!!!!!
> In driving, the parents are supposed to know
> the teenager well. Far better than the government can ever know. The
> parents make a decentralized decison based on the actual abilities,
> temperment, responsibility, etc of their kid. The government can never
> do that anywhere close to as well.
Yeah. Snort. Way too many parents think their kids are angels. They
buy the little brat a muscle car and turn him/her loose upon the
population. When they are with Mom and Pop, they behave. Turned
loose, they may not. And when with their not-so-angelic friends, they
tend to bend to peer pressure because it's incredibly strong. Once
they've passed the driver test, the government doesn't know a thing,
until they get to scrape the kids off the pavement.
> >Teens in groups don't pay that much attention to the driving. They
> >are easily challenged do to stupid things (especially the guys). Let
> >them get some experience alone before they have friends and nighttime
> >privileges.
>
> Nice group think there. Not every teen is that way. Of course if you
> treat people like children for longer and longer it's not surprising to
> see childish behavior at older and older ages.
You are right in both cases.
But time and again, we learn that overall kids survive longer if they
are in the car withOUT their friends for a while. Even if their
friends aren't encouraging them to do stupid stuff, a car load of pals
is extremely distracting. This is at a time when their skills are not
automatic enough for them to get away with it.
They can learn to handle situations better if it ISN'T night.
webs...@cox.net
> >>Nice group think there. Not every teen is that way.
>
> > I can't WAIT for you to have teenaged kids, Brent. :)
>
> I that ever happens to me, I'll give them the chance to prove they're
> responsible before assuming they're irresponsible.
I had to laugh at that one.
As a kid, I was the dependable, well-behaved, slightly nerdish, don't-
break-the-rules kinda guy.
Stop that laughing--I'm serious here!
Anyway, I also did a few dumb things with my car. Not many, but a
few. And MOST of the time it was my friends who talked me into
something. Or, now that I'm a lot older, I say that I allowed myself
to follow my friends instead of my own better instincts.
I got away with it, and no one got hurt.
With a bit more time, I might have told those guys No, instead of
going along.
When I was alone, I wasn't distracted by the wild conversations, or
arguing with them to not smoke in MY car. (I parked it on the highway
miles from home, and told them to walk. It was MY car, dammit. They
put out the cigs. Win one for me.)
> I think that the worst thing you can possibly do to kids is to tell them
> "oh, you're not old/mature enough to do that" based on nothing other
> than age alone.
No. The worst thing you can do is turn them loose when they are not.
There are better ways to set the standards than using a put-down.
>I was helping my dad to electrical and plumbing work at
> an early age, and helping my grandfather repair guns and reload both
> rifle and shotgun cartridges. I imagine that that is a large part of
> the reason that I'm not afraid to tackle many projects that most people
> would call in a professional to do. If you treat your kids like
> precious little snowflakes, they'll remain snowflakes their entire lives.
You were WITH YOUR DAD! He didn't turn you lose on customer's pipes
with only a couple solder joints under your belt.
I'm sure he ensured that you knew what you were doing WHILE HE WAS
WITH YOU before he gave you the gun and shells, too.
It's one thing to be safe with a gun in a repair shop, although I'm
sure there's dangers lurking there.
But in the field, it's much worse. Dad needs to observe, and make
sure you don't get careless and let the gun point at someone.
It's even harder to teach you to tell your friends to get lost when
they want you to do something you wouldn't dream of if you were alone.
I know because I've been there. It's the peer pressure and the
excitement.
> The trick, of course, is to make sure that they are aware of the
> consequences if they make a mistake, and how to avoid common mistakes.
In either case, you could end up dead. Problem is, as we all know,
teenagers think they are invincible.
They find out otherwise.
Brent P
>On Mar 7, 7:03 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>> In article <311e7928-e4c6-454d-bcb5-ac198c90e...@m34g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
>> >> Nibbling at the margins in such a way that it goes after the
>> >> politically most vunerable, the teenagers.
>> >I guess it's just a coincidence that they are also the very most
>> >likely to have a collision.
>>
>> Didn't say otherwise. I argue it isn't a function of age.
>That's pretty nitpicky, even for you.
My whole argument is that government age table doesn't replace parental
responsibility.
>Sixteen is the minimum age for a DL, and not much experience accrues
>before that, so *in reality* the lack of experience is a function of
>age, *for the overwhelming majority of drivers*.
16 was the age decided upon by government. So you have inexperienced
drivers at 16 because that's the age the government says is 'start' more
or less. Setting the ages back some only pushes the inexperience out
further.
>> >> That is because of the
>> >> government and how it functions.
>> >Your conclusion doesn't follow. The reason it doesn't follow is
>> >because stats show that
>> >1.) Inexperienced drivers are the ones most likely to be in a
>> >collision.
>> Which matters not if they are 12 or 22. Where's the graduated licensing
>> for the immigrant who comes to this contry never having driven before at
>> age 25?
>Brain development comes mind. Look up the age of maturation of the
>prefrontal cortex, and that region of the brain's function. Apply to
>the skill of driving.
>In this case, age makes a big difference.
And yet you, having had proper parental instruction were quite able to
handle driving at 16 as a non-event having started many years before.
>> >2.) In places that graduated licensing has been implemented, teen
>> >crashes have been reduced.
>>
>> Not per mile driven I'll wager.
>
>That's the way I've seen it.
I'd wonder how that was collected....
>> >Would you like to guess what the biggest killer of teens happens to
>> >be?
>>
>> They are bit young for heart disease and cancer to get them, a bit too
>> old for infant mortality. It's going to be the biggest killer because
>> its the most common activity that can have fatal accidents in the group.
>And yet, in the early 20s, the death rate goes way down.
>Strange.
Now you switch measures... cute. I'll wager the biggest killer of people
in their 20s is also car wrecks.
>> >> >No matter WHAT the thing is being restricted, some folks on the
>> >> >prohibited side of the line get screwed.
>> >> So long as the measure being used is something like age or political
>> >> connections.
>> >In this case, age happens to be very nearly correlated to experience.
>>
>> Of course it is, the government *MADATES* that it is. Let's say the
>> government made a law that says children under the age of 15 can't touch
>> a computer. Do you think that will make teens more or less experienced
>> with a computer at age 16?
>When computers come self-propelled and weighing two tons, maybe your
>analogy would be apt.
*sigh* then you missed the point. It's the government prohibition that's
the issue. Instead of being eased into driving over time, they are
dumped right in the deep end of the pool at 16. Same with the drinking
prohibition. At 21, right into the deep end of the pool. Prohibition to
full personal responsibility at an arbitary age instead of being eased
into it over a period of years as a child is with just about everything
else in life. It would be like keeping a kid from crawling or standing
until walking age and then 'bam' expecting him to walk.
>> >And since a person may not legally enter into a contract until they
>> >are 18, restrictions on driving under that age isn't discrimination,
>> >per se. No more than truancy laws are infringements upon freedom of
>> >movement.
>> So you are using an age restriction to validate an age restriction.
>You have made a very good point. Circular reasoning is never
>persuasive.
>
>So, with having been said, you claim that this is a government control
>issue. I invite you to prove it with facts. Avoid circular
>reasoning.
As you have by your own personal story, experience behind the wheel is
not related to age other than the decision by government to say you
start at 15.5 or so and get a license at 16. Now the government decides
that those between 16 and 18 should have all sorts of further
restrictions because they are immature and inexperienced. The government
from far away has just decided to replace parenting and training with an
age table to be enforced by the police forces. I don't see how that
isn't a government control issue by definition. Instead of parents
making informed choices about when to give their kids keys to the
vehicles we have the government involved in it, actually taking it over
to a large degree. Now we rely on the government to be responsible for
when and where and with who teenagers drive with. Government deciding
for all what is best and punishing the kids who don't obey.
My mustang was smashed by a 16 year old with a freshly minted license
who took his sibling's car out without permission. The insurance on the
car had lasped because the sibling was in the military. His parents paid
for the damage to my car. I trust the parents did far more to correct
his behavior than the government could EVER hope for.
My maverick was smashed by a 17 year old who crossed the center line.
This kid didn't care. His mother didn't care. The government didn't care
about correcting the kid's behavior. The judge only asked if insurance
was covering the damages. Since the kid was insured that was the end of
it.
BTW, both were under conditions that were permissible in graduated
licensing. One was in daylight, the other was in late afternoon and the
passenger was a sibling.
Government isn't going to change anything in either case, of
irresponsible parents or responsible ones. Although I think it can make
borderline ones worse by 'taking over' for them.
>I seriously doubt you'll be able to even offer innuendo, much less
>hard cites.
Ahh yes, the call for cites. I always have to have cites while others
need none. I provide the cites and then they are disregarded. Blah. Same
old game.
>There are age restrictions on such things as eligibility to be POTUS,
>age of consent, and minimum age for entering into contracts. Nobody
>is pretending that one size fits all here, but surely some of these
>age limitations exist for some reason other than government control.
nice strawman there, implying I argued something about all age
restrictions. Do I really need to explain the differences of those to
you?
Brent P
Because it 'never' happens.... lol.
Brent P
>On Mar 8, 10:32 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P)
>wrote:
>>
>>
>> No, it's the government taking over more control.
>
>The government DOES control auto driver licensing. It's not taking
>more, it's just changing the rules a bit.
Because it's all at the whim of government. Don't get lost hiking if
some have their way in NH.
>> Except in driving the government has replaced the instructor with a time
>> table. It doesn't matter if they've learned a damned thing, its all
>> based on age. To take your flying example further, you could fail to
>> show any competence in flying but since you aged enough you'd be passed
>> to the next step.
>You miswrote, or I am misinterpreting.
>In flying, you MUST show competence at EVERY step, regardless of age
>(You can solo a glider at 14, pilot's licenses require age 16, IIRC).
>Other than that, age has nothing to do with it.
>And you have to be a much better pilot to get a pilot's license than
>you do car driver to get a driver's license!!!!!
In driving you have to show competence. In driving it's just an age
table. Your comparison is not valid.
>> In driving, the parents are supposed to know
>> the teenager well. Far better than the government can ever know. The
>> parents make a decentralized decison based on the actual abilities,
>> temperment, responsibility, etc of their kid. The government can never
>> do that anywhere close to as well.
>Yeah. Snort. Way too many parents think their kids are angels. They
>buy the little brat a muscle car and turn him/her loose upon the
>population. When they are with Mom and Pop, they behave. Turned
>loose, they may not. And when with their not-so-angelic friends, they
>tend to bend to peer pressure because it's incredibly strong. Once
>they've passed the driver test, the government doesn't know a thing,
>until they get to scrape the kids off the pavement.
So because some parents are bad everyone must be under tighter
government control? I'm sorry, state control can never be a replacement
for people's own responsibilities.
>> >Teens in groups don't pay that much attention to the driving. They
>> >are easily challenged do to stupid things (especially the guys). Let
>> >them get some experience alone before they have friends and nighttime
>> >privileges.
>>
>> Nice group think there. Not every teen is that way. Of course if you
>> treat people like children for longer and longer it's not surprising to
>> see childish behavior at older and older ages.
>You are right in both cases.
>But time and again, we learn that overall kids survive longer if they
>are in the car withOUT their friends for a while.
So we make the government's police forces responsible for checking up on
that? Where else should government enforcers make sure parents are doing
their jobs properly?
>They can learn to handle situations better if it ISN'T night.
Odd, I've had far more problems with teenage drivers in daylight.
Brent P
>table. Your comparison is not valid.
Correction in caps.
k_f...@lycos.com
In last year's version of this thread, he ended up conceding that 10
year olds, toddlers, infants, family dogs and amoebae should be
permitted to drive unless and until each distinct one caused an
accident. In other words, one dog having an auto accident shouldn't
prevent all other dogs from driving.
Brent P
Driving dogs just may increase the over all competence of drivers on the
road ;)
k_f...@lycos.com
wrote:
Proffy will probably protest the gubmint requirement that they first
get a rabies shot.
Ed Pirrero
> In article <99a40547-e639-4172-ac22-a2fd89135...@p73g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
>
> >I seriously doubt you'll be able to even offer innuendo, much less
> >hard cites.
>
> Ahh yes, the call for cites. I always have to have cites while others
> need none. I provide the cites and then they are disregarded. Blah. Same
> old game.
So, IOW, it's merely your opinion. Gotcha.
E.P.
Ed Pirrero
A reiteration of the fallacy doesn't magically make it sound logic.
E.P.
Ed Pirrero
> > wrote:
>
> >> Scott in SoCal wrote:
>
> >>> On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 23:32:44 -0600,
> >>> tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>
> >>>> In article
Heh.
You'd be surprised how your attitudes change when you actually have
kids. I used to have all sorts of wacky ideas before I actually had
to do the day-to-day kid stuff.
It's easy to tell the folks in this thread that don't have kids.
E.P.
Brent P
IOW, you have no actual response.
Ed Pirrero
wrote:
Go back and read in the thread. My response was previous. I
questioned your contention that it was about gov. control, and since
you have no proof of that, you are merely giving your opinion on the
subject.
To be polite, I will not characterize the opinion.
E.P.
Brent P
Licensing is government control by definition. Licensing is the
requirement of government granting a person permission to do something.
>To be polite, I will not characterize the opinion.
I've got to provide cites defining simple words or they are 'opinions'
Fine, hear ya go:
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=license
S: (n) license, licence, permit (a legal document giving official
permission to do something)
http://www.dictionary.net/licensing
License \Li"cense\ (l[imac]"sens), v. t. [imp. & p. p. Licensed
(l[imac]"senst); p. pr. & vb. n. Licensing.]
To permit or authorize by license; to give license to; as, to license a
man to preach. --Milton. Shak.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)
http://janus.state.me.us/legis/statutes/5/title5sec8002.html
5. License. "License" includes the whole or any part of any agency
permit, certificate, approval, registration, charter or similar form of
permission required by law which represents an exercise of the state's
regulatory or police powers.
6. Licensing. "Licensing" means the administrative process resulting in
the grant, denial, renewal, revocation, suspension or modification of a
license.
So clearly right there the government of Maine spells out that licensing
is an exercise of the state's (government) power (control).
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Licensing+(strategic+alliance)
A license gives a person or organization permission to engage in a
particular activity. If the government requires a license for an
activity, it may issue criminal charges if a person engages in the
activity without obtaining a license. Most licenses expire after a
certain period of time, and most may be renewed. Failure to abide by
certain laws and regulations can result in suspension or revocation of a
license. Acquiring a license through Fraud or Misrepresentation will
result in revocation of the license.
<...>
The licensing process helps to control activity in a variety of ways.
License application procedures allow government authorities to screen
applicants to verify that they are fit to engage in the particular
activity. Before any license is issued by an agency, the applicant must
meet certain standards. For example, a person who seeks a driver's
license must be at least age 16, must have passed a driver's test and a
vision test, and must pay a fee. If an applicant is under age 18, the
state department of motor vehicles may require that the applicant obtain
the signature of a parent or guardian. If the applicant seeks to drive
other than a passenger vehicle, such as a motorcycle or semi-truck, the
applicant has to pass tests that relate to the driving of that vehicle
and obtain a separate license for driving that vehicle.
----
So there, you have the legal definition of licensing showing that it is
by definition, government control.
Ed Pirrero
wrote:
>
>
> Licensing is government control by definition. Licensing is the
> requirement of government granting a person permission to do something.
Logical fallacy - red herring.
Your argument isn't about the control part, it's about the
reasonableness of it. And we both know it. And so does everyone else
reading.
After all, you've stated that you would accept German-style
"governmental control", with some modifications.
Again, I will refrain from characterizing your opinion.
E.P.
Brent P
>On Mar 10, 11:34 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P)
>wrote:
>>
>>
>> Licensing is government control by definition. Licensing is the
>> requirement of government granting a person permission to do something.
>
>Logical fallacy - red herring.
It's what you asked me to cite. I cited it. Your removal of context
doesn't change it. I love how when you are failing you become the mad
trimmer. I quote you:
"So, with having been said, you claim that this is a government control
issue. I invite you to prove it with facts. "
I have shown, by legal and common definition that licensing is an
excerise of government power, of its control.
>Your argument isn't about the control part, it's about the
>reasonableness of it. And we both know it. And so does everyone else
>reading.
Reasonableness? Not at all, my argument is about what those concerned
with driving hope to achieve (safety, competency) vs. what the drivers'
licensing is often used for and was set up for, the state granting
permission, privilege, to drive as an excerise of its power.
When you strip away the veneer of competency in the US system what you
are left with is a government excerising it's power, its control by
applying a time table of restrictions in the case of teens or child
support payments or not getting lost when hiking should that bill
become law, and numerous other conditions and restrictions both dealing
with driving and not. WRT to the graduated conditions placed on
teens, those restrictions are enforced by the government's police and
the only way (provided that thedriver is not the registered owner of
the car) the government's police can even determine compliance is to
stop motorists and view their papers to determine their age. That to me
is not arguing the reasonableness but the very thing we hope to achieve
from licensing.
What is it that is to be achieved? Competence behind the wheel or
allowing a government to excerise greater power by intruding into
parental role?
>After all, you've stated that you would accept German-style
>"governmental control", with some modifications.
With regard to competency tests. If we want to achieve competency then
adopting Germany's competency testing would help achieve that goal.
When it comes to US licensing there are merely controls and
restrictions. Exercises of government power. We are all well aware here
in rad that US licensing has 'safety' and competency as an illusion not
unlike that TSA creates with regard to security. The motions are gone
through but measured results are poor at best.
Ed Pirrero
wrote:
> In article <e1afc96b-04d6-464d-8806-20c036ef1...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> >On Mar 10, 11:34 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P)
> >wrote:
>
> >> Licensing is government control by definition. Licensing is the
> >> requirement of government granting a person permission to do something.
>
> >Logical fallacy - red herring.
>
> It's what you asked me to cite.
No. Either you are being obtuse, or being stupid.
> "So, with having been said, you claim that this is a government control
> issue. I invite you to prove it with facts. "
>
> I have shown, by legal and common definition that licensing is an
> excerise of government power, of its control.
Or, an exercise of it's legitimate authority.
If you look in the Preamble, I'm sure you'll find something about the
"general Welfare."
It all depends on the context of the comments, and the person making
them.
Anyone who reads this group with any regularity knows exactly what
you're talking about. Pretending you are talking about something else
is beneath you.
> >Your argument isn't about the control part, it's about the
> >reasonableness of it. And we both know it. And so does everyone else
> >reading.
>
> Reasonableness? Not at all, my argument is about what those concerned
> with driving hope to achieve (safety, competency) vs. what the drivers'
> licensing is often used for and was set up for, the state granting
> permission, privilege, to drive as an excerise of its power.
It's that second part that you haven't proven. Legitimate exercise of
authority vs. some nebulous, sinister "control".
> When you strip away the veneer of competency in the US system what you
> are left with is a government excerising it's power, its control by
> applying a time table of restrictions in the case of teens or child
> support payments or not getting lost when hiking should that bill
> become law, and numerous other conditions and restrictions both dealing
> with driving and not. WRT to the graduated conditions placed on
> teens, those restrictions are enforced by the government's police and
> the only way (provided that thedriver is not the registered owner of
> the car) the government's police can even determine compliance is to
> stop motorists and view their papers to determine their age. That to me
> is not arguing the reasonableness but the very thing we hope to achieve
> from licensing.
Thank you for going above and beyond to prove the point I was making.
You *were* being obtuse, at best. At the very least, being pedantic
in hopes the red herring technique would work. But in the end, you
always come back to the accusations (completely unproven) that it's
about "control".
Again, it is on *you* to prove that the restrictions are not about
exactly what they are written to be about, but about "control".
> >After all, you've stated that you would accept German-style
> >"governmental control", with some modifications.
>
> With regard to competency tests. If we want to achieve competency then
> adopting Germany's competency testing would help achieve that goal.
Yeah. Sure.
You would ensure that folks are competent, how? Let's think about the
simplest way to do that. Could it be through, oh, say, a driver's
licensing program?
> When it comes to US licensing there are merely controls and
> restrictions. Exercises of government power.
Re-asserting the same thing without proof doesn't make it true.
E.P.
Ed Pirrero
> On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 12:35:24 -0500, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com
>
>
>
>
>
> (Brent P) wrote:
> >In article <fg18t3hsv0k7dlbdcbqun4vie51udsn...@4ax.com>, Scott in SoCal wrote:
>
> >>>Except in driving the government has replaced the instructor with a time
> >>>table. It doesn't matter if they've learned a damned thing, its all
> >>>based on age. To take your flying example further, you could fail to
> >>>show any competence in flying but since you aged enough you'd be passed
> >>>to the next step.
>
> >>Sounds like the "Social Promotion" we have in public schools.
>
> >Yes, it is much like the government schools.
>
> >>>>Teens in groups don't pay that much attention to the driving. They
> >>>>are easily challenged do to stupid things (especially the guys). Let
> >>>>them get some experience alone before they have friends and nighttime
> >>>>privileges.
>
> >>>Nice group think there. Not every teen is that way.
>
> >>I can't WAIT for you to have teenaged kids, Brent. :)
>
> >What is that supposed to mean?
>
> understand. :)
You mispelled "survive with shreds of sanity", there.
E.P.
Brent P
>On Mar 10, 1:28 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P)
>wrote:
>> In article <e1afc96b-04d6-464d-8806-20c036ef1...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
>> >On Mar 10, 11:34 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P)
>> >wrote:
>>
>> >> Licensing is government control by definition. Licensing is the
>> >> requirement of government granting a person permission to do something.
>>
>> >Logical fallacy - red herring.
>>
>> It's what you asked me to cite.
>
>No. Either you are being obtuse, or being stupid.
>
>> "So, with having been said, you claim that this is a government control
>> issue. I invite you to prove it with facts. "
>>
>> I have shown, by legal and common definition that licensing is an
>> excerise of government power, of its control.
>
>Or, an exercise of it's legitimate authority.
>
>If you look in the Preamble, I'm sure you'll find something about the
>"general Welfare."
You can do better than a lame overused catch all for anything and
everything.
>It all depends on the context of the comments, and the person making
>them.
>Anyone who reads this group with any regularity knows exactly what
>you're talking about. Pretending you are talking about something else
>is beneath you.
I am not pretending anything Ed. It's you that keeps pushing a
characterization of me. I've never played along with it and I am not
about to start.
Licensing is a form of government control, plain and simple. Driver's
licensing in the USA as it practiced doesn't do much more than first
grader's understand of 'red'=stop 'green'=go and DUI BAC =
0.08% competency wise. The purposes it serves are more inline with its
creation, simply control. Every year we are treated to more legislation
where people can lose their DL, their government permission to drive for
this, that, or the other thing that doesn't have any connection to
driving safely or driving at all.
>> >Your argument isn't about the control part, it's about the
>> >reasonableness of it. And we both know it. And so does everyone else
>> >reading.
>> Reasonableness? Not at all, my argument is about what those concerned
>> with driving hope to achieve (safety, competency) vs. what the drivers'
>> licensing is often used for and was set up for, the state granting
>> permission, privilege, to drive as an excerise of its power.
>It's that second part that you haven't proven. Legitimate exercise of
>authority vs. some nebulous, sinister "control".
See here you are again with your characterization. I am sure if we had a
loving, bevenolent government it would fail at parenting just as well as
if we had an evil, sinister one. Government cannot do the task. There is
no way central command with its age tables can do the parental decision
making. All it can do is assume the very worst case for everyone and
restrict all. The results of restricting all to the capabilities of
the least capable is damaging to the economy and the society.
>> When you strip away the veneer of competency in the US system what you
>> are left with is a government excerising it's power, its control by
>> applying a time table of restrictions in the case of teens or child
>> support payments or not getting lost when hiking should that bill
>> become law, and numerous other conditions and restrictions both dealing
>> with driving and not. WRT to the graduated conditions placed on
>> teens, those restrictions are enforced by the government's police and
>> the only way (provided that thedriver is not the registered owner of
>> the car) the government's police can even determine compliance is to
>> stop motorists and view their papers to determine their age. That to me
>> is not arguing the reasonableness but the very thing we hope to achieve
>> from licensing.
>Thank you for going above and beyond to prove the point I was making.
>You *were* being obtuse, at best. At the very least, being pedantic
>in hopes the red herring technique would work. But in the end, you
>always come back to the accusations (completely unproven) that it's
>about "control".
Government licensing by definition is about control. I have never
stated otherwise. Your problem is that you have this characterization
you've built and repeated so often you now believe its true.
>Again, it is on *you* to prove that the restrictions are not about
>exactly what they are written to be about, but about "control".
They are effectively about control, it's licensing requirements,
restrictions enforced by the state instead of the parent. I'm sure that
most of the legislators and most of the people for it think they are
protecting the precious little snowflakes, however the end result is
more government intrusion. Those who got prohibition passed certainly
thought they were protecting everyone for their own good. Although they
at least had the respect of the constitution to go for an amendment. The
war on drugs, that too was designed to keep us safe, for government to
protect the children and all of us from horrible substances. What's the
end result of government making these decisions for us in the war on
drugs? Even when the failure of the war on drugs is obvious as well as
what we've lost and the abuses many still think its a good thing.
But in the end these sort of things are used by those who wish to
control others one way or another. To displace decentralized processes
in the hands of the people with centralized ones in the hands of the
state.
>> >After all, you've stated that you would accept German-style
>> >"governmental control", with some modifications.
>> With regard to competency tests. If we want to achieve competency then
>> adopting Germany's competency testing would help achieve that goal.
>Yeah. Sure.
>You would ensure that folks are competent, how? Let's think about the
>simplest way to do that. Could it be through, oh, say, a driver's
>licensing program?
Setting people out with a bunch of universal restrictions and a generic
time table shows competence exactly how?
>> When it comes to US licensing there are merely controls and
>> restrictions. Exercises of government power.
>Re-asserting the same thing without proof doesn't make it true.
It's in the very definition of the situation.
Ed Pirrero
wrote:
> In article <a8e73f5b-5241-4986-838d-ceeabc73b...@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
>
> >Or, an exercise of it's legitimate authority.
>
> >If you look in the Preamble, I'm sure you'll find something about the
> >"general Welfare."
>
> You can do better than a lame overused catch all for anything and
> everything.
:shrug: The USC is the basis for the Republic. Somehow, I doubt you
could come up with "something better".
[snip ad infinitem repetition of unproven claim]
Without proof that the graduated licenses are about control, I am not
persuaded.
E.P.
Brent P
>On Mar 10, 3:24 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P)
>wrote:
>> In article <a8e73f5b-5241-4986-838d-ceeabc73b...@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
>>
>> >Or, an exercise of it's legitimate authority.
>>
>> >If you look in the Preamble, I'm sure you'll find something about the
>> >"general Welfare."
>>
>> You can do better than a lame overused catch all for anything and
>> everything.
>
>:shrug: The USC is the basis for the Republic. Somehow, I doubt you
>could come up with "something better".
The "general welfare" has been greatly mis-used over the years,
especially in the last several decades to support many things that go
against individual liberty. To do come up with something better I
suggest you find a portion that isn't so vague and not used as an
'everything under the sun' excuse clause.
>[snip ad infinitem repetition of unproven claim]
>Without proof that the graduated licenses are about control, I am not
>persuaded.
I thought you were using the gpstroll style... 'appease me'
You stated it yourself here:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.autos.driving/msg/41ccbf24e8df46a9?dmode=source
<ab421092-baac-4cc2...@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com>
"Except that responsible parents are quite few. As long as we have
some sort of LCD licensing system, then nibbling at the margins is
about the best we can hope for. The enemy really isn't the gov. -
it's all of us, for accepting the system as it stands."
It would appear to me that you are saying the drive behind these laws is
in part a lack of responsible parents so the government has to step in
and take up the slack. 'nibble at the margins' as it were to eek out
what improvement there can be in a an LCD licensing system.
In the end, that is probably the drive for many supporters of these
schemes, to use the government to control the neighbor kids because
the supporters feel the kids' parents aren't doing the job. That they
aren't monitoring their kids. So a whole new set of laws is created that
allow police to stop, detain, question, etc. Afterall, someone has to
keep these kids safe, yes?
proffsl
k_flynn is a liar, and he knows he is a liar.
k_flynn has been told by myself numerous times that my claim is that
we have the Right to Drive safely. If we can not drive safely, we do
not have the Right to Drive dangerously.
I say we have the Right to Drive safely, and k_flynn slanders what I
say claiming I have said toddlers, infants, family dogs and amoebae
have the Right to Drive. Makes me wonder if k_flynn actually believes
toddlers, infants, family dogs and amoebae actually can drive safely.
k_flynn is a FREQUENT LIAR.
proffsl
> On Mar 8, 7:05 pm, proffsl <prof...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >
> > Irresponsible people create irresponsible laws that create
> > irresponsible parents who create irresponsible children. Laws
> > that presume to do the parent's job are irresponsible by producing
> > parents who believe they don't have to do their job. Driver licensing
> > laws make the parents believe the state is doing their job of
> > determining of their child is mature enough to be allowed to drive,
> > so the parents surrender that decision to the state, often to their
> > own demise.
>
> That's about the dumbest shit ever posted to Usenet,
Why don't you explain exactly how it is the "dumbest shit" ever?
> but I'm willing to concede it might be true in your case.
What you are doing is making a baseless accusation, and attempting to
falsely identify it as a concession. You are also resorting to
personal attacks.
proffsl
> On Mar 8, 3:32 pm, proffsl <prof...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 7, 1:01 pm, Harry K <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Mar 6, 11:01 am, proffsl <prof...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Read about it at:
>
> > > >http://proffsl.110mb.com/driving.php
>
> > > > and
>
> > > >http://proffsl.110mb.com/driver_licensing.php
>
> > > So turn in your license and refuse to get another one.
>
> > I am sure you feel as if you have exercised an authoritative
> > power beyond what you are normally use to in this police
> > state government we live our restricted lives in, just as I am
> > sure that doing so gives you a false sense of achievement
> > beyond what you are normally use to, but I am not here to
> > take directives.
>
> > I am here to debate the validity of my claims.
>
> Uhuh. Translated: "I don't have the balls to put my money where my
> mouth is"
Well, after we run your responce through the translator, it comes out:
"I do not have the ability to be part of a rational discussion, much
less produce any valid counter arguments to your claim, so I will
attempt to make you the issue, I will then proceed to make baseless
accusations on your part and to personally attack you."
webs...@cox.net
Thanks. You had me reading that over and over, trying to figger out
what's wrong with ya! ;<)
I still mildly disagree with your line of thought though.
webs...@cox.net
Yup. Especially when the kids are out for the late evening, and the
phone rings after you are in bed.....
k_f...@lycos.com
> On Mar 9, 10:53 pm, "k_fl...@lycos.com" <k_fl...@lycos.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 9, 3:31 pm, Ed Pirrero <gcmschem...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Mar 8, 5:05 pm,proffsl<prof...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Same thing applies to alcohol sales. In truth, I believe a 10 year old
> > > > should be able to walk into a liquor store and purchase alcohol. BUT,
> > > > before any of you fly off at the handle, in saying that, I AM NOT
> > > > saying that I believe 10 year olds should be consuming alcohol.
>
> > > Should 10-year-olds be driving?
>
> > In last year's version of this thread, he ended up conceding that 10
> > year olds, toddlers, infants, family dogs and amoebae should be
> > permitted to drive unless and until each distinct one caused an
> > accident. In other words, one dog having an auto accident shouldn't
> > prevent all other dogs from driving.
>
Why, Proffy, we knew that. Of course I always told the truth and
accurately conveyed the true context of all the court cases cited in
your version of this losing argument last year.
All of your citations contradicted you. Remember that?
> k_flynn has been told by myself numerous times that my claim is that
> we have the Right to Drive safely.
But only with a license and insurance.
> If we can not drive safely, we do
> not have the Right to Drive dangerously.
And that's where you had to agree that dogs, cats, toddler, gnats,
amoebae and anything else that could get behind a wheel must be
allowed to drive up until the time they cause an accident. For on what
basis could we forbid all dogs to drive merely because one dog caused
an accident? Under your reasoning, we couldn't.
I of course rightly disagree.
> I say we have the Right to Drive safely, and k_flynn slanders what I
> say claiming I have said toddlers, infants, family dogs and amoebae
> have the Right to Drive
You agreed. Unless and until each and every amoebae causes an
accident, we can only forbid them one by one from driving. That was
the absolute necessary outcome of your position. Same with infants,
cats, dogs and 15 year olds.
>.. Makes me wonder if k_flynn actually believes
> toddlers, infants, family dogs and amoebae actually can drive safely.
Absolutely not, Proffy. Why, I *never* agreed with you on that point.
As you well know when you misrepresented my position above, I
consistently disagreed with that notion of yours. I believe rightly,
as courts have held consistently, that we the people have the right
through our government to set up rules and regulations fro driving
automobiles. I believe they are very reasonable and that we can
rightly conclude that amoebae in fact cannot drive safely with enough
consistently as a class to be allowed to drive. Same with cats,
infants, dogs, horses and unicorns, which I presume exist in your
fantasy world.
> k_flynn is an absolute truth teller and quite a good interpreter
> of legal opinions and cases as he was able to demonstrate when
> in fact all my court cites ended up contradicting my own position.
I know. Thank you!
proffsl
Can this 10 year old drive safely?
k_f...@lycos.com
And this three year old cat.
According to you, it all depends on each distinct individual and we
are not allowed to make class distinctions. So the logical end of your
position is that we must let each and every 10-year-old drive and only
prohibit the ones who do have an accident. Then the 5 year olds, one
at a time of course. Then the family dog, unless and until Fido hits
the tree with the car. Then the cats, then the amoebae... each one
judged free to drive regardless of how many amoebae have their own
accidents.
Harry K
Ed Pirrero
wrote:
> In article <78fdb240-df24-4ecc-9643-b7a0314be...@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> >On Mar 10, 3:24 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P)
> >wrote:
> >> In article <a8e73f5b-5241-4986-838d-ceeabc73b...@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
>
> >> >Or, an exercise of it's legitimate authority.
>
> >> >If you look in the Preamble, I'm sure you'll find something about the
> >> >"general Welfare."
>
> >> You can do better than a lame overused catch all for anything and
> >> everything.
>
> >:shrug: The USC is the basis for the Republic. Somehow, I doubt you
> >could come up with "something better".
>
> The "general welfare" has been greatly mis-used over the years,
> especially in the last several decades to support many things that go
> against individual liberty. To do come up with something better I
> suggest you find a portion that isn't so vague and not used as an
> 'everything under the sun' excuse clause.
It is support for legitimate gov. function, and one more cite than you
have proving the law is due to some desire for additional control.
You have offered not a shred of evidence that it is for control
purposes.
In addition, you have a desire for a German-style system. Which
smells a bit of hypocrisy. Hmmm, ISTR an age limit in the German
system...
> You stated it yourself here:http://groups.google.com/group/rec.autos.driving/msg/41ccbf24e8df46a9...
> <ab421092-baac-4cc2-9d9f-4481a2df1...@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com>
>
> "Except that responsible parents are quite few. As long as we have
> some sort of LCD licensing system, then nibbling at the margins is
> about the best we can hope for. The enemy really isn't the gov. -
> it's all of us, for accepting the system as it stands."
>
> It would appear to me that you are saying the drive behind these laws is
> in part a lack of responsible parents so the government has to step in
> and take up the slack.
No. I was stating a fact. In addition, it's a quote out of context.
Parenting *isn't* the issue. Lack of driving skill is. The state has
no interest in parenting skills. It does have an interest in keeping
unqualified motorists off the public roadways. Conflating those two
issues is a handy way to make your argument seem plausible, but they
are not the same issue.
> 'nibble at the margins' as it were to eek out
> what improvement there can be in a an LCD licensing system.
Until there is comprehensive licensing reform, ANYTHING that improves
the quality of driving is a plus. And frankly, if it's not mandated,
people won't do it. I suppose *some* people might do it - after all,
my kids are going to a real driving school well before they turn 16.
E.P.
Ed Pirrero
I don't know. Maybe we should wait until they run someone over before
we find out?
Or, better yet, let's test them to see if they can drive safely. Oh,
and let's make sure they can afford to responsibly own an automobile,
which means carrying some form of insurance or bonding.
And after testing them, why don't we issue them some sort of
certificate so we can tell which ten-year-old is actually safe, and
which one isn't. Maybe they could laminate this certificate and keep
it with them, so that, in the case there was a hassle, we could
separate the tested ten-year-olds from the non-tested ones.
Luckily, everyone except a small few boneheads understands that
operating a motor vehicle is not something a child can do safely with
reliability.
E.P.
Ed Pirrero
The irony is hilarious.
E.P.
k_f...@lycos.com
> Well, after we run your responce through the translator, it comes out:
> "I do not have the ability to be part of a rational discussion, much
> less produce any valid counter arguments to your claim, so I will
> attempt to make you the issue, I will then proceed to make baseless
> accusations on your part and to personally attack you."
Wrong. The plain fact is you do not make a valid argument in the first
place that needs to be countered. Your entire position is based on
misinterpretations of court cases that actually contradict you. You
even presented one "case" that was entirely fabricated. All of your
cites support the constitutionality of licensing.
If you would only present a case advocating a reasonable change in the
law, rather than a discredited and already thoroughly debunked case
that the right exists when it does now, as I told you often I could
support you. But alas, you haven't addressed the many fatal flaws in
your position, so it is still untenable on its face and needs no
countering.
Brent P
>On Mar 10, 4:16 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P)
>wrote:
>> In article <78fdb240-df24-4ecc-9643-b7a0314be...@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
>> >On Mar 10, 3:24 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P)
>> >wrote:
>> >> In article <a8e73f5b-5241-4986-838d-ceeabc73b...@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
>>
>> >> >Or, an exercise of it's legitimate authority.
>>
>> >> >If you look in the Preamble, I'm sure you'll find something about the
>> >> >"general Welfare."
>>
>> >> You can do better than a lame overused catch all for anything and
>> >> everything.
>>
>> >:shrug: The USC is the basis for the Republic. Somehow, I doubt you
>> >could come up with "something better".
>>
>> The "general welfare" has been greatly mis-used over the years,
>> especially in the last several decades to support many things that go
>> against individual liberty. To do come up with something better I
>> suggest you find a portion that isn't so vague and not used as an
>> 'everything under the sun' excuse clause.
>
>It is support for legitimate gov. function, and one more cite than you
>have proving the law is due to some desire for additional control.
>You have offered not a shred of evidence that it is for control
>purposes.
The restrictions for global warming are for the "general welfare" too.
Just about all statist control is justified as being for the "general
welfare". And on the cite count, I provided several that show licensing
is about control. It's a very mis-used catch-all.
>In addition, you have a desire for a German-style system. Which
>smells a bit of hypocrisy. Hmmm, ISTR an age limit in the German
>system...
It smells of out of context. I specifically stated a modified version
regarding competency, not the control portion which is their system as
well. The German system has a control portion which includes a very well
controlled system of driving schools and the associated high costs.
That's just one example. I specifically stated those sorts of things
would need to be stripped off.
>> You stated it yourself here:http://groups.google.com/group/rec.autos.driving/msg/41ccbf24e8df46a9...
>> <ab421092-baac-4cc2-9d9f-4481a2df1...@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com>
>>
>> "Except that responsible parents are quite few. As long as we have
>> some sort of LCD licensing system, then nibbling at the margins is
>> about the best we can hope for. The enemy really isn't the gov. -
>> it's all of us, for accepting the system as it stands."
>>
>> It would appear to me that you are saying the drive behind these laws is
>> in part a lack of responsible parents so the government has to step in
>> and take up the slack.
>No. I was stating a fact. In addition, it's a quote out of context.
>Parenting *isn't* the issue. Lack of driving skill is.
Graduated licensing is about when and with who the kids can drive.
That's a parenting issue. Their driving skill doesn't come into
question. Nobody is insuring they can navigate through snow or don't run
red signals, or know to turn in to the near lane or keep right except to
pass. It's about restricting when they can drive and with who.
> The state has no interest in parenting skills.
So you're going to tell me the entire CPS type systems around the nation
along with the government control over the schools are a figment of my
imagination the same way you told me the adminstrative courts were
something I 'made up'?
The state's interest in children and taking over from parents to ensure
they grow up into proper taxpayers for the general welfare has a long
history.
> It does have an interest in keeping
>unqualified motorists off the public roadways. Conflating those two
>issues is a handy way to make your argument seem plausible, but they
>are not the same issue.
IL has a graduated license system yet I was hit by a teenager in broad
daylight driving by himself. It's not doing anything with regard to
unqualified motorists here, he had all the driving skills the state
demanded and was following their rules on passenger restrictions etc as
per the graduated licensing system. He still made a boneheaded
stupid move.
Graduated licensing functions under the premise that teen drivers are
effected by their passengers and shouldn't be out at night. You said it
yourself, it was to restrict them from more challenging driving
environments... oddly they can still drive a morning commute in a snow
storm legally.
>> 'nibble at the margins' as it were to eek out
>> what improvement there can be in a an LCD licensing system.
>Until there is comprehensive licensing reform, ANYTHING that improves
>the quality of driving is a plus.
Graduated licensing doesn't improve the quality of the driving. It
restricts driving leading to less crashes in the group it restricts from
driving. Unavailable fuel has the same effect.
> And frankly, if it's not mandated,
>people won't do it. I suppose *some* people might do it - after all,
>my kids are going to a real driving school well before they turn 16.
If it's not mandated.... There's the statist think showing through even
though you yourself need no mandate. I argue the reverse, that low
government mandated standards cause people to believe they know all they
need to know when they meet the low standard. This gives them a false
sense of security and confindence they shouldn't have. They fall into
the trap of a little bit of knowledge.
Ed Pirrero
wrote:
> In article <5f597b65-fa1f-4d0b-a087-4e505537a...@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> >On Mar 10, 4:16 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P)
> >wrote:
> >> In article <78fdb240-df24-4ecc-9643-b7a0314be...@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> >> >On Mar 10, 3:24 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P)
> >> >wrote:
> >> >> In article <a8e73f5b-5241-4986-838d-ceeabc73b...@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
>
> >> >> >Or, an exercise of it's legitimate authority.
>
> >> >> >If you look in the Preamble, I'm sure you'll find something about the
> >> >> >"general Welfare."
>
> >> >> You can do better than a lame overused catch all for anything and
> >> >> everything.
>
> >> >:shrug: The USC is the basis for the Republic. Somehow, I doubt you
> >> >could come up with "something better".
>
> >> The "general welfare" has been greatly mis-used over the years,
> >> especially in the last several decades to support many things that go
> >> against individual liberty. To do come up with something better I
> >> suggest you find a portion that isn't so vague and not used as an
> >> 'everything under the sun' excuse clause.
>
> >It is support for legitimate gov. function, and one more cite than you
> >have proving the law is due to some desire for additional control.
> >You have offered not a shred of evidence that it is for control
> >purposes.
>
> The restrictions for global warming are for the "general welfare" too.
Maybe they are. How can you tell?
> Just about all statist control is justified as being for the "general
> welfare".
And legit functions of government *are* for the general welfare.
Somehow, *you* claim to be able to tell the diference without being
able to prove it.
> And on the cite count, I provided several that show licensing
> is about control. It's a very mis-used catch-all.
The definition of license is not proof of anything. It is certainly
not proof of "control", or "competance" or skill. No more than a
diploma is a guarantee of knowledge.
Get back to me when you can actually prove your claim, much less
support your opinion.
E.P.
Brent P
>> The restrictions for global warming are for the "general welfare" too.
>
>Maybe they are. How can you tell?
But 'authority' can tell? Our parental government knows what's good for
us? That's a long way from individual liberty.
>> Just about all statist control is justified as being for the "general
>> welfare".
>And legit functions of government *are* for the general welfare.
Like taking one man's property and giving it to another man because it
will be for the general welfare, in the public interest. You have too
many cars Ed. In the cause of the general welfare you should have to
give some away to people who don't have cars. Sound good? Afterall,
government has declared activities of taking from some citizens to give
to others as a legit function for itself justified by providing for the
general welfare.
>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.
>> And on the cite count, I provided several that show licensing
>> is about control. It's a very mis-used catch-all.
>The definition of license is not proof of anything. It is certainly
>not proof of "control", or "competance" or skill. No more than a
>diploma is a guarantee of knowledge.
>Get back to me when you can actually prove your claim, much less
>support your opinion.
Why don't you read the restictions of graduated licensing? Nahh...
because then you'll find there is nothing there to insure driving skill.
Only controls on when, where, and with who teenagers can drive. This
under the guise they will get experience under better conditions. Yet
they can still go out and drive in traffic conditions and weather that
would be extremely challenging.
The result is restrictions that are removed if they don't crash and
don't get a ticket conviction on their record. How does that do anything
wrt driving skill? Doesn't do a thing. A teenager could go to europe for
an exchange program soon after turning 16 and getting his DL then
returns just before turning 18 not having driven a car except maybe a
couple of times in the whole two years and pass right through the
restricted licensing process with flying colors. No convictions, no
crashes.... no driving experience either. Same as a kid who got a
license but had no car to drive.
You can keep trimming and squaking 'no proof!' and saying you aren't
convinced all you want, but it doesn't change the nature of these laws.
They are controls. They act to limit driving which will result in fewer
crashes by the limited group just from limiting driving. They won't
bring about experience. Anyone who knows how to design an experiment
should see right through it. You certainly should. My guess is you're
just playing games here. You know better, your own words have given it
away.
proffsl
> On Mar 10, 9:31 pm, proffsl <prof...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 9, 3:31 pm, Ed Pirrero <gcmschem...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Should 10-year-olds be driving?
> >
> > Can this 10 year old drive safely?
>
> I don't know.
Why don't you know? It's your scenario.
> Maybe we should wait until they run someone over
> before we find out?
If their unable to drive safely, this will most likely show itself
long before someone is run over.
> Or, better yet, let's test them to see if they can drive safely.
So, are you suggesting we License 10 year olds? Are you moving the
line in the sand? What about 9 year olds, 8 year olds? This "one
size fits all" mentality just doesn't work in the real world.
> Oh, and let's make sure they can afford to responsibly own
> an automobile, which means carrying some form of insurance
> or bonding.
"[The Individual] owes nothing to the public so long as he does not
trespass upon their rights." -- Hale vs. Hinkel, 201 US 43, 74-75 -
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/201/43.html#74
> And after testing them, why don't we issue them some sort of
> certificate so we can tell which ten-year-old is actually safe,
> and which one isn't.
>
> Maybe they could laminate this certificate and keep it with them,
> so that, in the case there was a hassle, we could separate the
> tested ten-year-olds from the non-tested ones.
Instead, why don't we just stop those who exhibit unsafe driving
behaviors before they actually run over someone? Makes more sense than
stopping people who are driving safely just to see if they have a
laminated driver license certificate! Fact is, if we're spending less
time stopping people who are driving safely just to see if they have a
laminated driver license certificate, we could spend more time
stopping people who exhibit unsafe driving behaviors.
> 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. Above, you said you didn't know if the
10 year old could drive safely. Now, you say they can not.
k_f...@lycos.com
> On Mar 11, 9:50�am, Ed Pirrero <gcmschem...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 10, 9:31�pm, proffsl <prof...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > On Mar 9, 3:31�pm, Ed Pirrero <gcmschem...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Should 10-year-olds be driving?
> > >
> > > Can this 10 year old drive safely?
> >
> > I don't know.
>
> Why don't you know? It's your scenario.
That doesn’t mean he can know the safe driving abilities of every 10
year old. Your solution is let them all drive, along with infants,
dogs and cats, unless and until they have an accident. After all, up
until they have an accident, they are likely driving safely.
You would also prevent us from setting up a system that would prohibit
10-year-old, or dogs, cats and toddlers, from driving because each
individual has the right to drive, according to you, and we cannot
judge the entire class of dogs or 10-year-old by the unsafe driving of
one Johnny, Fifi or Fido.
For you to admit that would be to open the door to legitimate
governmental authority to regulate others – perhaps blind people might
be prohibited from driving then.
> >�Maybe we should wait until they run someone over
> > before we find out?
>
> If their unable to drive safely, this will most likely show itself
> long before someone is run over.
Like when they hit my house, or a tree, or another car. But then,
under your system, we can only prohibit that particular 10-year-old,
or cat, or dog or infant, from driving, and not the whole class of
them.
>
>
> > Or, better yet, let's test them to see if they can drive safely.
>
> So, are you suggesting we License 10 year olds? Are you moving the
> line in the sand? What about 9 year olds, 8 year olds? This "one
> size fits all" mentality just doesn't work in the real world.
Correct. That’s one reason why we have licensing in the first place
and set ages and other restrictions. You’ve opened Pandora’s Box now
to legitimate government interest in safety and general welfare.
>
>
> > Oh, and let's make sure they can afford to responsibly own
> > an automobile, which means carrying some form of insurance
> > or bonding.
>
> "[The Individual] owes nothing to the public so long as he does not
> trespass upon their rights." -- Hale vs. Hinkel, 201 US 43, 74-75 -
> http://laws.findlaw.com/us/201/43.html#74
Hale was a habeas corpus case in which the word “license” never
appears. It is non-applicable. Heck, it was a **1906** case and MV
licensing hadn’t even yet occurred. It involved a tobacco company
executive who refused to testify and produce company documents to a
grand jury investigating Sherman Act violations. Incidentally he lost
the case.
This is where you went wrong in your last three losing arguments on
this issue. You cannot lift isolated dicta out of completely unrelated
court cases that had nothing to do with licensing and pretend to
cobble together your own Frankenstein monster of a case law argument.
It doesn’t work that way. Each case decides only the questions put
before the court. If you wish to take court dicta from one case and
use it to support another point, you actually must argue that before
another court in a relevant on-point case and try to apply it. Anti-
licensing people have tried that for decades and have lost every time.
> > And after testing them, why don't we issue them some sort of
> > certificate so we can tell which ten-year-old is actually safe,
> > and which one isn't.
> >
> > Maybe they could laminate this certificate and keep it with them,
> > so that, in the case there was a hassle, we could separate the
> > tested ten-year-olds from the non-tested ones.
>
> Instead, why don't we just stop those who exhibit unsafe driving
> behaviors before they actually run over someone?
Same with infants, dogs, cats and amoebae. I see where you’re going
with this!
> Makes more sense than
> stopping people who are driving safely just to see if they have a
> laminated driver license certificate!
That’s never happened to me, nor anyone I know.
> Fact is, if we're spending less
> time stopping people who are driving safely just to see if they have a
> laminated driver license certificate, we could spend more time
> stopping people who exhibit unsafe driving behaviors.
I’ve never seen police stop people driving merely to check to see if
they have a license.
> > 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. Above, you said you didn't know if the
> 10 year old could drive safely. Now, you say they can not.
Let’s put my dog behind the wheel and let him take off too!!
Ed Pirrero
wrote:
> In article <2ba20aba-1368-4fd9-ba26-20cd41427...@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?
E.P.
Ed Pirrero
That's right, I did just contradict myself. Because I *know* that
there are approximately zero ten-year-olds that have the mental
accumen to drive safely, reliably, on public streets.
But, since your whole argument is absurd, expect other people to be
logically rigorous is hypocrisy on your part.
E.P.
Brent P
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/062500050K6-107.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.
Ed Pirrero
wrote:
> In article <a7627f02-69d7-4cf6-ab3b-83e0548eb...@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> >On Mar 11, 9:59 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P)
> >wrote:
> >> In article <2ba20aba-1368-4fd9-ba26-20cd41427...@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?
>
> 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.
Brent P
>On Mar 11, 11:41 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P)
>wrote:
>> In article <a7627f02-69d7-4cf6-ab3b-83e0548eb...@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
>> >On Mar 11, 9:59 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P)
>> >wrote:
>> >> In article <2ba20aba-1368-4fd9-ba26-20cd41427...@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?
proffsl
> On Mar 11, 10:13 am, proffsl <prof...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 11, 9:50 am, Ed Pirrero <gcmschem...@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. Above, you said you didn't know if the
> > 10 year old could drive safely. Now, you say they can not.
>
> That's right, I did just contradict myself. Because 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.
k_f...@lycos.com
> On Mar 11, 12:21�pm, Ed Pirrero <gcmschem...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 11, 10:13�am, proffsl <prof...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > On Mar 11, 9:50�am, Ed Pirrero <gcmschem...@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. �Above, you said you didn't know if the
> > > 10 year old could drive safely. �Now, you say they can not.
> >
> > That's right, I did just contradict myself. �Because 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?
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’ve already proven that.
Brent P
>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.
Ed Pirrero
wrote:
> In article <04cfd62b-d398-4c66-839f-53cb1def0...@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> >On Mar 11, 11:41 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P)
> >
>
> >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?
From 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.
Brent P
>On Mar 11, 12:24 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P)
>wrote:
>> In article <04cfd62b-d398-4c66-839f-53cb1def0...@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
>> >On Mar 11, 11:41 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@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.
k_f...@lycos.com
> In article <331ee820-50e9-4474...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, k_f...@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
> >
>
> 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.
Brent P
>Brent P wrote:
>> In article <331ee820-50e9-4474...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, k_f...@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.
k_f...@lycos.com
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.
Ed Pirrero
wrote:
> In article <48320ca2-340c-4f1b-bc8d-cef517d5f...@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> >On Mar 11, 12:24 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P)
> >wrote:
> >> In article <04cfd62b-d398-4c66-839f-53cb1def0...@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> >> >On Mar 11, 11:41 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@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.
Nate Nagel
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
Arif Khokar
> 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.
Brent P
>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.
MLOM
wrote:
Even more priceless...dropping out of school in MO.
Brent P
>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.
k_f...@lycos.com
wrote:
> In article <b091eba3-01ce-4fee-b7ca-1ba66621e...@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, k_fl...@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."
Brent P
>On Mar 11, 8:07 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P)
>wrote:
>> In article <b091eba3-01ce-4fee-b7ca-1ba66621e...@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, k_fl...@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.
k_f...@lycos.com
wrote:
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.