Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2000 15:11:19 -0700 From: frdmftr@MINDSPRING.COM (Don Cline) Subject: Re: The strategy of encroachment To: AZRKBA@asu.edu
Good job, Carlos! I agree almost 100% with this post, but I do have one minor quibble below. And before someone goes off half-cocked about it, I would like to point out that I am a Libertarian. Libertarians believe "that government is best that governs least." Anarchists believe government shouldn't govern at all. I am not an anarchist.
----- Original Message ----- From: Carlos A. Alvarez <carlos@THERIVER.COM> To: <AZRKBA@asu.edu> Sent: Monday, April 03, 2000 10:40 AM Subject: The strategy of encroachment
> A similar pattern emerged when the driver's license was suggested. Of
> course, then it was proposed as merely a convenience for the traveler, and
> for his own protection.
No. It was a proposed as a means of showing proof of competency and accountability when the "common law rules of the road" were beginning to prove inadequate due to the quantity of, and higher speeds of, vehicular traffic on the roadways -- not to mention the fact that the "common law rules of the road" were different from one county to another, one town to another, and even from one road to another. It was not proposed as a convenience for the traveler, and for his own protection. It was proposed to make the traveler (who was operating lethal machinery at public risk) accountable by making him trackable, and for the protection of others whom he might injure, maim, and/or kill.
> Slowly it was required for a few more things, and
> insurance companies popped up to offer to "protect" you from the acts of
> reckless drivers.
Again, no. Insurance companies popped up to offer to "protect" your assets from your own inadvertent mistakes -- insurance companies tend not to insure "reckless drivers", or they charge enormous premiums to do so, and they protect the rest of us from those who are incompetent or reckless -- charging them premiums more or less commensurate with the perceived risk.
> Of course, these guys wanted a way to keep track of you,
> so they required the newfangled license in order to provide you the
> "benefit" of insurance.
Well, as above, it is true they wanted a way to keep track of the Adam Henry going around injuring and killing people and causing enormous property damage due to incompetence or recklessness or both, but the issue of licensing -- to require accountability and eventually proof of competency -- and the issue of insurance (to make the acountability mean something in the event the reckless or incompetent driver was otherwise judgment proof) evolved more or less independently.
> Look where we are today.
Yes, we've gone a long way further down the road toward "statism" than the above requirements ever indicated was necessary, to the point of excessive "personal property tax" attached to licensing a vehicle, and so forth. However, I would like to point out that when I came to Arizona in December of 1986 they stopped demanding a social securiy number on the license because I refused to give one. I claimed my right pursuant to Public Law 93-579 Section 7, and within two months the Arizona MVD had new application forms stating that the SSN was voluntary. I would also like to point out that if a person has met the "proof of competency" requirement (which is incredibly and pathetically weak in Arizona, unfortunately) there is no need to pay another fee every four years without even another test, and, accordingly, Arizona is now issuing licenses tat don't expire until 2040.
There is still more to do, obviously: The bureaucrats in the Department of Transportation were crowing, here 'while back, about getting authority to DEMAND a social security number on the license in October of this year. They claimed it would "reduce fraud" and I kept asking "Why?" They kept giving examples of how it would reduce fraud, all of which examples were not in their bailiwick and were none of their business, until I finally pointed out: "I'm not asking you 'why?' you think it is a good thing. I am asking you 'WHY ARE YOU SO HAPPY ABOUT IT?'"
They finally were forced to admit they were happy about it because they are "public servants" and their job is to "serve the public" and so they are happy about any new law that forces the public to come to them to be "served" (or should we say "serviced"?), and which prevents the public from escaping the long arm (or long something) of their "service".
Forcing them to recognize that underlying fact cost me an extra set of fingerprints and an extra FBI check before they would certify me as a professional (third party) driving examiner, though both fingerprints and FBI check were on file and current as a professional driving instructor. They didn't like me much.
The bureaucracy runs the show, ladies and gentlemen. Quite often, as was seen recently on the issue of HB 2095, they run the legislature too. If you want a law passed, go to the bureaucracy first. You can bet the bureaucracy is going to go to the legislature either way.
(snip)
> Carlos Alvarez, Tucson, AZ, USA, Earth, Sol System, Milky Way Galaxy
> http://www.neta.com/~carlos
>
> "Duct tape is like The Force. It has a light side, a dark
> side, and it holds the universe together..."
(I love that tagline!)
-- Don Cline frdmftr@mindspring.com http://www.mindspring.com/~frdmftr ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ The Right to Keep and Bear Arms brought about
* The Parliamentary Revolution * The Magna Carta * The American Revolution * The world's first and only nation of liberty.
Without it you are nothing but a feudal serf.
EXERCISE your Right to Keep and Bear Arms or KNEEL BEFORE YOUR MASTER. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ To all Socialist, Communist, and Marxist Anti-Gunners:
... I'll be your huckleberry.