Don Cline wrote:
> Statistically, operating a motor vehicle on public thoroughfares is the most
> difficult, dangerous, demanding activity
> human beings ever engage in routinely.
I thought it was smoking. So it is the routine nature that requires the biometric laminated photo ID with updates of residence? If I get a drivers license in Ohio and I move to Arizona, why isn't my Ohio license not good in Arizona? Why must Ohioans renew their licenses every four years?
> And the stakes are much, much higher. The collision of two horse-drawn
> wagons, even at a gallop...two ton vehicles...
Try standing in front of a galloping stage coach. Or how about the unlicensed construction earth-movers that rumble down the street or farm tractors. You have yet to tell me why the only solution to making automobile users accountable is a laminated card. Very narrow minded.
> We have the existing rules because the common law rules were too harsh, too
> erratic, and too manipulative. People demanded change.
"Change." Very Clintonian. If I smack into someone, I am liable for damages and then some.
> By what authority does a judge make "a lawful order"? There has to be a law
> for there to be due process of law.
And none of that requires a laminated card, unless you can't bear to think outside the box.
> I don't believe anyone said anything about keeping bad drivers off the road
> or about shoplifting. Are you projecting prior arguments into this
> argument?
Yes, I am. Those who are proponents of keeping the drivers license scheme tell me that keeping bad drivers off the road is one of the reasons. The drivers license has become defacto traveling papers. Very unAmerican, wouldn't you say? I guess we have Sam Rayburn to thank for that.
>
>
> You have a right to keep and bear arms and you
> have a right to own (keep and bear, if you will) automobiles. You do not
> have a right to rock 'n' roll at public risk on a public thoroughfare with a
> firearm and you do not have a right to operate an automobile -- an even more
> lethal piece of machinery -- at public risk on a public thoroughfare.
Carrying a gun in public is not "rock n rollin", does not violate others rights. No permit required. If I do use my gun to violate rights the justice system can take care of that. No permit required. If I drive my car and harm no one, no permit required. If I run into someone...use the justice system. No permit required.
> The State has the lawful Police Power to require you to show proof of
> competency
> at not causing damage and injury if you want to do either.
The State of Massachussets, New York and New Jersey say the same thing about guns. We know they are wrong. The States are also wrong about our state-issued traveling papers. Prior restraint and the presumption of innocence. Licensing doctors may have a commerce nexus. How does non-business driving fit in that equation?
> It also has the lawful Police Power to require you to show an ability to pay
> for any damage
> or injury you cause by doing either -- whether by bond or by third party
> insurance.
>
Now you are following the same argument many anti-gunners use. Requiring high cost insurance policies for gun owners. Patrick Moynihan has offered up 10,000% taxes on insurance to pay for deaths involving the illegal use of guns, maybe we should place another tax on cars to cover those who are non-insured? Maybe a tax on guns for the same purpose?
> you do not argue for the Libertarian concept of liberty with responsibility;
> rather, your argument goes to
> liberty without responsibility -- i.e., the "libertine" philosophy, which is
> the anarchist philosophy.
I'm all in favor of responsibility and constitutional government. I just want you to justify that laminated cards are our ticket (or only ticket) to responsibility.
> Then you presume that as a Libertarian you are not required to obey the
> terms of any contract?
Travel in America has been set up, through the use of decades of tax dollars, to
consist of motorcar travel on fenced in roads. Did I enter this contract without
being coerced? Did I have any other reasonable choice? Many businesses require that the employee possess a valid driver's license. Carlos, never having fallen for the trap, and never having signed his name to an Arizona or other State's DL, never signed such a contract. Where does he stand? Contracts can be terminated?
How do I terminate mine?
> I ask that because your sentence above would seem to
> indicate you believe insurance companies are not required to obey the terms
> of the contract with their insured.
Here is a test. Try collecting from an insurance company after an accident or theft, or healthcare payout. Then try the same thing backed by your attorney. You will see a marked difference in payoff. I come from a family of attorneys. I know how insurance companies operate. After the car wreck it is a matter of negotiation to see how much money you will get, if any. The terms of the contract are often meaningless until your attorney pays them a visit.
> you are an anarchist who doesn't want to be responsible for anything, and/or
> don't want to be required to meet the terms of any contract voluntarily
> entered into for mutual benefit,
I conform to all contracts voluntarily entered into. The DL and SS# are not such contracts. And you have not yet supported your laminated-card-only scheme.
> You always answer a question with a question.
Not always, but your strange mix of statism and laminated card worship does cause the questions to flow.
> If you believe in your view, then before we get to the issue of Adam Henry the
> robber -- which is a
> criminal issue, not a civil issue --
Oh, that's a whole nuther issue. Many "traffic" offenses are criminal. Let's make all traffic violations criminal. Let's have some jury trials. That would clog up the works. I don't think the politicos would go for that. Not in the contract, unless you consider the 6th and 7th amendments to be a contract. Maybe I should have formulated that as a question. That way you would be less likely to respond to it.
> how about answering the question of how to keep track of Adam Henry the
> incompetent driver if, in fact, "A laminated card is not needed for that."?
The same way we keep track of Adam Henry the shoplifter. We revoke his Safeway Shoppers Card.
> Are you prepared to allow any Adam Henry on
> the road to run over you, cause you enormous damage and injury, perhaps even
> repetitively, and let him go on his way without sanction?
No. I'm not. However, we don't need a laminated card for that, just as we don't need it for the ownership of a gun. Henry smashes into a car. The police take him to the hospital to get him patched up. Then book him for violating my right-of-way. No laminated card required.
> Are you, in fact, willing to absorb any damage any other twit on the road can
> get away with
> inflicting on you,
I'm guessing that's what my "uninsured motorist" policy is for. Once we catch this "twit" we can take out his wallet and snip his laminated card to pieces. He'll never drive again!!!
> I suggest you have a very skewed idea of what constitutes "freedom".
>
I'm in good company.
Rick