Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 21:32:20 -0700 From: r.destephens@WORLDNET.ATT.NET (Richard DeStephens) Subject: Re: The strategy of encroachment To: AZRKBA@asu.edu
Don Cline wrote:
> Let's stick to the subject at hand. "Biometric" has not been part of the
> debate,
It is for me. Excuse me if I don't allow you to narrow my concerns. First it is name and address, and DOB, then photo, then SS#, now they are calling for fingerprints. Why? As you said, to better identify us in case we violate a traffic ordinance, of course. Fingerprints aren't necessary for the purpose you say? Neither is the photo, neither is the whole card.
> so long as you have shown proof of competency and can
> prove that you can cover most of the damages
But I can't prove that the insurance company will pay. What if I got a policy stating that it will not pay fully for unbelted passengers or if I am DUI? I can't guarantee that my insurer will pay the victims without a lengthy and expensive court battle. But what I have is good enough for the state of az.
As far as competancy goes, the only thing I have is an AZ DL copied from an old Ohio DL. As you said yourself, the drivers test is a worthless trip around the block followed by parallel parking. The only tangable thing I have is that I have never wrecked my car in 24 years of driving. My driver's test is irrelevant at this point, as is the DL. I don't need a DL no more than I need a Shopper's license or an epidemiologist's license. And I surely should require a hair weaving license. If I am safe, let me alone. If I crash, that's a different story. All can be taken care of without a laminated card. The card keeps me from leaving the scene, does it? What about all those "hit and runs"?
> If you can think of a better way to prove you have shown proof of competency
> than
> carrying a card, I'm willing to listen.
I believe I did.
> Would you rather your ID to be on
> the cops' computer so you don't have to be inconvenienced?
What inconvenience? The inconvenience of selling my data? The state ID is just a mechanism to control the citizenry. Traffic laws are secondary.
> I don't think carrying that laminated card is such an intrusion
> into my rights -- as things stand right now. But greater intrusion must be
> resisted, without a doubt.
We draw the lines at different places. But your logic fits perfectly with the gunphobes Firearms ID. Same reasoning. But we have an RKBA, you say? They don't care. It's not an intrusion anyway. The key is, don't give them the tools to control you, even if they use it for some warm and fuzzy reason later on.
> very few people out there take driving
> seriously. If they did, the roads would be a lot safer.
If they were, would you be in favor of dumping the DL scheme?
>
> The proof of competency it represents _is_ good in Arizona. You don't have
> to prove competency again, do you?
I had to take a written test. Why not just put a sticky change-of-address on the back just like they do for me when I move in Arizona? They want you in their database so they can make a profit on your data.
> Ye gads -- you wouldn't prefer the feds
> issue a national driving license, would you?
There is no power granted to the fed to do that.
> I thought you were
> Libertarian!
Who said that? Hey, Ernie. Am I a Libertarian?
>
> Oh, good grief! C'mon, Rick! I never said it is the "only solution"!
Okay, give me a synopsis on your alternative(s).
> of requiring you to show proof of competency and then having in your
> possession evidence of that proof of competency and proof of accountability.
I could have Joe's school of driving wheel me around the block for $25 and give me a non photo 8.5x11 diploma. At least the state would not be able to sell my data. But, then I wouldn't have a contract with the state that would require me to drive 55 mph on a road designed to be safe at 90mph in 1960s vintage vehicles.
> Liable to whom? Who is going to enforce that liability?
The courts, as with any assault.
> What is to keep
> you from just keeping on going? Or bailing out of your car and running six
> blocks, hoping that no one will find you?
Maybe my "Libertarian principles." People run _with_ DLs.
> C'mon, Rick. Do you think, in today's world, that anyone has an obligation
> to treat you like the upstanding model citizen you undoubtedly are when they
> don't know you?
Perhaps they should run a background check on me when I enter a jewelry store.
> Firing a
> machine gun full-auto at a specific target (let's even say paper target)
> _is_ equivalent to herding a two-ton piece of steel down the street,
So I should have a license for *that* gun.
> Rick, I think the people who use that range should be required to show
> VERY STRICT proof of competency,
So you *are* for gun licensing.
> WHAT "justice system"? If you don't have that laminated card, the only
> justice system available to control your actions is the criminal justice
> system. So when you make an illegal lane change, you want to spend the
> weekend in Sheriff Joe's tent city? When you run a stop sign, you want to
> spend a month at Florence?
If I yell and scream at 2am and disturb the piece, I might get jail time, or I might get fined, or I might get a warning. No laminated "Social Intercourse" card required. But you never considered that. As you can see, you are too narrow minded to be of much use in this discussion.
> That card, that license, which you sign with
> your legal signature, binds you to a contract with the State.
A contract I signed under coercion. Sign it, or use the bus, appaently. And now the state forces me to sign a contract with a third party, coerced as well.
> You agree to obey the Motor Vehicle Code, and you agree to accept sanctions
> from
> government if you violate that code.
Hey, you could use the same scheme to prosecute violators of gun laws. We have to have gun laws. How else could we prosecute people who threaten others or rob people with guns? It's the only way.
> And that code is written to prevent collisions.
No, the Arizona 55 mph speed law was written so that they would not lose billions of dollars of highway funds. Some say the 55mph law actually increased traffic deaths. So, would it have been alright to exceed that random limit? What if we go the way of Denmark and lower the alcohol limit to .04%. No proof of impairment. Difficult to pull people over, but, hey, we have a contract that says we can pull them over and force a blood test on them or they lose their license. We can search them in cars when we couldn't search 'em on the sidewalk. We can look for drugs and guns, too. I love that contract. Amazing how they now use it against us, far beyond its intent. And it won't be changed, by you or an army of your Libertarian friends. We must draw the line. Taking it back is much more difficult than not giving it up in the first place.
> You obey it, and you won't have accidents.
Bull.
> You show proof of competency, get the license, and when you kill someone the
> State will keep
> you from being a slave for the rest of your life.
A license is no worthy proof of competancy. A laminated card will not save me from liability. The card puts me one step closer to being a slave. In a traffic stop, your rights are far diminished.
> Or would you prefer to
> return to the days of slaves and indentured servants?
You mean like having state permission to travel on public roads?
>
> And don't crybaby to me about "personal responsibility". If you don't have
> the means of restoring that individual to the condition they were in before
> you hit them, you don't have any "personal responsibility."
What are you talking about? I have personal liability insurance far and away greater than what I have on my car. I could easily contract to apply it to vehicular activities. No driver's license? Change the law and they would easily take 26 years of safe driving.
> The bottom line, Rick, is that if you operate
> a motor vehicle on the public roadway and have no insurance
Who said I didn't have insurance?
>This is getting off topic.
It is on-topic. Your DL arguments are gun registration arguments.
rick