 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / April 2008You have the Right to Drive
Read about it at: http://proffsl.110mb.com/driving.php and http://proffsl.110mb.com/driver_licensing.php 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.  Signature"Dave's not here, man!" - Tommy Chong > 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. > 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. > > 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. SignaturePaul Hovnanian paul@hovnanian.com ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Procrastinators: The leaders for tomorrow. > > > Licensing, like the TSA is about the power of government, > > > not our safety. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > 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. > 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. > 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 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 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. >> 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 [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >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 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >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 a.s 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. > In article <ab421092-baac-4cc2-9d9f-4481a2df1...@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote: > >> In article <c2309571-5d34-4b4c-86a4-14127daaf...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > 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. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 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. >> 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. > 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 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 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. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > 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 [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > sense of responsibility to a certain degree, the better fix is to start > the learning process earlier, not delay it further. Exactly! Exactly! > 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 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > 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. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > 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. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > 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. >> 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 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> >> 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. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> 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? > In article <99a40547-e639-4172-ac22-a2fd89135...@p73g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 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. >> In article <99a40547-e639-4172-ac22-a2fd89135...@p73g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >So, IOW, it's merely your opinion. Gotcha. IOW, you have no actual response. On Mar 10, 10:09 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > In article <2933ab54-72f3-4de5-a450-ec1bf9ffe...@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote: > >> In article <99a40547-e639-4172-ac22-a2fd89135...@p73g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > IOW, you have no actual response. 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. >On Mar 10, 10:09 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >you have no proof of that, you are merely giving your opinion on the >subject. 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. 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. 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. >On Mar 10, 11:34 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >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. 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) [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > 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 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 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 [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > 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. >On Mar 10, 1:28 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >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 [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> 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. 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: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 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. >On Mar 10, 3:24 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >: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-4cc2-9d9f-4481a2df15eb@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? 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) [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > 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> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > 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. >On Mar 10, 4:16 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >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> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> 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. On Mar 11, 9:26 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) 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) [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > 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. >> 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. 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: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 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. >On Mar 11, 9:59 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >I guess when it gets down to assigning someone else a position, that's >all the "proof" required, hmm? Having trouble Ed? Looks like it. You assigned me the position of being able to tell the difference between what is good for the general welfare and what isn't, or is control. The fact is no one person, no system of authority for that matter can know what is good for the general welfare. However a system of authority can execute a system of control, that's its business. No one person, no system of authority can make a determination of what is for the general welfare and what is not. What is good for the general welfare comes from the aggregate of very many freely made individual decisions. Determinations of what is good for the general welfare from authority over-ride belief in individual liberty. As to arguing that graduated licensing is control, well you snipped it again. This time I'll just post the law: http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/documents/062500050K6-107.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. 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) [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > 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. >On Mar 11, 11:41 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >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? 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) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > 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. >On Mar 11, 12:24 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >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 a.s-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. On Mar 11, 2:19 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) 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) [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > 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 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > 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. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > 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? > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > 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. >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 a.s. 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. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> >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 f.ck 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. On Mar 11, 7:33 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > In article <48826a5e-d856-40ea-9736-08c1a2f89...@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote: > >You are mistaken. > > Well then, then you're being rather dishonest. You didn't even make two sentences before breaking out the logical fallacy. Take your pick - ad hominem, or straw man. Maybe a little of both. E.P. > > In article <ab421092-baac-4cc2-9d9f-4481a2df1...@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote: > > >> In article <c2309571-5d34-4b4c-86a4-14127daaf...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote: [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > Would you like to guess what the biggest killer of teens happens to > be? 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. > Irresponsible people create irresponsible laws that create > irresponsible parents who create irresponsible children. Laws that [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 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 sh.t 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 > > Irresponsible people create irresponsible laws that create > > irresponsible parents who create irresponsible children. Laws [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > That's about the dumbest sh.t ever posted to Usenet, Why don't you explain exactly how it is the "dumbest sh.t" 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. > > > Irresponsible people create irresponsible laws that create > > > irresponsible parents who create irresponsible children. Laws [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > falsely identify it as a concession. You are also resorting to > personal attacks. > 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. > > 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 |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message