You have the Right to Drive

In article >, Ed Pirrero wrote:
>On Mar 10, 11:34*am, (Brent P)
>wrote:
>>
>>
>> Licensing is government control by definition. Licensing is the
>> requirement of government granting a person permission to do something.
>
>Logical fallacy - red herring.

It's what you asked me to cite. I cited it. Your removal of context
doesn't change it. I love how when you are failing you become the mad
trimmer. I quote you:

"So, with having been said, you claim that this is a government control
issue. I invite you to prove it with facts. "

I have shown, by legal and common definition that licensing is an
excerise of government power, of its control.

>Your argument isn't about the control part, it's about the
>reasonableness of it. And we both know it. And so does everyone else
>reading.

Reasonableness? Not at all, my argument is about what those concerned
with driving hope to achieve (safety, competency) vs. what the drivers'
licensing is often used for and was set up for, the state granting
permission, privilege, to drive as an excerise of its power.

When you strip away the veneer of competency in the US system what you
are left with is a government excerising it's power, its control by
applying a time table of restrictions in the case of teens or child
support payments or not getting lost when hiking should that bill
become law, and numerous other conditions and restrictions both dealing
with driving and not. WRT to the graduated conditions placed on
teens, those restrictions are enforced by the government's police and
the only way (provided that thedriver is not the registered owner of
the car) the government's police can even determine compliance is to
stop motorists and view their papers to determine their age. That to me
is not arguing the reasonableness but the very thing we hope to achieve
from licensing.

What is it that is to be achieved? Competence behind the wheel or
allowing a government to excerise greater power by intruding into
parental role?

>After all, you've stated that you would accept German-style
>"governmental control", with some modifications.

With regard to competency tests. If we want to achieve competency then
adopting Germany's competency testing would help achieve that goal.

When it comes to US licensing there are merely controls and
restrictions. Exercises of government power. We are all well aware here
in rad that US licensing has 'safety' and competency as an illusion not
unlike that TSA creates with regard to security. The motions are gone
through but measured results are poor at best.

On Mar 10, 1:28*pm, (Brent P)
wrote:
> In article >, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> >On Mar 10, 11:34*am, (Brent P)
> >wrote:
>
> >> Licensing is government control by definition. Licensing is the
> >> requirement of government granting a person permission to do something.
>
> >Logical fallacy - red herring.
>
> It's what you asked me to cite.

No. Either you are being obtuse, or being stupid.

> "So, with having been said, you claim that this is a government control
> issue. *I invite you to prove it with facts. "
>
> I have shown, by legal and common definition that licensing is an
> excerise of government power, of its control.

Or, an exercise of it's legitimate authority.

If you look in the Preamble, I'm sure you'll find something about the
"general Welfare."

It all depends on the context of the comments, and the person making
them.

Anyone who reads this group with any regularity knows exactly what
you're talking about. Pretending you are talking about something else
is beneath you.

> >Your argument isn't about the control part, it's about the
> >reasonableness of it. *And we both know it. *And so does everyone else
> >reading.
>
> Reasonableness? Not at all, my argument is about what those concerned
> with driving hope to achieve (safety, competency) vs. what the drivers'
> licensing is often used for and was set up for, the state granting
> permission, privilege, to drive as an excerise of its power. *

It's that second part that you haven't proven. Legitimate exercise of
authority vs. some nebulous, sinister "control".

> When you strip away the veneer of competency in the US system what you
> are left with is a government excerising it's power, its control by
> applying a time table of restrictions in the case of teens or child
> support payments or not getting lost when hiking should that bill
> become law, and numerous other conditions and restrictions both dealing
> with driving and not. WRT to the graduated conditions placed on
> teens, those restrictions are enforced by the government's police and
> the only way (provided that thedriver is not the registered owner of
> the car) the government's police can even determine compliance is to
> stop motorists and view their papers to determine their age. That to me
> is not arguing the reasonableness but the very thing we hope to achieve
> from licensing.

Thank you for going above and beyond to prove the point I was making.
You *were* being obtuse, at best. At the very least, being pedantic
in hopes the red herring technique would work. But in the end, you
always come back to the accusations (completely unproven) that it's
about "control".

Again, it is on *you* to prove that the restrictions are not about
exactly what they are written to be about, but about "control".

> >After all, you've stated that you would accept German-style
> >"governmental control", with some modifications.
>
> With regard to competency tests. If we want to achieve competency then
> adopting Germany's competency testing would help achieve that goal.

Yeah. Sure.

You would ensure that folks are competent, how? Let's think about the
simplest way to do that. Could it be through, oh, say, a driver's
licensing program?

> When it comes to US licensing there are merely controls and
> restrictions. Exercises of government power.

Re-asserting the same thing without proof doesn't make it true.

E.P.

On Mar 9, 11:23*am, Scott in SoCal > wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 12:35:24 -0500,
>
>
>
>
>
> (Brent P) wrote:
> >In article >, Scott in SoCal wrote:
>
> >>>Except in driving the government has replaced the instructor with a time
> >>>table. It doesn't matter if they've learned a damned thing, its all
> >>>based on age. To take your flying example further, you could fail to
> >>>show any competence in flying but since you aged enough you'd be passed
> >>>to the next step.
>
> >>Sounds like the "Social Promotion" we have in public schools.
>
> >Yes, it is much like the government schools.
>
> >>>>Teens in groups don't pay that much attention to the driving. *They
> >>>>are easily challenged do to stupid things (especially the guys). *Let
> >>>>them get some experience alone before they have friends and nighttime
> >>>>privileges.
>
> >>>Nice group think there. Not every teen is that way.
>
> >>I can't WAIT for you to have teenaged kids, Brent.
>
> >What is that supposed to mean?
>
> You'll find out. It's something you have to live through to fully
> understand.

You mispelled "survive with shreds of sanity", there.

E.P.

In article >, Ed Pirrero wrote:
>On Mar 10, 1:28*pm, (Brent P)
>wrote:
>> In article >, Ed Pirrero wrote:
>> >On Mar 10, 11:34*am, (Brent P)
>> >wrote:
>>
>> >> Licensing is government control by definition. Licensing is the
>> >> requirement of government granting a person permission to do something.
>>
>> >Logical fallacy - red herring.
>>
>> It's what you asked me to cite.
>
>No. Either you are being obtuse, or being stupid.
>
>> "So, with having been said, you claim that this is a government control
>> issue. *I invite you to prove it with facts. "
>>
>> I have shown, by legal and common definition that licensing is an
>> excerise of government power, of its control.
>
>Or, an exercise of it's legitimate authority.
>
>If you look in the Preamble, I'm sure you'll find something about the
>"general Welfare."

You can do better than a lame overused catch all for anything and
everything.

>It all depends on the context of the comments, and the person making
>them.



>Anyone who reads this group with any regularity knows exactly what
>you're talking about. Pretending you are talking about something else
>is beneath you.

I am not pretending anything Ed. It's you that keeps pushing a
characterization of me. I've never played along with it and I am not
about to start.

Licensing is a form of government control, plain and simple. Driver's
licensing in the USA as it practiced doesn't do much more than first
grader's understand of 'red'=stop 'green'=go and DUI BAC =
0.08% competency wise. The purposes it serves are more inline with its
creation, simply control. Every year we are treated to more legislation
where people can lose their DL, their government permission to drive for
this, that, or the other thing that doesn't have any connection to
driving safely or driving at all.

>> >Your argument isn't about the control part, it's about the
>> >reasonableness of it. *And we both know it. *And so does everyone else
>> >reading.

>> Reasonableness? Not at all, my argument is about what those concerned
>> with driving hope to achieve (safety, competency) vs. what the drivers'
>> licensing is often used for and was set up for, the state granting
>> permission, privilege, to drive as an excerise of its power. *

>It's that second part that you haven't proven. Legitimate exercise of
>authority vs. some nebulous, sinister "control".

See here you are again with your characterization. I am sure if we had a
loving, bevenolent government it would fail at parenting just as well as
if we had an evil, sinister one. Government cannot do the task. There is
no way central command with its age tables can do the parental decision
making. All it can do is assume the very worst case for everyone and
restrict all. The results of restricting all to the capabilities of
the least capable is damaging to the economy and the society.

>> When you strip away the veneer of competency in the US system what you
>> are left with is a government excerising it's power, its control by
>> applying a time table of restrictions in the case of teens or child
>> support payments or not getting lost when hiking should that bill
>> become law, and numerous other conditions and restrictions both dealing
>> with driving and not. WRT to the graduated conditions placed on
>> teens, those restrictions are enforced by the government's police and
>> the only way (provided that thedriver is not the registered owner of
>> the car) the government's police can even determine compliance is to
>> stop motorists and view their papers to determine their age. That to me
>> is not arguing the reasonableness but the very thing we hope to achieve
>> from licensing.

>Thank you for going above and beyond to prove the point I was making.
>You *were* being obtuse, at best. At the very least, being pedantic
>in hopes the red herring technique would work. But in the end, you
>always come back to the accusations (completely unproven) that it's
>about "control".

Government licensing by definition is about control. I have never
stated otherwise. Your problem is that you have this characterization
you've built and repeated so often you now believe its true.

>Again, it is on *you* to prove that the restrictions are not about
>exactly what they are written to be about, but about "control".

They are effectively about control, it's licensing requirements,
restrictions enforced by the state instead of the parent. I'm sure that
most of the legislators and most of the people for it think they are
protecting the precious little snowflakes, however the end result is
more government intrusion. Those who got prohibition passed certainly
thought they were protecting everyone for their own good. Although they
at least had the respect of the constitution to go for an amendment. The
war on drugs, that too was designed to keep us safe, for government to
protect the children and all of us from horrible substances. What's the
end result of government making these decisions for us in the war on
drugs? Even when the failure of the war on drugs is obvious as well as
what we've lost and the abuses many still think its a good thing.

But in the end these sort of things are used by those who wish to
control others one way or another. To displace decentralized processes
in the hands of the people with centralized ones in the hands of the
state.

>> >After all, you've stated that you would accept German-style
>> >"governmental control", with some modifications.

>> With regard to competency tests. If we want to achieve competency then
>> adopting Germany's competency testing would help achieve that goal.

>Yeah. Sure.
>You would ensure that folks are competent, how? Let's think about the
>simplest way to do that. Could it be through, oh, say, a driver's
>licensing program?

Setting people out with a bunch of universal restrictions and a generic
time table shows competence exactly how?

>> When it comes to US licensing there are merely controls and
>> restrictions. Exercises of government power.

>Re-asserting the same thing without proof doesn't make it true.

It's in the very definition of the situation.

On Mar 10, 3:24*pm, (Brent P)
wrote:
> In article >, Ed Pirrero wrote:
>
> >Or, an exercise of it's legitimate authority.
>
> >If you look in the Preamble, I'm sure you'll find something about the
> >"general Welfare."
>
> You can do better than a lame overused catch all for anything and
> everything.

:shrug: The USC is the basis for the Republic. Somehow, I doubt you
could come up with "something better".

[snip ad infinitem repetition of unproven claim]

Without proof that the graduated licenses are about control, I am not
persuaded.

E.P.

In article >, Ed Pirrero wrote:
>On Mar 10, 3:24*pm, (Brent P)
>wrote:
>> In article >, Ed Pirrero wrote:
>>
>> >Or, an exercise of it's legitimate authority.
>>
>> >If you look in the Preamble, I'm sure you'll find something about the
>> >"general Welfare."
>>
>> You can do better than a lame overused catch all for anything and
>> everything.
>
>:shrug: The USC is the basis for the Republic. Somehow, I doubt you
>could come up with "something better".

The "general welfare" has been greatly mis-used over the years,
especially in the last several decades to support many things that go
against individual liberty. To do come up with something better I
suggest you find a portion that isn't so vague and not used as an
'everything under the sun' excuse clause.

>[snip ad infinitem repetition of unproven claim]

>Without proof that the graduated licenses are about control, I am not
>persuaded.

I thought you were using the gpstroll style... 'appease me'

You stated it yourself he
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...9?dmode=source
>

"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 9, 10:53*pm, " > wrote:
> On Mar 9, 3:31*pm, Ed Pirrero > wrote:
> > On Mar 8, 5:05 > wrote:
>
> > > Same thing applies to alcohol sales. In truth, I believe a 10 year old
> > > should be able to walk into a liquor store and purchase alcohol. *BUT,
> > > before any of you fly off at the handle, in saying that, I AM NOT
> > > saying that I believe 10 year olds should be consuming alcohol.
>
> > Should 10-year-olds be driving?
>
> In last year's version of this thread, he ended up conceding that 10
> year olds, toddlers, infants, family dogs and amoebae should be
> permitted to drive unless and until each distinct one caused an
> accident. In other words, one dog having an auto accident shouldn't
> prevent all other dogs from driving.

k_flynn is a liar, and he knows he is a liar.

k_flynn has been told by myself numerous times that my claim is that
we have the Right to Drive safely. If we can not drive safely, we do
not have the Right to Drive dangerously.

I say we have the Right to Drive safely, and k_flynn slanders what I
say claiming I have said toddlers, infants, family dogs and amoebae
have the Right to Drive. Makes me wonder if k_flynn actually believes
toddlers, infants, family dogs and amoebae actually can drive safely.

k_flynn is a FREQUENT LIAR.

On Mar 8, 10:54*pm, gpsman > wrote:
> On Mar 8, 7:05 pm, proffsl > wrote:
> >
> > Irresponsible people create irresponsible laws that create
> > irresponsible parents who create irresponsible children. Laws
> > that presume to do the parent's job are irresponsible by producing
> > parents who believe they don't have to do their job. Driver licensing
> > laws make the parents believe the state is doing their job of
> > determining of their child is mature enough to be allowed to drive,
> > so the parents surrender that decision to the state, often to their
> > own demise.
>
> That's about the dumbest **** ever posted to Usenet,

Why don't you explain exactly how it is the "dumbest ****" 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.

On Mar 8, 9:28*pm, Harry K > wrote:
> On Mar 8, 3:32*pm, proffsl > wrote:
> > On Mar 7, 1:01*pm, Harry K > wrote:
> > > On Mar 6, 11:01*am, proffsl > wrote:
>
> > > > Read about it at:
>
> > > >http://proffsl.110mb.com/driving.php
>
> > > > and
>
> > > >http://proffsl.110mb.com/driver_licensing.php
>
> > > So turn in your license and refuse to get another one.
>
> > I am sure you feel as if you have exercised an authoritative
> > power beyond what you are normally use to in this police
> > state government we live our restricted lives in, just as I am
> > sure that doing so gives you a false sense of achievement
> > beyond what you are normally use to, but I am not here to
> > take directives.
>
> > I am here to debate the validity of my claims.
>
> Uhuh. *Translated: "I don't have the balls to put my money where my
> mouth is"

Well, after we run your responce through the translator, it comes out:
"I do not have the ability to be part of a rational discussion, much
less produce any valid counter arguments to your claim, so I will
attempt to make you the issue, I will then proceed to make baseless
accusations on your part and to personally attack you."

On Mar 9, 9:08 pm, (Brent P) wrote:
> >In FLYing you have to show competence. In driving it's just an age
> >table. Your comparison is not valid.
>
> Correction in caps.

Thanks. You had me reading that over and over, trying to figger out
what's wrong with ya! ;<)

I still mildly disagree with your line of thought though.