Huh? This is Choatian nonsense. If the speed limits were 85 mph and a rental car company decided it only wanted drivers to go 65 mph, they could put this in their contract and enforce if, if they so choose. If they misjudge and drivers really, really want to go 85 mph, they will lose business. Such are the gusting winds of the market. You may reasonably say that private companies should not be the enforcement arms of the state, but they should be allowed to make their own decisions when voluntarily choosing to do so. -Declan PS: Of more cypherpunk relevance, perhaps, is the greater role that insurance companies would play in the absence of government speed limits. You may have to pay more in insurance to drive faster, for instance. On Tue, Jul 03, 2001 at 04:10:27PM -0500, Jim Choate wrote:
On Tue, 3 Jul 2001, Tim May wrote:
The second part of the ruling is an invalid attack on the property and contract rights of the owner of the property.
The rental agency has no(!!!) authority under law to enforce speeding regulations. If they find that a leasee has violated a law by getting a ticket or whatever then they certainly have the right to protect their property by refusing or raising rates on future rentals, but to impose 'fines' is simply wrong, they do not represent the civil authority in charge of the road. It would certainly be sufficient evidence to bring charges of reckless driving or whatever, but the final determination of 'guilt' and the consequences thereof are up to the CIVIL authorities and not the owner of the property.
-- ____________________________________________________________________
Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.
Ludwig Wittgenstein
The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------