-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 01/21/2016 05:45 PM, Rayzer wrote:
Steve Kinney wrote:
Can we get a consensus that no one should be allowed to operate a motor vehicle without proof of income,
That what happens in states with optional insurance regulation. You're required to produce proof of ability to compensate someone in case you crush their legs or some other stupid thing that me-firsters never consider until it's THEIR legs that get crushed.
You want insurance against loss or injury from motor vehicle accidents, therefore I will pay for that insurance. And if I don't, hired thugs will kidnap or kill me on your behalf. As long as I choose to obey traffic laws in a manner consistent with public safety, I can not be held liable for any injury to you resulting from my operation of a motor vehicle. Therefore, I must pay for your insurance. The logic is inescapable: You are a thief.
And that this constraint should be imposed by deadly force in the event that someone persistently refuses to comply?
ROTF! The option is ME pulling out a gun and putting a bullet in your head immediately if your car threatens my life.
This "extrapolation" suggests that my position can not be disputed by rational argument.
Your choice dude. Keep extrapolating and not answering my direct question with a direct answer.
Demonstrating that an argument is dependent on a forced, irrational context refutes the said argument.
The question IS:
So can we get a consensus that someone operating a 1-2 ton weapon of environmental and generally Mass Destruction, including but not limited to taking someone's life, should not only prove to 'the herd' they're capable, or at least KNOW how to operate said WMD properly (license), and have responsibility for that WMD, their personal property, evidenced (registration) for the rest of us ?
Evasion was a local 'zine by the OG Dharma Punk, but not an appropriate way to answer a legitimate question.
Nice try, but I am not obligated to refute an argument while staying within the bounds of the irrational context from which it emerges. Relevance is always grounds for objection. Calling an automobile a "weapon of mass destruction" does not do much for your argument except to show that it emerges from a context of irrational fear.
Now we have an "Affordable Care Act"
It can't run you over.
It can steal your money, on behalf of the industry that lobbied to have it put in place. Exactly like compulsory motor vehicle insurance.
It's a matter of perspective. A fear based world view that imposes a constant 'need' for protection by ersatz parental figures is the consensus reality in Amerika.
The worldview in Merica, as illustrated by the responses I'm seeing is 'denial of responsibility' and a touch of sociopathy... Given that, "a constant 'need' for protection" seems prerequisite.
Progress! We agree that you are arguing within a context where a constant need for protection by (armed) third party authorities is assumed. :o) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJWoW6gAAoJEDZ0Gg87KR0LQ24QALwMIig6WJvQzdlu33qGN6yQ ocKVGzUk9c2rOpBYw3UCQvvH1hY0PUXNmp1cH70mlhMM8bd3eRNXj1Fl89eRAMsX 5kYw8GlgR6a3UOmje+73mxCRdiyoo6tySkVOw3wUiZOR3wTckPzU5B3T03a1ajdm 75q1x/Ufwb364XNwTZxkMaEZEY9sNirisnrnfvdUXISBPYMG0sc7wOuhZc90zkXr qqwLEZL0TxX7J10VGNpfdxqg9waPR0vhxwZkFEuRi4v9ar2f1S6gVHD9CVIqY6VG CRJ8zLQhQBNd17B10yxjAbI4ts9FNk2ddBUs/y+doN5qjCDCCke3RnNgEggWTGt4 UugAB35OizjMu7JAceHx6UwqylJLgSS27GydCVSaIRUi8Kvrj2HVSqkXix3kPmXr zbgCqXNmsIzrXqzhOcQ3FMFC7wXKpinLJGLNldv+GtP+s2tcTT0syjLg+6msNA0L IAv6axULr9Gj/0wzPLbSolPiUkmnNg0O+hqPTC1fhdDzzZnkCS5H+Cgx3KgiMPnW 5sdEysTPSssaR4K/dsnwNxMXc4wfkpvrQNBlrFW46ciWRRCMuVowXZIsHCsJLD6w HQxYtsRQTKEiAzg8o62vsyMhAlZ7MD3dMS6zwMnDUMOuMN55oeFPWQRAU1jlylBP vIT5H3PV5QXA8uz28WFJ =oqAT -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----