USA To Require Govt Issued ID To Use Internet, No More Anonymous

[Zenaan Harkness]

On 1/21/16, Rayzer <Rayzer at riseup.net> wrote:
> On 01/21/2016 12:25 AM, juan wrote:
>> > On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 21:11:51 -0800 Rayzer <Rayzer at riseup.net>
>> > wrote:
>> >> juan wrote:
>> >>> On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 23:19:10 -0500 grarpamp
>> >>> <grarpamp at gmail.com> wrote:

>> >>>> "When a person drives a car on a highway, he or she
>> >>>> agrees to display a license plate,"
>> >>>
>> >>> false
>> >>
>> >> Spoken like a true right wing jackass me-first sovereign
>> >> citizen.

This simply does not follow. Juan made a simple logical response that
"no, just because I choose to drive on a public road, does not mean I
actually agree to display a license plate"

As a fact, Juan's logic is true.

This can also be extended:
- driving on a road does not mean driver -wants- to display a license plate
- driving on a road does not mean driver displays a license plate
(this might result in certain consequences that from various view
points might be desirable, and or un-desirable)

Neither of these two positions, nor the one Juan stated above, warrant
being classified as "a true right wing jackass me-first sovereign
citizen".

"I don't have to be doing anything wrong to want my privacy."

This one time, an associate was asked by a Magistrate/Judge, "well Mr
Redacted, how would you feel if a driver had no number plate and did a
hit and run on your child?" to which he responded "pretty bloody bad,
and frankly, just as bad as if someone -with- a number plate had done
a hit and run".

The point here is that the number plate does not stop people doing the
wrong thing.

Although there may be some encouragement towards better behaviour by
mandating number plates, such a correlation is not public knowledge,
and more importantly, the costs are manifold:
- our right to travel anonmyously is sacrificed (yes, anonymous wrt
most individuals, but no, not anonymous from the state, which is
arguably much more important)
- the state intrudes into our private lives
- economic bias - fines charged (eg for parking longer than 'allowed')
unfairly target the poor
- many more reasons

It is the bad action which ought be punished/ sanctioned in some way by society.


>> >> I'll bet you think you're an anarchist too!

Razer, your reaction to suggestion that "there is no agreement to
display a number plate when one drives on a public road" is way out of
proportion to the suggestion.

Some people have such reactions because they had a love one who
suffered from some egregious road crime.


>> > Dude. You're the one who quotes doug casey.
>
> It doesn't matter WHO one quotes. The only thing that matters is one's
> WORLDVIEW, and I stick to what I said. You're a right winger and don't
> even know it.

Frankly I don't really know what "right winger" means. I really wish I
did, but it's different for different people, so your definition is
unlikely to be useful in this thread.

What I believe -is- useful is to handle a particular issue at a time -
if an issue gets too big, perhaps additional threads are required.


> Steve Kinney wrote:
>> As an anarchist, I have no problem recognizing the difference
>> between consent, and making accommodations to coercive demands as
>> a matter of tactical discretion.
>>
>> Calling compliance with arbitrary orders from people who carry
>> guns and radios "consent" is like saying that every person who has
>> ever been raped "was asking for it."
>
> 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),

Here you are conflating capability (training) with tracking and
control (license).

And, we can debate whether control via license is abused by the state,
whether control by court order and/ or punishment by the courts for
violations of the public standards/expectations of "the herd", and
compare any purported benefits put forward, with the many costs
involved, some of which I outlined above.

I wholeheartedly disagree with the incredibly simplified assertion
"car bad, state control good".


> and have responsibility for that WMD, their personal property, evidenced
> (registration) for the rest of us ?

No. We can not. The lack of depth/ assumption that we can, might be
worth analysing though.