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

[Steve Kinney]

-----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
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=oqAT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----