Splitoff from libertarian party

Thomas L. Knapp said:
The legitimate purpose of a driver's license is to prove that the person carrying it has passed tests of driving competency. For that purpose, there's no need for it to identify the person carrying it beyond establishing that that person is the person who owns it. That could be accomplished with nothing more than a fingerprint on the document. If the person carrying it has a fingerprint that matches, then he's driving legally. The police don't have to know his name, address or anything else unless they're arresting him for something (in which case he has no obligation to give them that information -- 5th Amendment, remember?).
Click to expand...

I definitely don't support people having to show their papers on demand - I think you're fear mongering. There are plenty of other satellite benefits for having national standards for IDs. For instance, if a manager of a liquor store in Oregon sells to someone with an ID from Delaware, there's really no standard in validating whether or not its real or not. If he serves them and it turns out their under 21, he's still liable. To be safe, he or she would probably have to turn down drivers licsenses (sp?) that he is unfamiliar with. I know how much you libs hate the idea of lost business.
But lets say someone is pulled over for suspicion of X. The police now have at their finger tips an efficient tool in determining who and what they are dealing with. Ultimately there will be administrative savings in this - perhaps a tax cut? I know how you people luuuuuuuv tax cuts.
I think it can definitely be a great tool in the WOT for both domestic and foreign perpetrators. Finally getting local authorities on the same wavelengt has it advantages.

Having said that I don't think they should be mandatory (I'm debating on whether that should hold true for foreign residents) and I don't think that people should have to show their papers on demand. The basis of your discontentment with these national standards seems to be that, but it doesn't have to be that way.
 
LadyT said:
I definitely don't support people having to show their papers on demand - I think you're fear mongering. There are plenty of other satellite benefits for having national standards for IDs. For instance, if a manager of a liquor store in Oregon sells to someone with an ID from Delaware, there's really no standard in validating whether or not its real or not. If he serves them and it turns out their under 21, he's still liable. To be safe, he or she would probably have to turn down drivers licsenses (sp?) that he is unfamiliar with. I know how much you libs hate the idea of lost business.
But lets say someone is pulled over for suspicion of X. The police now have at their finger tips an efficient tool in determining who and what they are dealing with. Ultimately there will be administrative savings in this - perhaps a tax cut? I know how you people luuuuuuuv tax cuts.
I think it can definitely be a great tool in the WOT for both domestic and foreign perpetrators. Finally getting local authorities on the same wavelengt has it advantages.

Having said that I don't think they should be mandatory (I'm debating on whether that should hold true for foreign residents) and I don't think that people should have to show their papers on demand. The basis of your discontentment with these national standards seems to be that, but it doesn't have to be that way.
Click to expand...

I disagree with you on this one Tiana, and I will tell you why ok? I disagree because anytime, in our history, that the government has had access to information, they have abused it. And they are doing it right now, and we only know a very small part of the abuses that are ocurring today in the name of "The War On Terror". Someday, we will know most of the abuses, I doubt we will ever know all of them. And on that day, some people will be shocked, but I won't be.

This is why I am against wiretapping without FISA approval. Bush will say it is the "Terrorist wiretapping program" but that's BS. He has taken it upon himself that he has the authority to wiretap anybody, and what he is telling he is doing, is the typical liar's ruse. When a liar is caught, he will tell part of the truth, and still hide the worst of it. That is what bush is doing. Let me tell you, they are wiretapping political dissenters, political enemies, members of the peace movement, and the press.

And if you allow them to institute this real id program, it is just another cog in the wheel that makes up their total information awareness program, which, though killed by congress did not actually die, it lives under another name, fully funded, and fully functional, and fully, UnConstitional.
 
3. I'm not concerned with the government's "budget crisis." There's an obvious solution to it -- they can stop spending more than they take in. My aim is to reduce the amount they take in. If they don't act responsibly after that, that's another issue. Hell, I was hoping you'd give me some points for the FORM of the tax cut -- bottom-up with the greatest benefit to the poor, instead of top-down with the greatest benefit to the rich.
//
Tom this method does not work. My wife cut our income by quitting her job and themn proceeded to spend us into technical bankruptcy.
I believe in a balanced budget ammendment to the constitution.
 
Darla said:
I disagree with you on this one Tiana, and I will tell you why ok? I disagree because anytime, in our history, that the government has had access to information, they have abused it. And they are doing it right now, and we only know a very small part of the abuses that are ocurring today in the name of "The War On Terror". Someday, we will know most of the abuses, I doubt we will ever know all of them. And on that day, some people will be shocked, but I won't be.

This is why I am against wiretapping without FISA approval. Bush will say it is the "Terrorist wiretapping program" but that's BS. He has taken it upon himself that he has the authority to wiretap anybody, and what he is telling he is doing, is the typical liar's ruse. When a liar is caught, he will tell part of the truth, and still hide the worst of it. That is what bush is doing. Let me tell you, they are wiretapping political dissenters, political enemies, members of the peace movement, and the press.

And if you allow them to institute this real id program, it is just another cog in the wheel that makes up their total information awareness program, which, though killed by congress did not actually die, it lives under another name, fully funded, and fully functional, and fully, UnConstitional.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree that they have abused and over stepped their powers. Which is why I've been careful to say, "Can be good". At this stage I really don't trust much that the Bush admin does either, however if a fair and mixed gov't gets in soon and there are the proper checks and balances that the Bush team seems to hate, I think it could be a powerful tool. Implementing a standardized ID program isn't a bad thing in and of itself, whats bad is when authorities use that information in an unlawful manner.
 
LadyT said:
I don't disagree that they have abused and over stepped their powers. Which is why I've been careful to say, "Can be good". At this stage I really don't trust much that the Bush admin does either, however if a fair and mixed gov't gets in soon and there are the proper checks and balances that the Bush team seems to hate, I think it could be a powerful tool. Implementing a standardized ID program isn't a bad thing in and of itself, whats bad is when authorities use that information in an unlawful manner.
Click to expand...

Ok, well, as much as I want to get rid of bush, and I agree they are the most abusive to date, I really don't trust any government, and I'd rather they know as little about me as possible. I don't care for people nosying around in my business.

Of course, if an authoritarian dem-type gets into office, and they are going to use tools like this to stalk, harrass and maybe even arrest and torture people like Dano and Brent and Dixie...then I will have to think about it.
 
Darla said:
"Of course, the US made it without an income tax until 1913, and without a substantial income tax until World War II. That was before most Americans became convinced that the federal government absolutely must kiss them awake every morning, tuck them in at night, and hold their hands and wipe their asses for them every minute in between"

It also directly coincides with the creation and buildup of the military industrial complex that Eisenhower became so alarmed about.

Also, I'd argue that Americans became convinced of no such thing. Do we need to go point by point through the preceding years, and the devestation? Perhaps you'd like to harken back to social programs which proceeded the new deal, say perhaps the civil war pension program? What would have happened without that program? What happened when most who could qualify for it were dead? Was it inevitable that another old age pension program would have to be instituted? Was there ever a time when Americans simply pulled themselves up by their own bootstraps, or, were social programs under many different guises, including pre-civil war patronage, always in effect?

And since the rise of the modern welfare state took place along side the rise of the military industrial complex, is that more than coincidence? Could you have all guns and no butter in America, or would the people revolt? Is it a case of, give them that so they don't notice this? And if so, can you ever hope to do away with, or even to drastically cut back the modern welfare state, while at the same time continuting to enlarge the military industrial complex? And is anyone ever going to be able to cut that, most powerful of all entities, back? Unlikely. In fact, it's a dream.
Click to expand...


And lets not forget the land grants given to revoloutionary war veterans.
 
Darla said:
Ok, well, as much as I want to get rid of bush, and I agree they are the most abusive to date, I really don't trust any government, and I'd rather they know as little about me as possible. I don't care for people nosying around in my business.

Of course, if an authoritarian dem-type gets into office, and they are going to use tools like this to stalk, harrass and maybe even arrest and torture people like Dano and Brent and Dixie...then I will have to think about it.
Click to expand...

Well, I don't think the local authorities would know any more about you than the IRS already does. SS #, birth cert. records (finger print/foot prints), address etc. They are just making it a national standard to help local authorities as well. However, my biggest fear with this would be widening the door for identity theft.
 
Darla said:
Ok, well, as much as I want to get rid of bush, and I agree they are the most abusive to date, I really don't trust any government, and I'd rather they know as little about me as possible. I don't care for people nosying around in my business.

Of course, if an authoritarian dem-type gets into office, and they are going to use tools like this to stalk, harrass and maybe even arrest and torture people like Dano and Brent and Dixie...then I will have to think about it.
Click to expand...

As bad as I hate to admit it, I would not like the paranoia ID thing used to prosecute Dixie and his ilk. It would sooner or later be used on us all.
I too think my business is my business and not the gummits.
 
Worse case scenario, what could possibly happen to an innocent civillian if they standardize state issued drivers liscenses?
 
Darla,

Thank you -- that was actually one of my LESS radical pieces in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. Try this one on for size. I doubt you'll agree with all of it, but yeah, I was feeling pretty ballsy right about then.

You and I may not disagree on "safety net" issues as much as you think. To put it as concisely as possible, I do favor a social safety net -- I just don't trust government to administer it. How to get from a government safety net to a non-government one is fraught with difficult questions ... and as much as I like to lip off, no, I don't have all the answers to those questions.

IHateGovernment: Hell, don't let ME steal your thunder. Roll it! I'm just glad there are other libertarians here to keep me in line ;-)

LadyT, Obviously we disagree. I even disagree with your specific examples, as I don't believe that there should be laws setting a drinking age (as a matter of fact, I'll go further and say that such laws kill kids who sneak their beer into the car and go cruising because they can't sit on a barstool and have it). On the other hand, I don't really mean to be disagreeABLE about the disagreement. It's simply my belief (based on experience) that any power given to government will be abused, and that most of the time the severity of the abuse will more than offset the benefits. Yes, I know that "it doesn't have to be that way" with respect to providing ID on demand ... but pursuant to a Supreme Court ruling last year and to legislation passed or under consideration in several states, it IS that way: If a cop demands that you provide ID, whether he has a good reason to demand it or not, you can now be jailed in much of America for refusing to provide said ID, even in the absence of any actual crime being connected to the incident.

I agree with Darla re: FISA. As a matter of fact, we have continually allowed the government more power to search/surveil, and yet all we hear is the constant refrain that things are getting worse and that more such power is needed. If you're doing X to fix Y and Y keeps getting worse, then it's reasonable to assume that X is not the solution to Y. I'm a lot more confident that telling police to leave the potsmokers alone and go after real crimes instead would do more to make us secure than subjecting the entire populace to yet more controls.

uscitizen: I agree that a balanced budget amendment is in order, and didn't mean to imply that I oppose it. WAll I'm saying is that politicians' unwillingness to discipline themselves on spending isn't a good argument against tax cuts. If an alcoholic demands that I provide him with beer, I shouldn't have to supervise his successful completion of a 12-step program before I can say "no, I'm not buying you another drink." I might be agreeable to doing so, but I shouldn't HAVE to.

Regards,
Tom Knapp
 
I think there are other choices than the two you presented, but it's a powerful piece. I bet you took a lot of crap over it. I have no argument with your comments on the actions and reactions of those in DC.

I certainly question the safety of anyone who is on a plane with 200 armed civilians. Have you see what has happened to people on planes lately? If you are afraid of flying and prone to panic attacks, God help you, because if you so much as twitch the wrong way they will throw you down, and sit on your head, and if they don't sufficate you, and if the police don't put a bullet in your head when you land, you will be arrested. I say this as someone who actually has had a panic attack or two, because of heights.

Perhaps you are not afraid of heights, and so you do not have to worry about getting a bullet in the head if you're on a plane. But you have to think of all kinds of different people, and also try and realize, are most people really as you portray them? Steady, calm, and rational, even in a frightening situation? I think that we only need look around us to see the answer is, no.

But you really nailed the reasons for what happened, and also, the cowardly and willfully ignorant, as well as opportunistic, reactions of our dear politicians.

And you are a very good writer.
 
I agree Darla on armed civies on planes. Heck these are some of the people theat re-elected GWB. How much sensible action can we expect out of them.
Go Darla Go!
 
Good luck at the pain clinic. I am going to cut some more trees shortly. and then do some actual paying work tonight :)
 
Darla,

You write:

"I certainly question the safety of anyone who is on a plane with 200 armed civilians. Have you see what has happened to people on planes lately?"

Stop and hold.

OK, since September 11, 2001, fliers have (for very good reasons) been nervous like a cat in a room full of rocking chairs. What I was asserting, however, was that if 9/11 hadn't happened, they wouldn't have become that way. On September 10th, a flier who had a panic attack would have, as a very LAST RESORT, been physically restrained. SINCE 9/11, getting up to go use the bathroom at the wrong time might get you tackled or even shot.

And what I'm saying is that if any significant number of passengers had been carrying firearms -- as it is their constitutionally guaranteed right to do -- 9/11 would not have happened.

If the unconstitutional laws against carrying firearms on planes hadn't existed, I doubt that all 200 passengers on any given plane would have been carrying. I'd be surprised if 10 or 20 would have been. But 10 or 20 would have been more than sufficient to ensure that a bunch of assholes with boxcutters couldn't take over the plane and turn it into a missile. And the likelihood that a number of passengers would be armed would militate against said assholes even TRYING to do so.

The laws against carrying on planes were passed in the early 1970s after a couple of hijackings. They were a bad idea. They didn't work. Instead of trying (unsuccessfully) to prevent criminals from being criminals, we should have instead encouraged law-abiding citizens who like to carry their pistols on their hips ... to DO SO, so that people like DB Cooper go rob liquor stores instead of hijacking planes. Hopefully the airlines would require that only frangible ammo be taken aboard, of course (even though explosive decompression is not nearly as big a risk as some people think).

Pre-9/11, I also don't think that someone who had a panic attack on board a plane would have been shot to death by some eager beaver with his .45 on him. I'm not sure that the toothpaste can be put back in the tube easily -- after five years of jumping at shadows, it might take awhile for people to calm back down -- but I just don't see that allowing carry on planes was a problem BEFORE 9/11. It was not a significant problem in the 25 years before it was outlawed, and outlawing it didn't solve the problem it was intended to solve.

Personally, I've only flown once since 9/11 (speech in New York against the Iraq war, and no time to drive or bus there) and didn't enjoy the experience much. I occasionally go out to the St. Louis airport and walk around to gauge the ambience, and that ambience still reminds me of a Third World police state hellhole.

As a side note, I doubt that I'd carry on board myself. I'm not much of a pistol shot, I don't know if an M-14 would fit in the carry-on size parameters, and I just am not into guns like I was when I was in the Marine Corps. But it wouldn't bother me if the guy sitting next to me was packing, as long as he wasn't dressed in a white shroud, waving an AK-47 and screaming "Allahu Akbar" or something.

Regards,
Tom Knapp
 
Yes if a frog had wings it would not bump it's ass either. on the 911 not happening if passengers were armed. but if they had been armed after the 911 incident I feel that many problems would have occured because of paniky people doing stupid things. As Darla said. Remember airplanes are delicate and the smallest caliber gun will punch a hole in one, explosive decompression at 30,000 ft is not a good thing.
 
Thomas L. Knapp said:
Darla,

You write:

"I certainly question the safety of anyone who is on a plane with 200 armed civilians. Have you see what has happened to people on planes lately?"

Stop and hold.

OK, since September 11, 2001, fliers have (for very good reasons) been nervous like a cat in a room full of rocking chairs. What I was asserting, however, was that if 9/11 hadn't happened, they wouldn't have become that way. On September 10th, a flier who had a panic attack would have, as a very LAST RESORT, been physically restrained. SINCE 9/11, getting up to go use the bathroom at the wrong time might get you tackled or even shot.

And what I'm saying is that if any significant number of passengers had been carrying firearms -- as it is their constitutionally guaranteed right to do -- 9/11 would not have happened.

If the unconstitutional laws against carrying firearms on planes hadn't existed, I doubt that all 200 passengers on any given plane would have been carrying. I'd be surprised if 10 or 20 would have been. But 10 or 20 would have been more than sufficient to ensure that a bunch of assholes with boxcutters couldn't take over the plane and turn it into a missile. And the likelihood that a number of passengers would be armed would militate against said assholes even TRYING to do so.

The laws against carrying on planes were passed in the early 1970s after a couple of hijackings. They were a bad idea. They didn't work. Instead of trying (unsuccessfully) to prevent criminals from being criminals, we should have instead encouraged law-abiding citizens who like to carry their pistols on their hips ... to DO SO, so that people like DB Cooper go rob liquor stores instead of hijacking planes. Hopefully the airlines would require that only frangible ammo be taken aboard, of course (even though explosive decompression is not nearly as big a risk as some people think).

Pre-9/11, I also don't think that someone who had a panic attack on board a plane would have been shot to death by some eager beaver with his .45 on him. I'm not sure that the toothpaste can be put back in the tube easily -- after five years of jumping at shadows, it might take awhile for people to calm back down -- but I just don't see that allowing carry on planes was a problem BEFORE 9/11. It was not a significant problem in the 25 years before it was outlawed, and outlawing it didn't solve the problem it was intended to solve.

Personally, I've only flown once since 9/11 (speech in New York against the Iraq war, and no time to drive or bus there) and didn't enjoy the experience much. I occasionally go out to the St. Louis airport and walk around to gauge the ambience, and that ambience still reminds me of a Third World police state hellhole.

As a side note, I doubt that I'd carry on board myself. I'm not much of a pistol shot, I don't know if an M-14 would fit in the carry-on size parameters, and I just am not into guns like I was when I was in the Marine Corps. But it wouldn't bother me if the guy sitting next to me was packing, as long as he wasn't dressed in a white shroud, waving an AK-47 and screaming "Allahu Akbar" or something.

Regards,
Tom Knapp
Click to expand...

I think USC makes a good point when he questions whether it's true that 9/11 would not have happened if people were allowed to carry gun on board. I really think it's always far more difficult for us to say (though we pretend otherwise) what would or would not have happened "if". So I would not be ready to concede that.

And I just would not feel comfortable at all with armed passengers. Not before 9/11, or after it. You're not the only one who's not a good shot, but not everyone who owns a gun is going to admit that, if even to themselves. I think it's a bigger risk to have dozens of armed people running around, half or more who statisically will be fools, armed and thinking they're some kind of marshalls, air or otherwise.

I think you have a much better case when you argue that had our foreign policy been different, 9/11 could have been prevented. There are a thousand ifs though, if bush grasped what "bin laden determined to strike within the us meant" if someone in that adminstration had reconized that this Richard Clark guy might be worth listening to, and the list goes on. The fact is, it happened. The real bad shit is going to hit the fan sometimes in our lives, and that is a fact. No one wants it to, but for a variety of reasons, it's going to. It's how people react to these things, that makes the man, that makes the woman, that makes the people, that makes the nation.

And I'd say that our collective reactions and incredible willingness to give up rights, believe any bs story told to us, and bomb civilians all to save our own scared butts, doesnt' speak very highly of us so far. I think it would be a much better world if people could just grasp this simple fact: you are going to die. If not today, then tomorrow. If the terrorists don't get you, and they won't, McDonalds and those big macs you are scoffing down, is going to, but either way, you are going to die. Accept it and stop being willing to trade anything and anyone in order to prevent it. And I don't want to die, believe me. But, I'm going to. And I would be willing to bet a lot of money that it wont' be the terrorists who get me. And I live in NY. I mean, you have people who live in Idaho who are petrified of terrorists. Who are willing to sell out the constitituion because of terrorists. It's amazing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top