Transportation Sec wants to ban all phone use in cars

On Oct 10, 9:51*pm, Brent > wrote:
> On 2010-10-11, Harry K > wrote:
>
> > On Oct 10, 8:38*am, Brent > wrote:
> >> > So you are for free use of anything in a vehicle?
>
> >> If someone is driving properly, what do I care?
>
> > So you just ignore the data showing the CP cause lousy driving?
>
> There's a lot of things that cause lousy driving. Why ban them
> individually coupled with heavy handed enforcement that inconviences us
> all and reduces our freedom? How about just ban lousy driving? Oh wait,
> that's already illegal.
>
> >> > Just how does banning auto tranny solve the problem? *In city possibly
> >> > but not on open road.
>
> >> On the open road a driver will only harm himself.
> > That is one of the stupidest things you have ever said. *Unless you
> > are trying to claim "open road" means no one else around.
>
> That's what the open road is. The road is open... clear.
>
> >> > Back into your 'rant mode' I see.
> >> You're the one pushing for enforcement of yet another thing that will
> >> require that we all pay for the costs of it and further intrusion,
> >> nannying, etc into our lives.- Hide quoted text -
> > I am for making laws that can be enforced. *Somehow you keep ignoring
> > that point. * Anyone advocating continued use of CP by drivers is
> > ignornign the deleterous effect of it. *A law needed? *Not if
> > education can cure the problem.
>
> I'm not advocating use of anything. You're advocating "enfocement".
> How's the enforcement of DUI working? Checkpoints. Still not doing
> squat. Drugs? civil asset forfiture. Still not working. Enforcement is
> going to do nothing but cost us all more money while making it easier
> for cops to harrass us. More checkpoints, more random stops, etc and so
> forth.
>
> > Yep, you don't care what lousy drivers around you are doing. * You
> > make that plain enough.
>
> Why should I care what makes them lousy drivers? Enforce the laws
> against lousy driving! What's your cellphone ban going to do with the
> women painting their nails while driving? Nothing. Same with countless
> other activities. Stop treating adults like it's a 1st grade classroom
> with the government as the teacher banning anything that some kids
> abuse. Just deal with the poor behavior, driving poorly.

Okay, you win. Do away with dui laws, speeding laws (fine with me),
licensing laws, and put all cops to work cleaning up the mess.
Anarchism does not work politically and it won't work on the road.

Harry K

On 2010-10-11, Harry K > wrote:

> Okay, you win. Do away with dui laws, speeding laws (fine with me),
> licensing laws, and put all cops to work cleaning up the mess.
> Anarchism does not work politically and it won't work on the road.

The real definition of anarchism, the lack of a micromanaging state
does work. We used to have a civilization in this country (USA) before
the planning the ruling of the robber baron elitiests of the late 19th
and early 20th centuries. When it was a free country more or less
for those who weren't slaves. Before forced government schooling in the
prussian model. Before the social engineering. You treat people like
permanent children you get what we have now, a society organized like a
government grade school classroom.

What are you going to do Harry when driving itself has to be banned?
That's where we are headed. One thing after another banned until we have
nothing left. Well except for those people who aren't selectively
enforced upon or have special dispensation from the political power
structure. Why? Because it's too difficult to manage so many
individuals' lives any other way but to ban all activities that a few
make troublesome. What's the real answer? Stop managing them. Stop being
control freaks.

Hold people accountable for what they do. Enforce the basic agreed upon
rules that allow everyone to move about efficiently without stepping on
other people's toes. That's it. No micro management of who can be using
a cellphone and who can't and other nonsense. It doesn't matter.
What matters is that A doesn't crash into B and traffic moves
swiftly. The mangement society stifling and I for one am sick and tired
of it.

On Oct 11, 10:00*am, Brent > wrote:
> On 2010-10-11, Harry K > wrote:
>
> > Okay, you win. *Do away with dui laws, speeding laws (fine with me),
> > licensing laws, and put all cops to work cleaning up the mess.
> > Anarchism does not work politically and it won't work on the road.
>
> The real definition of anarchism, the lack of a micromanaging state
> does work. We used to have a civilization in this country (USA) before
> the planning the ruling of the robber baron elitiests of the late 19th
> and early 20th centuries. When it was a free country more or less
> for those who weren't slaves. Before forced government schooling in the
> prussian model. Before the social engineering. You treat people like
> permanent children you get what we have now, a society organized like a
> government grade school classroom.
>
> What are you going to do Harry when driving itself has to be banned?
> That's where we are headed. One thing after another banned until we have
> nothing left. Well except for those people who aren't selectively
> enforced upon or have special dispensation from the political power
> structure. Why? Because it's too difficult to manage so many
> individuals' lives any other way but to ban all activities that a few
> make troublesome. What's the real answer? Stop managing them. Stop being
> control freaks.
>
> Hold people accountable for what they do. Enforce the basic agreed upon
> rules that allow everyone to move about efficiently without stepping on
> other people's toes. That's it. No micro management of who can be using
> a cellphone and who can't and other nonsense. It doesn't matter.
> What matters is that A doesn't crash into B and traffic moves
> swiftly. The mangement society stifling and I for one am sick and tired
> of it.

The civilisation back when didn't even come close to meeting the
definition of anarchy.

You can't have it both ways. You are arguing that a law that won't
prevent 100% of a behavior is no good. Since no law can do that, you
have to get rid of all laws.

But continue with your 'anti' rants where you never propose any
realistic method of solving the problems.

You can now return with you "enforce the existing laws" whil ignoring
the fact that no enforcement will be 100% effecting and shoots your
rant in the ass.

Harry K

On 2010-10-12, Harry K > wrote:
> On Oct 11, 10:00*am, Brent > wrote:
>> On 2010-10-11, Harry K > wrote:
>>
>> > Okay, you win. *Do away with dui laws, speeding laws (fine with me),
>> > licensing laws, and put all cops to work cleaning up the mess.
>> > Anarchism does not work politically and it won't work on the road.
>>
>> The real definition of anarchism, the lack of a micromanaging state
>> does work. We used to have a civilization in this country (USA) before
>> the planning the ruling of the robber baron elitiests of the late 19th
>> and early 20th centuries. When it was a free country more or less
>> for those who weren't slaves. Before forced government schooling in the
>> prussian model. Before the social engineering. You treat people like
>> permanent children you get what we have now, a society organized like a
>> government grade school classroom.
>>
>> What are you going to do Harry when driving itself has to be banned?
>> That's where we are headed. One thing after another banned until we have
>> nothing left. Well except for those people who aren't selectively
>> enforced upon or have special dispensation from the political power
>> structure. Why? Because it's too difficult to manage so many
>> individuals' lives any other way but to ban all activities that a few
>> make troublesome. What's the real answer? Stop managing them. Stop being
>> control freaks.
>>
>> Hold people accountable for what they do. Enforce the basic agreed upon
>> rules that allow everyone to move about efficiently without stepping on
>> other people's toes. That's it. No micro management of who can be using
>> a cellphone and who can't and other nonsense. It doesn't matter.
>> What matters is that A doesn't crash into B and traffic moves
>> swiftly. The mangement society stifling and I for one am sick and tired
>> of it.
>
> The civilisation back when didn't even come close to meeting the
> definition of anarchy.

Back when what? I'm talking about much of 18th and 19th century USA. You
do know that the "wild west" wasn't really wild but actually had lower
rates of crime than the policed urban areas.

> You can't have it both ways. You are arguing that a law that won't
> prevent 100% of a behavior is no good. Since no law can do that, you
> have to get rid of all laws.

I didn't argue any such thing harry. I argued that if anything is going
to be enforced it should be the laws against bad driving. Not new laws
that require more intervention into our lives by the armed uniform
wearing employees of government.

> But continue with your 'anti' rants where you never propose any
> realistic method of solving the problems.

I gave you a realistic method. Enforce the laws regarding right of way,
proper lane usage, etc and so forth. Your answer is the 'government has
to do something' first grade classroom approach. Which hasn't worked,
which keeps making life worse for everyone who isn't in government. But
control freaks just love it.

> You can now return with you "enforce the existing laws" whil ignoring
> the fact that no enforcement will be 100% effecting and shoots your
> rant in the ass.

Keep it up harry, just keep up making up things and assigning them to me
beause you can't deal with the basic argument. Your control freak
methods don't work and make life worse for everyone. Again, why should I
care if the driver who slams into me or my vehicle is:

a) drunk
b) playing video games.
c) texting
d) on the phone.
e) painting her nails.
f) failed to maintain the vehicle's brakes.
g) talking to a passenger
h) checking the baby in the back seat.
i) cleaning the windshield.
h) not watching where he is driving.

I could go on, but why should the reason a driver has injured me/damaged
my property be of any use to me? Why should one form of injury causing
stupidity be illegal and a 'crash' deserving of harsh punishment while
other forms of stupidity just be an 'accident'? All of them are
willful neglect to the task of driving. None are going out with an
intent to harm another person. Yet a drunk gets prison time while
talking to a passenger or checking on the baby might get a cheap (as in
far less costly than speeding but under the 85th%) traffic ticket,
might.