about f'ing time (bike rule enforcement)

DennisTheBald wrote:
On Aug 26, 11:54 pm, Tom Sherman
wrote:
DennisTheBald wrote:
...
Yes sometimes people on bikes run into pedestrians and break their
bones (well some times it the cyclists bones too - but usually the
person moving faster has less inclination to fall and it's often the
contact with the ground that does the damage)....
This contradicts my experience and observations of cyclist/pedestrian
collisions. Typically, the cyclist gets hurt more, since he/she goes
over the bars and lands on his/her head.

Personally, I've only had one - a head on with a roller blader - I
guess that wouldn't qualify as a pedestrian tho, never mind.

The bike I ride now has the crankset out in front... whatever I run
into will get greasy.

That is why I always preferred my RANS Rocket for pedestrian infested
areas such as college campuses.

But even if it was a direct hit from the front of a wedgie, wouldn't
there be a nice soft pedestrian to land on?

Not likely that the pedestrian will be in the correct spot to be a cushion.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
“Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken /
She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”

Brent P wrote:
...
Only an idiot would twist what I wrote the way you did if he were an
honest person. And you're not an idiot Frank....

Well, Bourbon Boy's name for him is "frank the idiot krygowski". [1]

[1] I am "tom the goddamed lightweight" in Bourbon World.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
“Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken /
She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”

On Aug 27, 12:13*pm, Brent P
wrote:
On 2008-08-27, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Hmm. *I guess I misunderstood. *When you referred to "a natural right
to travel by whatever means they wish," I thought you meant "a natural
right to travel by whatever means they wish."

Dishonest frank makes up quotes and asigns them to me. What I wrote was:
"Now if people have their natural rights and are free to travel by
whatever means they wish, then we have another situation and
privilege isn't a part of it."

Only an idiot would twist what I wrote the way you did if he were an
honest person. And you're not an idiot Frank.

Even isolated, it's "natural rights" AND travel by means of our
choosing. It would be redundant if the second was included in the first.

I think my friends who are writing teachers would be splashing red ink
all over your page! But if you want to retract the idea of driving as
a natural right, or claim that you never meant that at all, that's
fine with me.


...I am talking about concessions made
for a government granted privilege. It means driving is NOT A PRIVILEGE
granted by government. When something is a privilege, the grantor may
put all sorts of conditions on it. Government should not be granting
privileges in a system where man is recognized to have natural rights
and individual liberty. What driving is I leave up for debate. I am
arguing it is *NOT* a privilege, because it cannot be under what is
SUPPOSED to be the principles of this nation.

OK, Brent, I'll admit, it could be just me... but I think you're
making no sense at all.

You _seem_ to be saying that "when something is a privilege, the
[government] may put restrictions on it." And you _seem_ to be saying
that the government does put restrictions on driving. But you're
somehow claiming driving is not a privilege. All the while admitting
you don't know what it is. Pardon me, but that's confusing at best.

AFAIK, there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution enumerating driving
as a right. All 50 states, plus a couple territories, treat it as a
privilege. So does every country I'm aware of. Is everybody in the
entire world out of step, except for Brent?

And regarding your displeasure at drivers' licenses being affected by
non-driving behavior: *you should know that all sorts of true rights
get restricted because of a perpetrator's violation of laws. *Think
about house arrest, for just one example.

1) a debt to another person is a CIVIL matter, not a criminal one.

You complained about the connection between child support payments and
driving. Here's the quote:

"Government wishes us to think that driving is a privilege it grants
because it can then attach all sorts of conditions to it even if they
have nothing to do with safe operation of a motor vehicle. Didn't get
good grades or pay your child support and no more license for you! "

Failure to pay child support is not merely a private debt, nor a civil
matter. It's violation of the law, in every state I know about. That
makes it a criminal matter.

Brent, as always, you are far too emotionally attached to your car and
to driving. *You're like a 16-year-old that's just passed his test.

You again prove your only reason for posting is to lie and insult. *

No, I post to discuss, to learn, and to help others learn. But you
and I have been in discussions, on and off, for years, and in most of
them, you've gotten petulant about almost any restriction on your
driving. It reminds me of my son, back in the "no driving until
you've done your homework" days.

Why don't you try growing up instead of being an adult (by numerical age)
child of the government? You're the one who is always thinking that the
government has to be there to play parent.

Hmm. Once again, you're not making sense.

Driving is a privilege. Restrictions are very logically placed on
driving, controlling both who can drive and how they can drive. The
privilege is revokable, and can be revoked for offenses not directly
related to driving.

That's the way it is the world over. Deal with it.

- Frank Krygowski

DennisTheBald wrote:
On Aug 27, 5:26 pm, Fred wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 23:59:07 -0500, Tom Sherman

wrote:
DennisTheBald wrote:
...
I have a 36W halogen "driving" light. It's pretty dog gone close to
the same amount of light from a 55W headlight that would be typical on
a auto. Since I begun using this (over a decade ago) instead of the
weenie lights they sell at the bike stores I get a lot wider berth on
the road at night. I think that lighting up a big circle of pavement
in front of me helps people behind me see me better too. I use rear
facing lights just the same though.
What type of battery and charger do you use to power the light?
I used a 20 watt halogen bulb in a lawn light for a couple years of
commuting. Very bright and oncoming cars dimmed their lights. The
taillight was same lawn light with a red lens and 8 watt bulb. Worked
great.

I had a 12 volt 4.3 amp-hour gel cell and kept 1 charger at work and 1
at home. Lead-acid batteries don't like to be run down too much.

But today I'd say to use 3 1-watt red LED's in the back and a 3 watt
LED MR16 bulb in the front using a smaller gel cell. Perhaps 2 bulbs
in the front, it's still just 7 watts worth. (That's what I measured
for draw on them.)

Or go high-tech and use rechargeable lithium-ion cells.
** Posted fromhttp://www.teranews.com**

yeah, I'm studying on switching to LED this winter. I've got a couple
3W flashlights that seem pretty bright. I have used one mounted with
an inner tube to the handle bars during a primary system failure and
it didn't totally suck. But it didn't throw out that circle of light
onto the pavement either. I don't need lights right now, but in a
month or so I will.

I've been using a slightly larger gel cell, 7.5ah. A deep cycle gel
cell. I'm thinking about switching to nicad if I change to LED from
the halogen. I'd like to go 6V and use a dyno hub to top off the
batteries while I'm driving.

are you going to properly shield them so you don't dazzle other
cyclists? there's a reason car headlights have low beams and if you are
a responsible road user, you should address this requirement.

On 2008-08-28, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Aug 27, 12:13*pm, Brent P
wrote:
On 2008-08-27, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Hmm. *I guess I misunderstood. *When you referred to "a natural right
to travel by whatever means they wish," I thought you meant "a natural
right to travel by whatever means they wish."

Dishonest frank makes up quotes and asigns them to me. What I wrote was:
"Now if people have their natural rights and are free to travel by
whatever means they wish, then we have another situation and
privilege isn't a part of it."

Only an idiot would twist what I wrote the way you did if he were an
honest person. And you're not an idiot Frank.

Even isolated, it's "natural rights" AND travel by means of our
choosing. It would be redundant if the second was included in the first.

I think my friends who are writing teachers would be splashing red ink
all over your page!


If it were might fault you wouldn't be doing this sort of thing
repeatedly with multiple people who aren't 100% in agreement with you.

But if you want to retract the idea of driving as
a natural right, or claim that you never meant that at all, that's
fine with me.

See, here you go again with your dishonesty.

...I am talking about concessions made
for a government granted privilege. It means driving is NOT A PRIVILEGE
granted by government. When something is a privilege, the grantor may
put all sorts of conditions on it. Government should not be granting
privileges in a system where man is recognized to have natural rights
and individual liberty. What driving is I leave up for debate. I am
arguing it is *NOT* a privilege, because it cannot be under what is
SUPPOSED to be the principles of this nation.

OK, Brent, I'll admit, it could be just me... but I think you're
making no sense at all.

No, it's your limited binary thinking.

You _seem_ to be saying that "when something is a privilege, the
[government] may put restrictions on it." And you _seem_ to be saying
that the government does put restrictions on driving. But you're
somehow claiming driving is not a privilege. All the while admitting
you don't know what it is. Pardon me, but that's confusing at best.

Yep, your limited thinking. I see that the 1984 style thought training
worked on you. Why don't you look up the word 'privilege'. I already did
that for people here and posted it, but go through the excerise
yourself. Now look up 'yelling FIRE! in a crowded theater' when there is
no fire.

AFAIK, there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution enumerating driving
as a right.

Damn you are ignorant and the training has boxed your thinking in.
People are told that rights are all enumerated in the constitution, that
if it is not there, it is not a right. The big problem with that is it
is absolutely FALSE. People believe it because they are too lazy to
actually READ the USC and understand the history behind it. It is absurd
to thing that the constitution enumerates all our rights. It is even
more absurd to believe they are granted to us by a document or by
government. We have our rights as individuals by birth.

Anyway,
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitut...lofrights.html

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

All 50 states, plus a couple territories, treat it as a
privilege. So does every country I'm aware of. Is everybody in the
entire world out of step, except for Brent?

Governments like power. If you want driving as a privilege and everyone
else does, just don't whine and cry when the requirements become more
and more painful. Don't whine about being forced to carry a national ID
card to drive. Don't whine when the government decides it wants to track
your movements. Don't whine when you have to give up your rights
(enumerated or not) just to get government to grant you the privilege od
driving. Most of all, don't whine as the concept is extended to
bicycling.

And regarding your displeasure at drivers' licenses being affected by
non-driving behavior: *you should know that all sorts of true rights
get restricted because of a perpetrator's violation of laws. *Think
about house arrest, for just one example.

1) a debt to another person is a CIVIL matter, not a criminal one.

You complained about the connection between child support payments and
driving. Here's the quote:
"Government wishes us to think that driving is a privilege it grants
because it can then attach all sorts of conditions to it even if they
have nothing to do with safe operation of a motor vehicle. Didn't get
good grades or pay your child support and no more license for you! "

Failure to pay child support is not merely a private debt, nor a civil
matter. It's violation of the law, in every state I know about. That
makes it a criminal matter.

Maybe you really are stupid. I just may be giving you too much credit.
Debts from one person to another are civil matters and should be civil
matters. The fact that government decides to make it criminal matter in
the case of child support is simply wrong. As is its taking from one
person to give to another. But those are other topics. One's debts
certainly have no bearing on safe driving.

Brent, as always, you are far too emotionally attached to your car and
to driving. *You're like a 16-year-old that's just passed his test.

You again prove your only reason for posting is to lie and insult. *

No, I post to discuss, to learn, and to help others learn.

That is demonstratedly false. You start with insulting posts from the
get go and your idea of 'learning' is that people have to agree with
you.

But you
and I have been in discussions, on and off, for years, and in most of
them, you've gotten petulant about almost any restriction on your
driving.

LOL. False.

It reminds me of my son, back in the "no driving until
you've done your homework" days.

That's how you'd have government treat everyone. As children. You've
made that clear.

Why don't you try growing up instead of being an adult (by numerical age)
child of the government? You're the one who is always thinking that the
government has to be there to play parent.

Hmm. Once again, you're not making sense.

No, your thinking is limited. Open your mind.

Driving is a privilege.

Then we don't live in a free country. The very fact government can grant
a privilege, any privilege, especially for things that are common
place, like the common mode of transportation, makes the country
un-free. It makes some people more equal than others. It gives
government the power to force people to surrender their rights in
exchange for the privilege. That's exactly what government has done with
driving and continues to do so.

Restrictions are very logically placed on
driving, controlling both who can drive and how they can drive. The
privilege is revokable, and can be revoked for offenses not directly
related to driving.

Logical restrictions on who can drive.... hmm... outside of some health
based ones they are arbitrary. If you want driving as privilege that's
fine. Just don't think you live in a free country that respects you as
an individual with rights then. You're no more free than child.
Government will become more and more demanding in what it wants in
exchange for the privileges it grants. There is nothing to stop it once
you accept the premise that it grants privilege.

Remember, by granting privilege, the government is giving permission to
do something that would otherwise be illegal. If driving is a privilege,
driving is by default an illegal act under that premise. Government
might as well give murder and theft privileges.... oh wait, it does
(more or less). One just has to be special to get those privileges.

That's the way it is the world over. Deal with it.

Some people like being a slave or at least forever a child and doesn't
like it when someone challenges the limited thinking that allows them
to be happy as such. They tend to say things like what is written
above when what they've been told all their lives is challenged. Frank
sounds like one of those people.

On Aug 28, 1:22 am, Brent P
wrote:
Maybe you really are stupid. I just may be giving you too much credit.
Debts from one person to another are civil matters and should be civil
matters. The fact that government decides to make it criminal matter in
the case of child support is simply wrong. As is its taking from one
person to give to another. But those are other topics. One's debts
certainly have no bearing on safe driving.

Holy ****. Brent, I usually agree with you when it comes to the
overbearing govt thing. Being a libertarian, I’m all about the govt.
butting out of our business when applicable. This is over the top
though.

Let’s take an example a friend of mine is going through at the
moment. She and her man decided to have a child. They had a
beautiful, healthy little girl. For a little bit, all was well. Then
dad decided he’d had enough of not being able to party and “chill” as
he liked, and the baby was too much of a headache for him. So, he
bailed. Moved to a different state (Maine), applied for “homeless
benefits”, and was given an apartment – cable TV and all. On our dime
(or maybe just the taxpayers of Maine’s dime, that I’m not sure of).
He’s still got a drivers license, but doesn’t want to get a job
because then she’d get some of the money. You know, to help with the
costs of raising their daughter. So he does 10 hours of community
service per week, and in return the govt. pays for his apartment,
cable TV, phone, etc. He even still gets to keep his license,
although he has to keep the car in someone else’s name, lest he leave
a paper trail to any income he may have. The only recourse she could
possibly have to try to inspire this deadbeat to help pay for his
child is the drivers license revocation, and even that is complicated
as can be, because she needs to be able to have him served with
papers, etc. Thing is, she knows what city he lives in but the town &
police won’t provide her with an address. Granted I’m off on a bit of
a tangent here, but back to the point – do you think people like this
should just be able to go on with their lives with no repercussions,
while the single mom works her ass off just trying too feed their
child and make a better life for herself? IMO opinion they should
suspend the a-hole's license, and if he wants to do community service
for an apartment (10 hours a week at that) he should have to do
another 30/week (bringing him to 40, the minimum for a normal full-
time job, and less than either she or I work) with the payout from the
extra 30 hours/week going toward taking care of the baby.

On 2008-08-28, wrote:
On Aug 28, 1:22 am, Brent P
wrote:
Maybe you really are stupid. I just may be giving you too much credit.
Debts from one person to another are civil matters and should be civil
matters. The fact that government decides to make it criminal matter in
the case of child support is simply wrong. As is its taking from one
person to give to another. But those are other topics. One's debts
certainly have no bearing on safe driving.

Holy ****. Brent, I usually agree with you when it comes to the
overbearing govt thing. Being a libertarian, I?m all about the govt.
butting out of our business when applicable. This is over the top
though.

It's over the top to expect that the government not forcibly take money
from some people to give to other people (welfare,etc) and for people
not to be able to use the force of government to collect some debts but
not others?

Let?s take an example a friend of mine is going through at the
moment. She and her man decided to have a child. They had a
beautiful, healthy little girl. For a little bit, all was well. Then
dad decided he?d had enough of not being able to party and ?chill? as
he liked, and the baby was too much of a headache for him. So, he
bailed.

Seems like their problem to me.

Moved to a different state (Maine), applied for ?homeless
benefits?, and was given an apartment ? cable TV and all. On our dime
(or maybe just the taxpayers of Maine?s dime, that I?m not sure of).

That's the problem. People use the political system to use government
force to take money from them. Seems that you're agreeing with me here
that government shouldn't taking money from some people (taxpayers) to
give to others (deadbeats). You're half in agreement right there.

He?s still got a drivers license, but doesn?t want to get a job
because then she?d get some of the money. You know, to help with the
costs of raising their daughter. So he does 10 hours of community
service per week, and in return the govt. pays for his apartment,
cable TV, phone, etc. He even still gets to keep his license,
although he has to keep the car in someone else?s name, lest he leave
a paper trail to any income he may have.

Isn't the welfare state wonderful? It allows and encourages this sort of
behavior. However that has zero to do with safe driving, the so called
reason for licensing drivers.

If the government can pull a DL for child support, why can't it pull the
DL if someone doesn't pay for the property damage he causes with
automobile? Why can't it pull the DL for an over due cable TV bill? How
about a failure to support a particular political figure? The typical
response is that's 'too far'. So was pulling it for 'child support' some
many years ago.

It's as if the driver's license is now a method to control people's
behaviors. Why couldn't the government pull the DL of people who oppose
the current government? Make people more loyal to the government. How
about pull it if they use bad language? Or maybe pull it if they discuss
topics the government rather not have discussed? If the DL is going to
be used as a 'privilege' and pulled if someone doesn't behave a certain
way while driving or not, where does it end?

The only recourse she could
possibly have to try to inspire this deadbeat to help pay for his
child is the drivers license revocation, and even that is complicated
as can be, because she needs to be able to have him served with
papers, etc.

What, do debt collection services? No guys with baseball bats? Why is
the only recourse pulling a DL? And how will pulling the deadbeat's DL
change anything? Will it physically stop him from driving? Doubtful
given your story. Wouldn't debtors' prisons be more effective?

Thing is, she knows what city he lives in but the town &
police won?t provide her with an address.

So? This is the 21st century, why are they needed to get an address?

Granted I?m off on a bit of
a tangent here, but back to the point ? do you think people like this
should just be able to go on with their lives with no repercussions,
while the single mom works her ass off just trying too feed their
child and make a better life for herself?

Ahh, the heart-strings tug... Let's say this same dead beat not only
stiffed her but stiffed a credit card company. Would it be fair for the
credit card company to have government pull his DL? Toss him in jail?
whatever punishment you think he deserves? Why does she get to use the
government's police forces to collect debts owed her and/or punish him
for his behavior but not the credit card company? What if he ran out on
a debt that he owes to his former best friend? Does that best friend get
to use the government's police forces to collect that money or have his
DL pulled? Why some people and not others?

IMO opinion they should
suspend the a-hole's license, and if he wants to do community service
for an apartment (10 hours a week at that) he should have to do
another 30/week (bringing him to 40, the minimum for a normal full-
time job, and less than either she or I work) with the payout from the
extra 30 hours/week going toward taking care of the baby.

Your real beef seems to be with the welfare state. Instead of suspending
his driver's license, how about a forced labor camp? How about a stay at
Gitmo? Since you seem to think that it is acceptable for government to
'punish' people for debts. Of course maybe if he couldn't get welfare
he'd have to get work somewhere.

The real question here is if pulling the DL is fine as punishment for
dead beat parents, what else might this punishment be used for? Do we
really want to have things being government granted privilege? To
undermine our rights by allowing government to define everyday things as
privileges it can yank for any reason it deems reasonable?

On Aug 28, 9:56 am, Brent P
wrote:
On 2008-08-28, wrote:

On Aug 28, 1:22 am, Brent P
wrote:
Maybe you really are stupid. I just may be giving you too much credit.
Debts from one person to another are civil matters and should be civil
matters. The fact that government decides to make it criminal matter in
the case of child support is simply wrong. As is its taking from one
person to give to another. But those are other topics. One's debts
certainly have no bearing on safe driving.
Holy ****. Brent, I usually agree with you when it comes to the
overbearing govt thing. Being a libertarian, I?m all about the govt.
butting out of our business when applicable. This is over the top
though.

It's over the top to expect that the government not forcibly take money
from some people to give to other people (welfare,etc)

I 100% disagree with the govt taking $ from hard-working citizens to
support deadbeats and pay welfare to able-bodied people who should be
working.


and for people not to be able to use the force of
government to collect some debts but not others?

To me this is a different situation – two people agreed to have a
child. They agreed to share the cost, among other things. Then one
party decided he didn’t want to anymore, and moved to someplace where
welfare would pay all his bills, and he could work under the table,
still drive, have an apartment and cable TV, and just forget about his
child altogether. Meanwhile mom is working her ass off, going to
school, and with the expenses of the child being handled by her alone
along with other life expenses she can’t afford a place of her own,
much less cable TV & phone, all of which are being govt. supplied to
the deadbeat dad. I think it would be reasonable to not give deadbeat
dad a penny of our $ (welfare) and force him to work for a living. I
think it’s bull**** that he’s getting these handouts, doing nothing,
and she’s stuck with the expenses of the commitment they both made,
the child. Since he clearly can work (and is, 10 measly hours per
week to pay for his fully furnished, TV & phone included apartment) I
think he should be forced to work a full 40 like the rest of us
(although most people I know, myself included, work over 40) with some
of the proceeds going to his child.


Let?s take an example a friend of mine is going through at the
moment. She and her man decided to have a child. They had a
beautiful, healthy little girl. For a little bit, all was well. Then
dad decided he?d had enough of not being able to party and ?chill? as
he liked, and the baby was too much of a headache for him. So, he
bailed.

Seems like their problem to me.

It should be. Instead, the child is her problem and his rent, cable
and TV bills are our problem.


Moved to a different state (Maine), applied for ?homeless
benefits?, and was given an apartment ? cable TV and all. On our dime
(or maybe just the taxpayers of Maine?s dime, that I?m not sure of).

That's the problem. People use the political system to use government
force to take money from them. Seems that you're agreeing with me here
that government shouldn't taking money from some people (taxpayers) to
give to others (deadbeats). You're half in agreement right there.

I agree 100% there.


He?s still got a drivers license, but doesn?t want to get a job
because then she?d get some of the money. You know, to help with the
costs of raising their daughter. So he does 10 hours of community
service per week, and in return the govt. pays for his apartment,
cable TV, phone, etc. He even still gets to keep his license,
although he has to keep the car in someone else?s name, lest he leave
a paper trail to any income he may have.

Isn't the welfare state wonderful?

No.


It allows and encourages this sort of
behavior. However that has zero to do with safe driving, the so called
reason for licensing drivers.

**** safe. It was decided long ago that driving is a privilege.
Until this changes, that privilege should be revocable by doing things
like refusing to pay court-ordered child support for your child, that
you agreed to have and help raise. If driving even goes back to a
right, like walking around town, requiring no license, then so be it.
As long as it’s a privilege that can be suspended for exceeding speed
limits, it should be revocable for refusing to pay child support,
something far more serious than say, speeding.


If the government can pull a DL for child support, why can't it pull the
DL if someone doesn't pay for the property damage he causes with
automobile?

They should be able to.


Why can't it pull the DL for an over due cable TV bill?

I’d be ok with that as well.


How
about a failure to support a particular political figure?

What’s that comparable do with failing to fulfill a commitment you
entered with another to raise a child?


The typical
response is that's 'too far'. So was pulling it for 'child support' some
many years ago.

And it’s this I disagree with.


It's as if the driver's license is now a method to control people's
behaviors. Why couldn't the government pull the DL of people who oppose
the current government?

Because they never entered an agreement to support that government.
When a father agrees with the mother that they’ll have a child, and
raise it, they’re making a financial commitment.


Make people more loyal to the government. How
about pull it if they use bad language? Or maybe pull it if they discuss
topics the government rather not have discussed? If the DL is going to
be used as a 'privilege' and pulled if someone doesn't behave a certain
way while driving or not, where does it end?

These are red herrings. We’re not talking about freedom of speech,
we’re talking about defaulting on a commitment to raise a child.


The only recourse she could
possibly have to try to inspire this deadbeat to help pay for his
child is the drivers license revocation, and even that is complicated
as can be, because she needs to be able to have him served with
papers, etc.

What, do debt collection services?

Come again?


No guys with baseball bats?

It’s been considered.


Why is the only recourse pulling a DL? And how will pulling the
deadbeat's DL
change anything? Will it physically stop him from driving? Doubtful
given your story. Wouldn't debtors' prisons be more effective?

At least he wouldn’t be living on our financial support while refusing
to financially support his own daughter.


Thing is, she knows what city he lives in but the town &
police won?t provide her with an address.

So? This is the 21st century, why are they needed to get an address?

The new apartment is recent. I’m sure she’ll get the addy.


Granted I?m off on a bit of
a tangent here, but back to the point ? do you think people like this
should just be able to go on with their lives with no repercussions,
while the single mom works her ass off just trying too feed their
child and make a better life for herself?

Ahh, the heart-strings tug... Let's say this same dead beat not only
stiffed her but stiffed a credit card company. Would it be fair for the
credit card company to have government pull his DL? Toss him in jail?
whatever punishment you think he deserves? Why does she get to use the
government's police forces to collect debts owed her and/or punish him
for his behavior but not the credit card company? What if he ran out on
a debt that he owes to his former best friend? Does that best friend get
to use the government's police forces to collect that money or have his
DL pulled? Why some people and not others?

Because of the simple unjustness of him getting a free living while
refusing to honor his financial commitments, mainly helping to support
his daughter. The credit card companies have their own means to go
after those that default. Default on your mortgage, they take your
house. Default on paying your child support, and nothing happens.
This is bull****. If you can’t afford to pay a couple hundred a month
to take care of your daughter, you shouldn’t be able to afford to
drive.


IMO opinion they should
suspend the a-hole's license, and if he wants to do community service
for an apartment (10 hours a week at that) he should have to do
another 30/week (bringing him to 40, the minimum for a normal full-
time job, and less than either she or I work) with the payout from the
extra 30 hours/week going toward taking care of the baby.

Your real beef seems to be with the welfare state.

That’s certainly a “real beef” of mine, but not the one in question.
At least not wholly.


Instead of suspending
his driver's license, how about a forced labor camp? How about a stay at
Gitmo?

I’d be OK with either. Perhaps then the scumbag would pony up.


Since you seem to think that it is acceptable for government to
'punish' people for debts. Of course maybe if he couldn't get welfare
he'd have to get work somewhere.

And then he’d have wages that could be easily garnished. I’d be ok
with this too.


The real question here is if pulling the DL is fine as punishment for
dead beat parents, what else might this punishment be used for? Do we
really want to have things being government granted privilege? To
undermine our rights by allowing government to define everyday things as
privileges it can yank for any reason it deems reasonable?

No, but since they’re already doing it for so many other less-severe
reasons, they may as well do it for this one too. It’s certainly more
harmful to my friend, her daughter, and society in general (who would
already be paying his share if she were not too proud to ask for it)
than say, speeding.

On 2008-08-28, wrote:

I 100% disagree with the govt taking $ from hard-working citizens to
support deadbeats and pay welfare to able-bodied people who should be
working.

Then I don't see the problem.

and for people not to be able to use the force of
government to collect some debts but not others?

To me this is a different situation ? two people agreed to have a
child. They agreed to share the cost, among other things. Then one
party decided he didn?t want to anymore, and moved to someplace where
welfare would pay all his bills, and he could work under the table,
still drive, have an apartment and cable TV, and just forget about his
child altogether.

Again, the welfare state is the problem. This is not solved by making a
government a grantor of privileges, especially privileges that are
common tasks.

Meanwhile mom is working her ass off, going to
school, and with the expenses of the child being handled by her alone
along with other life expenses she can?t afford a place of her own,
much less cable TV & phone, all of which are being govt. supplied to
the deadbeat dad.

Again, the problem is government interference. It is not solved by
greater government power and greater interference. It is solved by
removal of the interference that results in the problem in the first
place.

It's like FEMA turning away private aid after a natural disaster. FEMA
got in the way and the result was to increase the size and power of
FEMA. Absurd. Abolishing FEMA so it couldn't get in the way again would
be a far better solution.

I think it would be reasonable to not give deadbeat
dad a penny of our $ (welfare) and force him to work for a living. I
think it?s bull**** that he?s getting these handouts, doing nothing,
and she?s stuck with the expenses of the commitment they both made,
the child. Since he clearly can work (and is, 10 measly hours per
week to pay for his fully furnished, TV & phone included apartment) I
think he should be forced to work a full 40 like the rest of us
(although most people I know, myself included, work over 40) with some
of the proceeds going to his child.

This is due to the welfare state. It's working as designed. Spliting
families and putting more power in the hands of government while
creating dependency.

Seems like their problem to me.

It should be. Instead, the child is her problem and his rent, cable
and TV bills are our problem.

The solution isn't to increase government power so we are all subject to
it's whims, the solution is to dismantle the welfare state that allows
people to extract money from others using the force of government.

It allows and encourages this sort of
behavior. However that has zero to do with safe driving, the so called
reason for licensing drivers.

**** safe. It was decided long ago that driving is a privilege.

It wasn't 'decided'. It's what is believed so people act as if it is. .
The government has no such role as a grantor of privilege if we really
want a free country where the individual liberty of the people is the
guiding principle. If we want some other system of government, where
government is parental, where we are not free, well let's just write up
a new USC and drop all the BS.

Until this changes, that privilege should be revocable by doing things
like refusing to pay court-ordered child support for your child, that
you agreed to have and help raise.

Where's the bounds? There are no bounds on a privilege. Enjoy a
bio-metric RFID tracked national ID card, or don't drive. Accept
forcible blood draws, checkpoints, searches, etc or don't drive.
Where does this end? Where disagreement with the government means losing
driving 'privileges'?

If driving even goes back to a
right, like walking around town, requiring no license, then so be it.

Walking around town and biking around town are becoming
privileges where we are subject to the same government intrusions as
with driving. One particular city placed an entire neighborhood under 24
hour curfew. Checkpoints in and out of neighborhoods have been set up.
This privilege concept is dangerous and we can see the slow boil before
us right now.

As long as it?s a privilege that can be suspended for exceeding speed
limits, it should be revocable for refusing to pay child support,
something far more serious than say, speeding.

Then we are very much doomed to live under tyranny. For if a government
can do that, maybe it will decide that if you want to drive you need to
serve for a few years in the legions in the far reaches of the empire.
Once you open the door to that sort of thing, it will take more and
more. This idea

If the government can pull a DL for child support, why can't it pull the
DL if someone doesn't pay for the property damage he causes with
automobile?

They should be able to.

It's considered a private civil matter.

Why can't it pull the DL for an over due cable TV bill?

I?d be ok with that as well

How
about a failure to support a particular political figure?

What?s that comparable do with failing to fulfill a commitment you
entered with another to raise a child?

We are talking about granting privilege. The grantor can ask anything he
wants for it. When government grants privilege it almost always becomes
corrupt where if you say, want to make an addition to your house you get
all sorts of trouble until that is, you give your alderman a
contribution. Maybe you want to open a busines... well, that's not going
to happen until you get your permits, your licenses, etc. And those,
well that process can take years and lots of revisions and changes, that
is unless you give your alderman a piece of the action. Then things
smooth out nicely. Government likes to have the power to grant
privilege. Do you really want DL's to become like getting a CDL in
Illinois?

The typical
response is that's 'too far'. So was pulling it for 'child support' some
many years ago.

And it?s this I disagree with.

Why? Because the TV convinced you it's a reasonable punishment now? Did
you even thing of such a thing before the government came up with it?
I'm going to guess you didn't.

It's as if the driver's license is now a method to control people's
behaviors. Why couldn't the government pull the DL of people who oppose
the current government?

Because they never entered an agreement to support that government.

You're not thinking the way the government does. You agreed, or else.

When a father agrees with the mother that they?ll have a child, and
raise it, they?re making a financial commitment.

That's a matter between them, it has nothing to do with the government.

Make people more loyal to the government. How
about pull it if they use bad language? Or maybe pull it if they discuss
topics the government rather not have discussed? If the DL is going to
be used as a 'privilege' and pulled if someone doesn't behave a certain
way while driving or not, where does it end?

These are red herrings. We?re not talking about freedom of speech,
we?re talking about defaulting on a commitment to raise a child.

We are talking about attaching requirements to a government granted
privilege. Why should the government not be able to attach all sorts of
other criteria the privileges it grants? As children go... That is how
government gets people to give it power. It finds a way to tie that
power to the care and raising of children. It's how people get played.
They react emotionally and give the government powers that are easily
expanded 'for the children'.

What, do debt collection services?

Come again?

It's a debt. There are private means of collecting debts. I understand
these services can really make someone's life miserable.

At least he wouldn?t be living on our financial support while refusing
to financially support his own daughter.

Again, the problem is the welfare state.

Granted I?m off on a bit of
a tangent here, but back to the point ? do you think people like this
should just be able to go on with their lives with no repercussions,
while the single mom works her ass off just trying too feed their
child and make a better life for herself?

Ahh, the heart-strings tug... Let's say this same dead beat not only
stiffed her but stiffed a credit card company. Would it be fair for the
credit card company to have government pull his DL? Toss him in jail?
whatever punishment you think he deserves? Why does she get to use the
government's police forces to collect debts owed her and/or punish him
for his behavior but not the credit card company? What if he ran out on
a debt that he owes to his former best friend? Does that best friend get
to use the government's police forces to collect that money or have his
DL pulled? Why some people and not others?

Because of the simple unjustness of him getting a free living while
refusing to honor his financial commitments, mainly helping to support
his daughter. The credit card companies have their own means to go
after those that default. Default on your mortgage, they take your
house. Default on paying your child support, and nothing happens.
This is bull****. If you can?t afford to pay a couple hundred a month
to take care of your daughter, you shouldn?t be able to afford to
drive.

Once again, it's your emotional response to the 'children' issue. Credit
cards aren't backed by anything, they have no means to collect their
debts than any other private party. In fact, they are probably more
restricted than other parties.

She chose a bad partner. I fail to understand why this sort of decision
by her and many others deserves giving government a very dangerous
power. There are many ways to punish a person. Why the DL? Why is it
that government came up with that as a punishment? Could it be because
it further opens the door to other things that it can then do to
everyone? An ineffective punishment for failure to pay a debt and a big
wide hole to use to put all sorts of requirements on nearly everybody.

Your real beef seems to be with the welfare state.

That?s certainly a ?real beef? of mine, but not the one in question.
At least not wholly.

His entire scheme rests on the welfare state. Remove the welfare state
and he's living in a cardboard box and eating out of trash cans if he
wants to avoid his debts.

Instead of suspending
his driver's license, how about a forced labor camp? How about a stay at
Gitmo?

I?d be OK with either. Perhaps then the scumbag would pony up.

Then find a way to punish these dead beats that doesn't have everyone's
driving tied to the whims of what government might ask for granting a
privilege.

Since you seem to think that it is acceptable for government to
'punish' people for debts. Of course maybe if he couldn't get welfare
he'd have to get work somewhere.

And then he?d have wages that could be easily garnished. I?d be ok
with this too.

That's why the root cause is the welfare state. Government is the
problem, not the answer.

The real question here is if pulling the DL is fine as punishment for
dead beat parents, what else might this punishment be used for? Do we
really want to have things being government granted privilege? To
undermine our rights by allowing government to define everyday things as
privileges it can yank for any reason it deems reasonable?

No, but since they?re already doing it for so many other less-severe
reasons, they may as well do it for this one too. It?s certainly more
harmful to my friend, her daughter, and society in general (who would
already be paying his share if she were not too proud to ask for it)
than say, speeding.

Might as well too... well guess we can forget about that free country
bull****.

On 2008-08-28, barbie gee wrote:


On Thu, 28 Aug 2008, Brent P wrote:

On 2008-08-28, wrote:
On Aug 28, 1:22 am, Brent P
wrote:
Maybe you really are stupid. I just may be giving you too much credit.
Debts from one person to another are civil matters and should be civil
matters. The fact that government decides to make it criminal matter in
the case of child support is simply wrong. As is its taking from one
person to give to another. But those are other topics. One's debts
certainly have no bearing on safe driving.

Holy ****. Brent, I usually agree with you when it comes to the
overbearing govt thing. Being a libertarian, I?m all about the govt.
butting out of our business when applicable. This is over the top
though.

It's over the top to expect that the government not forcibly take money
from some people to give to other people (welfare,etc) and for people
not to be able to use the force of government to collect some debts but
not others?

stop calling it a "debt".

What do you call an upaid amount of money? It's a debt.

It's an 18 year obligation that this loser isn't living up to.

The obligation is far more than money.