The US Election 2016, Part IV

[Longknife]

 

 

I just want self driving cars. I should be able to just tell my car where to go so I can focus on important stuff like debating on forums. Holding a steering wheel is for peasants.

Teacher giving up independence, sad

This is stupid. The independence to sit in traffic? To drive in a straight line on a freeway? Oh noes, my liberty!

 

I love when people try to justify doing menial tasks by calling it independence. I have a dishwasher in my house too, I really give up the freedom to hand wash everything.

 

 

 

YOU ARE A SLAVE TO YOUR DISHWASHER, DIRTY EUROTRASH.

 

THE FOUNDING FATHERS WOULD BE LIVID.

Edited August 9, 2016 by Longknife

[Meshugger]

 

 

Amidst all the news of Republicans endorsing Hillary, why *not* throw away your vote on a third party now?

 

I thought the argument was that a Republican congress would choose Trump if no candidate met the electoral college count neccesary, but with all the Clinton endorsements from Senators and Representatives, seems to me people can go nuts and vote Stein and Johnson.

 

Perhaps the left/right-paradigm really is a sham and only power matters. The Hillary camp offers a continuation of such power for those "Republicans", while Trump does not. But what do i know.

 

 

 

Yes but Trump winning means we actually need to immortalize his stupid ****ing haircut in the Hall of Presidents, and we simply can't have that. Better to vote Stein or Johnson.

 

 

Aesthetics for some, feel good politics for others.

[Malcador]

 

 

 

I just want self driving cars. I should be able to just tell my car where to go so I can focus on important stuff like debating on forums. Holding a steering wheel is for peasants.

Teacher giving up independence, sad

This is stupid. The independence to sit in traffic? To drive in a straight line on a freeway? Oh noes, my liberty!

 

I love when people try to justify doing menial tasks by calling it independence. I have a dishwasher in my house too, I really give up the freedom to hand wash everything.

In the case of the dishwashing that is just laziness if one were to take a stab at it.

 

Still might have traffic jams with those cars as well.

[Amentep]

 

@Pidesco, I'm at work and can't give a full answer but just let me point out that in the US a privately owned vehicle is afforded the same 4th Amendment protections as a home or any other private property. So this law presumes the Sate can tell you what you can and can't do in the privacy of your own property.

Only true if your car is parked.

 

So theoretically the police could fly a helicopter over your car, have an officer climb down a rope ladder from the helicopter, then dive through an open window and that officer could search your car until you could stop it and it wouldn't be illegal (provided he stopped searching once it was no longer in motion and became private property)?

 

 

Seriously though, IIRC, the Carroll case led to reduced expectation of privacy with regard to car searches in context of the 4th Amendment (thus greater lattitude to search) based on their ability to be moved out of the district before a warrant could be gathered.  Arguably (I'd think) this isn't about privacy so much as it is public safety.  The government already forbids you drinking alcohol and driving, for example.  But in that case there's a clear link to the activity and the impairment (and yes you can be drunk before getting into a car, but tossing back a bud as you drive would also get you pulled over).  So arguably the question would end up being  whether the activity in a not-as-private-as-a-house vehicle has a clearly proven ramification outside of the car.  Which I'm not sure it does.

 

Or I could just be totally wrong on everything, totally not a lawyer.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Hmm, I thought you were a lawyer. Anyway, Texas requires you to wear seat belts when driving.

[Meshugger]

 

in the US a privately owned vehicle is afforded the same 4th Amendment protections as a home or any other private property. So this law presumes the Sate can tell you what you can and can't do in the privacy of your own property.

 

The state already does- but I agree in principle, I would love for all laws to be recinded, the state abolished and everyone just acting like rational ****ing adults..

 

Problem is when people can't handle the responsibility of that private property and starts running me over with it, just because they want coffee and can't wait 5 gorram minutes.

 

I think some encroachment on personal liberties are in order. Especially on actions strongly and adversly affecting others- where you literally can do it anywhere else with no problem.

 

But of course I fully respect your country's desire to do it differently, I'm just happy they agree with me here.

 

 

That's the crux of the problem, isn't it? First you have to have the most rational ones in power to guide the less rational ones. Then you will have to have monopoly of violence to enforce your rationale of course. But then there's the little problem of having no outside system of metrics to measure reason or higher principles for this reason to adhere from so the only legitimization of your power of the most rational ones is the monopoly of violence to begin with; and the there you have it, either a state of perpetual violence where different people using different rationale to kill each other or a very supressive government where it's only legitimization has nothing to do with reason to begin with.

[Malcador]

A civilized society has no room for freedom :^)

 

This election sure brings unexpected happenings:

 

 

Wait, what's the big deal here?

 

Oh right. Breitbart.

 

Also. Amentep isn't a lawyer? Could have he was.

Edited August 9, 2016 by Malcador

[Meshugger]

 

A civilized society has no room for freedom :^)

 

This election sure brings unexpected happenings:

 

 

Wait, what's the big deal here?

 

 

"Happening" might be a wrong wording, i just found it funny. 

[Rosbjerg]

That's the crux of the problem, isn't it? First you have to have the most rational ones in power to guide the less rational ones. Then you will have to have monopoly of violence to enforce your rationale of course. But then there's the little problem of having no outside system of metrics to measure reason or higher principles for this reason to adhere from so the only legitimization of your power of the most rational ones is the monopoly of violence to begin with; and the there you have it, either a state of perpetual violence where different people using different rationale to kill each other or a very supressive government where it's only legitimization has nothing to do with reason to begin with.

 

The problem with anarcho-whatever suffix you wanna put here, is of course that violence is a very effective coercion tool. So as history has shown you very quickly degenerate into have and used-to-haves.

 

And then it starts all over again.

[Volourn]

Even the most 'good' gov't will use violence to get what they want. It is why we see police killing unarmed people if they look at them funny. The moment you tell the authorities 'no'  they will have no problem killing you and spinning it to make you at fault. That is why the gov't will NEVER be your friend. They are your slaver. They are your jailer. And, they will be your murderer if need be. And, people will justify their behavior.

[Amentep]

Hmm, I thought you were a lawyer. Anyway, Texas requires you to wear seat belts when driving.

I play a lawyer on tv.*

 

I think seat belt laws were passed nationwide since federal transportation dollars were put up as the carrot if they were approved the state.

 

*Disclaimer: not an actual tv lawyer either.

 

PS - auto correct changed my misspelling of disclaimer to ducksimmer

[BruceVC]

Hmm, I thought you were a lawyer. Anyway, Texas requires you to wear seat belts when driving.

Yip, thats what happens in a police state.... they force you to wear seat belts 

 

I'm surprised you cant challenge this type of law through  some kind of Constitutional court lawing?

[Wrath of Dagon]

Only if it interferes with homosexual activity.

[HoonDing]

[Guard Dog]

 

Hmm, I thought you were a lawyer. Anyway, Texas requires you to wear seat belts when driving.

Yip, thats what happens in a police state.... they force you to wear seat belts 

 

I'm surprised you cant challenge this type of law through  some kind of Constitutional court lawing?

 

Well, you probably could. The problem comes down to enforcement as a few other sharp minds here pointed out. You see, the thing is driving is not a right. It's actually a privilege the state grants in return for agreeing a few basic rules. Since the state (meaning an actual state like New Jersey, not a generic term for government) grants the privilege it gets to make the rules. So, while this is nothing more that big brother, nanny state idiocy, it IS actually in their power to do it. Now, suppose I'm driving down the turnpike sipping a Venti Starbucks Italian Roast and the NJSP pulls me over for it. I slip the cup in between the seats. The trooper says he pulled me over for distracted driving. I take the ticket (because arguing with the cop is just f-----g stupid) then go to court to contest the ticket. The magistrate will say "were you drinking coffee?" I say "No Sir" (or "yes sir" doesn't matter). The magistrate will say "the cop says you were and I have to take his word". Now I've been convicted of a crime and I have standing to appeal. And on an appeal the whole thing comes in including the constitutionality of the whole law.

 

Now the punishment for this is a fine. And probably not a big one. So to appeal I would be charging up a legal Hamburger Hill in a fight that will cost farm more than the infraction would. Which is why, probably, no one will do it. But there is a decent chance of reaching the top of that hill. Just look at Red Light Cameras. They were popping up everywhere and they have been soundly beaten in court by people who decided enough b------t is enough.

[Wrath of Dagon]

That's funny because we still have redlight cameras, and they're annoying as hell.

[Namutree]

Why use a nuke to kill one lady? He could just label her a traitor and have a drone kill her.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

That's the crux of the problem, isn't it? First you have to have the most rational ones in power to guide the less rational ones. Then you will have to have monopoly of violence to enforce your rationale of course. But then there's the little problem of having no outside system of metrics to measure reason or higher principles for this reason to adhere from so the only legitimization of your power of the most rational ones is the monopoly of violence to begin with; and the there you have it, either a state of perpetual violence where different people using different rationale to kill each other or a very supressive government where it's only legitimization has nothing to do with reason to begin with.

 

 

The problem with anarcho-whatever suffix you wanna put here, is of course that violence is a very effective coercion tool. So as history has shown you very quickly degenerate into have and used-to-haves.

 

And then it starts all over again.

 

Excuse me statist scum, but the NAP will prevent all of that.

[Guard Dog]

Looks like the Clintons are "taking care of business" again: http://townhall.com/columnists/rachelalexander/2016/08/09/clinton-body-count-or-leftwing-conspiracy-three-with-ties-to-dnc-mysteriously-die-n2203000

 

 

  I will say this... there has never been another Presidential couple who have had so many associates who dropped dead mysteriously. Not even the Kennedys for God's sake. Or Warren Harding and he actually WAS surrounded by real criminals!

[Meshugger]

 

That's the crux of the problem, isn't it? First you have to have the most rational ones in power to guide the less rational ones. Then you will have to have monopoly of violence to enforce your rationale of course. But then there's the little problem of having no outside system of metrics to measure reason or higher principles for this reason to adhere from so the only legitimization of your power of the most rational ones is the monopoly of violence to begin with; and the there you have it, either a state of perpetual violence where different people using different rationale to kill each other or a very supressive government where it's only legitimization has nothing to do with reason to begin with.

 

The problem with anarcho-whatever suffix you wanna put here, is of course that violence is a very effective coercion tool. So as history has shown you very quickly degenerate into have and used-to-haves.

 

And then it starts all over again.

 

 

I wasn't implying any pro-anarcho message if that's what you're saying. I was critizing the notion of reason as virtue for running a society.

[Meshugger]

Looks like the Clintons are "taking care of business" again: http://townhall.com/columnists/rachelalexander/2016/08/09/clinton-body-count-or-leftwing-conspiracy-three-with-ties-to-dnc-mysteriously-die-n2203000

 

 

  I will say this... there has never been another Presidential couple who have had so many associates who dropped dead mysteriously. Not even the Kennedys for God's sake. Or Warren Harding and he actually WAS surrounded by real criminals!

 

Ah, The Clintonian Autonecrosis Syndrome strikes again. 

[Guard Dog]

 Oh I'm not suggesting they "ordered" any of them killed. But damn there is just so MANY. It's hard to believe they are all just coincidences. 

[Meshugger]

Of course not, but we have to come to terms that they might be patient zero the unknown neurophysological decease known as Clintonian Autonecrosis Syndrome. Symptoms include:

 

- Sudden fall on stairs or bath tubs

- Dropping heavy objects on own head or throat

- Susceptible to being shot by strangers

- Suicidial tendencies ending with multiple gunshot wounds in the neck by multiple weapons

- Auto-destruction of financial records and property

 

I really hope the medical science make a break on these cases, it would help a lot of people.

Edited August 9, 2016 by Meshugger

[Malcador]

Not quite sure necrosis is the right term.

[HoonDing]