|
banning license plate acronyms where is 1st amendment? (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| DOOMBOT |
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
Well nobody coerces you under threat of duress to append a license plate to your vehicle. You can just keep it in your garage and never, ever use the vehicle if the integrity of your property is of such concern. |
That really doesn't address the point I've made though and that is that a peaceful person been forced to use one on their property in the first place. The argument goes all the way back to using force/violence on a peaceful person to get them to do something that they otherwise would not have done. Either you agree or disagree that this is ok. If you disagree, then it is illogical to say it is ok for anyone (whether they have a badge or special uniform or not) to do it. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
Government is force, and force is necessary to govern. If we were each of us capable of self-governing and maintaining this "peacefulness", we most certainly would have no need of such an overhead.
The peaceful nature of any human being is a luxury afforded only to them by the provisions of government in the first place. |
|
|
| DOOMBOT |
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
Government is force, and force is necessary to govern. If we were each of us capable of self-governing and maintaining this "peacefulness", we most certainly would have no need of such an overhead.
The peaceful nature of any human being is a luxury afforded only to them by the provisions of government in the first place. |
Then you would be one who thinks it is ok for a person to use force or violence against a peaceful person. In other words, it is ok for person A to use force or violence to take X from person B (your neighbor can force themselves in your house and take your cracker jack trance vinyl collection from you). If that is what you believe, then it is totally logical for you to believe that it is ok for the state to perform such actions. |
|
|
| Looney4Clooney |
| quote: | Originally posted by DOOMBOT
I believe it is silly to use the constitution as a defense in pretty much all things that a state does and does not do. Instead, it should be a debate on how moral the thing is and test the logic of it.
|
alright, let me rephrase it as I only mentioned the amendment as it was in the title of the thread. I don't see any issue with someone , lets call him Lamar restricting someone else's creativity on Lamar's property.
those license plates are not yours. The money you pay goes to administering the system needed that lets you be able to drive a car in a civilized way. Like paying taxes for police and firemen. The fact that you even have a little bit of a say seems like a nicety I would not allow in my judenfrei utopia. |
|
|
| Guest |
| quote: | Originally posted by Looney4Clooney
those license plates are not yours. The money you pay goes to administering the system needed that lets you be able to drive a car in a civilized way. |
Really? Because without the state we'd have what, total chaos on the roads? Everyone would just smash into each other and drive at excessive speed?
Most people are just trying to get from point A to point B without being hassled. Criminals, speeders, those thing are going to exist with or without cops.
The truth is that the only thing that keeps the state operating is our belief in it. I'm sorry guys but Santa Claus isnt real. Welcome to reality. |
|
|
| Looney4Clooney |
you don't think running a registry system costs money ?
People crash. People steal cars. People get killed by cars. If you can guarantee that none of that will ever happen, then you have a case. You don't ever pay the true cost of driving a vehicle. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| quote: | Originally posted by Guest
Welcome to reality. |
A phrase never uttered without irony. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by DOOMBOT
I believe it is silly to use the constitution as a defense in pretty much all things that a state does and does not do. Instead, it should be a debate on how moral the thing is and test the logic of it.
Personally, I believe it is immoral to put someone under duress to do something that you want them to do that they would have voluntarily chosen not to do. In this case, people are under duress to stick a license plate on their car if they want to drive. Now, like argued above, people are going to say that it is necessary to force people to do it in order to catch "criminals." Ok, fine. But do you believe it is ok for anyone to approach a peaceful person and use force or violence to get them to do something that you want them to do that they otherwise would not? Personally, I don't believe it is. So logically, I can't agree with forcing people to put a license plate on their car because I don't believe anyone has a right to do that. And it is completely illogical to say that a state does; because by what right do they have to do it? People often answer that the citizens give them that power. The problem with that is that it is illogical to say that someone can give a right that they do not have to someone else. |
:stongue: you ing loser. |
|
|
| billymadision |
| "You can have any car you like, as long as it's this one." :gsmile: |
|
|
| billymadision |
| Somehow I get the intuition the government is singling out bumper stickers as the 'refuge of the nutter' and the only desire to proliferate them would belong to the Last Man Standing. Around my area I don't see many bumper stickers with a descript message in text, but more images and political endorsements. |
|
|
| Sushipunk |
| I wonder if it's the same over here in AUS? I know a guy with 51uts as the plate number on his WRX, lol. |
|
|
| DOOMBOT |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
:stongue: you ing loser. |
 |
|
|
|
|
