gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) (10/29/90)
Ofer Inbar wrote, in response to Brad Templeton's suggestion that goverments be banned from the computerization of society: > Could you see a constitutional ammendment forbidding government > involvement in maintaining public roads and highways? Does the fact > that the government has the ability to prevent you from using public > roads scare you, or make you think that the government will actually > use this ability? Yes, of course. There are already proposals that Federal highway money be denied to states that don't take away the drivers' licenses of people convicted of drug offenses. Note how the control has been exercised: * People didn't used to need goverment licenses for transportation, but State goverments arrogated this control when cars became widespread. * Nothing gave the Federal Government this power, though, so it has set up an infrastructure wherein the Feds impose a tax on all State residents and road users (income and gax taxes), then redirect the collected money to State goverments -- with strings attached. * Government subsidy of road-building programs have strangled all other alternatives to automobile use, so obtaining a driver's license is in fact a requirement for >95% of citizens. The US excuse for "public transit" has been taken over by government ("municipalized") almost everywhere, and is largely Federally funded. Even taxis (private cars used to transport other people for profit) are licensed and regulated. * While drug use has nothing to do with driving cars, the Federal Goverment is not required to show any causal connection between rules and reality. * The Constitution and laws prevent the goverment from exacting "cruel or unusual" vengence against this particular class of people who they hate for some reason * So they use these other means, which are not controlled by the Constitution, and which were not set up to exercise social control of the populace, to actually *do* social control of the populace. I'm interested in suggestions on how to break this cycle; on a State level, limitations on the power to tax have had some effect. But the Federal Goverment is not subject to initiative or referendum, the tools used by the populace to win over their "elected" State governments. > One of the functions of the EFF should be to extend analogies such as > this to the electronic world, so that the government could maintain > our networks without causing fear. I see. Let's reassure the sheep. This control *is* exercised, for unConstitutionally oppresive purposes completely unrelated to the original purpose of goverment involvement in transportation, but let's all not have any FEAR or anything... Brad: > The network must be owned and run by a variety of private interests for the > society to remain free. > Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473 Ofer: > The problem with private interests is that they tend to be driven by > profit only, and are not accountable to the public except in that they > need money. Private interests scare me much more than public. Your mistrust is misplaced, and Brad knows more about this than you. The loophole you mention ("except in that they need money") is the complete means of public control of private companies. It works better than the ways we have to control goverments. Consider Brad's company. He's running a small, struggling business distributing information by computer networks. He is completely accountable to the public -- if they don't buy his goods, deciding every month to pay him once again, he's out of business. As for governments, with a 98% re-election rate of Congressmen, who exactly in the goverment is accountable to the public? I think that more of your fear comes from the idea that if even *part* of the public supports Brad, his business will survive and flourish -- even if you don't agree with what he's doing. That's the nature and the strength of an open society, though -- diversity. Ideas that *nobody* supports will die, in private hands or in public hands. But ideas that a small minority supports, can continue even in the face of persecution by a majority, in private hands. And virtually all progress is made by these minorities, despite the opposition of majorities who prefer the status quo. (If you don't want to live in an open society, there are plenty of places on the globe to choose from...even nominally "civilized" places like England or Scandinavia. I've recently been reading about the extent of dirrect censorship in England, and if you want some real fear, look there.) -- John Gilmore {sun,pacbell,uunet,pyramid}!hoptoad!gnu gnu@toad.com Just say no to thugs. The ones who lock up innocent drug users come to mind.
bchurch@oucsace.cs.OHIOU.EDU (Bob Church) (10/29/90)
>Ofer Inbar wrote, in response to Brad Templeton's suggestion that >goverments be banned from the computerization of society: > >> Could you see a constitutional ammendment forbidding government >> involvement in maintaining public roads and highways? Does the fact >> that the government has the ability to prevent you from using public >> roads scare you, or make you think that the government will actually >> use this ability? > I live in a college town where over 90% of the drinking of alchohol is done by people walking to bars and then back to the dorms, etc. They are no longer allowed to do this. The federal government promised to cut highway funding to Ohio if the state didn't raise the drinking age to 21. The scenario that you talk about has already happened. Personally, I think the answer is to end "riders". I'm not sure how you'd do this, but the tacking on of bad legislation to necessary legislation is one of the oldest ( and most damaging ) tricks of the government. By the way, the "good old boy" bars either weren't effected or actually had their business increased due to uptown bars going out of business. These bars are out along rural highways and have to be driven from and to. The rule may have actually increased DWI.
cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) (10/30/90)
gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) writes: }Ofer Inbar wrote, in response to Brad Templeton's suggestion that }goverments be banned from the computerization of society: }> Could you see a constitutional ammendment forbidding government }> involvement in maintaining public roads and highways? Does the fact }> that the government has the ability to prevent you from using public }> roads scare you, or make you think that the government will actually }> use this ability? }Yes, of course. There are already proposals that Federal highway money }be denied to states that don't take away the drivers' licenses of people }convicted of drug offenses. Note how the control has been exercised: ... } * Nothing gave the Federal Government this power, though, so it has } set up an infrastructure wherein the Feds impose a tax on all } State residents and road users (income and gax taxes), then } redirect the collected money to State goverments -- with } strings attached. ... } * While drug use has nothing to do with driving cars, the Federal } Goverment is not required to show any causal connection between } rules and reality. } * The Constitution and laws prevent the goverment from exacting } "cruel or unusual" vengence against this particular class of people } who they hate for some reason I don't recall the cruel-or-unusual-vengeance part of the constitution --- could you be a bit more explicit about which part(s) you're talking about. }I'm interested in suggestions on how to break this cycle;.. I think the battle is hopeless, barring some sort of Constitutional Amendment [and I'd be hard pressed to see how such would be worded]. The matter of 'strings' on gov't money is fairly long standing and is pretty much settled law [dates back tothe New Deal days in the 30's... I can get you the precise Supreme Court decision that first addressed this matter if you'd like]. At the time, the matter at hand was the feds putting the screws on private employers for things like limiting work hours, honoring the right of employees to form unions, etc. I don't argue that those "intrustions" were necessarily good or bad, only that this kind of intrusion isn't a particularly new thing: LOTS of law would go out the window if 'strings' became unconstitutional, and not all of it is bad [e.g., most folk think that the federal pressure to have racially balanced school systems was, and is, overall a good thing that the states themselves showed no interest in pursuing on their own]. /Bernie\
fvest@ducvax.auburn.edu (10/31/90)
In article <60432@bbn.BBN.COM>, cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) writes... > >}I'm interested in suggestions on how to break this cycle;.. > >I think the battle is hopeless, barring some sort of Constitutional >Amendment [and I'd be hard pressed to see how such would be worded]. How 'bout: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Or maybe "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." Something like this would never be passed, though. -- //========================================================================\\ || Floyd Vest // WAR \\ fvest@ducvax.auburn.edu || || Auburn University \\ EAGLE // FVEST@AUDUCVAX.bitnet || \\========================================================================// .