John Gilmore interviewed by Greplaw

"I'm a civil libertarian millionaire eccentric" by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-19 11:55 · Score: 5, Funny

Who isn't these days?!

Re:"I'm a civil libertarian millionaire eccentric" by Kjuib · 2004-08-19 12:12 · Score: 0

I was... then I invested in GOOG... now I am hopeless... oh wait.. maybe it was LNUX...

--
- Your stupidity got you into this mess, why can't it get you out? -Will Rogers
Re:"I'm a civil libertarian millionaire eccentric" by stonebeat.org · 2004-08-19 12:14 · Score: 2, Funny

did i see this guy at Woodstock Market???? ;)

--

Consensus is good, but informed dictatorship is better
Re:"I'm a civil libertarian millionaire eccentric" by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-19 12:53 · Score: 0

John Kerry thinks he is, but he's really not.
Re:"I'm a civil libertarian millionaire eccentric" by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-19 17:07 · Score: 0

me :(
Re:"I'm a civil libertarian millionaire eccentric" by mdfst13 · 2004-08-19 20:19 · Score: 1

Me neither. The grandparent poster should give both of us a million dollars so we can fit in.

greplaw? by jargoone · 2004-08-19 11:57 · Score: 5, Funny

Not powerful enough. Give me egreplaw any day of the week.

Re:greplaw? by martinX · 2004-08-19 12:34 · Score: 1

I want iGreplaw - it's easy enough for my mum to use!

--
When they came for the communists, I said "He's next door. Take him away. Goddam commies."
Re:greplaw? by red+floyd · 2004-08-19 15:27 · Score: 1

I don't need regex. I'll use fgreplaw.

--
The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy

Where the Gary Gilmore interview? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-19 11:57 · Score: 0

that would be more interesting

Re:Where the Gary Gilmore interview? by scubacuda · 2004-08-19 13:14 · Score: 1

I'm sure that Mikael could interview him if you provided the medium.

A wise man... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-19 11:58 · Score: 0

I wonder when he will be taken out for thinking too much.

Re:A wise man... by JeanBaptiste · 2004-08-19 12:18 · Score: 2, Insightful

"I wonder when he will be taken out for thinking too much."

Would you care to post a list of other people that have been taken out for thinking too much?

For as much as some tend to complain about oppression in America, I'm not aware of such things actually happening.

Thanks
Re:A wise man... by jbltk · 2004-08-19 13:00 · Score: 3, Insightful

We can start with Galileo.

Then we have Sherman Austin under the Patriot Act.

http://rwor.org/a/1217/austin.htm

With the Patriot Act, there is the distinct possibility of people being silenced and no one ever knowing.

The point is not how many are being silenced now, but how many can and probably will be in the future.

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
Pastor Martin Niemöller
Re:A wise man... by killjoe · 2004-08-19 13:22 · Score: 2, Interesting

"Would you care to post a list of other people that have been taken out for thinking too much?

For as much as some tend to complain about oppression in America, I'm not aware of such things actually happening."

Well if you are not aware of it then it probably never happened.

Here let me go the TheListOfPeopleWeKilledBecauseTheyDaredToQuestionU s.gov and get the list. Oh wait a minute the US does not have a web site where they keep a list of people they assassinated. I guess that means the US govt has never assassinated anybody then.

--
evil is as evil does
Re:A wise man... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-19 14:07 · Score: 1, Funny

Off the top of my head...

John F. Kennedy
Martin Luther King
Mohandas K. Gandhi
Jesus Christ
Re:A wise man... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-19 14:28 · Score: 0

...Malcolm X...
Re:A wise man... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-19 15:49 · Score: 0

oppression in America
Re:A wise man... by tehcyder · 2004-08-19 23:11 · Score: 1

Ah yes, Gandhi and Jesus the well known Americans.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re:A wise man... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-20 00:42 · Score: 0

Ah, 1) Galileo was not in the US. 2) He was most certainly not silenced. 3) Mr. Austin's case has nothing to do with the Patriot Act. The point is that these baseless claims are being made to incite fear when the facts to do not support your contention.
Re:A wise man... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-20 00:45 · Score: 0

Nor does it lend any credence to your statement.
Re:A wise man... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-20 00:47 · Score: 0

I wonder if he will be shot for being such a dork.
Re:A wise man... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-20 01:59 · Score: 0

Sherman Austin had NOTHING to do with the patriot act. It was a 1997 Anti-Terror law sponsered and pushed by guess what, a Democrat (note: not some evil freedom hating republican). So ... where is that list of outspoken political activists jailed/harassed under the patriot act? From them outspeech on /. I'd think everyone here would know at least one person.
Re:A wise man... by Money+for+Nothin' · 2004-08-20 05:01 · Score: 1

He's pointing out that just because you haven't heard of [insert action] occurring, that doesn't mean it hasn't happened. Additionally, just because the government doesn't talk about [insert action], doesn't mean that it does not also occur.

killjoe makes a credible argument.

--

Is Capitalism Good for the Poor?
Re:A wise man... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-20 07:08 · Score: 0

No, his argument is not credible. What he is doing is on this list. I'll leave it as an exercise to determine which specific fallacy applies.
Re:A wise man... by Money+for+Nothin' · 2004-08-20 07:37 · Score: 1

That list includes the Slippery Slope fallacy, which although it is *technically*, in *absolute* terms, a fallacy, it fails to apply historical reasoning.

For example, your Social Security Number was never meant to be used as a personal identifier when it was created during FDR's socialist reign in the 1930s. Today, the SSN is used to get a job, to file your taxes, even to buy a goddamn cellphone -- all because the people who run these programs want to personally-identify you. Yet, the SS card itself originally had a statement printed on it which read "Not for ID".

The slippery-slope argument -- which in theory would be a logical fallacy -- was that the SSN's use would be expanded to beyond the purposes of collecting Social Security. And you know what? What would've then been deemed a "logical fallacy" has actually proven correct, in fact.

I've seen the other logical fallacies before. Chances are, you're thinking of "Appeal to Consequences of a Belief" - that the great-grandparent *believes* the government is murdering people, but can't confirm it.

Again, this logical fallacy fails to contain historical reasoning. The U.S. government has murdered Americans before (if by no other example than via the death penalty), and it will kill again.

Could be "Appeal to Fear" though. Then again, with Bush in office, he has every right and reason to be afraid! (and yes, with that, I've made the "logical fallacies" of "Personal Attack" and maybe "Two Wrongs Make a Right". Boo fucking hoo; the latter is a logical fallacy, yes, but the former is not. Personal attacks have nothing to do with logic and are almost never intended to. They have everything to do with making the other guy look bad. I suppose Bush doesn't need the help though. "Appeal to Ridicule" would be another one I've committed here; again, ridicule has nothing to do with being an actual, logical, factual argument, and I never say such things as though they are serious, logical arguments. I just feel like ripping somebody a new asshole, that's all).

--

Is Capitalism Good for the Poor?
Re:A wise man... by jbltk · 2004-08-20 14:41 · Score: 1

You're half correct. He was pursued by the FBI under the Patriot Act, but charged under the Anti-Terror law of Diane Feinstein.

The example of Galileo was meant to show people being silenced throughout history, and he was indeed silenced by the church.

http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathema ti cians/Galileo.html

Get your shit straight.

Server is going down fast... here's the text by SlashdotTroll · 2004-08-19 12:01 · Score: 1, Informative

(let me just say, that I am a tech support employee and Mr. Gilmore is inspiration people like me need to keep striving beyond tech support's internship to a technology career).

****BEGIN ARTILE TEXT****

# Who is John Gilmore?

I'm a civil libertarian millionaire eccentric. I started out in my teens as a middle-class programmer, worked my way up to senior technical jobs, then learned business in Silicon Valley. A combination of luck and skill brought me through several successful startup companies and gave me the opportunity to decide what I want to do, rather than what I need to do. I decided I want to work to keep individual freedom alive and thriving. So that's what I'm doing.

# First, I think we need to establish your take on terrorism. Is terrorism wrong?

It depends on the definition of terrorism. I like the CIA's definition of terrorism from Stansfield Turner's book "Secrecy and Democracy". It was something like, "violence or force directed at a small group of people with the intent to influence a much larger group". By that definition, the US government practices terrorism every time it arrests a medical marijuana smoker "because it sends the wrong message to kids". Is that wrong? I think so.

(Of course, the US government has revised its definition of terrorism since then, to make sure that nothing the US Government does can be considered terrorism by its new definition. Terrorism is now defined as force applied for political reasons by people other than the US Government.)

# Speaking of drugs, aren't you doing something about the drug war?

Yep, I'm in the middle of a ten-year, ten million dollar program to end the drug war. The pendulum is swinging on that issue, after decades of wasting billions of dollars and mangling hundreds of thousands of lives every year. Cancer patients get thrown in jail for smoking marijuana to keep from throwing up their chemotherapy meds. Entire countries get overrun and their leaders toppled by the US because the US doesn't like how those countries run their internal drug policies (like Panama, Nicaragua, and now Colombia). Factory workers get tested and fired based on their choice of weekend recreation, regardless of how well they do their job. Schoolkids learn right away that the government blatantly lies to them about the effects of drugs, and also learn that the government can search them at any time without any cause, raising a generation both cynical and resigned to corrupt authoritarianism.

The drug war is an ugly, corrupt set of policies that were bad when Nixon set it in motion to bash the hippie students who were hounding his ass out of office. It was ugly and corrupt when the medicine marijuana was outlawed early in the 20th century as a way to bash brown-skinned people coming up from Mexico. It was ugly and corrupt when San Francisco passed the first ordinance criminalizing drug use in the 1890s; it outlawed the medicine opium, and was used to bash Chinese immigrants who'd come to build the railroad and then settled in Chinatown. Now 90% of the people serving time for drugs are black or Latino, even though white and asian Americans use drugs in the same proportions as blacks and Latinos. Drug warriors encourage parents to turn in their kids and kids to turn in their parents. It's destroyed most of the Fourth Amendment and is well on the way to destroying freedom of thought, which is even more fundamental and neglected than freedom of movement. They're attempting to outlaw entire modes of thought, by making illegal the tools that get you to those modes.

Open societies have plenty of mechanisms by which truly rotten policies can get discovered and corrected over the years and decades. The people who profit from the drug war (mostly cops, prisons, and forced-"treatment" scams) have managed to avoid this so far. I think I can see several ways where a bit of leverage at the right time and place can kick the props out from under the policy, letting the public see what is really happening. Like the Be

--

I am the nightmare of nightmares.

Gilmore?? by desmogod · 2004-08-19 12:05 · Score: -1, Flamebait

Who the hell is John Gilmore? Only a millionairre? Shit, that's pretty piss weak. Bet he's happy though.....

Re:Gilmore?? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-19 12:07 · Score: 1, Funny

He's John Perry Barlow's less cool friend.

real original by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-19 12:06 · Score: -1, Troll

greplaw, groklaw, blah blah blah

And I thought I was alone... by ElForesto · 2004-08-19 12:06 · Score: 5, Insightful

Here I am thinking I'm the only one that argues what he's arguing. The right to travel *IS* fundamental to a free society, IDs and driver's licenses be damned! I'm glad someone with money gets it (meaning that he has the means to do something about it other than speak up).

--
There is a difference between "insightful" and "inciteful" other than spelling.

Re:And I thought I was alone... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-19 12:39 · Score: 2, Insightful

driver's licenses be damned!
Slow down, cowboy. Neither you or I were born with a-priori knowledge of how to drive a car. Licensing programs for operators of vehicles on public roads are not a restraint on freedom of movement.
Re:And I thought I was alone... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-19 12:40 · Score: 1, Interesting

The one problem with applying this logic to driving is the idea of qualification. When one is flying, one is not in control, therefore, it does not need to be known whether or not a passenger can fly. When one is driving, one is in control. Thus, to ensure the safety of others, it seems necessary to have some sort of system of ensuring qualification to drive. Now, one might argue that the same can be applied to bicycles, but cars are much more dangerous (higher speeds, larger mass, etc.). If an alternative qualification system can be proposed, not requiring ID to drive might be acceptable.
Re:And I thought I was alone... by foidulus · 2004-08-19 12:46 · Score: 0, Flamebait

This is coming from someone who is a stron supporter of the ACLU(I would be a member, but I am a cheap bastard)
So it is the right of some drunk driver to mow down a pedestrian and be able to get away with it because in the name of civil liberties, he shouldn't have to have a license plate and drivers license eh?
Next time someone close to you is killed by a drunk driver, think about that for a second, k?
Yes I agree that big brother should be kept out of your living room, but when you are on the road, you can very easily affect another citizen's right to "life, liberty and the persuit of happiness". This is what pisses me off most about these, "I can do whatever the fuck I feel like" civil libertarians, what you do can adversely affect other people.
Same goes with speech, you have the right to say whatever the fuck you want, but I also have the right not to listen to it if I so desire. Which is why /. moderation is not supressing free speech(cept for the abuse of the underrated/overrated modifier which easily allows mods with agendas to push said agendas without getting caugh in meta-modding, but every system has flaws), because people can post whatever they want, I can just choose whether or not I want to read every GNAA troll.
Just like you can do whatever the fuck you want on your own property, as long as you don't hurt anyone else, but once you get on the road, you have certain responsibilites. Don't want to abide by the rules? There is nothing stopping you from walking/riding a bike/taking the bus/taking a train etc. All of those things will get you from point A to point B, and your odds of hurting someone else, while not zero, are much lower than they are if you are driving a car or flying in a plane.
Simply put, if you want to travel anonymously, then don't drive or take a plane. For the rest of us, we will go along without our tinfoil hats enjoying the (relative) safety of knowing that if someone hits us, they will be hunted down using their license plate/driver's license and brought to justice.
Re:And I thought I was alone... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-19 13:32 · Score: 4, Insightful

It is, because it's *prior* restraint. No one is saying that you have the right to drive dangerously. Neither do you have a right to wield a stick in a way that endangers others. But you don't need a license to have a stick, do you? If you drive dangerously then you are guilty of reckless endangerment, and you can be prosecuted and convicted by a jury. If you are NOT driving dangerously, then you are exercising a right. Permit = permission = not a right.
Re:And I thought I was alone... by ElForesto · 2004-08-19 13:33 · Score: 4, Funny

So it is the right of some drunk driver to mow down a pedestrian and be able to get away with it because in the name of civil liberties, he shouldn't have to have a license plate and drivers license eh?

I have absolutely no idea how to respond to that. Perhaps I need to beat myself over the head with a blunt object to approach that level of thinking and interpretation. You might as well say "So it is the right of some mentally-unbalanced gun nut to mow down a pedestrian and be able to get away with it because in the name of civil liberties, he shouldn't have to have a license to own the gun eh?"

The license had nothing to do with the fact that the guy was ACTING IRRESPONSIBLY. You act like that magic piece of plastic is going to automatically make Daryl the Drunk into Reginald the Responsible. Do you know why people as a whole drive safely? They don't want to damage their property and/or go to jail. The truly good people don't want to hurt other people. You act like the fact that a guy spent a few hours in a line at the DMV should account for his driving skill.

I'm all for much tougher penalties for irresponsible driving practices. Drunken driving should be a felony with at least 30 days in the drunk tank. Repeat offenders should be locked up even longer (presuming we let them out, which we shouldn't). If someone demonstrates a lack of ability to handle liberty, by all means TAKE IT AWAY.

You, sir, are an idiot. There, I said what everyone was thinking. You took my opposition to prior restraint and someone managed to walk away with an advocation of reckless and dangerous behaviour. I don't know what your problem is, but I'd bet it's hard to pronounce.

Yes I agree that big brother should be kept out of your living room, but when you are on the road, you can very easily affect another citizen's right to "life, liberty and the persuit of happiness". This is what pisses me off most about these, "I can do whatever the fuck I feel like" civil libertarians, what you do can adversely affect other people.

Can. That's a really sticky word, isn't it? I *can* choose to shoot a bunch of children with my gun. Should I be automatically subjected to intense psychological evaluation before I can own that gun? Prior restraint goes against everything this country has ever stood for. You cannot in any free society punish the innocent for the crimes of the guilty.

Do people do bad things? Yeah, it happens. But if you go off the deep end trying to prevent bad things from happening, you might as well lock everyone into their own little padded room in restraints so they can't hurt themselves. (Yes, this is hyperbole. That's the point.)

This is coming from someone who is a stron supporter of the ACLU(I would be a member, but I am a cheap bastard)

That's a good thing that you aren't a member, because with your attitudes I'd doubt they'd have you.

It's obvious to me you lost someone to a drunk driver, and I'm sorry about your loss. However, your emotional problems with that should not end up being the basis of law. By taking away someone's ability to chose, you become a petty tyrant as bad as King George III and an enemy to liberty.

God gave me the right to choose, and I'll never give up that God-given right of agency and free choice. Don't try taking that away.

--
There is a difference between "insightful" and "inciteful" other than spelling.
Re:And I thought I was alone... by jcr · 2004-08-19 13:34 · Score: 3, Interesting

Speaking of drivers' licenses, I've always liked John's idea of a driver's license which was NOT an ID. It would prove that the person presenting it was the person who had passed the driver's test, but would not identify that person further.

-jcr

--
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Re:And I thought I was alone... by jcr · 2004-08-19 13:36 · Score: 2, Insightful

Next time someone close to you is killed by a drunk driver, think about that for a second, k?

So, drunks won't get behind the wheel if they don't have a little government-issued laminated card?

Think about *that* for a second.

-jcr

--
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Re:And I thought I was alone... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-19 14:07 · Score: 0

It's amazing when you realize that in many states in the US, someone can spend their entire life in prison for attempting to travel by means that endanger no one. Two ways are to drive without a license or to refuse a breathalizer test. Both will also lead up to the periods of imprisonment with months of constant harrassment, impoundment of property and many specific instances violating the right to travel.

Also note that things like traffic laws ARE justified, because two people cannot physically use the same portion of the road at the same time, even though they each have the right to travel. Their rights sometimes therefore come into 'conflict' of a sort, and the state is justified in implementing rules to sort out those conflicts.

Technically, however, a red light should be no more than a persistent stop sign. In other words, if you stop (or slow) at a red light and no one is coming, you should be able to go. The reason is, there is no conflict of rights here: yours is the only one in question. In practice this would lead to more injuries, but this is the thing only libertarians understand: law should not about improving life. It should not be about creating efficiency or harmony. It should only recognize and protect actual *rights*. Otherwise, what keeps the government from requiring us all to wear motorcycle helmets in our cars? Huh? No principle, just popular opinion. It would save so many lives!

Oh, and to anyone who thinks my red light idea is silly, stop and think for a second about what a flashing yellow light is. It's the same thing. Just light turning right on a red light is no different than turning right when you have a stop sign and no one else does. But there are intersections all over that don't let you do it.
Re:And I thought I was alone... by foidulus · 2004-08-19 14:10 · Score: -1, Flamebait

Wow, childish name callling, that is just amazing.
If you would have taken the half second to actually digest the post instead of making a very poor attempt to shove words in my mouth, you would have realized that I didn't imply that having a license will stop someone from driving drunk, but it will make that person easier to catch. And taking away that license will help(but not totally) ensure that the person doesn't drive again. Your assumption that stricter penalties will ensure that people don't drive drunk when they are allowed to drive annonymously is pure and utter bullshit. If the person is driving without any identifying marks, then how are the police supposed to catch that person if they get into a hit and run? Hmmm? How are the police supposed to look for a stolen car? Or didn't you think that deep. Something tells me that since you are the kind of person who resorts to name calling that your arguments are very poorly thought out and you are just a parrot for others, without really understanding the consequences of your proposals.
Prior restraint goes against everything this country has ever stood for.
Your "prior restraint" argument sidesteps my argument that transportation on public roads is a priveledge, not a right. I used to play a game in high school called, "Propaganda", and your point is a classic Non-Sequiter argument, you take something someone said, and then go off on a complete tangent. It still stands that you do not have a right to drive a car, no matter how much you use arguments of being a tyrant to prove otherwise. But if you insist you have that right, then do what Martin Luther King Jr. did, engage in non-violent civil disobedience and drive without a license or a license plate. But something tells me that you won't, because as much as you like complaining on /., you will do nothing to stand up for your beliefs.
I don't believe there is a God, so that doesn't give you the right to create one and pretend that somehow that diety gives you the right to do whatever you please. You failed to make one argument on why a license plates somehow violates your rights. Instead, you just produced a lot of emotional dribble.
Come back to me when you grow up and can have a big boy argument, till then please actually read what others have to say and respond to their arguments in a mature fashion instead of resorting to childish name calling, k?
Re:And I thought I was alone... by foidulus · 2004-08-19 14:19 · Score: 1

Um, I never said that they wouldn't. Read the post next time instead of just a single line. Guess what, that piece of plastic makes it much easier to track down whoever caused the accident, and allows police to keep drunks off the road.
God, this is why I really should stop reading YRO articles on /., the article summary is usually just a bunch of FUD, followed by a bunch of posts by parrots who tend to take 1 sentence and use it out of context to try to prove their point instead of actually debunking what was said.
Re:And I thought I was alone... by damiam · 2004-08-19 14:26 · Score: 4, Interesting

You'll notice he's not fighting driver's licenses any more than he's fighting pilot's licenses. It's possible to travel anonymously in a car as long as you're a passenger. Similarly, he thinks it should be possible to travel anonymously in a plane. Aside from hijacking, it's pretty hard to hurt other people while riding in a plane. And having to show ID didn't stop the 9/11 hijackers; they all showed perfectly valid official IDs under their own names. So what's the point?

--
It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
Re:And I thought I was alone... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-19 14:50 · Score: 3, Informative

"Your "prior restraint" argument sidesteps my argument that transportation on public roads is a priveledge, not a right."

Too bad the "privilege" argument is pure propoganda:

CASE #1: "The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.

CASE #2: "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.

CASE #3: "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.

CASE #4: "The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right." Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287,
225 F2d 938, at 941.

Note #3 especially. It specifically precludes the use of prior restraint tactics by government entities. Oh and by the way foidulus, I want to make you wear your SSN on a big white panel over your clothing, so in case you kill someone all the bystanders and any cops can easily identify you. And I don't want to hear that this would violate any of your rights!
Re:And I thought I was alone... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-19 14:56 · Score: 1, Insightful

Oh, and here's another more general one:

"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." - Miller v. U.S., 230 F 2d 486, 489.

I.e., that state can't use the argument, "Sure you have the right to travel... and we have the right to arrest you if you do it in our state without a license."
Re:And I thought I was alone... by Etherael · 2004-08-19 14:59 · Score: 1

You're saying no, they wouldn't keep off the road without this little government issued laminated card, but it makes them easier to track down, so it's obviously a good idea.

But...

You said not having one isn't going to stop them from driving irresponsibly anyway...

I mean, can you see where people are going with this?
Re:And I thought I was alone... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-19 15:12 · Score: 1, Insightful

Except that the first mistake is liable to be fatal.

Personally, I think a large percentage of the people driving should lose their right to drive, because they can't seem to do it in a way that doesn't endanger or unduly impose on other drivers. Taking away licensing requirements would only make this worse. Does anyone have statistics on how much the economy loses to traffic every day? Some traffic is legit (construction), but a lot of it is caused by people who just refuse to drive reasonably.

Now, considering how dangerous a motor vehicle is, and considering that nobody knows how to drive by default, how is it such an imposition to require someone to prove they know the rules of the road, and that they can drive safely, before they are allowed to drive? It seems pretty reasonable to me.
Re:And I thought I was alone... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-19 15:24 · Score: 0

You might as well say "So it is the right of some mentally-unbalanced gun nut to mow down a pedestrian and be able to get away with it because in the name of civil liberties, he shouldn't have to have a license to own the gun eh?"

The difference here is intent. A responsible gun owner does not point a gun in the direction of anyone that they do not want to shoot. If someone is doing something irresponsible with a gun, everyone around them will know and react quickly.

The difference between a car stopping normally and running down a pedestrian is about 10 ft. At a speed of 45mph, that's about .1 seconds. With a little practice, anyone can learn how to stop a car at the appropriate spot. The first time they drive, though, they won't know, and should have someone to keep an eye on them. The licensing process is simply to try to make sure that when someone is driving, they have some knowledge of the rules, and that they know how to operate a car!

I've never been shot at, stabbed, hit (aggressively), what have you. I have been in 3 traffic accidents. You want to make it even easier for people to drive, even when driving is already one of the most dangerous things you can do?
Re:And I thought I was alone... by Pigbot · 2004-08-19 15:25 · Score: 2, Interesting

I have always believed that freedom=responsibility, so the more freedom you have, the more responsible you must be for your actions. Accountability is part of this.

I don't want the police to start searching my house without a warrant, but I have no problem with the requirement of presenting identification when you are driving any vehicle under 25,000 pounds (standard license). To me, this is common sense.

Don't mean to harsh, but if someone wants to "live off the grid" and not have an id/dl then they shouldn't expect to share the same rights, since they are not willing to accept the same responsibility and accountability. Fine, live off the grid, walk or bike anywhere you want, you have that right. I just don't quite see how that extends to a drivers license that is not an ID.

--
print "Oink!\n" if ( $tail =~ "pull" );
Re:And I thought I was alone... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-19 15:45 · Score: 0

Ah, the differences between an engineer and normal people. As an engineer, I tend to think very conservatively. When laws are flexible, they are basically useless. Does anyone even read the speed limit anymore? If it really isn't safe to travel at 40 mph in a certain area, how to you get people to slow down? You don't, they drive however they want (and kill thousands every year). Most red lights allow a right turn, so when it's posted as 'no right turn on red', they probably had a reason to do that. They didn't just do it for fun.

this is the thing only libertarians understand: law should not about improving life. It should not be about creating efficiency or harmony. It should only recognize and protect actual *rights*.

OOOHHHH. YOU get it, and everyone else is stupid, huh?

I tend to think that laws are about making society function. If you don't care about social order, then you don't need laws (or rights). Libertarians are big on capitalism, right? Basically, less government and let the free market take care of everything? Well, capitalism doesn't work unless people follow the rules. Those rules are mostly put into place as laws: property laws, contract laws, antitrust laws, etc. None of those are *rights*, except property law, therefore they shouldn't be laws? Bye-bye free market.

Please, correct my misunderstanding. I just design shit, I don't really pay attention to politics. I mostly think the libertarians have a few good ideas, but don't approach them in any practical manner, and therefore I can't support them. (Engineer := practical)
Re:And I thought I was alone... by JimBobJoe · 2004-08-19 16:37 · Score: 2, Interesting

I've always liked John's idea of a driver's license which was NOT an ID. It would prove that the person presenting it was the person who had passed the driver's test, but would not identify that person further.

We call those non-photo drivers licenses...you may still get one in Vermont and several Canadian provinces (New Brunswick and Quebec, perhaps a few others.) You may also get one with a bona fide relgious objection in many states, but as we know, that goes back and forth.

To this day, the most non-photo licenses out there are found in New Jersey, which only recently elminated the non-photo license (or is trying to.)
Re:And I thought I was alone... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-19 16:52 · Score: 0

*Counter-argument for the driver's license*

People in general severly suck at determining their ability to do something skillfully. If they are required to prove their skill before they can practice something that means a much larger portion of the people practicing will do so in a competent way.

Hence on a larger scale the pool of people driving will drive far more safely if they are forced to get a driver's license requiring a test of their skills. This will result in less people being hurt and lower costs to society. The loss will be a pretty minor freedom.

In summary:

Benefits of a driver's license: Far safer trafic and by extension less accidents and econmical costs to society.

Costs: People not being able to choose to drive without a driver's license.

*Counter argument for seat-belts*

As for not wearing a seat-belt, that doesn't directly hurt others, but it does adversely affect society in that society has to treat the extra damages incurred by not wearing a seat belt.

Benefits: Less damages to people who really doesn't want to wear seat belts. Less cost for society at large in treatments and lost working ability.

Costs: People not being able to choose not to wear seat belts.
Re:And I thought I was alone... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-19 16:59 · Score: 0

Yes, people will be less likely to drive drunk if a government-issued laminated card is required to drive. That is if such a privilege is taken away if said person is found to be driving drunk.

It really is quite simple. If we add a hurdle/punishment to something it will make most people less likely to do that. Some people will do it anyway, and some people won't. The totals will add up to less people doing it. It's just a matter of looking at these things from a statician's viewpoint.
Re:And I thought I was alone... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-19 17:49 · Score: 1, Insightful

"It seems pretty reasonable to me."

You want utilitarian government. One that reduces your risk not only of injustice, but also from chance events. The end you are after is reasonable. And, in fact, it is *reasonable* to desire to restrict the freedom of others in order to achieve it. But not all reasonable desires are morally acceptible.

I may, for example, desire to shoot an intruder in my home the first chance I get. But doing that before I even determine that he poses a physical threat to me is not right. It is putting my personal well-being too far above his. I am allowed to put it above, but there are limits.

What you are asking for is a preliminary injunction against the right of every human being in America to travel the public highways. You want the law to presume their inadequacy, despite the fact that the vast majority *can* drive adequately. This is ridiculous as a point of law: you would have to have at least probable cause (%50) to get such an injunction in any other case. But furthermore, you would have to have it against each individual person, not merely their statistical group.

Furthermore, it is very common to rant about all the stupid drivers. But it's been shown time and again that nearly everyone dramatically overestimates their own driving abilities, and magnifies the flaws of others. Every time *you* screw up, you know all of the reasons and can usually rationalize it. You also often realize that although you didn't see a person, or were going to fast, etc., that you in fact did not really endanger anyone because you were still in control. In other words, it appeared to be a mistake but you know that it was within your 'acceptable operating parameters', so to speak.

When other people screw up, you see only the alarming part: the jerky correction, the surprised look, the skid, etc. You don't possess enough data to know if they did put you in danger, nor are you likely to give them the benefit of the doubt.

So I just don't buy that people suck at driving, or that driving is very difficult, or that it takes much learning at all. Most of what we call 'learning to drive' is really gaining the ability to ignore the road safely! The more we learn the less we pay attention. And most of us are just fine with that, even if it increases our danger.
Re:And I thought I was alone... by halowolf · 2004-08-19 17:55 · Score: 2, Interesting

I think this whole drivers license showing identity argument has gotten a little out of hand. Licensing people to drive vehicles (vehicles that can be dangerous) is a good thing for society. I view driving as a priviledge not a right.
What I take from John Gilmore arguments, is that people should not be arbitrarily identified just because they are walking down the street or stepping on a plane. In a supposedly "free" societ you don't need a license to walk down a street, and you don't need a license to sit down on a plane and be flown somewhere. There isn't a good enough reason in a "free" society to just ask who you are if you are not doing anything wrong. Asking for ID as you pick up your ticket from the airport that you may of paid for earlier or something I think is reasonable so they can ensure that the ticket is given to the right person and not being stolen. Treating you as a suspected terrorist because you want to board a plane, that is not so reasonable in my books.
If you are driving a car and speeding possibly endangering other lives and the police stop you and want some identification then they seems perfectly reasonable to me. Using these forms of identification to find out who people are when they are not doing anything wrong I don't think is on. But these things are my opinions and are not facts.
Re:And I thought I was alone... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-19 18:02 · Score: 1, Insightful

If it can be taken away *before* you abuse it, it isn't a right, it's a privilege.

Travel on the public right-of-way, via common conveyances of the time (which right now includes cars) is not a privilege. This has been upheld in numerous court cases: http://www.dlois.com/realtruth/right_to_drive.htm.

Driving is a right, which means you don't need a permit. Permit = permission, and you don't need permission to exercise a right. That's what a right *is*.
Re:And I thought I was alone... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-19 18:34 · Score: 0

Property, as you note, is a natural right. Contract is also, because it is based on property rights. If we contract something and you break the contract, you have defrauded me. As evidence of this, note that breach of contract awards are based on damages. If I can't show any property loss, I won't get awarded anything. In that case, all you have done is lie to me. But if you lie and the result is that I lose money, you have defrauded me of property.

Antitrust laws... those are laws to protect against the abuse of monopoly, right? On the face of it I would agree that they are not based in rights, that they are unjust attempts at shaping society. Don't get me wrong, I understand that this is what most people want out of government. I just believe it to be misguided.

On the other hand, perhaps things like antitrust, squatting laws, etc. actually derive from cracks in the notion of absolute property. It is not a given that property is and absolute natural right. For example, some theories base property rights on the right to life. If that is the case, a starving person's rights to surplus food trump my own, even if I harvested the surplus. A dying person may even have a right to one of my kidneys! Other theories base the right to life on the right to property, and don't have such 'problems'. Common law and ancient law tend to have things that reflect such ideas, however.

Many libertarians also would deregulate medicine and mental health fields. Many would make blackmail legal (if it's legal to do something, why is it illegal to *threaten* to do it?). These actions would not have universally positive repurcussions, but neither would they destroy society or life as we know it. Independent organizations can certify doctors, if people care enough. Look at Underwriters Labs in the electrical field. Blackmailers can be shunned, fired by employers, or other legal remedies. People could also keep their lives more private, and avoid doing truly mean/evil things that may come back to haunt them. And blackmailers can also be dealt with in illegal ways, and would often be, just as they often are now! It would hardly become common-place.

For one thing, I could have an appendix removed by a perfectly competent doctor for probably 1/10 the price, as well as many other operations. What are we getting in return for drastically inflated prices? Why all the mandatory safety? As long as the doctor is honest about your chances (his history, methods, etc.), he is neither defrauding you nor assaulting you. I'd rather have a 10% chance of surviving an essential brain surgery than a 0% chance of being able to afford it, and so would any sane person.
Re:And I thought I was alone... by Ichoran · 2004-08-19 18:41 · Score: 4, Insightful

Fine, there is a right to travel. But this doesn't mean that all rights are unconditional, context-insensitive rights.

For example, a five-year-old has the physical ability to turn the ignition key in a car and press the accelerator pedal down. But this doesn't mean that they should be allowed to drive.

The key principle is that certain actions are inherently dangerous to other people. Allowing other people to engage in these actions is a direct and severe imposition on *my* right to stay alive. Of particular importance, in the case of driving, is the fact that it is not possible for a completely untrained driver to not willfully (if unintentionally) endangering me, because he or she does not have the skill to operate a dangerous device in a way that won't endanger me.

Simply by their using the vehicle, they are putting me at risk. There is no effective difference to me (as a victim) between them driving on public roads and them playing Russian roulette with me when I drive on public roads (using a gun with a sufficiently large cylinder).

So we have to balance their rights to be able to act freely with my rights to not be killed by other people's free actions. The current solution is to require training for people who use dangerous devices so that the user of the device can, with high degree of confidence, willfully avoid causing harm to others.

(Note also that it is not good enough for me for them to be punished after they kill me. I'm still dead. The rights we have in a free society should not include the right to kill one or more people, as long as we die ourselves or suffer some other punishment afterwards.)

Now, obviously, if one has a requirement but never enforces it, it doesn't protect my rights at all. So the requirement has to be enforced. I don't really care how it is enforced. The key is that there must be some mechanism to distinguish between drivers who can intend to not hurt me and, to a high degree of reliability, follow through on that intent; and those who through incompetence or inability either cannot intend to not hurt me, or lack the ability to translate intention into action.

A license is one way to accomplish this. A license that doesn't clearly identify itself as belonging to the driver isn't as useful, because this removes the ability for people to distinguish between proper drivers and threats to society. So, typically, you have to use something like a photo ID. I'd be happy with on-the-spot proficiency checks, or an IDless card with a hash value off my fingerprint that could be verified with a fingerprint scanner, or any other way to verify that the operator of the device has the capability to avoid harming others through using it.

The principle of being able to avoid harming others is also why it makes sense to outlaw drunk driving (and increase penalties for hurting people while drunk). When sufficiently drunk, you can no longer guarantee the safety of others. So by driving while sufficiently drunk, you are willfully endangering others.

So, the bottom line is: you can have a right to travel. But it doesn't follow that you have the right to travel and kill people while doing it. The right to travel is the right to travel *provided* that you possess the ability to do so without causing injury and death to others--if you do not possess that ability, their rights to stay alive trump your rights to move from A to B.

(Note that this only applies for the people operating the devices. Having IDs for being a passenger is silly, unless the passenger can, by virtue of incompetence, cause a threat to others. And it's only worth implementing checks for commonly-used devices that can hurt others. Machine shop tools can be deadly if used improperly, but they're not sprinkled all over where they can kill bystanders when untrained people use them on a daily basis. Thus, there's no point requiring an explicit license for public machine shop tool operation.)
Re:And I thought I was alone... by UserGoogol · 2004-08-19 19:21 · Score: 1

How do you know what's a right and what isn't?

--
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." -- Hanlon's Razor
Re:And I thought I was alone... by Feztaa · 2004-08-19 19:29 · Score: 3, Interesting

I would have figured it the other way around, as a non-named ID. Think about it: if you have an ID without a photo, somebody could easily steal that and claim to be you. But if you just had an ID with your photo and the note "this person has passed the driver's test in state/province X", with no other identifying information, that would be proof that you are licensed to drive, without actually identifying yourself.

Of course, it'll never happen. But it's a nice thought.
Re:And I thought I was alone... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-19 21:10 · Score: 1, Interesting

It does no good to try to argue with a stupid libertarian on issues like drivers licenses on why it should be required "Like to help prevent deaths, remember, all it would take is one idiot that has poor vision and can't understand the rules of the road and cause a 50 Car pile-up on the interstate causing 25-50 deaths". Remember the fact that liberarianism=Dog-Eat-Dog/Survival-Of-The-Fittest.

The funniest thing about the Libertarian party is that the talk out of both sides of their mouths. They claim they are not about survival of the fittest. They even say that they have a problem with their image that is being portrayed to the American public making them think that they are a bout survival-of-the-fittest. I wonder why that is?

:Sarcasm:
P.S. If the Libertarians are against licensing drivers because it's not constitutional, let's go with what the Libertarian morons want, let's also abolish murder laws. There is no provision in the constitution providing safety. Besides He Who Would Sacrifice Freedom For Safety Deserves
Neither. So according to the Libertarians, if you feel that we need to have murder as a felony, then you deserve no liberty.
:End Sarcasm:
Re:And I thought I was alone... by peatbakke · 2004-08-20 00:05 · Score: 1

And having to show ID didn't stop the 9/11 hijackers; they all showed perfectly valid official IDs under their own names. So what's the point?

... actually, a significant number of the 9/11 hijackers could have been stopped because they showed ID -- several of them were flagged as potential threats. The failure was rooted the response of the security personel, and the policies that guided their actions. ID was a point in favor of the security process, even though the follow through was botched.

9/11 is a bad example for your specific case, because anyone who's read the commission's report will tell you that the IDing the passengers was a qualified success. For privacy advocates, travel ID is a dangerous red herring which can distract them from the main point:

It's entirely possible to provide an extremely high level of safety and security without infringing on anonymity.

You can remain perfectly anonymous and still have your baggage thoroughly searched, the airplane cockpit physically secured, and passengers guarded by armed air marshals while on the plane.
Re:And I thought I was alone... by qwijibo · 2004-08-20 01:21 · Score: 1

I believe the point of contention is what the government can do and what others can do.

For example, if you want to live off the grid, you can't expect to get credit. The companies that grant credit want information (credit history) that other companies collect. You don't have to buy into that system if you don't want the benefit.

On the other hand, it's not as simple as walking or biking to avoid having to ID yourself. There was a recent case where a man was arrested for refusing to show ID and he was a passenger in a car:

http://www.epic.org/privacy/hiibel/

Contrary to what the government repeatedly asserts, identification does not equal accountability. If they want to pass a law requiring more stringent tracking of citizens, any event can be spun into support for the cause. After the Oklahoma City bombing, there were people calling out for stricter gun control laws. Politicians will take advantage of any opportunity to support their causes. ID requirements are someone's cause, and many people miss that most of the "solutions" proposed have nothing to do with the problem.
Re:And I thought I was alone... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-20 02:20 · Score: 0

Contract is also, because it is based on property rights.

Hmm. I could probably use that logic to justify a huge number of laws, because they are "based on" something justifiable. I think that's where many laws do come from, overextension of good principles. Then again, by your logic, attempted murder is not a crime, because it didn't actually do any damage.

Antitrust laws... those are laws to protect against the abuse of monopoly, right? On the face of it I would agree that they are not based in rights, that they are unjust attempts at shaping society. Don't get me wrong, I understand that this is what most people want out of government. I just believe it to be misguided.

So the ideal world allows monopolies to exist? They often do a lot of damage to the consumer, and a lot to restrict the free market. They in effect become a government/law unto themselves, except they are answerable to nobody. Ideally the consumers wouldn't allow that to happen, but they have before and will again.

I'm not sure where you're going with healthcare. Most of its problems seem to come from the insurance companies, not the government. There are also problems with civil suits (malpractice), but I think most of those are based on contract law or personal rights, which you support. The government does try to allow for the 'right to life', (which fits your definition of allowable laws,) by stating that people can't be turned down for emergency medical care. That does impose some cost on those who can pay. They also put into place 'informed consent', which is the only reason many doctors are "honest about your chances".

And blackmailers can also be dealt with in illegal ways, and would often be, just as they often are now!

Are you implying that this is a good thing?
Vigilate justice, the Wild West, where whoever has the most guns wins? One of the nice things about government is that they are supposed to follow the law the same as anyone else. If the police don't follow the law in arresting you, you go free. If they can't prove their case in a jury trial, you go free. Vigilates don't bother with 'proof', because they just know it. They also have no limits on their actions. They'll shoot you over a $50 bill. That's not justice.

Like I said, it seems like there are a lot of good ideas there, but more work needs to be done to make them practical in the real world. First of all, get over the faith in humanity doing the right thing. Even if most people do the right thing most of the time, it only take a few to completely corrupt society.
Re:And I thought I was alone... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-20 02:40 · Score: 0

One that reduces your risk not only of injustice, but also from chance events.

Many injustices are chance events. Someone behaving in a dangerous way isn't doing injustice until the odds catch up to them and they cause harm. Does that mean they should be allowed to perform dangerous acts at will, and 'the innocent' only get protected when it's too late to prevent damage?

Police officer: Yes, sir, I realize that he's shooting at you. He hasn't hit you yet, though, so there's nothing I can do about it. He has a right to fire a gun as long as he doesn't hit you.

I may, for example, desire to shoot an intruder in my home the first chance I get. But doing that before I even determine that he poses a physical threat to me is not right. It is putting my personal well-being too far above his. I am allowed to put it above, but there are limits.

It wouldn't be *reasonable*. The law tries to clarify what is acceptable so that everyone can play by the same rules. I agree that there are limits to what the law should do. The hard part is to define those limits.

Furthermore, it is very common to rant about all the stupid drivers. But it's been shown time and again that nearly everyone dramatically overestimates their own driving abilities, and magnifies the flaws of others.

I try to be honest with myself about my driving. I'm not paticularly good. My biggest flaw is driving dangerously around people who piss me off by driving dangerously. Sometimes my mind wanders. I have caused some dangerous situations, and narrowly avoided bad things happening. Maybe I shouldn't be on the road... However, I've been driving for a decade or so, and I have a clean record and no at-fault accidents.

If driving is so easy and natural, why can I see people doing flagrantly dangerous things, and infringing on other drivers almost constantly? (Don't try to tell me they have their reasons, and I've done the same thing.) Why do most cities spend so much time in heavy congestion caused by accidents, rubberneckers, and other poor driving? Why is the leading cause of death for someone like me traffic accidents?

Driving is a dangerous business, and it has enormous impact on other people and the country as a whole. I do see your point that people shouldn't be assumed to be incompetant, and therefore prevented from driving. However, I hope you see my point that asking someone to demonstrate competance doesn't seem like a large imposition considering the damage they can cause. It doesn't strike me as a restriction of liberties because nothing prevents you from getting that license if you are actually qualified to drive. If you aren't qualified, then you shouldn't be driving, and the restriction is a good thing.
Re:And I thought I was alone... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-20 03:35 · Score: 0

It was known they would have no trouble travelling -- as they had done so before showing their ID's. Now that the process has been refined, the ID's they provide would surely not be their own. The false sense of security provided by using ID's is unfortunate.

But doing what the 9/11 terrorists did is unnecessary anyways as the intended consequences of their actions continue to this day.
Re:And I thought I was alone... by chaoticset · 2004-08-20 04:44 · Score: 1

Fine, there is a right to travel. But this doesn't mean that all rights are unconditional, context-insensitive rights.
Right. It means that we have rights as long as the government says they're okay to have.
Oh, wait...

--

-----------------------
You are what you think.
Re:And I thought I was alone... by ElForesto · 2004-08-20 07:04 · Score: 1

You do make some excellent points here, and I think where we differ is that I don't believe that responsibility can be enforced on people. Someone who is irresponsible will remain irresponsible even with mandatory training, thus my opposition to licensing people to drive. With a zero net effect, I see no need to effectively punish those who act responsibly. Of course, I think we have a fundamental difference of opinion there, so I imagine we'll have to agree to disagree.

--
There is a difference between "insightful" and "inciteful" other than spelling.
Re:And I thought I was alone... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-20 07:46 · Score: 0

I have a right to do anything but violate your person or property. Attempting to violate one of those is just as objectionable: *I* have done the same thing in either case, it was merely chance that kept me from actually causing harm. Accidentally violating one of those is tougher, and centers around whether I was negligent or I did not properly value you and your property. For example, did I not check the air in my tires for 5 years? Did I know that there was a 50/50 chance I would kill somebody, but decide that was an acceptable risk?
Re:And I thought I was alone... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-20 08:09 · Score: 0

"Then again, by your logic, attempted murder is not a crime, because it didn't actually do any damage."

No, moral theories it is usually not acts that are wrong but rather act types. Act types include intent. For example, firing a gun is neither right nor wrong in itself. Firing a gun and blowing someone's head off isn't even right nor wrong in itself. What is wrong is the act type 'murder', or unjustified killing. A jury's task is to identify both the act (the facts of the case) and the act type. Note that even if I try to murder you and I miss, I have still committed the exact same act type: I've committed my will to unjustly killing another human being. It doesn't matter how I do it or whether I'm successfull, I'm a murder at that instant. All that's left to do is build a case.

"So the ideal world allows monopolies to exist?"

Not the ideal world, the ideal government. Libertarians don't believe that an ideal government would attempt to create an ideal world: that is society's job. Government's job is simply to ensure that citizens are safe from force and fraud.

"They often do a lot of damage to the consumer, and a lot to restrict the free market."

Be careful with the word 'damage', though. Do you mean that they violates the consumer's fundamental rights? Or just that they act selfishly with many adverse effects on the quality of life of consumers? If a monopoly is committing murder or fraud, the government has a right to stop it. If it's just mean-spirited and has a lot of money to jerk you around with, then life may suck but nobody is violating your rights.

"They in effect become a government/law unto themselves, except they are answerable to nobody."

How are they a government or law unto themselves? They are still answerable to the government for acts of force and fraud. In fact, they have no freedoms that you do not have yourself. They just have much more money and influence. Society might be more pleasant if everyone has equal amounts of power, but it is not government's place to make it so.

"Are you implying that this [vigilante justice] is a good thing?"

No, this is purely an argument against the notion that we would suddenly be overrun by blackmail or whatnot if laws were repealed. If an argument based on how things would be is used against me, I at least want it to be accurate. And the fact is that blackmail would remain a very dangerous crime, in no small part because people often have strong urges to harm blackmailers. In fact, I believe this is the basis of the law. Most people respond to a threat of blackmail with this sentiment: "Oh yeah, how about if I don't kick your ass and you give me that evidence!" They may not follow through with it, but that is most people's internal gut reaction. I believe that our laws today are simply a codified version of that. "Oh yeah, well how about if you drop this so society and I don't have to kick your ass."

"First of all, get over the faith in humanity doing the right thing."

I have none. People often think that libertarians have a mistaken notion of human nature -- that we think people are basically good. But this misperception just arises from the fact that libertarians are not consequentialists. We don't make law based on what we think the outcome will be, we base it on our principles of rights. If it violates a right, it's illegal. If it doesn't violate a right, it's not. End of story. There is not 'society shaping' or attempt to improve you quality of life. A libertarian society would NOT be a utopian society. A utopian society would probably be a benevolent dictatorship or an uncorrupted communism, or something like that.

Libertarians are content to look after government, and let society look after itself. Albert Nock has a great article pointing out that government is actually the antithesis of society, and that as government grows and gains power, society shrinks and becomes powerless. http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/nock1.html
Re:And I thought I was alone... by Y2 · 2004-08-20 08:40 · Score: 1

I've always liked John's idea of a driver's license which was NOT an ID.
We call those non-photo drivers licenses...

You have got that exactly wrong.
The license you're talking about says, "There exists a John Smith of 22 Mockingbird Lane who is licensed to drive," but doesn't help the cop know whether you are that person. Hence it doesn't say whether you are licensed to drive, unless you establish your claim to that name and address. That's less privacy for you, and less security, too, since your license is more worth stealing.

--
"But all your emitter and collector are belong to me!"
Re:And I thought I was alone... by ultranova · 2004-08-20 10:01 · Score: 1

Someone who is irresponsible will remain irresponsible even with mandatory training, thus my opposition to licensing people to drive. With a zero net effect, I see no need to effectively punish those who act responsibly.

Remember, thought, that even irresponsible drivers will do some effort of avoiding crashes, simply to keep from getting killed. A trained irresponsible driver, being more skillfull, is more likely to succeed with a last-second desperate evasive maneuver than an untrained one.

Of course, you could simply make car driving a mandatory part of elementary schooling. That would update everyone into trained drivers, and remove the need for a license.

You could also confiscate the car from anyone caught driving drunk. That alone would make the roads a lot safer :).

Disclaimer: I live in Finland, across the Atlantic Ocean, and am therefore not going to suffer the consequences of any possible implementation of this idea.

--
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Re:And I thought I was alone... by ElForesto · 2004-08-20 21:07 · Score: 1

Oh, I'm all about impounding a drunk driver's car. If someone does something stupid like that, I say throw the book (and chair and desk) at them. The idea of mandatory training in schools isn't a half-bad idea either. It would probably drop the accident rate for the most dangerous group on the road.

--
There is a difference between "insightful" and "inciteful" other than spelling.
Re:And I thought I was alone... by JimBobJoe · 2004-08-23 11:22 · Score: 1

You have got that exactly wrong....Hence it doesn't say whether you are licensed to drive, unless you establish your claim to that name and address. That's less privacy for you, and less security, too, since your license is more worth stealing.

Not true. A non-photo license has the basic description of the person (height, weight, eye color) that helps in identifying the person.

Non-photo license fraud in New Jersey is entirely unheard of--even though the document could be photocopied on a color copier. The fact is, the non-photo license is completely worthless for fraud (can't write checks with it, can't buy alcohol with it, can't take money out of bank account with it.)

For a bigger discussion on this issue, see my Security Document Theory whitepaper.

Unfortunately, law enforcement usually also asks for vehicle registration information, which is always correlated to a name and an address...so the nameless photo card could work but it doesn't necessarily make a huge amount of difference.

My goal is retaining the non-photo license states as it is.
Re:And I thought I was alone... by JimBobJoe · 2004-08-23 11:31 · Score: 1

As I said in another post, law enforcement goes ahead and checks the vehicle registration information, so anonymity at the traffic stop really isn't possible (though a photo license that only had a driver's license number could possibly have a use. In fact, here in Ohio, I've been working on getting a bill to remove your birth date and/or your home address off your license card, which is several steps closer to the photo license card that's anonyous.)

Well, I think that anonymity at the traffic stop is possible, if the vehicle registration system went anonymous as well, but that's quite a leap in complexity that I simply couldn't support at this moment. Something for the future perhaps.

As for someone stealing a non-photo license--the description is still there (eye color, weight, hair color, et cetera--actually, it was always there, no one bothered to remove it when the photo was added.) Non-photo license fraud is virtually unheard of because, other than driving, it doesn't allow you to anything else.

For more info, check out my SDT whitepaper.
Re:And I thought I was alone... by tricorn · 2004-08-23 14:50 · Score: 1

How about making it illegal for anyone to be required to show their driver's license unless they are being charged with violating a law? Add in prohibiting individuals or businesses from using a driver's license for any purpose other than determining if the person is qualified to drive a vehicle (e.g. when renting a car, or employing someone who will be driving as part of their job). Same thing should go for Social Security Number - it should ONLY be used for administering the Social Security program. Not for collecting taxes, not for credit checks.

Prohibit the suspension or revocation of a driver's license for any reason other than not being able to drive safely (which includes being convicted of drunk driving).

Driving SHOULD be a right, not a privilege. I don't know where the "privilege, not a right" came from, I've never seen a justification for it.
Re:And I thought I was alone... by Y2 · 2004-08-24 07:28 · Score: 1

Non-photo license fraud in New Jersey is entirely unheard of--even though the document could be photocopied on a color copier. The fact is, the non-photo license is completely worthless for fraud (can't write checks with it, can't buy alcohol with it, can't take money out of bank account with it.)

That would all be true of a photo-only (or photo plus description, but still no name and address) license. The person depicted would be certified to drive, but not be associated with any bank account or have any particular age.
(So how does a barely-21 kid in New Jersey buy booze?)

--
"But all your emitter and collector are belong to me!"
Re:And I thought I was alone... by JimBobJoe · 2004-08-26 13:10 · Score: 1

That would all be true of a photo-only (or photo plus description, but still no name and address) license. The person depicted would be certified to drive, but not be associated with any bank account or have any particular age.

Yes, but I'm concerned about photograph archival, which is a major, mostly undebated source of privacy issues, and is not an issue with the non-photo license.

(So how does a barely-21 kid in New Jersey buy booze?)

With a photo license. The photograph is optional (well, was.)

Honestly, they seem a bit more relaxed about drinking laws up there in my experience.

Greplaw... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-19 12:08 · Score: -1, Troll

What a blatent fucking ripoff of Groklaw. Seriouly guys, get your own fucking ideas. You're not Microsoft you know.

This is the same civil libertarian, John Gilmore.. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-19 12:16 · Score: 3, Insightful

I've read many reviews of John. He is brilliant! He knows how to uphold the law theory "all are equal and equally under the law", which United States currently doesn't like to admit. John knows how to use their laws against them. Civil libertarian is somewhat a stretch; John is more of a Jeffersonian, or sometimes known as a Christian Anarchist. If anyone out there dislikes or even enjoys Eric S. Raymond, this John is the gapstop that keeps people together within reason.

PS: Moderators!
*Before you knock this user
*please recognize that Slashdot
*should at-least mirror these
*articles on *the server rather
*than having thousands of people
*click the URL. I happily read
*the article from the parent's post

You all just wait and laugh when Slashdot is charged for server crimes by the FCC. Even Yahoo News mirrors their stories for sake of all!

Judge Kafka? by orthogonal · 2004-08-19 12:24 · Score: 4, Interesting

From the linked interview, on the subject of secret airport laws: (emphasis orthogonal's) "[i]t even worked at the District Court; our judge decided that if she couldn't see the law then it must by definition be constitutional (she ruled that I had no possible way to show it is unconstitutional)."

Is this the United States the Founding Fathers built, or Stalinism by way of Kafka?

--
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?

Re:Judge Kafka? by ImTwoSlick · 2004-08-19 12:40 · Score: 1

Is this the United States the Founding Fathers built, or Stalinism by way of Kafka?
No. John was just putting words into the judge's mouth. He was trying to get the judge to rule on a law without giving a case for it being unconstitutional. How's a judge supposed to rule on that?
John was just using the classic straw man tactic.
Re:Judge Kafka? by QuantumG · 2004-08-19 13:19 · Score: 4, Funny

Dude no. Read the summary judgement. The judge should have said "ok, where is this law? Oh it's secret. Ok, that's unconstitutional." But he didn't.

--
How we know is more important than what we know.
Re:Judge Kafka? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-19 15:42 · Score: 0

No. Now you are just putting words into John's mouth. Maybe you should become familiar with a case before commenting on it.

Rights by t_allardyce · 2004-08-19 12:24 · Score: 3, Insightful

Never mind sarongs, what about the banning of thongs in Florida and Louisiana!! this is going to far by the righteous far right.

--
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.

Re:Rights by Tirinal · 2004-08-19 12:46 · Score: 5, Funny

Never mind sarongs, what about the banning of thongs in Florida and Louisiana!! this is going to far by the righteous far right.

Obviously you're not thinking this through. With the current banning of thongs in two major states the resulting surplus will no doubt follow the third fundamental law of fashion: "Anything deemed unwearable by the religious right will surface within two weeks in San Francisco like a tidal wave."

Given the concentration of techies in the Bay Area, I'd say we have something to look forward to.

--
~Tirinal
Re:Rights by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-19 16:32 · Score: 0

Given the concentration of techies in the Bay Area, I'd say we have something to look forward to.
Ugh. Dude who wants to see all those pasty white asses around?
Re:Rights by sasha328 · 2004-08-19 16:54 · Score: 1

Why on earth would you want to ban these thongs?

For those not in the know, this is what we call THONGS in the Land of Oz.
Re:Rights by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-19 17:02 · Score: 0

Lots and lots of gay men in thongs?
Re:Rights by wobblie · 2004-08-19 23:43 · Score: 1

thongs banned in louisiana? I live here, and there's plenty of thongs mind you ...
Re:Rights by t_allardyce · 2004-08-20 00:18 · Score: 1

"I don't relish the idea of seeing the beginning of people's pubic hair," Westwego City Councilman Glenn Green told the House Criminal Justice Committee on Thursday.
"I don't relish seeing the beginning of the crease of people's buttocks. And I don't enjoy watching young men letting their sexual organs show through their red or black silk underwear," Green said.
Green argued that, if government can dictate what children wear to school and when they have to be off the streets, government should be able to ban certain types of clothing.
A revised version of House Bill 1640 by Rep. Derrick Shepherd, D-Marrero, would mandate three eight-hour days of community service for anyone who publicly wears clothing that intentionally exposes undergarments, or any portion of his or her pubic hair, cleft of the buttocks or genitals.
In addition, offenders who violate the proposed law could be fined up to $175.
Voting to advance the bill were Rep. Beverly Bruce, D-Mansfield; Rep. Roy Burrell, D-Shreveport; Rep. Eric LaFleur, D-Ville Platte; and Rep. Bodi White, R-Denham Springs.
The bill goes to the full House for consideration.

Im not sure if this is true, but if it is its the mother fucking democrats aswell! That would pretty much proove that both parties are just as bad, I cant think of anything more facist than legislating clothing. This is on par with facist governments in some of the worlds most oppressed countries well done!! America is slowly comming into line with people who are obviously way ahead on human rights! I only hope they ammend the bill to add stoning as a punishment!!

--
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Re:Rights by southpolesammy · 2004-08-20 01:02 · Score: 1

No offense, but given the stereotypical techie image of an ectomorphic, pasty-white geek with bad hair, I really think this would be a bad idea.

And I don't even want to think about where he'd put his PDA....

--
Rule #1 -- Politics always trumps technology.
Re:Rights by The+Angry+Mick · 2004-08-20 04:07 · Score: 1

Please, God. No geeks in thongs . . .

--
I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.

ahem by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-19 12:25 · Score: 3, Interesting

Domain Name: GROKLAW.NET
Created On: 03-Oct-03

Domain Name: GREPLAW.ORG
Created On: 11-Apr-2002

Re:Server is going down fast... here's the text by volsung · 2004-08-19 12:30 · Score: 0, Flamebait

WTF, people? You're moderating up a copy-paste of the article text, and from a user with the name "SlashdotTroll"?

I know no one reads the stories they reply to, but do they read the comments they moderate? :)

Deadhead by Dayze!Confused · 2004-08-19 12:32 · Score: 2, Insightful

Which brings me to the belief that I have had that if every deadhead in this country voted this would be a different place. I can't emphasize how important it is that everyone votes. Please in the national election, everybody cast a vote. Bush won by having less than 60% of eligible voters vote and then only a marginal majority of those choose him.

--
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." [Thomas Jefferson]

Re:Deadhead by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-19 12:35 · Score: 0

That's how Clinton won, too. I was watching an SNL repeat today, and the joke was "I want to thank the nearly 50% of you that voted for me of the nearly 50% that voted of the 70% of Americans eligible to vote." Clinton never captured more than 50% of the vote.
Re:Deadhead by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-19 13:17 · Score: 1, Funny

I smoke pot, drop acid, have eaten shrooms more times than I can even remember (Hmm.. there might be a connection there!) and I am a voting republican.

We're out here. Just thought you might like to know.
Re:Deadhead by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-19 13:17 · Score: 0

Um, the majority of voters chose Gore; he won the popular vote by 500,000.
Re:Deadhead by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-19 14:01 · Score: 0

Give it up. The '60s were a long time ago.
Living near SF, I was amused by all the ex-hippies desperately trying to get in on the dot-com boom. Peace, love, and IPOs. Right. The trouble with the whole hippie thing was that it was an excuse for self-indulgence cloaked in bogus philosophy. The Left doesn't have a monopoly on this. The religious right has "abundance", which puts a theological spin on bankruptcy.
Neither group accomplishes very much.
Re:Deadhead by commodoresloat · 2004-08-19 14:59 · Score: 1

...and I am a voting republican.
Don't worry, he'll be so high in the voting booth he won't be able to figure out which candidate is the republican.
Re:Deadhead by IamGarageGuy+2 · 2004-08-19 15:06 · Score: 1

Been hearing so much about the Bush vs. Kerry thing that it is getting rediculous. If Bush is gone and Kerry is in - what does that do? Titanic deck chairs come to mind. The problem is with the two party system and the Repubican-Democrats are not the ones to be elected.

--
Stay tuned for new sig...
Re:Deadhead by Dayze!Confused · 2004-08-19 15:22 · Score: 1

But if all the deadheads voted there might be enough voters to at least allow a third party to compete with the two major parties. Ralph Nader needs 5% in this election to get government funding for his party next time around, he's above 5% in the polls right now and if he keeps that then maybe, just maybe, we can look for a good run from the third parties in 2008.

--
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." [Thomas Jefferson]
Re:Deadhead by IamGarageGuy+2 · 2004-08-19 15:28 · Score: 1

Come on - be realistic here! Ralph Nader! Is this the same Nader that belongs to the same clubs as the Bush's? You assume that he would be all that different. I think it would be almost impossible to have someone that actually thought differently to be able to run for office in the US. Negative thinking I know but until the electorate actually wakes up it is a lost cause.

--
Stay tuned for new sig...
Re:Deadhead by reverius · 2004-08-19 19:05 · Score: 1

why? do you actually want to criminalize your own recreational activities, or have you not been reading up on your party's stance on some issues?

you might want to check out the libertarian party... assuming you don't like being in prison.
Re:Deadhead by meringuoid · 2004-08-19 20:50 · Score: 1

Bush won by having less than 60% of eligible voters vote and then only a marginal majority of those choose him. No, a marginal minority of those chose him. Gore got more votes, but didn't have a conveniently placed brother.

--
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
Re:Deadhead by Dayze!Confused · 2004-08-19 21:05 · Score: 1

Thanks for that correction. It was a majority in the electoral college, but I was talking about the popular and maid the incorrect comparison. Thanks.

--
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." [Thomas Jefferson]
Re:Deadhead by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-20 01:42 · Score: 0

There will always be idiots out there.
Re:Deadhead by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-20 04:13 · Score: 0

why?

He doesn't like having to think about anything . . .
Re:Deadhead by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-20 08:04 · Score: 0

Elections are not the only to achieve power.

RIP This Story by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-19 12:33 · Score: -1, Offtopic

After 40 minutes only about 20 comments? This story is dead.

wrong wrong wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-19 12:35 · Score: 4, Insightful

"The drug war is an ugly, corrupt set of policies that were bad when Nixon set it in motion to bash the hippie students who were hounding his ass out of office."

the drug war was first created to get returning GI's , from vietnam off of heroin and originally focused on treatment over criminalization. Of course later Nixon was forced by the right to increase the drug war's focus on criminalization. Oh yeah just as an aside the hippies did not force nixon out of office...he won both terms of his presidency. It was his own criminal activities that forced him out of office....not a bunch of inefectual hippies. They had nothing to do with ending the vietnam war and nothing to do with forcing nixon out of office.

Guys like this, history revisionist, asshole really make it hard for libertarian minded people to support ending the drug war. I mean any time i say the drug war is a waste of money regularly open minded people close thier doors to the idea becouse they have heard all the other consperiacy bullshit guys like this asshole have heaped on to a fairly straight forward argument. What is the saying "With freinds like this who needs enemies"

stendec@gmail.com

Re:wrong wrong wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-19 14:32 · Score: 1, Informative

The drug war was started with the 1970 Omnibus Drug Act, not your revisionist theory of Vietnam veterans needing to smack smack.

Nixon is firmly responsible.
Re:wrong wrong wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-19 14:46 · Score: 0

You dont think that the many many people who spoke out against the extremely stupid vietnam war did anything? Wow... must have been... all the people who died. Yeah, because people dying in a war makes the government stop! ... er... it didn't in WWII, because the public thought that it was justified. It was the public's reaction to the war that shamed the warmongering Americans out of Vietnam.
Re:wrong wrong wrong by commodoresloat · 2004-08-19 15:05 · Score: 4, Informative

You're right that Nixon's drug war emphasized treatment over criminalization, at least compared to the Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush drug war. But you're wrong that Nixon didn't see the drug war as a way to bash the hippies. He did, and he said so to his cabinet, as many of his tapes record. They also record that he thought the hippies were in league with the commies and the Jews on this. When you bash the "conspiracy bullshit" coming from the hippies you might at least compare it to the extreme paranoid "conspiracy bullshit" of their main enemy here.
Re:wrong wrong wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-19 17:41 · Score: 0

"The drug war was started with the 1970 Omnibus Drug Act, not your revisionist theory of Vietnam veterans needing to smack smack."

this is where i got my info:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/dr ug s/cron/

well actually i got info from watching the frontline program...but i think this link says it all....look at the may 1971 and june 1971.

stendec@gmail.com
Re:wrong wrong wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-19 17:45 · Score: 0

WTF...

there should be no space in the url between .../drug and s/...

please fix to go to url

stendec@gmail.com
Re:wrong wrong wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-20 02:56 · Score: 0

You have one source. And it says two politicians issued a report in May 1971, which by September 1971 had been debunked. This is not the start of the drug war. The creation of a controlled substances act is.

troll? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-19 12:37 · Score: -1, Flamebait

and from a user with the name "SlashdotTroll"?

He that is without sin, let him cast the first stone.

Is this "SlashdotTroll" any more or less status than you, wherein both of you are NOT SUBSCRIBERS to slashdot? Or do you think your comments are primacy and justified because you have a 3-digit slashdotID. It seems you are against the expanding of slashdot.

Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, meet pot.

-Physics Genius

Re:troll? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-19 12:48 · Score: 0

ever heard of a karma buildup before trolling?
Re: troll? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-19 13:01 · Score: 0

>>>> ever heard of a karma buildup before trolling?

We'll let the moderators be the JUDGE of that.

Judge not, lest ye be judged.

-Physics Genius

Go John! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-19 12:44 · Score: 0

You rock, dude. Nuff said.

Did you hear that? Huh? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-19 12:45 · Score: 0

Just as I clicked that link, I started hearing this odd sucking noise. As if a shopvac was being used to extinguish a bonfire by "sucking" the flames. Somewhere in New Jersey, someone went canatonic when you revealed the truth that their favorite GrokLaw can't hold a candle to GrepLaw's frosty first post!

Booyar' bouliabase!

Re:Did you hear that? Huh? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-19 13:24 · Score: 0

PJ is really a man, now all you fucking dweebs get a life.
Re:Did you hear that? Huh? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-19 14:06 · Score: 0

PJ?

PJ is the anagram for pajamas. A man doesn't wear pajamas and by this confession you are not a man.

Pajamas also qualifies as a fluffy pink bunny suit that yo momma gave you for an Easter gift. My momma gave me fruit of the loom homie: I'm a man. I'ld rather live in my momma's basement than live in the same New York post-911 orphanage as you.

BTW, have you found any peices of your parents from the World Trade Towers wreckage?
Re:Did you hear that? Huh? by CaptainCheese · 2004-08-19 16:03 · Score: 1

PJ is a contraction of Pajamas (or pyjamas, take your pick.)

"A Jam Spa" would be an anagram of "Pajamas"

personally I prefer "Pyjamas"for its anagram "Jam Pays"

I feel pedanticulatedly sated...

--
-- .sigs are a waste of data...turn them off...

Easy way to get back at them. by A.S. · 2004-08-19 12:51 · Score: 1

Don't wear anything. Legions of naked pasty dorks will certainly change their mind.

Earlier interview by hotspotbloc · 2004-08-19 12:58 · Score: 3, Informative

Last August John Gilmore was on the cover of and interviewed in Reason. Good reading from a great magazine.

--
"I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence or insanity but they've always worked for me" - HST

Server up and fast, parent troll by Esteanil · 2004-08-19 13:09 · Score: 3, Informative

See his posting history
'nuff said

--
I'm a dreamer, the world is my playpen. But hey, I'm a serious person, I can't dream all the time.

Re:Server up and fast, parent troll by tehcyder · 2004-08-19 22:56 · Score: 1

I think the username "SlashdotTroll" is a bit of a clue too.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re:Server up and fast, parent troll by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-20 02:01 · Score: 0

Yes, irony is strictly verboten in Slashdot. Right.

(Mind you, there's a difference between a karma whore and a troll, but the article text poster was neither.)

Re:Server is going down fast... here's the text by killjoe · 2004-08-19 13:18 · Score: 4, Insightful

"Terrorism is now defined as force applied for political reasons by people other than the US Government."

THis should read.

"Terrorism is now defined as force applied for political reasons by people other than the US or the Israeli Government."

Thank you.

--
evil is as evil does

I wouldn't be so sure about that. (you slandered) by Netw0rkAssh0liates · 2004-08-19 13:21 · Score: 1

I was over reading Corante.com's article because GrepLaw was going awfully slow for me.

Then, performing a taceroute on grep.law.harvard that was referenced by Slashdot (thanks alot you pricks), I found it timeout.

Yet, performing a traceroute on greplaw.org, it was barely handling the load for me. And I'm on Texas' Inet2 backbone!

traceroute greplaw.org
traceroute: Warning: greplaw.org has multiple addresses; using 207.44.244.117
traceroute to greplaw.org (207.44.244.117), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets
1 * * *
2 * * *
3 * * *
4 * * *
5 * * *
6 * * *
7 * * *
8 * * * ...

Timeout

You are the troll, Esteanil! I bet you are so new to Slashdot that you don't even know what a troll is.

Can someone add this to the "fortune" database? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-19 13:24 · Score: 0

Best quote from the article:

"I can never figure out the singular fascination that people have for what fibers other people wrap around their bodies. It gives small minds something to gossip about, and provides endless simple fun in tweaking them."

Re:Can someone add this to the "fortune" database? by migloo · 2004-08-19 21:59 · Score: 1

I prefer that hilarious one:
More people wear turbans in this world than the entire population of the United States.

Troll? I'm not a troll. It's just a userID. by SlashdotTroll · 2004-08-19 13:29 · Score: -1, Offtopic

Would you rather let the mafia controll this userID or a Slashdot messenger controll this userID?

By the way, I read this story on WWW.SETHF.COM before even GrepLaw.org posted. If anyone wants stronger server that doesn't have much load, here is the SETHF.COM article

This GrepLaw.org article is Old by News standards.

BTW, I secured this userID "SlashdotTroll" a long time ago in good faith to prevent abuse on Slashdot and my action is no different than Ford securing the website www.fuckford.com and www.fordsucks.com to prevent same abuse to Ford's credibility.

Haven't you ever heard of a Troll that is pro-slashdot, that tries to alure people to good articles and good news?

--

I am the nightmare of nightmares.

Re:Troll? I'm not a troll. It's just a userID. by gcaseye6677 · 2004-08-19 14:04 · Score: 1

This would of course explain why you post at 0 by default. Certainly your karma didn't get so low by posting shit like this now did it? Oh wait, maybe you are a troll afterall.

As always, he's a freak by tuxlove · 2004-08-19 14:04 · Score: -1, Troll

From the interview:

Q: Why are you suing the government over ID on airplanes?

A: ...The right to travel, also known as the right of free movement, is essential in every free society. It's a crime to interfere with anyone's right of free movement (we call it kidnapping, among other things).

So, let's see. If I restrict the movement of strangers from entering into my house through my front door by locking it, I'm kidnapping them? I'm very selective with whom I let through my door, and have every right to be. The same goes for any private property, or property reserved for a particular purpose for which your passage is inconsistent. You just can't just have anyone wandering about nuclear plants, or onto planes while carrying bombs. His movement about the country is not restricted. He simply needs to get behind the wheel of his car and drive wherever the heck he wants to go, if he doesn't like airport security. And considering how rich he is, he could probably just get his own damn plane and stop worrying about it.

I just can't stand this guy. SO much of what he says is rhetorical, but he acts like it's apparent, obvious fact.

Re:As always, he's a freak by MultiModeRb87 · 2004-08-19 14:15 · Score: 3, Insightful

He simply needs to get behind the wheel of his car
That is, of course, if he happens to have permission from the U.S. Government in the form of a drivers' license.
The point is not that airlines or private individuals don't have the right to choose how they wish to restrict access to their property. The point is that the government doesn't have the right to force airlines or private individuals, as proxies, to restrict access to their property.
Although the kidnapping example is technically in the same category of movement restriction, perhaps a better example would be if police set up checkpoints at every major intersection, and required the identification of anyone who wished to pass. This would differ from the current system only in degree, and has been thus far prevented from taking place by both popular opinion and by the logistical nightmare that would ensue, although with the advent of cheap RFIDs, I wouldn't place too much faith in the latter, and I've little in the lasting ability of the former, given the example that you provided with your own comment.
Re:As always, he's a freak by Platupous · 2004-08-19 16:29 · Score: 2, Insightful

The distinction you are failing to make is that Gilmore is speaking of public infrastructure. Now whether or not airports are private property (many are not) may be up for argument, but not many will deny the fact that they are still part of a public infrastructure system. Note, also, that the internet is a public infrastructure.

You also make the point of ones passage being inconsistant; and use that as an example against Gillmores arguments, I fail to see how millions of passengers flying in the United States, each one who had to show ID, are demonstrating 'inconsistant pasage'.

As for your statement about people wandering around nuclear plants; this is not what Gillmore is speaking of at all, he is talking about our transportation system, so stick to the point.

I could go on, deconstructing the rest of your arguments, but I just realized I was suckered into replying to a troll. Ill leave it as an exercise for the reader to eliminate the rest of this commentators arguments. I got the ball rolling you may as well do your part. . . . . .
Re:As always, he's a freak by tuxlove · 2004-08-19 19:14 · Score: 1

I fail to see how millions of passengers flying in the United States, each one who had to show ID, are demonstrating 'inconsistant pasage'. [sic]

Let me explain, without further comment on your mangling of my statement. "...reserved for a particular purpose for which your passage is inconsistent..." means, for example, riding an ATV thought a nature preserve which bans motor vehicles. Doesn't seem that hard to understand. I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of my statement. Try reading it more closely.

As for your statement about people wandering around nuclear plants; this is not what Gillmore is speaking of at all, he is talking about our transportation system, so stick to the point.

He plainly said that restricting one's movement is kidnapping, without qualification. The topic of transportation happened to be the backdrop for this statement, but that doesn't change the fact that he never qualified his statement. Rather he seemed to make it as a an overarching truth, for which his transportation issue is only an example.

I could go on, deconstructing the rest of your arguments, but I just realized I was suckered into replying to a troll.

Sorry to disappoint, but no trolling here. It cracks me up that you could accuse me of trolling, when Gillmore's entire interview comes off as one giant troll session itself. It's rife with absurd rhetoric like the kidnapping statement. I admit I don't like him at all, but that doesn't make me a troll.
Re:As always, he's a freak by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-19 19:46 · Score: 0

he didnt say that. you did.

you exxagerated his argument to absurdity, and then argued against that.

if you're going to argue, argue with HIM. not yourself.

PS - you're a prick.
Re:As always, he's a freak by putaro · 2004-08-19 20:14 · Score: 2, Insightful

You just can't just have anyone wandering about nuclear plants, or onto planes while carrying bombs.
Let's not even worry about the legalities, but let's think about the usefulness of your statement.

Nuclear power plants can and should restrict who enters. The list of people allowed in the plant is small and known. The list of people carrying bombs on airplanes is small and unknown. Therefore, checking ID's makes sense to keep people out of nuclear power plants and checking people's bags for bombs makes sense in keeping bombs off of airplanes. Since no one's ID says "I AM CARRYING A BOMB" checking their ID is worthless for the purpose of keeping bombs off but is useful for infringing on civil liberties by preventing people who disagree with the government from traveling, and even people who are part of the government from traveling (Senator Ted Kennedy was recently put on the no-fly list - read about it here.)

If you would care to explain how checking ID's will keep bombs off planes I'm sure it would be very illuminating for all of the readers.
Re:As always, he's a freak by tuxlove · 2004-08-19 21:31 · Score: 1

If you would care to explain how checking ID's will keep bombs off planes I'm sure it would be very illuminating for all of the readers.

Did I say that? Let me check... Nope. The slashbot kneejerk is an amazing thing. I'm railing against his rhetoric, not his message. Maybe you guys should read my message more closely instead of just being a 'bot.
Re:As always, he's a freak by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-19 22:07 · Score: 0

lets see that slashdot kneejerk in action:

tuxlove writes...

"So, let's see. If I restrict the movement of strangers from entering into my house through my front door by locking it, I'm kidnapping them? I'm very selective with whom I let through my door, and have every right to be. The same goes for any private property, or property reserved for a particular purpose for which your passage is inconsistent. You just can't just have anyone wandering about nuclear plants, or onto planes while carrying bombs. His movement about the country is not restricted. He simply needs to get behind the wheel of his car and drive wherever the heck he wants to go, if he doesn't like airport security. And considering how rich he is, he could probably just get his own damn plane and stop worrying about it. "

the right to be left alone by bodrell · 2004-08-19 14:19 · Score: 3, Insightful

I'm glad someone is working on this problem. I'm just a card-carrying ACLU member, but if I had Gilmore's resources I'd love to challenge a few laws. Like the right to not be annexed. Isn't that taxation without representation? Reagan blew so many holes in the Bill of Rights, someone has to reverse those precedents. We now have almost no protection against illegal search and seizure. States' rights are practically non-existent (especially here in Oregon, where Ashcroft has swooped down multiple times--to threaten physicians re. the state's assisted suicide law, and also to rattle a saber about medical marijuana issues).

Arrgh. Now I'm all riled up.

Join the ACLU. It's safer than direct action against "the Man."

--
Si la vida me da palo, yo la voy a soportar Si la vida me da palo, yo la voy a espabilar

Re:Troll? I'm not a troll. It's just a userID. by SlashdotTroll · 2004-08-19 14:20 · Score: 0

gcaseye6677,

That article was more than one year ago and it was duplicate twice! Moderators were giving away points to anyone creative and I posted to the information minister. I can barely remember.

Looking at your colorful portfolio, you are no less without blemish in trying to uphold your own offtopic troll comments.

Why don't you pull out my HighSchool picture and laugh at my funny red nose?

--

I am the nightmare of nightmares.

Re:Server is going down fast... here's the text by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-19 14:24 · Score: -1, Troll

The Israeli government is separate from the U.S.?

Re:Troll? I'm not a troll. It's just a userID. by gcaseye6677 · 2004-08-19 15:30 · Score: 1

Aw, come on. You could have found a better example than that!

Pathetic Slimeball by thejackhmr · 2004-08-19 15:36 · Score: -1, Flamebait

the US government practices terrorism

It's really astounding how easily that angry little phrase rolls of the tounges of all these pothead disestablishmentarians. But aren't these the same junkies throwing molotov cocktails into Hummer dealers?

Re:Server is going down fast... here's the text by killjoe · 2004-08-19 16:42 · Score: -1, Troll

Technically yes but in reality when Sharon says "jump" Bush says "how high".

--
evil is as evil does

Re:Server is going down fast... here's the text by danila · 2004-08-19 23:09 · Score: 2

Nope. The correct wording is now:

"Terrorism is now defined as force applied for political reasons by people other than any government included in the secret amendment to this regulation."

--
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.

John doesn't like the ACLU by SimHacker · 2004-08-20 00:39 · Score: 1

Hey, I agree with you that the ACLU is a great organization, but I've had some interesting arguments with John about them -- he doesn't like the ACLU because of their support for gun control, which is one of the reasons I support them.

Baby or bathwater? We distort, you decide. Some of our opinions and priorities are different, but John's arguments are always well thought out and interesting.

-Don

--
Take a look and feel free: http://www.PieMenu.com

Egotistical snob by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-20 02:39 · Score: 0

I love guys like this.

They make some money in one industry (computers) and then feel the have the enormous intellect to tackle every other issue (laws, terrorism, world hunger, AIDS, etc.) as if it were just another bit of programming. That anyone else who has a differing opinion is an "idiot".

It gets worse when they collect a bit of money that allows them to "do what they want then rather what they need". Usually what they want to do is pontificate and pass their standard intolerant indignance at anything they do not agree with at the moment.

Meanwhile the rest of us who have to work for a living, have families, pay taxes, drive to work and do the normal "provincial US' activities are subject to these blowhards proclaimations and interference.

Let him and his kind parade around in their turbans and bathrobes amongst their own kind in their utopian Shangri La's and leave the us "provincials" alone. We have enough to deal with without his ranting and raving.

ACLU / gun control by bodrell · 2004-08-20 02:41 · Score: 1

I also (like John, not yourself) have a problem with the ACLU's stance on gun control. In my opinion, they ought to be protecting all civil liberties. It has been shown numerous times that gun control sets the stage for genocide. I stumbled upon an interesting book written by Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership which convinced at least two of my friends to revise their stances on gun control. Their mission statement:

Those are the twin goals of Wisconsin-based Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO). Founded by Jews and initially aimed at educating the Jewish community about the historical evils that Jews have suffered when they have been disarmed, JPFO has always welcomed persons of all religious beliefs who share a common goal of opposing and reversing victim disarmament policies while advancing liberty for all.

That said, the ACLU is fighting a front of the war to protect our civil liberties. We have the NRA (among others) to worry about gun ownership rights. I haven't heard of any cases where the ACLU tried to promote gun control--they just don't protect 2nd Amendment rights. The good the ACLU does outweighs their lack of support on the gun issue, for me.

--
Si la vida me da palo, yo la voy a soportar Si la vida me da palo, yo la voy a espabilar

Brilliant, stupid, or both? by Roadkills-R-Us · 2004-08-20 02:42 · Score: 1

He has some good insights in some areas, but in others he comes off as an opinionated jerk. yes, there are problems with centralized anti-spam. But the problem is the *spam*. The sheer weight and cost are one of the biggest 3 or 4 problems the internet faces right now. By his logic we should get rid of the police forces as well (granted that some of them need a revamp!) Then he can decide, when 50 people all jump him to take his millions, which of them he doesn't mind being stabbed by.

Re:Brilliant, stupid, or both? by geminidomino · 2004-08-20 17:52 · Score: 1

Remember, you're talking about a guy who is so dead-set against anti-spammers that he runs an open relay (blocklisted to hell and back, of course. Blocked here, in fact, until the heat death of the universe, or WindowsXP is GPLed.)

There's nothing wrong with standing up for your principles, but he crosses into k00k territory by aiding the problem just to spite the best solutions we've[tinw] come up with so far.

Both God and the Devil are in the details... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-20 03:36 · Score: 0

Notice that in all these quotes the opperative word is "travel" not "drive", "steer", or "conduct". In no state do you need a license to travel in a car or other automobile, only to drive one.

isn't that redundant? by DM9290 · 2004-08-20 06:16 · Score: 1

"Terrorism is now defined as force applied for political reasons by people other than the US or the Israeli Government."

wait, that is redundant. Isn't the US government a branch of the Israeli Government?

(that was a joke. We know it is the other way around.)

--
No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.

Straw man alert by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-20 07:02 · Score: 0

So it is the right of some drunk driver to mow down a pedestrian and be able to get away with it because in the name of civil liberties, he shouldn't have to have a license plate and drivers license eh?

That's a perfect example of a straw man argument, since nobody proposed such a nonsense premise in the first place.

What you have written, sir, is logical junk.

I'm sorry but... by sql*kitten · 2004-08-20 08:10 · Score: 1

... his idea about being a suspect because you get searched at an airport is pure idiocy. There are two choices:

Search people randomly, and people will complain that they're being treated like "suspects"
Search likely suspects, and civil liberties types (like Gilmore himself) will complain that you're racially profiling people

. Not only that, but "innocent until proven guilty" - what's proof of guilt, a SUCCESSFUL hijacking?? Hey Sherlock, too late once it's proven, what you gonna do, call 911 at 30,000 feet?

Being searched doesn't mean your a suspect, it just means you were there when the number came up. Gilmore's badge-wearing is just plain attention-seeking. Terrorism IS real, it IS a threat, and any inconvenience is the fault of the terrorists, not the check-in staff!

Insect Control by SimHacker · 2004-08-20 08:56 · Score: 1

We were eating dinner at a restraunt once, and John Gilmore ordered some crab soup. I teased him that I considered crabs to be insects, and he wasn't supposed to eat insects because he was a vegetarian.

I was all ready to launch an emotional defense of my indefensible biologically revisionist opinion about crabs being insects, but John headed me off at the pass: he said "Insects are The Enemy, so we Must Eat Them!"

Gilmore has radical ideas about Insect Control. We agree on the general principles, but disagree about how to go about implementing it. Ewww gross.

I wonder if eating bullets would be an effective approach to gun control?

-Don

--
Take a look and feel free: http://www.PieMenu.com

Re:Insect Control by bodrell · 2004-08-20 09:38 · Score: 1

We were eating dinner at a restraunt once, and John Gilmore ordered some crab soup. I teased him that I considered crabs to be insects, and he wasn't supposed to eat insects because he was a vegetarian.
It's very hard to convey tone via written word alone, so I apologize if I'm missing something . . . but why would it be acceptable for a vegetarian to eat a crab, but not an insect?
Gilmore has radical ideas about Insect Control. We agree on the general principles, but disagree about how to go about implementing it.
I think the question of implementation applies to most disagreements. It's all about priorities--what are you willing to sacrifice to attain a certain goal?
That doesn't apply to the morality police. It doesn't matter to them whether you're hurting anyone or not--if your behavior doesn't conform to their morals, they want you to stop. I consider those people to be very dangerous, since you can never have a rational discussion with someone who thinks they are better than you.

--
Si la vida me da palo, yo la voy a soportar Si la vida me da palo, yo la voy a espabilar

Secret law ? by ultranova · 2004-08-20 10:13 · Score: 1

This quote is from the article, from the answer to the "What is this I hear about secret laws in airports" question:

So how can they apply a "no government photo ID, no flying" rule to me, but not her? By keeping the details of the law secret, that's how. It even worked at the District Court; our judge decided that if she couldn't see the law then it must by definition be constitutional (she ruled that I had no possible way to show it is unconstitutional).

If I understood this correctly, this means that the US officials can claim that there's a law which prohibits action X, and that the US courts will then enforce whatever the officials say the law says without seeing the law themselves.

Now, maybe I'm just paranoid, but it seems to me that this could be used to arrest (and condemn) anyone for anything. Because the court doesn't actually see the law, the law doesn't need to really exist or have the wording and meaning that the officials say it does.

"Your honor, ultranova posted a message questioning the US legal system into the Slashdot website. This is illegal and punishable by death penalty under a secret law - I'm sorry but I can't show it to you, you just have to take my word that ultranova really is guilty."

Please tell me that I misunderstood something, and that the US isn't really *this* FUBAR ?

--

Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

Slashdot Mirror

John Gilmore interviewed by Greplaw

164 comments