Re:Drivers Licenses are GROSSLY Immoral
on
License to Surf
·
· Score: 1
Okay, so drivers' licenses are a good thing from the standpoint of making sure people know how to drive. They are still immoral for a couple of different reasons. Licenses and license plates are too often used as a way to collect additional taxes without calling them taxes. They should not cost any more than what it actually costs to give them out. They are also used all too much as identification, especially in states like MO, where your social security number is your license number. Internet licenses are ludicrous, completely unnecessary, and a violation of the First Amendment. They are also simply a way to track you when there is no need of ANY sort to do so.
My sentiments exactly. You know the FBI won't be held responsible. Would they be held responsible if they tried to shut down one of the several major, doomsaying, Hollywood movies that has been in theaters this year? Hell, yes!! They wouldn't even try to do that. But you can violate one person's right to free speech-as long as the person is inconspicuous enough that there won't be an uproar. In some ways, this is the wonderful thing about the web. Anyone can say what they have to say and reach the public with it. This scares the pants off the Powers That Be.
Both you and minkyboodle are missing the point entirely. You got going on the example Katz used, instead of hearing what he was trying to say. Right now, the threat is "potential violence". Next year, the "problem" that needs to be eradicated from our schools might be "religious fanaticism" or "geekiness" or "purple underwear". Katz was trying to make the point that, considering the way our school system has historically worked and the fact that they have to come up with reasons to draw attention from the fact that our school system spends more money every year to do a worse job every year, from "potential violence testing" to "potential anything else testing" is a very short step.
"Properly used by the schools". Isn't that like "government efficiency"? Sounds like an oxymoron to me. Has anybody ever read the short story "Harrison Bergeron" (I think it's by Robert Silverberg)? First, we start by testing kids for potential violence (this sounds like a good thing), then we test them for some other potential nonconformity (geek tendencies, perhaps?) Eventually, as in the story, everybody is forced to be just like everyone else, whether they're naturally able to be so or not. Our public school system does not want an informed society or individuals-uninformed sheep are far more useful and make more jobs for teachers-do a little reading and you'll run into this idea pretty quickly.
Perhaps what we really need to do is not to identify which kids might be so dissatisfied with our current educational system as to become violent. Perhaps we need to do two other things, instead. Number one, figure out what's wrong with the kids who are such sheep as to be satisfied without question with a system where they have largely the same freedoms as prisoners. Number two-overhaul this system!!! Are we afraid that if we give kids freedom to be themselves all along, more of them might actually become people who are able to question what's going on the world and who are confident enough to take steps toward change, perhaps making the world a better place thereby? If we gave our kids respect and freedom as people all along, perhaps a lot fewer of them would feel the need to express themselves through gangs or drugs or violence. How many of the things that are considered routine at all levels of educational institutions in this country (actions of adults toward kids, as well as actions of kids toward each other) are things that we would consider offensive, disrespecful, or belittling, as well as affronts to our dignity, personal freedom, or constitutional rights if they were things we, as adults, had NO CHOICE but to take without question or recourse?
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, so drivers' licenses are a good thing from the standpoint of making sure people know how to drive. They are still immoral for a couple of different reasons. Licenses and license plates are too often used as a way to collect additional taxes without calling them taxes. They should not cost any more than what it actually costs to give them out. They are also used all too much as identification, especially in states like MO, where your social security number is your license number. Internet licenses are ludicrous, completely unnecessary, and a violation of the First Amendment. They are also simply a way to track you when there is no need of ANY sort to do so.
My sentiments exactly. You know the FBI won't be held responsible. Would they be held responsible if they tried to shut down one of the several major, doomsaying, Hollywood movies that has been in theaters this year? Hell, yes!! They wouldn't even try to do that. But you can violate one person's right to free speech-as long as the person is inconspicuous enough that there won't be an uproar. In some ways, this is the wonderful thing about the web. Anyone can say what they have to say and reach the public with it. This scares the pants off the Powers That Be.
Yep, that's the story.
Both you and minkyboodle are missing the point entirely. You got going on the example Katz used, instead of hearing what he was trying to say. Right now, the threat is "potential violence". Next year, the "problem" that needs to be eradicated from our schools might be "religious fanaticism" or "geekiness" or "purple underwear". Katz was trying to make the point that, considering the way our school system has historically worked and the fact that they have to come up with reasons to draw attention from the fact that our school system spends more money every year to do a worse job every year, from "potential violence testing" to "potential anything else testing" is a very short step.
"Properly used by the schools". Isn't that like "government efficiency"? Sounds like an oxymoron to me.
Has anybody ever read the short story "Harrison Bergeron" (I think it's by Robert Silverberg)? First, we start by testing kids for potential violence (this sounds like a good thing), then we test them for some other potential nonconformity (geek tendencies, perhaps?) Eventually, as in the story, everybody is forced to be just like everyone else, whether they're naturally able to be so or not. Our public school system does not want an informed society or individuals-uninformed sheep are far more useful and make more jobs for teachers-do a little reading and you'll run into this idea pretty quickly.
Perhaps what we really need to do is not to identify which kids might be so dissatisfied with our current educational system as to become violent. Perhaps we need to do two other things, instead. Number one, figure out what's wrong with the kids who are such sheep as to be satisfied without question with a system where they have largely the same freedoms as prisoners. Number two-overhaul this system!!! Are we afraid that if we give kids freedom to be themselves all along, more of them might actually become people who are able to question what's going on the world and who are confident enough to take steps toward change, perhaps making the world a better place thereby? If we gave our kids respect and freedom as people all along, perhaps a lot fewer of them would feel the need to express themselves through gangs or drugs or violence. How many of the things that are considered routine at all levels of educational institutions in this country (actions of adults toward kids, as well as actions of kids toward each other) are things that we would consider offensive, disrespecful, or belittling, as well as affronts to our dignity, personal freedom, or constitutional rights if they were things we, as adults, had NO CHOICE but to take without question or recourse?