Police Tracking Your Every Move With License Plate Readers

[Created4]

Since this is a tech site and not a political site, I think the comments are representative of our society.

Police Tracking Your Every Move With License Plate Readers
Is a law enforcement aid worth sacrificing personal liberties?

http://www.webpronews.com/police-tracking-your-every-move-with-license-plate-readers-2011-11

[Becker]

License plate is not a personal liberty. You are not obligated to drive, nor do you have a right to drive without license and permission.

[seapilot]

License plate is not a personal liberty. You are not obligated to drive, nor do you have a right to drive without license and permission.

That is right we get our rights from the government not our creator. We also have no right to travel unrestricted either. How did people get away without registering their horses and carriages years ago? Absolute chaos.

[ZanZibar]

License plate is not a personal liberty. You are not obligated to drive, nor do you have a right to drive without license and permission.If you live in an authoritarian state, then yes you are correct.

[Becker]

That is right we get our rights from the government not our creator.


you can say you get your rights from yourself for all I care, let's see you exercise them.



We also have no right to travel unrestricted either.


you don't. Not when it's not your property and not when public roads have an interest in public safety



How did people get away without registering their horses and carriages years ago? Absolute chaos.
the same way they got away with not letting women and blacks vote, and the natural speed limit which was objectively safer than today's car speed capability. not to mention not every person could afford a horse and carriage.

[Becker]

If you live in an authoritarian state, then yes you are correct.

what industrialized country doesnt have license plates? What non-license plate country do you prefer to live in?

[Paul Revered]

License plate is not a personal liberty. You are not obligated to drive, nor do you have a right to drive without license and permission. On what basis do you make the assertion that I don't have a right to drive? Please don't reference some de facto statutory law, and tell me that it trumps my inalienable right to move freely. Let's hear a logical argument of why I need permission to use a motor to drive my wheels, over using muscle power. By your philosophy, do we need permission to use a motor to drive a printing press?

[Paul Revered]

you can say you get your rights from yourself for all I care, let's see you exercise them. It's my understanding that Michael Badnarik has been fairly successful at exercising his.

[Danke]

On what basis do you make the assertion that I don't have a right to drive? Please don't reference some de facto statutory law, and tell me that it trumps my inalienable right to move freely. Let's hear a logical argument of why I need permission to use a motor to drive my wheels, over using muscle power. By your philosophy, do we need permission to use a motor to drive a printing press?

You have to right to travel in the conveyance of your choice. "Driving" in the legal sense is a privileged.

[Paul Revered]

you don't. Not when it's not your property and not when public roads have an interest in public safety


Can you explain to me why I pay property taxes, on "my" land, even the portion of "my" land which is paved with a "public" road?

[Becker]

On what basis do you make the assertion that I don't have a right to drive?


the basis that it poses a safety risk which can be avoided. A car is objectively higher risk than a horse, a person walking and lower risk than a tank, airplane.



Please don't reference some de facto statutory law, and tell me that it trumps my inalienable right to move freely.


i dont recognize your right to begin with, so no problem.



Let's hear a logical argument of why I need permission to use a motor to drive my wheels, over using muscle power. By your philosophy, do we need permission to use a motor to drive a printing press?

you need permission if and when you are traveling in a way that would pose risk to others, why do you obey traffic signs and lights? don't have you a right not to?
printing press does not move around on public roads, so no. and you are free to start your engine on your own land, even if it moves.

[Becker]

Can you explain to me why I pay property taxes, on "my" land, even the portion of "my" land which is paved with a "public" road?

I can explain it to you but I don't expect you to agree or accept it.

Would you be happier if I said you own no land and have no property?

[Paul Revered]

what industrialized country doesnt have license plates? What non-license plate country do you prefer to live in? What exactly does industrialism have to do with natural rights?

[Becker]

You have to right to travel in the conveyance of your choice. "Driving" in the legal sense is a privileged.

is driving synonymous with operation of a motor vehicle?
are vehicles licenses because they take gas or because of the speed they produce?
but even bicycles are not allowed to travel on freeways and left lanes. (let's assume a person is willing to take the risk, is it legal for him to put his tricycle or set foot on where cars are designated?)

[Paul Revered]

I can explain it to you but I don't expect you to agree or accept it.

That remains to be seen.

[Becker]

What exactly does industrialism have to do with natural rights?

LMAO, that's the problem, you don't think it has to do with it.

You ignore the fact that industrialism demands regulations to maintain safety and civility. NOW ANSWER THE QUESTION, is there one?

Give me ONE great country that respect natural rights but is also industrial enough for you to want to live there. I prefer industrial life with safety regulations because those stupid "natural rights" mean nothing if I have to give up this lifestyle.

[Becker]

It's my understanding that Michael Badnarik has been fairly successful at exercising his.

which ones specifically?

[Paul Revered]

are vehicles licenses because they take case or because of the speed they produce?
That is not the premise upon which the first license plate was issued. It was issued because a vehicle without a muffler was scaring horses. As there are very few horses on our roads today, this law seems to be somewhat outdated.

[Becker]

That is not the premise upon which the first license plate was issued. It was issued because a vehicle without a muffler was scaring horses. As there are very few horses on our roads today, this law seems to be somewhat outdated.

i meant take gas, sorry.

and you assume that there cannot be other reasons that later also concludes licensing is a good idea.

[Paul Revered]

Give me ONE great country that respect natural rights but is also industrial enough for you to want to live there. I prefer industrial life with safety regulations because those stupid "natural rights" mean nothing if I have to give up this lifestyle.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." --Benjamin Franklin

[Paul Revered]

i meant take gas, sorry.

My lawn mower takes gas.

That is not the premise upon which the first license plate was issued. It was issued because a vehicle without a muffler was scaring horses. As there are very few horses on our roads today, this law seems to be somewhat outdated.

[Becker]

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." --Benjamin Franklin

you can't answer the question. So quote this outdated idealism all you want.
Why did the Constitution mention arms ? BECAUSE THEY WERE INVENTED.
Why did it not mention nucular missiles, cars, computers, spam? BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT.

[Becker]

My lawn mower takes gas.


and it's not licensed as a means to conveyance on public roads, whereas foot, and bicycles are. Keep ignoring differences




That is not the premise upon which the first license plate was issued. It was issued because a vehicle without a muffler was scaring horses. As there are very few horses on our roads today, this law seems to be somewhat outdated.
so other countries which have license plates must've also had horses. but as I can tell, you have no idea.

[Paul Revered]

which ones specifically? A good place to start is, moving about freely, on a conveyance of his choice, without asking permission.

[Becker]

hey, ignore all the license plates. There's nothing wrong or illegal for police to park their cars and wastefully take photos of your car, or horse, if they wanted to identify or stalk you, this is (de facto) a right of any legal citizen. License plates just make it easier and faster.

[Becker]

A good place to start is, moving about freely, on a conveyance of his choice, without asking permission.

how far and often does he drive his vehicle without a driver license and license plate?

[ctiger2]

License plate is not a personal liberty. You are not obligated to drive, nor do you have a right to drive without license and permission.

Nice fascist post O'Reilly...

[Becker]

Nice fascist post O'Reilly...

anybody who doesn't agree with you is a fascist, how cute.

[Paul Revered]

so other countries which have license plates must've also had horses. but as I can tell, you have no idea.

I could care less about what goes on in other tyrannical countries. We broke away from such tyranny. Have you read the Declaration of Independence? Let's not digress.

[Paul Revered]

anybody who doesn't agree with you is a fascist, how cute.

A strawman argument, how illogical. Should I accept this as your concession?

[Becker]

I could care less about what goes on in other tyrannical countries. We broke away from such tyranny. Have you read the Declaration of Independence? Let's not digress.

you have no idea how the world works, which is why you demand things no other country with reasonable people and a comfortable lifestyle demands.

DoI is not law, just saying.

[Becker]

A strawman argument, how illogical. Should I accept this as your concession?

I didn't call you names, I didn't call him names. How else do I respond when he says such a thing? How would you like it if somebody started out calling you a fascist or communist? But no, I have not conceded, I am willing to continue. I prefer to avoid name calling.

[Paul Revered]

how far and often does he drive his vehicle without a driver license and license plate?

I don't track his every motion. That sounds like it would be right up your alley. Perhaps you should look into it.

[Paul Revered]

I didn't call you names, I didn't call him names. How else do I respond when he says such a thing? How would you like it if somebody started out calling you a fascist or communist? But no, I have not conceded, I am willing to continue. I prefer to avoid name calling. Perhaps you should study logic; then you might understand the difference between a strawman argument, and an ad hominem argument.

[Paul Revered]

you have no idea how the world works, which is why you demand things no other country with reasonable people and a comfortable lifestyle demands.

DoI is not law, just saying. False premise/ bare assertion fallacy

[Paul Revered]

DoI is not law, just saying. So we're still under the Crown?

[Paul Revered]

you demand things no other country with reasonable people and a comfortable lifestyle demands.

How is exercising my natural right to move about freely, unreasonable?

[Paul Revered]

Why did the Constitution mention arms ? BECAUSE THEY WERE INVENTED.
Why did it not mention nucular missiles...? BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT.

"nucular" LOL

Pssst....Missiles are arms.

[Becker]

I don't track his every motion. That sounds like it would be right up your alley. Perhaps you should look into it.

WOW, I am not surprised again. You don't know the details , just trust his word that he exercises his rights, get real will you?

[Becker]

"nucular" LOL

Pssst....Missiles are arms.

YAY, now we can play the Michael Moore tape. Sir, do you believe that according to the Constitution, you have a right to bear nucular missiles? Try to answer this without an if, and, or but.

[Becker]

How is exercising my natural right to move about freely, unreasonable?

because you've admitted you have no idea how the world works, and do not consider context, circumstances, you can't even bring up examples of where your ideals "work" all you are capable of doing is quoting outdated lines (older than the first license plate premise), when counterarguments are given to you, you ask "what does that have to do with it". Your ignorance is beyond laughable, you are why people don't take libertarians and Constitutionalists seriously.

[Becker]

Perhaps you should study logic; then you might understand the difference between a strawman argument, and an ad hominem argument.

Ok. So if saying "anybody who disagrees with you is a fascist" is a strawman argument, then you agree "not everybody who disagrees with you is a fascist" and therefore he should not have used that word to begin with. Are we on the same page?

[Becker]

So we're still under the Crown?

Just because we're not under the Crown doesn't mean DoI is law. But I guess both you and the Crown agree on something :)

[Becker]

False premise/ bare assertion fallacy

Nope, it's supported by FACTS, the FACT you cannot answer my questions whenever I ask you for an example, or when I ask how you'd manage to implement you system, is obvious that you do not know even how your own ideals can be carried in the real world (nevermind your ignorance to other foreign countries, which you admit you don't care about).

[Sola_Fide]

YAY, now we can play the Michael Moore tape. Sir, do you believe that according to the Constitution, you have a right to bear nucular missiles? Try to answer this without an if, and, or but.

Just a question for debate: if we do not have a right to nuclear bombs, why do corrupt politicians in agencies of government have rights to them? What is magical about passing from private life to the halls of government that gives you more "rights"?

[Paul Revered]

WOW, I am not surprised again. You don't know the details , just trust his word that he exercises his rights, get real will you?I know the relevant details. He drives without an official plate. He does drive across state lines. He sometimes gets cited. He wins in court. If you can demonstrate how his failure to track and publish his mileage, demonstrates that he is not in fact exercising his inalienable rights; I look forward to reviewing your logical argument.

Good luck!

[Becker]

Just a question for debate: if we do not have a right to nuclear bombs, why do corrupt politicians in agencies of government have rights to them?


because governments are not held to the same standards as citizens.



What is magical about passing from private life to the halls of government that gives you more "rights"?
I actually love this argument most of the time, which is why I am not against bribing and corporatism. Thanks for helping.

[Paul Revered]

because you've admitted you have no idea how the world works,

No I didn't.

Strawman/ False Premise

You're just a treasure trove of logical fallacies. Are you intentionally trolling?

[Becker]

I know the relevant details. He drives without an official plate. He does drive across state lines.


Ok, good start, thanks.

He drives with an unofficial plate? Is his vehicle registered? Can he prove he owns it other than possession? (I'd love to know if he cannot)
What states and what streets I wonder?



He sometimes gets cited. He wins in court.


can you show me an example of a winning case? is there a good article of video?



If you can demonstrate how his failure to track and publish his mileage, demonstrates that he is not in fact exercising his inalienable rights;


I said nothing about mileage, so please don't change the subject.



I look forward to reviewing your logical argument.

Good luck!
only after I get all the full story, please stay with me, thanks.

[Becker]

I could care less about what goes on in other tyrannical countries.
What exactly does industrialism have to do with natural rights?

you admit your ignorance and refusal to consider context of the modern world.

[Sola_Fide]

because governments are not held to the same standards as citizens.


I actually love this argument most of the time, which is why I am not against bribing and corporatism. Thanks for helping.


Oh, you're a statist. Didn't know that.

[Paul Revered]

Ok. So if saying "anybody who disagrees with you is a fascist" is a strawman argument, then you agree "not everybody who disagrees with you is a fascist" and therefore he should not have used that word to begin with. Are we on the same page? He/She said your post was Fascist. I agree with Him/Her; but I did not respond to Him/Her. I responded to your response to Him/Her.

I responded to your fallacious comment. There seems to be a pattern here.

[Paul Revered]

because governments are not held to the same standards as citizens.


In a Republic, the Government and the People are held accountable to the law.

A de facto government operates outside of the law.

[Becker]

In a Republic, the Government and the People are held accountable to the law.

A de facto government operates outside of the law.

fair enough. And the law states government has a right to use superior force for defense of the nation, while citizens are not explicitly given the same firepower.

[Becker]

He/She said your post was Fascist. I agree with Him/Her; but I did not respond to Him/Her. I responded to your response to Him/Her.

I responded to your fallacious comment. There seems to be a pattern here.

Ok. So let me rephrase, you have no problem calling my post fascist, and is it simply because I disagree with you?
Is my post allowed to disagree with you without being called fascist?

[Becker]

Oh, you're a statist. Didn't know that.

if the alternative to anarchist, then yes.

[talkingpointes]

if the alternative to anarchist, then yes.

After reading 5 pages of your responses and "logical arguements", I would have to say. Do you realize your championing a man that ultimately wants to do away with regulation and these things you hold oh so dear?

[Becker]

After reading 5 pages of your responses and "logical arguements", I would have to say. Do you realize your championing a man that ultimately wants to do away with regulation and these things you hold oh so dear?

yes. I know he wants that.

[ZanZibar]

NOW ANSWER THE QUESTION, is there one?

Give me ONE great country that respect natural rights but is also industrial enough for you to want to live there. Just because no one does it doesn't mean it's not possible or that it's morally or legally correct. The idea that every government on the globe happens to be wrong is likely. Slavery was indeed legal for centuries, but that didn't make it moral now did it?

Just because every government mandates permission to travel doesn't make it right or in accordance with freedom or the natural law.




I prefer industrial life with safety regulations because those stupid "natural rights" mean nothing if I have to give up this lifestyle.I am smelling a troll heh. But to answer your point, then if you do, feel free to move to a nation that suits your needs and stop taking my liberties.

[heavenlyboy34]

LMAO, that's the problem, you don't think it has to do with it.

You ignore the fact that industrialism demands regulations to maintain safety and civility. NOW ANSWER THE QUESTION, is there one?

Give me ONE great country that respect natural rights but is also industrial enough for you to want to live there. I prefer industrial life with safety regulations because those stupid "natural rights" mean nothing if I have to give up this lifestyle.
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Ben Franklin

[Paul Revered]

Ok, good start, thanks.

He drives with an unofficial plate? Is his vehicle registered? Can he prove he owns it other than possession? (I'd love to know if he cannot)
What states and what streets I wonder?


I'm having trouble finding information that I have read in the past regarding Badnarik's encounters; but here is another interesting one:

Pulled over today with no license, license plate, or registration
Submitted by juliusbragg on Fri, 04/30/2010 - 22:44
in

* Daily Paul Liberty Forum

2 votes

A CHP officer came up behind me today on 680N and turned his lights on, because I dont have a plate, I knew he didnt have a warrant, I know I didnt commit any Crime, so if I pulled over, it would be considered an "Arrest by Consent". I continued to my exit, about 3/4 of a mile. On the exit the officer said "Pull over right here" through his loud speaker, I ignored him and continued to the light, turned my blinker, and turned. He repeated "pull over right now", I continued on, and took a right and pulled into a church parking lot.

The officer came to my passenger window, I immediately asked "Am I under arrest?", he said "No", I said, "So Im free to go?", he said "no", I said "So Im under arrest", this time he said "yes". I told him that I did not consent to this arrest, and asked him if he had a warrant. He said no, and asked for my drivers license.

I handed him my notarized secured party declaration, a copy of the title to the truck, and my proof of insurance.

He went back to his car for about 5 minutes. A sergeant showed up and took over. I asked him if I was arrested and he said "no". I again said "So I can leave?" he said "no, you're detained". He started talking about arresting me and towing the truck and I asked under what authority. I told him I was on private property and I have not committed a crime. He agreed, but was playing tough guy.

He started asking me what was going on with my license, asked if I was ever licensed in California, and why the truck wasnt registered. I explained all of my info, we read through the case law and cvc together, and both officers admitted that they were fascinated by this. Turns out they were anti-obama, anti-health care, and 'tea partiers' (who knows what type) but either way we made a connection.

I repeated that I have conviction and respect for the Constitution, and that I understand the codes and definitions. I reminded the officers that ALL ROADS in the United States have been deemed "channels of Interstate commerce" by the Supreme Court, and because of that, local and State laws are trumped by Federal Laws, and that in the Federal Laws a "Motor Vehicle" was a "Commercial Vehicle"...we were waiting for almost 30 minutes while they waited for word from their supervisors.

Eventually, they hand me a citation with "none" marked in the DL location, and "none" in the License Plate location. I asked him if I was required to sign it, and he said "yes, otherwise we have to take you to jail." This now made the signature "under duress". I wrote "under duress" and signed my name next to the ticket.

This is where I was surprised, the Officer said "hey, we never read you your Miranda rights, so anything we use against you in court is not admissible."
Im not sure if this is true, but I was intrigued.

I have written "refused for fraud" across the original ticket, and sent it to the Court and the CHP with the letter below attached. I have done this in the past, and never heard another word, I had wondered if there were any warrants, apparently not!
*************************************

NOTICE and DEMAND

ATTN: Certified Mail 7009 2820 0003 2274 8185
California Highway Patrol Golden Gate Division
Officer B. Knudsen
DUBLIN (390)
4999 Gleason Road
Dublin, CA 94568-3310

CC: Certified Mail 7009 2820 0003 2274 8192
JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA, THE
Also Traded as ALAMEDA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
5672 Stoneridge Drive
Pleasanton, CA 94588-8559

RE: CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL
Violation Number: 60435 LJ

This notice to appear was signed UNDER DURESS as evidenced by the original citation in possession of, or submitted by Officer B. Knudsen.

Because this notice to appear was signed UNDER DURESS;
1) Statements made therein shall not be considered admissible evidence,
2) As a party to this action, I hereby void this contract and notice to appear, and
3) Any perceived consent or promise to appear is hereby withdrawn.

If you, or any Officer of the court or Officer of the CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL disagrees with the facts or statements stated above, you must refute those items point by point within 10 days of receipt of this Notice, via sworn affidavit, under your full commercial liability, signing under penalty of perjury that the facts contained therein are true, correct, complete and not misleading. Mere declarations are an insufficient response, as declarations permit lying by omission and hearsay, which no honorable draft may contain. If an extension of time is needed to properly answer, please request it in writing. Failure to respond will be deemed agreement with the facts stated above and an inability to prove your claim.

_____________________________________
Name, non resident, non licensed and non registered pursuant to CVC 4, 17459, 17460
See: Edwards v. California, 314 US 160 (1941), Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579., Hertado v. California, 110 US 516

(Enclosed) Copy of Notice to Appear

http://www.dailypaul.com/133248/pulled-over-today-with-no-license-license-plate-or-registration?page=1

[Paul Revered]

fair enough. And the law states government has a right to use superior force for defense of the nation, while citizens are not explicitly given the same firepower.

What exactly does, "shall not be infringed," mean to you?

[Paul Revered]

Ok. So let me rephrase, you have no problem calling my post fascist, and is it simply because I disagree with you?
Is my post allowed to disagree with you without being called fascist? I have no problem with your post being called for what it is.

[Paul Revered]

if the alternative to anarchist, then yes.

False dichotomy. Your posts are just a treasure trove of logical fallacies.

[Paul Revered]

After reading 5 pages of your responses and "logical arguements", I would have to say. Do you realize your championing a man that ultimately wants to do away with regulation and these things you hold oh so dear? I think he's a shill for the status quo, posing as a supporter for the message of liberty. Notice that he answered that he knows what Paul stands for; yet he didn't confirm that he supports Paul. He's made it clear that he stands for the antithesis of liberty.

[Becker]

Just because no one does it doesn't mean it's not possible or that it's morally or legally correct.


you have to show how its possible. I care less whether its morally and legally correct.



The idea that every government on the globe happens to be wrong is likely. Slavery was indeed legal for centuries, but that didn't make it moral now did it?


it was moral until the victors said otherwise.



Just because every government mandates permission to travel doesn't make it right or in accordance with freedom or the natural law.


what else does it mean if nobody is doing it.



I am smelling a troll heh. But to answer your point, then if you do, feel free to move to a nation that suits your needs and stop taking my liberties.

I love this country, I'm not the one complaining.

[Becker]

False dichotomy. Your posts are just a treasure trove of logical fallacies.

I said IF. I am willing to label myself as other things if they're asked.

[Becker]

What exactly does, "shall not be infringed," mean to you?

you didn't answer me first, does the constitution guarantee your right to own and use nuclear missiles?

[Paul Revered]

Can you explain to me why I pay property taxes, on "my" land, even the portion of "my" land which is paved with a "public" road?

::crickets::

[Becker]

::crickets::

because you don't actually own it. that's the short answer. we're just nice enough to say you own it.

[Paul Revered]

you didn't answer me first, does the constitution guarantee your right to own and use nuclear missiles?

You didn't ask a question.

Here is what I responded to:


"fair enough. And the law states government has a right to use superior force for defense of the nation, while citizens are not explicitly given the same firepower."



Please stay focused; and please answer my question. You won't be able to keep what I'm trying to teach you straight, if you can't even keep what you are asserting straight. I bet you don't even understand why the 2nd amendment was written.

[Paul Revered]

because you don't actually own it. that's the short answer. we're just nice enough to say you own it....and who, just exactly, are "we?" I think that it's time that "we the people" demand reclamation allodial title to our property.

[Becker]

You didn't ask a question.

yeah i did.

YAY, now we can play the Michael Moore tape. Sir, do you believe that according to the Constitution, you have a right to bear nucular missiles? Try to answer this without an if, and, or but.





Here is what I responded to:

Please stay focused; and please answer my question. You won't be able to keep what I'm trying to teach you straight, if you can't even keep what you are asserting straight. I bet you don't even understand why the 2nd amendment was written.

I have some idea why 2nd amendment was written. however, I am unaware citizens are allowed the same arms and equipment as military.

[Becker]

...and who, just exactly, are "we?" I think that it's time that "we the people" demand reclamation allodial title to our property.

everybody other than you is "we".

you can think that.

[Paul Revered]

yeah i did.

I have some idea why 2nd amendment was written. however, I am unaware citizens are allowed the same arms and equipment as military.

The 2nd amendment was written to help secure the right of an armed people, to throw off a tyrannical government. You should reread the DOI again.

Perhaps you can explain how your understanding of United States v. Miller supports your argument.

[Paul Revered]

everybody other than you is "we".

you can think that.

You can think whatever you want. You're entitled to your own personal opinion. However, you are not entitled to your own personal facts. Maybe you should start with some real facts. Who knows? Maybe soon you'll be well on your way to making a logical argument.

[GuerrillaXXI]

Police Tracking Your Every Move With License Plate Readers
Is a law enforcement aid worth sacrificing personal liberties?

http://www.webpronews.com/police-tracking-your-every-move-with-license-plate-readers-2011-11Absolutely NOT.

What's next? Microchip everyone at birth? Install surveillance cameras in each room of everyone's home? Doing those things could foil a lot of crimes, too. So why not do them? If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about, right?

Well, the problem with that asinine question becomes apparent when we answer it with another question: Who gets to decide what's "wrong"? Maybe someday corrupt, power-mad politicians will decide it's "wrong" just to criticize them, and will demand that their enforcers round up all political dissidents. Or maybe it will become "wrong" to be of the wrong ethnic background or religion. The goal of mass surveillance, of course, is to make resistance to such a tyrannical regime far more difficult.

Even if government were absolutely trustworthy -- something only a born idiot with zero knowledge of history could possibly believe -- no one with an iota of self-respect would EVER consent to being tracked like a head of cattle in a pen. This is especially the case when those who are being tracked can't equally watch those who are watching them.

The police state is coming faster than most of us expected, and it will be FAR worse than anything Orwell could have envisioned. Even regimes like the USSR and Nazi Germany didn't have nearly this much power over their citizens. "Die on my feet or live on my knees?" I really fear that every man and woman is going to be forced to make that choice within our lifetimes.

[Created4]

I find this debate interesting, but perhaps both Becker and Paul Revered could state plainly their primary premises and where they see the points of disagreement are for the rest of us trying to catch up here?

Also, Paul Revered, I think your points would be more forceful if you would dispense with the personal attacks and condescending remarks - just my opinion. The logic of your case should be sufficient to prove your points. I think there is much to learn here from hearing both sides.

[GuerrillaXXI]

I have some idea why 2nd amendment was written. however, I am unaware citizens are allowed the same arms and equipment as military.The Second Amendment was written to ensure "government by the consent of the governed," i.e., to prevent tyranny. Obviously such a situation can't be ensured unless citizens have the physical ability to overthrow their government if they are forced into that position. This doesn't require citizens to have the same arms as the military, but simply enough armed force to wage an effective guerrilla war. Sheer force of numbers and stealth can take care of any remaining imbalances of power.

That's where all this new surveillance technology is coming into play. Most surveillance tech that can be used to foil common crimes can also be used to deny stealth to those who are legitimately resisting a tyrannical government. It can also be used against peaceful dissidents. That is unacceptable to any sensible person. Any major imbalance of power in the world that allows some to do as they please to others is an extremely dangerous thing, and history has shown this again and again.

[Becker]

I find this debate interesting, but perhaps both Becker and Paul Revered could state plainly their primary premises and where they see the points of disagreement are for the rest of us trying to catch up here?

Also, Paul Revered, I think your points would be more forceful if you would dispense with the personal attacks and condescending remarks - just my opinion. The logic of your case should be sufficient to prove your points. I think there is much to learn here from hearing both sides.

My belief is that humans have no rights, and those who have power, whether corporations, criminals or government, create privileges.
I define rights as, that which society owes to protect, without exception. And rights do not exist unless they are practiced. Therefore, a baby cannot say he has a right to drive, unless he can show how he can. I do not care what the Constitution or DoI say, I care what has been done and what can be done.
I started in this thread saying "You do not have such a liberty, to drive without being noticed, and to hide your license plate" because driving on a public road is a privilege, not a right. (personally I do not make such a distinction for practical purposes).

Even if I granted the claim that humans have a right to travel, I believe there are reasonable exceptions, namely, when there is private property, or when safety of the public is at risk.
I asked this guy whether he knows how other countries operate and how he is so convinced his system would work, he does not have an answer.
I further asked him whether the Constitution guarantees his right to keep and bear nucular missiles, he has refused to answer because he knows how absurd it sounds.
He also cannot tell me whether it is right for governments to have superior firepower to the average citizen for use to military defense.
He responds only by citing Franklin's quote, older than the first license plate, and tells me his lawn mower take gasoline. Completely ignoring the FACTS of how the world works.

[Becker]

The Second Amendment was written to ensure "government by the consent of the governed," i.e., to prevent tyranny. Obviously such a situation can't be ensured unless citizens have the physical ability to overthrow their government if they are forced into that position. This doesn't require citizens to have the same arms as the military, but simply enough armed force to wage an effective guerrilla war. Sheer force of numbers and stealth can take care of any remaining imbalances of power.

That's where all this new surveillance technology is coming into play. Most surveillance tech that can be used to foil common crimes can also be used to deny stealth to those who are legitimately resisting a tyrannical government. It can also be used against peaceful dissidents. That is unacceptable to any sensible person. Any major imbalance of power in the world that allows some to do as they please to others is an extremely dangerous thing, and history has shown this again and again.

does the 2nd Amendment protect your right to own and operate a nuclear missile?
And are citizens allowed under the constitution to own any and all possible arms, even those which are superior to what its government owns?

[pcosmar]

My belief is that humans have no rights, .

That has become abundantly clear.
:(

[Peace Piper]

License plate is not a personal liberty. You are not obligated to drive, nor do you have a right to drive without license and permission.

From the article:
The Washington Post is reporting that police in D.C. are beefing up the area covered by license plate cameras. More than 250 cameras in D.C. and its suburbs are constantly hard at work, grabbing license plate numbers and sticking them into databases. The police aren’t exactly doing this quietly, but it’s being done with “virtually no public debate.”

That is a step beyond being required to be licensed. That is tracking.

Apparently, random real time license plate reading is being practiced by some police departments:

http://img593.imageshack.us/img593/3650/platereader2.jpg



Informant newsletter that explains them, and above is a picture of what the cameras look like mounted to a patrol car:

In about 45 seconds, the MPH 900 can do what it would take an officer and dispatcher more than an hour to accomplish: run a parking lot full of license plates.

Kansas City Police now have seven cars outfitted with the Mobile Plate Hunter license plate reader system, and they hit the road near the end of June. The system takes infrared pictures of license plates and compares them to a hot list database stocked with information about warrants and stolen vehicles. It also archives each vehicle’s plate and maps it, so over time, investigators can follow a car’s movements.

“This is just a tool,” said Sergeant Michael Hicks of the Research and Development Division. “It alerts the officer of a warrant or something wanted on the plate and prompts the officer to call a dispatcher to compare it to the live database.”

The plate reader database is updated just once daily. It includes a prioritized list from criminal justice databases ALERT, MULES and NCIC of things like felony warrants, stolen vehicles and stolen plates. But because those things change by the minute, Sergeant Hicks said patrol officers must work with a dispatcher the old-fashioned way to compare a license plate to the live database that is updated in real time before being able to stop a potential suspect. In fact, Hicks said the cameras were purchased – at the cost of about $24,000 each – in accordance with research the department is doing to develop a real-time crime center.

The cameras are mounted to the back of regularly marked patrol cars. One is deployed in each of the six patrol divisions and one in the Special Operations Division. Sergeant Hicks said they can take pictures at a distance of about 25 to 30 feet and at highway speeds. One system can run 7,000 license plates a day before the data needs to be moved wirelessly to one of KCPD’s servers. Once it’s there, Sergeant Hicks said the real value of the plate readers becomes evident.

“The main benefit is in investigations,” he said. “All the data can be queried later on from the back end in an investigation.”

Sergeant Hicks said he hopes officers run the cameras 24/7.

“The best way to deploy (the plate readers) is to keep them rolling all the time and never stop them so they’re always gathering data,” Sergeant Hicks said.

Work is underway to link the data that will be collected by KCPD’s plate readers with other agencies across the state and around the nation. In the Kansas City area, the Lenexa and North Kansas City police departments already have the plate readers in place, as does the Jackson County Sheriff’s Department.

http://kcpdchief.blogspot.com/2010_07_01_archive.html

and one last thing, from the original article:


In the District, laws are in place that limit the amount of time that surveillance camera footage can be kept. The images must be dumped after 10 days, unless there is an actual investigatory reason to keep them. But right now, there is nothing keeping data from the plate readers from being stored for years.

I don't believe the data will ever be erased. Call me cynical.

[Becker]

That has become abundantly clear.
:(

even if I said humans have rights, who cares what I believe?

[Becker]

From the article:

That is a step beyond being required to be licensed. That is tracking.


your car does not have a right to not be tracked, and what they do is nothing illegal , certainly no violation of privacy.



Apparently, random real time license plate reading is being practiced by some police departments:


and its not illegal for any other person who can buy such equipment to do the same.





and one last thing, from the original article:

I don't believe the data will ever be erased. Call me cynical.

you assume your cellphone GPS data is erased, right?

[pcosmar]

I have some idea why 2nd amendment was written. however, I am unaware citizens are allowed the same arms and equipment as military.

The second half of you statement contradicts the first.

And from the writings of the Founders it is clear that the citizens were supposed to have superior arms to the military, or at least equal but vastly outnumbering the Military.

The power of arms was intended to be in the hands of the people. Not the Government.


"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."

Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.


Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."

Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787)

[amy31416]

I have the right to have nuclear missiles...that doesn't mean that I want them or have the ability to obtain them. This argument is absurd.

[Created4]

My belief is that humans have no rights

What is your belief based on? An observation of what you see happening?


I define rights as, that which society owes to protect, without exception.

Who or what determines this obligation of "society?" How do you define "society"?


And rights do not exist unless they are practiced.

Ok, thanks for explaining. I am not familiar with kind of belief. So my questions at this point are an attempt to understand your premises, not debate them (how can one debate something they don't understand?) This last one about rights not existing unless they are practiced is the most intriguing. What about contracts, for example? If I have a contract with someone that affords me rights, but choose not to practice my rights, does that mean I have forfeited my rights according to this belief?

[Peace Piper]

your car does not have a right to not be tracked, and what they do is nothing illegal , certainly no violation of privacy.

Well our interpretation of a few amendments differs.


and its not illegal for any other person who can buy such equipment to do the same.

That will be a question for the courts, I don't believe I have the right to track anyone. We shall see. If someone in my neighborhood was scanning my plate every time I drove by his house, I would sue.


you assume your cellphone GPS data is erased, right?

My store bought prepay cannot be associated with me, other than from the numbers called and received. Not perfect, but I didn't cough up my SS or bank account # or CC#.

I will *not* be tracked. Period, end of story, thanks.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

A strawman argument, how illogical. Should I accept this as your concession?
Oh man, what's next; you're going to say someone is using a red herring? I hate pseudo-intellectual debate talk.

[GuerrillaXXI]

does the 2nd Amendment protect your right to own and operate a nuclear missile?I believe it does not. The reason is that a nuclear missile can't be used, even properly, without harming innocent people.


And are citizens allowed under the constitution to own any and all possible arms, even those which are superior to what its government owns?Yes, as long as those arms can be used without harming or gravely endangering innocent people (which would rule out bioweapons, nukes, etc.).

I also want to comment on this:


My belief is that humans have no rights, and those who have power, whether corporations, criminals or government, create privileges.In a purely practical sense, you are correct. Rights are a moot issue if the power doesn't exist to back them up. This is why I constantly implore people to arm themselves to the best of their ability -- not only with potent firearms, but with night vision (preferably thermal) equipment, body armor, etc. -- and to be prepared to die to defend what they believe in. (There's no point in avoiding death at all costs, since it WILL get each of us sooner or later.)

However, are we prepared to say, e.g., that a child has no right not to be brutally raped as long as some sick bastard can get away with doing such a thing? I'm not. The idea fills me with disgust. And THAT is what I believe is ultimately the origin of "rights" and the closely-related concept of "morality" itself: certain hard-wired human emotions that regulate certain views of our own behavior and that of those around us.

Many believe instead that rights and morality have divine origins. I don't see any reason to believe this, but that's not important to me: I still consider such people allies.

In any case, if "might makes right," then there's no reason to support having a government. Why not just let water find its own level and allow the strongest to survive in a dog-eat-dog world?

[Becker]

I believe it does not. The reason is that a nuclear missile can't be used, even properly, without harming innocent people.


thanks, sounds reasonable.



Yes, as long as those arms can be used without harming or gravely endangering innocent people (which would rule out bioweapons, nukes, etc.).


although no language states such, it's a reasonable inference. With that in mind, is it not also a reasonable inference to say that license plates or licensed privilege to drive, are reasonable restrictions to protect endangering innocent people, that which was much less likely in the era of horses and chariots?



I also want to comment on this:

In a purely practical sense, you are correct. Rights are a moot issue if the power doesn't exist to back them up. This is why I constantly implore people to arm themselves to the best of their ability -- not only with potent firearms, but with night vision (preferably thermal) equipment, body armor, etc. -- and to be prepared to die to defend what they believe in. (There's no point in avoiding death at all costs, since it WILL get each of us sooner or later.)

However, are we prepared to say, e.g., that a child has no right not to be brutally raped as long as some sick bastard can get away with doing such a thing? I'm not.


For that, you must concede not all humans are required to use responsibility, and there's good reason for that.



The idea fills me with disgust. And THAT is what I believe is ultimately the origin of "rights" and the closely-related concept of "morality" itself: certain hard-wired human emotions that regulate certain views of our own behavior and that of those around us.

Many believe instead that rights and morality have divine origins. I don't see any reason to believe this, but that's not important to me: I still consider such people allies.

In any case, if "might makes right," then there's no reason to support having a government. Why not just let water find its own level and allow the strongest to survive in a dog-eat-dog world?

I support government whenever it's practical, I think you'd agree with me (we just disagree what is practical and what is good)

[Becker]

The second half of you statement contradicts the first.

And from the writings of the Founders it is clear that the citizens were supposed to have superior arms to the military, or at least equal but vastly outnumbering the Military.

The power of arms was intended to be in the hands of the people. Not the Government.

So you believe the constitution has given you the right to own and operate nuclear missiles? Any law which restricts civilians to own any arms which are privileged to military is "unconstitutional" according to you?

[Becker]

I have the right to have nuclear missiles...that doesn't mean that I want them or have the ability to obtain them. This argument is absurd.

just asking if the right is there, gotta start somewhere. What you want is irrelevant, I want it. And if it were legal I'd find money to obtain it.

[Becker]

What is your belief based on? An observation of what you see happening?

yes



Who or what determines this obligation of "society?" How do you define "society"?


a society is a group of people living together in close proximity, which their actions affect another.
Society determines their own obligations. In short society determines rights



Ok, thanks for explaining. I am not familiar with kind of belief. So my questions at this point are an attempt to understand your premises, not debate them (how can one debate something they don't understand?) This last one about rights not existing unless they are practiced is the most intriguing. What about contracts, for example? If I have a contract with someone that affords me rights, but choose not to practice my rights, does that mean I have forfeited my rights according to this belief?

contracts are a voluntary surrender of rights. and yes, I would say in that case, you forfeited your rights, but may still exercise them as long as the contract says so.

[Becker]

Oh man, what's next; you're going to say someone is using a red herring? I hate pseudo-intellectual debate talk.

he then goes back and admits he agrees with the person who called my post "fascist" and "it's what it is".

[pcosmar]

So you believe the constitution has given you the right to own and operate nuclear missiles? Any law which restricts civilians to own any arms which are privileged to military is "unconstitutional" according to you?

I see nothing in the Constitution which prohibits it. Practicality and purpose make it both unlikely and unnecessary.

But arms armor and artillery should rightly be in the hands of the people. Common man should have a reasonable ability to repel and retaliate against any attack by the government, or to remove the government as necessary.

[Becker]

I see nothing in the Constitution which prohibits it. Practicality and purpose make it both unlikely and unnecessary.

But arms armor and artillery should rightly be in the hands of the people. Common man should have a reasonable ability to repel and retaliate against any attack by the government, or to remove the government as necessary.

thanks.

Looks like somebody disagrees. One guy tells me nucular missiles are high risk an endanger innocents, so its reasonable to not have a right to them, your interpretation is, no limits period.

[pcosmar]

Any law which restricts civilians to own any arms which are privileged to military is "unconstitutional" according to you?
There are no arms privileged to the Government In fact the Government was meant to be disarmed, not citizens.

Somewhere it got assbackwards.

[amy31416]

just asking if the right is there, gotta start somewhere. What you want is irrelevant, I want it. And if it were legal I'd find money to obtain it.

If you really want it, build it. Good luck. Personally, I think the right is there, but I'm not a legal professional.

[Pericles]

just asking if the right is there, gotta start somewhere. What you want is irrelevant, I want it. And if it were legal I'd find money to obtain it.

Contact this guy:

The premise was not fanciful. The author had done it. In 1977, John Aristotle Phillips (http://www.villagevoice.com/related/to/John+Aristotle+Phillips) found worldwide fame as the Princeton (http://www.villagevoice.com/related/to/Princeton+University) junior who designed a working Nagasaki (http://www.villagevoice.com/related/to/Nagasaki)-class weapon the size of a beach ball. In fact, after calling DuPont (http://www.villagevoice.com/related/to/DuPont+Company) and asking for a good detonator for imploding, ahem, a dense sphere of metal—"God, how obvious," he scoffed to himself. "Why don't you just say you want to implode Pu-239?"—he actually improved on the original model.
Phillips was no Lex Luthor (http://www.villagevoice.com/related/to/Lex+Luthor). He was the mascot who ran around in the Tiger outfit at Princeton games, a duty he acquired after being fired as cowbell player in the marching band. His academic prospects were none too bright. "If I flunk another course," he admitted, "I'll be bounced out of the Big U right on my ass."
So Phillips proposed a Term Paper to End All Term Papers: "How to Build Your Own Atomic Bomb." His instructor was Freeman Dyson (http://www.villagevoice.com/related/to/Freeman+Dyson), famed colleague of bomb-meisters Hans Bethe (http://www.villagevoice.com/related/to/Hans+Bethe) and Richard Feynman (http://www.villagevoice.com/related/to/Richard+Feynman). But Dyson carefully avoided giving his student extra help. Phillips gathered declassified documents at the National Technical Information Service (http://www.villagevoice.com/related/to/National+Technical+Information+Service)—"Oh, you want to build a bomb too?" a librarian asked him dryly—and many sleepless nights of calculations later, he pulled it off. Phillips did this while camped out with a broken typewriter in the campus Ivy Club. For extra surrealism, the club members who observed his mysterious work included fellow student Parker Stevenson (http://www.villagevoice.com/related/to/Parker+Stevenson). Yes, the Hardy Boys' star Parker Stevenson.
So how good was his design?
"I remember telling him I would give him an A for it," Dyson e-mails me, "but advised him to burn it as soon as the grade was registered." Phillips was spared the trouble of procuring matches: The U.S. government kept his term paper and classified it. Soon Phillips was pursued by hack journalists and trench-coaters alike: The Pakistani embassy tried to get a copy; agents trailed him; the FBI (http://www.villagevoice.com/related/to/Federal+Bureau+of+Investigation) and CIA (http://www.villagevoice.com/related/to/Central+Intelligence+Agency) got involved. Everything exploded.

http://www.villagevoice.com/2003-12-16/news/the-a-bomb-kid/

[Created4]

My belief is that humans have no rights

What is your belief based on? An observation of what you see happening?


yes

What about the things you do not see happening? Or do you believe you are omniscient? Also, using your own reasoning as I have understood it, why cannot a powerful human being grant rights to a weak human being?
---------------------------


I define rights as, that which society owes to protect, without exception.

Who or what determines this obligation of "society?" How do you define "society"?


a society is a group of people living together in close proximity, which their actions affect another.
Society determines their own obligations. In short society determines rights

I am not sure you answered the question. If the one in debt determines what the debt is held by the debtor, then how can there be a debt, or something "owed" in the first place? The meaning of the verb "owe" and "debt" as we understand it in the English language does not seem to allow your definition, or use of the terms. As for your definition of "society," you describe it as if it is a single entity, which is impossible. Your belief system does not appear to me to be based on logic, as you seem to be defining your terms arbitrarily. Society cannot even really determine rights using your own logic, because you start with the premise that humans have no rights. How can an entity grant to someone something that does not exist?


And rights do not exist unless they are practiced.

This last one about rights not existing unless they are practiced is the most intriguing. What about contracts, for example? If I have a contract with someone that affords me rights, but choose not to practice my rights, does that mean I have forfeited my rights according to this belief?


contracts are a voluntary surrender of rights. and yes, I would say in that case, you forfeited your rights, but may still exercise them as long as the contract says so.

I don't follow your logic here. If contracts are a "surrender of rights", then how can the contract "say" anything at all, or define any terms whatsoever?

I think you made some interesting comments at the beginning of this thread regarding licenses and roads as such, but you seem to define words and concepts arbitrarily to create your own belief system.

[Becker]

I am not sure you answered the question. If the one in debt determines what the debt is held by the debtor, then how can there be a debt, or something "owed" in the first place? The meaning of the verb "owe" and "debt" as we understand it in the English language does not seem to allow your definition, or use of the terms. As for your definition of "society," you describe it as if it is a single entity, which is impossible. Your belief system does not appear to me to be based on logic, as you seem to be defining your terms arbitrarily. Society cannot even really determine rights using your own logic, because you start with the premise that humans have no rights. How can an entity grant to someone something that does not exist?


that's precisely why. Humans have no natural or inherent rights, they have only what a society is nice enough to give.
Society is a group of people living in vicinity, where their actions affect another. I am not in the society with Europeans or Africans, only people in my county, and maybe in my state. In some extension, my country as well.

Does that make sense? Society decides itself, what is affordable to grant as rights, and anything else, we leave to "personal responsibility". In your example, society deems it cruel and senseless to let babies be responsible for their own defense, so we make it a crime to violate babies. But society does not find it affordable or moral to give free healthcare, so we call that "your own responsibility". It IS arbitrary.

There is no reason a person has a right to live, not be killed, but not a right to healthcare, free food, freedom from starvation, and so on, the only difference is a society's arbitrary decision.

[Becker]

I don't follow your logic here. If contracts are a "surrender of rights", then how can the contract "say" anything at all, or define any terms whatsoever?

I think you made some interesting comments at the beginning of this thread regarding licenses and roads as such, but you seem to define words and concepts arbitrarily to create your own belief system.

a contract can say anything it wants, what you're asking me is. How can it have any effect, which is, any contract or any piece of paper only has effect by what we give it and allow it.

It's my belief system, why wouldn't I define my own terms? And you are free to define your terms, as long as I know what you are talking about.

[Paul Revered]

My belief is that humans have no rights


http://sherrytexas.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/statue-of-liberty-crying315.jpg

[Travlyr]

that's precisely why. Humans have no natural or inherent rights, they have only what a society is nice enough to give.
Rights are inherent. Privileges are granted. Maybe you don't have rights, but I have rights because I am willing to stand-up for my rights no matter what society says.


Society is a group of people living in vicinity, where their actions affect another. I am not in the society with Europeans or Africans, only people in my county, and maybe in my state. In some extension, my country as well.

Does that make sense? Society decides itself, what is affordable to grant as rights, and anything else, we leave to "personal responsibility". In your example, society deems it cruel and senseless to let babies be responsible for their own defense, so we make it a crime to violate babies. But society does not find it affordable or moral to give free healthcare, so we call that "your own responsibility". It IS arbitrary.

There is no reason a person has a right to live, not be killed, but not a right to healthcare, free food, freedom from starvation, and so on, the only difference is a society's arbitrary decision.
You have a right to give yourself healthcare and find food, but forcing someone else to give you healthcare or food might not work out so well.

[Becker]

Rights are inherent. Privileges are granted. Maybe you don't have rights, but I have rights because I am willing to stand-up for my rights no matter what society says.

You have a right to give yourself healthcare and find food, but forcing someone else to give you healthcare or food might not work out so well.

you don't have rights just by you saying you do.

What if it worked well? Are you going to tell me even if it works well its still immoral?

[guitarlifter]

Double post

[guitarlifter]

you don't have rights just by you saying you do.

What if it worked well? Are you going to tell me even if it works well its still immoral?

Yes, it is absolutely still immoral. You argue from a utilitarian standpoint where the ends justify the means. Most people on this website are libertarians, who derive their beliefs deontologically, meaning that the means justify the ends.

In a completely utilitarian world, anyone should do anything that brings about the greatest good. By this standpoint, let's say that everybody hates Carrot Top. Carrot Top doesn't want to die, but 7 billion people want him to die. If the satisfaction of killing the innocent Carrot Top outweighs Carrot Top's desire to live, which, by the way, is subjective, then he should be killed. In a completely utilitarian world, all poor mothers should be stripped of their children so that they can live in rich families' homes. I could go on, but the utilitarian ideology is one giant slippery slope that is grounded upon nothing other than ignoring morality altogether.

Furthermore, you misunderstand a right and a privilege. These two words are not interchangeable. Privileges are things that are malleable and differ from society to society. Rights are inherent. If you're going to argue that there are no rights, then stop using the word where you should instead use the word privilege.

It's pretty clear that your critical thinking skills are lacking between your ad hominems, irrelevant conclusions, and straw mans, etc. If you're going to argue, then you should at least know how to analyze material and present arguments without being fallacious.

[DamianTV]

One must consider the consequences of wishing for a society where you are entitled to the fruits of someone elses labors any time one thinks of Social Benefits, such as Socialized Health Care, or the Right to Drive.

On the Right to Drive vs Right to Travel, the term "Drive" is used when conducting business, when you travel, you are NOT conducting business. The way you describe your object of transportation is also important. A Vehicle is used to conduct business as well, thus it is subject to different sets of laws. Your Automobile is not (IIRC) used for business, thus it is Personal, and thereby protected as a Right.

Next, you either have Unlimited Rights, or No Rights at All. There are some among us that think there should only be a Priviledged Few that deserve Rights, and everyone else can piss up a rope. These are the people that live on the fruits of others labor, and feel they are entitled to it, while the person that produces the fruit to begin with has no rights at all. Society is very very close to having all of the laborers stand up to their slave owners and kicking the shit out of them. It isnt just a violation of words we put on papers and referred to them as laws, this is Natural Law. Natural Law doesnt need words on paper to describe the absurdity of having an entitled few. It simply doesnt work. Either those under the command rise up against the controller, or the species dies out. Ants are a good society. By itself, an ant would not have much chance of anything, but ants have queens. The difference in the behavior of a Queen Ant and a Parasitic Banker is that the Queen Ant can only need so much. The benefit of the single lowly ants works benefit all of its entire society, including itself, thus, it is not a self destructive species as we have become.

Im sure someone will try to point out that insect colonies that have leadership structures mirror our current model of society. I believe we are the exact opposite. In our current social food chain, those at the top are not willing to share the fruits of someone elses labor, and want to keep it all to themselves, regardless if they are able to use what they have or not. This is how we differ. Those currently at the top want 100% of the pie for themselves, for us to produce the pie, and we have nothing to survive on, not even the dead minimum. This is what will ultimately cause the uprising of our society against the Rich Parasitic Plutocrats.

In regards to the OP on License Plates and Privacy, the 4th Amendment was not written in a fashion that it restricted its own abilities. It did not say that a person is entitled to Privacy (Penumbra Right, Privacy is not specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights) only within specific paramaters. Thus, a person has a Right to Privacy (again, Penumbra), or against Unlawful Intrusions by the Government IN PUBLIC. The idea that you only have Privacy while in your own home or possession large enough to hide you from other non governmental citizens is a complete and total false interpretation. The Constitution restricts everything the Government is allowed to do, and those things that the government are allowed to do are specified, everything else is prohibited. The License Plate Readers are no different, and are the most aphauling intrusion of the Invasion of Privacy I have seen yet. Oh hell, just read my sig, its the short short short short version of what I usually have to say about Privacy.

The Government has also made a very very serious mistake. They now believe they have Unlimited Power and the People have none. This is also a complete and total false interpretation. Their power comes from the ability to create Money. But what gives Money its own power is what we are willing to trade for it. What we create and what we do is what gives Money Power. And when we stop producing and stop working, money loses its power to control us. It will happen eventually that our entire money system collapses, some will be able to get their crack fix addictions fed a little longer, but when that fiat paper currency no longer even reflects a willingness to repay and we stop working, they lose all of their power over us. It is the money / crack addicts that still are hopelessly dependant on their next quick fix that gives police the willingness to abuse the people they are charged with protecting and creates the Chain of Obedience. But that chain is only as strong as its material, and the material is Money, which is nearly gone (to the banksters). In ant society, their Chain of Obedience comes from food. If the ant society stopped feeding all of its workers, they will kill and eat their Queen, and create a new Queen. In that respect, we are similar, and we are on the verge of a Monetary Revolution, the likes of which, this world has never seen, and may never see again.

[Immortal Technique]

im shocked lol

[Created4]

that's precisely why. Humans have no natural or inherent rights, they have only what a society is nice enough to give.
Society is a group of people living in vicinity, where their actions affect another. I am not in the society with Europeans or Africans, only people in my county, and maybe in my state. In some extension, my country as well.

Society decides itself, what is affordable to grant as rights, and anything else, we leave to "personal responsibility". Does that make sense?

No actually it does not. And the fact that you asked me if something "makes sense" disproves a lot of your beliefs as explained here, because it assumes that there is a "sense" or logic that stands on its own merit and is not based on people's arbitrary beliefs. Language is like that - otherwise we could not communicate if we all made up our own words and our own meanings. This is true with many things in life, such is what is food and what is not, and many other things. There are standards of truth that exist whether people believe them or not. Existentialism is nothing more than a belief system, a religion, or a replacement for religion.

"Society" cannot give something they don't have to begin with, or does not exist. Your reasoning is circular, because you define your own terms.

You have stated that your belief that humans have no rights is based on observation. That is a very dangerous way to develop beliefs, because you cannot see everything and account for ALL data to be absolutely sure your belief system is accurate. You would need to be omniscient.

And such beliefs have caused great harm. For example, a man by the name of Ancel Keyes developed a belief that cholesterol caused heart disease based on his observation of arterial plaque in people's arteries. His belief, cholesterol causes heart disease, became dogma. The pharmaceutical companies developed a billion dollar industry around drugs that lower cholesterol. The problem now is that this dogma has been dis-proven, as correlation does not prove causation. Keyes and others did not see all the data, and in fact Keyes omitted certain data that did not fit his theory. To blame cholesterol on heart disease would be akin to blaming traffic accidents on police because one observed that every time there was a traffic accident, a police person arrived on the scene.

Humans either have inherent rights or they do not, independent on whether your belief system or mine believes. Society can only recognize them or deny them - they cannot create them.

[Paul Revered]

you don't have rights just by you saying you do.

What if it worked well? Are you going to tell me even if it works well its still immoral?

Genocide works well for those who can't manage to feed and provide for their own health; and it provides much less of a drain on your beloved "society." Why don't you tell us how that morality correlates to your twisted Marxist views.

[pcosmar]

http://sherrytexas.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/statue-of-liberty-crying315.jpg

Yup,
I am wondering who keeps +reping this troll.

And Why?

:(

[Becker]

Yes, it is absolutely still immoral. You argue from a utilitarian standpoint where the ends justify the means.


And you argue from an anti-utilitarian standpoint where no ends matter? Or means justify all ends? Intentions justify all ends?



Most people on this website are libertarians, who derive their beliefs deontologically, meaning that the means justify the ends.


And I think most of them are hypocrites who only talk and don't do. And wouldn't accept the ends if it were them.



In a completely utilitarian world, anyone should do anything that brings about the greatest good.


Logically, because the greatest good forces him.



By this standpoint, let's say that everybody hates Carrot Top. Carrot Top doesn't want to die, but 7 billion people want him to die. If the satisfaction of killing the innocent Carrot Top outweighs Carrot Top's desire to live, which, by the way, is subjective, then he should be killed.


That is correct, and a law that says he has a right to live won't do jack.



In a completely utilitarian world, all poor mothers should be stripped of their children so that they can live in rich families' homes.


or sterilized.



I could go on, but the utilitarian ideology is one giant slippery slope that is grounded upon nothing other than ignoring morality altogether.


What good is morality if you don't care about consequences?



Furthermore, you misunderstand a right and a privilege. These two words are not interchangeable.


I didn't say they were, which is why I said I don't believe in inherent rights, and I only believe in privileges, and I don't belive either matter at all unless practiced.



Privileges are things that are malleable and differ from society to society. Rights are inherent. If you're going to argue that there are no rights, then stop using the word where you should instead use the word privilege.


I try to.




It's pretty clear that your critical thinking skills are lacking between your ad hominems, irrelevant conclusions, and straw mans, etc. If you're going to argue, then you should at least know how to analyze material and present arguments without being fallacious.

who did I call a name?

[Becker]

Genocide works well for those who can't manage to feed and provide for their own health; and it provides much less of a drain on your beloved "society." Why don't you tell us how that morality correlates to your twisted Marxist views.

Twisted Marxist views? No, Marxists believe in feeding losers, I do not.

[Becker]

No actually it does not. And the fact that you asked me if something "makes sense" disproves a lot of your beliefs as explained here, because it assumes that there is a "sense" or logic that stands on its own merit and is not based on people's arbitrary beliefs.


Oh no, the fact I was patient enough to ask you if it makes sense to you is proof that I care to help you understand what I mean, knowing that your beliefs are and can be just as arbitrary.



Language is like that - otherwise we could not communicate if we all made up our own words and our own meanings. This is true with many things in life, such is what is food and what is not, and many other things. There are standards of truth that exist whether people believe them or not. Existentialism is nothing more than a belief system, a religion, or a replacement for religion.


You are correct, we cannot communicate if we don't agree on words. Which is why I am trying to do that, and if you have your own definitions, let me know and we can adjust for conversation's sake.



"Society" cannot give something they don't have to begin with, or does not exist. Your reasoning is circular, because you define your own terms.


And I can say society CAN give what it has to begin with. This is perhaps our "wrong foot" to start, the axiom.



You have stated that your belief that humans have no rights is based on observation. That is a very dangerous way to develop beliefs, because you cannot see everything and account for ALL data to be absolutely sure your belief system is accurate. You would need to be omniscient.


Therefore you propose I have beliefs NOT based on observations, because that's SAFER, right?



And such beliefs have caused great harm.


Just in this thread, somebody told me that utilitarianism is unacceptable, you're telling me my beliefs cause harm, you can't both be right.



For example, a man by the name of Ancel Keyes developed a belief that cholesterol caused heart disease based on his observation of arterial plaque in people's arteries. His belief, cholesterol causes heart disease, became dogma. The pharmaceutical companies developed a billion dollar industry around drugs that lower cholesterol.


I suppose you are suggesting, it would've been better if people made an industry BOOSTING cholesterol, either with the intent of killing people or to test it out thoroughly. The fact people make mistakes means we should never rely on observations?

NAME ME ONE THING YOU DO, ON A DAILY BASIS THAT IS NOT based on observation.




The problem now is that this dogma has been dis-proven, as correlation does not prove causation.


Based on observation, yes???



Keyes and others did not see all the data, and in fact Keyes omitted certain data that did not fit his theory. To blame cholesterol on heart disease would be akin to blaming traffic accidents on police because one observed that every time there was a traffic accident, a police person arrived on the scene.


So your proposal is MORE observation, not LESS.



Humans either have inherent rights or they do not, independent on whether your belief system or mine believes.


So either you are superman or you are not, regardless of what anybody believes....



Society can only recognize them or deny them - they cannot create them.
I would argue the mere recognition, denial and exercising makes it in practice, CREATION.
Society didn't create your legs, but it can allow you to use them.
Society can't do your swimming for you, but they can teach you how to use your body to develop such skills.

[Becker]

.

In regards to the OP on License Plates and Privacy, the 4th Amendment was not written in a fashion that it restricted its own abilities. It did not say that a person is entitled to Privacy (Penumbra Right, Privacy is not specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights) only within specific paramaters. Thus, a person has a Right to Privacy (again, Penumbra), or against Unlawful Intrusions by the Government IN PUBLIC. The idea that you only have Privacy while in your own home or possession large enough to hide you from other non governmental citizens is a complete and total false interpretation.

LOL, it doesn't say you're entitled to privacy, but you interpret it as saying you have a right to privacy in public.

[teacherone]

Twisted Marxist views? No, Marxists believe in feeding losers, I do not.

Lol. You're a great troll. +rep

I've actually met people like you, and among those who actually THINK, I'd say you're in the majority.

Rights ARE impossible to prove, no "axiom" or "-ology" can do it.

We who believe in rights are willing to die by them. So all I can say is...

bring it on.

[Created4]

Therefore you propose I have beliefs NOT based on observations, because that's SAFER, right?

Not at all! I am not anti-observation, I just recognize its limits. The more observation the better, and the closer one comes to the truth that is defined by knowing ALL of the data.


NAME ME ONE THING YOU DO, ON A DAILY BASIS THAT IS NOT based on observation.

There are actually many things. I depend on reliable communication far more than I do on observation. I do not observe the process that goes into making my food, but rely on the testimony of those who are producing it make about it. When I learned how to drive a car, I depended on someone's reliable communication to explain to me how the car operates and how to maintain and drive it. I did not study and observe myself how an internal combustion engine works - I didn't have time for that and I had reliable information instead I could depend upon. Most things I do on a daily basis are not a result of observation, but credible communication. But that does not mean I am anti-observation. I just recognize its limits.



So your proposal is MORE observation, not LESS.

In relation to the cholesterol theory of heart disease, yes. We are in agreement on this.


Society didn't create your legs, but it can allow you to use them.

Ok, we both agree that Society didn't create my legs. So who did?

[pcosmar]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

Nuff said.
If you disagree you are welcome to GTFO.

[Becker]

Not at all! I am not anti-observation, I just recognize its limits.


And it's honestly despicable that you automatically assumed I do not know there are limits, or I ever said my method is perfect



The more observation the better, and the closer one comes to the truth that is defined by knowing ALL of the data.


Ok then, so why didn't you just say I need to observe more? Instead, you start by saying its dangerous.



There are actually many things. I depend on reliable communication far more than I do on observation. I do not observe the process that goes into making my food, but rely on the testimony of those who are producing it make about it.


communication is observation, and you rely on your trust based on previous experience to buy food. You rely on testimony, which you observe. You do not use blind faith as a substitute, which is my point.



When I learned how to drive a car, I depended on someone's reliable communication to explain to me how the car operates and how to maintain and drive it.

you could not have done it without eyes and ears. So that's still observing, this is YOU starting the semantic game. And if this isn't observation, then count it for the "what else I rely on" for me.



I did not study and observe myself how an internal combustion engine works - I didn't have time for that and I had reliable information instead I could depend upon. Most things I do on a daily basis are not a result of observation, but credible communication. But that does not mean I am anti-observation. I just recognize its limits.


so they are not based on blind faith or completely unobservable things either.



In relation to the cholesterol theory of heart disease, yes. We are in agreement on this.

Ok, we both agree that Society didn't create my legs. So who did?

nature, or God. Whatever you believe, but society can stop you from using your legs.

[Created4]

communication is observation

Most certainly not. You can't define your own English words and carry on a logical discussion.


so they are not based on blind faith or completely unobservable things either.

Not "blind" faith, but faith nonetheless. We use faith in our daily lives much more than we do observation.


nature, or God. Whatever you believe

The creation of my legs happened independent of my belief, so it was either nature or God, but it was not based on my belief. Therefore, since I did not create myself, and society did not create me, the Creator is the one who both possesses and bestows human rights. Society can only deny them or respect them, but it cannot create them.

[teacherone]

aahhh...nothing like philosophical masturbation in the morning....

[Travlyr]

you don't have rights just by you saying you do.
Right. My rights are inherent because I am here. I have just as much right to live my life as you do. I also have just as much right to be here as everything else. I have a right to eat, drink, and breathe in order to sustain life. I have a right to defend myself against anyone wanting to take my inherent rights away. I defend my rights because I understand them.


What if it worked well? Are you going to tell me even if it works well its still immoral?
You still don't have the right to force someone else to give you healthcare. Think about it. If you are doubled over in pain from a kidney stone, then how are you going to force the doctor to treat you? All he has to do is walk away. You are at a serious disadvantage. At that point you must rely on the doctor having compassion and a willingness to help without compensation. The doctor pays. Free healthcare is not free.

[Becker]

Right. My rights are inherent because I am here. I have just as much right to live my life as you do.


I don't claim to have a right to live.



I also have just as much right to be here as everything else. I have a right to eat, drink, and breathe in order to sustain life. I have a right to defend myself against anyone wanting to take my inherent rights away. I defend my rights because I understand them.


Why do you have to defend them if they're inherent?



You still don't have the right to force someone else to give you healthcare.


But you have a right to force people to obey laws they never agreed to? You have a right to force "rights violators" to be punished?



Think about it. If you are doubled over in pain from a kidney stone, then how are you going to force the doctor to treat you?


In other words, if we left the sick and suffering alone, we'd be giving them freedom and they'd disappear on their own.



All he has to do is walk away. You are at a serious disadvantage. At that point you must rely on the doctor having compassion and a willingness to help without compensation. The doctor pays. Free healthcare is not free.

But life is?

[Becker]

Most certainly not. You can't define your own English words and carry on a logical discussion.

Not "blind" faith, but faith nonetheless. We use faith in our daily lives much more than we do observation.


Ok. I will back the answer to your question.

I form my beliefs based on things I observe, and any other way OTHER THAN blind faith. So it is not solely observation, however, almost everything I do is directly or indirectly the result of observation, not blind faith or a priori.



The creation of my legs happened independent of my belief, so it was either nature or God, but it was not based on my belief. Therefore, since I did not create myself, and society did not create me, the Creator is the one who both possesses and bestows human rights. Society can only deny them or respect them, but it cannot create them.

Society can deny them, that's good enough for me.

[Travlyr]

I don't claim to have a right to live.
I do. I have a right to live and I defend that right. You can do whatever floats your boat. It makes no difference to me.


Why do you have to defend them if they're inherent?
I have to defend my rights against predators.


But you have a right to force people to obey laws they never agreed to? You have a right to force "rights violators" to be punished? No, I will defend myself against predators. Collectively, it is smart to force those who violate the rights of others to pay restitution and/or keep them from continuing to violate the rights of others. Individually all I can do is defend myself. Along with liberty comes responsibility. Not everybody understands that.


In other words, if we left the sick and suffering alone, we'd be giving them freedom and they'd disappear on their own.
Weird. That is not what I said at all. What I said is that if you rely on others to give you 'free' stuff, then you are likely to be disappointed. You do not have the right to force others to give you free stuff. People give others free stuff out of empathy and compassion, but not because you expect it or demand it.


But life is?
Nothing is free. No matter what somebody has to put forth effort to accomplish anything. Leaches count on others not knowing that.

[Becker]

I do. I have a right to live and I defend that right. You can do whatever floats your boat. It makes no difference to me.

I have to defend my rights against predators.


Your actions admit they are not inherent, they are dependant on your ability to defend yourself.




No, I will defend myself against predators. Collectively, it is smart to force those who violate the rights of others to pay restitution and/or keep them from continuing to violate the rights of others.


Collectivism is sometimes smart, I agree.



Individually all I can do is defend myself. Along with liberty comes responsibility. Not everybody understands that.


Especially children and the disabled.



Weird. That is not what I said at all. What I said is that if you rely on others to give you 'free' stuff, then you are likely to be disappointed. You do not have the right to force others to give you free stuff. People give others free stuff out of empathy and compassion, but not because you expect it or demand it.

So if a child expects to be fed by his parents, or by any person other than his own work, he'll be disappointed, and he should be?



Nothing is free. No matter what somebody has to put forth effort to accomplish anything. Leaches count on others not knowing that.

I thought you said rights are free, what else does "inherent" mean?

[Travlyr]

Your actions admit they are not inherent, they are dependant on your ability to defend yourself.




Collectivism is sometimes smart, I agree.



Especially children and the disabled.



So if a child expects to be fed by his parents, or by any person other than his own work, he'll be disappointed, and he should be?



I thought you said rights are free, what else does "inherent" mean?
Definition of INHERENT (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inherent)

: involved in the constitution or essential character of something : belonging by nature or habit :

[heavenlyboy34]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

Nuff said.
If you disagree you are welcome to GTFO.

Too bad that's gone down the memory hole for farrrr too many people. :(

[Hospitaller]

Nice fascist post O'Reilly...

He played the fascist card, this thread is now over and Becker is the winner

Unalienable rules of the internet

[Becker]

Definition of INHERENT (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inherent)

: involved in the constitution or essential character of something : belonging by nature or habit :

how do you reconcile "essential character, belonging by nature or habit" with "I need to fight for it and even if i need to pay for it and it's not free"

[Travlyr]

how do you reconcile "essential character, belonging by nature or habit" with "I need to fight for it and even if i need to pay for it and it's not free"
What is so difficult to understand? I will defend my rights against aggressors who would like to take them from me... not fight to acquire them. Rights are a concept not a product. You don't buy them. Free or not free doesn't really apply to rights.