Tax Per Mile Cometh!

[Anti Federalist]

Tax Per Mile Cometh!

by eric • March 11, 2015

http://ericpetersautos.com/2015/03/11/tax-per-mile-cometh/

Oregon – home of things uber trendy – has become the first state to begin dunning motorists by the mile rather than by the gallon.

The “pilot” program begins July 1 — and will be implemented by the Oregon DOT in partnership with something called Sanef ITS Technologies America and Intelligent Mechatronic Systems. Sounds a lot like Cyberdyne Systems from the Terminator movies, doesn’t it?

And the similarities run a lot deeper than that.

To make this work (for Uncle) your car must be fitted with some type of real-time monitoring device that keeps track of your mileage and reports it to Uncle (well, his helpers) who will then either send you a bill or perhaps automatically debit your account.

Kind of like federal tax withholding on wheels.

In Oregon, this means a little widget like the one you may have seen the white-coated Progressive Insurance Lady hawking. It plugs into the Onboard Diagnostics (OBD) port that all cars manufactured since the mid-1990s have. Then ties into your car’s computer, where the data about your mileage and (cue Darth Sideous voice) many other things are stored. Including your speed, rate of acceleration, whether you’re wearing a seatbelt.

You probably can see where that’s headed.

In addition, the device has the ability to act as a locator beacon – relaying data about where you are, where you’re headed. And, of course, where you’ve been.

We’re talking send and receive capability here, too. If they can upload your mileage (and other data) they can also transmit instructions to your car’s computer to shut ‘er down – as punishment for not having paid a traffic ticket, for instance.

Or just because they can.

Uncle and his acolytes are big fans of just because they can.

Keep in mind that this wasn’t put to a vote. It was simply decided. (You Chimp fans out there, take note. You bear a heavy burden of guilt for cheering “decidership” at the national level, which made it increasingly acceptable at the state level.) No one elected the “Flos” within the Oregon DOT; like the EPA (and the NHTSA) they legislate and decree regardless. So much for “consent of the governed,” which can’t be said with a straight face these days by any person not a blithering idiot (or a partei ideologue).

Anyhow, the point is this vehicular eTyranny is going to spread. Oregon is merely a kind of Beta testing ground. Other states will follow. The feds will “incentivize” the recalcitrant. Within five years, it will be a nationwide regime. And then they will argue that owners of cars built before OBD – which do not have the ability to “plug in” (and be monitored/taxed) aren’t “paying their fair share.” These older car owners will then be told their cars must be retrofitted with the necessary electronics or taken off the road.

If you can’t feel this coming in your bones by now, I can’t help you.

And you can thank (ironically enough) the government’s fuel economy fatwas and its pushing of hybrid and electric vehicle technology for all of it. Remember when we were soothed that such things would be good things because they’d save us money? Fewer fill-ups! Go farther, spend less to get there! Well, instead of being chokeholded by ExxonMobil, we’re going to be chokeholded by Uncle. Who is pissed because he’s been shorted, as he sees it.

The increasingly fuel-efficient fleet is using less gas, which means less gas tax collected. This is bad. Less tax extracted being always bad.

So, the argument goes, there must be a way to rebalance the scales (in Uncle’s favor). That way is taxing ‘em by the mile.

And so, here we are.

But they had to have foreseen this.

The reduced revenue stream from the motor fuels taxes as a result of – wait for it – cars that use less fuel.

Which begs a question, or at least makes one wonder… .

Could it have been the object of the exercise all along? To use a “lateral” to get the populace to accept having their driving electronically kept track of? To end-run the pesky resistance of a certain segment of the population to driving cars without OBD ports, computers and “black box” data recording capability?

Could Uncle and his acolytes be that clever?

I think so, yes.

As has been observed before, when alleged “stupidity” always (always!) seems to trend in one direction, it implies something other than stupidity. The stupid are all over the place.

The smart traject consistently.

This, then, is merely another brick in the wall. Driving – and the ownership of a car – has long been a conditional privilege. No longer a right. This business will simply make it more so. Uncle (and Flo) will be riding shotgun henceforth. But it’s merely the capstone, a fait accompli.

Unless you drive a really old car – pre-1970s – you already drive the kind of car they want you to drive. With the features and equipment they insist you’ll have. You are no longer allowed to have the kind of car you want.

Not for decades.

The driver’s license, meanwhile, has become a “real” ID… your internal passport, without which you become an unperson right now (unable to travel by airplane, car or train) and perhaps much worse down the line.

The net cinches tighter.

I read recently that something on the order of one-third of all young people in the 16-25 demographic have never had a driver’s license and don’t want one, either. They appear to have done the math. Cars – driving – it’s not what it once was. It used to be about freedom – about fun. Now it’s about being controlled and dunned.

No wonder the love affair is headed for divorce court.

[Acala]

Unlike AF, I am not a fan of public roads. They lead to endless problems. But given the reality of public roads, why should they not be paid for by the people who use them in proportion to the amount which they use them? Seems more fair than a gasoline tax.

[Weston White]

Unlike AF, I am not a fan of public roads. They lead to endless problems. But given the reality of public roads, why should they not be paid for by the people who use them in proportion to the amount which they use them? Seems more fair than a gasoline tax.

Because there is no true or accurate correlation between vehicle mileage, travel routes, and the wear and tear of roadways. Roadways are damaged much more so by extreme heat and cold, weather, wind, rainfall, and shifting earth, including commercial or agricultural vehicles.

[Southron]

I reckon they will have to outlaw older vehicles then.

[tod evans]

I reckon they will have to outlaw older vehicles then.

It's coming..:mad:

[Superfly]

Oh as soon as a semi reliable automated car exists, manual driving will be outlawed. THEN, it will be way easier to track movements.

[DamianTV]

Why all this spying?


The amount a state needs to expend on guard labour is a function of how much legitimacy the state holds in its population’s reckoning. A state whose population mainly views the system as fair needs to do less coercion to attain stability. People who believe that they are well-served by the status quo will not work to upset it. States whose populations view the system as illegitimate need to spend more on guard labour.

Why spy? Because it’s cheaper than playing fair. Our networks have given the edge to the elites, and unless we seize the means of information, we are headed for a long age of IT-powered feudalism, where property is the exclusive domain of the super-rich, where your surveillance-supercharged Internet of Things treats you as a tenant-farmer of your life, subject to a licence agreement instead of a constitution.

The solution for Govt to Big Govt is even MOAR GOVT! So why wouldnt the same thing apply to the little guy? The solution to the poor having very little is to make them even poorer by taking even more money from them! The Right to Travel will soom become a Priviledge for the Priviledged ONLY.

[Origanalist]

They are making noises about it here too. I do a lot of bitching about leaving this State but that would definitely send me eastward.

[jmdrake]

Why all this spying?

Because they know they can get away with it.

[jmdrake]

Unlike AF, I am not a fan of public roads. They lead to endless problems. But given the reality of public roads, why should they not be paid for by the people who use them in proportion to the amount which they use them? Seems more fair than a gasoline tax.

I'm not buying the whole "Government is losing so much money" crap. Maybe Oregon is different, but I don't see that many Smartcars (tm) on the road. And they get great gas mileage because they weigh like nothing which means they aren't doing any real damage to the road. Besides, most road damage is due to weather.

Here is a crazy idea. Rome used to pay for roads this way. They planted olive trees along the roads, gave the trees away, and the people who owned the trees had to maintain that section of the road. So, medical marijuana is legal in Oregon right? See where I'm going with this?

[ghengis86]

I'm not a fan of this, but why not just do an odometer check with the yearly/bi-yearly registration renewal? Simpler, cost effective and not intrusive. Granted, doesn't discriminate between in state and out if state miles, but whatever. Cost for living with a tyrannical government staffed by busy-bodies wanting to tell other people how to live.

Oh yeah, it's about control. And nothing more. You are cattle, we own you, we will milk you until you do not produce enough and then once you stop being a useful revenue source, we'll grind you into hamburger.

[jmdrake]

I'm not buying the whole "Government is losing so much money" crap. Maybe Oregon is different, but I don't see that many Smartcars (tm) on the road. And they get great gas mileage because they weigh like nothing which means they aren't doing any real damage to the road. Besides, most road damage is due to weather.

Here is a crazy idea. Rome used to pay for roads this way. They planted olive trees along the roads, gave the trees away, and the people who owned the trees had to maintain that section of the road. So, medical marijuana is legal in Oregon right? See where I'm going with this?

Here's a take off on the same crazy idea. Say if there were solar powered wifi hubs along the roads? One every mile or so? They could even be on top of billboards which would give them an extended range. Anybody who wanted to could pay a reasonable rate to use the service. Or the service could be funded by an ad page that made patrons sign in again, after watching a short video, every so many minutes. Think of all of the parents with kids who would be happy to use this service so their kids could watch their favorite shows while riding down the highway. Or people like me with limited data plans that sometimes skip out on GPS navigation because we're run out for that month.

[oyarde]

Fuck all of this shit .

[AuH20]

Sounds like Agenda 21.

[Acala]

I'm not buying the whole "Government is losing so much money" crap. Maybe Oregon is different, but I don't see that many Smartcars (tm) on the road. And they get great gas mileage because they weigh like nothing which means they aren't doing any real damage to the road. Besides, most road damage is due to weather.

Here is a crazy idea. Rome used to pay for roads this way. They planted olive trees along the roads, gave the trees away, and the people who owned the trees had to maintain that section of the road. So, medical marijuana is legal in Oregon right? See where I'm going with this?

People should pay for the services they use. Simple. I don't think government should be the service provider, but if it is, then the people who use the service should pay.

How much wear is caused by weather is irrelevant. The road provider can't charge God for the damage done to the roads. The payment for construction and maintenance of the roads needs to come from the users in accord with the amount they use the road, just like any private sector service. Or you pay for an unlimited pass based on time. Bigger, heavier vehicles pay more. Whatever. As long as the user pays. That's how the market would do it. Forcing one group of people to pay for services other people use is unfair.

[Slave Mentality]

Because there is no true or accurate correlation between vehicle mileage, travel routes, and the wear and tear of roadways. Roadways are damaged much more so by extreme heat and cold, weather, wind, rainfall, and shifting earth, including commercial or agricultural vehicles.

I am very familiar with AASHTO highway design standards and there are methods in estimating pavement damage (**Focusing solely on traffic here**). ALL vehicular loads are converted to what is called and ESAL (equivalent single axle load), which is quantified as one pass of an 18,000 LB single axle load. Let me do some math for you, so bare with me. The numbers I am using for ESALs can be looked up in the AASHTO highway design manual.

ESAL (4,000 LB car) = 0.0006 ESAL +/-
ESAL (50,000 LB fully loaded big rig) = 5.03 ESAL +/-

Ratio = 8383 CARS for every 1 ESAL

What does it mean? Well, it means that every loaded big rig you see on the road is doing the same damage on its pass as the equivalent of about 8,300 Prii. In pavement design there is no input for passenger car traffic because passenger car damage to the road is uniformly considered negligent. Weather and big rigs do 99% + of the road damage. Cars don't matter. The problem for the thieves is that if they taxed proportionally to road damage alone then the truckers would have to carry us all.

Please note that pavement design is much more complicated. I am just trying to convey the big picture.

I won't even try to guess how much of the more-than-enough existing taxes are pissed away. I am sure most of it. There are bridges to nowhere everywhere.

Conclusion: Fuck politicians and fuck the agencies acting like them.

[asurfaholic]

Fuck all of this shit .



Truth my thoughts exactly

[jmdrake]

People should pay for the services they use. Simple. I don't think government should be the service provider, but if it is, then the people who use the service should pay.

People already do. It's called a gas tax. (Duh!) The point that I made, that you either missed or don't wish to address, is that this whole "Our tax revenues are going to hell because of fuel efficient and/or electric cars" is just BS. The overwhelming majority of the people on the road drive gas guzzling cars, myself included. And I'm not willing to give up my privacy just so some rich hippy with a Tesla can pay his fair share.



Forcing one group of people to pay for services other people use is unfair.

Forcing people who are already paying to give up their privacy just so you can stupidly make someone else pay just to spite them is unfair to the people who are paying and want their privacy. I can live without your kind of "fairness."

[Brian4Liberty]

I am very familiar with AASHTO highway design standards and there are methods in estimating pavement damage (**Focusing solely on traffic here**). ALL vehicular loads are converted to what is called and ESAL (equivalent single axle load), which is quantified as one pass of an 18,000 LB single axle load. Let me do some math for you, so bare with me. The numbers I am using for ESALs can be looked up in the AASHTO highway design manual.

ESAL (4,000 LB car) = 0.0006 ESAL +/-
ESAL (50,000 LB fully loaded big rig) = 5.03 ESAL +/-

Ratio = 8383 CARS for every 1 ESAL

What does it mean? Well, it means that every loaded big rig you see on the road is doing the same damage on its pass as the equivalent of about 8,300 Prii. In pavement design there is no input for passenger car traffic because passenger car damage to the road is uniformly considered negligent. Weather and big rigs do 99% + of the road damage. Cars don't matter. The problem for the thieves is that if they taxed proportionally to road damage alone then the truckers would have to carry us all.

Please note that pavement design is much more complicated. I am just trying to convey the big picture.

I won't even try to guess how much of the more-than-enough existing taxes are pissed away. I am sure most of it. There are bridges to nowhere everywhere.

Conclusion: Fuck politicians and fuck the agencies acting like them.

Interesting. So it's actually all of the common passenger vehicles that are subsidizing trucking traffic?

[Acala]

People already do. It's called a gas tax. (Duh!) The point that I made, that you either missed or don't wish to address, is that this whole "Our tax revenues are going to hell because of fuel efficient and/or electric cars" is just BS. The overwhelming majority of the people on the road drive gas guzzling cars, myself included. And I'm not willing to give up my privacy just so some rich hippy with a Tesla can pay his fair share.




Forcing people who are already paying to give up their privacy just so you can stupidly make someone else pay just to spite them is unfair to the people who are paying and want their privacy. I can live without your kind of "fairness."

I never said a thing about concern for government revenue. But assuming you want government to provide roads (I don't), somebody must pay for it and it should be those who use the roads. Contrary to your assumption, a gas tax is only an approximation for road use. Why would you not simply make a direct measurement of road use rather then pretend you are doing so?

[Slave Mentality]

Interesting. So it's actually all of the common passenger vehicles that are subsidizing trucking traffic?

Pretty much. Local roads are paid for a little differently and there's still a lot of roads out there that see very little truck traffic.

[Ronin Truth]

Then after we're all properly micro chipped, they'll just plug us in for calculating the taxes on walking per mile, etc..

[Brian4Liberty]

I never said a thing about concern for government revenue. But assuming you want government to provide roads (I don't), somebody must pay for it and it should be those who use the roads. Contrary to your assumption, a gas tax is only an approximation for road use. Why would you not simply make a direct measurement of road use rather then pretend you are doing so?

And apparently mileage is only an approximation of road wear. One could say that gas usage somewhat measures road wear indirectly, as both are a function of vehicle weight.

As far as why not actual mileage... Because it's backdoor big brother surveillance, unless it is only based upon annual odometer readings.

[Acala]

And apparently mileage is only an approximation of road wear. One could say that gas usage somewhat measures road wear indirectly, as both are a function of vehicle weight.

As far as why not actual mileage... Because it's backdoor big brother surveillance, unless it is only based upon annual odometer readings.



Why is everyone focused on road wear? The price you pay for internet service isn't determined by how much you wear down the lines or the server. The cost of dental work has very little to do with the wear and tear on the tools. Certainly a rational allocation of cost might INCLUDE estimated road wear, but I can't think of any reason that should predominate.

In fact, bicycles and pedestrians should not get a subsidy either. Bike lanes and crosswalks must be maintained also. And God knows not a minute goes by that some pedestrian or cyclist doesn't get tagged by a car and sue the taxpayers for liability.

If I were a private road owner, NOBODY gets to use the road for free unless they are a charity case. You pansies in the spandex bike tights are gonna pay! Why should the government let some use it for free and charge others who aren't using it at all?

I'm writing half in jest here, and I do appreciate the privacy concern, but I am tired of repeating all the reasons government should not run the roads. This is just reason 287. But if it IS going to run the roads, then everyone who benefits should share the cost and the cost should be right up front, not hidden in taxes elsewhere, so everybody feels the burden every time they have to pay the bill.

[Anti Federalist]

Unlike AF, I am not a fan of public roads. They lead to endless problems. But given the reality of public roads, why should they not be paid for by the people who use them in proportion to the amount which they use them? Seems more fair than a gasoline tax.

When you explain to me how a superhighway can be built without using eminent domain, then we'll talk.

You do, it's called a fuel tax. Use more fuel, to drive more miles or push a heavier weight load down the road, pay more tax.

But if that's not enough taxation for you, then fine, go ahead, tax by mile.

Have a notary read your odometer every year and pay a tax for every mile when you renew your registration.

Why do you need the onboard, real time, big brother boxes, unless the real reason isn't taxation.

[KCIndy]

Fuck all of this shit .

Thread winner.


<<You must spread some reputation around before giving it to Oyarde again>>

[Acala]

double post

[Acala]

When you explain to me how a superhighway can be built without using eminent domain, then we'll talk.

You do, it's called a fuel tax. Use more fuel, to drive more miles or push a heavier weight load down the road, pay more tax.

But if that's not enough taxation for you, then fine, go ahead, tax by mile.

Have a notary read your odometer every year and pay a tax for every mile when you renew your registration.

Why do you need the onboard, real time, big brother boxes, unless the real reason isn't taxation.

The Great Northern Railroad was built without eminent domain. And without resort to the army to kill the indians. They actually bargained with the landowners and acquired the rights without the threat of violence. Imagine! The Colonial turnpikes in the East were also built without eminent domain. But it's always easier to use violence. And that seems to be okay with you as long as it is for some purpose you like.

The idea that nothing big can be built unless government can shove people off their property at gunpoint is just another myth used to justify government violence. Interesting that you would fall for it.

I'm okay with using an odometer reading. But that still doesn't capture other uses as mentioned in my other post.

[nobody's_hero]

I never said a thing about concern for government revenue. But assuming you want government to provide roads (I don't), somebody must pay for it and it should be those who use the roads. Contrary to your assumption, a gas tax is only an approximation for road use. Why would you not simply make a direct measurement of road use rather then pretend you are doing so?

Heavier vehicles tend to use more gas, and heavier vehicles tend to do more damage to the road. If it goes to mileage-based taxation, are you gonna charge the Honda motorcycle rider the same amount as the guy who drives his Ford F-450 to work, provided they both travel the same distance to their work destinations?

This whole 'fair share' talk is a bunch of hype. It's more like, 'government wasted all your gas tax money, so now they need you to pay by mile and hope they don't waste that too.'

Georgia is toying with this idea as well, and it's not surprising, given our state's notorious record for wasted transportation funding. One of the main reasons cited for the defeat of the TSPLOST a few years back was a lack of trust in the state government to spend that money wisely.

Why is everyone focused on road wear?

Most use that issue as an excuse to push towards this method of funding. Like jmdrake said, if paying more than the guy driving the solar car means I get to maintain some degree of privacy, let me pay more at the pumps. My privacy means more to me than 'fairness'.

[Anti Federalist]

A railroad requires a 10 foot wide ROW.

An eight lane superhighway requires damn near a quarter mile.

I don't like the idea of using violence to steal someone's property just to turn it over to somebody else to make more money with, which is what you want to do.

That said, I'm all for more railroads that can haul more cargo, using less fuel, with much less impact than roads, especially if they can be built on freely negotiated rights of way.

But remember, it was the precedent set by the railroads that used government eminent domain in the 19th century that SCROTUS used to justify the awful Kelo v. New London decision.



The Great Northern Railroad was built without eminent domain. And without resort to the army to kill the indians. They actually bargained with the landowners and acquired the rights without the threat of violence. Imagine! The Colonial turnpikes in the East were also built without eminent domain. But it's always easier to use violence. And that seems to be okay with you as long as it is for some purpose you like.

The idea that nothing big can be built unless government can shove people off their property at gunpoint is just another myth used to justify government violence. Interesting that you would fall for it.

I'm okay with using an odometer reading. But that still doesn't capture other uses as mentioned in my other post.

[Acala]

I don't like the idea of using violence to steal someone's property just to turn it over to somebody else to make more money with, which is what you want to do..

? My idea is to have no government roads at all. Just voluntary transactions.


But remember, it was the precedent set by the railroads that used government eminent domain in the 19th century that SCROTUS used to justify the awful Kelo v. New London decision.

I am arguing AGAINST eminent domain. You are arguing FOR it. So not really sure what you are talking about here.

And if the violence of eminent domain actually IS required for super highways, then I guess we don't have super highways because the right of people to be free of violent coercion is more important than superhighways.

[Anti Federalist]

And if the violence of eminent domain actually IS required for super highways, then I guess we don't have super highways because the right of people to be free of violent coercion is more important than superhighways.

It is.

[paleocon1]

Because there is no true or accurate correlation between vehicle mileage, travel routes, and the wear and tear of roadways. Roadways are damaged much more so by extreme heat and cold, weather, wind, rainfall, and shifting earth, including commercial or agricultural vehicles.

which would still require repairs costs be paid by users. What is objectionable about the mileage meters is the tracking feature. Fortunately some friends of liberty are already working on ways to deceive these devices.

[Anti Federalist]

When you kick me off your private road for not following "policy" where is the competition to choose from?

[Danke]

When you kick me off your private road for not following "policy" where is the competition to choose from?

I think as a sailor you could sue them for discrimination.

[Anti Federalist]

I think as a sailor you could sue them for discrimination.

At least the ocean is not subsidized.

Just under surveillance.

[phill4paul]

Not like I haven't been anticipating it....

http://media.treehugger.com/assets/images/2011/10/hoover-cart.jpg

[jmdrake]

I never said a thing about concern for government revenue. But assuming you want government to provide roads (I don't), somebody must pay for it and it should be those who use the roads. Contrary to your assumption, a gas tax is only an approximation for road use. Why would you not simply make a direct measurement of road use rather then pretend you are doing so?

There's more than enough money coming from the gas tax to pay for the roads. And if there isn't, raise the tax. The idea that everyone must "pay their fair share" sounds like socialism. I, as someone who is paying the gas tax, have a right to choose that and letting some few people driving electric cars go free if I value my privacy over your fake "fairness." Why do you not care about privacy? If you really want to go after the electric car people, charge them more for their license plates. I don't care. But you can't have my privacy just because of your misplaced sense of "fairness." Besides I've already given two different scenarios where highway maintenance could be covered without any taxes and still keeping public roads. You haven't even mentioned that so frankly I don't take your whole "I just want to make sure someone pays for it" argument seriously.

[jmdrake]

Why is everyone focused on road wear?

LOL. Are you freaking kidding me? Without the cost caused by road wear there would be no need for revenue for the roads at all. :rolleyes:



The price you pay for internet service isn't determined by how much you wear down the lines or the server.

Your ISP is a for profit company. That said, Internet companies have toyed with the equivalent of wear and tear on the server (bandwith) for the amount they charge. In fact you can pay more to get more bandwidth so your own example proves you wrong.



The cost of dental work has very little to do with the wear and tear on the tools. Certainly a rational allocation of cost might INCLUDE estimated road wear, but I can't think of any reason that should predominate.

It has a lot to do with the amount of time the dentist has to spend on your teeth. That's analogous to the amount of time road crews have to spend fixing the road due to wear and tear. Again your own examples proves you wrong.



In fact, bicycles and pedestrians should not get a subsidy either. Bike lanes and crosswalks must be maintained also. And God knows not a minute goes by that some pedestrian or cyclist doesn't get tagged by a car and sue the taxpayers for liability.

:rolleyes: If a pedestrian gets hit by a car the car owner is the one who gets sued, not the taxpayer. Anyway, I guess you want pedestrians to have an implanted chip so the government can tell how far they walked?



If I were a private road owner, NOBODY gets to use the road for free unless they are a charity case. You pansies in the spandex bike tights are gonna pay! Why should the government let some use it for free and charge others who aren't using it at all?

Go raise your billions, secure the required rights of way (good luck with that), and open up yourself a road. I"m not stopping you.


I'm writing half in jest here, and I do appreciate the privacy concern, but I am tired of repeating all the reasons government should not run the roads. This is just reason 287. But if it IS going to run the roads, then everyone who benefits should share the cost and the cost should be right up front, not hidden in taxes elsewhere, so everybody feels the burden every time they have to pay the bill.

Really? Because you just pushed me further in the direction away from private ownership of roads. If you were sensible and said "Everyone can ride my road for free and I will make a ton of money off the ad revenue the way Google does of its search engine" I'd be all for it.

[devil21]

How could they possibly retrofit so many cars for this nationally? I sure as hell won't pay for someone to install a taxing and tracking system in my car. A lot of other people won't either. I've been wondering if this massive amount of airbag recalls lately isn't a testing and conditioning exercise to see how many people will respond to a "safety recall"....

[Anti Federalist]

How could they possibly retrofit so many cars for this nationally? I sure as hell won't pay for someone to install a taxing and tracking system in my car. A lot of other people won't either. I've been wondering if this massive amount of airbag recalls lately isn't a testing and conditioning exercise to see how many people will respond to a "safety recall"....

Then you won't drive.

The scanners and plate readers will nail you in 15 minutes.

[KCIndy]

How could they possibly retrofit so many cars for this nationally? I sure as hell won't pay for someone to install a taxing and tracking system in my car. A lot of other people won't either. I've been wondering if this massive amount of airbag recalls lately isn't a testing and conditioning exercise to see how many people will respond to a "safety recall"....


For 95% of the cars on the road, there is no need for retrofitting. Just a module plugged in to the car's computer system. For most cars, it would be almost as simple as plugging a flash drive into a USB port.

Even for pre-90s cars, the tech wouldn't be too hard. Anyone use a GPS system like a Garmin or TomTom or Rand McNally? Same basic thing. The only extra difficulty might be hard wiring it into the electrical system. :(

[Anti Federalist]

For 95% of the cars on the road, there is no need for retrofitting. Just a module plugged in to the car's computer system. For most cars, it would be almost as simple as plugging a flash drive into a USB port.

Even for pre-90s cars, the tech wouldn't be too hard. Anyone use a GPS system like a Garmin or TomTom or Rand McNally? Same basic thing. The only extra difficulty might be hard wiring it into the electrical system. :(

Any car sold in the US past 1995 will have the standardized OBDII port.

[devil21]

Then you won't drive.

The scanners and plate readers will nail you in 15 minutes.

Well, there are other alternatives for those 'in the know'. That's all I'll say on that but you probably know what I'm talkin about.

[amy31416]

Haha. Most of you think that this new tax on mileage will end the gas tax.

Sorry kids, you're gonna get taxed twice.

[jmdrake]

How could they possibly retrofit so many cars for this nationally? I sure as hell won't pay for someone to install a taxing and tracking system in my car. A lot of other people won't either. I've been wondering if this massive amount of airbag recalls lately isn't a testing and conditioning exercise to see how many people will respond to a "safety recall"....

It won't be rolled in nationally. It will be rolled in slowly state by state like emission standards.

[devil21]

It won't be rolled in nationally. It will be rolled in slowly state by state like emission standards.

It's a federal initiative, right? States will sign on as it rolls out but it's a federal gas tax 'replacement' (read: addition), isn't it? It's not a state thing.

[satchelmcqueen]

i wont participate, but a lot like the obamacare tax or the "shared responsibility tax" i just had TAKEN from me, this to will be the way they do it. they will simply take it from YOU. there is no choice but revolt by these other pussies we call americans. for fucks sake!! can we ever stand up together against this bullshit and stop it? i mean really? just fuck me in the ass running,

[devil21]

i wont participate, but a lot like the obamacare tax or the "shared responsibility tax" i just had TAKEN from me, this to will be the way they do it. they will simply take it from YOU. there is no choice but revolt by these other pussies we call americans. for fucks sake!! can we ever stand up together against this bullshit and stop it? i mean really? just fuck me in the ass running,

That's why the media is in non-stop divide and conquer mode with no sign of letting up. Keep the little people fighting each other over trivial differences (and in most cases, things that can't be changed any way like race and gender) while the clamps tighten down on everyone.

[Origanalist]

I'm not a fan of this, but why not just do an odometer check with the yearly/bi-yearly registration renewal? Simpler, cost effective and not intrusive. Granted, doesn't discriminate between in state and out if state miles, but whatever. Cost for living with a tyrannical government staffed by busy-bodies wanting to tell other people how to live.

Oh yeah, it's about control. And nothing more. You are cattle, we own you, we will milk you until you do not produce enough and then once you stop being a useful revenue source, we'll grind you into hamburger.

Yep, that's pretty much the whole thing in a nutshell.

[ChristianAnarchist]

I'm actually all for "user fees" paying for transportation. That said, "government" can never be trusted to charge a fair price because they are not governed by the market. If they were to eliminate all other forms of money steeling and instead charge user fees it would be preferable to what we have now but of course we all know that will never happen. They will keep the existing theft system and just add another theft system...

[Brian4Liberty]

That's why the media is in non-stop divide and conquer mode with no sign of letting up. Keep the little people fighting each other over trivial differences (and in most cases, things that can't be changed any way like race and gender) while the clamps tighten down on everyone.

Look over there! Gay marriage! What you gonna do about that? Idiot frat boys singing stupid songs about the war on women's equal pay for equal votes! Iran's gonna nuke Crimea and we're all gonna die in Lindsey Graham's basement bunker chamber!

[Origanalist]

Look over there! Gay marriage! What you gonna do about that? Idiot frat boys singing stupid songs about the war on women's equal pay for equal votes! Iran's gonna nuke Crimea and we're all gonna die in Lindsey Graham's basement bunker chamber!

I know. WTF? It's a never ending litany of "look at the shiny thing!!!!!".

[Gaddafi Duck]

When you kick me off your private road for not following "policy" where is the competition to choose from?

LOL! Whoa whoa whoa, wait a minute---AF is pro-eminent domain AND public highways??? I mean, both concepts totally violate the root foundation of libertarian philosophy. You basically sacrificed the "non-aggression principle" for expediency...

"Well, I WANT to road trip, but the last time I did it I didn't follow the private road owner's policy by driving 100 mph drunk, and so now I'm banned for a year; ergo, we should have public roads and eminent domain to encourage competition."

I mean just incredible.

For starters, if the government wasn't siphoning off 50% of our GDP for the past century, roads would be anachronisms. Also, America had the most successful commercial railroads up until the government drove them out of business in the 1950s with the construction of the Interstate Highway System, which was essentially millions of acres of productive land seized via eminent domain from thousands of landowners, all for the sake of providing "costless" aka "free" transportation. Had these events not have happened, America would have easily transitioned to bullet trains traveling 300 mph or more vs. the 60-75 mph highway/interstate speeds you are constricted to.

Also, I find it hilarious AF would bitch about a private road owner's "policy" being "violated" and thus prohibiting you from driving. Uhmmmm...how about the public road owner aka the government??? If you violate THEIR policy, you LITERALLY have NO recourse. Get caught driving on a private road you aren't supposed to be on and minimal penalties are incurred; drive on a public road you're banned from and you can get freakin' prison time and hefty fines.

I mean, what happened here?? I find it hard to believe AF can be everything he says he is, but then conclude he's in favor of eminent domain and public roads because it's more convenient to seize land so that he can road trip. Kind of defeats the whole purpose of being a libertarian. Granted, there is no "set" libertarian where they all have to be identical, but they all are rooted in the same principle of non-violence....yet you conclude a rather barbaric act as legitimate: seizing land because you want to drive on it.

[CaptainAmerica]

fuck this shit, and fuck these tyrants.

[devil21]

I know. WTF? It's a never ending litany of "look at the shiny thing!!!!!".


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekWIK-GlFRI

Watch car insurance commercials for conditioning clues. Dupe looks a bit like Adam Lanza doesn't he?

Who can tell me the conditioning clue in this Esurance commercial?

https://www.esurance.com/commercials/saves

[DamianTV]

Then after we're all properly micro chipped, they'll just plug us in for calculating the taxes on walking per mile, etc..

After that, you'll have a breathing tax.

[paleocon1]

LOL. Are you freaking kidding me? Without the cost caused by road wear there would be no need for revenue for the roads at all................

Really? Because you just pushed me further in the direction away from private ownership of roads. If you were sensible and said "Everyone can ride my road for free and I will make a ton of money off the ad revenue the way Google does of its search engine" I'd be all for it.

That one is well within the ten most economically illiterate statements I have ever read. Obviously this gent has no concept of the cost of physical infrastructure.

[Working Poor]

My state says they want to charge an extra $200 a year to register a car and end the state gasoline tax.

[tod evans]

That one is well within the ten most economically illiterate statements I have ever read. Obviously this gent has no concept of the cost of physical infrastructure.

Physical infrastructure as billed and reported by government and her contractors or the actual costs that would be incurred by private industry free from government mandates?

Something tells me you're using figures from the same folks who buy $500.00 hammers and $1500.00 toilet seats......

[Schifference]

People should pay for the services they use. Simple. I don't think government should be the service provider, but if it is, then the people who use the service should pay.

How much wear is caused by weather is irrelevant. The road provider can't charge God for the damage done to the roads. The payment for construction and maintenance of the roads needs to come from the users in accord with the amount they use the road, just like any private sector service. Or you pay for an unlimited pass based on time. Bigger, heavier vehicles pay more. Whatever. As long as the user pays. That's how the market would do it. Forcing one group of people to pay for services other people use is unfair.

The user of the service should pay for the service!

Very good! Parents with children in school should pay for schools! Garbage trucks should accurately determine how much garbage you dispose of and your expense should be based on your disposal. If you do not drive a vehicle you should pay no tax for any road maintenance. No snow removal, street sweeping, anything associated with roads. If I do not own a car and walk I do not need snow plowed streets. Drivers should subsidize homeowners for all the snow the snow plows keep pushing onto the sidewalk that homeowners are mandated to maintain.

People that consume food should pay for it. No more entitlement food stamps/EBT. People that go to a doctor should pay for it no more free medical.

First they taxed your income. Then they mandated health care. Then they took over the internet. Now they come after the automobiles. The government wants a piece of everything.

Do you think we will still be driving automobiles with tires on asphalt in 50 years? If/when roads become obsolete who will pay for all those unneeded roads to be removed?

I agree everything should be pay as you go. But there should be no subsidies or loop holes.

When I purchase a car in CT, first I have to earn money and use after tax disposable income to purchase it. Then I pay a sales tax. Then every year I pay property tax for owning the vehicle.

What happens a few years into the program when people drive less or not at all and there is still not enough to pay for the infrastructure?

Government should shut down. Let the roads go to hell. Stop policing. Stop schooling, fighting fires. Stop every "service" Anything I want I am wiling to pay for.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0vjaCaIeEk&spfreload=10

[otherone]

I reckon they will have to outlaw older vehicles then.

Nah, they'll have a trade-in program called "Cash for Privacy".

[paleocon1]

Physical infrastructure as billed and reported by government and her contractors or the actual costs that would be incurred by private industry free from government mandates?

Something tells me you're using figures from the same folks who buy $500.00 hammers and $1500.00 toilet seats......

Ah, yes $500 hammers and $1500 toilet seats for the State. Turns out they often are not as unreasonable as you assume and even have close analogs in purely private commerce.

A few years back as a young engineer I was given a task to assist in preparing revisions to a special tool kit for servicing a gizmo installed on 10 or a dozen USAF B-52's. Part of that tool kit was a c.o.t.s. (commercial off the shelf pair of pliers which were just plain awkward to use in the field. I spent a day with a mechanic on a B-52 fiddling with the tool basic and after I had two trims and a notch cut into the basic tool. My rework made the pliers much more functional for the task in hand. On the farm or at Jeff's Auto Repair or the County Gravel Pit my job would be done. Small organisations- very face to face, no need for extensive processes and record keeping. The effort STILL costs the time of those involved but this being production for use rather than production for sale does not involve exchange denominated in fiat currency.

Large organisations are not that way. I had to document my new tool- Engineering drawings (those from beginning to formal release to database took a week of my time plus the time of many others who had to vett and verify. Then there are all of the folks who manage the enterprise, who make sure the paychecks are on time and the trash is emptied at night and the utilities all function and administer contracts with customers. Typically that load on my work is about twice what I am paid as an engineer in salary and benefits. Sum all that cost and divide it by only twenty or so tools and YES those tools are very expensive, BUT they fulfilled a real need.

I am not at all sure that laying a stretch of road or building a bridge would be any 'cheaper' in an anarcho-capitalist world with tech similar to ours than it is here and today. The system inefficiencies and schemes for rent seeking would simply be different. The efficiency of small scale and diffuse decision making might exceed that of large scale and centralised decision making BUT.....the scope of the possible is also much less. Whether that is good or bad is pretty much a matter of taste.

[paleocon1]

The user of the service should pay for the service!

Very good! Parents with children in school should pay for schools! Garbage trucks should accurately determine how much garbage you dispose of and your expense should be based on your disposal. If you do not drive a vehicle you should pay no tax for any road maintenance. No snow removal, street sweeping, anything associated with roads. If I do not own a car and walk I do not need snow plowed streets. Drivers should subsidize homeowners for all the snow the snow plows keep pushing onto the sidewalk that homeowners are mandated to maintain.

People that consume food should pay for it. No more entitlement food stamps/EBT. People that go to a doctor should pay for it no more free medical.

First they taxed your income. Then they mandated health care. Then they took over the internet. Now they come after the automobiles. The government wants a piece of everything.

Do you think we will still be driving automobiles with tires on asphalt in 50 years? If/when roads become obsolete who will pay for all those unneeded roads to be removed?

I agree everything should be pay as you go. But there should be no subsidies or loop holes.

When I purchase a car in CT, first I have to earn money and use after tax disposable income to purchase it. Then I pay a sales tax. Then every year I pay property tax for owning the vehicle.

What happens a few years into the program when people drive less or not at all and there is still not enough to pay for the infrastructure?

Government should shut down. Let the roads go to hell. Stop policing. Stop schooling, fighting fires. Stop every "service" Anything I want I am wiling to pay for.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0vjaCaIeEk&spfreload=10

Yeah....................that has worked out very well for the Somali's.

[Anti Federalist]

LOL! Whoa whoa whoa, wait a minute---AF is pro-eminent domain AND public highways??? I mean, both concepts totally violate the root foundation of libertarian philosophy. You basically sacrificed the "non-aggression principle" for expediency...

"Well, I WANT to road trip, but the last time I did it I didn't follow the private road owner's policy by driving 100 mph drunk, and so now I'm banned for a year; ergo, we should have public roads and eminent domain to encourage competition."

I mean just incredible.

For starters, if the government wasn't siphoning off 50% of our GDP for the past century, roads would be anachronisms. Also, America had the most successful commercial railroads up until the government drove them out of business in the 1950s with the construction of the Interstate Highway System, which was essentially millions of acres of productive land seized via eminent domain from thousands of landowners, all for the sake of providing "costless" aka "free" transportation. Had these events not have happened, America would have easily transitioned to bullet trains traveling 300 mph or more vs. the 60-75 mph highway/interstate speeds you are constricted to.

Also, I find it hilarious AF would bitch about a private road owner's "policy" being "violated" and thus prohibiting you from driving. Uhmmmm...how about the public road owner aka the government??? If you violate THEIR policy, you LITERALLY have NO recourse. Get caught driving on a private road you aren't supposed to be on and minimal penalties are incurred; drive on a public road you're banned from and you can get freakin' prison time and hefty fines.

I mean, what happened here?? I find it hard to believe AF can be everything he says he is, but then conclude he's in favor of eminent domain and public roads because it's more convenient to seize land so that he can road trip. Kind of defeats the whole purpose of being a libertarian. Granted, there is no "set" libertarian where they all have to be identical, but they all are rooted in the same principle of non-violence....yet you conclude a rather barbaric act as legitimate: seizing land because you want to drive on it.

LOL, let me wade through the knee straw man blood here and try to straighten this out for you.

First, I am opposed to eminent domain, but I am most vehement in my opposition when it is used to steal property from one person, to turn it over to another to make a profit from. This provides incentives for the theft by placing a profit margin on them. I am opposed to "private" police and prison for the same reason.

Free market efficiencies and incentives should never, ever, be applied to institutions dedicated to taking people's land by force, or putting them in cages.

Second, I am all for trains, I already stated that: trains are efficient, minimally invasive, the rights of way are mostly already in place (reducing eminent domain takings), especially in congested areas of the country and safe. I have no issue with ending the "hidden costs" of roads, which can be addressed through tolls and gas taxes.

What I am opposed to here is the "real time" tracking of people and their movements through "big brother" tax boxes, which have little to do with taxes or "user fees" but yet another way in which government can keep a hairy eyeball on all of us.

Thirdly, I agree, step out of line just once on the government roads and you will subject to extremely harsh and punitive penalties. Why do you think I bitch about the "privilege to drive", the road blocks and the forced blood draws and implied consent and all the rest of it?

Basically the government treats the roads as belonging to them, as being "private".

And you see what you've got.

[Brian4Liberty]

LOL, let me wade through the knee straw man blood here and try to straighten this out for you.

AF sold out! You must do penance lest you be cast out like Rand for perceived dogma violation.

[acesfull]

Why do folks blindly surrender their rights in the first place?

[Suzanimal]

Why do folks blindly surrender their rights in the first place?

Roads, safetyness, terrorists, drugs, feelings... Hell, I dunno.

[Danke]

HBO
LOL! Whoa whoa whoa, wait a minute---AF is pro-eminent domain AND public highways??? I mean, both concepts totally violate the root foundation of libertarian philosophy. You basically sacrificed the "non-aggression principle" for expediency...

"Well, I WANT to road trip, but the last time I did it I didn't follow the private road owner's policy by driving 100 mph drunk, and so now I'm banned for a year; ergo, we should have public roads and eminent domain to encourage competition."

I mean just incredible.

For starters, if the government wasn't siphoning off 50% of our GDP for the past century, roads would be anachronisms. Also, America had the most successful commercial railroads up until the government drove them out of business in the 1950s with the construction of the Interstate Highway System, which was essentially millions of acres of productive land seized via eminent domain from thousands of landowners, all for the sake of providing "costless" aka "free" transportation. Had these events not have happened, America would have easily transitioned to bullet trains traveling 300 mph or more vs. the 60-75 mph highway/interstate speeds you are constricted to.

Also, I find it hilarious AF would bitch about a private road owner's "policy" being "violated" and thus prohibiting you from driving. Uhmmmm...how about the public road owner aka the government??? If you violate THEIR policy, you LITERALLY have NO recourse. Get caught driving on a private road you aren't supposed to be on and minimal penalties are incurred; drive on a public road you're banned from and you can get freakin' prison time and hefty fines.

I mean, what happened here?? I find it hard to believe AF can be everything he says he is, but then conclude he's in favor of eminent domain and public roads because it's more convenient to seize land so that he can road trip. Kind of defeats the whole purpose of being a libertarian. Granted, there is no "set" libertarian where they all have to be identical, but they all are rooted in the same principle of non-violence....yet you conclude a rather barbaric act as legitimate: seizing land because you want to drive on it.

There would not be the private roads you envision if it were not for a type in eminent domain on Native American lands to begin with.

[Danke]

Uu
LOL, let me wade through the knee straw man blood here and try to straighten this out for you.

First, I am opposed to eminent domain, but I am most vehement in my opposition when it is used to steal property from one person, to turn it over to another to make a profit from. This provides incentives for the theft by placing a profit margin on them. I am opposed to "private" police and prison for the same reason.

Free market efficiencies and incentives should never, ever, be applied to institutions dedicated to taking people's land by force, or putting them in cages.

Second, I am all for trains, I already stated that: trains are efficient, minimally invasive, the rights of way are mostly already in place (reducing eminent domain takings), especially in congested areas of the country and safe. I have no issue with ending the "hidden costs" of roads, which can be addressed through tolls and gas taxes.

What I am opposed to here is the "real time" tracking of people and their movements through "big brother" tax boxes, which have little to do with taxes or "user fees" but yet another way in which government can keep a hairy eyeball on all of us.

Thirdly, I agree, step out of line just once on the government roads and you will subject to extremely harsh and punitive penalties. Why do you think I bitch about the "privilege to drive", the road blocks and the forced blood draws and implied consent and all the rest of it?

Basically the government treats the roads as belonging to them, as being "private".

And you see what you've got.

And the courts have ruled it is not a privilege. You have the right to travel on public roads.

[jllundqu]

Tax Per Mile Cometh!

by eric • March 11, 2015

http://ericpetersautos.com/2015/03/11/tax-per-mile-cometh/

Oregon – home of things uber trendy – has become the first state to begin dunning motorists by the mile rather than by the gallon.

The “pilot” program begins July 1 — and will be implemented by the Oregon DOT in partnership with something called Sanef ITS Technologies America and Intelligent Mechatronic Systems. Sounds a lot like Cyberdyne Systems from the Terminator movies, doesn’t it?

And the similarities run a lot deeper than that.

To make this work (for Uncle) your car must be fitted with some type of real-time monitoring device that keeps track of your mileage and reports it to Uncle (well, his helpers) who will then either send you a bill or perhaps automatically debit your account.

Kind of like federal tax withholding on wheels.

In Oregon, this means a little widget like the one you may have seen the white-coated Progressive Insurance Lady hawking. It plugs into the Onboard Diagnostics (OBD) port that all cars manufactured since the mid-1990s have. Then ties into your car’s computer, where the data about your mileage and (cue Darth Sideous voice) many other things are stored. Including your speed, rate of acceleration, whether you’re wearing a seatbelt.

You probably can see where that’s headed.

In addition, the device has the ability to act as a locator beacon – relaying data about where you are, where you’re headed. And, of course, where you’ve been.

We’re talking send and receive capability here, too. If they can upload your mileage (and other data) they can also transmit instructions to your car’s computer to shut ‘er down – as punishment for not having paid a traffic ticket, for instance.

Or just because they can.

Uncle and his acolytes are big fans of just because they can.

Keep in mind that this wasn’t put to a vote. It was simply decided. (You Chimp fans out there, take note. You bear a heavy burden of guilt for cheering “decidership” at the national level, which made it increasingly acceptable at the state level.) No one elected the “Flos” within the Oregon DOT; like the EPA (and the NHTSA) they legislate and decree regardless. So much for “consent of the governed,” which can’t be said with a straight face these days by any person not a blithering idiot (or a partei ideologue).

Anyhow, the point is this vehicular eTyranny is going to spread. Oregon is merely a kind of Beta testing ground. Other states will follow. The feds will “incentivize” the recalcitrant. Within five years, it will be a nationwide regime. And then they will argue that owners of cars built before OBD – which do not have the ability to “plug in” (and be monitored/taxed) aren’t “paying their fair share.” These older car owners will then be told their cars must be retrofitted with the necessary electronics or taken off the road.

If you can’t feel this coming in your bones by now, I can’t help you.

And you can thank (ironically enough) the government’s fuel economy fatwas and its pushing of hybrid and electric vehicle technology for all of it. Remember when we were soothed that such things would be good things because they’d save us money? Fewer fill-ups! Go farther, spend less to get there! Well, instead of being chokeholded by ExxonMobil, we’re going to be chokeholded by Uncle. Who is pissed because he’s been shorted, as he sees it.

The increasingly fuel-efficient fleet is using less gas, which means less gas tax collected. This is bad. Less tax extracted being always bad.

So, the argument goes, there must be a way to rebalance the scales (in Uncle’s favor). That way is taxing ‘em by the mile.

And so, here we are.

But they had to have foreseen this.

The reduced revenue stream from the motor fuels taxes as a result of – wait for it – cars that use less fuel.

Which begs a question, or at least makes one wonder… .

Could it have been the object of the exercise all along? To use a “lateral” to get the populace to accept having their driving electronically kept track of? To end-run the pesky resistance of a certain segment of the population to driving cars without OBD ports, computers and “black box” data recording capability?

Could Uncle and his acolytes be that clever?

I think so, yes.

As has been observed before, when alleged “stupidity” always (always!) seems to trend in one direction, it implies something other than stupidity. The stupid are all over the place.

The smart traject consistently.

This, then, is merely another brick in the wall. Driving – and the ownership of a car – has long been a conditional privilege. No longer a right. This business will simply make it more so. Uncle (and Flo) will be riding shotgun henceforth. But it’s merely the capstone, a fait accompli.

Unless you drive a really old car – pre-1970s – you already drive the kind of car they want you to drive. With the features and equipment they insist you’ll have. You are no longer allowed to have the kind of car you want.

Not for decades.

The driver’s license, meanwhile, has become a “real” ID… your internal passport, without which you become an unperson right now (unable to travel by airplane, car or train) and perhaps much worse down the line.

The net cinches tighter.

I read recently that something on the order of one-third of all young people in the 16-25 demographic have never had a driver’s license and don’t want one, either. They appear to have done the math. Cars – driving – it’s not what it once was. It used to be about freedom – about fun. Now it’s about being controlled and dunned.

No wonder the love affair is headed for divorce court.

I sas this coming as soon as Progressive started their push... it was only a matter of time before it happened at a state level and only a matter of time before its forced on us all.

With the amount of technology on modern cars, this is akin to literally having big brother and uncle sam in the car with you. Privacy gone, money taken, statist victory.

[Gaddafi Duck]

LOL, let me wade through the knee straw man blood here and try to straighten this out for you.

First, I am opposed to eminent domain, but I am most vehement in my opposition when it is used to steal property from one person, to turn it over to another to make a profit from. This provides incentives for the theft by placing a profit margin on them. I am opposed to "private" police and prison for the same reason.

Free market efficiencies and incentives should never, ever, be applied to institutions dedicated to taking people's land by force, or putting them in cages.

Second, I am all for trains, I already stated that: trains are efficient, minimally invasive, the rights of way are mostly already in place (reducing eminent domain takings), especially in congested areas of the country and safe. I have no issue with ending the "hidden costs" of roads, which can be addressed through tolls and gas taxes.

What I am opposed to here is the "real time" tracking of people and their movements through "big brother" tax boxes, which have little to do with taxes or "user fees" but yet another way in which government can keep a hairy eyeball on all of us.

Thirdly, I agree, step out of line just once on the government roads and you will subject to extremely harsh and punitive penalties. Why do you think I bitch about the "privilege to drive", the road blocks and the forced blood draws and implied consent and all the rest of it?

Basically the government treats the roads as belonging to them, as being "private".

And you see what you've got.

Mmmmm....


When you kick me off your private road for not following "policy" where is the competition to choose from?

[devil21]

Since governments are corporations, are roads private property of those corporations? How does that square with the constitutional right to travel freely?

[acesfull]

Roads, safetyness, terrorists, drugs, feelings... Hell, I dunno.


I believe its because of fear and ignorance and delusion..

" No one in their right mind voluntarily surrenders complete liberty and accepts in its place a set of regulations." My.02

"The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion" ( Edmund Burke, 1784).

Regards

[Gaddafi Duck]

When you kick me off your private road for not following "policy" where is the competition to choose from?

Hilarious. Like, a carbon-copy of every anti-privatizer argument out there.

[Danke]

Since governments are corporations, are roads private property of those corporations? How does that square with the constitutional right to travel freely?

Now we are talking fundamentals. But they hold themselves out to be public, so use the court decisions for our favor... For now at least.

[acesfull]

Since governments are corporations, are roads private property of those corporations? How does that square with the constitutional right to travel freely?

Google, " Drivers licensing v Right to Travel."

A very interesting brief and well worth the read...

Keep in mind that unless you are "driving" for commercial reasons then a License is required however if you are "traveling" in your normal course of life then no such license need be required..

There is much case law referenced in the brief however local municipal courts will deem the argument frivolous, they are only interested in fines and fee's and not law... However on appeal to the Superior Courts the argument will win... My .02

[Danke]

Google, " Drivers licensing v Right to Travel."

A very interesting brief and well worth the read...

Keep in mind that unless you are "driving" for commercial reasons then a License is required however if you are "traveling" in your normal course of life then no such license need be required..

There is much case law referenced in the brief however local municipal courts will deem the argument frivolous, they are only interested in fines and fee's and not law... However on appeal to the Superior Courts the argument will win... My .02

I think he knows that.

[Anti Federalist]

AF sold out! You must do penance lest you be cast out like Rand for perceived dogma violation.

Zing.

Ya got me.

[Anti Federalist]

Hilarious. Like, a carbon-copy of every anti-privatizer argument out there.

So answer the question then and put it to rest.

[Anti Federalist]

Uu

And the courts have ruled it is not a privilege. You have the right to travel on public roads.

The courts have ruled a lot of things, and yet the enforcers continue right on doing it.

Of course, I agree, you have a right, not a "privilege" to travel on public roads.

[Danke]

AF's workaround:

https://www.aaafoundation.org/sites/default/files/styles/media_gallery_thumbnail/public/MISC-YellowBoatOnWheels.jpg?itok=SZp_i6pA

[Danke]

The courts have ruled a lot of things, and yet the enforcers continue right on doing it.

Of course, I agree, you have a right, not a "privilege" to travel on public roads.

People are fighting this and winning. But it is much like the misapplied income tax, it becomes a full time job and you need to have a passion for it.

[Anti Federalist]

People are fighting this and winning. But it is much like the misapplied income tax, it becomes a full time job and you need to have a passion for it.

Exactly.

And be willing to take the consequences of a pro state outcome.

[heavenlyboy34]

People are fighting this and winning. But it is much like the misapplied income tax, it becomes a full time job and you need to have a passion for it.

+rep

[DamianTV]

Your Car Is About To Control You (http://www.infowars.com/your-car-is-about-to-control-you/)

[Danke]

Exactly.

And be willing to take the consequences of a pro state outcome.

Yes and that is a big hurtle for those tied to a large corporation that will get ones paycheck over to the IRS without a court order.

[Anti Federalist]

Yes and that is a big hurtle for those tied to a large corporation that will get ones paycheck over to the IRS without a court order.

You're telling me.

The outfit I work for now would turn me over to "authority" in a heartbeat, were I to even try what I did 20 years ago.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Consider the following:

http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/orphaned_right.pdf

An argument that must be made revolves around states engaging in fraudulent registration and licensing schemes by failing to provide full and honest disclosures to all respective parties concerning any transfer of rights. It is a path akin to auditing the fed before abolishing it. Make the fed disclose then attack it. First states must be required to plainly articulate any transfer of rights in any registration or licensing act by providing a full and honest disclosure. For the religious right ... if the state is the sword of God ... does God condone engaging in fraudulent registration or licensing business practices? Once they are articulated by a state in the form of a disclosure they can be further challenged. A large part of the right to travel hypocrisy, plainly outlined in the link above, is that driver licensing and vehicle registration schemes are nothing less than the political will of a majority being imposed upon minorities.

I shall articulate an analogy such as registering a trademark or patent with the United States government. As original creator of an idea, I am its just owner. When I register it part of my bundle of ownership rights are transferred to the U.S. so that the government can exclude others from using my idea. Part of the bundle of ownership rights are transferred in any registration but no one gets a full and honest disclosure of it.

[devil21]

The courts have ruled a lot of things, and yet the enforcers continue right on doing it.

Of course, I agree, you have a right, not a "privilege" to travel on public roads.

If roads are private property of government corporations that can restrict one's free travel, the very nature of such a law requires that one breaks a law (trespassing) in order to exercise a constitutional right. If one can't travel on privately owned roads then one must travel on other privately owned property. By definition, one is forced to violate a law.

eta: I guess it could be argued that one could walk everywhere (though interstates prohibit walking), however the court rulings I've seen reflect that the use of the common mode of transportation of the time period is part of the right to travel.

[Gaddafi Duck]

So answer the question then and put it to rest.

Does it even warrant an answer? Because it would demonstrate your cognitive dissonance: IF a private road owner wants to ban you from its road, he has a right to do so. It's his land; it's his road he has to maintain that you are adding wear and tear to.

Now, either you accept people own their land or they don't. If they do, you can't coerce "right of ways" or "easements" simply because you have a desire to wander across someone else's land. It's quite simple. So I'm curious as to how you can defend people's property rights, but then subsequently object if a private road owner prevents you from driving your car across their property.

Now that I've answered your question, do tell how you can object to a private road owner blocking your car from going across their road, while simultaneously defending property rights. I'll wait.

[Gaddafi Duck]

AF's argument condensed: because I have a need/want, it establishes a right.

He's upset if a private road owner prevents him from driving on his road that AF would have no other options to travel. Can one not use an identical argument for any welfare justification? Because I am starving, can I force someone to provide me food? Because I want to go from Point A to Point B, does that mean I can use X's property as a means to do so without their permission?

Exactly what is AF's alternative? Doesn't like public roads because of eminent domain; doesn't like private roads due to a small number of owners that can whimsically bar him from driving. I suppose there's some third road option I haven't thought of.

[LibForestPaul]

Unlike AF, I am not a fan of public roads. They lead to endless problems. But given the reality of public roads, why should they not be paid for by the people who use them in proportion to the amount which they use them? Seems more fair than a gasoline tax.

And with what gun will you enforce this scheme? Yours?

[ChristianAnarchist]

And with what gun will you enforce this scheme? Yours?

Whichever gun is at hand...

[Anti Federalist]

Does it even warrant an answer? Because it would demonstrate your cognitive dissonance: IF a private road owner wants to ban you from its road, he has a right to do so. It's his land; it's his road he has to maintain that you are adding wear and tear to.

Now, either you accept people own their land or they don't. If they do, you can't coerce "right of ways" or "easements" simply because you have a desire to wander across someone else's land. It's quite simple. So I'm curious as to how you can defend people's property rights, but then subsequently object if a private road owner prevents you from driving your car across their property.

Now that I've answered your question, do tell how you can object to a private road owner blocking your car from going across their road, while simultaneously defending property rights. I'll wait.

So, we all sit around and glare at each other over our fences.

You cannot build a major highway today without the threat of eminent domain, nor is it practical to want or build twenty competing superhighways all going to the same place.

If you have just one "private" road to use, then you are supporting a government mandated monopoly.

So, at this juncture, you have no other real option but to embrace the "public" road system.

If that is the case, then by dint of the fact that coerced money is used, the very least that should be demanded in return is "right of use".

Driving is no more a "privilege" than reading a book at a public library is: you paid for, under duress, you have a right to use it.

Until such time that teleportation or flying cars make roads an unneeded expense.

[Anti Federalist]

Does it even warrant an answer? Because it would demonstrate your cognitive dissonance: IF a private road owner wants to ban you from its road, he has a right to do so. It's his land; it's his road he has to maintain that you are adding wear and tear to.

Now, either you accept people own their land or they don't. If they do, you can't coerce "right of ways" or "easements" simply because you have a desire to wander across someone else's land. It's quite simple. So I'm curious as to how you can defend people's property rights, but then subsequently object if a private road owner prevents you from driving your car across their property.

Now that I've answered your question, do tell how you can object to a private road owner blocking your car from going across their road, while simultaneously defending property rights. I'll wait.

You cannot build a major highway in AmeriKa without the threat of eminent domain takings.

[phill4paul]

Until such time that teleportation or flying cars make roads an unneeded expense.

Accepting, of course, that the government owns all airspace and energy waves. As it does all "public" land. For the common good. Of course.

[Gaddafi Duck]

So, we all sit around and glare at each other over our fences.

You cannot build a major highway today without the threat of eminent domain, nor is it practical to want or build twenty competing superhighways all going to the same place.

If you have just one "private" road to use, then you are supporting a government mandated monopoly.

So, at this juncture, you have no other real option but to embrace the "public" road system.

If that is the case, then by dint of the fact that coerced money is used, the very least that should be demanded in return is "right of use".

Driving is no more a "privilege" than reading a book at a public library is: you paid for, under duress, you have a right to use it.

Until such time that teleportation or flying cars make roads an unneeded expense.

Whoa, who says you need super highways? Again, roads are more for short distance travel. High speed rail for moderate distances, and flight for far distances. Obviously if we had a private world, something like the Interstate Highway System WOULDNT exist. It's far too inefficient, and the costs exceedingly prohibitive to maintain, which is why rail transport would replace much of the highways if they weren't subsidized.

Second, you don't "need" eminent domain to build even a super highway. The question of if you have a "hold out" property owner is easily dispelled: tunnel under them or build over them, or build around them. Land ownership was derived via homesteading and bringing land into usefulness for production. Just because you plant corn does not mean you own everything above and below the surface. So, if you are only using 10 feet or so of subterranean land, I can tunnel below or bridge above your property, assuming such work Wouldnt adversely affect you with a cave in.

But, you can easily build around a holdout. Heck, they did an entire railroad like this across the entire northern US. And the argument that you "need" a quarter mile of width for a superhighway....I mean, what roads are YOU driving on?? That's 4 football fields in width. Does anything like this exist? I guarantee I've driven across more miles of road in the US and Canada than most here (excluding truck drivers) and I can attest to every genre of highway---none require the footprint you caricature.

But your argument that you would have or need 20 roads is comical for
Competition. It's a carbon copy of people arguing for utility
Monopolies. "Why! We would have power lines criss-crossing everywhere and we would have a canopy of copper wires overhanging our cities!! We can't have that!"

And yet, there's something to be said about how property owners wouldn't want transmission lines covering every parcel of land, so it's not a question of requiring 50 different options for efficient pricing of roads or electricity. I mean, there's something to be said about economies of scale. Rather than dealing with 40 different road companies in a 2 mile area, you would have fewer companies. I mean, most industries have only a handful of options to choose from. I don't freak out that my small town grocery store has a monopoly on food, and the next major city is 50 miles round trip. My local grocery store doesn't charge me much more than any other grocery store does even though it's essentially a monopoly.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

...

[Schifference]

Government health care had nothing to do with providing cost efficient health care. Tax by mile has nothing to do with roads. This winter New England shut down 7 states over a weather prediction. Soon there will be no need to tell people to stay off the road because your vehicle won't be drivable when they decide to put the roads in "lock down."