I guess when it comes down to it. The argument is whether you want to keep your money with a company that is bottom line-oriented that'll make choices based on both regulation and that bottom-line or giving your money to the boondoggle of a system the government runs (with no promise of better services or coverage).

I'd have to say even with more of a "free market" approach like we see in the car insurance industry, the market still drives the price so there's still very little control over what your rate is and people would still get screwed over.

The only option would be to have a government that could run our healthcare program efficiently, but that's a laughable dream.

*ahem* DMV, *ahem* department of development services, *ahem* public school system, *ahem* IRS...

For those of you that don't know how government accounting works, it goes as follows: If you do well and don't spend all of your budget, you get less money in your budget the following year. If you do spend that money or you go over that amount you get more in your budget. This behooves government agencies (local, state and federal) to often do things with your money that is not necessary so that they make sure they get their share the following year.

Why have Schiff and Paul never been able to escape a position in the marketplace of ideas that they perceive to be so vastly underappreciated?

As long as they tie their technical points about mistakes of the federal reserve to broader, fundamentalist libertarianism, most people are going to roll their eyes. Claims like that the DMV, FDA, and EPA are fascist are always going to sabotage the efforts of reasonable libertarians. It's in reasonable libertarians' self-interest to rein in the libertarian fringe. (Same applies to liberals and conservatives and their own fringes.) Choose your battles one at a time, instead of trying to fight every battle at once.

I doubt that principle will be recognized broadly any time in the next 100 years by any of the 3 groups mentioned above, though, so expect more endless political theater and missed opportunities.

They wont lower costs. They will end up delaying / cutting services.

Since when does the Goverment make efficent decisions?
Have you been served quickly at the DMV, Welfare office, Employment office or the County health department?

Katerina victims are still waiting for assistance to rebuild their homes.
The Cash for clunkers Where is that money? The people are waiting.

Government does not know how to be efficient or thrifty.

Just today I had to spent $7800 on a custom PC just to replace a$7.00 cable in side it. If I went to Radio shack and bought the cable I would be non compliant and would loose my job. And yes I DO work in Healthcare. I know that the local purchased cable would be just fine. That cost got past directly to the Hospital. But the Government made rules.

How can they serve the peoples needs? They don't know what you need you know what you need. You know what works for you. The decision needs to be yours.

What the goverment can do is:
legislate laws that allow competition across state lines.
Don't drop people when they are deadly sick and need it most.
Cap premiums on those who really need insurance ( preexisting conditions etc) to not more than 10% .
Allow those who get denied treatment the ability to challenge to a independent group that can over rule the insurance companies.
Pick up the COBRA payment when your job is lost.

>> ^blankfist:
First, the current legal limit is ridiculously low. Anyone with a BAC of 0.08% isn't posing a threat to anyone, and it's simply a way to generate income for the state.

I tend to agree, but I haven't looked into the studies on this subject. It does appear too low currently.


Secondly, you're supposing the roads have to be a guaranteed safe environment.

Not really, I want a reasonable expectation that the other drivers on the road at least have the physical ability to operate a vehicle safely. Good drivers do have accidents because of mistakes, so until we automate our roadways there will be accidents (we could do it fairly soon, but it will take longer due to regulations and public support). If someone has too much alcohol in their system then they do not have that ability to be safe.



Let's take your grandmother for instance. As long as she doesn't harm anyone, I think she should be able to drive as long as she feels able. Why? Because your solution is she MAY hurt someone or herself because she's getting old and can barely see over the hood of her car.

She nearly ran over me twice and didn't realize it until I told her. She can't read road signs, nor can she see cars at enough distance to safely pull out onto a road. Several years back she did pull out in front of someone, resulting in a broken neck (she recovered). It wasn't until two years later that the DMV refused to renew her license. Unfortunately confidence is no measure of competence or correctness.

I don't think roads can be made completely safe while humans are controlling multi-ton high-speed machines, but we can remove the most obvious risks.


Third, once you open the door to government restrictions where do they end?

They end where we decide. It isn't "all or nothing". It's illegal to intentionally spread false information about others, but we aren't prohibited from criticizing the government or established religion. We can't have rocket launchers or WMDs, but we can have hunting rifles.

Government restrictions don't always move in one direction either. Certain people weren't allowed to vote in the past, but now they can. Marijuana is illegal, but I doubt it will always be that way.

Having no restrictions is just as extreme as having absolute restrictions... there is a middle ground where it is helpful but not oppressive. I think most speed limits are too low, but I can still get to my destination. Our system could use a lot of improvement, but I don't think driver licenses and vehicle registrations are terrible things.

>> ^blankfist:
DUI laws serve to punish innocent people and are an attempt at social engineering. A person who has never hurt anyone or has never had more than the amount to drink he thinks is safe for him to operate a vehicle is irrelevant to statists.


I think the main question that others were attempting to convey was "when is behavior too dangerous to be legal?" This person who never hurt anyone may think it is safe for him to operate his vehicle with however much he drank, but he could very well be completely wrong too.

People who crash due to alcohol always think they're sober enough to drive. I've never heard anyone seriously say "I'm going to drive home, I doubt I'll make it there". Yet we still have people driving into trees (or people) because they overestimated their ability to drive. How much alcohol is too much to be legally allowed to drive on public roads? Should there not be any regulation at all?

I've known people who drove home when they could barely walk, still completely confident in their abilities. I also know people who refuse to do so, not because they lack confidence, but because they fear arrest. I prefer the latter, because I have yet to meet a rational drunk. Somewhere between being sober and struggling to walk people become very dangerous operating a motor vehicle, but confidence lasts well beyond that point.

Similarly, my grandmother swears to God that she is a safe driver, despite the fact that she can barely see the other end of her car's hood. I do not believe that her confidence is enough reason to allow her to drive, because she would kill someone. Luckily the DMV agrees and refused to renew her license, and I don't see that as a bad thing.


How would you handle these situations?

written by kronosposeidon

He states (quite correctly) that the state can NOT deny your right to travel. However, they can regulate how you travel. In other words, Lt. Col. Sullivan better not travel far and think that he's immune from prosecution. ..driving is a privilege, not a right. ..No one is saying that you are forbidden from going from Point A to Point B.

Tho if the effects of regulations - impounding a vehicle, fines, imprisonment - infringe too harshly on that privilege, they effectively deny the right all together.

However, you can't go there while driving a motor vehicle, unless you demonstrate the ability to safely do so. I don't think it's unfair of the state, i.e., the people, to demand that you demonstrate the ability to safely navigate its (our) roads without killing a hapless motherfucker or two because of your reckless ass.


What do bad drivers have to do with this? And since when do "the people" dictate traffic laws or directly control DMV policies?

He was pulled over for driving without a license plate. Are you saying that only people who identify themselves are qualified to operate a vehicle safely?

Of course licenses plates help identify drivers that are reckless but I think his grievance is more about the penalites for failing to jump thru beauracratic hoops.

The only time a license plate is essential to identify a vehicle is in the case of hit and run. But should be all be subject to arrest and massive fines and loss of property on the off chance that we might one day hit someone and drive away.

You mean "right of free ingress into other States, and egress from them." ? It has to do with crossing state lines, read you own link.

Exactly, so limiting someone's ability to travel is infringing on this right. Gwiz mentioned walking as an example of a way to freely move without driving. In Gwiz's world you are free to walk and carry all of your worldly possessions on your back if you choose to move out of state. But, that's not practical.

Allow me another impractical example. If I decided to move my entire home from Los Angeles back to North Carolina and loaded everything onto a horse drawn buggy and headed down the roadways, how far do you think I'd get before I was stopped by men with guns?

By not giving you piles of money the government is limiting your right to own half the skyline of New York

I think you're grasping at straws with that one. Specifically giving you permission (which is what a driving permit is) is not the same as not giving you something you didn't necessarily earn. Not "giving" you something (i.e., money) isn't taking a right away. Having a right to something (i.e., movement, expression, press, etc.), then having a government give you specific permission to that right is the issue.

The freedom of movement is as important as freedom of speech and can be seen to work together hand-in-hand. If you were to protest the war, would it be fair for the government to restrict your movement on public property in front of the federal building because you didn't have a proper permit to protest? In cities, I understand why people prefer loads and loads of laws and regulations and government given permissions, but in rural areas those municipal laws tend to be dangerously out of place. But, that's a whole other conversation.

Yes [the DMV] will [negotiate the terms of the driver's license contract], just not to anything you want.

Oh really? I'm not sure you're telling the truth. I'm pretty sure NO ONE at the DMV has the "authority" to modify the terms of that contract. And if you asked, they'd probably look at you strange. A government contract is never negotiable when it comes to social services. Name one that is. Name one.


And, gwiz, right to free mobility isn't specifically a right to drive. It's a right to move, and driving is the most accessible personal mode of transportation. Are you just trying to mess with me.

>> ^blankfist:It's a right to free movement. Ever heard of it?

You mean "right of free ingress into other States, and egress from them." ? It has to do with crossing state lines, read you own link.

By restricting it to a licensed driver, you're effectively limiting that right.

By not giving you piles of money the government is limiting your right to own half the skyline of New York, they have not revoked the right, but it is limited.

This is more of that "vote if you want to change policy" rhetoric, isn't it?

Not necessarily, though that is one tactic. The asshat in the video could run for city council and push to have the speed limit changed on the road or roads in question. I personally know people who have successfully run for city/town council to further their agenda. Chances are most local officials are in it for their own causes.

If you don't buy my house there are plenty of other houses

And I can't use yours without your permission, or in ways we have not agreed to. The absence of an alternate road network is entirely irrelevant to the validity of the states property claim.

The DMV won't negotiate terms.

Yes they will, just not to anything you want. Want a boat license, semi, motorcycle? they will happily give you a license on different terms, but, just like any other person, business or organization, they will not just give you any random thing you want because you whine about it.

The state owns the roads, you can build your own roads and offer them for use on different terms, or you can take your share in the state and try to influence how the roads are managed. To imply you have the right to use somebody else's property in whatever way you want is not particularly cogent, unless you intend to argue that all property claims are invalid, but somehow I don't think that is your position.

@gwiz: I said right to free mobility, not a right to drive. It's a right to free movement. Ever heard of it? No? It's a Supreme Court recognized US constitutional right: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement#United_States

By restricting it to a licensed driver, you're effectively limiting that right.


@dgandhi: Suffrage? This is more of that "vote if you want to change policy" rhetoric, isn't it? Read my message to gwiz just above this one. We have a "fundamental constitutional right" to freedom of movement as defined by the Supreme Court. The driver's license contract is coercive and nonnegotiable except via way of your democratic process, which is 51% of the people taking the rights away from 49%.

Your analogy is flawed. If you don't buy my house there are plenty of other houses in the town, city, state and even country for you to purchase from other individuals that may be willing to negotiate terms with you without a majority vote. The DMV won't negotiate terms. Try it next time you're in there and tell me how that goes. And if you don't agree to their terms and decide to use your "freedom of movement" right, also let me know how far you get once the cops pull you over for improper tags.

I don't want Obama to die--even of natural causes--while in office. If he croaks then all the statist tyranny he's pushing on the once-free USA will pass out of sympathy.

Why the rush for DMV quality health care when the US can't pay for the socialist Ponzi schemes it's running now? Social Security, Medicare and 'caid are all insolvent.

Obama's lackluster performance has the potential to sink the taxocrat party once and for all. Really, the Communist Party of America or the Greens should take over the slot. No one would even notice.

Typical liberal garbage, the scramble to replace imperfect with incompetence and indifference that can't ever go out of business.

Go down to the DMV and see how concerned and caring those faces behind the counter are. Now put them in labcoats. That's what you want to pay for with over half your income in taxes?

How does attacking Beck demonstrate how Leibowitz' way is the better way? Your fuct anyhow, libs, public opinion is now against this BS.

All's fair in love and war and fights and in bars.. also at the DMV.

>> ^CrushBug:
Why not yearly driving exams? If we are really serious about it, why don't we treat the root cause of most driving problems, which is usually poor training and lack of experience.


Because some people exam well and others choke. Because yearly exams would cripple the DMV and law enforcement. Because tons of people would drive less and production would inherently go down. Because you don't treat lack of experience by limiting experience. Just a whole host of issues.

You can't compare it with flying really, for every plane flying right now there's probably a hundred thousand cars or more (need numbers guy help here). I say make better cars.

I replied in the original post and addressed the issue of the DMV.

...and I don't think the government needs to create jobs, but they need to NOT TAKE THEM AWAY.

Why have we been scaling back regulations that were set in place because of the Great Depression? Why is the government spending MY money on things I don't need?


In reply to this comment by Fjnbk:
I beg your forgiveness for the state of my channel's CSS file. I'm not very good at that stuff.

How on earth are public schools a monopoly when private schools exist? And even the most extreme libertarian agrees that the government should provide regulation and public goods. Arguing against the DMV borders on anarchy.

I'm actually missing the 1920s right now. Even Coolidge and the Republicans then understood that government regulation can increase wealth and prosperity.

In reply to you, deedub, not everything is about job creation and wealth. And everything eventually recovers in the long run, but people are forced to live in the short run.

Well, it may be a little off topic, but this is important, too.

In Arizona, the MVD (Motor Vehicle Division) is a branch of the DOT (Department of Transportation). When I moved there (years ago) I had to wait in line for about 2 hours to get my license changed over from California. After I finished that, I had to get back in line for about an hour and a half to get AZ plates for my truck.

A year later, I mentioned to a coworker that I was going to be headed to the MVD to renew my registration. He told me about a PRIVATE company that had the ability to handle MVD transactions. It was news to me, but I decided to try it out. I went into this little store front office in a strip mall, waited in line behind one person, and was out of there in a little more than 5 minutes. What's the catch? I had to pay a $10 fee on top of the normal MVD fees. What's the bonus? They were able to take care of me more quickly and courteously....AND THEY AREN'T FUNDED BY TAX PAYERS!!! (*GASP*) How is this possible???


>> ^blankfist:
>> ^Fjnbk:
It's not that the DMV is our only bulwark against anarchy, it's just that arguing against the DMV seems rather unnecessary and nitpicky, stuff that someone would do if they didn't want any government regulation whatsoever. Most people would be more offended by more meddlesome institutions like the Federal Reserve, the SEC, or Medicare.

My point was more about showing an example of government monopoly than anything else, though maybe a terrible example, because if a private business was set up to license people then no one would want that service. Only the government can create such a terrible service out of fear that the alternative would lead to anarchy.
I think we're getting off point of the Sift Talk post.