[PLUG-TALK] Re: [PLUG] OT License plates and covers.

Jeme A Brelin jeme at brelin.net
Fri Dec 12 02:04:46 UTC 2003


On Thu, 11 Dec 2003, Russ Johnson wrote:
> I've never waited more than a minute to cross a street, even downtown.

This is kind of backward thinking.  Downtown has the SHORTEST light cycles
in the city.

> As for my housing, I believe I would be hard pressed to find housing for
> myself and family that is as affordable, inside a 10 mile radius from my
> work. As it is, my house is almost 10 miles from work.

I know lots of folks (including myself) who have four bedrooms or better
for (sometimes far) less than $1000 monthly outlay (either rent or
mortgage) within two miles of downtown.

> > > (http://www.odot.state.or.us/ruftf/pdfs/HowOrRoadsFinanced.pdf)
> > You're misreading the document.
[snip]
> > The State Highway Fund is just one small part of the road-building revenue
> > system.
>
> Then why is it named, "How Oregon roads are financed"?

I can't speak to why it is named that way.  Perhaps it is intentionally
misleading, perhaps the author wasn't thinking.  It doesn't directly claim
to be comprehensive -- even in title.

> By law, state roads are paid for with registration and gas taxes. City
> roads have more options.

State roads are also funded by appropriated federal transportation funds,
to name just one more source that is totally left out of the document you
cited.

> > > Parks are paid for by the municipality they exist in.
> >
> > There are state and national parks as well.  I don't see how this is
> > relevant.
>
> There isn't a "pay as you go" system for the parks.

There's only barely one for roads... and if you say there is and it's gas
taxes and automobile registration, then you're saying that other users of
roads are somehow not legitimate which is directly contrary to the
statutes for road use.

> No, it sets a standard by which we are all expected to abide, and if one
> person or the other violates those standards, then we can determine who
> is at fault.

Right... so you're saying that the law is infallible at determining actual
fault... that there is never any discreprency between legal fault and
moral fault.

> If, in fact, that nit-wit is playing on the tracks in such a manner that
> the operator of the heavy machine is unable to avoid him, then I'm sorry
> for him, but he is still dead due to his own actions. No blame can be
> placed at the operators feet, as long as said operator was operating the
> large vehicle within the law.

That's what I thought you wrote... I just couldn't reconcile it with
anything but insane fascism.

> This is basic practice, and how it works. We have rules to follow, and
> if you violate those rules, you may be injured or killed. That is the
> fault of the person who violates those rules, not the fault of the
> operator.

The operator is engaging in far less safe behavior.  If it weren't for the
driver, there wouldn't be a car and there wouldn't be a dangerous
situation.

> > In fact, we should have more traps laid out around the city to catch
> > people that are too stupid to live.
>
> Good.

I was being sarcastic.

> Darwinism in practice.

I think you have no idea what Darwinism is.  More of that "real world"
education showing through.

"Survival of the fittest" is best interpreted today as "survival of the
fittingest" and applies to whole species and their ability to find a niche
in the natural world.

If you want to live by the "laws of the jungle", go ahead and move to a
jungle.  I prefer civilization.  That's the path mankind took a long time
ago.

> People will learn to avoid these things, or we clean up the gene pool.
> Either way, humanity will be stronger.

For what eventuality?  Stronger so that the species can better perpetuate
itself?  That'd be a totally unnecessary "advancement".

Evolution is a change in the population to better suit the environment in
which it exists.  We, as humans, long ago gave up that path and chose,
instead, to modify the environment.  There is no reason to evolve to fit a
man-made environment.  We can simply change that environment.

Your idea of a "stronger" mankind is juvenile and poinless.

> > Better yet, let's just release hungry wild animals downtown so those
> > who are too stupid or incapable of protecting themselves will die.
>
> Sounds good to me.

Right.  I'm sure you believe you're one of those amazing people who would
always survive.  After all, you're smarter than most of the population.
Everyone else is just a dumb, blind idiot and you are one of the
enlightened, intelligent few.

That was sarcasm again.  I DO believe that's how you see yourself, but
it's absolutely false.

> > > > It's true that cars cannot interact with people safely and still
> > > > appear practical.
> > >
> > > In your opinion.
> >
> > I think the record shows it's fact.  Automobiles kill many people
> > every single day.
>
> Automobiles can't kill. They are inanimate. It's the same with guns.
> Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

We don't go firing guns around public places.  We shouldn't go flinging
cars around there, either.  They both have their place and it's not city
streets.

> However, you can be exhonerated of wrongdoing as described above.

So the law is the infallible arbiter of right and wrong.  Amazing.  Then
how can the 1% Law be wrong?!?

> > The fact is that automobiles are the most dangerous mode of transport
> > in use today.
>
> That may be true. However, it's what we have, and until we have
> something different, we have to deal with it.

You can make something different today.  It can be what other people have.
You don't have to be part of that crowd.

> > They kill more people PER USER than any other mode of transport.  And
> > many of the people killed by them aren't even using automobiles.
>
> If the operator of those automobiles was at fault, then take away that
> privledge from that person. If the person killed was a nit-wit, well,
> they needed to think before they stepped off the curb.

The responsibility should not be on the head of the honest pedestrian.

The hand the wields the weapon should wield the responsibility.

> > So if you are NOT of the opinion that they are dangerous, you're
> > denying reality and out of your gourd.
>
> I'm not denying that automobiles CAN be dangerous. I am ALWAYS watchful
> while I'm operating my vehicle. I ride a bike and motorcycle too, so I'm
> probably more watchful than the "average" driver.

Right... and smarter, too... and more fit for survival.  Way above average
all around, that's you, Russ.

By the way, 80% of all automobile drivers are "above average" drivers.
They said so in a survey, anyway.

J.
-- 
   -----------------
     Jeme A Brelin
    jeme at brelin.net
   -----------------
 [cc] counter-copyright
 http://www.openlaw.org




More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list