Xref: utzoo comp.org.eff.talk:441 alt.drugs:7140 alt.individualism:4293
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!oucsace!bchurch
From: bchurch@oucsace.cs.OHIOU.EDU (Bob Church)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.drugs,alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Goverment control of roads (or networks) a threat?
Message-ID: <2304@oucsace.cs.OHIOU.EDU>
Date: 29 Oct 90 12:00:20 GMT
References: <1990Oct01.194237.5002@looking.on.ca> <1990Oct07.195311.9117@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu> <13107@hoptoad.uucp>
Followup-To: comp.org.eff.talk
Organization: Ohio University CS Dept., Athens
Lines: 24

>Ofer Inbar wrote, in response to Brad Templeton's suggestion that
>goverments be banned from the computerization of society:
>
>> Could you see a constitutional ammendment forbidding government
>> involvement in maintaining public roads and highways?  Does the fact
>> that the government has the ability to prevent you from using public
>> roads scare you, or make you think that the government will actually
>> use this ability?
>
I live in a college town where over 90% of the drinking of alchohol is done
by people walking to bars and then back to the dorms, etc. They are no longer
allowed to do this. The federal government promised to cut highway funding
to Ohio if the state didn't raise the drinking age to 21. The scenario that
you talk about has already happened. 
Personally, I think the answer is to end "riders". I'm not sure how you'd do
this, but the tacking on of bad legislation to necessary legislation is one
of the oldest ( and most damaging ) tricks of the government.
By the way, the "good old boy" bars either weren't effected or actually
had their business increased due to uptown bars going out of business.
These bars are out along rural highways and have to be driven from and
to. The rule may have actually increased DWI.