Xref: utzoo comp.org.eff.talk:460 alt.drugs:7182 alt.individualism:4359
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!seismo!dimacs.rutgers.edu!rutgers!usc!bbn.com!cosell
From: cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.drugs,alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Goverment control of roads (or networks) a threat?
Message-ID: <60432@bbn.BBN.COM>
Date: 30 Oct 90 14:10:15 GMT
References: <182@netsys.NETSYS.COM> <1990Oct01.194237.5002@looking.on.ca> <1990Oct07.195311.9117@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu> <13107@hoptoad.uucp>
Sender: news@bbn.com
Followup-To: comp.org.eff.talk
Lines: 57

gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) writes:

}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?


}Yes, of course.  There are already proposals that Federal highway money
}be denied to states that don't take away the drivers' licenses of people
}convicted of drug offenses.  Note how the control has been exercised:

...

}   *  Nothing gave the Federal Government this power, though, so it has
}	set up an infrastructure wherein the Feds impose a tax on all
}	State residents and road users (income and gax taxes), then
}	redirect the collected money to State goverments -- with
}	strings attached.

...

}   *  While drug use has nothing to do with driving cars, the Federal
}	Goverment is not required to show any causal connection between
}	rules and reality.

}   *  The Constitution and laws prevent the goverment from exacting
}	"cruel or unusual" vengence against this particular class of people
}	who they hate for some reason

I don't recall the cruel-or-unusual-vengeance part of the constitution ---
could you be a bit more explicit about which part(s) you're talking about.


}I'm interested in suggestions on how to break this cycle;..

I think the battle is hopeless, barring some sort of Constitutional
Amendment [and I'd be hard pressed to see how such would be worded].
The matter of 'strings' on gov't money is fairly long standing and is
pretty much settled law [dates back tothe New Deal days in the 30's...
I can get you the precise Supreme Court decision that first addressed
this matter if you'd like].  At the time, the matter at hand was the
feds putting the screws on private employers for things like limiting
work hours, honoring the right of employees to form unions, etc.  I
don't argue that those "intrustions" were necessarily good or bad, only
that this kind of intrusion isn't a particularly new thing: LOTS of law
would go out the window if 'strings' became unconstitutional, and not
all of it is bad [e.g., most folk think that the federal pressure to
have racially balanced school systems was, and is, overall a good thing
that the states themselves showed no interest in pursuing on their
own].

  /Bernie\