Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site bunker.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!ittvax!bunker!garys
From: garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson)
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Re: Re: The Koenig Maneuver
Message-ID: <819@bunker.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 26-Apr-85 11:58:48 EDT
Article-I.D.: bunker.819
Posted: Fri Apr 26 11:58:48 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 28-Apr-85 05:40:56 EDT
References: <815@bunker.UUCP> <3645@alice.UUCP>
Organization: Bunker Ramo, Trumbull Ct
Lines: 98

This reply is split in two, one to net.abortion and
one to net.flame.  It was probably not a good idea for
me to combine them in the first place.

Also, I'm not sure I got all of the '>' marks right.
(Hence, the labels in brackets.)

Pardon my condensing of the quoted material:

[someone in net.flame]
>>>> 75% of motor vehicle related deaths occur less than 25 miles from
>>>> home...

[Andrew]
>>> Does this mean that if I never let my car get closer than...

[me]
>> ... the entire subject [cars with volition] is absurd...
>> than the statement about the subject.

[Andrew]
> Gary, this comment of yours merely shows that you are incapable
> of recognizing a joke when you see one.

[me]
You say it is a joke, but it certainly appeared that you posted it
as if it showed something about the seat belt law argument.
(Actually, you would be close to the truth to say that I took
all three examples as jokes.)

[someone in net.flame]
>>> ... If you come out on publicly funded roads, in traffic with
>>> other people, it is your obligation to do so in a responsible manner.

[Andrew]
>> In other words, the government has the right to impose any restrictions
>> it pleases on people who use public roads.

>> Hmmm...does that mean that the government has the right to say that
>> if you use a public road, you are deemed to have given them permission,
>> say, to search your home for evidence of any illegal activity?

[me]
> [Andrew is now talking about] the constitutional right to be free from
> unreasonable search and seizure.  The only connection is the word
> "right," which was introduced in the above restatement.

[Andrew]
> Wrong. [I am talking about] the right of the government to restrict the use
> of the roads.

[me]
Searching my home for evidence of any illegal activity has nothing
to do with restricting the use of the roads.

[Andrew]
> If the government has the right to restrict the use of the
> roads, then it has the right to insist that people who use them
> do so at the cost of giving up rights they would otherwise have had.

[me]
I guess I'm just hopelessly dense.  I'm so far from seeing any
way of getting from your hypothesis to your conclusion that I
don't know how to respond.  The question is, "Does the government
have the right to restrict the use of that which it provides?"
What connection is there between that and the right to be free
from unreasonable search and seizure?

[Andrew]
> I was pointing out that it is unreasonable for the government to be
> allowed to impose arbitrary requirements on people who use the roads,
> by giving an example of how this power might be misused.  Once you
> agree that the government should not have unlimited control over
> people who use the roads, that particular argument for seat belt
> laws becomes far less convincing.

[me]
Do you not see what you have done?  You have changed "restriction
on the use of the roads" to "control of people (who, incidentally,
use the roads)."  Since, apparently, you don't see the difference,
I am not going to pursue this discussion.  I don't know anyone who
says that the government should be allowed to impose arbitrary
requirements on people who use the roads; I certainly have not said
that.  What some people have said is that the government should be
allowed to impose reasonable requirements on how people use the roads,
on the grounds that the government provided those roads. (What
constitutes "reasonable", and even whether the government should be
in the road building business, are debatable.  In fact, my whole point
is that you aren't discussing these issues, not by a long shot.)

And if you're merely saying that governments always abuse power,
well, net.flame is indeed the place to say so, and you certainly
won't hear me disagreeing, but that still does not bear on the
issue of whether the government should be allowed to restrict
the use of that which it provides.

Gary Samuelson
ittvax!bunker!garys