Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site alice.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!think!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!harpo!whuxlm!whuxl!houxm!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxm!sftig!sftri!sfmag!eagle!ulysses!allegra!alice!ark
From: ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig)
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Yet another reply to Gary Samuelson
Message-ID: <3660@alice.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 27-Apr-85 17:59:21 EDT
Article-I.D.: alice.3660
Posted: Sat Apr 27 17:59:21 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 30-Apr-85 03:20:46 EDT
Organization: Bell Labs, Murray Hill
Lines: 59

> 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?

>> 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.

> 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.)

You are quite right: I do not see any difference between "restriction
on the use of the roads" and "control of people who use the roads."

There is a legislative tactic that is becoming distressingly common
these days.  The Federal government wants to force people to do
something that it has no constitutional right to control.  So it
gets around this inconvenience by devious means.

For instance, consider the 55 MPH speed limit.  The Federal government
has no authority to control speed limits.  They do, however have the
authority to give highway money to state governments.  They also have
the authority to withhold this highway money if the state legislatures
do not "voluntarily" impose the speed limits the Feds want.

Similarly, the Federal government does not have the right to conduct
arbitrary searches of individuals' homes.  It does, however, have the
right to decide that people may not use Federally-funded highways
unless they "voluntarily" allow their homes to be arbitrarily searched.

In case you think this is far-fetched, notice that the Federal government
has already done this to people who want to travel by air.  They don't
have the right to search people, but they do have the right to prevent
people from boarding airplanes who do not agree "voluntarily" to be
searched.

Again, let me point out that I have picked the search issue more or
less at random.  I can find others.

If you still don't understand what I'm saying, then there is no
point in continuing this discussion.
References: <819@bunker.UUCP>