5 ms·

Would you apply the same logic to cars? Because I think all of your points apply equally to cars, but nobody seems to object to the idea of both registering the

by objclxt 11y ago

Would you apply the same logic to cars? Because I think all of your points apply equally to cars, but nobody seems to object to the idea of both registering them and requiring a license to drive.

Malstrond 11y ago
Only if you drive them on public roads. So maybe not a public road -> airspace below a certain height?
ctdonath 11y ago
Yes. Make driver education mandatory in public school. A vehicle tag should simply identify the vehicle out of a sea of mixed clones (a la: which blue Mustang?). I actually think the U.S. Founding Fathers would have enumerated a "right to vehicular travel" if they had conceived of license-as-a-privilege restriction on horseless carriages.
- krasin 11y ago
  >Yes. Make driver education mandatory in public school. This is not a good time investment for children, given that not all of them will drive. Especially, considering that driverless cars are coming soon.
  - ctdonath 11y ago
    It's a few hours' training to teach a basic skill most of them will use (along with all the other "not all of them will use it" things they do or should learn). Those who don't formally learn will still likely end up behind a wheel anyway, documented or not - and it's those non-documented ones who are precisely the ones we particularly DO want to ensure are trained one way or another.
    - tailgate 11y ago
      In what universe is learning to drive a "few" hours? At minimum most courses I know of have 10-20 hours of lecture type instruction.
      - Dylan16807 11y ago
        When it comes to an entire course, that's few. If you took the whole school day it would be 2-3 days. It's barely anything.
- tracker1 11y ago
  not just horseless...
- wavefunction 11y ago
  >>I actually think the U.S. Founding Fathers We'll never know though, which makes personal conjecture meaningless. And while the "Founding Fathers" may have had some singular ideas at the time, they were merely people. We could speculate what the authors of the Magna Carta might feel about drones, or the Athenian democrats as well...
  - brazzledazzle 11y ago
    The position the founding fathers held on freedom of movement is known based on their writings. I don't think it's too speculative to debate about which way they'd lean on the matter. That said it should be an exercise in futility since we do live in very different worlds but it isn't because the constitution's only flexibility is interpretation by federal judges.
- mikeash 11y ago
  Or maybe they would have been scared completely senseless seeing tons of steel being piloted by an idiot with no training at speeds they didn't even know were possible for humans to achieve. Either way, I couldn't care less about what people who died 200+ years ago would have thought about cars, except in an abstract "wouldn't it be cool to show George Washington a modern car and see how he reacts" sort of way.
  - Hyperborian 11y ago
    > Or maybe they would have been scared completely senseless seeing tons of steel being piloted by an idiot with no training at speeds they didn't even know were possible for humans to achieve. In light of the second amendment, that seems unlikely.
    - mikeash 11y ago
      Automobiles are far more deadly than any 18th century firearm.
      - ctdonath 11y ago
        The Founding Fathers approved of personal ownership of battleships, hence the "letters of marque" clause in the constitution.
        mikeash 11y ago
        Isn't a letter of marque basically a primitive license? I think it's funny that both of these replies center on refuting my idea that they might be frightened, but ignore the more important idea that what they would or would not think is not important.
        ctdonath 11y ago
        License to initiate warfare under authority of Congress, yes. License to own and operate harmlessly one defensively, no. The philosophy of the Founding Fathers is extensively documented. Not the least of which is their carrying out revolt and secession against a superpower for the purpose of securing personal liberty and minimizing control & harassment by government. In light of that, the notion of them fearing cars and using government to restrict ownership thereof by punishing lack of paperwork is absurd.
aianus 11y ago
> nobody seems to object to the idea of both registering them and requiring a license to drive. I do. It feels so liberating not to have to do those things in countries with corrupt + ineffective policing.
- babuskov 11y ago
  Then you probably wouldn't mind if someone hit you while rushing through the city at 100MPH.
  - aianus 11y ago
    And yet that doesn't really happen. The death rate in Vietnam per inhabitant is only 2x higher than the U.S. which is pretty much all explained by the fact that they drive motorcycles instead of cars.
    - babuskov 11y ago
      "Only" 2x ? That's 250.000 people more. One human life is too much.
      - aianus 11y ago
        > That's 250.000 people more. It's 10,000 people more (in a country of 90M people) not 250,000. And, like I said, it's not due to the lax traffic laws/enforcement, it's due to the average Vietnamese riding a motorcycle instead of a car while wearing a useless brain bucket -style helmet. > One human life is too much. We all die anyways, might as well enjoy ourselves instead of spending all our time and money on insurance and waiting for "stop signs" and "red lights".

by objclxt 11y ago

Would you apply the same logic to cars? Because I think all of your points apply equally to cars, but nobody seems to object to the idea of both registering them and requiring a license to drive.

Malstrond 11y ago

Only if you drive them on public roads. So maybe not a public road -> airspace below a certain height?

ctdonath 11y ago

Yes. Make driver education mandatory in public school. A vehicle tag should simply identify the vehicle out of a sea of mixed clones (a la: which blue Mustang?). I actually think the U.S. Founding Fathers would have enumerated a "right to vehicular travel" if they had conceived of license-as-a-privilege restriction on horseless carriages.

krasin 11y ago
>Yes. Make driver education mandatory in public school. This is not a good time investment for children, given that not all of them will drive. Especially, considering that driverless cars are coming soon.
- ctdonath 11y ago
  It's a few hours' training to teach a basic skill most of them will use (along with all the other "not all of them will use it" things they do or should learn). Those who don't formally learn will still likely end up behind a wheel anyway, documented or not - and it's those non-documented ones who are precisely the ones we particularly DO want to ensure are trained one way or another.
  - tailgate 11y ago
    In what universe is learning to drive a "few" hours? At minimum most courses I know of have 10-20 hours of lecture type instruction.
    - Dylan16807 11y ago
      When it comes to an entire course, that's few. If you took the whole school day it would be 2-3 days. It's barely anything.
tracker1 11y ago
not just horseless...
wavefunction 11y ago
>>I actually think the U.S. Founding Fathers We'll never know though, which makes personal conjecture meaningless. And while the "Founding Fathers" may have had some singular ideas at the time, they were merely people. We could speculate what the authors of the Magna Carta might feel about drones, or the Athenian democrats as well...
- brazzledazzle 11y ago
  The position the founding fathers held on freedom of movement is known based on their writings. I don't think it's too speculative to debate about which way they'd lean on the matter. That said it should be an exercise in futility since we do live in very different worlds but it isn't because the constitution's only flexibility is interpretation by federal judges.
mikeash 11y ago
Or maybe they would have been scared completely senseless seeing tons of steel being piloted by an idiot with no training at speeds they didn't even know were possible for humans to achieve. Either way, I couldn't care less about what people who died 200+ years ago would have thought about cars, except in an abstract "wouldn't it be cool to show George Washington a modern car and see how he reacts" sort of way.
- Hyperborian 11y ago
  > Or maybe they would have been scared completely senseless seeing tons of steel being piloted by an idiot with no training at speeds they didn't even know were possible for humans to achieve. In light of the second amendment, that seems unlikely.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    Automobiles are far more deadly than any 18th century firearm.
    - ctdonath 11y ago
      The Founding Fathers approved of personal ownership of battleships, hence the "letters of marque" clause in the constitution.
      - mikeash 11y ago
        Isn't a letter of marque basically a primitive license? I think it's funny that both of these replies center on refuting my idea that they might be frightened, but ignore the more important idea that what they would or would not think is not important.
        ctdonath 11y ago
        License to initiate warfare under authority of Congress, yes. License to own and operate harmlessly one defensively, no. The philosophy of the Founding Fathers is extensively documented. Not the least of which is their carrying out revolt and secession against a superpower for the purpose of securing personal liberty and minimizing control & harassment by government. In light of that, the notion of them fearing cars and using government to restrict ownership thereof by punishing lack of paperwork is absurd.

aianus 11y ago

> nobody seems to object to the idea of both registering them and requiring a license to drive. I do. It feels so liberating not to have to do those things in countries with corrupt + ineffective policing.

babuskov 11y ago
Then you probably wouldn't mind if someone hit you while rushing through the city at 100MPH.
- aianus 11y ago
  And yet that doesn't really happen. The death rate in Vietnam per inhabitant is only 2x higher than the U.S. which is pretty much all explained by the fact that they drive motorcycles instead of cars.
  - babuskov 11y ago
    "Only" 2x ? That's 250.000 people more. One human life is too much.
    - aianus 11y ago
      > That's 250.000 people more. It's 10,000 people more (in a country of 90M people) not 250,000. And, like I said, it's not due to the lax traffic laws/enforcement, it's due to the average Vietnamese riding a motorcycle instead of a car while wearing a useless brain bucket -style helmet. > One human life is too much. We all die anyways, might as well enjoy ourselves instead of spending all our time and money on insurance and waiting for "stop signs" and "red lights".