4 ms·
That is not really inconsistent with the principle of implied consent for drivers. Driving is dangerous and destructive and not a natural right. Cars _should_
by jumpingmice 7y ago
That is not really inconsistent with the principle of implied consent for drivers. Driving is dangerous and destructive and not a natural right. Cars _should_ be under suspicion at all times, moving or parked.
- AnthonyMouse 7y agoImplied consent for drivers is from a bygone era when cars were not the dominant mode of transportation. Mass transit in LA (and most of the rest of the United States) is a woefully inadequate alternative. You can't consent to something when there is reasonably no other choice. Your argument would only hold water in the future if self-driving cars become widespread and it isn't necessary to display a number plate on a car without a human driver, thereby giving people a reasonable transportation alternative that allows for anonymous freedom of movement. Until then, the government should not be able to simultaneously mandate number plates and use them for mass surveillance.
- jumpingmice 7y agoImplied consent passed in California in 1998.
- AnthonyMouse 7y agoThe 1998 California legislature was full of people who were adults before the interstate highway system was built. And the Patriot Act was passed in 2001; doesn't mean the sentiment doesn't date to the McCarthy era.
- snagglegaggle 7y agoWhile there is no right to driving automobiles there is a right to travel and interstate commerce. Notably there is no right to travel at a specific speed or in a specific way so it follows that there is some right to travel by car, and the various tracking mechanisms of vehicles violate the 4th. Saying there is no right to travel via automobile is like saying certain methods of disseminating speech are not protected.