[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re:Smog rules protest in CA

> 
> From: tangen@domain.elided (Eric Tangen)
> Date: Tue, 6 Aug 96 11:09:00 CDT
> Subject: Re: Smog rules protest in CA
> 
> >From talltom <talltom@domain.elided> in digest 5 #78
> > ...
> > From what I understand, NJ has a test designed
> > so that a 4 yr. old car will fail, and you can't licsense it. When you
> > park it in your driveway, the government thinks it can tow your car off
> > private property. I rather expect people to get killed trying this.
> > Any legal eagles out there? Looks like a sitting cash cow to me.
> > ...
> The argument from the populist/libertarian/right-wing radical front -
> at least those that drive around without license plates - is that
> you surrender ownership of your auto to the state by licensing it.

Well I'm a libertarian and I've never anybody espouse what you're saying. I have
heard people say things that some would construe this way obviously, but it's
kind of like those who complain about an interpretation of the constitution
because it's based on the words in it. Accuracy plays a part.
 
> I'm skeptical, but maybe there on to something. There's more to be
> learned by studying the fringes than by blindly accepting
> conventional wisdom.

I believe it pretty straightforward to resolve the clunker issue, by using
jurisdiction and precedent. 
 
> Anybody want to discuss executive orders, gold trimmed flags, the CFR,
> Goals 2000, FEMA, the Federal Reserve, black helicopters, or
> Roswell? Me neither.

Well I don't know where you got all this stuff from or the relevance, but without more 
consistence than what's shown here no issues will be resolved.  
 
> Press <pagedn> to return to the bmw-GMautotranny-digest.
> 
> Eric 'they'll have shoot me to get my 2002' Tangen


So maybe it's time to look into property rights, and the jurisdiction that would 
enable govt to do that.(I don't believe they have jurisdiction.)