Driver's licenses, insurance: all bull plop to me.

No, I don't bother anymore with the hassle, 'cause I believe licenses are for your dog.

And you should, too.

As for driving the "speed limit," I never do, when it isn't safe. Especially when I was on my bike. There, I found I was usually 30MPH/50KPH north of the "limit," on the highway, purely for survival. I go a speed that makes me feel secure — especially in town, running sometimes 20MPH/30KPH over. I don't want some moron on my ass, ready to roll right over me if I have to haul on the brakes. In fact, I think that's why you hear a little more about motorcycle accidents — the rider wasn't "speeding."

To motorcyclists: Have you a ever seen a trailing car fall back to compensate for your better braking time and vulnerability? Didn't think so. 'Cause most car drivers are tards.

Drivers are bad and need some kind of graduated training. All drivers should first be bicyclists, then learn to ride a motorbike, then cars, then trucks. This plop about "road rage" is indicative of dysfunction of the whole society. When we spot, not individual cases of that, but the trend, we need to pause to assess what causes it and how to remedy it, not in a few years, but immediately. It's so easy to understand "road rage," which makes it troubling that it isn't addressed right away. The first stage of the remedy is that progression from bike->truck. Learning step-by-step is the only feasible way to create an appreciation for the task of riding/driving, its quirks and subtleties, and an empathy for other drivers. Especially valuable is the bike/motorbike stage.

Quick & Dirty Summary

rethinking "law"

purpose of law

rights and the court

applied psychology

But not forced that way. It should be part of our "manners" and upbringing, part of society.

I don't like that people use their phones when driving, and if something had to be banned, that would be good. But we can't do that, nor should we be able to. It's a free country and you can't ban stupid. If I were to dole out advice, my advice would be to turn off your phone in the car. It shouldn't be illegal to use one, but it should factor in when deciding culpability if there is an accident.

Which makes sense. If the judge is aware that someone was texting moments before their accident, there's some wisdom in letting the judge use that info in assessing a person's guilt.

You can't ban stupid, but they pass laws trying to, anyway. It's not for your safety. It's an excuse to raise revenue, inconvenience you, and allow the State one more avenue to interfere and meddle with your life.

I hadn't always been wise to the law — until I got my second motorbike, and then, later, when I first moved to the US. Yankeeland's been crowing about being a "free country," all my life, so I took them at their word. And you know what? They're right, somewhat.

I never had a valid license and only had insurance for six months, then dropped it, and had few hassles.

I'm not generally a bad driver. But there's another thing — I mostly wanted them to ticket me, to take me to court, so naturally, they left me alone. I was convinced that I could win in court, but never had the opportunity to test that theory.

Usually, if you try to exercise your rights, you'll get slapped down, hard. So I am, admittedly, lucky, being left alone. But there are others, and they're winning in court, all the time, but no one publicizes that. In fact courts go out of their way to avoid publicizing it. Sometimes they don't put the case in the public record. Sometimes they dismiss a case for some concocted reason, to save face, and not admit that the defendant knew the law, and got off that way.

Look at the Real World

So, one day I was driving down the Interstate, unlicensed as hell, when I came to an accident scene. The car — if it was a car, was crushed into a ball of compressed metal. It was bizarre and frightening. It looked like the number Oddjob did to that poor Connie in Goldfinger. Guess who caused that accident? Licensed drivers!

Oh yeah, years before, some drunk bastich in a big old '77 Caddy Coupe deVille just about squashed me and my bike flat on a hairpin bend. He was licensed as hell! Sure made him a good driver. Real good.

Most drivers are tards, and don't give a flying fracas about the problems they cause either, particularly behind them, like when they jam on their brakes on the highway when they spot a buzz-cut cop on the shoulder ahead, with someone pulled over. These tards slow down even though, if he's on the shoulder, he's already occupied, and isn't looking to come after their big, dumb, retarded ass. Lots of people see road tards, and complain about them, but the situation continues to get worse. Steve Austin was complaining about turn signal neglect and nailed the psychology, "too big a man/woman to deign to signal."

The "experts" don't help matters any. There's a show that occasionally turned up on the boob tube, "Canada's Worst Driver," that I hate. I don't know where this show is copied from, because I do not recall an "America's Worst Driver," and almost every Canadian show is lifted from somewhere else, either Britain or the States, except for an old show called The Beachcombers, that was actually pretty good and supposedly the Japanese loved, they having a misunderstanding of what Canada is really like. Most Canadians only wish they could afford a little skiff with a 50-horse outboard to scoot around and scavenge old driftwood and timber that broke loose from a boom, which might fetch a good haul of Canuck Bucks at the sawmill!

Anyway, the "experts" on that worst driver show don't teach these rotten drivers how to drive, they just set them up and watch them fail in driving situations we all already knew they weren't equipped for. It's like the old "Gong Show," but supposed to be serious. Anyway, the "experts" are failing at a fundamental level, by not identifying each bad driver's weakness. A lot of the bunglers were just afraid of the car, and wanted to "get through it," as quickly as possible, whatever the driving task. They don't recognize any art or finesse in navigating a car, which is odd, because pretty much everyone should be able to enjoy driving.

Somewhere along the line, by some dumb or malicious bastich, they were taught to fear the car.

I would rehab most of those drivers by starting slow, with some tricks like having them deliberately drive into obstacles on command, telling them tips and tricks to help simplify, not complicate, their driving, get a feel for the dimensions and boundaries of their cars, and lose their apprehension of the car.

If you've watched the show, you've probably seen them, "completing a 'challenge,'" by repeatedly grinding the car into obstacles that are chewing the car to bits, literally ripping the car fenders and bumpers off, etc., but they somehow persevere, by continuing to mindlessly grind the car into scrap. Which proves my point that they are just trying to get through a chore, and their mind is clouded due to apprehension and stress.

There is also something lacking in the area of "exploring your alternatives." For example, if you're in a spot and don't know how to proceed, or the worst case occurs, and you're about to hit something, you stop, get out of the car and examine what you need to do to extricate yourself as painlessly as possible. I've never seen one of them do that.

The real tards of the show — the "experts," including one real a-hole from the police department, then send the "best," "most improved" person for that week home, all ready to drive around the wastelands of Canada producing yet more havoc. For the most part, they aren't improved at all! I wouldn't trust those guys to pilot the Wacky Races, but no doubt they'll turn up on your or my ass or clip someone while making an emergency maneuver into a burger joint because their fat ass needs to feed, now!

Remember, these were all "licensed drivers."

People do drive without a license now, drive with suspended licenses, while drunk, while high on something else. Four- and eight- and twelve-year olds abscond with cars, accidentally or on purpose. The existence of licenses has nothing to do with the ability to drive cars.

Licenses aren't doing anything but harm, but you won't convince the public.

You'll also never get this through to most people: According to the law, all these required licenses, insurance, speed limits, seatbelt fines, car inspections, the lot, are unlawful.

And how many of the Gung-ho, heel-clicking, flag-saluting, law-abiding, are going to follow the law — the real law — once it is explained to them?

Ninny: "Did you hear that Frumpy? We've been all wrong, and don't need licenses! I don't know... I feel... uncomfortable!"

Frumpy: "Oh, my, Ninny. Goodness, no! I could never do that! The law is there to protect us!"

It'll take a "reset," and part of that reset will have to involve people's minds.

But how to make it safer on the roads? You won't like it: under our law, Common Law, people pay for the damage they create.

Yeah, no one wants to buy someone else a new Mercedes S550 if they hit one on the road, but, after doing so, the person might learn. Actually, following the law would be a boon. It would reduce car prices — partly because people wouldn't buy such ridiculously-priced cars — (you know you can slum it a bit, so you know the S400 will suffice very nicely), encourage people to drive better, encourage people to learn more about driving, and maybe even prompt people to take special driving courses in accident avoidance. Unqualified drivers would not be epidemic, any more than now.

No one's going to let a kid that doesn't know how, drive their car... so, no, you aren't going to have a bunch of toddlers taking the wheel and making the roads havoc.

Too bad, if you don't like it: It's the law. And we just haven't been following it, all these many years.

Yes, we need a rollback. Things are out of hand. We don't need "traffic cops." They're nuts, and cause more accidents and problems than they solve.

To roll back, start with the DL. Refuse it and drive without, but drive properly. Start to reclaim our rights and never allow "licenses" again.

Scary People

Despite the facts, the road tards do not know the law, but think that they do. They do not and will not make any effort to learn. It's road tards that are the "bad citizens." They are the ones breaking the law.

Insisting on meddling legalisms, called "laws," that are not laws at all is partly from fear, partly from a lack of faith. But to those who continue to insist on unlawful licenses, traffic stops and required insurance, I say: Do us all a favor. Every time you commit any traffic violation at all, like 1 unit over the speed limit, or forget to signal a lane change, turn yourself in for ticketing at the local police station. Also, do you get your instruments, e.g.: speedo, regularly calibrated? If not, I don't know how you can point any fingers at others.

Here's one: How about driving in the left lane when not passing someone? Report right to prison for that, Road Tard. You are violating the law, after all. How about speeding up when someone is passing you? That is a (real) criminal act, and you should rot in a cell. It's the law, after all.

Inevitably, like the sun rises and sets, the statist believer in infinite government power clucks the same old message, "It's the LAW!"

So, road tards, I'll accept your adherence to the law, with the condition that you actually follow your own law.

But we don't live in a system that admits to such tactics of control. It's not a slave state.

You know what's really funny? Driving cars from the sixties and seventies (and earlier). They're obviously unsafe, even though, if you've grown up with them, they are the norm by which your "standard" is set. And they're deceptive. Old full-size cars from that era usually stop pretty well from 20 or 30, or so, but then when you hit 60 or 70, there's a huge diminution in stopping ability. Like the automaker were trying to kill you. It would have been nice if the control freaks had mobilized then, to force companies to introduce a modicum of braking, steering ability, cornering ability...

That was okey-dokey, though, with those jerks. Because the cars, "met all applicable government standards and regulations." Of course, as soon as foreign cars, with their usually superior dynamics, were allowed to get a foothold here, they took over, sending GM to oblivion, putting Ford on the brink, and who knows what happened to Chrysler? To this day, it's a mystery!

Road tards didn't care about that, and they're a type of sociopathic personality, too. They aren't concerned with real safety. Mock safety, that's the good stuff, all day long.

Here's a scary thought: In the future, government, will probably just automatically pull fines from your bank account for each infraction. There will still be cops to pull you over and put you through the wringer, and search for more "violations," of course. I don't see why this wouldn't be in the works, if it's for "convenience" and "safety."

People have to learn to discard and disavow anything that reeks of fear-mongering. It's a bottomless pit. There's no limit to it and it's a dirty trick, because of human nature. Most people default to animal instincts and lose rationality when given the "safety" plea.

Fear-mongering is a form of the sneaky and abusive, "rustproofing argument." You sign up for the fancy "undercoating" and "rust protection," then, when your car rusts anyway, you get the: "Just think how bad it would be if you hadn't rustproofed!"

  • It is not moral to disobey an immoral law, despite what MLK said, because there are no and cannot be "immoral laws." You can't "disobey" an immoral law, because there's no such animal. Anything immoral cannot be law, from the get-go.
  • Government does not, and never did, have your best interests at heart.
  • "Fines" aren't to stop bad driving, and should be abolished. Licenses aren't to stop bad driving, and should be abolished.
We Were Lied To

Law wasn't supposed to be an enabler for bad actors to control the populace. It was meant for a uniform system of justice.

That should be news to you, considering what goes on in practice.

Under our system of law, you have to do harm to be subject to prosecution. Speeding, without your seat belt, without a plate and inspection sticker: that doesn't hurt anyone.

So they have to pretend it does. That's making excuses. Justification. False rationalization.

If the purpose of fines is to curb dangerous driving practices, we need to confirm whether fines are decreasing year-by-year, or increasing. It's that simple. If increasing, they are useless and ineffectual because they are not aligning to their stated and "proper" purpose.

To quote a previous article, everyone thinks they're (tickets), perhaps not good, but "necessary." Of course that's nonsense. Places with no speed limits have been found to have fewer accidents. A U.S. sheriff, Sheriff Mack, says speed is a factor in only in a small percentage of cases, and it's lane changes that are the biggest problem.

Whenever anything can be used as a revenue stream, it's going to be exploited and abused. So we must abolish all fines.

In any case, government can't be allowed to behave immorally, even if towards some moral end.

A lot of people dispute the facts, usually because they have a vested interest in hiding the truth.

It's even tougher to teach people law, unless they are directly and adversely affected, and there's a good reason, due to a type of brainwashing.

Applied Psychology

The courts themselves aren't following the law, but, how can that happen?

Most people think what the cop says, is the law. If called on that belief, they won't admit it, or don't know it ain't so, or know it ain't so, but don't care.

As far as what the judge says, I suppose that is the Word of God to most.

I got an email from a blogger I follow. It contained an article explaining how people have been conditioned for a long time into a mindset where they cannot learn logical thinking. Logic and reasoning have been jettisoned for feel-good group consensus. The author quoted an educator, who observed this back in the early sixties!

Despite my existing skepticism, I was still dismayed by that. Who knew this problem was so deep-rooted?

It's a deliberate effort on the part of schools and universities, and it is a sophisticated process, exploiting a deep understanding of behavior. They seem to have a science of applied psychology that was weaponized and turned against us, the hapless public.

Sadly, we don't even realize how dumbed down we may personally be, even if we think we're "enlightened." Something has been robbed from us.

Makes you wonder too, how "plugged in" and dependent we are on the benefits and day-to-day consistency and familiarity of society, and what would happen, were there a disruption to that pattern.

There's one fellow who helps people with court matters. He gets them to follow perfectly lawful methods to gain control of their own cases, to file the proper papers, and so forth.

Then the administrators at the courts ignore said processes and issue warrants for the arrest of those same people.

These administrators are themselves, breaking the law, by doing so; they are literally barred by law from acting like judges, but they do it anyway. In fact, there are usually severe penalties, like prison time, associated with what they are doing.

Usually, someone has to go down to the courthouse and shove the actual printed law citation in their face, at which point they may relent. But they never seem to be punished. Remember, if the average person tried to get away with something similar, they'd be behind bars, post-haste.

One of the fruits of not teaching logic in school is unjust courts.

"Belief" Means Nothing

Just saying, "I believe" in something, is a meaningless statement.

All belief has to be backed up with some rational reasoning.

People believe in licenses, fines, and speeding tickets, but there's no rational basis for those beliefs, because they conflict with the existence of rights.


Popular Posts