All Cars Should Be Tracked and Locked

[Dakini]

Except that distracted driving kills more people than drunk driving and there's little more distracting than having to breathe into your car because it's otherwise going to stop in the middle of the highway.

Perhaps it's simply because I am extremely unfamiliar with the technology- I was under the impression you had to breath into them to start them, and then you were good? Even if not, breathing into a thing isn't terribly difficult to do.

If all you had to do was breathe into it to start the car, you could just have a sober person blow into it to get it going and then drive off. No, it randomly gets you to blow into the device while driving too. Considering how many accidents occur because someone is changing the channel on their radio or fiddling around with the air conditioning (or worse, calling and texting), adding another distraction to the mix sounds like a bad plan.

Apparently the devices also often have problems functioning in extreme temperatures and malfunction not infrequently.

[Infected Mushroom]

I'm still waiting for Kefka to explain exactly how actively tracking the movements of people without obtaining a search warrant isn't considered an unreasonable search.

Or how we're supposed to have complete faith in a speed monitoring system using the same GPS system that often can't tell whether a car is driving on an urban freeway or on the surface street running along the freeway.

Or how allowing a machine to enforce laws without having any human oversight is even legal, much less a good thing.

The last thing you should be worried about is the law. If the current constitutional law doesn't allow it, then just change it. But we don't even have to do that; the language is so vague that all it takes is for the SC to say ''Well this isn't covered under 'Unreasonable' search and seizure'' and then justify it using legalese. The law is completely malleable and its just rhetoric to justify whatever the political tide happens to be at the time.

If its the right time for segregation to end, the court's will read things so that it does end. If its the wrong time for slavery to be overturned, it won't.

If its the right time for us to expand the definition of what could count as reasonable and shrink what could count as unreasonable... then I'm sure the SC will help. It's all political.

This is the least of our concerns. The Constitution doesn't provide ironclad protection for anything; only the illusion of ironclad protection for those who don't have a long-term view of history. The SC decides what the law is and what the reach of each and every vague word in the Constitution covers and doesn't cover; there is no permanent legal obstacle to anything.

[Oil exporting People]

OP snip

Hell, let's just quit beating around the bush and go full 1984 then. If we're already putting devices in cars, might as well start surgically inserting them in scalps, install 24/7 CCTV in people's homes, etc. I mean, with your reasoning, why not?

[Infected Mushroom]

OP snip

Hell, let's just quit beating around the bush and go full 1984 then. If we're already putting devices in cars, might as well start surgically inserting them in scalps, install 24/7 CCTV in people's homes, etc. I mean, with your reasoning, why not?

I don't understand this forum's fascination with that terrible novel... it was a slog to read through in high school and I don't see any point in emulating its policies exactly

[Kraylandia]

Hell, let's just quit beating around the bush and go full 1984 then. If we're already putting devices in cars, might as well start surgically inserting them in scalps, install 24/7 CCTV in people's homes, etc. I mean, with your reasoning, why not?

I don't understand this forum's fascination with that terrible novel... it was a slog to read through in high school and I don't see any point in emulating its policies exactly

Well, you want people to be under government surveillance. Sounds like you're trying to emulate it's policies.

[Wallenburg]

Or...you could make getting a license less goddamned easy.

[Infected Mushroom]

I don't understand this forum's fascination with that terrible novel... it was a slog to read through in high school and I don't see any point in emulating its policies exactly

Well, you want people to be under government surveillance. Sounds like you're trying to emulate it's policies.

false equivalency

you're conflating some overlap with an attempt at complete equivalency

[Oil exporting People]

I don't understand this forum's fascination with that terrible novel... it was a slog to read through in high school and I don't see any point in emulating its policies exactly

Please God, please let this just be sarcasm. I would lose too much faith in Humanity if it's not.

[Kraylandia]

I don't understand this forum's fascination with that terrible novel... it was a slog to read through in high school and I don't see any point in emulating its policies exactly

Please God, please let this just be sarcasm. I would lose too much faith in Humanity if it's not.

I don't think he is being sarcastic.

[Infected Mushroom]

I don't understand this forum's fascination with that terrible novel... it was a slog to read through in high school and I don't see any point in emulating its policies exactly

Please God, please let this just be sarcasm. I would lose too much faith in Humanity if it's not.

I'm confused. You were the one who suggested we try to emulate the novel's political system.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I don't understand this forum's fascination with that terrible novel... it was a slog to read through in high school and I don't see any point in emulating its policies exactly

Please God, please let this just be sarcasm. I would lose too much faith in Humanity if it's not.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Hell, let's just quit beating around the bush and go full 1984 then. If we're already putting devices in cars, might as well start surgically inserting them in scalps, install 24/7 CCTV in people's homes, etc. I mean, with your reasoning, why not?

I don't understand this forum's fascination with that terrible novel... it was a slog to read through in high school and I don't see any point in emulating its policies exactly

So you don't understand the concept of an Orwellian dystopia?

[Infected Mushroom]

I don't understand this forum's fascination with that terrible novel... it was a slog to read through in high school and I don't see any point in emulating its policies exactly

So you don't understand the concept of an Orwellian dystopia?

I know what a dystopia is but I don't find it a very useful concept.

No one ever seeks to create a dystopia and its definitionally impossible to create (everything about the society would have to be wrong, the converse of utopia). So conceptually, even if used to attack the suggestions of others, its entirely useless because it will rarely if ever accurately describe anything.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

So you don't understand the concept of an Orwellian dystopia?

I know what a dystopia is but I don't find it a very useful concept.

No one ever seeks to create a dystopia and its definitionally impossible to create (everything about the society would have to be wrong, the converse of utopia). So conceptually, even if used to attack the suggestions of others, its entirely useless because it will rarely if ever accurately describe anything.

Of course not.

What he is implying though is that your reasoning can be used for almost anything and have a Father-Knows-Best state a la Orwell 1984's dystopia.

[Infected Mushroom]

I know what a dystopia is but I don't find it a very useful concept.

No one ever seeks to create a dystopia and its definitionally impossible to create (everything about the society would have to be wrong, the converse of utopia). So conceptually, even if used to attack the suggestions of others, its entirely useless because it will rarely if ever accurately describe anything.

Of course not.

What he is implying though is that your reasoning can be used for almost anything and have a Father-Knows-Best state a la Orwell 1984's dystopia.

A Father Knows Best State is a good thing to have

[Kraylandia]

Of course not.

What he is implying though is that your reasoning can be used for almost anything and have a Father-Knows-Best state a la Orwell 1984's dystopia.

A Father Knows Best State is a good thing to have

Explain.

[Wallenburg]

Of course not.

What he is implying though is that your reasoning can be used for almost anything and have a Father-Knows-Best state a la Orwell 1984's dystopia.

A Father Knows Best State is a good thing to have

I disagree.

[Senkaku]

Perhaps it's simply because I am extremely unfamiliar with the technology- I was under the impression you had to breath into them to start them, and then you were good? Even if not, breathing into a thing isn't terribly difficult to do.

If all you had to do was breathe into it to start the car, you could just have a sober person blow into it to get it going and then drive off. No, it randomly gets you to blow into the device while driving too. Considering how many accidents occur because someone is changing the channel on their radio or fiddling around with the air conditioning (or worse, calling and texting), adding another distraction to the mix sounds like a bad plan.

Apparently the devices also often have problems functioning in extreme temperatures and malfunction not infrequently.

That seems problematic indeed. And now I know how ignition interlocks work.

Probably wouldn't be such a brilliant, cunning plan after all.

[Korhal IVV]

Every year, tens of thousands of people are killed by car accidents largely caused by irresponsible driving. This includes driving under the influence of alcohol and speeding.

http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/gener ... lity-facts

I propose the following changes:

1. The government mandate that all cars be installed with mandatory tracking devices. This allows the police to monitor the positions of all cars and their speed at any given time. This is to deter speeding and ease the administration of speeding regulation for the public good.

2. Cars should also have a mandatory auto-lock system that requires a breath-analyzer to unlock and activate. This way, if you are drunk, you can't start the car. The car cannot be started except by a sober party and it is a criminal offence to try to game the system. The policy could save tens of thousands of lives potentially.

I believe these reforms will go a long way in crime prevention, car accident prevention, and improving general public safety as well as the efficacy of the law enforcement system.

What do you think?

This is an infringement on people's rights to privacy and an example of unneeded bureaucracy.

Whats to fear when you did nothing wrong

[Infected Mushroom]

A Father Knows Best State is a good thing to have

Explain.

I am sure you are familiar with Nation States' description of a Father Knows Best State as a state ruled by a mostly-benevolent dictator, who grants the populace the freedom to live their own lives but watches carefully for anyone to slip up.

That sounds like a relatively good government to have.

[Kraylandia]

Explain.

I am sure you are familiar with Nation States' description of a Father Knows Best State as a state ruled by a mostly-benevolent dictator, who grants the populace the freedom to live their own lives but watches carefully for anyone to slip up.

That sounds like a relatively good government to have.

Because there's totally a guarantee that the dictator wouldn't ever abuse his power, right?

[Infected Mushroom]

I am sure you are familiar with Nation States' description of a Father Knows Best State as a state ruled by a mostly-benevolent dictator, who grants the populace the freedom to live their own lives but watches carefully for anyone to slip up.

That sounds like a relatively good government to have.

Because there's totally a guarantee that the dictator wouldn't ever abuse his power, right?

the definition says the system has a dictator who is ''mostly benevolent'' so its definitionally guaranteed

[Kraylandia]

Because there's totally a guarantee that the dictator wouldn't ever abuse his power, right?

the definition says the system has a dictator who is ''mostly benevolent'' so its definitionally guaranteed

[Wallenburg]

Because there's totally a guarantee that the dictator wouldn't ever abuse his power, right?

the definition says the system has a dictator who is ''mostly benevolent'' so its definitionally guaranteed

You are using NationStates as an educational source?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Because there's totally a guarantee that the dictator wouldn't ever abuse his power, right?

the definition says the system has a dictator who is ''mostly benevolent'' so its definitionally guaranteed

It is quite an ideal indeed.

However, as you should be aware, idealism and practice are two different things.

Just because by definition a Father-Knows-Best is ruled by a benevolent leader, doesn't mean that that is the case in practice.