Meter This!


I want access to the billion dollar lane that gasoline tax bought. Right lane for merging and elderly folks. Middle lane for 65 to 70 MPH. Car-pool lanes are a fine example of stupidity being legitimized by corruption and poor management. What is the net gain to society by having these carefully guarded roads for carpoolers who don’t exist and prius drivers who, many of us, wish would just drive their little cars off a cliff.

For what they spent on ruining the downtown exit and 12/101 interchange, they should have been able to give us 3 lanes per side from Novato to Windsor. This would have cut down traffic and translated to more free time for working commuters. If you spend 2 hours a day in the car for free just to get 20 miles down the road, fu** you. Either buy a smug car that sucks or take the bus.

Gas taxes are mandatory. Use of the roads that you buy and build, strictly privilege and subject to truly dumb standards.

If we’re in the mood to fix stuff, speed limits are desperate for logical and scientific adjustment. Cars these days are much safer and more powerful than ever. Speeding tickets are worded to imply that exceeding the posted speed limit, in and of itself, is proof of unsafe and reckless driving. You can drive reckless at 80, or 40, or whatever, it’s not proof of anything.

Flat straight roads in a modern automobile can be driven safely at high speed. Reckless driving is endangering the safety of all those around you. Speeding in a parking lot or kid filled street surely is reckless. Taking a brand new beamer to 85 on the way to Cloverdale is completely sane and safe. $400 tickets are reckless and bad for everyone. Points on insurance are bad for everyone. Driving fast is fun and harmless on the open freeway. It’s high time we adjust the speed LIMIT to a real and obvious limit. 100 MPH, 120 MPH, or 150 MPH, Would raise the overall respect for the law and consent to the penalties for breaking it, considerably. Almost no one would cry foul for being sited at 120. Most people consider a ticket at 70 over 65 to be absolutely unjust and suspect alternative motives for its enforcement. Equating police with highwaymen and scoundrels.

The only drawback, if it’s a drawback at all, is the massive decrease in ticket revenues that would result. Setting a proper limit at the level it should be would end the ticket racket enjoyed by CHP, SRPD, etc. Which is why these conflicted interests will never support this and will lobby to the extreme for the status quo to be maintained. The one way to change it is to ignore it. Cops are supposed to survey roads to test the public’s obedience with said limits. If the number of cars that exceeds the limit reaches a certain percentage the limits are to be revised upward to better reflect the judgement of the people driving.

The original speed law defined the “crime” of speeding in this way.
Satisfaction of two criteria needed to be met before prosecution and penalty could be attempted. First, driver was traveling at a higher rate of speed than the posted limit. Second, driver caused an accident due to his reckless speed.

This is speeding and should continue to define criminal negligence on the roads. Without damaging another with clearly negligent (not honest accident) behavior the imposing of fines that amount to full weeks in pay for people is criminal. Not to mention the insurance, license suspensions, and countless hours spent in court for exceeding a completely arbitrary and meaningless limit on speed.

To hasten the demise of our stupid system I would also suggest that all people who receive a ticket choose to resolve the matter by going to court. You should be spiteful towards those who wish to steal from you. Force them to court as many times as possible. Use your subpoena power to call as witness as many people as possible. Force them to spend $100,000 to collect $400. Question the radar or breathalyser software. Log evidence of the inspection schedules, tests for accuracy, and anything that has ever caused an anomaly in reading. Use your right to due process and force them to waste any so-called profit that they were expecting. If only half of those ticketed would do this, the courts would be swamped and completely bankrupted for continuing. Tickets matter not, they are a summons for court. The courts decide what the facts are and how you should be punished. Make sure they remember you by making yours the hardest property they ever stole. Maybe they will avoid dealing with you next time. Maybe you’ll prove them wrong at their own rigged game.

Traffic tribunals are actually no game at all. These are kangaroo courts set up to deprive the people of their right to a jury trial. Any fine imposed by a magistrate exceeding $20 in total is illegal and cause for a lawsuit against the magistrate for violation of constitutional and civil rights.

An Open Letter To Liberals


Why is it that you are willing to abandon reason and logic to defend your flawed ideology? Often times liberals attack religion insisting that it is unreasonable to read the works of man as if they were conceived through divinity. On this I tend to agree, to an extent. I am of the opinion that while life for the ancients was different technologically, it was quite similar in many political and social aspects. Just look at the life of David and you will find enough intrigue to fill a multi season soap opera. Because of this I think it best to read all the writings of man with an open mind. It is best to regard nothing as beyond question no matter how divinely inspired we might think them to be.

So with that enlightened spirit I suggest we look at the simple reasoning behind the bible’s simplest message. Do unto others that which you would have others do unto you. Another way to put this is; It is morally wrong for any individual or group to initiate the use of force on any other individual or group. The eloquent simplicity of this statement is its perfection. Even though it is presented by men claiming to be inspired by God, it is rooted in logic and simple enough for all of his children to understand. Even the simplest minds of children are able to see the moral issue with violence.

Now let’s look at the writings (rantings) of a divinely inspired progressive. FDR suggested, among many other things, that Americans were “entitled” to certain unalienable rights. Right to a “good” job. Right to health care. The right to be “free from fear”. The problem with these “rights” are that while they were presented in an eloquent manner, they lacked the simplicity and logic of the before mentioned biblical message. None of his proposed rights can be achieved without the initiation of force upon one group or another. Any one who attempts to abide by the “Golden Rule” as a guiding personal philosophy will find undeniable flaws in FDR’s reasoning. The simple fact that nothing can be given by government before it is looted from private citizens (either by taxes or inflation) should be enough to destroy any question as to the morality of these views.

So without putting any faith in mystics, I suggest that my philosophy (libertarianism) is the one rooted in sound logic and reason. That it is not just the most prosperous, but the most ethical. Ask yourself, do your political views require forcefully taking from someone else? Do your beliefs hinge upon the existence of imaginary victims? What about the private citizens that are loosing half of their lives working to fund the horribly corrupt political machine you created because you failed to adhere to the Golden Rule?