Well then what was the point? If you gave them an ID that matches your name and DOB, they still got an identity vector that can conclusively match to your physical, government-acknowledged identity.
Not having a correct photo or license number didn't really mean anything to them if their OCR didn't have any half-decent verification that would look at the fields where that information was expected to be, anyway.
We really only practice it in one instance in modern democracy and that's jury duty, but that should be expanded into more roles and duties. That's one way to make society truly democratic.
In any case, you might be interested in Georgism, which is an anti-monopoly ideology most famously associated with very Strong Opinions on taxation of land and natural resources and untaxing production, along with taxation on pollution and negative externalities.
My impression is that sortition is very much in vogue within Georgist circles.
> We really only practice it in one instance in modern democracy and that's jury duty,
...and even there, it's terribly corrupted. There are all kinds of bizarre ways that people are excluded from juries which bias the result. One commonly-cited example is that people who report moral objections to capital punishment are excluded from being empaneled on a federal jury, under the pretext that because capital punishment is legal under federal law, they'd be unable to carry out the gammut of their duties. Of course this has the convenient result of dramatically biasing juries in favor of the state.
There's also no commonly-implemented proof-of-randomness for selection. We're told that people are randomly selected and get a notice in the mail, but there's no public event where one can go and watch a number tumbler generate the entropy used to select names from the voter rolls, etc.
I just say "I believe in jury nullification and will use that power if necessary".
Easiest out from jury duty ever, and if the judge want's to be a bltch and force me on anyway, well, let's just say that if the law is immoral than the defendant is going to walk.
The last time I was called for jury duty someone said this during jury selection and we were all immediately dismissed and a new pool of jurors brought in.
I unironically want to be on the jury. It's the judges fault for refusing to let principled believers in nullification on. I'm unironically not trying to shrink civic duty.
Then be quiet and don't mention it, lol. EVERYWHERE one learns about jury nullification makes it clear not to mention it in the selection process if you're anywhere near interested in participating.
It's an extraprocedural consequence of how the system is designed to function, the same way the right to revolution is an extralegal option in the Union. Yeah, you can know it and apply it - but don't say it out loud if you want to show any semblance of virtuosity.
> Easiest out from jury duty ever, and if the judge want's to be a bltch and force me on anyway…
“Easiest out” is clearly you avoiding the responsibility. If you wanted to be on a jury you wouldn’t be talking about easy outs or the judge “forcing” you to be on the jury.
Well, and for grand juries in particular, you're told that (more or less) this will be your life for six months. I certainly opted out as best I could.
This doesn't hold to scrutiny. The ICE agent that was first to shoot was the same agent to fire the most shots, I'm led to believe he was the ONLY one that fired shots.
>"The video clearly shows him resisting arrest and reaching for something."
Tell me the EXACT time in the video you see this happen.
In the video, there are 4 ICE agents on him and there's not ONE frame where the tackled protester reaches for ANYTHING with his arm/hand. There is, however, a gray-masked ICE agent consistently reaching for what appears to be the protestor's sidearm. And at 0:17, the ICE agent that shoots first reached for his own sidearm, and the ICE agent next to him retrieves what appears to be the protestor's concealed firearm at the same time, and walks away from the pile with it BEFORE shots are even fired. The "threat" - the protestor's right to bear arms - was eliminated before a shot.
There is not a single indication that ICE agents were in danger from anyone besides each other. If he was shot dead for possession, there's your answer for 2A, right there. They're shooting people like dogs in broad daylight for recording police interactions (1A) and possessing a firearm (2A), the tree of liberty needs replenishment.
"Mechanics lien" are a thing, and the government has plenty of machinations to avoid someone from registering their car or updating a registration, which does have case law for being an action prior to taking someone's vehicle as an asset seizure. Civil asset forfeiture also has extensive case law for being used with vehicles.
When it comes to brass text and if the chips are down, your right for vehicle ownership is HEAVILY skewed state-side if they don't want you to have one. Whether it should be or not, and regardless of how much an individual's mobility and freedom is reliant on them owning a car in modern America, it's still a de-facto "privilege" rather than a "right".
> your right for vehicle ownership is HEAVILY skewed state-side if they don't want you to have one.
Correct me if I'm wrong but you and SoftTalker appear to be writing under the influence of some questionable assumptions.
The fact that the government can excuse and routinely do something while getting away with it doesn't mean that the getting away or the actions themselves are right or justified.
The discussion here is about the compatibility of government's actions with the spirit of the Constitution which doesn't provide an exemption for habituated wrongs.
While a generalization has the flaws of being, well, a generalization; I've noticed that this trope is at least more true than not when you qualify what TYPE of Democrats and Republicans you're talking about.
I think one is true of the representatives - Democrat constituents generally fall in line without question; whereas I think the other is true of the people - Republican voters generally fall in line without question.
The rot is deep for the constituents on either side, however. There's a LOT of incentive to preserve party/ideological status quo regardless of where you land.
Not having a correct photo or license number didn't really mean anything to them if their OCR didn't have any half-decent verification that would look at the fields where that information was expected to be, anyway.
reply