In reply to Opti :
How is enforcement increased with less government?
In reply to Opti :
How is enforcement increased with less government?
In reply to j_tso :
Less rules. Let's pick an easy one. Streamline the tax code, maybe we don't need 70000 pages telling us how NOT to pay taxes. The IRS would be a fraction of the size it is now, and we probably wouldn't need an additional 87000 people to try and enforce our overly and intentional complex tax code
In reply to Opti :
sorry, I'm still not understanding. The tax example sounds like fewer rules and less enforcement.
In reply to j_tso :
I don't know a more obvious way to put it for you, or get way into the weeds politically.
If you have substantially less rules, you may be able to get away with less enforcement staff, while see increases in enforcement of remaining rules. You can also eliminate huge amounts of bureaucrats, political positions, and support staff.
Opti said:...You can also eliminate huge amounts of bureaucrats, political positions, and support staff.
Which is exactly why it will never happen.
In reply to Opti :
Substantially less rule also means easier ways to circumvent them. Hence the large book of rules.
Yes, some books are about allowing exceptions, but more are about closing loop holes. Like this one.
This one is simple- registration is related to impact. This can be seen in the original rules based on vehicle weight. Classic cars get driven less, normally, so they get lower fees. But someone noticed the loophole that the lack of inspection also got no mileage limit- so people with old DD cars could have cheaper registration. Even though a 30 yo 4000lb sedan has a much bigger impact than a new 4000suv.
Fix the loophole.
In reply to Toyman! :
I don't disagree with you. I also didn't advocate for it, just said less rules more enforcement doesn't mean more government.
As a whole most people don't hold freedom in high regard anymore. We went from everyone deserves their freedom, to that guy is aggravating me, regulate him.
I don't see that changing anytime soon, so in reality we are stuck with more rules, more enforcement.
Pete. (l33t FS) said:In reply to kb58 :
I remember a webpage where a guy wrote about his parking exploits by inventing a fake company (something suitably generic yet imposing like Expedited Logistics) and plastered its logos on his generic looking white vehicle (maybe an XJ or Pathfinder) along with meaningless fleet numbers on the fenders. He would post up all the places where he got away with parking in places one really shouldn't, because it LOOKED like he belonged there..
Heh. His name was Todd. Todd's brother and I were close friends in grade school. IIRC, he started in college, when he had a completely plain black S10 Blazer (or other small SUV) with a 'cop light' installed on the A pillar. At some point he started adding graphics.
In reply to alfadriver :
I think more rules means more ways to circumvent them, because normally these exceptions and amendments are made to buy votes and support the people in power. The tax code is like 70000 pages and the saying is only 3 of them tell you how to pay your taxes and the rest tell you how to not pay your taxes. If you simplified the tax code you really think there would be more loopholes? 99% of the tax code is creating loopholes
I disagree with you about registration. I may be wrong but it sound like based on your comparison of new and old your referencing emissions impact. Registration started for most states in the early 1900s long before anyone cared about emissions. If your talking about road wear, I don't see how a 30 year old car with modern tires has any greater impact on the road surface compared to a newer similar weighted car.
Registration is a tax presented as a way to pay for roads and maintenance and reduce emissions. That's all stuff you already fund with a multitude of other taxes. Some states charge Registration fees based on displacement, how is that a good measure of impact. It's an arbitrary measure used so people think they are trying to reduce emissions.
In reply to Opti :
Like I mentioned before, registration is based roughly on impact, which is why the ORIGINAL rules were based on weight. Recognition that impact has changed over time is exactly why the calculation changed over time. And that classic cars got a break for their less miles driven.
But all 30yo vehicles have a much worse impact on emissions than new ones do. Not including wear, that is obvious.
BTW, more rules = more effort to both meet and break them. BTDT. I've seen the work that it has taken to meet rules in 2020 and compare them to 1995- so I can't agree at all that more rules makes it easier to break them. But if you want to fight those windmills, you are welcome to do that.
Just dont try to sell me that polluting has no impact. Or railroad rules from 150 years ago. Or food safety rules 125 years ago. I can go on.
In reply to alfadriver :
The ORIGINAL rules started in 1902 long before anyone cared about emissions or impact. It was literally just a fee, to drive on public roads.
The emissions reduction, is just the wrapper they put around a tax (registration specifically) in this case, to make people feel better about it. It's like when texas eliminated the inspection sticker and you just had the registration sticker. If you looked at the itemized invoice, still a charge for registration stocker.
At this point most of the rules are just opening or closing exemptions, to favor someone with money or political favor, and it gets so convoluted. It literally opens up new loopholes, because people are writing these things and they are terrible at seeing EVERY possible outcome.
Here's an example
No hamburgers. They're illegal
No hamburgers, they're illegal, unless......section a1 to section g73.1274.
Which one of those is easier to enforce, which one has more loopholes?
Or for a more on topic example
Everyone driving on public roads must pay a registration fee of x dollars
Vs
Everyone driving on public roads must pay a registration fee of x dollars, expect these people and these people and if you have this car it x dollars minus 10 or these people it's x dollars plus 10 because...see section 10-a and appendice 149218. In reference to the 1943 statute hr16-43 Exemption A still applies and exemption Z2 no longer applies unless you meet the new exemption in section 18b.
Opti said:As a whole most people don't hold freedom in high regard anymore. We went from everyone deserves their freedom, to that guy is aggravating me, regulate him.
might be a trap, but i'll bite.
Alternate view is that as a society we're recognizing that "freedom" isn't just about what people are allowed to do, but how that affects others. Not to say regulation is the answer (or always appropriate), but limiting the "freedom" of one person might not be limiting at all, just shifting the balance to better reflect the impact on a larger group of people. Many people (myself included) value their freedom & autonomy as much as ever, but are seeking a more wholistic view of what that really means as there's more of us humans roaming around. Regulation of vehicles operating on a shared public road with tailpipe emissions that affect the air we all breath are both great examples on this.
In reply to Fupdiggity (Forum Supporter) :
No no trap. I enjoy debate and respect most of the people on this board, as able to keep a cool head and debate. I love arguing with people that disagree with me, and am more than willing to admit when someone makes a good enough point to shift my position.
I pretty much agree with your position of freedoms and rights, and I said earlier ones right trumps another all the time. There has to be balance, so everyone can be as free as possible.
I was speaking in a more overarching view, not exactly specific to this case. To keep it motorsports related and less political. It's like when a guy builds a drag strip out in the middle of a field. 10 years later people build houses all around it and get it shut down because it's too loud. Don't build your house next to a drag strip if it bothers you, the answer is not to regulate someone else because you made a stupid decision, which is all too often what's happening today.
I agree that some regulation of cars on the road for emissions purposes is a good idea. My point is registration isn't this. It's just a tax. The regulation that happens to reduce auto pollution happens at the manufacturer level and at the with anti tampering laws. Even Washington state admitted that emissions inspections weren't lowering emissions (anymore) so they stopped doing it, saying lowered emissions from new cars will continue to lower levels. Studies have shown safety inspections don't make the roads safer. So if we are paying for these things and not seeing the advertised results, are they anything beyond a tax? A ton of places don't even have emissions testing, just registration. Example TX only does emissions in large metropolitan areas, everywhere else is safety only. Let's be honest, even in places with emissions testing, everyone on this board could get an illegal car passed.
In reply to Opti :
Ok, you win. Thanks.
good luck. Complain all you want- it's very much what certain groups want you to do.
In a free society everything not forbidden is permitted.
In an oppressive society everything not permitted is forbidden.
(See the 9th Amendment)
Opti said:In reply to Fupdiggity (Forum Supporter) :
No no trap. I enjoy debate and respect most of the people on this board, as able to keep a cool head and debate. I love arguing with people that disagree with me, and am more than willing to admit when someone makes a good enough point to shift my position.
I pretty much agree with your position of freedoms and rights, and I said earlier ones right trumps another all the time. There has to be balance, so everyone can be as free as possible.
I was speaking in a more overarching view, not exactly specific to this case. To keep it motorsports related and less political. It's like when a guy builds a drag strip out in the middle of a field. 10 years later people build houses all around it and get it shut down because it's too loud. Don't build your house next to a drag strip if it bothers you, the answer is not to regulate someone else because you made a stupid decision, which is all too often what's happening today.
I agree that some regulation of cars on the road for emissions purposes is a good idea. My point is registration isn't this. It's just a tax. The regulation that happens to reduce auto pollution happens at the manufacturer level and at the with anti tampering laws. Even Washington state admitted that emissions inspections weren't lowering emissions (anymore) so they stopped doing it, saying lowered emissions from new cars will continue to lower levels. Studies have shown safety inspections don't make the roads safer. So if we are paying for these things and not seeing the advertised results, are they anything beyond a tax? A ton of places don't even have emissions testing, just registration. Example TX only does emissions in large metropolitan areas, everywhere else is safety only. Let's be honest, even in places with emissions testing, everyone on this board could get an illegal car passed.
Drag strip in the middle of nowhere example - fully agreed on that one. For the most part, people opting to move next door to a known noise-producing facility have the information they need to make an informed decision and should live with the consequences.
For WA state, their testing program was for vehicles older than 2009 and younger than 25 years, a shrinking pool of vehicles (11 model years at this point had it been continued). A fixed minimum age (be it 25 or more years) is a growing pool of vehicles, and many of those vehicles do not have OBDII as a self-check. There's lot of variables here to draw a direct line on the effectiveness of emissions testing for classic vehicles in NV.
From what I can see, the meat of this is NV is now requiring vehicles that have opted into registration program (classic plates) to partake in an existing program (smog testing) that helps ensure compliance with existing laws (anti tampering). It doesn't seem complicated by any stretch, and seems like enforcing existing laws via removal of loopholes. Drive your car regularly and use regular insurance? use regular registration. Was the change necessary or a good use of time? I don't know, but it seems to align with the intent and spirit of most classic vehicle registration programs.
Opti said:No hamburgers. They're illegal
No hamburgers, they're illegal, unless......section a1 to section g73.1274.
Which one of those is easier to enforce, which one has more loopholes?
The first one has more loopholes. A burgerphile will say theirs doesn't have BrandX mustard therefore it's not a burger, and a burgerphobe will say anytime beef between bread is. Both sides get lawyers to define a burger, and both sides will keep weaseling in new definitions thereafter.
This is like in racing where the definition of moveable aero parts gets challenged by engineers. Then the rulebook gets another page longer.
In reply to j_tso :
Still disagree, in the 1st burger scenario, one thing has to be defined, a burger.
In the second burger scenario every exception and amendment gets to be fought out it court. The longer and more complex you make a regulations, the more points of scrutiny you give it.
That people won't apply the same scrutiny to the first rule and not the second doesn't work as an arguement. It literally happens everyday.
Why do you think closing loopholes is such common vernacular for us, because people are terrible at writing laws and predicting every outcome and point of contention, so it gets amended and amended and amended and overly complex with an ever-growing amount of failure points.
The OPs post is a perfect example of this, where they had to change a law that had an obvious planet size loophole in it
Hey
j_tso said:Opti said:No hamburgers. They're illegal
No hamburgers, they're illegal, unless......section a1 to section g73.1274.
Which one of those is easier to enforce, which one has more loopholes?
The first one has more loopholes. A burgerphile will say theirs doesn't have BrandX mustard therefore it's not a burger, and a burgerphobe will say anytime beef between bread is. Both sides get lawyers to define a burger, and both sides will keep weaseling in new definitions thereafter.
This is like in racing where the definition of moveable aero parts gets challenged by engineers. Then the rulebook gets another page longer.
Sounds a lot like the "One True Scotsman Fallacy"
You'll need to log in to post.
