Another "I got a tint/front plate ticket" thread
Originally Posted by Andy2434
Listen, we have no one to point the finger to, but ourselves, when we knowingly put ourselves into these situations.
Originally Posted by Andy2434
No one here enjoys their car(s) more than myself. As such, we mod our vehicles. Do we add items to our cars, which we know may potentially get us into a bit of trouble? . . . Absolutely, we do. Then, why do some of us whine like babies late for a feeding . . . When we get caught? 
Listen, we have no one to point the finger to, but ourselves, when we knowingly put ourselves into these situations.
Listen, we have no one to point the finger to, but ourselves, when we knowingly put ourselves into these situations.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 442
Likes: 0
From: NorCAL
No guys you're missing the point. First, I'm definitely not THAT ticked off about it, I love the fact that I break laws, I bet if tint was legal I wouldnt have it 
The point, my resigned friends, is not the way things ARE but the way they SHOULD be. While my "pointless" rambling on message boards might not result in action, it definitely has its utility: it allows an unofficial forum to synthesize
arguments and receive unedited feedback, it is a chance to recruit others to one's cause and to provide arguments for those who sympathize but are too busy/apathetic to come up with their own reasons for disagreement with current policy. That said, even if it DIDNT have direct utility, debate for the sake of debate is still commendable.
The world isn't free, democracy isn't complete, laws are not efficient, etc etc. This is because the world is not run by "Philosopher Kings", as Plato put it, but by bureaucracy, inertia, and evolution rather than revolution of laws and concepts.
In an ideal world, a law would only be valid if justifications for it were logical, coherent, unbiased, scientifically sound, heavily scrutinized, and made available for all the public. A law would also be valid if and only if it addressed the issue it was meant to address in the most efficient and least wasteful way. For example, say that the justification for mandatory seatbelts in canada is that because healthcare is a public service and accidents raise healthcare costs for the taxpayer, the government has a right to regulate private decisions and enforce the seatbelt rule. Under my model, this law would be invalid because a BETTER way to achieve the same outcome would be to pass legislation forcing those who suffer injuries in accidents while NOT wearing seatbelts to pay for their own medical care. In this way individuals can make their own free choices and live (or not) with the consequences of their actions as sentient, sovereign, human beings. Also keeping in line with the efficiency requirement, THE SECOND evidence emerges that a law is unnecessary: a drug previously banned doesn't have the effects we thought it did for example, that law should be struck down as invalid and obsolete.
Furthermore, any limitation on personal freedoms (tint, license plate, drug use) must pass a much higher necessity test for approval, a test I doubt many inane laws currently being enforced in the US of A would undoubtedly fail. You know, such a system is not that far off and essentially requires a shift of power from the legislative and executive branches to the much more deliberative, open, and accessible judiciary (anyone can sue). In this way a single person that is RIGHT can make a difference, as opposed to the majority winning whether or not their point of view is the most suitable one. Think about the massive organization it would take for people to call for the repeal of the tint laws for example. Under my scenario, you take your case to the courts, claim unconstitutionality (since all the above precepts would be coded in a new constitution), and get the law smacked out of existence.
Why do I think this way? Because I am at heart an idealist. I am also an academic and an economist. Hence I believe that everything should be run as efficiently as possible, and the fact that so many inefficiencies, relics of past laws, illogical statutes, etc exist in today's legal system definitely gets on my nerves. Why do I give a crap? I honestly don't know.
I do hope I get through to at least one person. If I do, my job is done.
EDIT: I do find it hilarious how my post is being referred to as "whiny." Goes to show how much you can say about someone if you haven't seen them in person. Also goes to show that some people have no conception of the principle of democracy.
The point, my resigned friends, is not the way things ARE but the way they SHOULD be. While my "pointless" rambling on message boards might not result in action, it definitely has its utility: it allows an unofficial forum to synthesize
arguments and receive unedited feedback, it is a chance to recruit others to one's cause and to provide arguments for those who sympathize but are too busy/apathetic to come up with their own reasons for disagreement with current policy. That said, even if it DIDNT have direct utility, debate for the sake of debate is still commendable.
The world isn't free, democracy isn't complete, laws are not efficient, etc etc. This is because the world is not run by "Philosopher Kings", as Plato put it, but by bureaucracy, inertia, and evolution rather than revolution of laws and concepts.
In an ideal world, a law would only be valid if justifications for it were logical, coherent, unbiased, scientifically sound, heavily scrutinized, and made available for all the public. A law would also be valid if and only if it addressed the issue it was meant to address in the most efficient and least wasteful way. For example, say that the justification for mandatory seatbelts in canada is that because healthcare is a public service and accidents raise healthcare costs for the taxpayer, the government has a right to regulate private decisions and enforce the seatbelt rule. Under my model, this law would be invalid because a BETTER way to achieve the same outcome would be to pass legislation forcing those who suffer injuries in accidents while NOT wearing seatbelts to pay for their own medical care. In this way individuals can make their own free choices and live (or not) with the consequences of their actions as sentient, sovereign, human beings. Also keeping in line with the efficiency requirement, THE SECOND evidence emerges that a law is unnecessary: a drug previously banned doesn't have the effects we thought it did for example, that law should be struck down as invalid and obsolete.
Furthermore, any limitation on personal freedoms (tint, license plate, drug use) must pass a much higher necessity test for approval, a test I doubt many inane laws currently being enforced in the US of A would undoubtedly fail. You know, such a system is not that far off and essentially requires a shift of power from the legislative and executive branches to the much more deliberative, open, and accessible judiciary (anyone can sue). In this way a single person that is RIGHT can make a difference, as opposed to the majority winning whether or not their point of view is the most suitable one. Think about the massive organization it would take for people to call for the repeal of the tint laws for example. Under my scenario, you take your case to the courts, claim unconstitutionality (since all the above precepts would be coded in a new constitution), and get the law smacked out of existence.
Why do I think this way? Because I am at heart an idealist. I am also an academic and an economist. Hence I believe that everything should be run as efficiently as possible, and the fact that so many inefficiencies, relics of past laws, illogical statutes, etc exist in today's legal system definitely gets on my nerves. Why do I give a crap? I honestly don't know.
I do hope I get through to at least one person. If I do, my job is done.
EDIT: I do find it hilarious how my post is being referred to as "whiny." Goes to show how much you can say about someone if you haven't seen them in person. Also goes to show that some people have no conception of the principle of democracy.
Last edited by rocaveli; Mar 26, 2008 at 02:55 AM.
Instead of calling names towards people who enforce the law? what not direct your attention towards the one who make the law? it would makes way more sense to me.
By the way, when did you got that tinted ticket?
By the way, when did you got that tinted ticket?
Last edited by ICANHASFRANKIE; Mar 26, 2008 at 05:19 AM.
Originally Posted by rocaveli
No guys you're missing the point. First, I'm definitely not THAT ticked off about it, I love the fact that I break laws, I bet if tint was legal I wouldnt have it
The point, my resigned friends, is not the way things ARE but the way they SHOULD be. While my "pointless" rambling on message boards might not result in action, it definitely has its utility: it allows an unofficial forum to synthesize
arguments and receive unedited feedback, it is a chance to recruit others to one's cause and to provide arguments for those who sympathize but are too busy/apathetic to come up with their own reasons for disagreement with current policy. That said, even if it DIDNT have direct utility, debate for the sake of debate is still commendable.
The world isn't free, democracy isn't complete, laws are not efficient, etc etc. This is because the world is not run by "Philosopher Kings", as Plato put it, but by bureaucracy, inertia, and evolution rather than revolution of laws and concepts.
In an ideal world, a law would only be valid if justifications for it were logical, coherent, unbiased, scientifically sound, heavily scrutinized, and made available for all the public. A law would also be valid if and only if it addressed the issue it was meant to address in the most efficient and least wasteful way. For example, say that the justification for mandatory seatbelts in canada is that because healthcare is a public service and accidents raise healthcare costs for the taxpayer, the government has a right to regulate private decisions and enforce the seatbelt rule. Under my model, this law would be invalid because a BETTER way to achieve the same outcome would be to pass legislation forcing those who suffer injuries in accidents while NOT wearing seatbelts to pay for their own medical care. In this way individuals can make their own free choices and live (or not) with the consequences of their actions as sentient, sovereign, human beings. Also keeping in line with the efficiency requirement, THE SECOND evidence emerges that a law is unnecessary: a drug previously banned doesn't have the effects we thought it did for example, that law should be struck down as invalid and obsolete.
Furthermore, any limitation on personal freedoms (tint, license plate, drug use) must pass a much higher necessity test for approval, a test I doubt many inane laws currently being enforced in the US of A would undoubtedly fail. You know, such a system is not that far off and essentially requires a shift of power from the legislative and executive branches to the much more deliberative, open, and accessible judiciary (anyone can sue). In this way a single person that is RIGHT can make a difference, as opposed to the majority winning whether or not their point of view is the most suitable one. Think about the massive organization it would take for people to call for the repeal of the tint laws for example. Under my scenario, you take your case to the courts, claim unconstitutionality (since all the above precepts would be coded in a new constitution), and get the law smacked out of existence.
Why do I think this way? Because I am at heart an idealist. I am also an academic and an economist. Hence I believe that everything should be run as efficiently as possible, and the fact that so many inefficiencies, relics of past laws, illogical statutes, etc exist in today's legal system definitely gets on my nerves. Why do I give a crap? I honestly don't know.
I do hope I get through to at least one person. If I do, my job is done.
EDIT: I do find it hilarious how my post is being referred to as "whiny." Goes to show how much you can say about someone if you haven't seen them in person. Also goes to show that some people have no conception of the principle of democracy.
The point, my resigned friends, is not the way things ARE but the way they SHOULD be. While my "pointless" rambling on message boards might not result in action, it definitely has its utility: it allows an unofficial forum to synthesize
arguments and receive unedited feedback, it is a chance to recruit others to one's cause and to provide arguments for those who sympathize but are too busy/apathetic to come up with their own reasons for disagreement with current policy. That said, even if it DIDNT have direct utility, debate for the sake of debate is still commendable.
The world isn't free, democracy isn't complete, laws are not efficient, etc etc. This is because the world is not run by "Philosopher Kings", as Plato put it, but by bureaucracy, inertia, and evolution rather than revolution of laws and concepts.
In an ideal world, a law would only be valid if justifications for it were logical, coherent, unbiased, scientifically sound, heavily scrutinized, and made available for all the public. A law would also be valid if and only if it addressed the issue it was meant to address in the most efficient and least wasteful way. For example, say that the justification for mandatory seatbelts in canada is that because healthcare is a public service and accidents raise healthcare costs for the taxpayer, the government has a right to regulate private decisions and enforce the seatbelt rule. Under my model, this law would be invalid because a BETTER way to achieve the same outcome would be to pass legislation forcing those who suffer injuries in accidents while NOT wearing seatbelts to pay for their own medical care. In this way individuals can make their own free choices and live (or not) with the consequences of their actions as sentient, sovereign, human beings. Also keeping in line with the efficiency requirement, THE SECOND evidence emerges that a law is unnecessary: a drug previously banned doesn't have the effects we thought it did for example, that law should be struck down as invalid and obsolete.
Furthermore, any limitation on personal freedoms (tint, license plate, drug use) must pass a much higher necessity test for approval, a test I doubt many inane laws currently being enforced in the US of A would undoubtedly fail. You know, such a system is not that far off and essentially requires a shift of power from the legislative and executive branches to the much more deliberative, open, and accessible judiciary (anyone can sue). In this way a single person that is RIGHT can make a difference, as opposed to the majority winning whether or not their point of view is the most suitable one. Think about the massive organization it would take for people to call for the repeal of the tint laws for example. Under my scenario, you take your case to the courts, claim unconstitutionality (since all the above precepts would be coded in a new constitution), and get the law smacked out of existence.
Why do I think this way? Because I am at heart an idealist. I am also an academic and an economist. Hence I believe that everything should be run as efficiently as possible, and the fact that so many inefficiencies, relics of past laws, illogical statutes, etc exist in today's legal system definitely gets on my nerves. Why do I give a crap? I honestly don't know.
I do hope I get through to at least one person. If I do, my job is done.
EDIT: I do find it hilarious how my post is being referred to as "whiny." Goes to show how much you can say about someone if you haven't seen them in person. Also goes to show that some people have no conception of the principle of democracy.
Power to the people!
R
Originally Posted by rocaveli
No guys you're missing the point. First, I'm definitely not THAT ticked off about it, I love the fact that I break laws, I bet if tint was legal I wouldnt have it
The point, my resigned friends, is not the way things ARE but the way they SHOULD be. While my "pointless" rambling on message boards might not result in action, it definitely has its utility: it allows an unofficial forum to synthesize
arguments and receive unedited feedback, it is a chance to recruit others to one's cause and to provide arguments for those who sympathize but are too busy/apathetic to come up with their own reasons for disagreement with current policy. That said, even if it DIDNT have direct utility, debate for the sake of debate is still commendable.
The world isn't free, democracy isn't complete, laws are not efficient, etc etc. This is because the world is not run by "Philosopher Kings", as Plato put it, but by bureaucracy, inertia, and evolution rather than revolution of laws and concepts.
In an ideal world, a law would only be valid if justifications for it were logical, coherent, unbiased, scientifically sound, heavily scrutinized, and made available for all the public. A law would also be valid if and only if it addressed the issue it was meant to address in the most efficient and least wasteful way. For example, say that the justification for mandatory seatbelts in canada is that because healthcare is a public service and accidents raise healthcare costs for the taxpayer, the government has a right to regulate private decisions and enforce the seatbelt rule. Under my model, this law would be invalid because a BETTER way to achieve the same outcome would be to pass legislation forcing those who suffer injuries in accidents while NOT wearing seatbelts to pay for their own medical care. In this way individuals can make their own free choices and live (or not) with the consequences of their actions as sentient, sovereign, human beings. Also keeping in line with the efficiency requirement, THE SECOND evidence emerges that a law is unnecessary: a drug previously banned doesn't have the effects we thought it did for example, that law should be struck down as invalid and obsolete.
Furthermore, any limitation on personal freedoms (tint, license plate, drug use) must pass a much higher necessity test for approval, a test I doubt many inane laws currently being enforced in the US of A would undoubtedly fail. You know, such a system is not that far off and essentially requires a shift of power from the legislative and executive branches to the much more deliberative, open, and accessible judiciary (anyone can sue). In this way a single person that is RIGHT can make a difference, as opposed to the majority winning whether or not their point of view is the most suitable one. Think about the massive organization it would take for people to call for the repeal of the tint laws for example. Under my scenario, you take your case to the courts, claim unconstitutionality (since all the above precepts would be coded in a new constitution), and get the law smacked out of existence.
Why do I think this way? Because I am at heart an idealist. I am also an academic and an economist. Hence I believe that everything should be run as efficiently as possible, and the fact that so many inefficiencies, relics of past laws, illogical statutes, etc exist in today's legal system definitely gets on my nerves. Why do I give a crap? I honestly don't know.
I do hope I get through to at least one person. If I do, my job is done.
EDIT: I do find it hilarious how my post is being referred to as "whiny." Goes to show how much you can say about someone if you haven't seen them in person. Also goes to show that some people have no conception of the principle of democracy.
The point, my resigned friends, is not the way things ARE but the way they SHOULD be. While my "pointless" rambling on message boards might not result in action, it definitely has its utility: it allows an unofficial forum to synthesize
arguments and receive unedited feedback, it is a chance to recruit others to one's cause and to provide arguments for those who sympathize but are too busy/apathetic to come up with their own reasons for disagreement with current policy. That said, even if it DIDNT have direct utility, debate for the sake of debate is still commendable.
The world isn't free, democracy isn't complete, laws are not efficient, etc etc. This is because the world is not run by "Philosopher Kings", as Plato put it, but by bureaucracy, inertia, and evolution rather than revolution of laws and concepts.
In an ideal world, a law would only be valid if justifications for it were logical, coherent, unbiased, scientifically sound, heavily scrutinized, and made available for all the public. A law would also be valid if and only if it addressed the issue it was meant to address in the most efficient and least wasteful way. For example, say that the justification for mandatory seatbelts in canada is that because healthcare is a public service and accidents raise healthcare costs for the taxpayer, the government has a right to regulate private decisions and enforce the seatbelt rule. Under my model, this law would be invalid because a BETTER way to achieve the same outcome would be to pass legislation forcing those who suffer injuries in accidents while NOT wearing seatbelts to pay for their own medical care. In this way individuals can make their own free choices and live (or not) with the consequences of their actions as sentient, sovereign, human beings. Also keeping in line with the efficiency requirement, THE SECOND evidence emerges that a law is unnecessary: a drug previously banned doesn't have the effects we thought it did for example, that law should be struck down as invalid and obsolete.
Furthermore, any limitation on personal freedoms (tint, license plate, drug use) must pass a much higher necessity test for approval, a test I doubt many inane laws currently being enforced in the US of A would undoubtedly fail. You know, such a system is not that far off and essentially requires a shift of power from the legislative and executive branches to the much more deliberative, open, and accessible judiciary (anyone can sue). In this way a single person that is RIGHT can make a difference, as opposed to the majority winning whether or not their point of view is the most suitable one. Think about the massive organization it would take for people to call for the repeal of the tint laws for example. Under my scenario, you take your case to the courts, claim unconstitutionality (since all the above precepts would be coded in a new constitution), and get the law smacked out of existence.
Why do I think this way? Because I am at heart an idealist. I am also an academic and an economist. Hence I believe that everything should be run as efficiently as possible, and the fact that so many inefficiencies, relics of past laws, illogical statutes, etc exist in today's legal system definitely gets on my nerves. Why do I give a crap? I honestly don't know.
I do hope I get through to at least one person. If I do, my job is done.
EDIT: I do find it hilarious how my post is being referred to as "whiny." Goes to show how much you can say about someone if you haven't seen them in person. Also goes to show that some people have no conception of the principle of democracy.
Wow, a true master of rhetoric.
These laws, the ones you call relics of the past, are not as old as you want to make them seem unless you were born in the 90s. Other than that, I have no comment.
Thanks for the chuckle.
I have 50% all around. Barely looks tinted in the day. Nearly stock but keeps the interior temps down a tad. 3M. I've pulled right next to cops and nothing.
I've gotten "no front plate" tickets while I was parked in SF... three times. One time I got one with a BRAND NEW car back in 04 when I just got my 350Z. What sucked was that even though my temporary registration was in the front window AND I had new car dealership plate on the back, I still had to pay!
I've gotten "no front plate" tickets while I was parked in SF... three times. One time I got one with a BRAND NEW car back in 04 when I just got my 350Z. What sucked was that even though my temporary registration was in the front window AND I had new car dealership plate on the back, I still had to pay!
Originally Posted by rocaveli
Why do I think this way? Because I am at heart an idealist. I am also an academic and an economist. Hence I believe that everything should be run as efficiently as possible, and the fact that so many inefficiencies, relics of past laws, illogical statutes, etc exist in today's legal system definitely gets on my nerves. Why do I give a crap? I honestly don't know.
And the government looks like another business that's running pretty efficiently if you ask me...
Lol
Originally Posted by g35 chippie
Guys... although I understand the pain in the a$$ it is to get a ticket for tint.. (i have it too) just remember that when a cop is coming up to your car at night.... for all he/she knows you have a 45 pointed at his/her head!!! I would be a little uncompromising about the law too.
