"The fact is that driving for Uber and driving friends around has zero actual difference in terms of external risk or ability."

I'm going to speak slowly so that you won't miss this. Pay attention.

When you pay for something you have a heightened reasonable expectation of quality.

Phew. Did you get all the way through that? When you cook for yourself you can use tainted beef, but when you sell food to other people they have a reasonable expectation, backed by law, that you won't use tainted beef. You can be a jackass crazy driver on the road but when you sell rides to other people they have a reasonable expectation, backed by law, that you will be competent.

"Why do I need a commercial license tags for that again?"

You JUST got done saying that you use your car more and differently because you use it for commercial services. I think you can answer this weak rhetorical question on your own.

"Why is is so different when it's someone I don't know at the start?"

It's hard to believe that you have thought this through. Do you oppose cleanliness standards for restaurants because Johnny Law doesn't come inspect the kitchen in your home? Can you fathom why skyscrapers are required to have sprinklers and marked exits but your shed is not? I feel like your post is subtle trolling but it's just too subtle. Forgive me if I bit on bait.

"what's to stop an insurance company from working with the ride share companies to offer up commercial coverage to anyone driving using the company's ride share app? "

I'm not positive about this, but probably the law.

We don't have to imagine what it would be like to have unlicensed barbers, we can just look at the world as it existed prior to the licensing requirements. You'd go in for a shave and walk out with a staph infection. You'd go in for a haircut and walk out with head lice.

So, stop imagining. If you prefer staph infections and head lice to the requirement that people in control of public health (which includes barbers) complete a half-day training on basic sanitation methods, then you can go vote for that. I won't be voting with you.

Your whole story boils down to "Pickup trucks are usually used for business and the State of California knows it so that is the default. You can license a pickup in a non-business way if you want to, though, by checking a checkbox."

Yeah. So what's the problem?

This is ridiculous: "subject to being issued a very pricey ticket if you are ever caught carrying anything in the truck bed - even if it's personal belongings or groceries". I looked it up and I couldn't even find cranks complaining about that much less reasonable people.

Here's the DMV page: http://www.state.nj.us/mvc/Vehicle/NonCommercial.htm. Big spoiler here: there's nothing about ticketing you for getting groceries.

"I once drove some of my daughter's friends home from a birthday party. Should I have had to have a commercial driver's license?"

Yes, of course you should.

I assume that the little girls paid you, of course, because if not then then your comment is curiously irrelevant.

In other news, UK Prime Minister David Cameron has vowed to put the genie back in the bottle. On the way to do that, he's going to shut the barn door and go looking for his horse.

Weed is the low-hanging fruit. It is a vast outlier in terms of both safety and popularity. All arguments are in favor of legalizing weed.

Other drugs are not as safe and not as popular but I still think there is a strong argument for some kind of stepped legalization of most drugs.

Fair enough. Freedom of speech can be difficult, and the edges of the right can be difficult to balance. In my opinion, America hits the balance almost perfectly. Not exactly perfect, but as close as anyone could reasonably expect in a complicated world. Listening to asshats spouting hate is near the edge of the right, but in my opinion is inside it. Putting out fatwa's on people heads -- and there was a fatwa against the Charlie Hebdo editors' -- is outside the edge of the right, in my opinion.

"If I didn't, then I couldn't support Charlie Hebdo et al to mock islam"

I don't know why you see it that way. I don't support the right of people to advocate in specific terms for the extrajudicial death and destruction of... well of anybody. I do support the right of people to poke fun at things they find silly or dumb. What's the contradiction?

"Advocating death against a person or group is not protected free speech"

Indeed and more to the point it shouldn't be protected free speech.

You legalize drugs, obvs.

Why would the cameras ever need to be off? Just record all the time, never stop. Have 24 hours of storage and rotate through that storage space.

I see your point except for this:

"Saying, "Let's get her!" and then going home satisfied that you've beaten the bad guy is exactly how this sort of thing is allowed to continue."

That doesn't make sense. If we get one bad prosecutor fired, that is a disincentive to the other prosecutors to be bad. Do you see it differently?

Their ability to refuse care increased under the Act. They still won't let you die but they might elide things that they previously provided.

The nice thing about being in the system is that you can get preventative care and screening. As it turns out, it's super nice to catch cancer early. By the time you go to the hospital with a sore throat that won't go away, you're too late.