If your talking about Canada I have to clarify your statement. Healthcare is not paid for by taxes. We have "public health insurance". So we all buy insurance from the single state insurance company spreading the risk as wide as possible and taking profit out of health insurance. Rates are discounted for low income people. As low as free or $20/month in some cases. Average lower middle class probably pay about $250/month for family of four. Federal tax dollars are set to each province based on population and are used to administer the health insurance program and help with the subsidies to ensure that no body is denied access to insurance due to financial hardship. So...it is "PUBLIC HEALTH INSURANCE" not public health care providers.

All doctors are private business owners who bill the public insurance company. That is basic health insurance only. Many companies provide their workers extended insurance to cover things not included in the basic government insurance. Extended health insurance is an open market of private companies.

The government insurance company has an interest in keeping costs down which they do through public information campaigns to promote preventative measures such as early screening, active lifestyles etc.

It is a great system and I was really sad that the US didn't explore this option. There were just to much lies and propaganda in the US about "Guberment doctors". I live in Canada and have never seen a "gubberment doctor" in my life.

Parasitic scumbug businesses are nothing new. They number of them just happened to explode after after Reagan and "Greed is good".

The narrow mandate of increasing shareholder value is just too damn narrow and has been baked into the culture. Just change the rules and the culture will change.

For the sake of arguement. What about bars that pat people down to ensure they dont bring weapons in. Is that constitutional? I can hear you say that those are private businesses ao its different. But airlines are private businesses. What if they made the rules and hired the security to do the screening. That would be constitutiinally fine right?

Liberty vs Public good is in tension. Finding the sweet spot in the middle is the goal isn't it.

America like to deride Europe for leaning too much towards public good, but I am not so sure that the American model is working so well.

The areas that the USA leans more towards liberty sometimes often seems to promote poverty, violence and human suffering. As I am sure you know, America leads in many undesirable stats such as child mortality, violent crimes, inequality, etc.

I think a little more acceptance of the principals of harm reduction could go a long way and leave fewer people feeling like they have no choice. (As an aside you guys should have gone for public health insurance. I know the propaganda talks about "Guberment doctors" and death panels. But its malarkey. Its public "insurance" and private doctors. At least that's what we have in Canada)

TSA Screenings seem like an awfully petty thing to be concerned about considering the much larger glitches in the US culture. Its sort of like the commenter farther below who put Road Side DUI checks on par with mass unwarranted surveillance of phone and email.

Correct being a Canadian I am not super familiar with the US constitution.

However I think the analogy of enforcing license compliance re: restaurants is valid. If one agrees that it is within the governments power to license driving, you are compelled to allow inspections to confirm compliance with the license.

You don't need a license to walk the street or be in your home. The cops can't stop you and ask you if your complying with your walking license because there is no such thing. I believe cars on public roads are qualitative different.

You said that restaurants are different because they are a public space "because anyone can walk in". I think this is backwards. Operating a vehicle on a shared public road is as public as it gets. The kitchen and food storage area of a restaurant are very private by comparison. So if the state has the power to inspect these kitchens to confirm license requirements, why don't they have the right to stop drivers to confirm the compliance with their license? They are not in some magically private space when traveling down the highway.

Whole different story if there was random road checks to check, for example, for possession of illegal substances. because it does not relate to license compliance.

Also I don't think "we got along fine" before DUI road checks. I think a lot more families where crushed and maimed.

In 1990 your supreme court said that the 4th amendment protects against "unreasonable" search and seizure and that road side DUI checks where not unreasonable and were therefor constitutional. (Granted I think they do get things wrong sometime re: citizens united).

I doubt they would same the same about the other things on your list.

Your original post reminded me of Ron Paul. He says a lot of things that make good sense, then he says fiat currency is the devil and we should return to gold....thats when he sounds like a kook.

So I do understand that it is a nuanced issue, and that YOU don't think they are constitutional. But your supreme court does and your constitution says they are the ones who make that decision right?

Ok how about a food health inspector showing up to inspect your restaurant?

If the constitution does not say the government has such a power, then they don't. That's the end of it.

So your saying that restaurant health inspectors are unconstitutional? Are you simply pointing out that they are unconstitutional? or do you agree that they should be stopped because they are unconstitutional?

I think that is overly simplistic.

Enforcement of many laws can not possibly be done simply by "being on the lookout". That's why we have regulations WITH compliance audits. How could you see if a bank was meeting its regulatory requirements? Stand on the sidewalk and look at the building? Come on that makes no sense. If you think road checks are unconstitutional, why isn't the whole process of requiring a license? Is there something in the Constitution that grants the government the power to limit and license ones access to personal transportation technology?

Look I agree with all your other points about your surveillance state and how terrible it is. I just think your going a little too far. It feels like the whole "Government IS the problem" falsehood that is floated around. "Bad" government is the problem (corrupt or incompetent or both) not any government.

I think DUI Road checks are a public good and are essential. I think its possible for them to be abused but that is a different matter right?

Something seems off in your seemingly broad interpretation.

Ok how about a food health inspector showing up to inspect your restaurant? If you deny them access they just shut you down right? So you let them in. Its part of the requirements of having that kind of business license. Don't want the spot checks? then don't own a restaurant. Submitting to inspection is part of the requirement of the license.

Couldn't the same be true of a drivers license? Cops don't operate road checks on sidewalk randomly asking everyone walking by if they have been drinking right? You need a license to drive on the public roads and a requirement of the license is to submit to random road checks for the purpose confirming you compliance with the license requirements. Its not a road check asking "Have you assaulted anyone today?"

Perhaps what is needed is a different agency. If it was a "Traffic Safety Inspector" running the road check instead of the LAPD, would that make it different?

Its interesting.

I understand your point. I wonder what the stats are. How many people that were pulled over in a road check and asked "Have you been drinking tonight" were subsequently arrested for other crimes? It would be interesting to know.

In all the road checks I have been through (in Canada) they ask about drinking and that's it. No show my your drivers license or anything else.

Local story. Last weekend there was a big house party in a neighborhood (100+ young people in the early twenties). A neighbor called the police and said they were worried about kids driving home drunk. The cops set up a road check down the road from the party and took 3 vehicle off the road for DUI. One was a car with a busted windshield, bumper hanging off, filled with young people including two sitting in the trunk with their legs out. Driver was drunk.

Would that be unconstitutional in the USA? Having a step daughter who was at that party (but slept in her van at the party), I was thrilled that the cops responded so quickly. Its a small community drunk driver car crashes that take the lives of three of four kids at once seem to happen every couple of years

Perhaps you simply need safeguards. You know where DUI road checks can only pursue other crimes in obvious situations like a guy covered in blood with a dead hooker in the back seat.

Read more Hobbs, Mills and Locke. Your MORE free with intersection street lights then without. Welcome to civilisation.

How many people support DUI checkpoints

They only have to be a supporter of one of them to be a supporter of a police state

So if I think DUI checkpoints are a good idea I support a full blow police state? Are you nucking futs? Drop that from the list and I am totally with you. btw: I also support random vehicle safety road checks, helps keep under maintained trucks from crashing into me.

If you want freedom from DUI roadchecks, then I want the freedom to pull your drunk ass out of your car and beat you within an inch or less of your life.

In Canada we had something called the "Environmental Round Table". It was established with the sole purpose of providing spin free information to parliamentarians (Congressmen for you Yanks). Our Conservative Government (Canadian Republicans) defunded it and stated publicly, and with no apparent shame, that the reason it was defunded was because it kept producing information that disagreed with Government policy.

Don't like the facts? Fire the people who reporting them, that will make those annoying facts go away.

They also implemented a communication protocol so that all interviews with Canadian Scientists have to be approved by the prime ministers office. This is most often used to control climate change information.

They are the worst ideological blinders on, information controlling government ever and yet they rant about "Law and Order" and so all the old people vote for them.

A number of years ago a study was published that indicated that when the government was not seen to be legitimate by some large section of the population, crime of all kinds go up. So for example, when a Democrat is in the white house crime in red states goes up, and vice versus.

I strongly suspect that this is just another example of that, and not something specific to socialism.

Have you ever tried anywhere else? You might be surprised to learn that the USA is not the only democracy on earth, and also not the one with the most liberty.

While this may not be *technically* a scam, any business model based on tricking customers is pathetic and the work of a sociopath. So ya fuck them and yank there license.

And in case you didn't RTFA or RTFS the terms of use say you can't harvest whois for mass marketing purposes. Clearly this is what they are doing so again, fuck them and yank their license.

Its a giant pain in the ass when a client calls and gets mad at me because their website and email is down only to find out that they received one of these letters and accidentally transferred their domain.

"Businesses" like this are a menace and should be shut down.

I think the phrase you are looking for is "Harm Reduction"