Sure, but your original assertion was that 5 people (in one household) pay less tax than a _single_ person (in one household) earning the same total amount. So I ask again, how is it right that one household of 5 people pays less tax than one household of 1 person when the more populous (and presumably larger) household uses more services, with equal income?

Note that I don't think it reasonable to take into account the *projected* contribution of the three children for this calculation without taking into account each possible outcome for their lives.

Riiight. I think you might want to consider your own argument. "If I were hypothetically presented with an argument that would never be presented because of being extremely easy to defeat, I would defeat it easily."

I admire your persistence, but the ad hominem shows you have run out of anything to say.

Wouldn't that be hamstered away?

Your doubts are beside the point. You asserted "any lawyer who attempted to use <method of attachment causes damage> as a counter to why this technology should not be used would be struck down." Lawyers have also thought of these things already, and would be unlikely to use such a reason if it did not exist; therefore, if that reason /were/ used, it would in all certainty be valid, and thus not struck down (or "overruled") on that basis at least.

By your own admission the answer to "The device *really* damaged the car (or its contents). Should it continue to be used without a warrant?" is no, so I wonder what point you are trying to make.

I would hope even a bullshit lawyer would be able to provide evidence of attachment, and subsequent damage, before telling you any such thing. In which case "overruled" does not apply, regardless of your aspirations to Judge Judy-hood, because then - as you admit - you do not think LEOs should be able to damage my property.

No disagreement here; my point was not what you should have to do, but what people *are* (likely) doing to get around the counter-liberty actions being undertaken by LEOs.

The GPP's point was that damage to the car would occur through the use of glue. Using magnets or clamps may be no less damaging, depending on how they are placed and where, and the contents of the car. Therefore, the GPP's point - why should LEOs be able to damage my car? - still stands, and you have not addressed it.

..and once you've found the first one, expect another. Lather, rinse, repeat. Eventually someone will get bored, or some bean counter will wonder why the budget for GPS trackers just went from $20000 pa to $200000. Oh, and in that few minutes before they notice, and another few hours before they can install a new device? That's when you make your drop/ buy/ whatever.

Oh the GPP did mention "conventional bombs", not troops, so I take that bit back, however there is still a risk that planes will be damaged - and presumably you want those back - where damaging a nuke, even if possible, would still result in destruction of an object you had no desire to ever see again.

Sending troops on planes carries with it the risk that those troops will be harmed and planes damaged. Dropping a nuke, from orbit or anywhere else, carries no such risk. This is a fundamental difference, not merely one of scale.

That wasn't the question. Fundamentally, without regard to the efficiency of the system, tracking someone with a GPS is different from tracking them with a car due to the economics of the situation - a single cop can monitor dozens if not hundreds of GPS devices simultaneously but only follow a single car, and then only with restrictions (time-out for sleeping, meals etc). You might be tempted to argue this is merely a difference of scale, but I see it as a fundamental shift since it in effect removes all restrictions.

Why do you think a judge would know (or care about) the difference between glue and magnets/ clamps? What makes you think the use of magnets or clamps wouldn't interfere with the car or its contents in some way? What if I had some magnetically-sensitive equipment right over the spot where the GPS device is attached?

Yeah - we call that "innocent until proven guilty". Proven, not assumed.

Anyone with half an ounce of intelligence uses a pre-paid phone if they intend doing something bad. If the cops are tracking you via a celllphone, they are tracking the wrong target, are after low-hanging fruit, or are simply fishing.

How does this make sense? It's a safe bet that 5 people consume > 1x the services paid for by taxes than a single person, but in your plan overall their contribution is lower.