1. To equate fingerprint checking with a medallion system is false. 2. To argue over which is better, tracking or proper background checks, is misleading. The two are compatible and complementary. Tracking helps to catch drivers who commit crimes after the fact, background checks helps screen out those who are likely to do something wrong.

This ban on the sale of cars by the manufacturers serves no legitimate purpose. From this it may be inferred that no honest politician would support a ban on the direct sale of cars by the manufacturers. Therefore the politicians who voted in favour of this ban are crooks.

I'm not sure if a financial analysis is valid. The cost of medical and surgical treatment for a person with a gunshot wound is less than the cost of a bullet - or even the cost of a gun. Does that mean that medicine is not working?

I followed the link past the Mecklin article - which is short on detail - to the Theodore Postel interview and was surprised to find that his "expert" opinion consisted of the claim that "the Iron Dome system is not working very well at all" followed by the "guess" (his word) that "maybe" (his word) it was "working 5 percent of the time." This rigorous and scholarly analysis was in turn followed by the very scientific words "could be" prefixing the statistically precise "even less." He then went on to claim - in response to a leading question - that in order to work, the intercepting missile has to hit the rocket head on. He offered no evidence of this, nor any explanation of why this should be the case, nor any evidence of rockets hitting targets in populated areas. Again, He offered no statistics of his own nor did he state whether "WORKING 5% of the time" means failing to intercept 95% of the time after being launched or being launched only in a small sub-set of cases and thus intercepting only 5% of the rockets with the others being perrmitted through because they are not heading towards populated areas. Finally neither the Postol interview nor the Mecklin article says anything about the opinons of other academic military experts or whether there is support for Postol's conclusions amongst his peers.

Once again the long-winded post telling us your views. Just to clarify: the fact that it is "everybody's legitimate business whether or not you committed the crime" does not mean that there is a reciprocal obligation to answer that question. "Legitimate business" does not transate into the "right to know" let alone the "right to force an answer on pain of penalties." It merely means it is in their INTERESTS to know. By the same token it is in everyone's interest for "Professor Pat Pending" to invent a cure for some disease. It does not follow that he has the obligation to invent it (if he can) or to reveal it (if he has). As to the second question: There is a key practical difference between a witness and a suspect. It is highly unlikely that the solution to a crime will in fact hinge on the answer a suspect is forced to give, as the guilty can always lie. But an innocent person could well be exculpated by a witness statement. Therefore in the second case there is a PRACTICAL benefit likely to be derived in real-world situations. In the former there is none.

You're confusing the right to refuse to answer with whether or not it really is society's business.Those are actually two different questions. Thus, if I committed a murder society has a legitimate interest in finding out. It does not follow that I have an obligation to tell them. My response to the question "Did you kill Bennett Haselton in response to his inane rhetorical questions and prescriptive masks and templates for answers that he would or wouldn't acccep," is not "It's none of your business." Rather my answer is "it IS your business to find out, but not my obligation to tell you." The reason that the right to remain silent does not extend to witnesses is more complicated. And there is room for some debate on the subject. But a key point to bear in mind is that witness testimony might also be exculpatory. Imagine the scenarrio in which an innocent person could be cleared but for the silence of a witness. Or do you subscribe to the viewpoint that it is better that a hundred innocent people be hanged than that one guilty person go free ;-)

I'm in Britain so I don't know US law. But how about: 1) Don't pay the bill. Accuse them of breach of contract and challenge them to prove that you exceeded the cap. 2) Do they have any competitors? Can you not switch to a competitor?