Even for minors?

She was 17 I'm assuming the driver of the vehicle so in this case yes even a minor. If your old enough to operate a vehicle your old enough to be responsible for the decisions you make while operating a vehicle.

---

That is certainly a slippery slope.

 

Seat belt laws are not going anywhere anytime soon. Insurance companies and their lobbyists will make sure of it.

---

If the citizens pay the fines owed to the state for the citation the company is never involved. The "farming" out is the management of the non-payers. Essentially the third party is a collection agency with muscle.

You keep ignoring the point because you have to defend your illogical stance.

 

I will try one more time Eric but your usual ability to converse is failing miserably here. I think I know why. They are criminals so screw them as much as possible even above and beyond what the law says the penalty should. At least that's how it seems here. Profits on the back of that? HECKS YEAH!!!!!!

 

The private entities are artificially increasing the penalty imposed by the law for the sole purpose of maximizing their profits. The penalty imposed by the law. The law of land. Put into place by representatives of the people. People like you. 

---

She was 17 I'm assuming the driver of the vehicle so in this case yes even a minor. If your old enough to operate a vehicle your old enough to be responsible for the decisions you make while operating a vehicle.

And if you don't have a job because you are minor in school and can't afford the fines than a private firm will rack up even more penalties to the tune of 5 times the original penalty that you will then have to pay to a for profit entity. 

---

You keep ignoring the point because you have to defend your illogical stance.

 

I will try one more time Eric but your usual ability to converse is failing miserably here. I think I know why. They are criminals so screw them as much as possible even above and beyond what the law says the penalty should. At least that's how it seems here. Profits on the back of that? HECKS YEAH!!!!!!

 

The private entities are artificially increasing the penalty imposed by the law for the sole purpose of maximizing their profits. The penalty imposed by the law. The law of land. Put into place by representatives of the people. People like you. 

 

I'm not going to pretend I know how they are or are not generating the fee's that's not the issue. You guys have said repeatedly you have a problem with the private company managing the delinquent non-payments for profit, I maintained why not? Any bill, any fee, any citation, has a due date, when you go past that due date there are penalties and fee's, I'm failing to see the problem.

 

Now TED made the point he believes it's unconstitutional to have courts put people in jail for not paying these fee's, which is another discussion we've been having. But the existence of the fee's isn't abnormal, nor the fee's being for profit, everything is for profit.

 

You claim the cost is being artificially inflated, I don't know that, I'm just saying the use of third parties itself isn't a problem. Now if there's corruption involved then the parties guilty should be punished.

 

And if you don't have a job because you are minor in school and can't afford the fines than a private firm will rack up even more penalties to the tune of 5 times the original penalty that you will then have to pay to a for profit entity. 

 

The circumstances of the party should play no role in the punishment dictated by the courts. I disagree 100% with TED that we should have anything even remotely close to a graduated penalty system.

---

I'm not going to pretend I know how they are or are not generating the fee's that's not the issue. You guys have said repeatedly you have a problem with the private company managing the delinquent non-payments for profit, I maintained why not? Any bill, any fee, any citation, has a due date, when you go past that due date there are penalties and fee's, I'm failing to see the problem.

 

Now TED made the point he believes it's unconstitutional to have courts put people in jail for not paying these fee's, which is another discussion we've been having. But the existence of the fee's isn't abnormal, nor the fee's being for profit, everything is for profit.

 

You claim the cost is being artificially inflated, I don't know that, I'm just saying the use of third parties itself isn't a problem. Now if there's corruption involved then the parties guilty should be punished.

 

 

The circumstances of the party should play no role in the punishment dictated by the courts. I disagree 100% with TED that we should have anything even remotely close to a graduated penalty system.

Whoa, so the circumstances of the part should play no role in the punishment dictated by the courts..... Until a private, for profit firm gets involved and now the punishment dictated by he courts is artificially inflated. Which part of artificially inflated do you not understand. You keep ignoring it. It's a penalty dictated by the courts that is then artificially inflated well above what the courts mandated.

---

Whoa, so the circumstances of the part should play no role in the punishment dictated by the courts..... Until a private, for profit firm gets involved and now the punishment dictated by he courts is artificially inflated. Which part of artificially inflated do you not understand. You keep ignoring it. It's a penalty dictated by the courts that is then artificially inflated well above what the courts mandated.

 

No the courts are mandating a fine, once the party does not pay that fine they are then sent to the private party for collection management and costs.

 

IF they pay the fine they don't deal with the private party.

---

No the courts are mandating a fine, once the party does not pay that fine they are then sent to the private party for collection management and costs.

 

IF they pay the fine they don't deal with the private party.

So you are perfectly fine with for profit companies artificially increases the court mandated fees, in the example given, over 5 times the original fee resulting in jail time. All that on top of making profits off of it. I wonder if you would be all for it if the government was doing this. 

---

So you are perfectly fine with for profit companies artificially increases the court mandated fees, in the example given, over 5 times the original fee resulting in jail time. All that on top of making profits off of it. I wonder if you would be all for it if the government was doing this. 

 

Your missing the point, those fees are a result of not paying the initial fine. Even if there was no private company involved, there would still be additional fines charged for not paying court mandated fees. For example I get a speeding ticket ( I don't pay the ticket or get an extension by the due date) there's more fees including my license being suspended. Then the state is spending money trying to collect the fees I owe them, as time goes on those fees grow, eventually I can be arrested for willfully refusing to pay.

 

In the case of private companies they take over AFTER I have failed to pay my initial fine. At that point the private company is reliving the state of the collection duties, so no I don't have a problem with them making a profit for providing a service.

---

Your missing the point, those fees are a result of not paying the initial fine. Even if there was no private company involved, there would still be additional fines charged for not paying court mandated fees. For example I get a speeding ticket ( I don't pay the ticket or get an extension by the due date) there's more fees including my license being suspended. Then the state is spending money trying to collect the fees I owe them, as time goes on those fees grow, eventually I can be arrested for willfully refusing to pay.

 

In the case of private companies they take over AFTER I have failed to pay my initial fine. At that point the private company is reliving the state of the collection duties, so no I don't have a problem with them making a profit for providing a service.

Yes but it should be handled by the government agency. The fees should be imposed by the agency as ordered by the court. Not arbitrarily decided on and applied by a private for profit firm. They should not have the ability to charge whatever fees they like so as to solely make profit. Instead the additional penalties should go to the agencies and put to use in public programs not line somebody's wallet. 

---

Yes but it should be handled by the government agency. The fees should be imposed by the agency as ordered by the court. Not arbitrarily decided on and applied by a private for profit firm. They should not have the ability to charge whatever fees they like so as to solely make profit. Instead the additional penalties should go to the agencies and put to use in public programs not line somebody's wallet. 

 

Governments don't want to do it because it's not cost effective and seen by voters as a waste of resources, so they pass laws to do it how they want. Welcome to your commie Utopia!

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Governments don't want to do it because it's not cost effective and seen by voters as a waste of resources, so they pass laws to do it how they want. Welcome to your commie Utopia!

Passing off fines to a private firm to then make profits off of increasing of penalties is communism? You have no idea what communism is do you?  :no:

---

Passing off fines to a private firm to then make profits off of increasing of penalties is communism? You have no idea what communism is do you?  :no:

Sure do, its government doing what it wants no matter what.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Sure do, its government doing what it wants no matter what.

Oh you are playing dumb. That's cute 

---

Oh you are playing dumb. That's cute 

Like most things I post there's years of actual historical fact to support my point.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Sure do, its government doing what it wants no matter what.

 

No it isn't.


Communism is government ownership of everything.  Privatizing <i>anything</i> goes against the very tenants of communism.  


Authoritarianism is government doing what it wants, no matter what.  

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

Communism is when the government controls the means of production.


In a situation where a private firm is hired to do the work that should be the realm of the government you have fascism, which I like to describe as privatized communism. Some call it crony capitalism.


In my view, libertarianism fails because what you are really taking about is fascism, in the purest economic sense.

---

Like most things I post there's years of actual historical fact to support my point.

Oh dear, you actually believe this. Read below the kind people taking time to educate you a little bit. 

---

Communism is when the government controls the means of production.


In a situation where a private firm is hired to do the work that should be the realm of the government you have fascism, which I like to describe as privatized communism. Some call it crony capitalism.


In my view, libertarianism fails because what you are really taking about is fascism, in the purest economic sense.

Huh? When you have private enterprise working with the force of government it conflicts with a true free market.


Without a free market no aspect of libertarianism will work, that's why we're so big on reigning in government across the board. Fascism needs government to function it's an aspect of authoritarianism which is the opposite of everything libertarian.

---

Oh dear, you actually believe this. Read below the kind people taking time to educate you a little bit. 

 

 

Lol, paper definitions work to the moment the people who define them change them. So, tell me, how's all that we don' do anything non-private Communism working out in the remaining Communist countries in our world today? Communism is now simply synonymous with Authoritarianism, regardless of what Webster's says. Sometimes they nationalize it, sometimes they make deals with it; in all cases they do what they want without regard to the will of the people.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato