[extropy-chat] Segways banned in Disney World
mlorrey at yahoo.com
Sun Feb 8 18:26:13 UTC 2004
--- Adrian Tymes <wingcat at pacbell.net> wrote:
> --- Brian Alexander Lee <brian_a_lee at hotmail.com>
> > The segway can be seen as a body modification so
> > it's user becomes sort of a
> > cyborg (especially in the case of otherwise disabled
> > persons).
> Not really. It's a lot closer to the common concept
> of "vehicle" than "body modification". (Of course,
> one could argue that most vehicles could be seen as
> extensions of the body. But this ignores the reason
> we distinguish vehicles from their drivers/pilots in
> the first place.)
The essential problem with San Francisco (but not Disney, it being
private property) is that it is a well settled matter of common law
that citizens have the 9th amendment right to travel upon the public
roads in their personal conveyances. Banning a vehicle is
unconstitutional, as is requiring people surrender a right in order to
gain a privilege (i.e. giving up this right to travel in exchange for a
drivers license). Licenses can only be demanded of those who are paid
to engage in the transport of passengers or cargo in commerce.
> > I guess this is an example of the public not coping
> > with transhumanist
> > themes very well.
> Not really. Segways were given a chance, and proved
> that they can easily become unsafe under common
> conditions (specifically, when the battery runs low or
> when driven by an uncautious person).
WHich is a bogus application of the Precautionary Principle. Common
bicycles can cause fatalities if you go fast enough with them,
especially coming down the steep hills of San Francisco. So what?
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
- Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
- Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.
More information about the extropy-chat