 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / June 2006The Right to Drive
Driver Licensing presumes to give revocable authority or permission to one presumed to have no Right to Drive an Automobile on our Public Highways that would otherwise be unlawful. Our States for close to a hundred years has told us that "Driving is a Privilege". Our States and local Courts have maintained this position all along. Citizens have suffered under its permissions and impositions for so long that they have accepted it as the gospel, such that many will outright ignore any arguments or evidence to the contrary, and others will resort to attacking anyone who would deliver those arguments and evidence to the contrary. They have become so accustomed to the shackles imposed by Driver Licensing that they feel naked without them and will actually strike out at those who would attempt to loosen their shackles. Long ago, it was recognized that we have the Right of Transit ORDINARILY used for Personal Travel on our Public Highways, as evidenced in the following US Supreme Court ruling: "Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any state is a right secured by the 14th Amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution." - Williams v. Fears, 179 U.S. 270 (1900) - http://laws.findlaw.com/us/179/270.html#274 Almost as long ago, it was recognized that we have the Right to use our Public Highways for Personal Travel in the ORDINARY way, as evidenced in the following US Supreme Court ruling: "The streets belong to the public and are primarily for the use of the public in the ordinary way." -- Packard v. Banton, 264 U.S. 140 (1924) - http://laws.findlaw.com/us/264/140.html#144 What is the Transit ORDINARILY used for Personal Travel on our Public Highways today? It is of course, Driving the Automobile. What is the ORDINARY way we use our Public Highways for Personal Travel today? Again, it is Driving the Automobile. In both cases above, the courts used the word ORDINARY. This means that we have the Right to what ever Transit may, at that time, be the Transit ORDINARILY used for Personal Travel. A hundred years ago, the Transit Ordinarily used was probably the horse and buggy. And, nobody would have denied at that time that we have the Right to Travel on our Public Highways Driving the Horse and Buggy. Today, the Transit Ordinarily used is the Automobile. Yet, people have been convinced that we don't have the Right to Travel on our Public Highways Driving the Automobile. Our Public Highways are intended to enhance our Right of Liberty. Yet, the more our Taxes are used to make our Public Highways unusable by anything but the Automobile, the more this Lie that Driving the Automobile is a Privilege makes us Prisoners of Privilege, behind Bars of Blacktop. Walking, riding bicycles and driving horse and buggies on our Public Highways have become almost impossible, and in fact are often outright prohibited because they obstruct with the Transit Ordinarily used, because they obstruct those Driving Automobiles. This creates an unreasonable burden or restriction of movement upon those who aren't deemed worthy of permission to drive automobiles. "This Court long ago recognized that the nature of our Federal Union and our constitutional concepts of personal liberty unite to require that all citizens be free to Travel throughout the length and breadth of our land uninhibited by statutes, rules, or regulations which unreasonably burden or restrict this movement." -- Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969) - http://laws.findlaw.com/us/394/618.html#629 There are those who will argue that we owe it to the public to prove we can drive safely before being allowed to Drive an Automobile on our Public Highways. But, again, the US Supreme Court differs in the following ruling: "[The Individual] owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights." -- Hale vs. Hinkel, 201 US 43, 74-75 - http://laws.findlaw.com/us/201/43.html#74 Driver Licensing can only determine if one CAN drive safely. But, fact is, virtually every consenting adult CAN drive safely. That isn't the problem with highway safety. The problem with highway safety is if one WILL drive safely. And, Driver Licensing cannot even pretend to determine if one WILL drive safely. The bulk of Highway Accidents are caused, not by lack of Ability (if one CAN drive safely), but because of Willful acts (if one WILL drive safely). According to Online Lawyer Source ( http://www.onlinelawyersource.com/personal_injury/auto/causes.html ), the primary cause of Highway Accidents is WILLFUL acts of Negligence, Maliciousness or Aggressive Driving. Driver Licensing offers nothing to enhance Highway Safety that Reckless Endangerment Laws didn't already provide. If one is driving in a safe manner, there is no need or reason to stop them to find out if they have a Drivers License. If one is driving in a dangerous manner, there is already every reason to stop them, regardless if they have a Driver License or not. Consider the following scenarios that run through the permutations of combinations of a Respect for Rights, a Lack of Respect for Rights, a Respect for, or fear of, the Law, a Lack of Respect, or fear of, the Law, the exhibition of Safe Driving, and the exhibition of Unsafe Driving. A: People who have a respect for the Rights of others, a Respect for the Law, and exhibit Safe Driving: Are not problems on our highways, and should not be prevented from driving safely simply due to a lack of License. B: People who have a respect for the Rights of others, a Respect for the Law, and exhibit Unsafe Driving: Will not drive due to their respect for the Rights of others, regardless if they have a License or not. Otherwise, they have no respect for the Rights of others (see F below). C: People who have a respect for the Rights of others, no Respect for the Law, and exhibit Safe Driving: Are not problems on our Highways, despite their lack of respect for the law, and should not be prevented from driving safely simply due to a lack of License. Otherwise, they exhibit Unsafe Driving (see D below). D: People who have a respect for the Rights of others, no Respect for the Law, and exhibit Unsafe Driving: Will not drive due to their respect for the Rights of others, despite their lack of respect for the law, regardless if they have a License or not. Otherwise, they have no respect for the Rights of others (see H below). E: People who have no respect for the Rights of others, a Respect for the Law, and exhibit Safe Driving: Are not problems on our Highways, and despite their lack of respect for the Rights of others, should not be prevented from driving safely simply due to a lack of License. Otherwise, they exhibit Unsafe Driving (see F below). F: People who have no respect for the Rights of others, a Respect for the Law, and exhibit Unsafe Driving: Will not drive due to their respect for, or fear of, the Law prosecuting and possibly imprisoning them under Reckless Endangerment Laws for exhibiting Unsafe Driving, regardless if they have a License or not. Otherwise, they have no respect for, or fear of, the Law (see H below). G: People who have no respect for the Rights of others, no Respect for the Law, and exhibit Safe Driving: Are not problems on our Highways, and despite their lack of respect for the Rights of others or for the Law, should not be prevented from driving safely simply due to a lack of License. Otherwise, they exhibit Unsafe Driving (see H below). H: People who have no respect for the Rights of others, no Respect for the Law, and exhibit Unsafe Driving: Will drive anyway, due to their lack of respect for the Rights of others and for the Law, regardless if they have a License or not, and despite any Licensing, can only be stopped by the witnessing of their exhibition of Unsafe Driving, the application of Laws against Reckless Endangerment, and their subsequent imprisonment. Otherwise, they have a Respect for the Rights of others (see C above), or they have a Respect for, or fear of, the Law (see F above), a Respect for the Rights of others and for the Law (see B above), or they exhibit Safe Driving (see G above). We have the Right of Transit Ordinarily used for Personal Travel on our Public Highways. The Transit Ordinarily used for Personal Travel on our Public Highways today is Driving the Automobile. Nobody owes it to the public to prove they can drive safely before being allowed to exercise their Right to Drive an Automobile on our Public Highways for the purpose of Personal Travel. Driver Licensing serves no purpose for Highway Safety that our Laws against Reckless Endangerment didn't already serve. Our States are LYING to us. Driving IS NOT a Privilege. Driving IS a Right. > Driver Licensing presumes to give revocable authority or permission to > one presumed to have no Right to Drive an Automobile on our Public [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Privilege". Our States and local Courts have maintained this position > all along. driving is a RIGHT, not a privilege. do you consider traffic jams, overcrowded roads, poorly maintained roads, potholes, etc., etc. a PRIVILEGE? Of course f.cking not. What happened this time? Another DUI force the state to take your DL? You're lucky you're not in prison. > What happened this time? Another DUI force the state to take > your DL? You're lucky you're not in prison. This person is responding with an Ad Hominem attack against myself instead of addressing the issue. This type of person will claim the only reason I would make these arguments is because I have lost my Driver Licenses. If I told this type of person I have a valid Driver License, they would call me a liar, because they already believe the only reason I would make these arguments is because I have lost my Driver Licenses. There is no use addressing these types of people. I agree with you to a point, in fact, refused to get a license until I was 25 because I saw it as a revenue generation scheme. (I finally gave in because I needed a license for a position I had applied for) Some of the worst drivers I've seen have been licensed and vice versa. Licensing does not automatically guarantee that a given individual will use common sense and courtesy while driving. Any morning or evening commute will amply supply examples. However, I have a problem with habitual drunk drivers. I agree that pulling their license doesn't stop them from choosing to drive--drunk or sober, BUT having the threat of losing their freedom because of their choice to drive drunk does tend to stop all but the worst offenders. Face it, they ARE a menace and have the capability of harming or killing other people who have no choice in the matter. If they were only taking a chance with their own lives, it would be Darwin in action, but they aren't. I fear I'm exposing my ignorance here, but what is the Libertarian viewpoint on this matter? Joyce [m.t.r removed] > I agree with you to a point Agree with whom? The original poster, proffsl. why? > [m.t.r removed] > >> I agree with you to a point > > Agree with whom? >>>I agree with you to a point Arif Khokar wrote: >>Agree with whom? > The original poster, proffsl. > why? Because there was no reference in the post that made it obvious to what you were referring to. That's why I asked. Also, please post your reply below the text you're responding to (that's standard usenet newsgroups convention). > >>>I agree with you to a point > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Also, please post your reply below the text you're responding to (that's > standard usenet newsgroups convention). For very long posts, it's common and often better to toppost. But a person's posting style is their own business; we don't need more self-appointed net cops dictating it, correcting spelling/grammar, or anything else. > > >>>I agree with you to a point > > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > self-appointed net cops dictating it, correcting spelling/grammar, or > anything else. ----- He's not trying to police Usenet. He merely pointed out that bottom posting is traditional or customary... or conventional... and sensible. It places the material relevant to the reply first, where the reader might quickly skim it first, to note the relevance of the reply. Do you like to read the answer first... then scroll down to the question? Do you read books first... then discover the titles or read the preface? "It is recommended that you reply below the topics. Just as with questions from readers in a magazine, the journalists respond below the question to follow the natural reading order." "In this way people won't have to read down and later on go back to the top of the message. Remember that most people on Usenet read many messages every day. And the responses mostly appear much later, so they cannot always remember the exact message. It is also much easier for the next person who wants to respond to your answer." http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanb/documents/quotingguide.html ----- - gpsman >> Also, please post your reply below the text you're responding to (that's >> standard usenet newsgroups convention). > For very long posts, it's common and often better to toppost. No, it is not. If the post is very long, trim it down to the pertinent points you're responding to. Notice how I deleted the quoted text that I wasn't responding to? See how much shorter this post is as compared to the one you made based on line count? > If the post is very long, trim it down to the pertinent points you're > responding to. Notice how I deleted the quoted text that wasn't > responding to? See how much shorter this post is as compared > to the one you made based on line count? Arif, please take your usenet posting class to a thread of your own. The purpose of this thread is to debate our Right to Drive. You're Welcome. > > If the post is very long, trim it down to the pertinent points you're > > responding to. Notice how I deleted the quoted text that wasn't [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Arif, please take your usenet posting class to a thread of your own. > The purpose of this thread is to debate our Right to Drive. Not any more it isn't. Consider yourself HIJACKED! Mwahahahahahahahaha! -- C.R. Krieger > [snip] >>> Also, please post your reply below the text you're responding to (that's >>> standard usenet newsgroups convention). [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >I wasn't responding to? See how much shorter this post is as compared >to the one you made based on line count? Mr. Graeme's original post, that you started complaining about, was only 21 lines, and entirely original material. It was obvious what he was responding to -- the central claim of proffsl's original post, that getting drunk drivers off the road is an unacceptable infringement on liberty. Having done occasional net-kopping myself, I will not make a generic denunciation of the practice. But you are completely off base here. --Hugo S. Cunningham > Mr. Graeme's original post, that you started complaining about, was > only 21 lines, and entirely original material. > > It was obvious what he was responding to No, it wasn't. I have proffsl killfiled, so I had no original text to refer to. > > Mr. Graeme's original post, that you started complaining about, > > was only 21 lines, and entirely original material. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > No, it wasn't. I have proffsl killfiled, so I had no original text to > refer to. Hahahahahahaha!!! It's obvious to those with eyes. We can't help it, or be expected to know, if someone chooses to wear blinders. > We can't help it, > or be expected to know, if someone chooses to wear blinders. Leave the Amish horses out of it. -- C.R. Krieger (Been there; drove that) > > No, it is not. If the post is very long, trim it down to the pertinent > > points you're responding to. Notice how I deleted the quoted text [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > proffsl's original post, that getting drunk drivers off the road is an > unacceptable infringement on liberty. Where did you come up with this Strawman? That IS NOT the central claim of my original post. The central claim of my original post is that Driving is a Right, and that if that Right is abused, just as with any other Right, it can be suspended or denied, but only by Due Process of Law. Even without a Liberty License, if we abuse our Right of Liberty by trespassing, our Right of Liberty can be suspended or denied, but only by Due Process of Law. And, even without a Driver License, if we abuse our Right to Drive by Reckless Endangerment, our Right to Drive can be suspended or denied, but again only by Due Process of Law. > Having done occasional net-kopping myself, I will not make a > generic denunciation of the practice. But you are completely > off base here. And, your Strawman fabrication above was completely off base. "Hugo S. Cunningham" <checkwebsite@cyberussr.com> wrote > It was obvious what he was responding to -- the central claim of > proffsl's original post, that getting drunk drivers off the road is an > unacceptable infringement on liberty. No, he (and I agree) that this is not. For one thing, many of us have proffsl blocked, and never saw the OP. For another, this is heavily x-posted, and editing the NG list/follow-ups can easily prevent people on other NG's from seeing the OP. FloydR (from rec.autos.driving, with idiot proffsl blocked.) > No, he (and I agree) that this is not. For one thing, many of us > have proffsl blocked, and never saw the OP. This person can really only speak for themself. But, once again, someone choose to wear blinders, and expects everyone else to know it. C.R. Krieger signed the following: For very long posts, it's actually better to trim out the excess excrement. > For very long posts, it's common and often better to toppost. So you won't mind my interleaving my replies using your preferred convention of writing my response before you read what it is I'm responding to. > But a > person's posting style is their own business; Nor do we need any more top-posting morons like you. > we don't need more > self-appointed net cops dictating it, correcting spelling/grammar, or > anything else. > I agree with you to a point, in fact, refused to get a license until I was > 25 because I saw it as a revenue generation scheme. (I finally gave in [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Joyce Unsure of the Libertarian viewpoint on this, but as a very liberal person, I am agreeing with your viewpoints. As I stated in another thread, driving is a privilege, not a right, and we take it for granted. My proposal: It would cost $500 for an exam (discounts for the needy, etc.), but you would be required to complete a very difficult written test that would ask you about many different types of driving situations and perform a road course. I continue on with -- "I'm sorry that the vast majority of America cannot fathom a nation where we are all safe drivers, or at least the majority. We live in a nation that is ruled by the aging-'hippie' generation, that for any conceivable reason, will do anything to thwart any attempt to remove their freedom to drive, even at the expense of other people's lives. It's clearly shown with statistics that the most dangerous drivers are: 1) Teenage drivers, and 2) Elderly drivers. For obvious reasons on both, they need limits, but why stop there? Bad drivers exist at any age-group, and this is clearly evident in how much training you receive behind the wheel. When I could pass my drivers exam with a 98% after taking a simple sight exam ("Can you see the stop sign?") and a 5-question written exam, and a short around-the-block "can you use your turn signal" driving test, I am confident that this nation can do much better. I learned my *real* driving skills on the track, in SCCA meets. I have received far more training there, and while taking defense-driving courses, than I ever learned while at the DMV. So how much are you paying in maintenance and fuel? I owned a 2001 model and paid very little maintenance over it's life, and the problems that did arise stemmed from the dealership's fault (for which they paid for all repairs). I also drive a fuel-efficient vehicle (2006 Toyota RAV4-L) - are you driving some gas-guzzling vehicle? With my commute and driving habits, I fill up every 5 days, putting my cost per week around $38.00. If you are hurting so much by these prices, then complain to the oil companies or better yet - your government. $500 is not a lot of money for the average worker. As I noted, price breaks can be given to those who cannot afford it, such as the elderly or those without a job. This pays for the labour hours put in by highly trained and skilled driver licensing officials that can teach *real* world driving skills."  SignatureSherman Cahal Author of American Byways | http://www.americanbyways.com Author of Abandoned | http://www.abandonedonline.com Map Members - Put yourself on the map today! | http://www.americanbyways.com/index.php?s=mapmem Donate to preserve bandwidth on American Byways and Abandoned today! Considering what passes for "liberal" nowadays, a "liberal" may well take such a position infringing on individual rights. To anyone with respect for individual rights, it is repugnant for the state to label a common and necessary activity a "privilege" that the government grants us--especially when it is our tax dollars (extorted by the state) that pay for roads. > Considering what passes for "liberal" nowadays, a "liberal" may > well take such a position infringing on individual rights. To anyone > with respect for individual rights, it is repugnant for the state to > label a common and necessary activity a "privilege" that the > government grants us--especially when it is our tax dollars > (extorted by the state) that pay for roads. Exactly! Our Public Highways are intended to enhance our Right of Liberty. But, the more our Public Highways are made unuseable by anything but the Automobile, with this LIE that Driving the Automobile is a State granted permission, the more they become Prisons of Permission with Bars of Blacktop. > Our Public Highways are intended to enhance our Right of Liberty. But, > the more our Public Highways are made unuseable by anything but the > Automobile, with this LIE that Driving the Automobile is a State > granted permission, the more they become Prisons of Permission with > Bars of Blacktop. Somebody obviously got arrested riding his lawnmower on the Interstate ... -- C.R. Krieger (Been there; drove that) > Unsure of the Libertarian viewpoint on this, but as a very liberal > person, I am agreeing with your viewpoints. As I stated in another > thread, driving is a privilege, not a right, and we take it for granted. Apparently, you did not bother to read any of my arguments and evidence showing that Driving is a Right, as you clearly did not bother to respond to any of them. And, I'm not here to entertain even further impositions on and abridgments of our Right to Drive. And, by the way, a "privilege" IS a Right. In the Constitution of the United States, in the 14th Amendment, it states: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." -- 14th Amendment of the US Constitution There reference to "privileges or immunities" is a reference to Rights. Also, in Merriam-Websters, "privileges" is defined as: "a right or immunity granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor : PREROGATIVE; especially : such a right or immunity attached specifically to a position or an office" -- http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/privileges As the 14th Amendment states: "privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States", it is in saying: "Rights granted as a peculiar benefit of citizens of the United States". And, as an asside, concerning the word "granted", it does not mean "given", but instead it means "to consent to carry out for a person : allow fulfillment of <grant a request> b : to permit as a right, privilege, or favor" -- http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=granted So, If Driving is a Privilege, then Driving is a Right. That is what they say, isn't it? On the other hand, where it is assumed Driver Licenses must first be obtained from the State, then Driving is a State granted Permission. Driver Licensing is the act of giving revocable permission to one having no possessory Rights to Drive an Automobile on Public Highways which would otherwise be unlawful. But, they don't say Driving is a State granted permission. They say it's a Privilege. And, we have been fooled into believe a "Privilege" is a "Permission", instead of a "Right" > My proposal: It would cost $500 for an exam (discounts for the needy, > etc.), but you would be required to complete a very difficult written > test that would ask you about many different types of driving situations > and perform a road course. Driver Licensing tests can only determine if one CAN drive safely. But, virtually every consenting adult CAN drive safely. The primary problem with highway safety is not if a person CAN drive safely, but instead if the person WILL drive safely. And, no Driver Licensing test can even pretend to determine if a person WILL drive safely. According to Online Lawyer Source ( http://www.onlinelawyersource.com/personal_injury/auto/causes.html ), most Automobile accidents are caused due to WILLFUL Negligence, Maliciousness, Recklessness, Drunkardness or Aggressive Driving. > $500 is not a lot of money for the average worker. One Cent is too much to pay for a useless test which only presumes to convert a Right into a State granted Permission. >> Unsure of the Libertarian viewpoint on this, but as a very liberal >> person, I am agreeing with your viewpoints. As I stated in another [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > One Cent is too much to pay for a useless test which only presumes to > convert a Right into a State granted Permission. So what would your professed solution be to this? Without proper training, you are going to send more and more untrained and unskilled drivers onto the roadways. You want to decrease deaths on the highway and sharpen the skills of the existing drivers? Increase training, decrease the amount of poorly skilled drivers, and redo your licensing system. Works in Germany, can work here. SignatureSherman Cahal Author of American Byways | http://www.americanbyways.com Author of Abandoned | http://www.abandonedonline.com Map Members - Put yourself on the map today! | http://www.americanbyways.com/index.php?s=mapmem Donate to preserve bandwidth on American Byways and Abandoned today! > So what would your professed solution be to this? To what? > Without proper training, you are going to send more and more > untrained and unskilled drivers onto the roadways. Apparently you didn't read where I state, and provide evidence, that the primary problem with highway safety isn't if a person CAN drive safely, but rather if a person WILL drive safely. Driver Licensing tests can only determine if one CAN drive safely. But, virtually every consenting adult CAN drive safely. The primary problem with highway safety is not if a person CAN drive safely, but instead if the person WILL drive safely. And, no Driver Licensing test can even pretend to determine if a person WILL drive safely. According to Online Lawyer Source ( http://www.onlinelawyersource.com/personal_injury/auto/causes.html ), most Automobile accidents are caused due to WILLFUL Negligence, Maliciousness, Recklessness, Drunkardness or Aggressive Driving. > You want to decrease deaths on the highway and sharpen the skills of the existing drivers? Is this a rhetorical question? You decrease deaths on the highways be decreasing reckless driving. You decrease reckless driving by prosecuting reckless driving. If someone doesn't drive recklessly, then their not the problem, and no measures should be taken against them. > Increase training, decrease the amount of poorly skilled drivers, and redo your licensing system. Works in Germany, can work here. Then, move to Germany. This is America, where we have Rights. >> Unsure of the Libertarian viewpoint on this, but as a very liberal >> person, I am agreeing with your viewpoints. As I stated in another [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > And, by the way, a "privilege" IS a Right. In the Constitution of the > United States, in the 14th Amendment, it states: Privilege: "A special advantage or immunity or benefit not enjoyed by all" Right: "Something that somebody gives you. It cannot be taken away." With those definitions, radicals would propose that licensing could *never* be taken away from, say, a drunk driver because it is a *right* and not a *privilege*. These are two wholly different words that should not be interchanged. SignatureSherman Cahal Author of American Byways | http://www.americanbyways.com Author of Abandoned | http://www.abandonedonline.com Map Members - Put yourself on the map today! | http://www.americanbyways.com/index.php?s=mapmem Donate to preserve bandwidth on American Byways and Abandoned today! > Right: "Something that somebody gives you. It cannot be taken away." Rights are not given, we have rights period. > With those definitions, radicals would propose that licensing could > *never* be taken away from, say, a drunk driver because it is a *right* > and not a *privilege*. These are two wholly different words that should > not be interchanged. Those are not the only two choices. Using a motor vehicle isn't a right. But it certainly isn't a priviledge either. Calling it a priviledge has severely weakened the defense of our actual rights. The 'right' here is the use of the road system, to travel. I am unsure where driving falls, but it fundamentally cannot be a priviledge because that allows the government far too much power. It allows the government to make people agree to various conditions for the 'priviledge'. It's not a right because it's not something we fundamentally have. It's a means of travel. As I think about it, driving is something government can regulate, but not put conditions upon. In other words there are the rules to driving, insure basic knowledge, and punish those who break them. That punishment can be no longer being allowed to operate a motor vehicle on the roads or whatever. (those rules should make sense, regulations should be technically sound, etc but that's another subject) Our rights do not come from government and the government should not become a grantor of priviledge. We need to work within that construct regardless. > > Right: "Something that somebody gives you. It cannot be taken away." > > Rights are not given, we have rights period. True. We INHERENTLY have Rights. > > With those definitions, radicals would propose that licensing could > > *never* be taken away from, say, a drunk driver because it is a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Those are not the only two choices. Using a motor vehicle isn't a > right. I contend that using an Automobile for Personal Travel on our Public Highways IS a Right, or Privilege, of all US Citizens. > But it certainly isn't a priviledge either. Calling it a priviledge > has severely weakened the defense of our actual rights. A "privilege" is nothing more than a "Right" granted by position. immunity granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor : PREROGATIVE; especially : such a right or immunity attached specifically to a position or an office" -- http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/privileges "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." -- 14th Amendment of the US Constitution The phrase "privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" means "Rights granted as a peculiar benefit or advantage of citizens of the United States". Or, in other words: Some Rights are enjoyed ONLY by US Citizens. The phrase "any person of life, liberty, or property" means "any person's Right of life, liberty, or property". Or, in other words: Some Rights are enjoyed by EVERYONE, US Citizens and Non-US Citizens. The words "Rights" and "Privileges" are virtually the same words in their meanings, as I pointed out above from Merriam-Websters. The only difference might be that "Rights" are Inherent by mere existence, and "Privileges" are Inherent by position. The "Right" to Life is Inherent by one's mere existence. The "Privilege" of Travel on our Public Highways is Inherent by the position of Citizenship. Although, Even the "Right" to Life is also the "Privilege" of Life Inherent by the position of being a Human Being. > The 'right' here is the use of the road system, to travel. I am unsure > where driving falls, but it fundamentally cannot be a priviledge because > that allows the government far too much power. Actually, Driver Licensing assumes Driving the Automobile on our Public Highways is a PERMISSION given by the State. There is a considerable difference between a "Privilege" and a "Permission". As I have already shown, "Rights" and "Privileges" are virtually the same things. Rights are Inherent to everyone. Privileges are Rights Inherent by position. The Right to Life is Inherent to everyone, US Citizen and Non-US Citizens. The Privilege to use Public Facliities are Rights Inherent ONLY to US Citizens. When they say "Driving is a Privilege", they are actually saying "Driving is a Right of US Citizens". And, as for where Driving falls: "The streets belong to the public and are primarily for the use of the public in the ordinary way." -- Packard v. Banton, 264 U.S. 140 (1924) - http://laws.findlaw.com/us/264/140.html#144 In other words: US Citizens have the Right to use our Public Highways for Personal Travel in the Ordinary Way. What is the Ordinary Way we use our Public Highways for Personal Travel today? It is, of course, by Driving the Automobile. > It allows the government to make people agree to various conditions > for the 'priviledge'. It's not a right because it's not something we > fundamentally have. It's a means of travel. Oh but it is something we fundimentally have. If we have Legs, we fundamentally have the Power to Walk, which is a means of Travel. If we have a Bicycle, we fundamentally have the Power to Bike, which is a means of Travel. If we have an Automobile, we fundimentally have the Power to Drive, which is a means of Travel. But, on our Public Highways, we only have the Right of Transit ORDINARILY used. Extraordinary Transit, such as Walking, Biking, or Horses, can obstruct with the Transit Ordinarily used (today the Automobile), and as such can, and often is, prohibited. After all, the Public Highways are "primarily for the use of the public in the ordinary way". When Extraordinary ways begin to obstruct with the ordinary way, they can rightfully prohibited. > As I think about it, driving is something government can regulate, > but not put conditions upon. In other words there are the rules to > driving, insure basic knowledge, and punish those who break them. Yes, just as there are rules to Liberty. We punish those who break those rules, such as trespassing. But, all without needing to first issue a Liberty License. Without the need for a Liberty License, one who abuses their Right of Liberty can be denied of their Right of Liberty, but only by Due Process of Law. And, Licensing IS NOT Due Process of Law. > That punishment can be no longer being allowed to operate a motor > vehicle on the roads or whatever. (those rules should make sense, > regulations should be technically sound, etc but that's another > subject) Exactly. Without the need for a Driver License, when one abuses their Right to Drive they can be denied of their Right to Drive, but only by Due Process of Law. And, again, Licensing IS NOT Due Process of Law. > Our rights do not come from government and the government should > not become a grantor of priviledge. We need to work within that > construct regardless. Correct. Rights are not given by Government. BUT, Rights CAN be Taken by Government, but only by Due Process of Law. "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." -- 14th Amendment of the US Constitution > immunity granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor : > PREROGATIVE; especially : such a right or immunity attached > specifically to a position or an office" -- > http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/privileges Typo! That should have read: "priviledge" - right or immunity granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor : PREROGATIVE; especially : such a right or immunity attached specifically to a position or an office" -- http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/privileges >> > Right: "Something that somebody gives you. It cannot be taken away." >> [quoted text clipped - 73 lines] >What is the Ordinary Way we use our Public Highways for Personal Travel >today? It is, of course, by Driving the Automobile. Actually, I could make a good case that the government should provide for pedestrian and wheelchair usage on ALL highways and roads. Driving of any vehicles including horse and buggy, bicycle or automobile would be a privilege since this requires greater care and the user of such tools can cause greater harm to others. >> rest read but snipped. > > > The 'right' here is the use of the road system, to travel. I am > > > unsure where driving falls, but it fundamentally cannot be a [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > provide for pedestrian and wheelchair usage on ALL highways and > roads. This isn't the issue, and it is also quite absurdly impossible. The highway department has enough expenses simply trying to maintain our public highways designed for the frequent use of automobiles. Much less the added cost of building and maintaining sidewalks suitable for the very infrequent use by pedestrian and wheelchair travel on all highways and roads. > Driving of any vehicles including horse and buggy, bicycle or > automobile would be a privilege since this requires greater care > and the user of such tools can cause greater harm to others. I suppose this is my fault for not breaking this discussion up into quick little sound bytes that this generation has become so accustomed to. Let me ask you this one question. Do you agree that: "The streets belong to the public and are primarily for the use of the public in the ordinary way." -- Packard v. Banton, 264 U.S. 140 (1924) - http://laws.findlaw.com/us/264/140.html#144 means: We have the Right to use our Public Highways for Personal Travel in the Ordinary Way? >>>> The 'right' here is the use of the road system, to travel. I am >>>> unsure where driving falls, but it fundamentally cannot be a [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > the very infrequent use by pedestrian and wheelchair travel on all > highways and roads. Strange. Cities used to be able to put decent sidewalks in the neighborhoods without complaining too much. Now, if there's a sidewalk at all in a new neighborhood, it's only wide enough for one walking person. Not to mention the fact that the new neighborhood is likely out in what used to be farmland, with no pedestrian access whatsoever to schools, churches, shopping, or medical care. While putting in a ten-foot wide path WOULD be expensive, it could be done more simply and cheaply by using the median and pedestrian/bicycle under/overpaths for access to it, where traffic lights don't exist. And if new highways, streets, and roads had these slow-traffic paths built in at the beginning, they'd be a lot less expensive than trying to retrofit the roads. BTW, such slow-traffic paths don't have to be built on the interstates; just on the roads that serve population centers. Cheers, Bama Brian Libertarian > > > > "The streets belong to the public and are primarily for the > > > > use of the public in the ordinary way." -- Packard v. Banton, [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Strange. Cities used to be able to put decent sidewalks in the > neighborhoods without complaining too much. Even today's cities don't have sidewalks on all their highways or roads, much less trying to consider the same for rural roads as well! And, this isn't the issue. The US Supreme Court has ruled that: "The streets belong to the public and are primarily for the use of the public in the ordinary way." -- Packard v. Banton, 264 U.S. 140 (1924) - http://laws.findlaw.com/us/264/140.html#144 Do you agree that this means that we have the Right to use our Public Highways for Personal Travel in the Ordinary Way? > > > Unsure of the Libertarian viewpoint on this, but as a very liberal > > > person, I am agreeing with your viewpoints. As I stated in another [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Privilege: "A special advantage or immunity or benefit not enjoyed > by all" >From Merriam-Websters: "privileges" is defined as: "a right or immunity granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor : PREROGATIVE; especially : such a right or immunity attached specifically to a position or an office" -- http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/privileges "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." -- 14th Amendment of the US Constitution The phrase "privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" means "Rights granted as a peculiar benefit or advantage of citizens of the United States". Or, in other words: Some Rights are enjoyed ONLY by US Citizens. The phrase "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" means "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the Rights granted as a peculiar benefit or advantage of citizens of the United States". Or, in other words: Of the Rights enjoyed ONLY by US Citizens, no State shall make any Law abriding them. In the 14th Amendment above, the phrase: "any person of life, liberty, or property" means "any person's Right of life, liberty, or property". Or, in other words: Some Rights are enjoyed by EVERYONE, US Citizens and Non-US Citizens. In the 14th Amendment above, the phrase: "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" means "Nor shall any State deprive any person of their Individual Right of Life, Liberty, or Property, without due process of law". Or, in other words: Of the Rights enjoyed by EVERYONE, no State shall deprive any person of them. > Right: "Something that somebody gives you. It cannot be taken > away." > > With those definitions, radicals would propose that licensing could > *never* be taken away from, But, according to the 14th Amendment, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". Meaning, Rights CAN be denied by Due Process of Law. But, Licensing IS NOT Due Process of Law. Without the need for a Liberty License, your Right to Liberty may still be denied by Due Process of Law. > say, a drunk driver because it is a *right* and not a *privilege*. A Right is a Privilege and a Privilege is a Right. Some Rights, or Privileges, belong only to US Citizens. Some Rights, or Privileges, belong to EVERYONE. And, US Citizens, or Non-US Citizens, may be denied of any of their Rights, but only by Due Process of Law. Therefore, even though Driving is a Right, drunk drivers can be denied of their Right to Drive by Due Process of Law. > These are two wholly different words that should not be interchanged. The words "Rights" and "Privileges" are virtually the same words in their meanings, as I pointed out above from Merriam-Websters. The only difference might be that "Rights" are Inherent by mere existence, and "Privileges" are Inherent by position. The "Right" to Life is Inherent by one's mere existence. The "Privilege" of Travel on our Public Highways is Inherent by the position of Citizenship. Although, Even the "Right" to Life is also the "Privilege" of Life Inherent by the position of being a Human Being. >With those definitions, radicals would propose that licensing could >*never* be taken away from, say, a drunk driver because it is a *right* >and not a *privilege*. These are two wholly different words that should >not be interchanged. A real radical would propose that driving not be licensed. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. > > With those definitions, radicals would propose that licensing could > > *never* be taken away from, say, a drunk driver because it is a > > *right* and not a *privilege*. These are two wholly different words > > that should not be interchanged. > > A real radical would propose that driving not be licensed. A real fascist would propose that we don't have a Right to use our Public Highways for Personal Travel in the Ordinary Way. "The streets belong to the public and are primarily for the use of the public in the ordinary way." -- Packard v. Banton, 264 U.S. 140 (1924) - http://laws.findlaw.com/us/264/140.html#144 > And, by the way, a "privilege" IS a Right. Then why in the hell have you spent countless hours trying to argue that driving is *either* one or the other when both are *the same*? Who's the moron now? -- C.R. Krieger (Been there; drove that) > thread, driving is a privilege, not a right, and we take it for granted. Fundamentally wrong given our system of government. It makes government a grantor or privilege and thusly it can create all sorts of rules as the grantor. Because of this, the Bill of Rights is effectively null and void. It's this concept that has lead to the checkpoints that now exist. It will only get worse in the future. > > thread, driving is a privilege, not a right, and we take it for granted. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > void. It's this concept that has lead to the checkpoints that now exist. > It will only get worse in the future. So would you argue that someone who practices drunk driving has a "right" to keep driving? How about driving while doped up? How about someone who is so inept that they have caused multiple serious crashes and multiple fatal crashes? Does that person have a "right" to keep driving? SignatureScott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com >> > thread, driving is a privilege, not a right, and we take it for granted. >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > So would you argue that someone who practices drunk driving has a > "right" to keep driving? How about driving while doped up? This is not an either or binary. > How about someone who is so inept that they have caused multiple serious > crashes and multiple fatal crashes? Does that person have a "right" to > keep driving? Again, this is not an either or binary. Making government a grantor of priviledge is fundamentally wrong and problematic. With the concept that driving is a priviledge government can make us sign away our real rights for the priviledge. This is dangerous and government is going down that road. (not to mention we are losing our rights outside of driving because people have been conditioned to it) > > So would you argue that someone who practices drunk driving has a > > "right" to keep driving? How about driving while doped up? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > and government is going down that road. (not to mention we are losing our > rights outside of driving because people have been conditioned to it) IOW, you would not disagree that someone who practices drunk driving has a "right" to keep driving, or that someone who has a problem with causing multiple serious crashes and multiple fatal crashes, should not have a "right" to keep driving. The folks who elect the government, would on the vast majority disagree with those notions. SignatureScott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com > > Making government a grantor of priviledge is fundamentally wrong > > and problematic. With the concept that driving is a priviledge [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > causing multiple serious crashes and multiple fatal crashes, should not > have a "right" to keep driving. Without the need for a Liberty License, one who abuses their Right of Liberty by trespassing can be denied of their Right of Liberty, but only by Due Process of Law. Without the need for a Driver License, one who abuses their Right to Drive by reckless endangerment can be denied of their Right to Drive, but only by Due Process of Law. Licensing IS NOT Due Process of Law. > The folks who elect the government, would on the vast majority > disagree with those notions. I wish you would address my posts as I began this thread. > I wish you would address my posts as I began this thread. Take your wishes to Jiminy Cricket, moron. -- C.R. Krieger (Been there; drove that) > IOW, you would not disagree that someone who practices drunk driving has > a "right" to keep driving, or that someone who has a problem with > causing multiple serious crashes and multiple fatal crashes, should not > have a "right" to keep driving. > The folks who elect the government, would on the vast majority disagree > with those notions. I suggest you go have an arguement with yourself on that binary concept of driving needing to be a right or priviledge and nothing else. Anyone with any degree of reading skills could grasp that I am not arguing driving is a right. > > IOW, you would not disagree that someone who practices drunk driving > > has a "right" to keep driving, or that someone who has a problem with [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > with any degree of reading skills could grasp that I am not arguing > driving is a right. Okay, now I understand what you meant by saying: "This is not an either or binary." There are Rights, Priviledges and Permissions. Rights are Inherent to everyone, US Citizens and Non-US Citizens. Life is a Right Inherent to everyone, US Citizens and Non-US Citizens. Privileges are Rights Inherent ONLY to US Citizens. Driving on our Public Highways is a Right Inherent ONLY to US Citizens. Permissions are Rights ONLY to those they are given. Permission to enter my home is a Right ONLY to those I give it to. > > IOW, you would not disagree that someone who practices drunk driving has > > a "right" to keep driving, or that someone who has a problem with [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > with any degree of reading skills could grasp that I am not arguing > driving is a right. Your post where I first replied, essentially said that driving is a "right"; where one poster said, "driving is a privilege, not a right", and you replied, "Fundamentally wrong given our system of government". There is no "right to drive an automobile", explicit or implicit, in the U.S. Constitution. There is a right to travel, but that can be done by other means (including walking and public transport) than oneself driving a high-speed machine that weights 2,000 pounds or more. SignatureScott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com >> > IOW, you would not disagree that someone who practices drunk driving has >> > a "right" to keep driving, or that someone who has a problem with [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > "right"; where one poster said, "driving is a privilege, not a right", > and you replied, "Fundamentally wrong given our system of government". Driving is not a priviledge. (that doesn't make it a right) Read my posts in this thread and the other similiar ones. I don't give a full review with every post. > There is no "right to drive an automobile", explicit or implicit, in the > U.S. Constitution. There is a right to travel, but that can be done by > other means (including walking and public transport) than oneself > driving a high-speed machine that weights 2,000 pounds or more. Not a priviledge != right. > >> I suggest you go have an arguement with yourself on that binary concept > >> of driving needing to be a right or priviledge and nothing else. Anyone [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Read my posts in this thread and the other similiar ones. I don't give a > full review with every post. I just did... apparently you don't think that driving is a 'right' or a 'privilege', but it's not all that clear what you think that it is. SignatureScott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com > I just did... apparently you don't think that driving is a 'right' or a > 'privilege', but it's not all that clear what you think that it is. I believe I wrote words to that effect. I also attempted to describe where I believe it falls. Government is making more and more play of the 'priviledge' concept of driving. You do know about the back-door national ID card right? > > I just did... apparently you don't think that driving is a 'right' or a > > 'privilege', but it's not all that clear what you think that it is. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Government is making more and more play of the 'priviledge' concept of > driving. Not really. That concept was commonly taught back on the 1960s when I first started driving. It has been around a lot longer than that. Mainly tied to the number of people that are killed and injured in auto crashes each year. SignatureScott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com >> > I just did... apparently you don't think that driving is a 'right' or a >> > 'privilege', but it's not all that clear what you think that it is. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Not really. That concept was commonly taught back on the 1960s when I > first started driving. It has been around a lot longer than that. I didn't say the concept had not been around for decades. It's being used more and more as a way around our rights. > Mainly tied to the number of people that are killed and injured in auto > crashes each year. If it only saves one child..... > >> > I just did... apparently you don't think that driving is a 'right' or a > >> > 'privilege', but it's not all that clear what you think that it is. > >> > >> I believe I wrote words to that effect. I also attempted to describe where I > >> believe it falls. I honestly didn't see it... > >> Government is making more and more play of the 'priviledge' concept of > >> driving. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > If it only saves one child..... It's not one child -- per year in the U.S., road crashes account for over 40,000 deaths, over 1 million injuries, and over $100 billion in property damage. That is why it is highly regulated, because there is high citizen support for that. SignatureScott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com >> >> > I just did... apparently you don't think that driving is a 'right' or a >> >> > 'privilege', but it's not all that clear what you think that it is. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > property damage. That is why it is highly regulated, because there is > high citizen support for that. So instead of actually addressing the issue, lets empower the concept of government granted priviledge. That way we'll have checkpoints, tracking devices, searches, and anything else the government wants plus no less than the 40,000+ deaths and million + injuries and $100,000,000,000+ in property damage every year. Like I posted previously, _proper_ regulation of driving is not a problem. The concept of government granted priviledge is. Because suddenly, the people have to surrender the entire bill of rights and then some to be granted the priviledge of driving. > >> If it only saves one child..... > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > than the 40,000+ deaths and million + injuries and $100,000,000,000+ in > property damage every year. Logical fallacy -- reductio ad absurdum > Like I posted previously, _proper_ regulation of driving is not a > problem. The concept of government granted priviledge is. Because > suddenly, the people have to surrender the entire bill of rights and then > some to be granted the priviledge of driving. Puh-leeze. Nobody is surrendering any inalienable rights by having motor vehicle use regulated as it is today. The 'government' is the creation of the citizenry, who in this case want such strong regulation. SignatureScott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com > > >> If it only saves one child..... > > > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > motor vehicle use regulated as it is today. The 'government' is the > creation of the citizenry, who in this case want such strong regulation. So if the citizenry want to -- say -- limit the rights of women in the same manner as the limits imposed by certain Muslim societies; that's OK? Free speech, rights of assembly, etc.: all can be stripped if enough of the citizenry say it's alright? SignatureAlan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia "If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard." > > > So instead of actually addressing the issue, lets empower the concept of > > > government granted priviledge. That way we'll have checkpoints, tracking [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > So if the citizenry want to -- say -- limit the rights of women in the > same manner as the limits imposed by certain Muslim societies; that's OK? Logical fallacy -- reductio ad absurdum The U.S. Constitution is quite clear about that issue. > Free speech, rights of assembly, etc.: all can be stripped if enough of > the citizenry say it's alright? Logical fallacy -- reductio ad absurdum The U.S. Constitution is quite clear about that issue. SignatureScott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com > > > > So instead of actually addressing the issue, lets empower the concept > > > > of [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > The U.S. Constitution is quite clear about that issue. The U.S. Constitution is not the issue. You said that government is a creation of the citizenry and that it is there to give the citizenry what it wants; no limits mentioned. Well: A. The U.S. Constitution is not the whole world. and B. It too is a creation of the citizenry. > > Free speech, rights of assembly, etc.: all can be stripped if enough of > > the citizenry say it's alright? > > Logical fallacy -- reductio ad absurdum > > The U.S. Constitution is quite clear about that issue. SignatureAlan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia "If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard." > > > > Nobody is surrendering any inalienable rights by having > > > > motor vehicle use regulated as it is today. The 'government' is the [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > and B. It too is a creation of the citizenry. The U.S. Constitution can be amended, although the amendment process was intentionally made difficult by requiring super-majority votes. > -- > Alan Baker > Vancouver, British Columbia I am posting from the U.S., and I really can't speak to what other countries do. In many countries, private motor vehicle use is rare due to economics, so it is a relatively moot point there. SignatureScott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com > > > > > Nobody is surrendering any inalienable rights by having > > > > > motor vehicle use regulated as it is today. The 'government' is the [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > The U.S. Constitution can be amended, although the amendment process was > intentionally made difficult by requiring super-majority votes. Which makes my original questions valid, right? > > -- > > Alan Baker [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > countries do. In many countries, private motor vehicle use is rare due > to economics, so it is a relatively moot point there. SignatureAlan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia "If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard." > > > > > > Nobody is surrendering any inalienable rights by having > > > > > > motor vehicle use regulated as it is today. The 'government' is the [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Which makes my original questions valid, right? No. Those are fundamental human rights. Nobody is surrendering any fundamental rights by having motor vehicle use regulated as it is today. SignatureScott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com > > > > > > > Nobody is surrendering any inalienable rights by having > > > > > > > motor vehicle use regulated as it is today. The 'government' is [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > Nobody is surrendering any fundamental rights by having > motor vehicle use regulated as it is today. Of course they are. Answer this question, we have the fundamental right to travel from place to place, right? OK: What means does that encompass? SignatureAlan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia "If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard." > > > Which makes my original questions valid, right? > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Of course they are. Nonsense. Personal motor vehicle use isn't even available for most of the world's population. Motor vehicle use is an outgrowth of a technology that has only existed for about 100 years. > Answer this question, we have the fundamental right to travel from place > to place, right? > > OK: What means does that encompass? That means that we can travel from place to place. You can do that without driving a motor vehicle, just like has been done for millennia. SignatureScott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com > > > > Which makes my original questions valid, right? > > > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > That means that we can travel from place to place. You can do that > without driving a motor vehicle, just like has been done for millennia. OK. Then you have the right to free speech. But the state can make using a printing press or any means other than your voice illegal, right? SignatureAlan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia "If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard." > > > Answer this question, we have the fundamental right to travel from place > > > to place, right? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Then you have the right to free speech. But the state can make using a > printing press or any means other than your voice illegal, right? They do regulate radio transmission. I can't see any reason why they would want to ban the printing press. SignatureScott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com > > > > Answer this question, we have the fundamental right to travel from place > > > > to place, right? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > They do regulate radio transmission. I can't see any reason why they > would want to ban the printing press. What does reason have to do with it? Your thesis is that our rights don't entitle us to use technology to exercise them. SignatureAlan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia "If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard." > > > > > Answer this question, we have the fundamental right to travel from place > > > > > to place, right? [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > What does reason have to do with it? Your thesis is that our rights > don't entitle us to use technology to exercise them. You just keep posting those strawman and red herring arguments, I see. SignatureScott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com > > > > > > Answer this question, we have the fundamental right to travel from > > > > > > place [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > You just keep posting those strawman and red herring arguments, I see. OK. What's your thesis then? Before you answer, let's examine a paragraph of yours: "Nonsense. Personal motor vehicle use isn't even available for most of the world's population. Motor vehicle use is an outgrowth of a technology that has only existed for about 100 years." So what are you trying to say? SignatureAlan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia "If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard." |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message