 |
 | 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." > > > What does reason have to do with it? Your thesis is that our rights > > > don't entitle us to use technology to exercise them. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > So what are you trying to say? That it is an absurd notion to claim that driving a motor vehicle is a "fundamental right". 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 > > > > What does reason have to do with it? Your thesis is that our rights > > > > don't entitle us to use technology to exercise them. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > That it is an absurd notion to claim that driving a motor vehicle is a > "fundamental right". Traveling is the fundamental right; just like the right to speech. That technology changes the method doesn't eliminate the right. You seem to argue that since automotive technology came along after the right to travel, that that reduces it to a mere privilege. But if that's the case, then why doesn't the same argument apply to forms of speech that rely on new technology? 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." > > > Before you answer, let's examine a paragraph of yours: > > > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > the case, then why doesn't the same argument apply to forms of speech > that rely on new technology? You can travel all you want with the means that have been available for millennia. That doesn't mean that you have the "right" to operate a large high-speed piece of machinery on a public way. 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 > > > > Before you answer, let's examine a paragraph of yours: > > > > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > You can travel all you want with the means that have been available for > millennia. And you can talk all you want with the means that have been available for a millennia. > That doesn't mean that you have the "right" to operate a large > high-speed piece of machinery on a public way. That doesn't mean that you have the "right" to operate a computer or a telephone or a radio. The point you are missing is that there can be reasonable limitations placed upon rights. You see: in addition to rights, we all have *responsibilities*. We, as citizens, have a responsibility to operate such pieces of machinery *safely*, because no one person right to travel trumps everyone else's right to security of person. 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." > > > You seem to argue that since automotive technology came along after the > > > right to travel, that that reduces it to a mere privilege. But if that's [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > such pieces of machinery *safely*, because no one person right to > travel trumps everyone else's right to security of person. An automobile is quite destructive and dangerous to others if the driver makes a mistake and crashes. It is rather silly to assert that "if I'm allowed to engage in (benign activity xxx), then I should be allowed to drive an automobile". 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 >>>> You seem to argue that since automotive technology came along after the >>>> right to travel, that that reduces it to a mere privilege. But if that's [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > allowed to engage in (benign activity xxx), then I should be allowed to > drive an automobile". http://www.heralddispatch.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060323/NEWS01/6032303 48/1001/NEWS Man convicted of his *seventh* DUI could face life in prison. I can see Brent, Alan and his group of supporters coming to court in protest of the judge. I mean, after all, his "right" will be taken away for *good* if he is convicted. 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! > Man convicted of his *seventh* DUI could face life in prison. > > I can see Brent, Alan and his group of supporters coming to court in > protest of the judge. I mean, after all, his "right" will be taken away > for *good* if he is convicted. It is very clear you cannot grasp a simple concept. It is not a binary of priviledge or right. My arguement is that driving cannot be a priviledge because the government in the USA by design is not to be a grantor of priviledge. This doesn't make driving a right or anything else. It means it's not a priviledge. Let me explain basic logic. Let's say two people are arguing wether a pear is an apple or an orange. A third person says it's not an apple. That doesn't mean the third person thinks it's an orange. > >>>> You seem to argue that since automotive technology came along after the > >>>> right to travel, that that reduces it to a mere privilege. But if that's [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > protest of the judge. I mean, after all, his "right" will be taken away > for *good* if he is convicted. And if you're convicted of murder, your right to liberty will be taken away by due process of law. What's the difference? He's failed in his duty to exercise his rights in a manner which doesn't endanger others -- you could be similarly charged for any number of private actions which are also rightfully everyone's to do -- and now he is paying the penalty. 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." > > > > You seem to argue that since automotive technology came along after the > > > > right to travel, that that reduces it to a mere privilege. But if that's [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > allowed to engage in (benign activity xxx), then I should be allowed to > drive an automobile". The fact that one has a greater duty of care while doing some activities than others doesn't reduce a right to a privilege. One has the right to private property, but even while exercising that right in the form of protecting that property with fences, etc. you have a duty of care that makes it necessary to remove dangers that even trespassers who are violating your rights might face. Similarly, while exercising one's right to travel in a motor vehicle, one has a duty of care to follow the rules of the road that allow others to exercise their rights at the same time on the same roads. This doesn't make driving a privilege. If following the rules of the road meant that, then it meant the same thing while driving a wagon team. As a Canadian jurist once said: "Since time immemorial the Queen's subjects have been free to move along the Queen's highway provided only they kept the Queen's peace. While the requirement of technical competence in the operation of that modern mode of conveyance, the motor vehicle, may, for the public safety, require the subject to prove that competence, as a condition to the issue of a licence to drive -- and the consequent right to drive - that requirement does not reduce a "right" to a "privilege." Because it is my duty to be technically competent to drive, my right to drive is not destroyed, although it may be taken away from me or suspended if I fail in the performance of my duty. The introduction of a dangerous mode of conveyance has not destroyed or impaired my right, but it has enlarged my duty. The keeping of the Queen's peace now embraces an obligation on me to be so technically and physically competent that I shall not drive to the danger of any other of Her Majesty's subjects. When I have fulfilled my obligation, when I have performed my duty, my right to move freely upon the Queen's highway remains intact and unimpaired." Which I think sums up the situation very nicely. 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." > > An automobile is quite destructive and dangerous to others if the driver > > makes a mistake and crashes. It is rather silly to assert that "if I'm [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > doesn't make driving a privilege. If following the rules of the road > meant that, then it meant the same thing while driving a wagon team. There is no "right" to drive a motor vehicle. Go ahead and argue that it is not a "privilege", but it certainly is not a "right". You ignored my point. Driving an motor vehicle in a country where there are lots of other motor vehicles on the roads, is inherently risky to society at large, and the vast majority of people have no problem understanding this reason for the level of regulation on motor vehicle use. Taking your "logic" one step further, someone who wants to buy a tractor-trailer and use it in the cargo business, should be able to do that without any licensing on his driving the truck or on the business itself. That's absurd on its face. 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 > You ignored my point. Driving an motor vehicle in a country where there > are lots of other motor vehicles on the roads, is inherently risky to > society at large, and the vast majority of people have no problem > understanding this reason for the level of regulation on motor vehicle > use. And driving an animal drawn wagon isn't risky? At least a car does not have a mind or minds of it's own. > > Driving an motor vehicle in a country where there > > are lots of other motor vehicles on the roads, is inherently risky to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > And driving an animal drawn wagon isn't risky? It's one heck of a lot less risky than motor vehicle use, especially to the other people and pedestrians using the road and its right-of-way. 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 >> > Driving an motor vehicle in a country where there >> > are lots of other motor vehicles on the roads, is inherently risky to [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > It's one heck of a lot less risky than motor vehicle use, especially to > the other people and pedestrians using the road and its right-of-way. Being run over by an animal driven wagon is usually fatal as far as I know. And the animals can just decide to take off on their own. > >> > Driving an motor vehicle in a country where there > >> > are lots of other motor vehicles on the roads, is inherently risky to [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Being run over by an animal driven wagon is usually fatal as far as I > know. That is comparatively pretty doggone rare, and you know it. > And the animals can just decide to take off on their own. So can SUVs, according to some radical environmentalists. :-) 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 >> >> > Driving an motor vehicle in a country where there >> >> > are lots of other motor vehicles on the roads, is inherently risky to [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > That is comparatively pretty doggone rare, and you know it. Only because of comparatively rare usage. > >> >> And driving an animal drawn wagon isn't risky? > >> > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Only because of comparatively rare usage. Brilliant, Watson, brilliant! If the total casualty of such accidents was equal to that of motor vehicle usage, you bet that we would see a similar level of regulation. -- Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com >> >> >> And driving an animal drawn wagon isn't risky? >> >> > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > was equal to that of motor vehicle usage, you bet that we would see a > similar level of regulation. Yet somehow we made it to the 20th century and the use of the automobile without it. > >> >> > Driving an motor vehicle in a country where there > >> >> > are lots of other motor vehicles on the roads, is inherently risky to [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Only because of comparatively rare usage. And that is exactly why the "licensing" issue w/regard to it doesn't rise to the level of automobile driving, which is ubiquitous and therefore reasonable, as one of your fellows stated already, for a competency test before exercising the "right." >> >> >> > Driving an motor vehicle in a country where there >> >> >> > are lots of other motor vehicles on the roads, is inherently risky to [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > therefore reasonable, as one of your fellows stated already, for a > competency test before exercising the "right." Yet we made it to the time of the automobile without it. > >> >> >> > Driving an motor vehicle in a country where there > >> >> >> > are lots of other motor vehicles on the roads, is inherently risky to [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Yet we made it to the time of the automobile without it. That is exactly my point, and you seem to be in agreement. We made it up to the automobile without requiring licensing to operate such potentially dangerous equipment because it presented no significant public safety issue until the auto. Now we are presented with such. The other fellow here has conceded mandatory competency testing is reasonable for the public safety and security -- another right that we have, by the way. Licensing is that method. You are not helping your argument by pointing this out. >>>>>>>>> Driving an motor vehicle in a country where there >>>>>>>>> are lots of other motor vehicles on the roads, is inherently risky to [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > security -- another right that we have, by the way. Licensing is that > method. Mandatory competency testing is "guilty until proven innocent", which runs counter to what the law should be. Look, driving is E-Z. Any fool can do it - and most do. I say let people drive until they screw up. When they do, then do the competency testing. If they fail the test, confiscate the auto they were driving, no matter who owns it. That way, parents of the kids will ensure that the kids know how to drive - or will lose their car. And those who screw up driving their own car will learn a hard lesson. Cheers, Bama Brian Libertarian > Look, driving is E-Z. Any fool can do it - and most do. I say let > people drive until they screw up. That is effectively what we have now, it's very sad. There needs to be some way of reaching and achieving competency. But this can be done without making government a grantor of priviledge. Without giving government a method to force us to give up our basic rights. > >>>>>>>>> Driving an motor vehicle in a country where there > >>>>>>>>> are lots of other motor vehicles on the roads, is inherently risky to [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > Mandatory competency testing is "guilty until proven innocent", which > runs counter to what the law should be. Try that for your next brain surgery. > Look, driving is E-Z. Any fool can do it - and most do. I say let > people drive until they screw up. When they do, then do the competency > testing. If they fail the test, confiscate the auto they were driving, > no matter who owns it. That way, parents of the kids will ensure that > the kids know how to drive - or will lose their car. And those who > screw up driving their own car will learn a hard lesson. We don't allow that. They learn their lesson at the expense of others' rights. Hence, licensing. >>>>>>>>>>> Driving an motor vehicle in a country where there >>>>>>>>>>> are lots of other motor vehicles on the roads, is inherently risky to [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > We don't allow that. They learn their lesson at the expense of others' > rights. Hence, licensing. And at the loss of many people's lives. It's people like Bama that would stand in defense of the 7-DUI-offender driver here in West Virginia and would argue that he should not be sent to life in prison (which BTW, he is being sent there) because he hasn't "harmed" someone. Well, driving under the influence puts *many* more people at *risk* of injury or death. Getting him off the road and into the jail system saves many people. 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! >>>>>>>>>>>> Driving an motor vehicle in a country where there >>>>>>>>>>>> are lots of other motor vehicles on the roads, is inherently [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > injury or death. Getting him off the road and into the jail system saves > many people. Does it? Now you're punishing him for what he "might" have done while drunk. Drunk driving is stupid, yes. But jail? Pull his privilege, er, license and confiscate his car. But jail? For what? Thumbing his nose at the law? He's a drunk. He's got a medical problem. Will he get help in jail? All that will happen is that he'll go back to driving drunk after his jail sentence is over. So don't go spraining your arms while patting yourselves on the back. Think it through, boys. If we can put people in jail for what they "might" do, we can put you in jail for yelling at your wife because you "might" some day snap and kill her. ps: Life sentences for drunk driving aren't for life. Especially where no one has been harmed. About ten years back, in Gilroy, CA, there was a cowboy who used to ride to the bar, get drunk, and then let his horse find its way back to the barn while he snoozed. And then one day, he got pulled over and cited for (are you ready?) drunken riding. Funny, I didn't know such a statute existed - and I'll bet no one else did, either. Cheers, Bama Brian Libertarian >>>>>>>>>>> Driving an motor vehicle in a country where there >>>>>>>>>>> are lots of other motor vehicles on the roads, is inherently risky to [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Try that for your next brain surgery. Are you saying that since brain surgeons must be competent, then all drivers must be proven competent? Sorry, Flynn, that example doesn't cut it. Driving is NOT brain surgery/rocket science. That government issued piece of paper proves nothing whatsoever about competency. As was the case of the lady ahead of me in the right turn lane yesterday with a cell phone surgically implanted in her left ear. She sat through an entire cycle of lights before my patience evaporated and I camped on the horn until she moved. Or the kid yesterday who cut me off in freeway traffic, moving across two lanes in one move while doing 75 in a 55. >> Look, driving is E-Z. Any fool can do it - and most do. I say let >> people drive until they screw up. When they do, then do the competency [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > We don't allow that. They learn their lesson at the expense of others' > rights. Hence, licensing. True. But we DO allow confiscation of autos, high dollar penalties for traffic infractions, and the like. Cheers, Bama Brian Libertarian > >>>> Yet we made it to the time of the automobile without it. > >>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Are you saying that since brain surgeons must be competent, then all > drivers must be proven competent? No. I'd actually say drivers should be proven competent because they otherwise can kill a while lot of people. > Sorry, Flynn, that example doesn't cut it. Driving is NOT brain surgery/rocket science. Learn to understand your own point, Bammy Boy. Your rebuttal has nothing to do with your original statement now with my reply. You made a "guilty until proven innocent" objection, not a "level of skill" argument. I'd say nice try at misdirection, but then, it wasn't. So, as I say, try that for your next brain surgery. > That government issued piece of paper proves nothing whatsoever about > competency. Actually it does, just perhaps not nearly enough. But it managed to weed out the blind, for instance, and those who couldn't even pass the basic written or road tests. You say they should be driving too, until they kill someone, then we can prohibit them. Fortunately, sane people don't agree with you. >>>>>> Yet we made it to the time of the automobile without it. >>>>> That is exactly my point, and you seem to be in agreement. We made it [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > No. I'd actually say drivers should be proven competent because they > otherwise can kill a while lot of people. Medical mistakes kill somewhere around 100K people a year. So I assume that doctors/nurses/technicians/physicians assistants and the like will undergo from two to many years of training and testing before being granted their licenses? They do; and yet they still kill patients. Some kill or maim a surprising number of patients before having their licenses pulled. They then go elsewhere to practice. Drivers pass their written and road tests and go out there and kill less people (ca. 40K per year), yet there are far more drivers than medical personnel. Drivers have no proven level of skills necessary for driving. Driving in a straight line is not on the same level of driving ability as skid control, but guess which one is actually tested? >> Sorry, Flynn, that example doesn't cut it. Driving is NOT brain surgery/rocket science. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > So, as I say, try that for your next brain surgery. It's YOUR misdirection, Flynn, not mine. How does my original assertion of "guilty until proven innocent" correlate with your "next brain surgery" misdirection? And how is driving - an activity that virtually everyone does - compare to either being a brain surgeon, or being the patient of one, an activity that very, very few do. >> That government issued piece of paper proves nothing whatsoever about >> competency. > > Actually it does, just perhaps not nearly enough. But it managed to > weed out the blind The blind are self-weeding; they can't even find the car or the road without help. But then there's true blindness, and varying stages of legal blindness - with some of the "blind" still being both able and licensed to drive. > for instance, and those who couldn't even pass > the basic written or road tests. You say they should be driving too, > until they kill someone, then we can prohibit them. Fortunately, sane > people don't agree with you. Are you sane, Flynn? How do you know? How many sane people do you know, and how do you know that they're sane? Or even if ANY of your acquaintances are sane? Your plan gives licenses to drivers; yet these same tested and licensed drivers go out and kill 40K people each year. Many licensed drivers have killed - and are still licensed to drive. At least I have a solution for that, where you perhaps think this slaughter is acceptable. But if you must argue by Ad Hominem (implying that I'm not sane) I'm going to put you in the killfile in my computer under my desk. While you're down there, you know what to kiss. Pucker up Flynn! Let's see if this is something you're good for. You're certainly not good at arguing. "PLONK" > >>>>>> Yet we made it to the time of the automobile without it. > >>>>> That is exactly my point, and you seem to be in agreement. We made it [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Medical mistakes kill somewhere around 100K people a year. Cite? > So I assume > that doctors/nurses/technicians/physicians assistants and the like will [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > surprising number of patients before having their licenses pulled. They > then go elsewhere to practice. Cite please. Besides, none of these data argue that drivers shouldn't be licensed. > Drivers pass their written and road tests and go out there and kill less > people (ca. 40K per year), yet there are far more drivers than medical > personnel. Fallacious comparison. The activities of drivers versus medical personnel are nowhere close to analogous. In many cases, doctors are working with people at risk of death to begin with. Mom's just driving to the grocery store and isn't intending on colliding with anyone. And again, none of this argues against licensing. The fact that some other activities might be more hazardous is a red herring. > Drivers have no proven level of skills necessary for driving. Driving > in a straight line is not on the same level of driving ability as skid > control, but guess which one is actually tested? That argues for stricter licensing requirements, not none at all. Get your point straight. > >> Sorry, Flynn, that example doesn't cut it. Driving is NOT brain surgery/rocket science. > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > of "guilty until proven innocent" correlate with your "next brain > surgery" misdirection? It is you who misdirected the point. "Guilty until proven innocent" is a principle and it applied equally to the question of licensing drivers or brain surgeons. Different levels of skills required for either one of them doesn't alter the principle of testing for competency in either case. > And how is driving - an activity that virtually > everyone does - compare to either being a brain surgeon, or being the > patient of one, an activity that very, very few do. Both of them are activities that one might suggest we test people's ability to accomplish before we turn them loose to do it. As you yourself already have said, drivers kill far fewer people per year than medical personnel, so the less stringent competency tested for drivers vis-Ã -vis surgeons, by your argument, is entirely reasonable and consistent. > >> That government issued piece of paper proves nothing whatsoever about > >> competency. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > The blind are self-weeding; they can't even find the car or the road > without help. But the argument you and several others here present is that they have the right to drive once I lead them to the car. > > for instance, and those who couldn't even pass > > the basic written or road tests. You say they should be driving too, > > until they kill someone, then we can prohibit them. Fortunately, sane > > people don't agree with you. > > Are you sane, Flynn? Yes, Bammy Buddy. > How do you know? How many sane people do you > know, and how do you know that they're sane? Or even if ANY of your > acquaintances are sane? Our behaviors are within the norm. > Your plan gives licenses to drivers; yet these same tested and licensed > drivers go out and kill 40K people each year. I thought you said that wasn't much. Now it's overwhelming. Make uppa you mind. > Many licensed drivers > have killed - and are still licensed to drive. At least I have a > solution for that, where you perhaps think this slaughter is acceptable. > > But if you must argue by Ad Hominem (implying that I'm not sane) You read that into what I wrote; it again shows you don't comprehend logic and sentence structure. > I'm > going to put you in the killfile in my computer under my desk. While > you're down there, you know what to kiss. Yeah, the ground in thanksgiving that you're going away at last! > Pucker up Flynn! Let's see if this is something you're good for. > You're certainly not good at arguing. Funny, I seem to have wiped my a.s with you, Bammy! > "PLONK" Buh-bye! Thanks for trying to play and being a sore loser. > > > > > > > > > > > Driving an motor vehicle in a country where there > > > > > > > > > > > are lots of other motor vehicles on the roads, is inherently risky [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > Try that for your next brain surgery. Driving an Automobile isn't Brain Surgery. And, brain surgons are commercial entities, which exist only at the permission of the state, as opposed to Rights, which exist without the need for any permission. >> Yet we made it to the time of the automobile without it. > > That is exactly my point, and you seem to be in agreement. We made it > up to the automobile without requiring licensing to operate such > potentially dangerous equipment because it presented no significant > public safety issue until the auto. Perception only. Animal powered vehicles are dangerous and killed many in their day. Animals, unlike automobiles actually can accelerate upon their own decision as well. http://www.seacoastonline.com/2004news/yorkweekly/06022004/news/19486.htm http://www.doctorzebra.com/prez/t27.htm Extensive data from the era of horse drawn wagons doesn't appear to be on the web, but those two should give you an idea of the kind of accidents and injuries that occured. Some actually seem familiar. I don't think you want to see people start to take horse and carriage to the road as an alternative to the autombile. I know I don't. Having seen how some horses react to me as I ride a bicycle is proof enough for me. > Now we are presented with such. The other fellow here has conceded > mandatory competency testing is reasonable for the public safety and > security -- another right that we have, by the way. Licensing is that > method. And so what? I favor pretty damn strong competency requirements. > You are not helping your argument by pointing this out. My point is that driving is NOT a priviledge. > >> Yet we made it to the time of the automobile without it. > > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > the road as an alternative to the autombile. I know I don't. Having seen > how some horses react to me as I ride a bicycle is proof enough for me. Irrelevant. The VMT just isn't there to invoke the same level of concern over driving a horse a carriage that piloting a two or three-ton or more vehicle arouses. Anecdotes don't make for policy. There is a legitimate constitutional public interest in preserving safety and rights of all that entails a well-established legal system of permitting and licensing for the right to drive a vehicle as a result. > > Now we are presented with such. The other fellow here has conceded > > mandatory competency testing is reasonable for the public safety and > > security -- another right that we have, by the way. Licensing is that > > method. > > And so what? And so we have a system of licensing in order to drive. > > You are not helping your argument by pointing this out. > > My point is that driving is NOT a priviledge. No, but it is a "privilege." >> >> Yet we made it to the time of the automobile without it. >> > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >> how some horses react to me as I ride a bicycle is proof enough for me. > Irrelevant. This declaration only because I showed they did happen. > The VMT just isn't there to invoke the same level of > concern over driving a horse a carriage that piloting a two or > three-ton or more vehicle arouses. Licensing was put in when the automobile was nothing more than a horseless carriage. > Anecdotes don't make for policy. There aren't many 19th and early 20th century references on the web. However when I was in college the library where I went to school had many 19th century publications on open shelves. I used to pull them down and read them. Especially the ones from the early automobile era. I suggest you find some of those and read them. > There is a legitimate constitutional public interest in preserving > safety and rights of all that entails a well-established legal system > of permitting and licensing for the right to drive a vehicle as a > result. Insuring competency does not require the government to be grantor of priviledge. However this is irrelevant to knocking down the arguement that the automobile has some sort of special dangers above and beyond the previous form of transportation and somehow justifies giving government an effective weapon to force us into giving up our rights. Showing the dangers of the previous form knocks that arguement on it's a.s. Those who have experience with horses I am sure understand their size and power and danger if not handled correctly. >> > Now we are presented with such. The other fellow here has conceded >> > mandatory competency testing is reasonable for the public safety and >> > security -- another right that we have, by the way. Licensing is that >> > method. >> And so what? > And so we have a system of licensing in order to drive. Why should this require making government a grantor of priviledge and thusly allowing it method to circumvent the bill of rights. >> > You are not helping your argument by pointing this out. >> >> My point is that driving is NOT a priviledge. > No, but it is a "privilege." spelling arguements. Now I know you've run into a logical dead end. > >> >> Yet we made it to the time of the automobile without it. > >> > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > This declaration only because I showed they did happen. And again, that's irrelevant. People got killed and injured walking too, when homo erectus first went upright. That something happened doesn't necessarily make it rise to a level of general concern. > > The VMT just isn't there to invoke the same level of > > concern over driving a horse a carriage that piloting a two or > > three-ton or more vehicle arouses. > > Licensing was put in when the automobile was nothing more than a > horseless carriage. And they could be quite dangerous. > > Anecdotes don't make for policy. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > them. Especially the ones from the early automobile era. I suggest you > find some of those and read them. I hope you don't mind that I won't. Frankly, the constitutionality of licensing has been litigated and upheld. Reading about how many surreys ran off into the gully really won't change that. > > There is a legitimate constitutional public interest in preserving > > safety and rights of all that entails a well-established legal system [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Insuring competency does not require the government to be grantor of > priviledge Privilege. Actually, government would be the only entity to do so. It is the only social compact through which we as a society regulate such things. > However this is irrelevant to knocking down the arguement > that the automobile has some sort of special dangers above and beyond the > previous form of transportation and somehow justifies giving government > an effective weapon to force us into giving up our rights. Autos do have dangers above and beyond the horse and buggy. We are not giving up our rights. > Showing the > dangers of the previous form knocks that arguement on it's a.s. Not yet it hasn't. > Those who > have experience with horses I am sure understand their size and power and > danger if not handled correctly. It's way off base to compare this with automobiles. > >> > Now we are presented with such. The other fellow here has conceded > >> > mandatory competency testing is reasonable for the public safety and [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Why should this require making government a grantor of priviledge and > thusly allowing it method to circumvent the bill of rights. How is it doing that? No court has ever held so, and I know of plenty of marginal characters who've litigated it. > >> > You are not helping your argument by pointing this out. > >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > spelling arguements. Now I know you've run into a logical dead end. Actually not. You've been consistently misspelling "privilege" even when replying to posts that had it correct one line above, and now you continue to misspell it even after showing your awareness that it's a mistake. I was trying to be helpful; that's no indication that *I* am at a logical dead end, for I am not. OTOH, I might argue that one who cannot spell properly might also not be very rigorous in other aspects of his argumentation. > And again, that's irrelevant. People got killed and injured walking > too, when homo erectus first went upright. That something happened > doesn't necessarily make it rise to a level of general concern. It flys in the face of basic knowledge to presume horse travel to be so safe as to require no competency. >> Licensing was put in when the automobile was nothing more than a >> horseless carriage. > And they could be quite dangerous. Considering that most weren't faster than horse drawn kind and weighed less... that would make the horse drawn variety dangerous too. >> > Anecdotes don't make for policy. >> There aren't many 19th and early 20th century references on the web. However >> when I was in college the library where I went to school had many 19th >> century publications on open shelves. I used to pull them down and read >> them. Especially the ones from the early automobile era. I suggest you >> find some of those and read them. > I hope you don't mind that I won't. Frankly, the constitutionality of > licensing has been litigated and upheld. Reading about how many surreys > ran off into the gully really won't change that. I have to get a license (a FOID card) to own a gun. Owning a gun hasn't be reduced to privilege yet, but it is licensed. I have to get a license to open a retail store front business, but that hasn't been reduced to a privilege yet. Is that too big of a concept to wrap your mind around that insuring competency doesn't require making something a government granted privilege? >> Insuring competency does not require the government to be grantor of >> priviledge > Privilege. Actually, government would be the only entity to do so. It > is the only social compact through which we as a society regulate such > things. Then you oppose the basic concepts upon which the US of A was founded. Because once we need seek government permission for our daily lives we are done for. We are not free. We are then nothing more than the government's 'children' needing permission to get a cookie from the jar, needing to permission from dad to go out after 10pm, and so on. >> However this is irrelevant to knocking down the arguement >> that the automobile has some sort of special dangers above and beyond the >> previous form of transportation and somehow justifies giving government >> an effective weapon to force us into giving up our rights. > Autos do have dangers above and beyond the horse and buggy. We are not > giving up our rights. Horse and buggies have dangers beyond the auto. >> Those who >> have experience with horses I am sure understand their size and power and >> danger if not handled correctly. > It's way off base to compare this with automobiles. If you use the 'danger to others' arguement to make driving a government granted privilege it certainly is on base. In fact, my neighbor could harm me or my property with her natural gas powered appliances. Why isn't she licensed? >> > And so we have a system of licensing in order to drive. >> Why should this require making government a grantor of priviledge and >> thusly allowing it method to circumvent the bill of rights. > How is it doing that? No court has ever held so, and I know of plenty > of marginal characters who've litigated it. Why do I have to keep going over the same stuff? Watch an episode of COPs and get back to me. Everything from checkpoints to child support to federal ID requirements and so on are enforced using the 'privilege' concept. >> >> > You are not helping your argument by pointing this out. >> >> My point is that driving is NOT a priviledge. >> > No, but it is a "privilege." >> spelling arguements. Now I know you've run into a logical dead end. > Actually not. You've been consistently misspelling "privilege" even > when replying to posts that had it correct one line above, and now you [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > cannot spell properly might also not be very rigorous in other aspects > of his argumentation. I forget, in the USA all competency is gathered from spelling ability. If one wasn't the winner of the 5th grade spelling bee, then he's an idiot. You might want to know there is a range of professions where intelligence and making rigiorous arguements is a requirement, however people in those professions are known for poor spelling ability. Keep that in mind next time you decide to use spelling as a counter arguement. > > And again, that's irrelevant. People got killed and injured walking > > too, when homo erectus first went upright. That something happened > > doesn't necessarily make it rise to a level of general concern. > > It flys in the face of basic knowledge to presume horse travel to be so > safe as to require no competency. You are arguing fallaciously. I never made such a statement. That auto driving might require *more* competency doesn't imply handling a horse requires none. Strawman. > >> Licensing was put in when the automobile was nothing more than a > >> horseless carriage. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Considering that most weren't faster than horse drawn kind and weighed > less... that would make the horse drawn variety dangerous too. Again fallacious reasoning. How many horses exploded? You make trhe mistake of assuming speed and weight are the only factors. > I have to get a license (a FOID card) to own a gun. Owning a gun > hasn't be reduced to privilege yet, but it is licensed. I have to get a > license to open a retail store front business, but that hasn't been > reduced to a privilege yet. Is that too big of a concept to wrap your mind > around that insuring competency doesn't require making something a > government granted privilege? I don't acknowledge that you've drawn a distinction between a business or gun license versus a driver's license, at least sufficiently as to call one a privilege while the others are not. You can't open the business without the proper licenses, after all. Why is that not a privilege? Wrap your mind around your own point first. > >> Insuring competency does not require the government to be grantor of > >> priviledge [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Then you oppose the basic concepts upon which the US of A was founded. Wow. Hardly. You cannot get that inference from what I said, unless you mistakenly believe the Founding Fathers were setting up an anarchical system. It is through government that we regulate our conduct in society. I don't get to make up my own rule to drive on the left, for instance. This is hardly rejection of the basic concepts of the USA. > Because once we need seek government permission for our daily lives we > are done for. We are not free. We are then nothing more than the > government's 'children' needing permission to get a cookie from the jar, > needing to permission from dad to go out after 10pm, and so on. You are off in the deep end of the pool here. The people are the government. > Horse and buggies have dangers beyond the auto. I know; I've stepped in some of it in my day. But they hardly rise to the level where licensing to ride a horse might be on the table. > If you use the 'danger to others' arguement to make driving a government > granted privilege it certainly is on base. In fact, my neighbor could > harm me or my property with her natural gas powered appliances. Why isn't > she licensed? Scale and proportion of the hazard, I'd say. Completely reasonable. > >> > And so we have a system of licensing in order to drive. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Why do I have to keep going over the same stuff? Because you've not made a compelling case for your position. >Watch an episode of COPs I'd rather not! > and get back to me. Everything from checkpoints to child support to > federal ID requirements and so on are enforced using the 'privilege' > concept. No, it's just that a driver's license makes for a handy way to prove identity. You're not losing anything because of that. Heck, they lady at Linens-N-Things asked to see mine the other day because of the level of my credit transaction. She ain't from the government. > >> >> My point is that driving is NOT a priviledge. > >> > No, but it is a "privilege." [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > If one wasn't the winner of the 5th grade spelling bee, then he's an > idiot. Another fallacy, reductio ad absurdum. The issue was that you continued to misspell it while presumably reading posts that had it spelled correctly one line above your reply. My pointing this out doesn't weaken any of my other points and doesn't indicate that nothing else I had to say possessed merit, and for you to suggest so is plain silly. > You might want to know there is a range of professions where > intelligence and making rigiorous arguements is a requirement, however > people in those professions are known for poor spelling ability. Cite one. I can't think of any profession where people are known for poor spelling ability. I do know that in the main, people who cannot spell very well tend not to be as well read and by extension not as rigorous in their argumentation. > Keep that in mind next time you decide to use spelling as a counter arguement. That's "argument." >> safe as to require no competency. > You are arguing fallaciously. I never made such a statement. That auto > driving might require *more* competency doesn't imply handling a horse > requires none. Strawman. You are making an arguement regarding danger and that competency is required to mitigate said danger as an arguement for making vehicle use a privilege. Obviously since you don't feel the use of horse powered transportation is a privilege, well then it follows that there is no danger if operated incompetently. >> > And they could be quite dangerous. >> >> Considering that most weren't faster than horse drawn kind and weighed >> less... that would make the horse drawn variety dangerous too. > Again fallacious reasoning. How many horses exploded? You make trhe > mistake of assuming speed and weight are the only factors. You've been watching far too many movies and too much tv. Motor vehicles do not explode like that. And even if gasoline fueled ones did, that would make diesel, electric, ethanol, etc fueled vehicles immune to that explosive argument. >> I have to get a license (a FOID card) to own a gun. Owning a gun >> hasn't be reduced to privilege yet, but it is licensed. I have to get a >> license to open a retail store front business, but that hasn't been >> reduced to a privilege yet. Is that too big of a concept to wrap your mind >> around that insuring competency doesn't require making something a >> government granted privilege? > I don't acknowledge that you've drawn a distinction between a business > or gun license versus a driver's license, at least sufficiently as to > call one a privilege while the others are not. You can't open the > business without the proper licenses, after all. Why is that not a > privilege? Wrap your mind around your own point first. You are not grasping the situation. What rights do I have to give up to get a business license from the city? None that I can think of. However driving has been called a privilege for so long that the government sees fit to tie in all sorts of concessions to having a driver's license. These are only increasing over time. >> > Privilege. Actually, government would be the only entity to do so. It >> > is the only social compact through which we as a society regulate such >> > things. >> Then you oppose the basic concepts upon which the US of A was founded. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > society. I don't get to make up my own rule to drive on the left, for > instance. This is hardly rejection of the basic concepts of the USA. You clearly don't grasp the difference between regulation and privilege. >> Because once we need seek government permission for our daily lives we >> are done for. We are not free. We are then nothing more than the >> government's 'children' needing permission to get a cookie from the jar, >> needing to permission from dad to go out after 10pm, and so on. > You are off in the deep end of the pool here. > The people are the government. Really, then why don't the speed limits reflect the will of the people? The government has gotten away from the people for the most part. >> Horse and buggies have dangers beyond the auto. > I know; I've stepped in some of it in my day. But they hardly rise to > the level where licensing to ride a horse might be on the table. You've never had a horse start to get out of control near you in such a way you were in danger. I have. Stupid people who think it's acceptable to train their horses on shared horse/bike paths. <one liner blather deleted> >> and get back to me. Everything from checkpoints to child support to >> federal ID requirements and so on are enforced using the 'privilege' >> concept. > No, it's just that a driver's license makes for a handy way to prove > identity. You're not losing anything because of that. Heck, they lady > at Linens-N-Things asked to see mine the other day because of the level > of my credit transaction. She ain't from the government. Handy way? It's supposed to REGULATE DRIVING. Not be a federal identification card. It takes away the choice to get a federal ID away. We are forced into it in order to drive. It's clear you do not grasp in any shape or form how the concept of 'privilege' is used to force people into things because driving is important to our daily lives. >> I forget, in the USA all competency is gathered from spelling ability. >> If one wasn't the winner of the 5th grade spelling bee, then he's an >> idiot. > Another fallacy, reductio ad absurdum. The issue was that you continued > to misspell it while presumably reading posts that had it spelled > correctly one line above your reply. My pointing this out doesn't > weaken any of my other points and doesn't indicate that nothing else I > had to say possessed merit, and for you to suggest so is plain silly. You are bolstering your weak posts with spelling and grammer commentary and now personal attack via that route. Your arguement is weak and you seek to bolster it with this nonsense. >> You might want to know there is a range of professions where >> intelligence and making rigiorous arguements is a requirement, however >> people in those professions are known for poor spelling ability. > > Cite one. I can't think of any profession where people are known for > poor spelling ability. Engineering. > >> safe as to require no competency. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > transportation is a privilege, well then it follows that there is no > danger if operated incompetently. Under what rule of logic would that incoherent conclusion be reached? It is illogical. It's like saying "This apple is a piece of fruit" implies that "This orange, which is a piece of fruit, is an apple." > >> > And they could be quite dangerous. > >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > would make diesel, electric, ethanol, etc fueled vehicles immune to that > explosive argument. I don't watch TV. Where were the electric and ethanol vehilces in 1901? > >> I have to get a license (a FOID card) to own a gun. Owning a gun > >> hasn't be reduced to privilege yet, but it is licensed. I have to get a [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > You are not grasping the situation. What rights do I have to give up to > get a business license from the city? It is you who has lost grasp. The right to operate a business would be the first one that would leap to my mind, offhand. > None that I can think of. You forgot the right to operate a business. > However > driving has been called a privilege for so long that the government sees > fit to tie in all sorts of concessions to having a driver's license. > These are only increasing over time. Hardly, especially when compared with the much, much more onerous requirements placed, say, on operating a business. This line of reasoning on its own invalidates your argument. > >> > Privilege. Actually, government would be the only entity to do so. It > >> > is the only social compact through which we as a society regulate such [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > You clearly don't grasp the difference between regulation and privilege. You clearly don't grasp this discussion. > >> Because once we need seek government permission for our daily lives we > >> are done for. We are not free. We are then nothing more than the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Really, then why don't the speed limits reflect the will of the people? Why do you presume to think that they don't? Just because you don't like them? > The government has gotten away from the people for the most part. Sez you. There are plenty of people who want those speed limits. Vote out the ones who enabled them, if you want to change it. > >> Horse and buggies have dangers beyond the auto. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > You've never had a horse start to get out of control near you in such a > way you were in danger. At the risk of sounding really paranoid, how in the world would you ever presume to know *that?* As a matter fo fact, you're incorrect. Back in the 80's when my oldest son was 10, he was on a horse that spooked up at Grand Lake CO and I had to take off after him as he started to fall out of the saddle. > I have. Stupid people who think it's acceptable > to train their horses on shared horse/bike paths. Quaint, but totally irrelevant to the relative scale of hazards presented by the ubiquitous and massive amount of autos and driving on the roads daily in this nation. > >> and get back to me. Everything from checkpoints to child support to > >> federal ID requirements and so on are enforced using the 'privilege' [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Handy way? It's supposed to REGULATE DRIVING. Not be a federal > identification card. Linens-N-Things is not part of the federal bureaucracy, last I checked. > It takes away the choice to get a federal ID away. > We are forced into it in order to drive. It's clear you do not grasp in > any shape or form how the concept of 'privilege' is used to force people > into things because driving is important to our daily lives. You do not grasp the legitimate, legal and constitutional duty of the the people through their government to ensure the common good and safety. Nearly *everybody* can get a license. It is taken away, and not nearly soon enough in some cases, for good and proper reasons. We the people authorize that, it's not imposed. > >> I forget, in the USA all competency is gathered from spelling ability. > >> If one wasn't the winner of the 5th grade spelling bee, then he's an [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > and now personal attack via that route. Your arguement is weak and you > seek to bolster it with this nonsense. I beg to differ. My argument so far has completely blown your position out of the water. The fact that you continued to knowingly misspell "priviilege" is icing on the cake. > >> You might want to know there is a range of professions where > >> intelligence and making rigiorous arguements is a requirement, however [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Engineering. That's not a cite. That's only half the equation. Now point us to the study or survey that demonstrates that engineers are "known for poor spelling ability." >> You are making an arguement regarding danger and that competency is >> required to mitigate said danger as an arguement for making vehicle use a >> privilege. Obviously since you don't feel the use of horse powered >> transportation is a privilege, well then it follows that there is no >> danger if operated incompetently. > Under what rule of logic would that incoherent conclusion be reached? > It is illogical. It's like saying "This apple is a piece of fruit" > implies that "This orange, which is a piece of fruit, is an apple." If you insist on that, well then that means you want driving as privilege because it's driving. The danger of operation and need for competence are mere distractions and not reasons. There really isn't any arguing with your emotional decision to single out driving as a government granted privilege using logic, because logic obviously isn't the basis. If the inherent danger of operating a vehicle incompetently is why it must be a government granted privilege, then the operation of horse drawn vehicles should be a privilege as well. After all, the only motor vehicle operation that is not considered a privilege is of vehicles so small and light and slow as not to be a threat. (mopeds) >> > Again fallacious reasoning. How many horses exploded? You make trhe >> > mistake of assuming speed and weight are the only factors. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> would make diesel, electric, ethanol, etc fueled vehicles immune to that >> explosive argument. > I don't watch TV. Where were the electric and ethanol vehilces in 1901? You obviously have no knowledge of automobile history. Gasoline was one of many fuels used in the early days. And steam powered as well. Now if you're talking about steam power, then boiler explosion is a real concern. However I don't know of any modern production steam powered automobiles. In fact, very very few are even in operation. If you don't live near Jay Leno, you probably don't have to worry about steam powered cars. >> You are not grasping the situation. What rights do I have to give up to >> get a business license from the city? > It is you who has lost grasp. The right to operate a business would be > the first one that would leap to my mind, offhand. If there is a "right to operate a business" then there is a "right to drive". >> None that I can think of. > You forgot the right to operate a business. If there is a "right to operate a business" then there is a "right to drive". >> However >> driving has been called a privilege for so long that the government sees >> fit to tie in all sorts of concessions to having a driver's license. >> These are only increasing over time. > Hardly, especially when compared with the much, much more onerous > requirements placed, say, on operating a business. This line of > reasoning on its own invalidates your argument. You are confusing regulation with signing away rights. There is no danger of having my personal property searched if I have a business. However driving a motor vehicle is a different story. >> You clearly don't grasp the difference between regulation and privilege. > > You clearly don't grasp this discussion. I grasp it quite well, mr. right-to-operate-a-business. >> > The people are the government. >> >> Really, then why don't the speed limits reflect the will of the people? > Why do you presume to think that they don't? Just because you don't > like them? Because as I drive the speed limit, 100% of the vehicles I share the interstate with are PASSING ME. >> The government has gotten away from the people for the most part. > Sez you. There are plenty of people who want those speed limits. Vote > out the ones who enabled them, if you want to change it. Yet they all exceed them when they drive. Nice try at the old vote them out for speed limits falacy. In IL the governor has vetoed speed limit bills that reached him, he has decided to use speeding ticket revenue to close budget gaps. However, he was the democrat replacement for the republican governor who thought much the same way _and_ effectively sold CDLs when he was secretary of state. >> >> Horse and buggies have dangers beyond the auto. >> > I know; I've stepped in some of it in my day. But they hardly rise to >> > the level where licensing to ride a horse might be on the table. >> You've never had a horse start to get out of control near you in such a >> way you were in danger. > At the risk of sounding really paranoid, how in the world would you > ever presume to know *that?* As a matter fo fact, you're incorrect. > Back in the 80's when my oldest son was 10, he was on a horse that > spooked up at Grand Lake CO and I had to take off after him as he > started to fall out of the saddle. Your obvious disregard for the danger. >> I have. Stupid people who think it's acceptable >> to train their horses on shared horse/bike paths. > Quaint, but totally irrelevant to the relative scale of hazards > presented by the ubiquitous and massive amount of autos and driving on > the roads daily in this nation. Horses were at one time ubiquitous in their use as well. >> Handy way? It's supposed to REGULATE DRIVING. Not be a federal >> identification card. > Linens-N-Things is not part of the federal bureaucracy, last I checked. Look up the real ID act. It's not my fault you are ignorant of what the government is doing. >> It takes away the choice to get a federal ID away. >> We are forced into it in order to drive. It's clear you do not grasp in >> any shape or form how the concept of 'privilege' is used to force people >> into things because driving is important to our daily lives. > You do not grasp the legitimate, legal and constitutional duty of the > the people through their government to ensure the common good and > safety. Nearly *everybody* can get a license. It is taken away, and not > nearly soon enough in some cases, for good and proper reasons. We the > people authorize that, it's not imposed. The fact that a dead cat can get a DL in most states does not change the danger of the privilege concept. I have no trouble with driving competency regulation. In fact, you would find my vision of it probably very unfair in the vast numbers that would have to learn or get off the road. That said, driving is not a government granted privilege. To make it so, allows the government to force us into a choice between our rights and our transportation options. This is unacceptable. >> You are bolstering your weak posts with spelling and grammer commentary >> and now personal attack via that route. Your arguement is weak and you >> seek to bolster it with this nonsense. > I beg to differ. My argument so far has completely blown your position > out of the water. You don't even grasp my position, let alone blow it out of the water, mr right-to-operate-a-business. Which is no more a right than the right-to-drive. > The fact that you continued to knowingly misspell > "priviilege" is icing on the cake. You just misspelled it yourself. Congrats. >> >> You might want to know there is a range of professions where >> >> intelligence and making rigiorous arguements is a requirement, however >> >> people in those professions are known for poor spelling ability. >> > >> > Cite one. I can't think of any profession where people are known for >> > poor spelling ability. >> Engineering. > That's not a cite. That's only half the equation. Now point us to the > study or survey that demonstrates that engineers are "known for poor > spelling ability." Read what you wrote. You wrote cite a profession. Not produce a cite. And I wrote, "known for". It's pretty much a stereotype. > >> You are making an arguement regarding danger and that competency is > >> required to mitigate said danger as an arguement for making vehicle use a [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > If you insist on that, well then that means you want driving as privilege > because it's driving. That's a completely erroneous implication from anything that I have said. You appear to have no grounding in the basics of logic. Actually, the reverse would be true. In fact, from what you just said, a more logical conclusion would be that my position would be to license horse riders as well simply because it is horse riding. You're saying the exact opposite of what I am meaning. > The danger of operation and need for competence are > mere distractions and not reasons. False. Those *are* the reasons, as I have plainly been stating. > There really isn't any arguing with > your emotional decision to single out driving as a government granted > privilege using logic, because logic obviously isn't the basis. I am schooled in logic; my degree is in that area. There is absolutely no warrant for you to say I've come to any position out of emotion; that's completely unrelated to the hazard analysis. Your appeal, OTOH, is entirely out of emotion - the big, bad gub'mint out to get us all, instead of understanding that we are the government and we authorize these acts within the framework of our > If the inherent danger of operating a vehicle incompetently is why it > must be a government granted privilege, then the operation of horse drawn > vehicles should be a privilege as well. That does not follow at all; anything can entail a hazard, that does not mean it rises to a level requiring societal response. > >> > Again fallacious reasoning. How many horses exploded? You make the > >> > mistake of assuming speed and weight are the only factors. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > live near Jay Leno, you probably don't have to worry about steam powered > cars. So you didn't answer my question again. Where were the electric and ethanol vehicles in 1901? > >> You are not grasping the situation. What rights do I have to give up to > >> get a business license from the city? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > If there is a "right to operate a business" then there is a "right to > drive". Tempered, again, by the regulation of society, of course. You need a license, in fact many licenses, to exercise your right to operate a business which is guaranteed in the Constitution by the right of free association; AND you need a license to drive a car. If you want to call it privilege, fine. In any case, there is no difference in this aspect of the argument between right to run a business and right to drive a car. > >> None that I can think of. > > > You forgot the right to operate a business. > > If there is a "right to operate a business" then there is a "right to > drive". Read above. You are agreeing with me, not drawing any distinction. If there is a "right to operate a business," as we both say, there is a "right to drive a car," and there is, I've never said otherwise. However, society has seen fit to require certain standards for the exercise of both. Sooooooo.... If you agree there's a right to run a business but it's tempered by the need for licensure, then you can no longer hold your discredited position about driver's licenses somehow being government grant of privilege. > >> However > >> driving has been called a privilege for so long that the government sees [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > You are confusing regulation with signing away rights. There is no danger > of having my personal property searched if I have a business. Say WHAT!!! Wow. You are very uninformed. Businesses are searched all the time. I watch the Denver firefighters *daily* going out to do surprise fire inspections of businesses. A business owner's personal property that might be present is examined. In fact, this is very much like a traffic checkpoint in this regard. > However driving a motor vehicle is a different story. You've failed to show how that might be so. > >> You clearly don't grasp the difference between regulation and privilege. > > > > You clearly don't grasp this discussion. > > I grasp it quite well, mr. right-to-operate-a-business. Apparently not, Mr. "I disagree with you but I seem to be making your own points for you!" > >> > The people are the government. > >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Because as I drive the speed limit, 100% of the vehicles I share the > interstate with are PASSING ME. How does that mean the set limit doesn't represent the will of the people? There's a disconnect in your argument. Besides, if you are gong the speed limit, you have absolutely no way of knowing if 100% of the people are passing you. Logically speaking, only the people who are exceeding the limit are passing you. Those who are obeying the limit - and there could be many, understand - would be ahead of you and behind you and because you are going the same speed as them, you would never have an opportunity to encounter them. See the logical flaw in your statement? > >> The government has gotten away from the people for the most part. > > > Sez you. There are plenty of people who want those speed limits. Vote > > out the ones who enabled them, if you want to change it. > > Yet they all exceed them when they drive. As I have just demonstrated, your assertion is unsupported by your anecdotal observation. AND, the disconnect is that even though many people exceed the limit, that does *not* imply that they don't agree with them; only that they don't obey them. I know people here who want speed limits set low in their neighborhoods - i.e., they "support" them - yet they themselves don't observe them. > >> >> Horse and buggies have dangers beyond the auto. > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Your obvious disregard for the danger. Not at all. How so? Do you think that people who do have regard for the danger have the good fortune of never having such a thing happen merely because they are on the alert for it? That's plain silly. How does preparedness translate in your mind to prevention of the event? Even the Lone Ranger had horses spook on him. You are completely illogical. > >> I have. Stupid people who think it's acceptable > >> to train their horses on shared horse/bike paths. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Horses were at one time ubiquitous in their use as well. Again you miss the point. It's not the ubiquitousness of the mode, it's the scale of hazard presented by that trait. > >> Handy way? It's supposed to REGULATE DRIVING. Not be a federal > >> identification card. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Look up the real ID act. It's not my fault you are ignorant of what the > government is doing. I am not. How does that make Linens-N-Things checking my ID part of your big gub'mint conspiracy? > >> It takes away the choice to get a federal ID away. > >> We are forced into it in order to drive. It's clear you do not grasp in [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > The fact that a dead cat can get a DL in most states does not change the > danger of the privilege concept. What is the danger? You haven't identified any. >I have no trouble with driving competency regulation. Then you can stop replying in this thread. > In fact, you would find my vision of it probably > very unfair in the vast numbers that would have to learn or get off the > road. Then you would make driving much much more of a privilege than you claim the gub'mint currently regards it, wouldn't you. > That said, driving is not a government granted privilege. To make > it so, allows the government to force us into a choice between our rights > and our transportation options. This is unacceptable. You haven't established that this is in any way the case. Re-read the business operation part of the discussion. No "right" is surrendered. > >> You are bolstering your weak posts with spelling and grammer commentary > >> and now personal attack via that route. Your arguement is weak and you [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > right-to-operate-a-business. Which is no more a right than the > right-to-drive. Maybe you didn't notice that I did, but I did. You're making distinctions where there are none and pretending they have weight when they are chimera. > > The fact that you continued to knowingly misspell > > "priviilege" is icing on the cake. > > You just misspelled it yourself. Congrats. Typo. Your error was ignorance of spelling. Congrats > >> >> You might want to know there is a range of professions where > >> >> intelligence and making rigiorous arguements is a requirement, however [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Read what you wrote. I wrote it; you read it. I asked you to cite a profession in which the people are known for poor spelling ability. You named a profession but offered no cite to any evidence at all that they are "known" for poor spelling. And even when this was clarified for you, you still provide no citations. Evasion is noted. >You wrote cite a profession. Not produce a cite. You are confused by what "cite" means, in that it might not actually mean to produce a "cite?" No wonder we are going round and round here. > And I wrote, "known for". It's pretty much a stereotype. Ah, so in other words, it's not actually true and you are once again left without a leg to stand on. I see. >>Because as I drive the speed limit, 100% of the vehicles I share the >>interstate with are PASSING ME. > How does that mean the set limit doesn't represent the will of the > people? There's a disconnect in your argument. Besides, if you are > gong the speed limit, you have absolutely no way of knowing if 100% of > the people are passing you. Logically speaking, only the people who are > exceeding the limit are passing you. Those who are obeying the limit > - and there could be many ... Or not. I've posted an example of a speed survey that showed that less than 1% of traffic was obeying the 50 mph limit on an urban interstate. It stands to reason that a road with a similar standard and a similar limit would have the similar speed survey result. > >>Because as I drive the speed limit, 100% of the vehicles I share the > >>interstate with are PASSING ME. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > It stands to reason that a road with a similar standard and a similar > limit would have the similar speed survey result. But that does nothing to address the point he was trying to make; even if people disobey a particular speed limit -- and the example you give is an isolated one that seems prima facie to be extraordinarily low for some reason -- the issue was whether that translates into opposition to how all speed limits are set. His premises so far fail to lead anywhere near that conclusion. As I said, many people might go over 25 in their own neighborhoods yet would, inconsistently so it would seem, oppose raising the limit for *outsiders* who cut through. >>>> Because as I drive the speed limit, 100% of the vehicles I share the >>>> interstate with are PASSING ME. >>> How does that mean the set limit doesn't represent the will of the >>> people? There's a disconnect in your argument. Besides, if you are >>> gong the speed limit, you have absolutely no way of knowing if 100% of >>> the people are passing you. Logically speaking, only the people who are >>> exceeding the limit are passing you. Those who are obeying the limit >>> - and there could be many ... >> Or not. I've posted an example of a speed survey that showed that less >> than 1% of traffic was obeying the 50 mph limit on an urban interstate. >> It stands to reason that a road with a similar standard and a similar >> limit would have the similar speed survey result. > But that does nothing to address the point he was trying to make; even > if people disobey a particular speed limit -- and the example you give > is an isolated one that seems prima facie to be extraordinarily low for > some reason -- the issue was whether that translates into opposition to > how all speed limits are set. I've read through the posts and it doesn't appear that Brent is arguing that people are in opposition to how *all* speed limits are set. The argument is that people are opposed to a given limit based on the speed they drive. And this type of example is not isolated when you examine speed limits and compare them to actual traffic speeds in the northeast US. > His premises so far fail to lead anywhere > near that conclusion. As I said, many people might go over 25 in their > own neighborhoods yet would, inconsistently so it would seem, oppose > raising the limit for *outsiders* who cut through. Just because some people act like hypocrites doesn't mean that the argument is invalid. If people in general support a law, they generally comply with it. >> There really isn't any arguing with >> your emotional decision to single out driving as a government granted [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > us all, instead of understanding that we are the government and we > authorize these acts within the framework of our Why do I have to give so many people such basic lessons? Government that has such power is no longer for the people, by the people. >> If the inherent danger of operating a vehicle incompetently is why it >> must be a government granted privilege, then the operation of horse drawn >> vehicles should be a privilege as well. > That does not follow at all; anything can entail a hazard, that does > not mean it rises to a level requiring societal response. Yet automobile use was declared such long before they were in any kind of numbers to warrant it by your arguement. >> You obviously have no knowledge of automobile history. Gasoline was one >> of many fuels used in the early days. And steam powered as well. Now if [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> live near Jay Leno, you probably don't have to worry about steam powered >> cars. > So you didn't answer my question again. Where were the electric and > ethanol vehicles in 1901? There were at least electrics. And technically any gasoline powered vehicle can run on ethanol. The differences are minor and mostly in material selection. And given the material choices then, it wouldn't matter. >> > It is you who has lost grasp. The right to operate a business would be >> > the first one that would leap to my mind, offhand. >> If there is a "right to operate a business" then there is a "right to >> drive". [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > of the argument between right to run a business and right to drive a > car. I'm done with you. You cannot grasp my arguement. My arguement is simple, government shall not be a grantor of privledge. This does not mean driving is right, this does not mean I am against licensing. What it means is that government does not grant priviledge. For someone to claim to have a degree in logic and not grasp that after I have explained no less than a dozen times, it must have been from that school sally struthers makes commericals for. > >> There really isn't any arguing with > >> your emotional decision to single out driving as a government granted [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Why do I have to give so many people such basic lessons? It is amusing to me that ytou would presume to be in such a position as to give lessons. Fact is you have been way overmatched here, and it is you in need of the lesson. >Government that > has such power is no longer for the people, by the people. Hardly an accurate assessment of the situation; more of a dime-novel perspective. > >> If the inherent danger of operating a vehicle incompetently is why it > >> must be a government granted privilege, then the operation of horse drawn [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Yet automobile use was declared such long before they were in any kind of > numbers to warrant it by your arguement. BZZZT! Fallacious reply to the point of the argument. In early autos, as aptly demonstrated by the other poor fellow posting here, they were regarded as inherently more dangerous than horse and buggy, not because of their numbers but because of their nature. Today, of course, it is the numbers. > I'm done with you. You cannot grasp my arguement. My arguement is simple, > government shall not be a grantor of privledge. This does not mean [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > explained no less than a dozen times, it must have been from that school > sally struthers makes commericals for. Cute attempt at a brave farewell, but alas consistently wrong to the end. > It is amusing to me that ytou would presume to be in such a position as > to give lessons. Fact is you have been way overmatched here, and it is > you in need of the lesson. Keep beliving that. Yet you cannot grasp a very simple logical concept that driving is not privilege does not mean driving is a right. > > It is amusing to me that ytou would presume to be in such a position as > > to give lessons. Fact is you have been way overmatched here, and it is > > you in need of the lesson. > > Keep beliving that. I will, for it is true. But thanks for playing. > > There really isn't any arguing with your emotional decision to single > > out driving as a government granted privilege using logic, because > > logic obviously isn't the basis. > > I am schooled in logic; my degree is in that area. To anyone who is schooled in logic, this is clearly the use of the logical fallicy known as an Appeal to Authority. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html > > > There really isn't any arguing with your emotional decision to single > > > out driving as a government granted privilege using logic, because [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > logical fallicy known as an Appeal to Authority. > http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html Ah, the dangers of Googling among the unwashed. You fail to understand your own cite. I have made no "appeal to authority" as proof of my argument at all, as anyone can plainly see upthread. The distinction seems to have escaped you. I was responding to Brenty Boy's brave but feeble and false indication that it was my argument that was based upon emotion and not logic, rather than his. To note that I was schooled in logic is simply to note that I know of what I speak in that area. I presented no arguments based on my background in logical studies - so much for your "this is clearly the use of ... appeal to authority." My argument stands on its own solid premises, unassailed by your crew's illogical off-point rebuttals. > > > > There really isn't any arguing with your emotional decision to > > > > single out driving as a government granted privilege using logic, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > your own cite. I have made no "appeal to authority" as proof of my > argument at all, as anyone can plainly see upthread. Your argument is that your logic is superior, and you're Appeal to Authority is that you are "schooled in logic" as proof of your argument. > The distinction seems to have escaped you. You hoped. > I was responding to Brenty Boy's Why do you feel the need to slur Brent P's name? > brave but feeble and false indication that it was my argument > that was based upon emotion and not logic, rather than his. So, in addition to the argument that your logic is superior, it would seem you would also argue that Brent P's arguments are emotional. > To note that I was schooled in logic is simply to note > that I know of what I speak in that area. And, this is your Appeal to Authority. > I presented no arguments based on my background in logical studies You just did. > My argument stands on its own solid premises, What argument would that be, other than your argument that your logic is superior? > unassailed by your crew's illogical off-point rebuttals. Is that paranoia showing through? > > > > > There really isn't any arguing with your emotional decision to > > > > > single out driving as a government granted privilege using logic, [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Authority is that you are "schooled in logic" as proof of your > argument. Hahaha. Absolutely wrong, and again proof that you cannot read what's in front of your face. My argument neither stemmed from nor relied on my subsequent conveyance of fact to your butt-buddy that my field of study in fact was logic. *That* was simply information to clue him in that his attempted insult of me - after reading my argument and being unable to coherently rebut it - was completely ridiculous. I was not arguing from emotion; I was arguing logically. Let me put it simply so you might yet get it: My argument about licensing was a logical construct; when he then chose to attack me personally rather than reply strictly to the argument, I informed him in fact of my background. You then leap in mouth-first and continue to bollix up the point, mistakenly thinking my argument was based on my credentials, when in fact that came up later unrelated to the basis of my argument. So, to rebut you, I did not claim my schooling in logic was proof of anything other than to contradict his silly attempt to be personally insulting. The argument stands, still unassailed, on its own merit. > > The distinction seems to have escaped you. > > You hoped. And I was rewarded! > > I was responding to Brenty Boy's > > Why do you feel the need to slur Brent P's name? Solely in response to his initiation of the rude, insulting and disdainful references to me by last name, as in "Flynn this..." and "Flynn that..." In written communication, such terse references are considered offensive. I don't let that pass without responding in kind, but I don't know his last name, nor yours or the other anonymous person who's been engaging me in this fruitless discussion. So that's why. > > brave but feeble and false indication that it was my argument > > that was based upon emotion and not logic, rather than his. > > So, in addition to the argument that your logic is superior, ... which of course I never argued. > it would > seem you would also argue that Brent P's arguments are emotional. That seems fairly obvious, doesn't it? Like you, he's all over the place with appeals to God and condemnations of the gub'mint. > > To note that I was schooled in logic is simply to note > > that I know of what I speak in that area. > > And, this is your Appeal to Authority. I don't know why I continue to be surprised that your comprehension is zero. To note my background outside of the argument over licensing itself is not, repeat not, an appeal to authority. My argument is a wholly separate thing, with its own premises and conclusion. Maybe you can wrap you brain around it this way so that you might finally come to realize how silly you are sounding the last few posts: If you constructed an argument, and I laughed it off by saying it sounds like it was written by a four-year-old, and you came back to tell me you were in fact 57, whereupon I would again dismiss your argument as based on a fallacious reliance merely on your age and experience, that would be preposterous of me because the argument itself wasn't at all based on that. In the same way, nothing about my thoughts on the justification for driver licensing is at all based on the fact that I thoroughly understand logical constructs. That information was only to show BP that I am not one who makes arguments on emotion. It's not part of the licensing argument, so your repeated attempts to dismiss what I say as fallacious on appeal to authority just never gets out of the gate. > > I presented no arguments based on my background in logical studies > > You just did. Really? Where? > > My argument stands on its own solid premises, > > What argument would that be, other than your argument that your logic > is superior? Hmmm, find where I said that. I simply said I was schooled in logic and understood it. I never compared it to anybody else; I enlightened him as to the silliness of his attempted insult of me. My argument on licensing, to reply to your other misunderstanding, was based on other societal rights to safety and public welfare. It's all in the thread ad nauseum. > > unassailed by your crew's illogical off-point rebuttals. > > Is that paranoia showing through? Nope. It's confidence. >>> And again, that's irrelevant. People got killed and injured walking >>> too, when homo erectus first went upright. That something happened [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > business without the proper licenses, after all. Why is that not a > privilege? Wrap your mind around your own point first. The fact that the government is licensing firearms ownership and business ownership means that both are privileges that can be denied at any time - or just because some bureaucrat doesn't like you. Then you must go to court to get your "privilege" restored. >>>> Insuring competency does not require the government to be grantor of >>>> priviledge [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > society. I don't get to make up my own rule to drive on the left, for > instance. This is hardly rejection of the basic concepts of the USA. Constitutionally speaking, there are only a few things which the federal government was empowered to do. As to states, if it's not specified as a power given to the state government, then I hold that the state government has no biz making rights into privileges. Where you'll find those "privileges" controlled by the states are in the body of law passed by legislators, who somehow either thought they were doing the "will-o'-the-pips", or are sufficiently sociopathic to believe that the population must be controlled. Knowing politicians, I think it's mostly the latter. In any case, it's that body of law that must be addressed, not what the FF's may have believed or said. >> Because once we need seek government permission for our daily lives we >> are done for. We are not free. We are then nothing more than the >> government's 'children' needing permission to get a cookie from the jar, >> needing to permission from dad to go out after 10pm, and so on. > > You are off in the deep end of the pool here. He may be exaggerating, but it is ever more rapidly heading there. > The people are the government. BZZZT! Wrong! The people are NOT the government; instead those with money who yearn for temporal power are the government - with damn few exceptions. It hasn't been a "government of the people, by the people, and for the people" for a couple of generations now. >> Horse and buggies have dangers beyond the auto. > > I know; I've stepped in some of it in my day. But they hardly rise to > the level where licensing to ride a horse might be on the table. Riding a horse, or driving a team or buggy require a specific skill set which also must be learned. Horses and buggies are far more complex than you'd believe. You may be trivializing the dangers and responsibilities here because you see horses and buggies more as recreation than as serious transportation. But if you're not trained to it, horses - and buggies - can be extremely dangerous. Here are some problems: Horses are notoriously skittish and may shy, buck and try to throw the rider when startled. Horses kick. Never walk directly behind one. Horses tend to stampede each other. It's why teams can't be trusted but must be controlled almost every moment. Horses are dumb enough to drag a broken carriage or a rider hanging from a stirrup until they tire out. Anyway, the point is that both driving and horses are either easy, or are difficult, depending on whose opinion you're hearing. Whether for car or horse, an argument can be made for licensing - but then it becomes a privilege and not a right. <SNIP> Cheers, Bama Brian Libertarian > >> I have to get a license (a FOID card) to own a gun. Owning a gun > >> hasn't be reduced to privilege yet, but it is licensed. I have to get a [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > business ownership means that both are privileges that can be denied at > any time - or just because some bureaucrat doesn't like you. Childlike view of the real world. It's not really that way at all. The tens of thousands of operating businesses argue against you. If you follow the steps that we the people have established for the conduct of society through our government, you get your licenses. It's not the whim of some bureaucrat. You maybe are watching too many movies. > >>>> Insuring competency does not require the government to be grantor of > >>>> priviledge [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > In any case, it's that body of law that must be addressed, not what the > FF's may have believed or said. The law flows form the Constitution. It's part and parcel of the system. > >> Because once we need seek government permission for our daily lives we > >> are done for. We are not free. We are then nothing more than the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > He may be exaggerating, but it is ever more rapidly heading there. Your overactive imaginations are not proof of any of your assertions. I haven't noticed any big problem with people getting driver's licenses -- I wish it *were indeed* more difficult because of the fuzznuts today who blew past the line of cars right through a red light on a busy parkway here on my way home from church a full FOUR seconds after the light had turned red. He nearly T-boned a teenage girl cautiously pulling out of the side street after she paused for the FIRST red light runner who went right by my left TWO seconds after the light was already red. > > The people are the government. > > BZZZT! Wrong! The people are NOT the government; BZZZZZZT. You're wrong. The people ARE the government. So there. > instead those with > money who yearn for temporal power are the government - with damn few > exceptions. It hasn't been a "government of the people, by the people, > and for the people" for a couple of generations now. Uh, yeah, right. Watch out for them black helis. > >> Horse and buggies have dangers beyond the auto. > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > responsibilities here because you see horses and buggies more as > recreation than as serious transportation. No, but thanks for the incorrect supposition so that I can deny it. > Whether for car or horse, an argument can be made for licensing - but > then it becomes a privilege and not a right. You have a right to access the licensing process, but you must pass it. You're not entitled to it without demonstrating a certain, and pretty dang low, level of competency first. This isn't giving up any rights, unless you think a blind person should be able to drive as well. > Childlike view of the real world. It's not really that way at all. The > tens of thousands of operating businesses argue against you. If you > follow the steps that we the people have established for the conduct of > society through our government, you get your licenses. It's not the > whim of some bureaucrat. None of that is true. 'Operating businesses', by definition, pertains only to those that meet the regulatory standards imposed by bureaucrats. 'We the people' didn't establish squat- we barely got the opportunity to pick one of the voices that granted 'authorization' to Bureaucracy, much less any say in the content of the regulations. One of the reasons 'franchising' is so popular is that they're set up to comply to regulations with a corporate identity. Nothing to do with 'we the people'. > The law flows form the Constitution. It's part and parcel of the > system. Yeah- ya gotta wonder where the ability to authorize unlimited regulation by an unelected authority in the name of government comes from- you'd think they would have wanted to regulate such license, as it were. > Your overactive imaginations are not proof of any of your assertions. I > haven't noticed any big problem with people getting driver's licenses Try doing it with a Post Office box address; or no address at all; or in default of child support payments in another State; or with a photograph- in defiance of your ancient tribal beliefs secured by treaty- or any number of other regulations suitable to the granting of a privilege. > Uh, yeah, right. Watch out for them black helis. nah; it's the stormtroopers inside them that are the real threat- the helicopters are actually kinda cool- they just use the passenger ones presently. The militarization of the domestic law enforcement agencies has blurred who owns what helicopter, as well as the Rules of Engagement. > You have a right to access the licensing process, but you must pass it. > You're not entitled to it without demonstrating a certain, and pretty > dang low, level of competency first. This isn't giving up any rights, > unless you think a blind person should be able to drive as well. You're confusing a competency test with a license to operate a vehicle on the public roads under liability for damages, much less the attendant waivers of rights about criminal matters. In general, prosecute whatever happened- not what might happen. If you can't drive competently, it'll soon manifest. Compulsory waiver of civil rights, or compulsory liability insurance offered by a private profit-maker, or compulsory identity registry with address updates under penalty of government sanction??? I think not- smacks of totalitarianism. > > k_fl...@lycos.com wrote: > > > > k_fl...@lycos.com wrote: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > > > > > Irrelevant. No, it is not irrelevant. You seem to believe the use of a Horse and Buggy on our Public Highways is a Right, even though it's not spicifically stated so in the Constitution. You make the argument that "We made it up to the automobile without requiring licensing to operate such potentially dangerous equipment because it presented no significant public safety issue until the auto. You seem to believe the horse and buggy are safer than the Automobile. I have evidence the Horse and Buggy were more dangerous than the Automobile is today. The Chicago Public Library states: "Horse drawn vehicles were more dangerous than today's automobiles" - http://www.chipublib.org/004chicago/disasters/19th20th_accidents.html > > This declaration only because I showed they did happen. > > And again, that's irrelevant. People got killed and injured walking > too, when homo erectus first went upright. That something > happened doesn't necessarily make it rise to a level of general > concern. When that "general concern" isn't tempered with knowledge, it becomes "irrational fear". Which is exactly what I believe we have, perpetrated by various interested concerns, such as government. > > > The VMT just isn't there to invoke the same level of concern > > > over driving a horse a carriage that piloting a two or three-ton [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > And they could be quite dangerous. Not as dangerous today as the horse and buggy was in it's day. > > > Anecdotes don't make for policy. > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I hope you don't mind that I won't. Frankly, the constitutionality of > licensing has been litigated and upheld. "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 We have the Right to use our Public Highways for Personal Travel in the Ordinary Way. A hundred years ago, the Ordiniary Way would have been by using the Horse and Buggy, and nobody would have argued our Right at that time (and seemingly even today) to do so. But, today, the Ordinary Way is by Driving the Automobile. Our Public Highways are intended to enhance our Right of Liberty. Yet, the more our Public Highways are made unuseable by anything but the Automobile, the more this lie that Driving is a State given Permission makes us Prisoners of Permission behind Bars of Blacktop. > > > There is a legitimate constitutional public interest in preserving > > > safety and rights of all that entails a well-established legal system [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Privilege. When they say "Driving is a Privilege", in fact, they are saying Driving is a Right. Many people have been lead to believe a Privilege is a Permission, when the truth of the matter is that a Privilege is a Right of position. privilege - 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 Privileges of US Citizens are Rights of US Citizens ONLY. And, Privileges of US Citizens may be denied 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 United States Constitution > > However this is irrelevant to knocking down the arguement > > that the automobile has some sort of special dangers above and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Autos do have dangers above and beyond the horse and buggy. False, as I have proved above. > We are not giving up our rights. False, as I have proved above. We have the Right to use our Public Highways for Personal Travel in the Ordinary Way. As Driving the Automobile IS the Ordinary Way we use our Public Highways for Personal Travel today, then Driver Licensing does indeed abridge the Right of US Citizens to use their Public Highways for Personal Travel in the Ordinary Way. > > Showing the dangers of the previous form knocks that arguement > > on it's a.s. > > Not yet it hasn't. It has now. > > Those who have experience with horses I am sure understand their > > size and power and danger if not handled correctly. > > It's way off base to compare this with automobiles. Possibly, as the Horse and Buggy were more dangerous than the Automobile is today. > > > > > Now we are presented with such. The other fellow here > > > > > has conceded mandatory competency testing is reasonable [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > > > > > And so we have a system of licensing in order to drive. "[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 In other words: The Individual does not owe the public proof of competency, especially when exercising their Rights. > > > > > I don't think you want to see people start to take horse and carriage > > > > > to the road as an alternative to the autombile. I know I don't. Having [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > No, it is not irrelevant. Sure it is. > You seem to believe the use of a Horse and > Buggy on our Public Highways is a Right, even though it's not > spicifically stated so in the Constitution. Many things are not specifically stated but are rights that flow from the Constitution. Yours is a silly argument. Under your logic, George Bush could legally tap all your phone conversations without a warrant because telephones aren't mentioned in the Constitution. Wait, he's already doing that! > You make the argument that > "We made it up to the automobile without requiring licensing to operate > such potentially dangerous equipment because it presented no > significant public safety issue until the auto. You seem to believe > the horse and buggy are safer than the Automobile. I have evidence the > Horse and Buggy were more dangerous than the Automobile is today. Actually, your cite supports my position. Read on: > The Chicago Public Library states: "Horse drawn vehicles were more > dangerous than today's automobiles" - That's not what's at issue! It is whether early autos were perceived as more dangerous and requiring measures for public welfare and safety, and the fact is that your cite supports that outcome. If you hadn't cut off your quote where you did, you would have known that it said this: "Horse drawn vehicles were more dangerous than today's automobiles, but safer than turn of the century automobiles." That's the whole crux of the matter right there. Oh and thank you for the cite! > http://www.chipublib.org/004chicago/disasters/19th20th_accidents.html > > > This declaration only because I showed they did happen. > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > "irrational fear". Which is exactly what I believe we have, > perpetrated by various interested concerns, such as government. Well, that puts you in with the ranks of the black helicopter club too then. Fact is, as your cite seems to show contrary to your own position, steps were taken to license auto operators precisely out of knowledge, not irrational fear. For even today your course says, "Horse drawn vehicles were more dangerous than today's automobiles, but safer than turn of the century automobiles." > > > > The VMT just isn't there to invoke the same level of concern > > > > over driving a horse a carriage that piloting a two or three-ton [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Not as dangerous today as the horse and buggy was in it's day. Wrong, by your own cite which clearly says horse and buggy was *safer* than early autos. Didn't you read it before you posted it? Here's more from it: "It should also be noted that horses were not only safer, but they were better at finding their way home. In 1916, of the 1,215 horses that strayed or were stolen, all except 26 were recovered. However of the 3,295 automobiles which were lost or stolen only 2,336 were recovered, leaving 959 missing. "The automobile death rate has drastically dropped since the early part of the century. Some of the many factors discussed in city reports include: efficient ambulance and hospital service, vehicle safety features, a wide variety of roadway improvements, better law enforcement and public education." You apparently misread your own cite. > > > > Anecdotes don't make for policy. > > > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > that time (and seemingly even today) to do so. But, today, the > Ordinary Way is by Driving the Automobile. Yes.... with a driver's license. That's the ordinary way and you have that right. Now go get a license. There's no contradiction here. > Our Public Highways are intended to enhance our Right of Liberty. Yet, > the more our Public Highways are made unuseable by anything but the > Automobile, the more this lie that Driving is a State given Permission > makes us Prisoners of Permission behind Bars of Blacktop. Polemic alert! Put your tinfoil caps on! > > > However this is irrelevant to knocking down the arguement > > > that the automobile has some sort of special dangers above and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > False, as I have proved above. Wrong. You proved I was right, and you were wrong. Read it again. > > We are not giving up our rights. > > False, as I have proved above. Nice self-congratulatory statement, but transparently wrong. You proved nothing except that you didn't fully understand your own cite. > We have the Right to use our Public > Highways for Personal Travel in the Ordinary Way. As Driving the > Automobile IS the Ordinary Way we use our Public Highways for Personal > Travel today, then Driver Licensing does indeed abridge the Right of US > Citizens to use their Public Highways for Personal Travel in the > Ordinary Way. Nope. The "ordinary way" is as a licensed driver. > > > Showing the dangers of the previous form knocks that arguement > > > on it's a.s. > > > > Not yet it hasn't. > > It has now. Try again! The argument is still on its a.s. > > > Those who have experience with horses I am sure understand their > > > size and power and danger if not handled correctly. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Possibly, as the Horse and Buggy were more dangerous than the > Automobile is today. That wasn't at issue; it was whether the early auto was seen as more hazardous than the horse and buggy, and as your cite proves, it was; hence society moved to license operators. Now, a whole different discussion could be had on whether todays *traffic* is more hazardous than in the horse and buggy days, entailing continued societal vigilance and regulation. I think only a fool would argue that is not true, however. > > > > > > I don't think you want to see people start to take horse and carriage > > > > > > to the road as an alternative to the autombile. I know I don't. Having [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Sure it is. We will see. > > You seem to believe the use of a Horse and Buggy on our Public > > Highways is a Right, even though it's not spicifically stated so in > > the Constitution. > > Many things are not specifically stated but are rights that flow from > the Constitution. While it may be true that many Rights not specifically stated are reserved to the people, Rights do not "flow from" the Constitution. Rights are inherently endowed by creation to Individuals, and those Rights are either delegated to or prohibited from government by the Constitution. Read the 10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people" -- 10th Amendment of the US Constitution If the people do not delegate a Power, to either the United States (via the US Constitution), or to their respective State (via State Constitutions), the people retain that Power as their Individual Right, because they are the origin of that Right. If the people prohibit a Power to government (via the US Constitution), neither the United States nor their respective States may possess that Power, and the people retain that Power as their Individual Right. > Yours is a silly argument. My above sentence wasn't an argument, but merely an observation that you seem to believe Driving the Horse and Buggy is a Right, even though the Constitution doesn't specifically mention so. > Under your logic, George Bush could legally tap all your phone > conversations without a warrant because telephones aren't > mentioned in the Constitution. Incorrect. The 4th Amendment prohibits that power to both the United States and to the States: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." -- 4th Amendment of the US Constitution > > You make the argument that "We made it up to the automobile without > > requiring licensing to operate such potentially dangerous equipment [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Actually, your cite supports my position. Read on: No it doesn't. Read on: > > The Chicago Public Library states: "Horse drawn vehicles were more > > dangerous than today's automobiles" [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > measures for public welfare and safety, and the fact is that your cite > supports that outcome. Brent P wrote: "I don't think you want to see people start to take horse and carriage to the road as an alternative to the autombile." There was no mention of "early autos", and when Brent P says "start to take horse and carriage to the road as an alternative to the automobile", I believe it is safe to assume Brent is speaking of today's automobile. And, the article sited clearly states that: "Horse drawn vehicles were more dangerous than today's automobiles". Therefore, Brent P's original statement was not Irrelivant, nor does my cite support your position. > Oh and thank you for the cite! You're Welcome. > > > > This declaration only because I showed they did happen. > > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Well, that puts you in with the ranks of the black helicopter club too > then. What? Don't you believe black helicopters exist? If you do or not, your comment above is nothing more than an Ad Hominem. > Fact is, as your cite seems to show contrary to your own position, > steps were taken to license auto operators precisely out of knowledge, > not irrational fear. You are mixing now with then. I was speaking in terms of the here and now, not the there and then. And, I believe Brent P was also speaking in terms of the here and now. There and then, when the Automobile was a rather Extraordinary means of Transit, and when people were unlearned as to it's dangers, there might have been justification for licensing. But, here and now, the Automobile is no longer Extraordinary, people are well learned as to it's dangers, and as such the Automobile is even safer today than the horse and buggy then. Your argument in support of continued licensing today was that the Automobile is more dangerous than the Horse and Buggy. I have proven that the Automobile today is safer than the Horse and Buggy. As an additional observation, as people today are better learned as to the dangers of the Automobile, but have mostly forgoten the dangers of the Horse and Buggy, I would dare say that attempting to revert back to the Horse and Buggy would result in even more dangerous situtations than was experience back when the Horse and Buggy was long familiar. > > > > > The VMT just isn't there to invoke the same level of concern > > > > > over driving a horse a carriage that piloting a two or three-ton [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Wrong, by your own cite which clearly says horse and buggy was > *safer* than early autos. Wrong. It says: "Horse drawn vehicles were more dangerous than today's automobiles, but safer than turn of the century automobiles." Turn of the century Automobiles are "early autos". Today's Automobiles are "later autos". > Didn't you read it before you posted it? Didn't you comprehend what you quoted? > "It should also be noted that horses were not only safer, but they were > better at finding their way home. Safer than the turn of the century Automobiles. But, as it clearly states, not as safe as today's Automobiles. And, we are speaking of retaining the policy of giving Driver Licenses for the operation of Today's Automobiles. > "The automobile death rate has drastically dropped since the early part > of the century. Some of the many factors discussed in city reports [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > You apparently misread your own cite. I misread nothing. You apparently do not comprehend the difference between now and then. > > > > > Anecdotes don't make for policy. > > > > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Yes.... with a driver's license. That's the ordinary way and you have > that right. [extracted to below] There's no contradiction here. To say something is a Right if you are given Permission is a contradiction in terms and oxymoronic, as the necessity to obtain Permission assumes it is not a Right. > [re-inserted from above] Now go get a license. It would appear you are making an assumption here. Regardless, I am not here to take directives. > > Our Public Highways are intended to enhance our Right of Liberty. Yet, > > the more our Public Highways are made unuseable by anything but the > > Automobile, the more this lie that Driving is a State given Permission > > makes us Prisoners of Permission behind Bars of Blacktop. > > Polemic alert! Put your tinfoil caps on! Oh my! Is this a personal assult, an Ad Hominem? Yes, I do believe it is. You damage your credibility by performing this activity. > > > > However this is irrelevant to knocking down the arguement > > > > that the automobile has some sort of special dangers above and [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Wrong. You proved I was right, and you were wrong. Read it again. Wrong. I proved I was right, and that you were wrong. Read it again, and try using more powers of comprehension this time around. Keep in mind to distinguish between Now and Then. > > > We are not giving up our rights. > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > You proved nothing except that you didn't fully understand your > own cite. Your inability to comprehend how you were proven wrong is irrelivant. You've proved you didn't use the proper powers of comprehension, nor make the proper distinction between Now and Then. > > We have the Right to use our Public Highways for Personal Travel in > > the Ordinary Way. As Driving the Automobile IS the Ordinary Way [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Nope. The "ordinary way" is as a licensed driver. Given your powers of comprehension so far demonstrated, I doubt you will be able to comprehend the oxymoronic nature of saying Rights are obtained as Permissons. > > > > Showing the dangers of the previous form knocks that arguement > > > > on it's a.s. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Try again! The argument is still on its a.s. Rather, I would say it is your power of comprehension that is still on it's a.s. > > > > Those who have experience with horses I am sure understand their > > > > size and power and danger if not handled correctly. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > hazardous than the horse and buggy, and as your cite proves, it was; > hence society moved to license operators. No, that never was the issue. As we are speaking of retaining the policy of states granting permission to Drive the Automobile, we are clearly speaking of Today's Automobile. Maybe you do comprehend the difference between Now and Then, but instead are trying to use trickery to make it seem you weren't wrong. > Now, a whole different discussion could be had on whether todays > *traffic* is more hazardous than in the horse and buggy days, entailing > continued societal vigilance and regulation. I have never spoken of eliminating the regulation of our Right to Drive, no more than I would speak of eliminating the regulation of our Right of Liberty. Laws against Reckless Endangerment should remain in force, just as laws against trespass should remain in force. > I think only a fool would argue that is not true, however. Strawman used to issue an Ad Hominem. You claim I promote something I never promoted, then attempt to call me a fool for doing so. > > > > > > > I don't think you want to see people start to take horse and carriage > > > > > > > to the road as an alternative to the autombile. I know I don't. Having [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > We will see. We already have. It is irrelevant. > > > You seem to believe the use of a Horse and Buggy on our Public > > > Highways is a Right, even though it's not spicifically stated so in [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Rights are either delegated to or prohibited from government by the > Constitution. Read the 10th Amendment: (snip) Um, go and reread the discussion here. You don't know what you're replying to and have no apparent basic knowledge of sentence structure and logic. When I say that there are rights that flow from the Constitution that might not be specifically stated in it (which was the point of rebuttal to Brent), that is undoubtedly true for we employ many of them today through legislation passed in accordance with the Constitution. Voting Rights Act, abortion rights, etc. > > Yours is a silly argument. > > My above sentence wasn't an argument You're telling me!! > but merely an observation that > you seem to believe Driving the Horse and Buggy is a Right, even though > the Constitution doesn't specifically mention so. It is. > > Under your logic, George Bush could legally tap all your phone > > conversations without a warrant because telephones aren't [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." -- 4th > Amendment of the US Constitution You apparently don't read the newspapers much, do you. Your chief executive is claiming that he can legally do what I said above, and there are actually lawyers backing him up. > > > You make the argument that "We made it up to the automobile without > > > requiring licensing to operate such potentially dangerous equipment [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > No it doesn't. Read on: Yes it does, as I proved one post ago. > > > The Chicago Public Library states: "Horse drawn vehicles were more > > > dangerous than today's automobiles" [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Therefore, Brent P's original statement was not Irrelivant, nor does my > cite support your position. You selectively recall a small portion of the discussion. His original statement was irrelevant to my point and your cite very well supported my position. > > Oh and thank you for the cite! > > You're Welcome. Appreciate that. I couldn't have proven my point better than you did! > > > When that "general concern" isn't tempered with knowledge, it > > > becomes "irrational fear". Which is exactly what I believe we [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > What? Don't you believe black helicopters exist? If you do or not, > your comment above is nothing more than an Ad Hominem. Not really. When it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc., I have good reason to note the similarities. > > Fact is, as your cite seems to show contrary to your own position, > > steps were taken to license auto operators precisely out of knowledge, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > now, not the there and then. And, I believe Brent P was also speaking > in terms of the here and now. Wrong. At that point we were talking about the initial institution of a system of driver's licensing. So it was the "there and then." > There and then, when the Automobile was > a rather Extraordinary means of Transit, and when people were unlearned > as to it's dangers, there might have been justification for licensing. And once again, I thank you for your support of what I have been saying! > But, here and now, the Automobile is no longer Extraordinary, people > are well learned as to it's dangers, and as such the Automobile is even > safer today than the horse and buggy then. That hardly follows from your premises. > Your argument in support of continued licensing today was that the > Automobile is more dangerous than the Horse and Buggy. I have proven > that the Automobile today is safer than the Horse and Buggy. That isn't and never was a point in contention. Factors such as the massive level of VMT in this nation provide ample justification for continued licensing of operators. The issue of whether fact one individual modern automobile may be safer to operate today than one individual horse and buggy might have been 100 years ago, which is far from demonstrated IMO, is completely irrelevant to the discussion of the here and now. So whether you've proven the auto is safer than the horse and buggy is immaterial. > As an additional observation, as people today are better learned as to > the dangers of the Automobile, but have mostly forgoten the dangers of > the Horse and Buggy, I would dare say that attempting to revert back to > the Horse and Buggy would result in even more dangerous situtations > than was experience back when the Horse and Buggy was long familiar. No one has ever suggested there should be such a reversion; you're arguing with your own straw man. > > > > > > The VMT just isn't there to invoke the same level of concern > > > > > > over driving a horse a carriage that piloting a two or three-ton [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Turn of the century Automobiles are "early autos". Today's Automobiles > are "later autos". Wow. You really don't know how to read. Read it again and then agree with me. We were talking about early autos. Your cite very very clearly says "Horse drawn vehicles were ... safer than turn of the century automobiles." This is when licensing was put in, according to Brent. THAT was the discussion, not about today's autos. > > Didn't you read it before you posted it? > > Didn't you comprehend what you quoted? Yep, fully, unlike you. > > "It should also be noted that horses were not only safer, but they were > > better at finding their way home. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > retaining the policy of giving Driver Licenses for the operation of > Today's Automobiles. Now, that's a different part of the discussion. There's plenty of reason to continue the system of licensing based on the overwhelming use of them, the concern over general public welfare and safety. But that discussion doesn't turn on anything related to the horse and buggy part of the discussion. > > "The automobile death rate has drastically dropped since the early part > > of the century. Some of the many factors discussed in city reports [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I misread nothing. You apparently do not comprehend the difference > between now and then. That was *your* problem, not mine, as I trust you now comprehend. > > > We have the Right to use our Public Highways for Personal Travel in the > > > Ordinary Way. A hundred years ago, the Ordiniary Way would have been [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > contradiction in terms and oxymoronic, as the necessity to obtain > Permission assumes it is not a Right. How so? That is not a necessary conclusion. First of all, there is a right to travel in the ordinary way, as you say. The ordinary way is and has been, if you choose that way to be by operation of a motor vehicle, to obtain a driver's license. The right is that of travel; if you choose a means that requires licensure, then that's your choice. No contradiction here. > > [re-inserted from above] Now go get a license. > > It would appear you are making an assumption here. Regardless, I am > not here to take directives. I wasn't directing you. I was concluding my point by way of saying, if you wish to exercise your right of travel by choosing to do it by auto, then "you," meaning anyone, must get a license. > > > Our Public Highways are intended to enhance our Right of Liberty. Yet, > > > the more our Public Highways are made unuseable by anything but the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Oh my! Is this a personal assult, an Ad Hominem? Yes, I do believe it > is. You damage your credibility by performing this activity. I don't' think so. I think you did quite enough self-inflicted damage in the paragraph immediately above it. > > > > > However this is irrelevant to knocking down the arguement > > > > > that the automobile has some sort of special dangers above and [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > and try using more powers of comprehension this time around. Keep in > mind to distinguish between Now and Then. I left this in so that anyone reading this can see how presumptuous you were in declaring you had proven something that you had not. I trust you realize your comprehension errors now. > > > > We are not giving up our rights. > > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > You've proved you didn't use the proper powers of comprehension, nor > make the proper distinction between Now and Then. As I showed you, Now and Then wasn't at issue. So in fact, it was you who failed to comprehend. Sorry you had to go off on that irrelevant tangent before this was made clearer to you. > > > We have the Right to use our Public Highways for Personal Travel in > > > the Ordinary Way. As Driving the Automobile IS the Ordinary Way [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > will be able to comprehend the oxymoronic nature of saying Rights are > obtained as Permissons. You're equivocating. There is a disconnect between "right to travel in the ordinary way" and the requirement to obtain a license if you happen to choose an ordinary way that has you operating a MV. There is no legislation or litigation that would uphold your position. > > > > > Showing the dangers of the previous form knocks that arguement > > > > > on it's a.s. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Rather, I would say it is your power of comprehension that is still on > it's a.s. Wrong again, as I've clearly shown above. > > > > You seem to believe the use of a Horse and Buggy on our Public > > > > Highways is a Right, even though it's not spicifically stated so in [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > many of them today through legislation passed in accordance with the > Constitution. Voting Rights Act, abortion rights, etc. You were responding to me, and you said in responce to me that rights "flow from the Constitution". It is clear to anyone with a correct understanding of the nature of Rights, that Rights originate from the Individual, and are collectivly either delegated to, or denied from, government by our Constitution. > > > > You seem to believe the use of a Horse and Buggy on our Public > > > > Highways is a Right, even though it's not spicifically stated so in [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > It is. The brevity of your responce makes it unclear, but I will assume you are affirming my observation, that being that you believe driving the horse and buggy is a Right. If so, why do you believe driving the horse and buggy is a Right? > > > Under your logic, George Bush could legally tap all your phone > > > conversations without a warrant because telephones aren't [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > executive is claiming that he can legally do what I said above, and > there are actually lawyers backing him up. He may be, but he is not doing so under MY logic. Under my logic, he, and the remainder of government, have been prohibited from exercising any such power by the 4th Amendment of our Constitution. > > > > You make the argument that "We made it up to the automobile without > > > > requiring licensing to operate such potentially dangerous equipment [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Yes it does, as I proved one post ago. Let's try this again. You made the argument that "We made it up to the automobile without requiring licensing to operate such potentially dangerous equipment because it presented no significant public safety issue until the auto." Where you say: "it presented no significant public safety issue", are you saying: "[the horse and buggy] presented no significant public safety issue"? And, where you say: "until the auto", are you saying: "[we made it without requiring licensing] until the auto"? And, are you implying that: ~The extraordinary nature of the automobile at it's onset made licensing necessary~? > > Your argument in support of continued licensing today was that the > > Automobile is more dangerous than the Horse and Buggy. I have [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > massive level of VMT in this nation provide ample justification for > continued licensing of operators. To the contrary, factors such as the massive level of VMT in this nation today provide ample justification for the elimination of licensing of operators. "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 Clearly, the massive level of VMT in this nation today would make it by far the most ORDINARY way we use our public highways for personal travel. Regardless if at the onset of the use of Automobiles for personal travel, due to it's Extraordinary nature at that time, driver licensing could be considered Constitutional, my contention is that, due to it's Ordinary nature today, driver licensing can no longer be considered Constitutional, but instead an abridgment of our Right to use our public highways for personal travel in the Ordinary way. > > > "It should also be noted that horses were not only safer, but they were > > > better at finding their way home. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > the overwhelming use of them, the concern over general public welfare > and safety. Given that I have provided evidence that Today's Automobile is safer than Yesteryear's Horse and Buggy, any rational concern over the general public safety should have been greater during the years of Horse and Buggy than today's Automobile. Yet, licensing was never required to Drive the Horse and Buggy. Also, given that the Automobile is by far the most ordinary way we use our public highways for personal travel, and that the Automobile has become a necessity in our ever expanding infrastructure to the individual as a means of personal travel and supplying their needs, any rational concern over the general public welfare would be in securing our Right to Drive the Automobile. And finally, given today's unfamiliarity with the Horse and Buggy is surely greater than it was in yesteryears, making it even more dangerous today than it was in yesteryears, how do you justify your claim that we have a Right to Drive the Horse and Buggy today? > > > > We have the Right to use our Public Highways for Personal Travel in > > > > the Ordinary Way. A hundred years ago, the Ordiniary Way would [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > been, if you choose that way to be by operation of a motor vehicle, to > obtain a driver's license. In the 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 The term "ordinary way" refers to how we use our public highways, not as to how we have up to this point used the Automobile. When the Driving the Automobile wasn't the ordinary way we used our public highways, but instead was a rather extraordinary way, the licensing of it's use might have been rightfully considered Constitutional. But, as Driving the Automobile is today by far the most ordinary way we use our public highways, the licensing of it's use can no longer be rightfully considered Constitutional. license - revocable authority or permission given solely to one having no possessory rights in a tract of land to do something on that land which would otherwise be unlawful or a trespass -- http://dictionary.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/results.pl?co=dictionary.lp.findlaw.com &topic=00/00c8cc094cf2d3511f3effb123417f4d > > > > Many things are not specifically stated but are rights that flow from > > > > the Constitution. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Individual, and are collectivly either delegated to, or denied from, > government by our Constitution. Stow the civics essay, we're not in junior high. There is nothing inconsistent in noting that rights flow from our Constitution, and to hold that they are inherent in our common humanity. Trouble is, Proffy, there are a number of societies that have graced this globe that didn't seem to agree. If rights are innate - as I believe they are - why under your argument are there nevertheless societies that routinely and brutally abuse them? Well, it's because we have a social compact that we call our Constitution, progeny in direct descent from the Magna Carta. It is this document that protects our rights because there are those who would not behave as though they believe they are inherent in our simply human dignity, like King John at Runnymede. It is the document through which we have agreed as Americans to recognizes these rights and to develop a body of laws in accordance with same. Therefore, derivative rights have flowed and continue to flow from that document with greater specificity in statutes. And to say that our rights flow from the protection of them afforded in the Constitution isn't inconsistent with believing they are inherent in our very humanity, except in yours and Brenty and Bammy Boy's twisting of words. After all, plenty of specific rights have been developed and evolved from the document that aren't specified in them, and this alone proves you wrong. Such as the right to privacy and choice in the matter of abortion. > > > > Under your logic, George Bush could legally tap all your phone > > > > conversations without a warrant because telephones aren't [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > and the remainder of government, have been prohibited from exercising > any such power by the 4th Amendment of our Constitution. Yell that from your cell in Guantanamo. As of this point, your claim the 4th Amendment prohibits GWB from doing so - much as I agree with that - doesn't seem to be holding sway. > "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) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > far the most ORDINARY way we use our public highways for personal > travel. Sure, with an operator's license. That's the ordinary way. > Regardless if at the onset of the use of Automobiles for > personal travel, due to it's Extraordinary nature at that time, driver > licensing could be considered Constitutional, my contention is that, > due to it's Ordinary nature today, driver licensing can no longer be > considered Constitutional, but instead an abridgment of our Right to > use our public highways for personal travel in the Ordinary way. That can't be since the ordinary way is with a license. Is there a court in the land that has held the system of driver's licensing to be unconstitutional, in the face of the onslaught by an assortment of folks who believe it to be so and have tested it - the people who put copyrights after their names believing this shields them from the jurisdiction of the government? No, there isn't. So go ahead and "contend" that driver's licenses are unconstitutional. Just be sure to carry yours. > > > > "It should also be noted that horses were not only safer, but they were > > > > better at finding their way home. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > general public safety should have been greater during the years of > Horse and Buggy than today's Automobile. What was the VMT of the horse and buggy system in 1901, hmmm? > Yet, licensing was never required to Drive the Horse and Buggy. Which sorta proves my point then, eh. The hazard simply didn't rise to the level at which society demanded some rules and regulations including licensing. > Also, given that the Automobile is by far the most ordinary way we use > our public highways for personal travel, and that the Automobile has > become a necessity in our ever expanding infrastructure to the > individual as a means of personal travel and supplying their needs, any > rational concern over the general public welfare would be in securing > our Right to Drive the Automobile. And we have that right. I've seen them driving, by the tens of thousands no less, every day, all over the public thoroughfares. > > > > > We have the Right to use our Public Highways for Personal Travel in > > > > > the Ordinary Way. A hundred years ago, the Ordiniary Way would [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > public highways, the licensing of it's use can no longer be rightfully > considered Constitutional. None of that logically follows from your premises. Sorry. You can't separate "how we have up to this point used the automobile" from the "ordinary way" in which we use our public highways. They're inseparable, because auto driving pretty much *is* how we use our public highways, and we've done so with a system of licensing through which we've agreed to a basic competency and vision test plus enforcement for rule-breakers. > license - revocable authority or permission given solely to one having > no possessory rights in a tract of land to do something on that land > which would otherwise be unlawful or a trespass -- > http://dictionary.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/results.pl?co=dictionary.lp.findlaw.com &topic=00/00c8cc094cf2d3511f3effb123417f4d Bwahahaha. You continue to be your own worst enemy when it comes to your own cites. Go back to your link and read the *first* definition, right above the one you pasted. Never mind, I'll paste it here so everyone can see your duplicity at work: License: 1 a: a right or permission granted by a competent authority (as of a government or a business) to engage in some business or occupation, do some act, or engage in some transaction which would be unlawful without such right or permission. A license, in your own source, is a "right" to do some act, hmmmm, maybe like, uh, driving. Keep it up, you're batting 0.000. > > > > > Many things are not specifically stated but are rights that flow > > > > > from the Constitution. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > inconsistent in noting that rights flow from our Constitution, and > to hold that they are inherent in our common humanity. The premise upon which the Constitution is based is that Rights originate with the Individual, not from within the Constitution itself. The Constitution is merely a contract between Individuals who have consented to delegate certain of their Rights to government, and to deny certain other of their Rights from abridgment by government. > Trouble is, Proffy, Stow the slurs. > there are a number of societies that have graced this globe that didn't > seem to agree. Irrelivant. When debating US Law, and the Constitutionality of Rights, the premise of the Constitution is assumed. > If rights are innate - as I believe they are - why under your argument are > there nevertheless societies that routinely and brutally abuse them? Because they don't have a Constitution in force protecting their Rights. > Well, it's because we have a social compact that we call our Constitution, > progeny in direct descent from the Magna Carta. I believe I just said that. > It is this document that protects our rights because there are those who > would not behave as though they believe they are inherent in our simply > human dignity, like King John at Runnymede. There is a considerable difference between the concept that "rights flow from the Constitution" and that "rights are protected by the Constitution". > It is the document through which we have agreed as Americans to > recognizes these rights and to develop a body of laws in accordance > with same. Stow the civics essay, we're not in junior high. > Therefore, derivative rights have flowed and continue to flow from that > document with greater specificity in statutes. Does water flow from or through the valve? Does water originate at the valve? I think the same distinction can be made with the Constitution. The Constitution is nothing more than a valve, regulating the flow of Rights. The Rights do not originate at the Constitution, but rather their flow from their originating source, the Individual, is regulated. > And to say that our rights flow from the protection of them afforded > in the Constitution isn't inconsistent with believing they are inherent > in our very humanity, except in yours and Brenty and Bammy Boy's > twisting of words. There you go with more of your slurs. And, apparently it is Brent P, Bamma Brian, and myself, who believe it is you who is employing the practice of twisting words. > After all, plenty of specific rights have been developed and evolved > from the document that aren't specified in them, and this alone > proves you wrong. Rather, this alone proves you wrong. You claim those Rights "flow from" the Constitution, yet the Constitution never specifically mentions those Rights. How can Rights flow from a document that doesn't even specify them? Rather, the Constitution establishes a set of regulations which prevent Rights, some not even recognized today, from abridgment by government. > > > > > Under your logic, George Bush could legally tap all your phone > > > > > conversations without a warrant because telephones aren't [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > 4th Amendment prohibits GWB from doing so - much as I agree with > that - doesn't seem to be holding sway. Stow the directives. The Constitution only prohibits, it doesn't prevent. Prevention is, ultimately, up to us. > > "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) [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Sure, with an operator's license. That's the ordinary way. The term "ordinary way" refers to how we use our public highways, not as to what permissions we have assumed necessary to use the Automobile. > So go ahead and "contend" that driver's licenses are unconstitutional. > Just be sure to carry yours. Stow the directives. > > Given that I have provided evidence that Today's Automobile is safer > > than Yesteryear's Horse and Buggy, any rational concern over the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Which sorta proves my point then, eh. To the contrary. > > In the ruling: > > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > separate "how we have up to this point used the automobile" from > the "ordinary way" in which we use our public highways. There is a distinct seperation between how we ordinarily use our public highways and how we ordinarily use the Automobile. > > license - revocable authority or permission given solely to one having > > no possessory rights in a tract of land to do something on that land [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > A license, in your own source, is a "right" to do some act, hmmmm, > maybe like, uh, driving. Keep it up, you're batting 0.000. Interesting how you choose to ignore two out of three references to it as a PERMISSION. A Right by Permission is not really a Right, but simply a Permission. If it is assumed you must obtain a license to do some act, then clearly that act isn't assumed to be a Right, but instead a permission. Definition 1's use of the word "right" is more along the lines of a "permission granted". Swoosh. Strike Three. You're Out. > > > > > > Many things are not specifically stated but are rights that flow > > > > > > from the Constitution. [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > consented to delegate certain of their Rights to government, and to > deny certain other of their Rights from abridgment by government. None of which contradicts anything I have said. > > Trouble is, Proffy, > > Stow the slurs. You too then. I didn't start the insults, but I do respond in kind. > > there are a number of societies that have graced this globe that didn't > > seem to agree. > > Irrelivant. When debating US Law, and the Constitutionality of Rights, > the premise of the Constitution is assumed. Nope. Completely relevant. If rights are innate in a person's humanness, then they are not limited to the US. That other societies violated them is completely relevant to the point that our Constitution is a social compact by which we have agreed to preserve and protect them. And that is why the document has been used as a source for many other specific rights that over time have flowed from the interpretation of it. The boundaries are tested each and every day in courts around the land. Oh and by the way, not ever has a court upheld the unconstitutionality of driver licensing. > > If rights are innate - as I believe they are - why under your argument are > > there nevertheless societies that routinely and brutally abuse them? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > I believe I just said that. You're coming along! Good! > > It is this document that protects our rights because there are those who > > would not behave as though they believe they are inherent in our simply [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > flow from the Constitution" and that "rights are protected by the > Constitution". Both can be and are true; the problem here is you are behaving as though the two concepts are contradictory. You have not come within a thousand miles of establishing that the two ideas cannot coexist. > > It is the document through which we have agreed as Americans to > > recognizes these rights and to develop a body of laws in accordance [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Rights. The Rights do not originate at the Constitution, but rather > their flow from their originating source, the Individual, is regulated. You're drawing a distinction that equivocates on "flow from." I actually agree with your analogy, but don't find it contradictory to the notion that, say, the right to privacy in abortion has flowed from the constitution, as the conduit for interpreting innate rights. I think you're making too much of a non-issue. The water came from the valve, for sure, even though the water originated elsewhere. Without the Constitution to protect the rights, there wouldn't be much else flowing. > > And to say that our rights flow from the protection of them afforded > > in the Constitution isn't inconsistent with believing they are inherent > > in our very humanity, except in yours and Brenty and Bammy Boy's > > twisting of words. > > There you go with more of your slurs. When I am insulted, I respond in kind. > And, apparently it is Brent P, > Bamma Brian, and myself, who believe it is you who is employing the > practice of twisting words. Not my problem that all three of you are wrong. > > After all, plenty of specific rights have been developed and evolved > > from the document that aren't specified in them, and this alone > > proves you wrong. > > Rather, this alone proves you wrong. Nope. > You claim those Rights "flow > from" the Constitution, yet the Constitution never specifically > mentions those Rights. Hence.... ta-daaa!!!... my use of the term "flow from." > How can Rights flow from a document that > doesn't even specify them? Because if they were specifically mentioned, they wouldn't have had to "flow from" the interpretation of the bounds of those broader rights in the first place. This is too easy. > Rather, the Constitution establishes a set > of regulations which prevent Rights, some not even recognized today, > from abridgment by government. And if those rights you say might not have yet been recognized today, when they do emerge then that is what I mean by saying they will have "flowed from" the Constitution! > > > "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) [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > The term "ordinary way" refers to how we use our public highways, not > as to what permissions we have assumed necessary to use the Automobile. You have no basis to separate them. The ordinary way has been to be licensed before operating. "The use of the public in the ordinary way" is completely consistent with observing the tradition of licensure of operators. You keep pretending you've made the logical leap of separating that from "ordinary way" yet you haven't. > > So go ahead and "contend" that driver's licenses are unconstitutional. > > Just be sure to carry yours. > > Stow the directives. No. It's good advice. > > > Given that I have provided evidence that Today's Automobile is safer > > > than Yesteryear's Horse and Buggy, any rational concern over the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > To the contrary. Actually not. Your very own cite, or was it that Bammy guy, I forget by now, showed that early autos were considered more dangerous than horse and buggy, hence licensing came into use. Now, we have the contention that the public highways are safer. A large part of that outcome is the system of licensing, which allows us to screen and remove some unsafe drivers from the roads. > > > In the ruling: > > > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > There is a distinct seperation between how we ordinarily use our public > highways and how we ordinarily use the Automobile. But you forget that the "right" specified in your very own cite is to the ordinary way in which we use the highway, not the automobile. Therefore, you have not separated the licensing from the operating of the auto. > > > license - revocable authority or permission given solely to one having > > > no possessory rights in a tract of land to do something on that land [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Interesting how you choose to ignore two out of three references to it > as a PERMISSION. More interesting however was the fact that you had completely failed to list the ONE definition that specifically applied to driver's licenses, which is the one that applies. > Swoosh. Strike Three. You're Out. Ooops. Catcher dropped the ball and I'm safe at first! > > > Trouble is, Proffy, > > > > Stow the slurs. > > You too then. I didn't start the insults, but I do respond in kind. Provide the proof you aren't a liar. > > > > Trouble is, Proffy, > > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Provide the proof you aren't a liar. Egad, read the thread, man. It's self-evident and beneath even you. > > > > > Trouble is, Proffy, > > > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Egad, read the thread, man. It's self-evident and beneath even you. You accuse me of a transgression, yet you fail to provide evidence of your accusation. While the accused is assumed innocent until proven guilty, the accuser without evidence provides proof of their own guilt in their accusations. Provide a link to the evidence that you are not a liar. > > > > > > Trouble is, Proffy, > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > You accuse me of a transgression, yet you fail to provide evidence of > your accusation. Stop the game playing. Read the thread and see where it started. Return to being civil and stop being the guy who throws stones but complains where they're tossed back. > While the accused is assumed innocent until proven > guilty, the accuser without evidence provides proof of their own guilt > in their accusations. Provide a link to the evidence that you are not > a liar. This post of yours is proof enough that *you* are. > > > > > > > Trouble is, Proffy, > > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Stop the game playing. Read the thread and see where it started. It is becoming obvious that it is you who is playing a game. You make the accusation. It is not my duty to seek out and provide you with the evidence of your accusation. In fact, I contend that evidence doesn't exist. > Return to being civil and stop being the guy who throws stones but > complains where they're tossed back. Provide a link to the evidence you aren't a liar. You can provide me this link using Google Groups at: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.law-enforcement/browse_frm/thread/2a5bea7ae98 2259f/abe45e10d89d5e27#abe45e10d89d5e27 When, if, you find an offending post by myself, in the heading of that post, select the "show options" option, then select the "Show Original" option, then provide me with a link to that post by myself, similar to this link to your post here: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.law-enforcement/msg/39de18b6284c59fb?dmode=source and quote the offending statement in that post written by myself. > > While the accused is assumed innocent until proven guilty, > > the accuser without evidence provides proof of their own guilt > > in their accusations. Provide a link to the evidence that you are > > not a liar. > > This post of yours is proof enough that *you* are. I am only asking you to provide the evidence that you are not a liar. Will you produce that evidence? If you will not or can not, then you will not or can not prove you are not a liar. > > > > > > > > Trouble is, Proffy, > > > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > It is becoming obvious that it is you who is playing a game. Really? How so? I respond to taunts, you pretend they don't exist yet repeat the offenses in the very same posts. Sweet Jesus, it's time you moved on. > You make > the accusation. It is not my duty to seek out and provide you with the > evidence of your accusation. In fact, I contend that evidence doesn't > exist. Blah blah blah. Everyone else knows what it was. You're playing games and I am not fielding it. > > Return to being civil and stop being the guy who throws stones but > > complains where they're tossed back. > > Provide a link to the evidence you aren't a liar. You mean the link that would prove that you are. > You can provide me this link using Google Groups at: > http://groups.google.com/group/alt.law-enforcement/browse_frm/thread/2a5bea7ae98 2259f/abe45e10d89d5e27#abe45e10d89d5e27 [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > and quote the offending statement in that post written by myself. Please stop embarrassing yourself like this. Go back yourself and review the thread like I originally asked. I pointed out when you continued it, so it should have been easy at the very get-go. > > > While the accused is assumed innocent until proven guilty, > > > the accuser without evidence provides proof of their own guilt [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Will you produce that evidence? If you will not or can not, then you > will not or can not prove you are not a liar. Nice try. Actually, I change my mind. Not a nice try. > > > > > > > Trouble is, Proffy, > > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Return to being civil and stop being the guy who throws stones but > complains where they're tossed back. Stop the game playing. Return to being civil and stop being the guy who throws stones then plays the victim when their not tossed back. > > While the accused is assumed innocent until proven guilty, > > the accuser without evidence provides proof of their own guilt > > in their accusations. Provide a link to the evidence that you > > are not a liar. > > This post of yours is proof enough that *you* are. Your accusations combined with your lack of evidence is proof enough that "you" are. > > > > > > > > Trouble is, Proffy, > > > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > Your accusations combined with your lack of evidence is proof enough > that "you" are. You've lost the argument and you're frustrated, Proffsl. 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 > > > > > > > > > Trouble is, Proffy, > > > > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > You've lost the argument and you're frustrated, Proffsl. I suppose if you count who issued the most unsolicited personal insults. I don't. > > > > > While the accused is assumed innocent until proven guilty, > > > > > the accuser without evidence provides proof of their own guilt [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > I don't. You started out well, Proffsl, but after you started losing the debate, as time went on, you engaged in more and more personal abuse. 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 > > > > > > While the accused is assumed innocent until proven guilty, > > > > > > the accuser without evidence provides proof of their own guilt [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > You started out well, Proffsl, but after you started losing the debate, > as time went on, you engaged in more and more personal abuse. Provide a link to the evidence you aren't also a Bald Face Liar. This is the last time I'll respond to these accusational posts, from you, Motorhead, Flynn, or anyone else who might be called to gang up on me in this conspiracy. The bunch of you can accuse till you're blue in the face. > > > > > > > While the accused is assumed innocent until proven guilty, > > > > > > > the accuser without evidence provides proof of their own guilt [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > me in this conspiracy. The bunch of you can accuse till you're blue in > the face. Oh fer Sweet Jesus' sake, give up the pretense. We all know what the offensive manner was, I responded to it in kind *only* in replying to the posts that had initiated it, and remained civil in replying to posts that were civil to me. I don't start stuff like that but I don't ignore it when it's aimed at me. Stop playing innocent because it looks silly. We've moved on, time you did too. > We've moved on, time you did too. If that were true, the accusations whould have stopped. They haven't, yet still the link to evidence is absent. I wish you, and the others, would move on. > > We've moved on, time you did too. > > If that were true, the accusations whould have stopped. Excuse me, but *you* are the one who's kept it going, not us. We haven't *renewed* the obvious pointing out of your initiation of offensive posts, but when you cry innocent with the posts sitting all around your feet, asking us to point to the mess you helped to make, and we then repsond to *that* act of feigned ignorance, that is not leveling any new accusation against you, just pointing out your sily denials of the original. >> yet still the link to evidence is absent. I told you where to look, you didn't. I pointed it out in posts to which I was directly replying; you ignored it. But you stopped so it's OK, get it? > I wish you, and the others, would move on. We have. You haven't. Get over it. > > > > > > > While the accused is assumed innocent until proven guilty, > > > > > > > the accuser without evidence provides proof of their own guilt [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Provide a link to the evidence you aren't also a Bald Face Liar. Proffsl's personal abuse continues... :-( > This is the last time I'll respond to these accusational posts, from > you, Motorhead, Flynn, or anyone else who might be called to gang up on > me in this conspiracy. The bunch of you can accuse till you're blue in > the face. 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 > > > > > > > Many things are not specifically stated but are rights that flow > > > > > > > from the Constitution. [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > None of which contradicts anything I have said. It contradicts your assertion that Rights "flow from", as opposed to "are regulated by" or "are protected by", the Constitution. Maybe you don't think this technical distinction is important, but I and many others do. > > > there are a number of societies that have graced this globe that didn't > > > seem to agree. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Nope. Completely relevant. Are you saying that when debating US Law, and the Constitutionality of Rights, concepts which are contrary to the premise of the Constitution, that Rights originate with the Individual, are still completely relevant? > If rights are innate in a person's humanness, then they are not limited > to the US. That of course might be true when the scope of the issue extends beyond US Laws, and the Constitutionality of our Rights, but this discussion is limited to US Laws, and the Constitutionality of our Rights to use our public highways. > And that is why the document has been used as a source for > many other specific rights that over time have flowed from the > interpretation of it. The recognition and/or protection of these other spicific rights may have flowed from the interpretation of the Constitution, but the Rights themself do not flow from the Constitution, but instead originate with the Individual. > > > It is this document that protects our rights because there are those who > > > would not behave as though they believe they are inherent in our simply [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Both can be and are true; the problem here is you are behaving as > though the two concepts are contradictory. I do not think the concept that "rights flow from the Constitution" and the concept that "rights are protected by the Constitution" are necessarly contradictory, but rather I maintain that the concept that "rights flow from the Constitution" is contradictory with the concept that "rights originate with the Individual", the latter concept being the premise upon which our Constitution was built. > > > Therefore, derivative rights have flowed and continue to flow from that > > > document with greater specificity in statutes. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > the notion that, say, the right to privacy in abortion has flowed from > the constitution, as the conduit for interpreting innate rights. While I would agree that protections of our Rights flow from the Constitution, and that the recognition of our Rights flow from the interpretation of the Constitution, I will not agree that Rights flow from the Constitution. > I think you're making too much of a non-issue. The water came from > the valve, for sure, even though the water originated elsewhere. I suppose it's a technical point which you consider insignificant, but I do not. > > > After all, plenty of specific rights have been developed and evolved > > > from the document that aren't specified in them, and this alone [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Nope. If a bucket doesn't have water in it, how can water flow from that bucket? > > You claim those Rights "flow from" the Constitution, yet the > > Constitution never specifically mentions those Rights. > > Hence.... ta-daaa!!!... my use of the term "flow from." If a page has no words on it, how can words flow from that page? > > How can Rights flow from a document that doesn't even > > specify them? > > Because if they were specifically mentioned, they wouldn't have had > to "flow from" the interpretation of the bounds of those broader > rights in the first place. This is too easy. The ease is due to a falure on your part to comply with technicalities. Spicifically, it is their recognition that "flows from" the interpretation of the Constitution. The Rights themself flow from their origin, that being the Individual. > > Rather, the Constitution establishes a set of regulations which > > prevent Rights, some not even recognized today, from abridgment [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > when they do emerge then that is what I mean by saying they will have > "flowed from" the Constitution! I think you're beating a dead horse. See above. > > > > "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) [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > You have no basis to separate them. Rather, you have no basis to join them. Nowhere in the Packard v. Banton ruling is how we use the Automobile touched on. > The ordinary way has been to be licensed before operating. In the Packard v. Banton ruling, the term "ordinary way" refers to how we use our public highways. Would you attempt to suggest we must be licensed to use our public highways in the ordinary way? > You keep pretending you've made the logical leap of separating > that from "ordinary way" yet you haven't. Rather, you keep pretending you've made the logical leap of joining the "ordinary way" we use our public highways with the "ordinary way" we have up to now obtained permission to operate the Automobile. You have not. > > > > In the ruling: > > > > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > But you forget that the "right" specified in your very own cite is to the > ordinary way in which we use the highway, not the automobile. I did not forget, but it seems you're finally catching on! > Therefore, you have not separated the licensing from the operating of > the auto. Rather, you have not joined the "ordinary way" we use our public highways with the "ordinary way" we have up to now obtained permission to operate the Automobile. This is probably because their is no such connection. > > > > > > > > Many things are not specifically stated but are rights that flow > > > > > > > > from the Constitution. [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > It contradicts your assertion that Rights "flow from", as opposed to > "are regulated by" or "are protected by", the Constitution. No it doesn't. I've already cited specific rights we all now have because of post-Constitution laws that expand upon broader rights and are derived from, for example, the Bill of Rights. It is entirely reasonable to therefore say that we have rights today that flow from the Constitution. Your are picking nits through the fallacy of equivocation, by believing that because you think you can contradict one meaning of the term "flow from" that the term in all ots meanings can be contradicted. But you are wrong. Move on. Nothing to see here. > Maybe you > don't think this technical distinction is important, but I and many [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > that Rights originate with the Individual, are still completely > relevant? Well, of course, silly. Why on earth would you think that when one debates "A," that it is anything short of completely necessary to also account for "-A?" Premises must always be established to have a truthful outcome. Besides, as is your habit, you completely misunderstand the points I made. I've never disagreed that all human beings are born with the inherent rights that accompany their dignity and humanness. So that's not the debate at all. It is precisely because the record of human societies is so abysmal in safeguarding dignity of the person - the US is at least among those that have tried - that we fashioned the Constitution to safeguard, preserve and protect them. And, as we have seen in US history, they have been expanded upon and more specifically delineated, and even, sometimes, reined in. All of this lawmaking and interpreting "flows from" the Constitution. You're splitting hairs on an already bald head. > > If rights are innate in a person's humanness, then they are not limited > > to the US. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > is limited to US Laws, and the Constitutionality of our Rights to use > our public highways. You don't have the "right" to limit my argument that way. You stated a premise that begs for discussion of human rights outside the US by introducing the claim that rights are inherent. If they're inherent in my and your humanness, they're also inherent in some guy in Andorra, Bolivia, China.... All the way down to Zimbabwe. So, as I say, the difference here in the US is our Constitution, as you call it the "valve" through which flow the blessings of our preservation of liberty. You disagree with my using the preposition "from" rather than your preferred "through," but that has no dispositive value in the context of the discussion. You'll never admit it, but you're really agreeing with me here. > > And that is why the document has been used as a source for > > many other specific rights that over time have flowed from the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > themself do not flow from the Constitution, but instead originate with > the Individual. Same difference in the context of this discussion. Re-read it and try to understand it this time. > > > There is a considerable difference between the concept that "rights > > > flow from the Constitution" and that "rights are protected by the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > that "rights originate with the Individual", the latter concept being > the premise upon which our Constitution was built. You too narrowly restrict the meanings of "flow from" and I think that's why you're hung up on it. You're not really disagreeing with me. > While I would agree that protections of our Rights flow from the > Constitution, and that the recognition of our Rights flow from the > interpretation of the Constitution, I will not agree that Rights flow > from the Constitution. You might if you tried living in a country without one! Then you would see the distinction in meaning that you're failing now to see. > > > > After all, plenty of specific rights have been developed and evolved > > > > from the document that aren't specified in them, and this alone [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > If a bucket doesn't have water in it, how can water flow from that > bucket? Thank you for buttressing my argument yet again. If a Constitution doesn't have rights spelled out in it, how can rights flow from it? Answer: Since as you've already acknowledged, derivative specific rights have been established through lawmaking based on the Constitution, it is perfectly OK to say that rights have flowed from the Constitution. > > > You claim those Rights "flow from" the Constitution, yet the > > > Constitution never specifically mentions those Rights. > > > > Hence.... ta-daaa!!!... my use of the term "flow from." > > If a page has no words on it, how can words flow from that page? There are plenty of words. The rights that flow from the Constitution are based on the interpretation of those words. You know that, I know that, the three other people still hanging in here know that. > > And if those rights you say might not have yet been recognized today, > > when they do emerge then that is what I mean by saying they will have > > "flowed from" the Constitution! > > I think you're beating a dead horse. See above. Hey, I shot the horse five replies ago and you're still flogging it. > > > > > "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) [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Rather, you have no basis to join them. Well, other than the fact that they already have been long joined, I have no need to do so. I found them joined by common and ordinary way we use our public rights of way. The task is for you to try to separate them, and you haven't. > > The ordinary way has been to be licensed before operating. > > In the Packard v. Banton ruling, the term "ordinary way" refers to how > we use our public highways. Would you attempt to suggest we must be > licensed to use our public highways in the ordinary way? I don't need to. Such a situation already exists. I assume you have a license. It's been the ordinary way for decades. > > You keep pretending you've made the logical leap of separating > > that from "ordinary way" yet you haven't. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > have up to now obtained permission to operate the Automobile. You have > not. It already is joined. Every state legislature has done so from the early days of the auto. You're drilling a dry hole here. > > > > > In the ruling: > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > I did not forget, but it seems you're finally catching on! To your intellectual blindness, yes. > > Therefore, you have not separated the licensing from the operating of > > the auto. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > to operate the Automobile. This is probably because their is no such > connection. Bwahahaha. You know, you don't need a license to drive your car in your driveway. There. I just made it obviously joined, enough for you to recognize it, that the ordinary way we use the auto on public streets is through licensing. You can stop now. > > > > > there are a number of societies that have graced this globe that didn't > > > > > seem to agree. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > also account for "-A?" Premises must always be established to have > a truthful outcome. But, when debating Law A and Law -A, or Right A and Right -A, the premise of the Constitution, that Rights originate with the Individual, isn't what is being debated. The validity of Law A and Law -A, or Right A and Right -A are determined by the interpretation of the premises of the Constitution only, among them being that Rights originate with the Individual. It would be completely invalid in the US government to debate the validity of Law A and Law -A, or Right A and Right -A based on the interpretation of premises forign to our Constitution, such as preemises held by China. > > I do not think the concept that "rights flow from the Constitution" > > and the concept that "rights are protected by the Constitution" are [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > that's why you're hung up on it. You're not really disagreeing > with me. What you call "too narrowly" I call "more tightly". > > While I would agree that protections of our Rights flow from the > > Constitution, and that the recognition of our Rights flow from the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > You might if you tried living in a country without one! Then you > would see the distinction in meaning that you're failing now to see. Hahahaha!!! I am the one "more tightly" attempting to make the distinction you fail to see and claim is "too narrowly" restricted. > > > The ordinary way has been to be licensed before operating. > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I don't need to. Such a situation already exists. As we do have the Right to use our public highways in the ordinary way, why must we obtain permission to use our public highways in the ordinary way? > > > > > > there are a number of societies that have graced this globe that didn't > > > > > > seem to agree. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > premise of the Constitution, that Rights originate with the Individual, > isn't what is being debated. So what? The point is, if that premise is correct, then there are very serious issues with other societies that have failed to recognize that humans possess innate rights, and that is legitimate discussion in the overall context. If human beings have innate rights only if they are US citizens, then your premise isn't in fact true. And if only US citizens have rights, then is it because of the Constitution, which is contrary to your position. Therefore, you must deal with the larger issue in this discussion in order to continue defending your "innate rights" premise. > The validity of Law A and Law -A, or > Right A and Right -A are determined by the interpretation of the > premises of the Constitution only, among them being that Rights > originate with the Individual. Again, you've made "-A" a necessary adjunct to the discussion. You know, throughout this entire thread you've been providing more evidence and argumentation that upholds *my* arguments than for your own. > It would be completely invalid in the US government to debate the > validity of Law A and Law -A, or Right A and Right -A based on the > interpretation of premises forign to our Constitution, such as > preemises held by China. Impossible, since according to you, Chinese people also are born with innate and inalienable rights as well, whether or not they have a society that honors and respects that premise. > > > I do not think the concept that "rights flow from the Constitution" > > > and the concept that "rights are protected by the Constitution" are [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > What you call "too narrowly" I call "more tightly". So what? Either way, it's an invalid equivocation and incorrect reasoning on your part. > > > While I would agree that protections of our Rights flow from the > > > Constitution, and that the recognition of our Rights flow from the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Hahahaha!!! I am the one "more tightly" attempting to make the > distinction you fail to see and claim is "too narrowly" restricted. And you are also the one being fatally illogical in trying to do so. > > > > The ordinary way has been to be licensed before operating. > > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > why must we obtain permission to use our public highways in the > ordinary way? Obtaining a license *is* the ordinary way - as I tell you for the umpteenth time. If you hadn't snipped my ending paragraph you would have come to your senses: Me: "You know, you don't need a license to drive your car in your driveway. There. I just made it obviously joined, enough for you to recognize it, that the ordinary way we use the auto on public streets is through licensing. You can stop now." You may drive your car on your own property without a license. The NYC cab case you cited did not stipulate or find that the "ordinary way" was without registration or licensing. It was about imposing liability insurance on profit-making ventures that use the public rights-of-way. > > > > > > > there are a number of societies that have graced this globe > > > > > > > that didn't seem to agree. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > So what? When debating US Law, and the Constitutionality of Rights, the premise of the Constitution is assumed. > The point is, if that premise is correct, then there are very serious > issues with other societies that have failed to recognize that > humans possess innate rights, and that is legitimate discussion > in the overall context. We aren't debating if the premise that "Rights are Inherent" is correct. That is assumed within the context of our Constitution. We are debating US Law, the Constitutionality of Rights, and the validity of the notion that, within US Government, Rights "flow from" the Constitution. > If human beings have innate rights only if they are US citizens, > then your premise isn't in fact true. And if only US citizens have > rights, then is it because of the Constitution, which is contrary > to your position. Therefore, you must deal with the larger issue > in this discussion in order to continue defending your "innate > rights" premise. This would be true if we were debating if the premise of the Constitution, that Rights are Inherent, was a valid premise or not. But we aren't, and I don't care to get into that issue at this time. Within the functions of our Government, that premise is assumed. > > The validity of Law A and Law -A, or Right A and Right -A are > > determined by the interpretation of the premises of the > > Constitution only, among them being that Rights originate > > with the Individual. > > Again, you've made "-A" a necessary adjunct to the discussion. If you are thinking, or trying to make, "A" is "Rights are Inherent", then you are mistaken, or manipulative. "A" is "US Law" or "Rights protected by US Constitution". > > > > > The ordinary way has been to be licensed before operating. > > > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Obtaining a license *is* the ordinary way - as I tell you for the > umpteenth time. Packard v. Banton says: "The streets belong to the public and are primarily for the use of the public in the ordinary way." It doesn't say: "The streets belong to the licensed and are primarily for use of the licensed in the ordinary way." Either the public has a Right to something, or only the Licensed have that Right. Packard v. Banton says the public has a Right to use our public highways in the ordinary way. You are attempting to reduce that Right to only a certain subset of the public. > > > > Given that I have provided evidence that Today's Automobile is safer > > > > than Yesteryear's Horse and Buggy, any rational concern over the [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > system of licensing, which allows us to screen and remove some unsafe > drivers from the roads. Now, this is a rather subjective bucket of worms you've opened up. The Chicago Public Library states: "Horse drawn vehicles were more dangerous than today's automobiles, but safer than turn of the century automobiles." - http://www.chipublib.org/004chicago/disasters/19th20th_accidents.html They go on to say: "The automobile death rate has drastically dropped since the early part of the century. Some of the many factors discussed in city reports include:" 1 - "efficient ambulance and hospital service": a "Local funeral parlors ran the ambulance services and lacked incentive to train drivers so that their charges would arrive alive." 2 - "vehicle safety features": a "Automobiles were designed as if drawn by horses." 3 - "a wide variety of roadway improvements": a "Before 1926 what few traffic lights there were did not function alike or even use the same colors to mean the same thing." 4 - "better law enforcement": a "Traffic laws were sketchy and based on an incomplete understanding of automobiles." b "Enforcement was often a problem. Courts required a formal physical arrest of traffic offenders. This was impossible for foot patrolmen trying to stop speeders." 5 - "public education.": a "Pedestrians and drivers alike had a poor understanding of automobiles or their dangers." 6 - "Drivers didn't always have to be licensed or tested." I wasn't sure if licensing fit under "better law enforcement" or "public education", so I placed it into a category of it's own. There statistics showed that: in 1908, there were 59 deaths, 53,678 horse drawn vehicles, 11.0 deaths per 10,000 vehicles, and 0.3 deaths per 100,000 people. in 1908, there were 18 deaths, 5,475 automobiles, 32.9 deaths per 10,000 vehicles, and 0.1 deaths per 100,000 people. in 1916, there were 79 deaths, 46,662 horse drawn vehicles, 16.9 deaths per 10,000 vehicles, and 0.3 deaths per 100,000 people. in 1916, there were 235 deaths, 65,651 automobiles, 35.8 deaths per 10,000 vehicles, and 9.3 deaths per 100,000 people. in 1997, there were 320 deaths, 1,283,623 automobiles, 2.5 deaths per 10,000 vehicles, and 11.4 deaths per 100,000 people. Also, Chicago populations from the Chicago Timeline -- http://www.chipublib.org/004chicago/timeline/population.html in 1900 was 1,698,575 in 1910 was 2,185.283 in 1920 was 2,701,705 in 1990 was 2,783,726 in 2000 was 2,896,016 >From these two sets of statistics, it may be interpolated and calculated that: in 1908, the population was 2,087,941, the number of persons per horse drawn vehicle was 38.8975, and the number of persons per automobile was 381.3590. in 1916, the population was 2,495,136, the number of persons per horse drawn vehicle was 53.4725, and the number of persons per automobile was 38.0061. in 1997, the population was 2,862,329, the number of persons per horse drawn vehicle was NA, and the number of persons per automobile was 2.2299. These interpolated and calculated statistics, showing a dramatic decrease in the number of persons per automobile, or a dramatic increase in the number of automobiles per person, since 1908, easily explains the increase in the number of deaths per 100,000 people shown in the statistics above. Clearly, given 11.0 deaths per 10,000 horse drawn vehicles in 1908, and 2.5 deaths per 10,000 automobiles in 1997, the automobile is 4.4 times safer today than the horse and buggy was in 1908, to both the passengers and the pedestrians combined. Now, back to the more subjective aspects of this issue: According to Online Lawyer Source: the primary cause of Highway Accidents is WILLFUL acts of Negligence, Maliciousness, Drunkardness or Aggressive Driving. -- http://www.onlinelawyersource.com/personal_injury/auto/causes.html According to The Washington Post March 17, 2003, "some 98 percent of the accidents reported involved a single distracted driver", which falls under the WILLFUL act of Negligence. This leaves 2% to be divided up among Maliciousness, Drunkardness, Aggressive Driving, and of course Lack of Ability, as causes for accidents reported. Lack of Ability is not even mentioned in any of the cites I could find. As such, I would dare say that Maliciousness, Drunkardness and Aggressive Driving easily take up the bulk of the remaining 2%. Clearly, from the list of reasons attributed to the increase of automobile safety above, close to 100% of all automobile accidents can be addressed via #4 "better law enforcement", and possibly #5 "public education.". Close to 100% of all automobile accidents are caused by WILLFUL acts, which Licensing can not even pretend to test. Better Law Enforcement of laws against Negligence (rubber necking, cellular phones, etc), Maliciousness, Drunkardness or Aggressive Driving, can easily be accomplished without Licensing. Better Public Education as to the dangers of destraction posed by cellular phones, and rubber necking, can also be accomplished without Licensing. Frankly, Licensing serves no detectable service in improving automobile safety. Therefore, I maintain that your assertion that: "A large part of that outcome is the system of licensing, which allows us to screen and remove some unsafe drivers from the roads." falls flat on it's face. > According to The Washington Post March 17, 2003, "some 98 percent > of the accidents reported involved a single distracted driver", which > falls under the WILLFUL act of Negligence. The cite for the above is: http://www.mercola.com/2003/mar/26/car_accidents.htm > > > > > Given that I have provided evidence that Today's Automobile is safer > > > > > than Yesteryear's Horse and Buggy, any rational concern over the [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > > 6 - "Drivers didn't always have to be licensed or tested." Uh, remember that one for later, OK? > I wasn't sure if licensing fit under "better law enforcement" or > "public education", so I placed it into a category of it's own. > > There statistics showed that: (snip tables) > Clearly, given 11.0 deaths per 10,000 horse drawn vehicles in 1908, and > 2.5 deaths per 10,000 automobiles in 1997, the automobile is 4.4 times > safer today than the horse and buggy was in 1908, to both the > passengers and the pedestrians combined. Thank God for licensing then! What a difference it has made for preservation of the Right to Life! However, the death rate is merely a subset of the universe of pertinent statistics needed to arrive at the conclusion we seek. The huge increase in passenger safety systems in modern vehicles means fewer people die per accident today than in prior years, relatively speaking. You need: Injury rates, accident rates, property damage rates etc. Relying on death rate alone to try to reach your conclusion is not a valid process. It's like scoring a power play goal in the first period and not coming out for the other two. > Now, back to the more subjective aspects of this issue: > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > be addressed via #4 "better law enforcement", and possibly #5 "public > education.". Hmmm. These seem conspicuously tied to our system of, what was that again.... Oh yeah. Driver licensing. Thank you once again for your support. >Close to 100% of all automobile accidents are caused by > WILLFUL acts, which Licensing can not even pretend to test. But of which licensing is an integral part of the enforcement mechanism. > Better Law > Enforcement of laws against Negligence (rubber necking, cellular [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > necking, can also be accomplished without Licensing. Frankly, > Licensing serves no detectable service in improving automobile safety. False. It is part of the system of enforcement that accomplishes these goals. Your cite above credited it as being part of the reason for the decline in traffic deaths. > Therefore, I maintain that your assertion that: "A large part of that > outcome is the system of licensing, which allows us to screen and > remove some unsafe drivers from the roads." falls flat on it's face. Well, you've been wrong before so this comes as no surprise that you fail to recognize your syllogism does not lead to your conclusion. In fact, some of what you cite above again supports my assertion and undermines yours. > > According to Online Lawyer Source: the primary cause of Highway > > Accidents is WILLFUL acts of Negligence, Maliciousness, [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > But of which licensing is an integral part of the enforcement > mechanism. Do you agree that Licensing can not test for how one WILL use our public highways? Do you agree that close to 100% of all automobile accidents are caused by WILLFUL acts of Negligence, Maliciousness, Drunkardness and Aggressive Driving? > > Better Law Enforcement of laws against Negligence (rubber necking, > > cellular phones, etc), Maliciousness, Drunkardness or Aggressive [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > goals. Your cite above credited it as being part of the reason for the > decline in traffic deaths. Are you saying that without Licensing we couldn't enforce laws against Negligent, Malicious, Drunk or Agressive Driving? > > > According to Online Lawyer Source: the primary cause of Highway > > > Accidents is WILLFUL acts of Negligence, Maliciousness, [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > Do you agree that Licensing can not test for how one WILL use our > public highways? Only partially. What I do agree with is the notion that the tests are exptremely basic and cursory, weeding out perhaps only the worst of the worst. > Do you agree that close to 100% of all automobile accidents are caused > by WILLFUL acts of Negligence, Maliciousness, Drunkardness and > Aggressive Driving? No. But that has nothing to do either way with the constitutionality fof requiring operator's licences. > > > Better Law Enforcement of laws against Negligence (rubber necking, > > > cellular phones, etc), Maliciousness, Drunkardness or Aggressive [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Are you saying that without Licensing we couldn't enforce laws against > Negligent, Malicious, Drunk or Agressive Driving? Of course not. Licensing could be eliminated if states so chose. The question is whether the Constitution prohibits licensing, and it is well-established despite all your protestation that it does not. A red light isn't an unconstitutional prohibition on your right of free travel either. > > > > Close to 100% of all automobile accidents are caused > > > > by WILLFUL acts, which Licensing can not even [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > exptremely basic and cursory, weeding out perhaps only the worst > of the worst. Rather, I would say it weeds out only the most incapable of the most incapable. The most incapable of the most incapable generally weed themselves out. Most blind people simply wouldn't even think of trying to drive. As close to 100% of all automobile accidents are caused by willful acts, the "worst of the worst" are still fully capable of passing a driver licensing test. > > Do you agree that close to 100% of all automobile accidents > > are caused by WILLFUL acts of Negligence, Maliciousness, > > Drunkardness and Aggressive Driving? > > No. But that has nothing to do either way with the constitutionality > fof requiring operator's licences. Well, I have shown you evidence that close to 100% of all automobile accidents are indeed caused by willful acts of negligence, maliciousness, drunkardness and agressive driving. I suspect your "But" above is due to your awareness of that evidence. As we do have the Right to use our public highways in the ordinary way, and as Driving the Automobile is the ordinary way we use our public highways, there must be considerable reasons of compelling interest in public safety to Constitutionally justify the converting of a Right into a state given permission. > > > > Better Law Enforcement of laws against Negligence (rubber > > > > necking, cellular phones, etc), Maliciousness, Drunkardness [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Of course not. Licensing could be eliminated if states so chose. And, this is just one more compelling interest in public safety that is also absent. > The question is whether the Constitution prohibits licensing, And, as I pointed out above, as it is well established that we have the Right to use our public highways in the ordinary way, and as today that is clearly by Driving the Automobile, there must be a considerable compelling interest in public safety before the states can Constitutionally convert this Right into a state granted permission. I contend that compelling interest is absent. > > > > > > We have the Right to use our Public Highways for Personal Travel > > > > > > in the Ordinary Way. A hundred years ago, the Ordiniary Way [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > which we've agreed to a basic competency and vision test plus > enforcement for rule-breakers. The term "ordinary way" does indeed refer to how we use our public highways, not to how we use the Automobile. What doesn't logically follow is your circular argument that permission must continue to be obtained to Drive the Automobile, regardless if it has become the "ordinary way" we use our public highways, because permission must be obtained to Drive the Automobile. As I have pointed out, at one time, Driving the Automobile was a rather Extraordinary way of using our public highways, causing a rather Extraordinary burden on our public highways, and as such, at that time, could Constitutionally be prohibited except by License. But, that is no longer the case today, as Driving the Automobile is by far the most "ordinary way" we use our public highways, but your argument is in effect to say Licensing must continue because Driving the Automobile USE to be an Extraordinary way of using the public highways. By such conditions, dispite the ruling that we have the Right to use our public highways in the ordinary way, we will never have the Right to use our public highways in the ordinary way, because every new method we may devise to use our public highways will be deemed Extraordinary at it's onset and Licensed, and when it does become the "ordinary way", people like yourself will be claiming it must be continued to be Licensed because it use to be an Extraordinary Way. I will entertain your circular reasoning on this point no further. > > > > > To say something is a Right if you are given Permission is a > > > > > contradiction in terms and oxymoronic, as the necessity to obtain [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > "ordinary way" we use our public highways, because permission must be > obtained to Drive the Automobile. That is neither circular nor contradictory. My point stands. > As I have pointed out, at one time, Driving the Automobile was a rather > Extraordinary way of using our public highways, causing a rather > Extraordinary burden on our public highways, and as such, at that time, > could Constitutionally be prohibited except by License. The extraordinary burden is still present and growing. > But, that is > no longer the case today, as Driving the Automobile is by far the most > "ordinary way" we use our public highways, No, you left out "driving the automobile by licensed operators is by far the most ordinary way." > but your argument is in > effect to say Licensing must continue because Driving the Automobile [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > I will entertain your circular reasoning on this point no further. It wasn't circular; your reasoning has simply made you too dizzy to see your failure to separate licensing from how the public highways are ordinarily used. > > > > > > To say something is a Right if you are given Permission is a > > > > > > contradiction in terms and oxymoronic, as the necessity to [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > The term "ordinary way" does indeed refer to how we use our public > > highways, not to how we use the Automobile. Do you agree that in Packard v. Banton above, the term "ordinary way" refers to how we use our public highways? > > What doesn't logically follow is your circular argument that permission > > must continue to be obtained to Drive the Automobile, regardless if it > > has become the "ordinary way" we use our public highways, because > > permission must be obtained to Drive the Automobile. > > That is neither circular nor contradictory. My point stands. You're saying Driving Automobiles should be Licensed because Driving Automobiles is Licensed. If that isn't circular argumentation, then you're a monkey's uncle. > > As I have pointed out, at one time, Driving the Automobile was a rather > > Extraordinary way of using our public highways, causing a rather > > Extraordinary burden on our public highways, and as such, at that time, > > could Constitutionally be prohibited except by License. > > The extraordinary burden is still present and growing. How can the Automobile be an extraordinary burden on our public highways when it is by far the most ordinary burden on our public highways? That is contradictory. > > But, that is no longer the case today, as Driving the Automobile > > is by far the most "ordinary way" we use our public highways, > > No, you left out "driving the automobile by licensed operators is by > far the most ordinary way." You are attempting to extend the condition "ordinary way" beyond the scope of the ruling in Packard v. Banton above. The scope of the ruling in Packard v. Banton above clearly is limited to how we use our public highways. > > By such conditions, dispite the ruling that we have the Right to use > > our public highways in the ordinary way, we will never have the Right [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > "ordinary way", people like yourself will be claiming it must be > > continued to be Licensed because it use to be an Extraordinary Way. Do you agree that the ruling in Packard v. Banton above doesn't protect as a Right Extraordinary ways of using our public highways, such as by the use of new and extraordinary forms of transit? Do you agree that extraordinary ways of using our public highways can be limited to first obtaining permission, or outright prohibited? > > I will entertain your circular reasoning on this point no further. > > It wasn't circular; your reasoning has simply made you too dizzy to > see your failure to separate licensing from how the public highways > are ordinarily used. Oh my! More Ad Hominems. Tisk tisk tisk. Rather is it you who apparently believes "how we ordinarily use our public highways" and "how we ordinarily are allowed to use the Automobile" are joined at the hips. I, on the other hand, have no problem keeping those two concepts separate. > > > What doesn't logically follow is your circular argument that permission > > > must continue to be obtained to Drive the Automobile, regardless if it [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > You're saying Driving Automobiles should be Licensed because Driving > Automobiles is Licensed. If you're going to construct your own straw arguments to stand in for my actual positions, please in the future try not to make me sound as unintelligent as our own arguments before you unsuccessfully try to shoot them down. I never said anything close to "driving autos should be licensed because driving autos is licensed." Yeesh, you are thick as a brick. > If that isn't circular argumentation, then I'm a monkey's uncle. I shall send some bananas to your nephew then. > > > As I have pointed out, at one time, Driving the Automobile was a rather > > > Extraordinary way of using our public highways, causing a rather [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > highways when it is by far the most ordinary burden on our public > highways? That is contradictory. Fallacious equivocating yet again. You're facile at this. There is a qualitative difference between "extraordinary way of using public highways" and "extraordinary burden on our highways," so that you cannot have them contradict by mere juxtaposition. In fact, the more "ordinary" the use of the auto became, the more extraordinary became their burden on the public highways. > > > But, that is no longer the case today, as Driving the Automobile > > > is by far the most "ordinary way" we use our public highways, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > You are attempting to extend the condition "ordinary way" beyond the > scope of the ruling in Packard v. Banton above. That is far from obvious. It is your wish only. The case was over injunctive relief sought, unsuccessfully, by a taxi company in the 1920s because NYC was requiring a high level of liability insurance. It surely cannot be twisted out of all meaning so as to extend to the notion that all driver licensing is now unconstitutional. That's patently ridiculous. > The scope of the > ruling in Packard v. Banton above clearly is limited to how we use our > public highways. No. It was over insurance regulations for NYC hacks. > > > By such conditions, dispite the ruling that we have the Right to use > > > our public highways in the ordinary way, we will never have the Right [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > as a Right Extraordinary ways of using our public highways, such as by > the use of new and extraordinary forms of transit? Nope. The extraordinary use of public streets in the case was referring to profit-making commercial ventures. > Do you agree that extraordinary ways of using our public highways can > be limited to first obtaining permission, or outright prohibited? They are, every day, permitted or prohibited as the case may warrant. We closed downtown streets here for a couple years running so the IRC could run one of their Indy Car grand prix races on them. We permit parades on them. Etcetera. > > > I will entertain your circular reasoning on this point no further. > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Oh my! More Ad Hominems. Hmm, that wasn't ad hominem. It was an observation on the structure of your argument. It's geared to reach your own desired conclusion rather than to lead you where it will go. Grab a logic book and read it, fercryinoutloud. > Tisk tisk tisk. Rather is it you who > apparently believes "how we ordinarily use our public highways" and > "how we ordinarily are allowed to use the Automobile" are joined at the > hips. I, on the other hand, have no problem keeping those two concepts > separate. That's your problem. It seems that the prima facie evidence that they are inextricably joined fails to jog you from your preconceived conclusion. > > > > What doesn't logically follow is your circular argument that > > > > permission must continue to be obtained to Drive the Automobile, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > > > > > That is neither circular nor contradictory. My point stands. Is your point that stands that permission must continue to be obtained to Drive the Automobile because permission currently must be obtained to Drive the Automobile? > > You're saying Driving Automobiles should be Licensed because Driving > > Automobiles is Licensed. > > I never said anything close to "driving autos should be licensed because > driving autos is licensed." While you have implied it, you may not have actually said it, but apparently above you do claim it as your point. Without altering this question with additional conditions, such as "with a driver's license", and prefreably answering only with a "yes" or "no": Do you agree that Driving the Automobile is the ordinary way we use our public highways? Without altering this question with additional conditions, and prefreably answering only with a "yes" or "no", Do you agree we have the Right to use our public highways in the ordinary way? > > [ I actually said: ] > > If that isn't circular argumentation, then you're a monkey's uncle. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I shall send some bananas to your nephew then. I have no nephew, and I am sure you're not a monkey's uncle. > > > > As I have pointed out, at one time, Driving the Automobile was > > > > a rather Extraordinary way of using our public highways, causing [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > In fact, the more "ordinary" the use of the auto became, the more > extraordinary became their burden on the public highways. You may view it as an "excessive burden" on our public highways, but as it definately is the "ordinary way" we use our public highways, it is also definately the "ordinary burden" on our public highways, and therefore it definately is contradictory to say it is an "extraordinary burden" on our public highways. > > > > But, that is no longer the case today, as Driving the Automobile > > > > is by far the most "ordinary way" we use our public highways, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > That is far from obvious. You probably hope, but, you don't deny it. The scope of the ruling in Packard v. Banton encompased only the use of our public highways. No methods of transit was involved. Here is is again: "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 the ruling in Packard v. Banton above doesn't > > protect as a Right Extraordinary ways of using our public highways, > > such as by the use of new and extraordinary forms of transit? > > Nope. Are you then saying that the ruling in Packard v Banton above DOES protect as a Right Extraordinary ways of using our public highways? Either it does, or it doesn't? > > Do you agree that extraordinary ways of using our public highways > > can be limited to first obtaining permission, or outright prohibited? > > They are, every day, permitted or prohibited as the case may warrant. Do you agree that requiring one to obtain permission something assumes that thing isn't already a Right? Do you agree that Rights are, in US Law, assumed to be Inherent? > > > > > What doesn't logically follow is your circular argument that > > > > > permission must continue to be obtained to Drive the Automobile, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > to Drive the Automobile because permission currently must be obtained > to Drive the Automobile? No. There is no way except through your obstinate clinging to your predetermined outcome by which you could make such an erroneous judgment. > > > You're saying Driving Automobiles should be Licensed because Driving > > > Automobiles is Licensed. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > While you have implied it, you may not have actually said it, but > apparently above you do claim it as your point. Well, no I didn't. > Without altering this question with additional conditions, such as > "with a driver's license", and prefreably answering only with a "yes" > or "no": Do you agree that Driving the Automobile is the ordinary way > we use our public highways? This is not a complete question then, because you are inappropriately leaving out the full definition of "ordinary way" when you follow to your next question. Nice trick, that, but we're onto you. "Licensing" is not an "additional condition," it is a longstanding wholly integral part of the notion "ordinary way." > Without altering this question with additional conditions, and > prefreably answering only with a "yes" or "no", Do you agree we have > the Right to use our public highways in the ordinary way? Usually. Without altering this question with additional conditions, and preferably answering with only a "yes" or "no," Do you agree this thread has outlived any useful purpose? > > > [ I actually said: ] > > > If that isn't circular argumentation, then you're a monkey's uncle. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I have no nephew, and I am sure you're not a monkey's uncle. Then to which of your extended family should I send the bananas? I changed one of your words only because of your habit of twisting *my* words throughout this thread. It made the punch line better, and besides, your statement implied a false dilemma. My argument is in no way circular, yet you admit the conclusion isn't the case. > > > > > As I have pointed out, at one time, Driving the Automobile was > > > > > a rather Extraordinary way of using our public highways, causing [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > You may view it as an "excessive burden" on our public highways... Hold it. You put "excessive" in quotes as though I said it. See, this is another example of how you illogically twist words. There is, you should be made aware, a difference between the word I used, which was "extraordinary," and the word "excessive." It is no wonder you are badly losing this argument. > but as it definately is the "ordinary way" we use our public highways, it is > also definately the "ordinary burden" on our public highways, and > therefore it definately is contradictory to say it is an "extraordinary > burden" on our public highways. Not at all. Another equivocation from you. "Burden" and "way" are different things. To say the "ordinary way" of using our highways with the auto is presenting a more "extraordinary burden" on the infrastructure is in no way, shape or form contradictory. They say two different things that can both be true at the same time. So wrong again on your part. > > > > > But, that is no longer the case today, as Driving the Automobile > > > > > is by far the most "ordinary way" we use our public highways, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > You probably hope, but, you don't deny it. Well, I did deny it. I guess you missed that part. > The scope of the ruling in > Packard v. Banton encompased only the use of our public highways. No > methods of transit was involved. Hmmm. I begin to suspect you didn't actually read it, but Googled a quote out of I that contained the words you were seeking. I didn't say a "method of transit" was involved, although transit is mentioned in the ruling. Rather, the case revolved around NYC requiring a high level of insurance premiums from a certain cab company, and the distinction about public streets turned on the fact that hacks are commercial ventures using the streets. > Here is is again: > > "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 Bwahahahaha. Do you think that's the entire ruling? It's one sentence. And in fact, *that* sentence wasn't the ruling. It was a statement or premise that helped lead to the actual ruling in the case, which was to deny the appeal of the cab company seeking relief from high insurance. > > > Do you agree that the ruling in Packard v. Banton above doesn't > > > protect as a Right Extraordinary ways of using our public highways, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > protect as a Right Extraordinary ways of using our public highways? > Either it does, or it doesn't? Nope. It has nothing to do with defining what the ordinary or extraordinary ways are. > > > Do you agree that extraordinary ways of using our public highways > > > can be limited to first obtaining permission, or outright prohibited? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Do you agree that requiring one to obtain permission something assumes > that thing isn't already a Right? Obviously not. I hope you don't agree either. > > > > > > What doesn't logically follow is your circular argument > > > > > > that permission must continue to be obtained to Drive the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > predetermined outcome by which you could make such an erroneous > judgment. You have stated: "Factors such as the massive level of VMT in this nation provide ample justification for continued licensing of operators." Let's say: M = "the massive level of VMT in this nation" Let's say: C = "continued licensing of operators" Then, you are saying: M justifies C. You have also stated: "The ordinary way is and has been, if you choose that way to be by operation of a motor vehicle, to obtain a driver's license." Let's say: O = "the ordinary way we use our public highways" Clearly, today, M is O, therefore M = O. Therefore, you are saying: O justifies C. Let's say L = "licensed operation of a motor vehicle" Today, of course, the "ordinary way" is by Automobile. Therefore, you are saying: L = O. (to which I disagree) Therefore, you are saying: L justifies C. Therefore, you are saying: Licensed operation of a motor vehicle justifies continued licensing of operators. And, that is circular reasoning. > > > > > > As I have pointed out, at one time, Driving the Automobile > > > > > > was a rather Extraordinary way of using our public [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Hold it. You put "excessive" in quotes as though I said it. No. Only as a means of encapsulating a concept. > > but as it definately is the "ordinary way" we use our public > > highways, it is also definately the "ordinary burden" on our public [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > on the infrastructure is in no way, shape or form contradictory. They > say two different things that can both be true at the same time. If the Automobile is the "ordinary way" we use our public highways, the Automobile must also be the "ordinary burden" on our public highways. Given A = "the Automobile", W = "ordinary way", and B = "ordinary burden". Then: A = W and A = B Therefore, W = B But, you say W = -B, where naturally -B = "extraordinary burden". And, that is contradictory. > > > > Do you agree that extraordinary ways of using our public highways > > > > can be limited to first obtaining permission, or outright prohibited? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Obviously not. I hope you don't agree either. Well, requiring one to obtain permission to something does indeed assume that thing isn't already within their Rights. > > > > > > > What doesn't logically follow is your circular argument > > > > > > > that permission must continue to be obtained to Drive the [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > And, that is circular reasoning. Actually, you are wrong. My reasoning is linear and progressive. When you set foot in the area of quantificational logic, you are in my arena. My senior thesis way back when was to reduce Anselm's ontological argument to quantificational form for a more rigorous analysis and identification of fallacies. But I digress. Your translation of my statements into an equation does not follow literal meaning. Therefore, your "mathematics" is off. Your tendency is to apply varying definitions to terms, or at other times to apply the identical definitions to different terms, and then improperly conclude that they mean the same thing or not, depending on how useful it would be to your argument. That's not valid. For one, when you attempt to reduce the first statement of mine you quote ("factors such as massive level of VMT provide justification for continued licensing") into "M justifies C" statement (or simply, If M then C), you ignore the fact that M is only part of a set that equals C. Your statement is as nonsensical as if I said "1+2+3+4=10" and then you retort, "Oh, so you think 4+10!" No, I said 4 is contained within the sum of numbers that equals 10. This logical error of yours shows up in your next premise, which was that M=O. Because you made the "4=10" error, it then seems logical to you that I would contend, which I didn't, that "the massive level of VMT" is the "ordinary way we use our highways." The high level of VMT is an outcome of our exercise of the ordinary way we use the highways. Auto driving could remain the ordinary manner, yet VMT could drop, so there isn't a direct equality here. So your secondary conclusion, that I maintain licensing is justified *because* the auto is our ordinary way of using the highways is also fallacious. If gas went to $38 a gallon and we all started walking as the ordinary way of using the public right of way, that wouldn't trigger the same response, i.e., a license requirement to walk. So that little conclusion of yours is wrong as well. In addition, L does not equal O. While a licensing requirement is a long recognized and constitutionally tested component of operation of a motor vehicle, it is not the *sole* component of "O," the ordinary way we use highways. It is simply a factor. All around, your attempt falls far short of portraying my argument as a circle. > > > > > > > As I have pointed out, at one time, Driving the Automobile > > > > > > > was a rather Extraordinary way of using our public [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > No. Only as a means of encapsulating a concept. Well, then, you're still wrong. "Excessive" isn't the same as "extraordinary." > > > but as it definately is the "ordinary way" we use our public > > > highways, it is also definately the "ordinary burden" on our public [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > And, that is contradictory. Wrong again through equivocation. -B, the opposite of ordinary burden, isn't "extraordinary." -B could very well be the rare and occasional event. You are confusing, once again even after I made it clear to you, the "ordinary way" or manner of use with the "extraordinary burden" or degredation of physical structure that a high level of VMT produces. They are not the same, and you can't make it a contradiction to say that because the huge increase in "ordinary way" of traveling does indeed produce an extraordinary burden on the system. > > > > > Do you agree that extraordinary ways of using our public highways > > > > > can be limited to first obtaining permission, or outright prohibited? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Well, requiring one to obtain permission to something does indeed > assume that thing isn't already within their Rights. Not at all. We do it all the time. I have a right to use the public park, but I can't insist on my right to play catch with my son on the baseball diamond when there's a scheduled game going on. > > > > > > > > What doesn't logically follow is your circular argument > > > > > > > > that permission must continue to be obtained to Drive the [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > "1+2+3+4=10" and then you retort, "Oh, so you think 4+10!" No, I > said 4 is contained within the sum of numbers that equals 10. Still, given: M = "the massive level of VMT in this nation" C = "the continued licensing of operators" you are saying: "Factors such as M justify C" > This logical error of yours shows up in your next premise, which was > that M=O. Because you made the "4=10" error, it then seems logical [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the highways. Auto driving could remain the ordinary manner, yet VMT > could drop, so there isn't a direct equality here. Still, given: O = "the ordinary way we use our public highways" Then clearly: M = O and you are saying: "Factors such as O justify C" And, given: L = "the licensed operation of a motor vehicle" and your assertion (to which I disagree) that: L = O you are saying: "Factors such as L justify C" Therefore, expanded, you are saying: ~Factors such as the licensed operation of a motor vehicle justify the continued licensing of operators~ And, that is still circular reasoning. > So your secondary conclusion, that I maintain licensing is justified > *because* the auto is our ordinary way of using the highways is also > fallacious. If gas went to $38 a gallon and we all started walking as > the ordinary way of using the public right of way, that wouldn't > trigger the same response, i.e., a license requirement to walk. So > that little conclusion of yours is wrong as well. I have been intending to address this point, and this is a very convenient prompt to do just that. You could easily substitute VMT (vehicular motor travel) with FT (foot travel) and attempt to justify the Licensing of walking by saying: ~Factors such as the massive level of FT in this nation provide ample justification for continued licensing of wakers." > In addition, L does not equal O. But, given O = "the ordinary way we use our public highways" L = "the licensed operation of a motor vehicle" you yourself have argued over and over and over again that: "Yes.... with a driver's license. That's the ordinary way and you have that right." "The "ordinary way" is as a licensed driver." "The ordinary way is and has been, if you choose that way to be by operation of a motor vehicle, to obtain a driver's license." "Sure, with an operator's license. That's the ordinary way." "That can't be since the ordinary way is with a license." "The ordinary way has been to be licensed before operating." "Obtaining a license *is* the ordinary way" How would you now argue that you are saying anyting other than L = 0? > > > > > > > > As I have pointed out, at one time, Driving the > > > > > > > > Automobile was a rather Extraordinary way of [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Well, then, you're still wrong. "Excessive" isn't the same as > "extraordinary." Strawman. You are now attempting to switch our sides, making your argument mine, and my argument your's. I have never claimed they were the same, but instead it is you who attempt to use them as if they were the same, and I have merely been attempting to show their differences. > > > > but as it definately is the "ordinary way" we use our public > > > > highways, it is also definately the "ordinary burden" on our [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > burden, isn't "extraordinary." -B could very well be the rare > and occasional event. Rare and occasional events are not the Ordinary, therefore by definition are the Extraordinary. Rare and occasional are merely subsets of Extraordinary. Still therefore, W = B. And still, you claimed W = -B, which is contradictory. > You are confusing, once again even after I made it clear to > you, the "ordinary way" or manner of use with the "extraordinary > burden" or degredation of physical structure that a high level of > VMT produces. You are now trying to switch sides back again, to where you are attempting to equate "excessive", or "high" in this instance, to "extraordinary". In effect, you are attempting to say: ~a "high burden" is an "extraordinary burden", and in doing so, are attempting to equate "high", or "excessive", to "extraordinary". > They are not the same, and you can't make it a contradiction to > say that because the huge increase in "ordinary way" of traveling > does indeed produce an extraordinary burden on the system. I do not doubt that you have been trained in logic, as you have often, and skillfully, used tricks of logic, or sophistry, in your argumentation. You claim: "because the huge increase in "ordinary way" of traveling does indeed produce an extraordinary burden on the system." You are saying "huge" produces "extraordinary", and in doing so you are attempting to equate "huge" to "extraordinary". But, if "huge" is "ordinary", how can it be "extraordinary"??? > > > > > > Do you agree that extraordinary ways of using our public > > > > > > highways can be limited to first obtaining permission, or [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > but I can't insist on my right to play catch with my son on the > baseball diamond when there's a scheduled game going on. Public parks are, just as our public highways, considered as Right of Ways, and as such for use by the public in the "ordinary way", where an "extraordinary way" which obstructs with the "ordinary way" may be conditioned or prohibited. Obviously then, as the "ordinary way" of using a baseball diamond during a scheduled game is "playing scheduled baseball", such activities as "playing catch", or even "playing unscheduled baseball", would obstruct with that "ordinary way", and as such can rightfully be prohibited. Let me add that I do not resent you for your attempts to use your skills in logic to facilitate sophistry. Although I find it frustrating at times, I do I enjoy the exercise and I feel it helps me strengthen my arguments. > > > > > > > > > What doesn't logically follow is your circular argument > > > > > > > > > that permission must continue to be obtained to Drive the [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > > > > [snip parading of claimed credentials] My credentials mean that I at least, unlike you, have some background in the area of logic. > > For one, when you attempt to reduce the first statement of mine you > > quote ("factors such as massive level of VMT provide justification [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Still, given: (snip incorrect quantifactional logic notation) "Still wrong." > And, that is still circular reasoning. Nope. Linear. > > So your secondary conclusion, that I maintain licensing is justified > > *because* the auto is our ordinary way of using the highways is also [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I have been intending to address this point, and this is a very > convenient prompt to do just that. Lucky us. Another area in which you can demonstrate your lack of argument skills. > You could easily substitute VMT > (vehicular motor travel) with FT (foot travel) and attempt to justify > the Licensing of walking by saying: ~Factors such as the massive level > of FT in this nation provide ample justification for continued > licensing of wakers." Absolutely not. That makes no sense on its face. > > > > > > > > > As I have pointed out, at one time, Driving the > > > > > > > > > Automobile was a rather Extraordinary way of [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Strawman. WHAT?!?! Holy moley. That's so wrong it defies response. You're just throwing out words that sounded smart to you at some point. > I do not doubt that you have been trained in logic, as you have often, > and skillfully, used tricks of logic, or sophistry, in your > argumentation. I'll bet you say that to *all* the people who beat you in arguments! > > > > > > > Do you agree that extraordinary ways of using our public > > > > > > > highways can be limited to first obtaining permission, or [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > unscheduled baseball", would obstruct with that "ordinary way", and as > such can rightfully be prohibited. The "ordinary way," as you correctly point out here again in supporting my own argument rather than yours, is to get a "permit" from the parks department to reserve the field. Stick a fork in yourself, you're done! > Let me add that I do not resent you for your attempts to use your > skills in logic to facilitate sophistry. Although I find it > frustrating at times, I do I enjoy the exercise and I feel it helps me > strengthen my arguments. Yet another false feeling! Your arguments have actually supported *my* position more often than not when they are stripped dow to their essence. > > Public parks are, just as our public highways, considered as Right of > > Ways, and as such for use by the public in the "ordinary way", where an [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Stick a fork in yourself, you're done! Well, proffsl also fails to realize that its not magically ordained what the "ordinary use" of public property is. If the government wants to create a park that's open to the public at all times, then "playing catch" and "playing unscheduled baseball" could be the ordinary activities. Or, if they require permits and reservations, then these events are extraordinary, and the ordinary activities are baseball games for which permits were granted. It would be absurd to argue that there was a right to play baseball just because the government built a park and decided that playing baseball would be the ordinary activity that would occur in the park. But I don't expect him to see the analogy to the supposed right to drive, do you? > > > Public parks are, just as our public highways, considered as > > > Right of Ways, and as such for use by the public in the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Well, proffsl also fails to realize that its not magically ordained > what the "ordinary use" of public property is. What you fail to realize is what I do realize. Red Lights aren't magically ordained either. The state chooses where it deems Red Lights to be necessary to regulate Right of Ways, and the Red Lights then serve as "reservations" to the Right of Way at intersections where both ways can't have the Right of Way at the same time. When one approaches the Red Light, they are in effect applying for a reservation to obtain the Right of Way, which a Green Light would signify. This does not imply that one need to obtain a License in order to drive up to the red light and apply for a reservation to obtain the Right of Way, as even scooters must abide by these regulations. > If the government wants to create a park that's open to the public > at all times, then "playing catch" and "playing unscheduled > baseball" could be the ordinary activities. So? What's your point? If the government chooses to build a public highway, then the public has the Right to use that public highway for personal travel in the ordinary way. > Or, if they require permits and reservations, then these events > are extraordinary, and the ordinary activities are baseball games > for which permits were granted. And, if the government chooses to build a non-public highway, on which permits must be obtained, then permits must be obtained. But, that isn't a public Right of Way. And, this debate concerns public Right of Ways. If the government chooses to build a public highway, a public right of way, we have the Right to use public highways, public right of ways, for personal travel in the ordinary way WITHOUT the need for a permit. And, if the government chooses to build a Red Light at the intersection of two public highways, then all those traveling on those public highways, even without licenses, must wait for reservation to the Right of Way, indicated by a Green Light. > It would be absurd to argue that there was a right to play baseball > just because the government built a park and decided that playing > baseball would be the ordinary activity that would occur in the park. Simply apply for a reservation, much like approaching a red light. Neither implies the need for a License. > But I don't expect him to see the analogy to the supposed right > to drive, do you? I see the flaw in the analogy. > > > [snip parading of claimed credentials] > > My credentials mean that I at least, unlike you, have some background > in the area of logic. Plea to Authority and False Witness. Blah blah blah. Our discussion has digressed to your own unmerited self adulation. > > > > > > > > Do you agree that extraordinary ways of using our > > > > > > > > public highways can be limited to first obtaining [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > my own argument rather than yours, is to get a "permit" from the parks > department to reserve the field. A "permit" to reserve the field, or a "reservation"??? This does not imply that one must obtain a License to use public parks or to apply for a reservation to use certain of it's regulated facilities. Again, you try to use trickery. This "reservation" is much like a Green Light at a highway intersection, where two intersecting highways can not have the Right of Way at the same time. This does not imply that one must first obtain a License to Drive or to apply for a reservation to have the Right of Way by waiting in que at the Red Light for a Green Light. This "reservation" is much like a "Walk" light at crosswalks where two intersecting Right of Ways can not have the Right of Way at the same time. And, this does not imply that one must obtain a License to Walk or to apply for a reservation to have a "Walk" light by waiting in que at the "Don't Walk" light for a "Walk" light. I am convinced by your attempts at trickery that you are playing devel's advocate. Thanks. > > > > > > > > > Do you agree that extraordinary ways of using our > > > > > > > > > public highways can be limited to first obtaining [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > for a reservation to use certain of it's regulated facilities. Again, > you try to use trickery. S/he isn't using any trickery. But if the simple sentences and logical arguments are tricking you, then perhaps you need to rethink your position. > This "reservation" is much like a Green Light > at a highway intersection, where two intersecting highways can not have [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I am convinced by your attempts at trickery that you are playing > devel's advocate. Of course you are, because you're ignorant. > > > The "ordinary way," as you correctly point out here again in > > > supporting my own argument rather than yours, is to get a [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > S/he isn't using any trickery. Yes they were. When they said 'get a "permit" from the parks department to reserve the field' To Reserve a field, you get a Reservation, NOT a Permit. A Reservation and a Permit are two entirely different things. And, that isn't the first time they've tried to slip in slight of word tricks. > But if the simple sentences and logical arguments are tricking > you, then perhaps you need to rethink your position. I never implied I was being tricked, I implied they were TRYING to use trickery. I consider your comment here an Ad Hominem. > > This "reservation" is much like a Green Light at a highway > > intersection, where two intersecting highways can not have the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Of course you are, because you're ignorant. I suppose you are taunting me to return personal insults in like. If you wish to have dialog with me, you'll drop the Ad Hominems and the Personal Assults. Otherwise, do us both a favor, and don't bother responding. >>>>>>>> I don't think you want to see people start to take horse and carriage >>>>>>>> to the road as an alternative to the autombile. I know I don't. Having [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > many of them today through legislation passed in accordance with the > Constitution. Voting Rights Act, abortion rights, etc. Rights don't "flow from the Constitution". Rights are innate in the people, and are protected by the Constitution. Indeed, the Bill Of Rights is only a partial list of protected rights. Certainly, the 9th and 10th amendments make that clear. <SNIP> Cheers, Bama Brian Libertarian >> Um, go and reread the discussion here. You don't know what you're >> replying to and have no apparent basic knowledge of sentence structure [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> many of them today through legislation passed in accordance with the >> Constitution. Voting Rights Act, abortion rights, etc. > Rights don't "flow from the Constitution". Rights are innate in the > people, and are protected by the Constitution. Indeed, the Bill Of > Rights is only a partial list of protected rights. Certainly, the 9th > and 10th amendments make that clear. Flynn is not going to grasp that detail. Rights are not given, granted, flow from, or anything of the sort by the constitution/bill of rights. They are _protected_ (from government) by it. It is a limitation on _government_, not a grant or allowance to the people. The rights we have, as people. This is why there was a very important and purposeful choosing of words in the declaration of independence. He apprently believes that government can pretty much define things as it pleases because it's 'of the people'. The founders realized that this was a flawed and dangerous thing to allow. That's why our rights are our rights, that they come from 'the creator'. They are not granted by or allowed by government. > >> Um, go and reread the discussion here. You don't know what you're > >> replying to and have no apparent basic knowledge of sentence structure [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > people. This is why there was a very important and purposeful choosing > of words in the declaration of independence. Antonin Scalia does not agree with you. > He apprently believes that government can pretty much define things as it > pleases because it's 'of the people'. The founders realized that this was a > flawed and dangerous thing to allow. That's why our rights are our > rights, that they come from 'the creator'. They are not granted by or > allowed by government. There is no proof the rights come from anywhere. It's merely a philosophical assertion. As such, counter-assertions are equally valid. E.P. > > > > > > > You seem to believe the use of a Horse and Buggy on our > > > > > > > Public Highways is a Right, even though it's not spicifically [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > philosophical assertion. As such, counter-assertions are equally > valid. Not in discussions of US Law or the Constitutionality of a Right within our government, as our government is based on our Constitution, and as the premise of our Constitution is that Rights originate from the Individual, and are either delegated to, or prohibited from, government by the Constitution. > > There is no proof the rights come from anywhere. It's merely a > > philosophical assertion. As such, counter-assertions are equally > > valid. > > Not in discussions of US Law or the Constitutionality of a Right within This is usenet - get over yourself already. > our government, as our government is based on our Constitution, and as > the premise of our Constitution is that Rights originate from the > Individual, and are either delegated to, or prohibited from, government > by the Constitution. Proof by assertion is not proof. Try again. E.P. >>> There is no proof the rights come from anywhere. It's merely a >>> philosophical assertion. As such, counter-assertions are equally [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > E.P. Amendment IX - Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. > > > > There is no proof the rights come from anywhere. It's merely a > > > > philosophical assertion. As such, counter-assertions are equally [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be > construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. And, in the 10th Amendment, the phrase "retained by the people" is built upon the primise that Rights originate from the Individual. Otherwise, how could he retain them? While the origin of Rights may make a great philosophical debate, in matters of US Law and the Constitutionality of Rights, their origin is moot, as our nation's Founders built our Constitution upon the primise that Rights originate from the Individual. > > > There is no proof the rights come from anywhere. It's merely a > > > philosophical assertion. As such, counter-assertions are equally [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Proof by assertion is not proof. Try again. I am not attempting to prove Rights come from anywhere. Instead, I am countering your statement that "counter-assertions are equally valid" by pointing out that as our government is based on our Constitution, and as our Constitution is based on the premise that Rights originate from the Individual, and are either delegated to, or denied from government, concerning US Law and the Constitutionality of our Rights, any counter-assertions as to the origin of Rights are not equally valid. >> >> Um, go and reread the discussion here. You don't know what you're >> >> replying to and have no apparent basic knowledge of sentence structure [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> > Rights is only a partial list of protected rights. Certainly, the 9th >> > and 10th amendments make that clear. >> Flynn is not going to grasp that detail. Rights are not given, granted, >> flow from, or anything of the sort by the constitution/bill of rights. >> They are _protected_ (from government) by it. It is a limitation on >> _government_, not a grant or allowance to the people. The rights we have, as >> people. This is why there was a very important and purposeful choosing >> of words in the declaration of independence. > Antonin Scalia does not agree with you. If he does, he's clearly wrong. Because the history is clear that those words were indeed carefully chosen to avoid the implication that the government is grantor of rights. http://www.antiquetalk.com/column203.htm -> The most interesting and commonly oversighted version of the Declaration -> of Independence is the first: Jefferson's original four page rough draft. -> Saturated with cross-outs and corrections, among its most interesting -> editorial changes is the scratching out of the words "sacred and -> undeniable" replaced above with the words "self-evident" so that the -> document's critical third line now reads as follows, "We hold these -> truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." Admendments 9 and 10 also show clearly in plain language that the bill of rights is protective, not granting. >> He apprently believes that government can pretty much define things as it >> pleases because it's 'of the people'. The founders realized that this was a >> flawed and dangerous thing to allow. That's why our rights are our >> rights, that they come from 'the creator'. They are not granted by or >> allowed by government. > There is no proof the rights come from anywhere. It's merely a > philosophical assertion. As such, counter-assertions are equally > valid. *sigh* Then we have nothing and might as well be serfs living under a king. If your objection is to my use of 'the creator', that's why it's in quotes, to show that the rights are "self-evident", protected rather than granted by government. > >> Flynn is not going to grasp that detail. Rights are not given, granted, > >> flow from, or anything of the sort by the constitution/bill of rights. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > http://www.antiquetalk.com/column203.htm The fact is this: whether or not the Founders wished to believe that rights were innate (rather than a human invention), when the most conservative member of the SCOTUS, and a strict constructionist disagrees with you, an engineer, whose opinion really holds more value? > Admendments 9 and 10 also show clearly in plain language that the bill of > rights is protective, not granting. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > *sigh* Then we have nothing and might as well be serfs living under a > king. Strawman. > If your objection is to my use of 'the creator', that's why it's in > quotes Strawman. > to show that the rights are "self-evident", protected rather than > granted by government. "Self-evident" is proof by assertion. It was politcially advantageous to use such language. We're not talking Holy Writ here. The same sorts of stuff that politicians do today were done back then. Step back and look for some external proof that the rights guaranteed under the USC are inherent. If you can't find any, then that implies that the rights ARE NOT inherent, and subject to fools and tyrants redefining them as they see fit. See a pattern? E.P. > The fact is this: whether or not the Founders wished to believe that > rights were innate (rather than a human invention), when the most > conservative member of the SCOTUS, and a strict constructionist > disagrees with you, an engineer, whose opinion really holds more value? So you deny the clear and plain english of the founding documents? Yet you have produced no cite, so we only have your word regarding his opinion. I have supported what I claimed with the appropiate documentation from the founders, it is in plain english which should be understood by anyone with a gradeschool education. >> to show that the rights are "self-evident", protected rather than >> granted by government. > "Self-evident" is proof by assertion. It was politcially advantageous > to use such language. We're not talking Holy Writ here. The same > sorts of stuff that politicians do today were done back then. The concept is extremely important. You are going to need to back up this claim that the founders did not believe what was written. That it was only done for political reasons. As far as I can tell, the words are carefully chosen to clearly express the concept that people are not to live as subjects of a ruler, a government, existing with only whatever liberty the rulers grant. The proof it wasn't simply to gather political support is in the actions of the same men after the revolution. If it were just to gather political support it would have been immediately tossed aside once it's usefulness was gone and they were installed as rulers. But that was not the case at all. > Step back and look for some external proof that the rights guaranteed > under the USC are inherent. If you can't find any, then that implies > that the rights ARE NOT inherent, and subject to fools and tyrants > redefining them. If that is the case, then we are ruled by the council of nine. There is no such thing as liberty, no such thing as freedom. The constitution becomes a 'living document' changing meaning with the whim of the council, we have no protection. Without rights being self-evident we the people have nothing, are nothing. We are servants, subjects, slaves, serfs, whichever word you want to choose of whomever has power. The US of A becomes no better than imperial Rome. Remove that concept of self-evident rights and the entire excerise of the creation of the US of A was pointless and without merit. The the proof of concept you are looking for is in the basic spirit of everyone who is not dead inside and resigned to be being a tool of another man. Far too many people are so resigned or just too lazy and rather be cared for than care for themselves. > > The fact is this: whether or not the Founders wished to believe that > > rights were innate (rather than a human invention), when the most > > conservative member of the SCOTUS, and a strict constructionist > > disagrees with you, an engineer, whose opinion really holds more value? > > So you deny the clear and plain english of the founding documents? Strawman. Knock off the cheap debate tactics - I don't fall for them. > Yet > you have produced no cite, so we only have your word regarding his opinion. Look in the paper today or yesterday for his commentary on detainee rights. > >> to show that the rights are "self-evident", protected rather than > >> granted by government. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > The concept is extremely important. I agree. It is the basis of our government. That does not remove the philosophical issue. > You are going to need to back up this > claim that the founders did not believe what was written. I never claimed that they didn't believe it. > That it was > only done for political reasons. Strawman. > As far as I can tell, the words are > carefully chosen to clearly express the concept that people are not to > live as subjects of a ruler, a government, existing with only whatever > liberty the rulers grant. That's a philosophical position, and one that can be countered by an opposing philosophical position. It is not proof that rights are inherent. > The proof it wasn't simply to gather political support is in the actions > of the same men after the revolution. If it were just to gather political > support it would have been immediately tossed aside once it's usefulness > was gone and they were installed as rulers. But that was not the case at > all. Why would they subject themselves to the same ridicule they put upon GeoIII? That doesn't make logical sense. > > Step back and look for some external proof that the rights guaranteed > > under the USC are inherent. If you can't find any, then that implies > > that the rights ARE NOT inherent, and subject to fools and tyrants > > redefining them. > > If that is the case, then we are ruled by the council of nine. You're getting it. We are indeed ruled that way. > There is > no such thing as liberty, no such thing as freedom. Says who? That sentence is non sequitur to the previous one. > The constitution > becomes a 'living document' changing meaning with the whim of the > council, we have no protection. Bingo. Both sides would change it or "interpret" it to their sides' benefit. See a pattern? > Without rights being self-evident we the people have nothing, are > nothing. We are servants, subjects, slaves, serfs, whichever word you > want to choose of whomever has power. The US of A becomes no better than > imperial Rome. If you'll compare the two, you'll see very striking similarities. > Remove that concept of self-evident rights and the entire excerise of the > creation of the US of A was pointless and without merit. Well, nobody is trying to remove it, so you can put down that strawman. The exercise was to show that rights are inherent. By external proof, not assertion. > The the proof of concept you are looking for is in the basic spirit of > everyone who is not dead inside and resigned to be being a tool of > another man. Far too many people are so resigned or just too lazy and > rather be cared for than care for themselves. Or smart enough to recognize a philosophical construct when they see one. Without external reference, there can be nothing but circular proof. Bringing up blather about "inherent" rights doesn't do anything but put out a red herring. The right to consume alcohol was removed, the right of consecutive presidencies past two terms, etc. Were these rights inherent? A right to privacy was found - is that not an inherent right now? Stick within the law, and avoid the philosophy. While it's a nice philosophy for the foundation of a governing system, that's about as far as it goes. E.P. >> So you deny the clear and plain english of the founding documents? > Strawman. Knock off the cheap debate tactics - I don't fall for them. Why don't you MAKE AN ARGUEMENT instead of repeating 'so-and-so disagrees with you' and 'assertion' leaving me to guess at what your arguement is and you are telling me I must be wrong? See the question marks? Make a point, stop beating around the bush and I won't have to keep asking you what your point is. It's not a debate tactic in anything else but to get you clairify what the hell you mean, because from how you are posting I can only guess. If you don't like how I am guessing, don't use implication, state what you mean clearly. Before you can complain about me apparently playing usenet games, you have to be not playing first. >> Yet >> you have produced no cite, so we only have your word regarding his opinion. > Look in the paper today or yesterday for his commentary on detainee > rights. 'the paper' what is 'the paper'? 'the paper' only works if I live where you do. Make a cite. The commentary of a member of the council of nine doesn't change what is written. Another thing that makes it irrelevant is that it a question of how to treat citizens vs. soliders vs. terrorists vs. spies. There are some international conventions regarding the last three catagories I believe. A big problem is the government has made the definition of at least one of those catagories very vague. I think you know which one. (Since, you don't want to play straight up, now you'll get to 'guess' too) >> >> to show that the rights are "self-evident", protected rather than >> >> granted by government. >> > "Self-evident" is proof by assertion. It was politcially advantageous >> > to use such language. We're not talking Holy Writ here. The same >> > sorts of stuff that politicians do today were done back then. >> The concept is extremely important. > I agree. It is the basis of our government. That does not remove the > philosophical issue. Then what exactly is your arguement with me? You come in, acting as if I'm wrong, but when I try to determine your point, you claim 'strawman'. Thusly I cannot address this comment, because it is too vague and without point, only your usual implication of point. >> You are going to need to back up this >> claim that the founders did not believe what was written. > I never claimed that they didn't believe it. You just posted an implication that it may have been nothing more than a political trick. If you have no point, no arguement, why post? Just to annoy? Just to troll? what? You start to make an arguement then back away from it the next post claiming 'strawman'. Talk about usenet tactics.... >> That it was >> only done for political reasons. > Strawman. I just repeated back to you what you apparently argued. If you don't have a point, why are you posting? You apparently try to make some point and everytime I address it, you go 'strawman', 'strawman'. What's your point then? Because right now, it appears the point is to annoy, to appear to be arguing something and have a fall back of 'I never said that' when confronted with the obvious meaning of what you wrote. It was clearly your intent to suggest it was done for political reasons, if that's not your point, why don't you try stating your point for a change? >> As far as I can tell, the words are >> carefully chosen to clearly express the concept that people are not to >> live as subjects of a ruler, a government, existing with only whatever >> liberty the rulers grant. > That's a philosophical position, and one that can be countered by an > opposing philosophical position. It is not proof that rights are > inherent. If I address this again, you'll just come back with 'strawman'. Claiming you never took a position demaning proof, implying there wasn't proof or whatever it is. Hell I could just copy back the last sentance of yours above word for word and call it your arguement and you'll cry straman. I suggest if you are interested in putting the concept of inherent right into that you read the declaration of indepence and the Bill of Rights along with the surrounding history. I can only make such vague suggestions, because if I should make a detailed counter point, it requires me to figure out what your apparent point is, and when I do that, you claim 'strawman'. >> The proof it wasn't simply to gather political support is in the actions >> of the same men after the revolution. If it were just to gather political >> support it would have been immediately tossed aside once it's usefulness >> was gone and they were installed as rulers. But that was not the case at >> all. > Why would they subject themselves to the same ridicule they put upon > GeoIII? That doesn't make logical sense. You just called the political reasons arguement a strawman. So what is your arguement? Because now you are apparently making that political reasons arguement again. But should I address it as such, you'll come back with 'strawman'. >> > Step back and look for some external proof that the rights guaranteed >> > under the USC are inherent. If you can't find any, then that implies >> > that the rights ARE NOT inherent, and subject to fools and tyrants >> > redefining them. >> If that is the case, then we are ruled by the council of nine. > You're getting it. We are indeed ruled that way. Effective vs. what should be. We have the effective because the people for the most part have fallen for the conditioning of their thinking to exactly that. Oh wait, I am acting like you made an arguement, I am sure you'll come back with 'strawman' because you aren't making an arguement you're just throwing commentary about that just implies an arguement for the sake of amusement I suppose. >> There is >> no such thing as liberty, no such thing as freedom. > Says who? That sentence is non sequitur to the previous one. You're the one apparently saying that the basis of rights has no proof, nothing. It's the arguement you appear to be making, but you really aren't making any arguement. Why don't you actually state your arguement, pick what you are saying instead of making me guess at it and you coming back with 'strawman'? How's that? >> The constitution >> becomes a 'living document' changing meaning with the whim of the >> council, we have no protection. > Bingo. Both sides would change it or "interpret" it to their sides' > benefit. See a pattern? There are no sides. There is one party rule in the nation at present for all EFFECTIVE purposes. The 'sides' are a drama, a show, it keeps the people destracted while our constitutional protections are dismantled through various work arounds and clever interpetations rather than the plain ones or by using modern language instead of the definitions and language structure of the founders that is easily verified. A game where the nature of differing control freaks is played against each other. The candle burning at both ends. >> Without rights being self-evident we the people have nothing, are >> nothing. We are servants, subjects, slaves, serfs, whichever word you >> want to choose of whomever has power. The US of A becomes no better than >> imperial Rome. > If you'll compare the two, you'll see very striking similarities. That's why I picked it. DUH. >> Remove that concept of self-evident rights and the entire excerise of the >> creation of the US of A was pointless and without merit. > Well, nobody is trying to remove it, so you can put down that strawman. > The exercise was to show that rights are inherent. By external proof, > not assertion. Then you have no point in calling it a philosophical construct without proof. The obvious point of that excerise is the 'what if' of where inherent rights don't exist. I do that thought exercise and you go 'strawman'. Why don't you make your actual points instead of calling what the apparent points you are making to be 'strawmen'? Right now, it appears you are just playing usenet games. You are using very loaded statements, ones that have an obvious point behind them. When I repeat that obvious implication back, you cry strawman. Why don't you make a point then instead of floating in the ether? If you don't believe the implications you keep making, and just want to debate them as a matter of course, fine, but be clear. I'm not going to be addressing your 'points' any further until you are. >> The the proof of concept you are looking for is in the basic spirit of >> everyone who is not dead inside and resigned to be being a tool of >> another man. Far too many people are so resigned or just too lazy and >> rather be cared for than care for themselves. > Or smart enough to recognize a philosophical construct when they see > one. Without external reference, there can be nothing but circular [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > rights inherent? A right to privacy was found - is that not an > inherent right now? I could take the above for it's obvious meaning on 'inherent' rights as it is, however you'd then come back with 'strawman'. So I'll just address the examples rather than your implied point. There are no 'rights' in the process by which government operates. The constitution lays down the basic method, the framework of rules, by which the government operates. Limiting the president to two terms is a valid admendment function. Prohibition was wrong. However, by doing it in the admendment process it was handled much better than other things which have followed. Just because the system can be successfully used improperly doesn't mean iherent rights don't exist. The basis of liberty, of freedom is that we own ourselves. The attempt to control and restrict what people choose to consume of their own free will attacks that basis. > Stick within the law, and avoid the philosophy. While it's a nice > philosophy for the foundation of a governing system, that's about as > far as it goes. But if I 'stick within the law' you'll scream strawman again. Because the law sees the bill of rights as something to be worked around, without spirit. Something much like the rulebook of board game. > > > So you deny the clear and plain english of the founding documents? > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > complain about me apparently playing usenet games, you have to be > not playing first. Ed Pirrero is playing games. He enjoys implying things which are unacceptable without actually taking that position. He also likes to try and convert political discussion, where the guidlines are laid out in our Constitution, into philosophical discussion where the guildlines of the Constitution do not apply. And, he LOVES to sling the "Strawman" as the drop of a hat. And, when you call him and corner him, he simply quits responding. > >> So you deny the clear and plain english of the founding documents? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > with you' and 'assertion' leaving me to guess at what your arguement is > and you are telling me I must be wrong? See the question marks? Why must I "make an argument"? So-and-so is an implication that the person in question is just some guy. Antonin Scalia ain't just "some guy." He has more credibility in interpreting the USC than you do. The straw man (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/strawman.html) is this sentence: "So you deny the clear and plain english [sic] of the founding documents?" Why? Because I said nor implied any such thing. > Before you can complain about > me apparently playing usenet games, you have to be not playing first. Calling you on logical fallacies is not a game - it forces you to focus on the issues, rather than create false postions to then "knock down." You don't need me for that. > >> Yet > >> you have produced no cite, so we only have your word regarding his opinion. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > 'the paper' what is 'the paper'? You've heard of a newspaper? AFAIK, the comments were in a wire story, so every major paper probably has them. Pick one up. Or not. > 'the paper' only works if I live where > you do. Wrong. Wire stories... > Make a cite. More tactics. It's obvious you knew EXACTLY what I was talking about, so stop with the games. > The commentary of a member of the council of nine > doesn't change what is written. Another thing that makes it irrelevant is > that it a question of how to treat citizens vs. soliders vs. terrorists > vs. spies. Wrong again. If rights are INHERENT, then citizenship, or any other abitrary classification, has nothing to do with whether a person has rights or not. > There are some international conventions regarding the last > three catagories I believe. Why does that matter, if rights are inherent? > A big problem is the government has made the definition of at least one > of those catagories very vague. I think you know which one. (Since, you > don't want to play straight up, now you'll get to 'guess' too) It doesn't matter, if rights are inherent. But a strict constructionist is all but saying directly that rights ARE NOT inherent. And if they are not, then silly arguments about the "right to drive" are moot. > >> >> to show that the rights are "self-evident", protected rather than > >> >> granted by government. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Then what exactly is your arguement with me? I argue with the claim that rights are inherent. There is no proof for that claim. One needs an external reference, and no such reference has yet been provided. > >> You are going to need to back up this > >> claim that the founders did not believe what was written. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > You just posted an implication that it may have been nothing more than a > political trick. Uh, no. You may have inferred that, but that's completely on you. And believing something and using something for political gain are not mutually exclusive. > >> That it was > >> only done for political reasons. > > > Strawman. > > I just repeated back to you what you apparently argued. I didn't write, nor imply, the "only" of your statement above. Thus, strawman. > >> As far as I can tell, the words are > >> carefully chosen to clearly express the concept that people are not to [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > into that you read the declaration of indepence and the Bill of Rights > along with the surrounding history. Again, these are merely assertions. Proof by assertion is not proof. > >> The proof it wasn't simply to gather political support is in the actions > >> of the same men after the revolution. If it were just to gather political [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > You just called the political reasons arguement a strawman. You obviously like to infer statements not made. You are speculating that they would overthrow a king, then immediately, against all their rhetoric, install themselves as kings. It would invite the very same response, from the very same folks that kicked George and his redcoats back to Britain. Not smart. Your speculation is specious. > >> > Step back and look for some external proof that the rights guaranteed > >> > under the USC are inherent. If you can't find any, then that implies [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Effective vs. what should be. "What should be" is a place called "Utopia". No place. We live in "what is", not "what should be". > >> There is > >> no such thing as liberty, no such thing as freedom. > > > Says who? That sentence is non sequitur to the previous one. > > You're the one apparently saying that the basis of rights has no proof I'm not sure why you feel you have to make up a position for me. All you need to do is read what I write. I never claimed, ANYWHERE, that there is no such thing as liberty or freedom. You just made that up. Nor did I say the basis of rights has no proof - I said that there is no proof for the position that rights exist INHERENTLY. How many times do I have to write the above before you "get it?" You keep whining about how I'm not making an argument - then you go ahead and assign me some argument to conveniently shoot down. There is no proof that rights are inherent. > >> The constitution > >> becomes a 'living document' changing meaning with the whim of the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > There are no sides. Of course there are. Otherwise there wouldn't be some much bickering. But the one thing they both crave is POWER. And the control that power gives. > The 'sides' are a drama, a show, it keeps the > people destracted while ... No, there really are "sides", even if their ultimate goal is the same. > >> Remove that concept of self-evident rights and the entire excerise of the > >> creation of the US of A was pointless and without merit. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Then you have no point in calling it a philosophical construct without > proof. Of course I do. The claiming of inherent rights is a false premise upon which all the others rest. If the foundation premise is faulty, what follows can have little value. Because most folks agree that humans should have rights, the constitution and the founding documents have value. When there begins the idea that only certain people have those rights, then the door is left open for those documents to be worth nothing more than what they might fetch on eBay as historical pieces. But never forget that it's because the People agree that humans should have rights that we do have those rights. > Why don't you make your actual points instead of calling > what the apparent points you are making to be 'strawmen'? Your inventions are not "apparent points". They are merely rhetorical devices you are using to gain advantage. > Right now, it appears you are just playing usenet games. LOL. Irony. > >> The the proof of concept you are looking for is in the basic spirit of > >> everyone who is not dead inside and resigned to be being a tool of [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > is, however you'd then come back with 'strawman'. So I'll just address > the examples rather than your implied point. Instead of finding that which does not exist, how about just READING WHAT I WROTE? Why is that such a challenge? > There are no 'rights' in the process by which government operates. The > constitution lays down the basic method, the framework of rules, by > which the government operates. Limiting the president to two terms is a > valid admendment function. The President is person, and persons have rights. Before the amendment, the presidents before had the right to serve for life, as long as they could get elected every four. Why isn't that a right any more? > Prohibition was wrong. However, by doing it in the admendment process it > was handled much better than other things which have followed. In a discussion that finds rights not explicitly stated in the constitution (essentially everything not addressed is reserved to the people), drink was a right. Obviously, it wasn't inherent. Why are the others? What about the "right to privacy"? The folks in control now don't think that right actually exists. Inherently, or not. The upshot is this: if rights really aren't inherent, then the list of rights specifically addressed and enumerated are the only ones that are even slightly protected. And even then, only because we pretty much all agree on the fact that they should exist. And they would all disappear under martial law, BTW. So much for "inherent rights." E.P. >> Why don't you MAKE AN ARGUEMENT instead of repeating 'so-and-so disagrees > Why must I "make an argument"? So-and-so is an implication that the > person in question is just some guy. Antonin Scalia ain't just "some > guy." He has more credibility in interpreting the USC than you do. If you have no argument, no point, then you are obviously just trying to stir the pot. > More tactics. It's obvious you knew EXACTLY what I was talking about, > so stop with the games. You're doing nothing but playing games, so I'm playing back. Don't like it, make some actual arguments, some actual points instead of playing implication games and stiring the pot. >> The commentary of a member of the council of nine >> doesn't change what is written. Another thing that makes it irrelevant is >> that it a question of how to treat citizens vs. soliders vs. terrorists >> vs. spies. > Wrong again. If rights are INHERENT, then citizenship, or any other > abitrary classification, has nothing to do with whether a person has > rights or not. Strawman. >> There are some international conventions regarding the last >> three catagories I believe. > Why does that matter, if rights are inherent? Strawman. I'm just giving you the reasons behind the issue the comments were on. I'm not saying it matters. See, two can play this assinine game. >> A big problem is the government has made the definition of at least one >> of those catagories very vague. I think you know which one. (Since, you >> don't want to play straight up, now you'll get to 'guess' too) > It doesn't matter, if rights are inherent. Strawman. > But a strict > constructionist is all but saying directly that rights ARE NOT > inherent. Strict constructionist, who told you that? The media? Who cares what the media says he is. > And if they are not, then silly arguments about the "right > to drive" are moot. Strawman. I have not argued for a "right to drive". >> > I agree. It is the basis of our government. That does not remove the >> > philosophical issue. >> Then what exactly is your arguement with me? > I argue with the claim that rights are inherent. There is no proof for > that claim. One needs an external reference, and no such reference has > yet been provided. Yet, when I addressed that as if it were your arguement, I believe your reply was "strawman". Imagine for a moment there are no control freaks. No power structures. Only the responsibility not to interfere with other people. What you say, your religion, your ability to defend yourself, your home, your property, etc and so forth are clearly your right. The only way they cease to be so is if others interfere, decide to step in and take control of your life, surpress your rights. That is the inherent aspect of these rights. For instance, there is no right to health care because it requires making someone else provide something for nothing. >> >> You are going to need to back up this >> >> claim that the founders did not believe what was written. >> > I never claimed that they didn't believe it. >> You just posted an implication that it may have been nothing more than a >> political trick. > Uh, no. You may have inferred that, but that's completely on you. And > believing something and using something for political gain are not > mutually exclusive. So you are playing usenet games. >> > Why would they subject themselves to the same ridicule they put upon >> > GeoIII? That doesn't make logical sense. >> You just called the political reasons arguement a strawman. > You obviously like to infer statements not made. You are speculating > that they would overthrow a king, then immediately, against all their > rhetoric, install themselves as kings. It would invite the very same > response, from the very same folks that kicked George and his redcoats > back to Britain. Not smart. Modern political figures go back on their rhetoric as a matter of rutine. They haven't even been kicked out of office all that often. And if they are, they are replaced by someone who does the same damn thing. >> >> > Step back and look for some external proof that the rights guaranteed >> >> > under the USC are inherent. If you can't find any, then that implies >> >> > that the rights ARE NOT inherent, and subject to fools and tyrants >> >> > redefining them. >> >> If that is the case, then we are ruled by the council of nine. >> > You're getting it. We are indeed ruled that way. >> Effective vs. what should be. > "What should be" is a place called "Utopia". No place. We live in > "what is", not "what should be". Strawman. I made no statement nor implication that "should be" is utopia. >> >> There is >> >> no such thing as liberty, no such thing as freedom. >> > Says who? That sentence is non sequitur to the previous one. >> You're the one apparently saying that the basis of rights has no proof > I'm not sure why you feel you have to make up a position for me. Because you are not making one for yourself. In fact, below you argue in clear language that if rights are not inherent, the rest is faulty, and ceases to exist under martial law. > All > you need to do is read what I write. I never claimed, ANYWHERE, that > there is no such thing as liberty or freedom. You just made that up. No inherent rights means no freedom, no liberty, just what the government grants us. You make that point clearly well on down the line here... > Nor did I say the basis of rights has no proof - I said that there is > no proof for the position that rights exist INHERENTLY. The basis is that they are inherent. > How many times do I have to write the above before you "get it?" You > keep whining about how I'm not making an argument - then you go ahead > and assign me some argument to conveniently shoot down. Make one then. > There is no proof that rights are inherent. If they are not inherent, then they are given by government, which means they can be taken by government, which means they don't really exist, but are a mere passing construct to be tossed away when seen fit. >> >> The constitution >> >> becomes a 'living document' changing meaning with the whim of the >> >> council, we have no protection. >> > Bingo. Both sides would change it or "interpret" it to their sides' >> > benefit. See a pattern? >> There are no sides. > Of course there are. Otherwise there wouldn't be some much bickering. The bickering is endless drama for the masses. > But the one thing they both crave is POWER. And the control that power > gives. Which is why there really aren't any sides. >> The 'sides' are a drama, a show, it keeps the >> people destracted while ... > No, there really are "sides", even if their ultimate goal is the same. If there really were sides, one side would undo the progress the other made towards the goal to thwart them. Instead, that never seems to happen. Each 'side' is doing a share of the work towards the common goal. That's what I call teamwork. The 'sides', if you strip off the surface of bickering are working as a team. >> >> Remove that concept of self-evident rights and the entire excerise of the >> >> creation of the US of A was pointless and without merit. >> > Well, nobody is trying to remove it, so you can put down that strawman. >> > The exercise was to show that rights are inherent. By external proof, >> > not assertion. >> Then you have no point in calling it a philosophical construct without >> proof. > Of course I do. The claiming of inherent rights is a false premise > upon which all the others rest. If the foundation premise is faulty, > what follows can have little value. Which is, what when I repeated that as your implied argument, you then responded 'strawman'. So, which is it? Your argument or a strawman? > Because most folks agree that humans should have rights, the > constitution and the founding documents have value. When there begins > the idea that only certain people have those rights, then the door is > left open for those documents to be worth nothing more than what they > might fetch on eBay as historical pieces. What people agreed upon, if anything was not to surpress people's rights. The rights we have. The founding documents are protection against surpression of those rights. If the rights are surpressed, then indeed the value of the documents is lost because they no longer afford those protections. > But never forget that it's because the People agree that humans should > have rights that we do have those rights. I don't think that "people" have never agreed upon that. Most people seem to believe in rights for people who think like they do, but those other people need to be controlled. That's why the bill of rights is written, why it exists in the form it does. It's to protect against that tendency of one group of humans to control another. >> Why don't you make your actual points instead of calling >> what the apparent points you are making to be 'strawmen'? > Your inventions are not "apparent points". They are merely rhetorical > devices you are using to gain advantage. No, they are devices to get you to stop playing games of making loaded statements that you can then back away from. It seems to be working. >> Right now, it appears you are just playing usenet games. > LOL. Irony. Yes indeed, and you know what you've been doing all along. You didn't choose wording that carefully without purpose. >> >> The the proof of concept you are looking for is in the basic spirit of >> >> everyone who is not dead inside and resigned to be being a tool of >> >> another man. Far too many people are so resigned or just too lazy and >> >> rather be cared for than care for themselves. >> > Or smart enough to recognize a philosophical construct when they see >> > one. Without external reference, there can be nothing but circular [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> > rights inherent? A right to privacy was found - is that not an >> > inherent right now? >> I could take the above for it's obvious meaning on 'inherent' rights as it >> is, however you'd then come back with 'strawman'. So I'll just address >> the examples rather than your implied point. > Instead of finding that which does not exist, how about just READING > WHAT I WROTE? Why is that such a challenge? You have no point? Then why post? To annoy? Obviously you have a point and I question what it is. >> There are no 'rights' in the process by which government operates. The >> constitution lays down the basic method, the framework of rules, by >> which the government operates. Limiting the president to two terms is a >> valid admendment function. > The President is person, and persons have rights. Before the > amendment, the presidents before had the right to serve for life, as > long as they could get elected every four. Why isn't that a right any > more? I think you are very confused on what a right is. The ability to serve as president does not come from birth, it comes at cost of others. It is not a right. Just like it is not my right to have a free birthday cake. Serving as president is granted by the people through an election process. Thusly the people through the constitution, through the process of admendment specified can limit how long one may serve as president. If there ever was a 'right' to be president for life, then I have a right to aston martin and I demand my aston martin be delivered immediately at no cost to me, because it's my right. But just as my aston martin won't be delievered, nobody has a right to serve 3 terms or even one term or even one day as president. The only right would be the ability to work towards being elected president. Feel free to vote for me in 2008. But this reminds me of something :) -> Dennis: Oh, king eh? Very nice. And how'd you get that, eh? By exploiting -> the workers. By hanging on to outdated imperialist dogma which -> perpetuates the economic and social differences in our society. <...> -> DENNIS: I told you. We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take it in -> turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week,... <...> -> ...but all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a -> special bi-weekly meeting... <...> -> Dennis: [interrupting] Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' -> swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power -> derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic -> ceremony. That's about as close to a 'right' to be 'president' as there could be, and it's not even close to right. >> Prohibition was wrong. However, by doing it in the admendment process it >> was handled much better than other things which have followed. > In a discussion that finds rights not explicitly stated in the > constitution (essentially everything not addressed is reserved to the > people), drink was a right. Obviously, it wasn't inherent. Why are > the others? It is an inherent right to one's own body. It is only controllers who seek to surpress that right. Just because controllers were somewhat successful now and then does not mean there are no inherent rights. Afterall, the people kept drinking anyway... You could argue that because slavery once existed, there are no rights period, inherent or otherwise. But it would be just as false. The fact that sometimes some humans have succeeded in such control of others doesn't mean the rights don't exist, it simply means they were successfully in whole or in part surpressed. > What about the "right to privacy"? The folks in control now don't > think that right actually exists. Inherently, or not. > The upshot is this: if rights really aren't inherent, then the list of > rights specifically addressed and enumerated are the only ones that are > even slightly protected. And even then, only because we pretty much > all agree on the fact that they should exist. And they would all > disappear under martial law, BTW. So much for "inherent rights." *sigh* Because someone may surpress your rights doesn't mean you don't have rights. Let me explain it this way, ever use a parametric CAD system? Say like proE or solidworks? If a feature is surpressed, it doesn't cease to exist, it ceases to be excerised. Surpressing one's ability to excerise a right doesn't make it go away, it just surpresses the excerise there of. It has an effectivity equal, in that there is no excerise, but that's where it ends. To go back to the CAD system anology, if a feature is deleted, then it ceases to exist, and that is when a person's rights really cease to exist, when he's killed. Until that moment, his ability to exercise his rights is surpressed, his ability to excerise his rights return immediately upon the removal of surpression. Just like the feature in the CAD system returns when the surpression is turned off. > >> Why don't you MAKE AN ARGUEMENT instead of repeating 'so-and-so disagrees > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > If you have no argument, no point, then you are obviously just > trying to stir the pot. I do have a point. That Scalia is better-suited than you to interpret the USC. Why do I have to repeat the same thing three times? > > More tactics. It's obvious you knew EXACTLY what I was talking about, > > so stop with the games. > > You're doing nothing but playing games, so I'm playing back. Nice trimming. Another bit of gamesmanship. BTW, your "playing games" strawman is yet another in a line of weak attacks that have no point. > >> The commentary of a member of the council of nine > >> doesn't change what is written. Another thing that makes it irrelevant is [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Strawman. Since I have not invented a weaker position for you, then attacked that weaker position, it is not a strawman. However, your comment is either non sequitur, or red herring. Why do you avoid the question? > >> There are some international conventions regarding the last > >> three catagories I believe. > > > Why does that matter, if rights are inherent? > > Strawman. Since I have not invented a weaker position for you, then attacked that weaker position, it is not a strawman. However, your comment is either non sequitur, or red herring. Why do you avoid the question? > >> A big problem is the government has made the definition of at least one > >> of those catagories very vague. I think you know which one. (Since, you [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Strawman. Since I have not invented a weaker position for you, then attacked that weaker position, it is not a strawman. However, your comment is either non sequitur, or red herring. Why do you avoid the question? > > But a strict > > constructionist is all but saying directly that rights ARE NOT > > inherent. > > Strict constructionist, who told you that? He did. > > And if they are not, then silly arguments about the "right > > to drive" are moot. > > Strawman. I have not argued for a "right to drive". Since I have not invented a weaker position for you, then attacked that weaker position, it is not a strawman. However, your comment is either non sequitur, or red herring. Why do you avoid the question? Look at the thread title for some inkling what the conversation is about. > >> > I agree. It is the basis of our government. That does not remove the > >> > philosophical issue. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Yet, when I addressed that as if it were your arguement, I believe your > reply was "strawman". No. I call your invented or weakened positions for me strawmen. Don't make stuff up, and I won't have to call you on it. > Imagine for a moment there are no control freaks. No power structures. Again, this is "Utopia". No place. It has no bearing on anything. The only thing that exists is "what is", not "what should be." > Only the responsibility not to interfere with other people. What you say, > your religion, your ability to defend yourself, your home, your property, > etc and so forth are clearly your right. The only way they cease to be so > is if others interfere, decide to step in and take control of your life, > surpress your rights. That is the inherent aspect of these rights. Circular reasoning. All this is founded upon the ASSUMPTION that rights are inherent. > For > instance, there is no right to health care because it requires making > someone else provide something for nothing. What do you mean? They do indeed get "something." That "something" is *free health care*. OK, it's not free - everybody pays. There are those that do get something for nothing. But those folks get something for nothing anyway. So it's a wash. > >> >> You are going to need to back up this > >> >> claim that the founders did not believe what was written. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > So you are playing usenet games. Non sequitur. You are MAKING THINGS UP. I never wrote anything like what you claim, so your comments are just plain made-up. Instead of inventing a position to attack, why not just use the words I write, and nothing more? Then I don't have to point out your errors in logic and reasoning. > >> > Why would they subject themselves to the same ridicule they put upon > >> > GeoIII? That doesn't make logical sense. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Modern political figures go back on their rhetoric as a matter of rutine. Non sequitur. This has nothing to do with now, but then - just following a citizens' armed insurrection. Re-installing a king-like structure would have been tantamount to suicide. The scenario is not plausible on its face. > They haven't even been kicked out of office all that often. And if they > are, they are replaced by someone who does the same damn thing. Nonsense. > >> >> > Step back and look for some external proof that the rights guaranteed > >> >> > under the USC are inherent. If you can't find any, then that implies [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Strawman. I made no statement nor implication that "should be" is utopia. Again, you are very confused about what a strawman logical fallacy is. I never claimed you made the statement or implication. I *am* saying that "what should be" *doesn't exist*. See? > >> >> There is > >> >> no such thing as liberty, no such thing as freedom. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Because you are not making one for yourself. Of course I am. You're so busy inventing weak positions to attack that you can't be bothered to actually read what I write. > > All > > you need to do is read what I write. I never claimed, ANYWHERE, that > > there is no such thing as liberty or freedom. You just made that up. > > No inherent rights means no freedom, no liberty, just what the government > grants us. Prove it. > > Nor did I say the basis of rights has no proof - I said that there is > > no proof for the position that rights exist INHERENTLY. > > The basis is that they are inherent. Circular reasoning. The basis is the *claim* that they are inherent. The difference is very large. > > How many times do I have to write the above before you "get it?" You > > keep whining about how I'm not making an argument - then you go ahead > > and assign me some argument to conveniently shoot down. > > Make one then. You're too busy whining about me busting up your logical fallacy attempts to see the arguments. > > There is no proof that rights are inherent. > > If they are not inherent, then they are given by government Non sequitur. One does not follow from the next. The People could generally agree on what is a right and what is not. This bypasses any governement. In fact, this is how amendments get ratified. > >> >> The constitution > >> >> becomes a 'living document' changing meaning with the whim of the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > The bickering is endless drama for the masses. Without proof, this is merely an assertion, and holds no value. > > But the one thing they both crave is POWER. And the control that power > > gives. > > Which is why there really aren't any sides. Non sequitur. Power is a goal from all positions on the political spectrum. Saying that a Maoist is no different from a fascist is ignorant. > >> The 'sides' are a drama, a show, it keeps the > >> people destracted while ... [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > If there really were sides, one side would undo the progress the other > made towards the goal to thwart them. Depends on what the goal is. There are plenty of non-control goals that get attacked from opposite sides. Just because ALL politics has power as the goal does not imply that there are not fundemental philosophical differences between the different groups. Power-seeking and political differences are not mutually exclusive. > >> >> Remove that concept of self-evident rights and the entire excerise of the > >> >> creation of the US of A was pointless and without merit. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Which is, what when I repeated that as your implied argument, you then > responded 'strawman'. So, which is it? Your argument or a strawman? You are making a claim of a "pointless exercise." This is false, and has nothing to do with my claims. You are arriving at a conclusion unsupported by evidence or even a glimmer of logic. > > Because most folks agree that humans should have rights, the > > constitution and the founding documents have value. When there begins [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > What people agreed upon, if anything was not to surpress people's rights. Wrong. Only white male landowners had rights. "People" in general did not. Did you know that women got the vote in this country less than 100 years ago? And that 40 years ago, blacks in portions of this country were effectively barred from voting? Your claim is laughable. > The rights we have. The founding documents are protection against > surpression of those rights. If the rights are surpressed, then indeed > the value of the documents is lost because they no longer afford those > protections. Nowadays, full rights only exist for those who have enough money to pursue them. So much for inherent rights... > > But never forget that it's because the People agree that humans should > > have rights that we do have those rights. > > I don't think that "people" have never agreed upon that. This sentence is confusing. The USC is a compact between people. It says "I allow you this as a right, if you allow me the same right." Everybody (mostly) says "OK", and thus it is a contract that binds upon them. Nothing more. > Most people seem > to believe in rights for people who think like they do, but those other > people need to be controlled. Sort of argues against the "inherent rights" line of reasoning, right? > That's why the bill of rights is written, > why it exists in the form it does. It's to protect against that tendency of > one group of humans to control another. Another argument against inherent rights. Without government enforcing the agreement, there would be NO FREEDOM. You and I would be servant or slave to the local strongman. Or be the local strongman. > >> Why don't you make your actual points instead of calling > >> what the apparent points you are making to be 'strawmen'? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > No, they are devices to get you to stop playing games of making loaded > statements that you can then back away from. It seems to be working. They are only "loaded" in your fertile mind. Cease the logical fallacies, and discuss what's written ONLY, and you'll not here a word from me about logical fallacies. Engage in logical fallacies, and I will call you on them. Seems fair to me... > >> Right now, it appears you are just playing usenet games. > > > LOL. Irony. > > Yes indeed, and you know what you've been doing all along. Do you understand the word "irony"? Look up its definition. I'm playing it perfectly straight. You can't go two responses without delving into the fantasy bin. > You didn't > choose wording that carefully without purpose. Yes - I picked it so that you wouldn't invent a position I didn't hold. Fat lot of good that did me... > >> >> The the proof of concept you are looking for is in the basic spirit of > >> >> everyone who is not dead inside and resigned to be being a tool of [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > You have no point? Can't you read? > Obviously you have a point > and I question what it is. Try reading. It's right there... > >> There are no 'rights' in the process by which government operates. The > >> constitution lays down the basic method, the framework of rules, by [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > I think you are very confused on what a right is. No - I'm using it as an illustration. > Thusly the people through the constitution, through the process > of admendment specified can limit how long one may serve as president. And really, anything else that's in the USC, including removing one or all of the first ten. Hard to exercise inherent rights when they're not protected anymore, hmm? > >> Prohibition was wrong. However, by doing it in the admendment process it > >> was handled much better than other things which have followed. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > It is an inherent right to one's own body. Says who? Where is the *proof*? > Just because controllers were > somewhat successful now and then does not mean there are no inherent > rights. Where is the proof that rights are inherent? You keep claiming they are, but offering not a shred of evidence. Well, circular reasoning, but that's not really evidence... > You could argue that because slavery once existed, there are no rights > period, inherent or otherwise. But it would be just as false. Why? The slaves had NO rights at all. In fact, there are even folks today that say slavery is justified. > The fact > that sometimes some humans have succeeded in such control of others > doesn't mean the rights don't exist, it simply means they were > successfully in whole or in part surpressed. Doublespeak. Your comments presume the "inherency" of rights. > > What about the "right to privacy"? The folks in control now don't > > think that right actually exists. Inherently, or not. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > *sigh* Because someone may surpress your rights doesn't mean you don't > have rights. Proof? > Let me explain it this way, ever use a parametric CAD > system? Say like proE or solidworks? If a feature is surpressed, it > doesn't cease to exist, it ceases to be excerised. Surpressing one's > ability to excerise a right doesn't make it go away, it just surpresses > the excerise there of. In the program, you can tell it to show the feature, or to suppress it. Proof by action. In the real world, there is no proof that rights are inherent. There's not even a logical proof, much less an external one. If one cannot exercise a right, then the right, effectively, does not exist. This is an airtight logical construct. > It has an effectivity equal, in that there is no > excerise, but that's where it ends. To go back to the CAD system anology, > if a feature is deleted, then it ceases to exist, and that is when a > person's rights really cease to exist, when he's killed. Or when he is effectively prevented from exercising the right. There is no difference between a right not existing and a right effectively prevented from being exercised. The only difference possible is in a philosophical construct - one that imagines that all people are born with inalienable rights. But that still is an imagination, and a construct. While rights (inherent or not) do not flow from the government, governement is NECESSARY in order to exercise any rights. Because without the government moderating the actions of the power-seekers everywhere, we would not be able to exercise any rights, inherent or not. If the previous paragraph is true, then whether rights are inherent or not is moot. E.P. > I do have a point. That Scalia is better-suited than you to interpret > the USC. Why do I have to repeat the same thing three times? The constitution is plain language, it does not require special education to understand. The fact people like you think someone has to be qualified to tell the rest of us what it means is a big hunk of why the nation is headed in the direction it is. > Nice trimming. Another bit of gamesmanship. POT KETTLE BLACK. You don't much like a taste of your own game, so why don't you just cut it out? >> > Wrong again. If rights are INHERENT, then citizenship, or any other >> > abitrary classification, has nothing to do with whether a person has >> > rights or not. >> Strawman. > Since I have not invented a weaker position for you, then attacked that > weaker position, it is not a strawman. You invented a position for me. I didn't make any claim that classification mattered. You just assumed it. How does it feel? Learn anything about your own methods yet? >> > But a strict >> > constructionist is all but saying directly that rights ARE NOT >> > inherent. >> Strict constructionist, who told you that? > He did. Wooptie do. >> > And if they are not, then silly arguments about the "right >> > to drive" are moot. >> Strawman. I have not argued for a "right to drive". > Since I have not invented a weaker position for you, then attacked that > weaker position, it is not a strawman. The "right to drive" you are assigning me is indeed a weaker position. > Look at the thread title for some inkling what the conversation is > about. Try reading my posts where I DIRECTLY state that driving falls short of a right. Unlike you and your non-points. >> > I argue with the claim that rights are inherent. There is no proof for >> > that claim. One needs an external reference, and no such reference has >> > yet been provided. >> Yet, when I addressed that as if it were your arguement, I believe your >> reply was "strawman". > No. I call your invented or weakened positions for me strawmen. Don't > make stuff up, and I won't have to call you on it. No, you just restated what I had thought your position to be. But hey, you're just playing usenet games but don't like it when I play back. >> Imagine for a moment there are no control freaks. No power structures. > Again, this is "Utopia". No place. Nice spliting. > It has no bearing on anything. The only thing that exists is "what > is", not "what should be." Well, I'll see you in the slave labor camp then. >> Only the responsibility not to interfere with other people. What you say, >> your religion, your ability to defend yourself, your home, your property, >> etc and so forth are clearly your right. The only way they cease to be so >> is if others interfere, decide to step in and take control of your life, >> surpress your rights. That is the inherent aspect of these rights. > Circular reasoning. All this is founded upon the ASSUMPTION that > rights are inherent. Since we have them until someone places a boot on our neck, that would indicate they are inherent. >> For >> instance, there is no right to health care because it requires making >> someone else provide something for nothing. > What do you mean? They do indeed get "something." That "something" is > *free health care*. OK, it's not free - everybody pays. See you don't even understand what a right is. > There are those that do get something for nothing. But those folks get > something for nothing anyway. So it's a wash. You don't understand what a right is. Hint: It's not a right when one group of citizens has to pay for another group. >> So you are playing usenet games. > Non sequitur. You are MAKING THINGS UP. I never wrote anything like > what you claim, so your comments are just plain made-up. You carefully choose words that imply something that you can back away from later. When I did the same thing on purpose with the classifications of solider, citizen, and terrorist you went for the obvious implication. But I chose my words carefully, just as you have been. Yet you insist your assumptions are correct. > Instead of > inventing a position to attack, why not just use the words I write, and > nothing more? Then I don't have to point out your errors in logic and > reasoning. Like I stated you are playing games. You make statements of obvious inferences of your position, but worded carefully so you could back away and then you claim I'm the problem for questioning if that obvious inference is what you meant. Now, if you were perfect and didn't jump to obvious inferences yourself, you might have a leg to stand on, but oops, you did when I set you up in the same manner so, STFU about it and start playing straight up. Otherwise, I'll just play these usenet games with you until I become bored with it. >> > You obviously like to infer statements not made. You are speculating >> > that they would overthrow a king, then immediately, against all their >> > rhetoric, install themselves as kings. It would invite the very same >> > response, from the very same folks that kicked George and his redcoats >> > back to Britain. Not smart. >> Modern political figures go back on their rhetoric as a matter of rutine. > Non sequitur. This has nothing to do with now, but then - just > following a citizens' armed insurrection. Re-installing a king-like > structure would have been tantamount to suicide. The scenario is not > plausible on its face. Arguement by delcaration. >> They haven't even been kicked out of office all that often. And if they >> are, they are replaced by someone who does the same damn thing. > Nonsense. Arguement by delcaration. Two can play this game. >> >> Effective vs. what should be. >> > "What should be" is a place called "Utopia". No place. We live in >> > "what is", not "what should be". >> Strawman. I made no statement nor implication that "should be" is utopia. > Again, you are very confused about what a strawman logical fallacy is. > I never claimed you made the statement or implication. I *am* saying > that "what should be" *doesn't exist*. See? You are calling "should be" utopia, an easy posistion to knock down since there is no utopia on the planet and cannot be. It's right there in plain language game player. Maybe if you don't like this, you shouldn't have started it. >> Because you are not making one for yourself. > Of course I am. You're so busy inventing weak positions to attack that > you can't be bothered to actually read what I write. It's only taken several posts to get you state any of them in plain language instead of by implications you could back away from. And what I thought they were is remarkably close so far. >> > All >> > you need to do is read what I write. I never claimed, ANYWHERE, that >> > there is no such thing as liberty or freedom. You just made that up. >> No inherent rights means no freedom, no liberty, just what the government >> grants us. > Prove it. Your own martial law argument. Your 'what is' posistion. You stated we have no inherent rights because the government could declare martial law. That makes government the grantor by determining what level of enforcement, what level of control it is going to excerise. Thusly no inherent rights means we just have what the government allows. >> > Nor did I say the basis of rights has no proof - I said that there is >> > no proof for the position that rights exist INHERENTLY. >> The basis is that they are inherent. > Circular reasoning. The basis is the *claim* that they are inherent. > The difference is very large. How does one not have the right to free speech? Someone surpresses it by force. How does one not have the right to practice a religion of his choosing? Someone surpresses it by force. How does one not have the right to self defense? Someone surpresses it by force. Rights by definition are something we inherently have, they do not require being granted to practice. For instance, there is no right to health care because someone has to provide health care. There is right to free speech because no need provide anything for it. It's inherent. It's your lack of understanding of rights that make you see it as circular. Rights are inherent things because in order not to able excerise them, there has to be active surpression. >> > There is no proof that rights are inherent. >> If they are not inherent, then they are given by government > Non sequitur. One does not follow from the next. > The People could generally agree on what is a right and what is not. > This bypasses any governement. In fact, this is how amendments get > ratified. You clearly don't understand what constitutes a right. This funadmental hole in your education is the problem. We could all agree that we all have taxpayer funded ice cream on fridays and make an admendment, that doesn't make it right. >> > Of course there are. Otherwise there wouldn't be some much bickering. >> The bickering is endless drama for the masses. > Without proof, this is merely an assertion, and holds no value. Then maybe you should have read further. You like playing the thin cut. >> > But the one thing they both crave is POWER. And the control that power >> > gives. >> Which is why there really aren't any sides. > Non sequitur. Power is a goal from all positions on the political > spectrum. Saying that a Maoist is no different from a fascist is > ignorant. Maybe you should have read further, but hey, the game of the thin-cut helps you out. >> >> The 'sides' are a drama, a show, it keeps the >> >> people destracted while ... >> >> > No, there really are "sides", even if their ultimate goal is the same. >> If there really were sides, one side would undo the progress the other >> made towards the goal to thwart them. > Depends on what the goal is. There are plenty of non-control goals > that get attacked from opposite sides. > Just because ALL politics has power as the goal does not imply that > there are not fundemental philosophical differences between the > different groups. Power-seeking and political differences are not > mutually exclusive. They use different excuses, sure. But controlling speech for political correctness or because the terrorists will get us doesn't really matter, I see the attempt to control speech. Boil off the surface distraction and it's a very much a systematic progress as if the so called 'sides' were working as a team. If they were really working against each other, when power flipped, what had been accomplished by one would be undone by the other. Instead each uses the mechanisms the other installed to go to the next step. >> > Because most folks agree that humans should have rights, the >> > constitution and the founding documents have value. When there begins >> > the idea that only certain people have those rights, then the door is >> > left open for those documents to be worth nothing more than what they >> > might fetch on eBay as historical pieces. >> What people agreed upon, if anything was not to surpress people's rights. > Wrong. Only white male landowners had rights. "People" in general did > not. Did you know that women got the vote in this country less than > 100 years ago? And that 40 years ago, blacks in portions of this > country were effectively barred from voting? Your claim is laughable. Here is where you don't understand what a right is. You use every flaw as evidence that there are no rights but what is granted. In reality there is no excerise of what is surpressed when it comes to inherent rights. The rights exist wether their practice is surpressed or not. BTW, voting is not an inherent right, it's a mechanism of determining and controling government. You don't seem to understand what an inherent right really is. We could have a system of government where our inherent rights are protected but there is no voting. A benevolent dictatorship for instance may not surpress a person's inherent rights. Voting is part of the system of government, one of the mechanisms designed to prevent our inherent rights from being surpressed. Flaws in that system are not evidence that there are no inherent rights. They are evidence that the system has at times failed to protect inherent rights of some people. >> The rights we have. The founding documents are protection against >> surpression of those rights. If the rights are surpressed, then indeed >> the value of the documents is lost because they no longer afford those >> protections. > Nowadays, full rights only exist for those who have enough money to > pursue them. So much for inherent rights... Rights can only be excerised by those who can resist the attempt to surpress them. The rights still exist, they always exist, it's the surpression that changes. >> > But never forget that it's because the People agree that humans should >> > have rights that we do have those rights. >> I don't think that "people" have never agreed upon that. > This sentence is confusing. Well maybe you shouldn't thin slice. > The USC is a compact between people. It says "I allow you this as a > right, if you allow me the same right." Everybody (mostly) says "OK", > and thus it is a contract that binds upon them. > Nothing more. The USC is an agreement upon how government will function. It is a design for a government that is designed to make the surpression of inherent rights more difficult. For instance, in a dictatorship, surpression of inherent rights is easy, the dictator orders that there will only be one religion. However, in the system of government outlined by the USC, this is far more difficult to accomplish. You confuse the protection excerise rights with the rights themselves. >> Most people seem >> to believe in rights for people who think like they do, but those other >> people need to be controlled. > Sort of argues against the "inherent rights" line of reasoning, right? No. It points out an aspect of human nature. >> That's why the bill of rights is written, >> why it exists in the form it does. It's to protect against that tendency of >> one group of humans to control another. > Another argument against inherent rights. Without government enforcing > the agreement, there would be NO FREEDOM. You and I would be servant > or slave to the local strongman. Or be the local strongman. Let me explain it to you this way, you have the right to free speech until someone forces you to STFU. That's why it's an inherent right. There is nothing that has to be done for you to have it. Action has to occur for you _NOT_ to be able to _EXCERISE_ it. >> Just because controllers were >> somewhat successful now and then does not mean there are no inherent >> rights. > Where is the proof that rights are inherent? You keep claiming they > are, but offering not a shred of evidence. Well, circular reasoning, > but that's not really evidence... It's clear you don't understand what a right really is because of confusing language, poor education, or some other factor. rights are inherent. If they aren't inherent, they really aren't rights. >> You could argue that because slavery once existed, there are no rights >> period, inherent or otherwise. But it would be just as false. > Why? The slaves had NO rights at all. In fact, there are even folks > today that say slavery is justified. They had rights, the use of force prevented them from excerising them. >> The fact >> that sometimes some humans have succeeded in such control of others >> doesn't mean the rights don't exist, it simply means they were >> successfully in whole or in part surpressed. > Doublespeak. Your comments presume the "inherency" of rights. You don't understand what a right is, that's not my problem. >> > What about the "right to privacy"? The folks in control now don't >> > think that right actually exists. Inherently, or not. >> > The upshot is this: if rights really aren't inherent, then the list of >> > rights specifically addressed and enumerated are the only ones that are >> > even slightly protected. And even then, only because we pretty much >> > all agree on the fact that they should exist. And they would all >> > disappear under martial law, BTW. So much for "inherent rights." >> *sigh* Because someone may surpress your rights doesn't mean you don't >> have rights. > Proof? Let's say you're a pagan. The government decides everyone must be Muslim. The government uses force to make you follow the rules of Islam. Yet you are still really a pagan, you just can't excerise the right to freedom of religion. It's inherent, it was always there and always will be, what changes is the level of surpression. >> Let me explain it this way, ever use a parametric CAD >> system? Say like proE or solidworks? If a feature is surpressed, it >> doesn't cease to exist, it ceases to be excerised. Surpressing one's >> ability to excerise a right doesn't make it go away, it just surpresses >> the excerise there of. > In the program, you can tell it to show the feature, or to suppress it. > Proof by action. > In the real world, there is no proof that rights are inherent. There's > not even a logical proof, much less an external one. > If one cannot exercise a right, then the right, effectively, does not > exist. This is an airtight logical construct. I take a bag of gold coins and bury them deep in the ground. For a 1000 years they stay there. They don't effectively exist until they are uncovered a 1000 years later, but they never ceased to exist. Inherent rights are much the same, the moment the cover is removed, they return, they are always there, everywhere, wether they can be effectively excerised or not. The moment surpression is removed, the inherent rights are still there. They are not destroyed, they are surpressed. >> It has an effectivity equal, in that there is no >> excerise, but that's where it ends. To go back to the CAD system anology, >> if a feature is deleted, then it ceases to exist, and that is when a >> person's rights really cease to exist, when he's killed. > Or when he is effectively prevented from exercising the right. There > is no difference between a right not existing and a right effectively > prevented from being exercised. There is considerable difference. A right that does not exist would not be there after the surpression was removed. For instance, if I am forced to be a Muslim at the barrel of a gun for 10 years and then after I am free of that oppression, I am not stuck without the ability to choose a religion. > The only difference possible is in a > philosophical construct - one that imagines that all people are born > with inalienable rights. But that still is an imagination, and a > construct. If I forced you to be quiet on this issue for 10 years and then someone removed my ability to force you to be quiet on it, would you have changed your mind on it? > While rights (inherent or not) do not flow from the government, > governement is NECESSARY in order to exercise any rights. Because > without the government moderating the actions of the power-seekers > everywhere, we would not be able to exercise any rights, inherent or > not. The power seekers could simply be killed by the others. There are many mechanisms one could devise to protect the excerise of rights. Some are more effective or more practical than others. > If the previous paragraph is true, then whether rights are inherent or > not is moot. If they weren't inherent government structure would be the grantor, not the protector or the surpressor. > > I do have a point. That Scalia is better-suited than you to interpret > > the USC. Why do I have to repeat the same thing three times? > > The constitution is plain language, it does not require special education > to understand. I didn't use the word "understand." "Interpret" <> "understand". > > Nice trimming. Another bit of gamesmanship. > > POT KETTLE BLACK. Wrong. I didn't trim anything that substantially changed the meaning of the quote, while you *did exactly that*. I see you trimmed it all. Anyone with a threaded reader can see who's playing games, and who's having a straight-up conversation. > >> > Wrong again. If rights are INHERENT, then citizenship, or any other > >> > abitrary classification, has nothing to do with whether a person has [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > You invented a position for me. Where? Quote it. > I didn't make any claim that > classification mattered. And I never said you did. > >> > But a strict > >> > constructionist is all but saying directly that rights ARE NOT [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Wooptie do. And he's more qualified than you to INTERPRET the constitution, by training and experience. > >> > And if they are not, then silly arguments about the "right > >> > to drive" are moot. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > The "right to drive" you are assigning me is indeed a weaker position. I didn't assign you that position. You are making it up. > > Look at the thread title for some inkling what the conversation is > > about. > > Try reading my posts where I DIRECTLY state that driving falls short of a > right. Unlike you and your non-points. Non-points only because you can't understand them. To anyone else, there is a pattern - a pattern you are trying desperately to ignore and trim. The thread title talks about what the thread is about. I figured that would be pretty clear to almost everyone. > >> > I argue with the claim that rights are inherent. There is no proof for > >> > that claim. One needs an external reference, and no such reference has [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > No, you just restated what I had thought your position to be. I did? Where? Quote it. If you are attempting to assign me a weaker position that I wrote to begin with, then you are attempting to engage in the logical fallacy of the straw man. Now, if you avoid doing that, then I won't call you on it. Seems simple enough to me. > >> Imagine for a moment there are no control freaks. No power structures. > > > Again, this is "Utopia". No place. > > Nice spliting. Your made-up scenario is full-fledged with those two sentences. Why does more need to be quoted? > > It has no bearing on anything. The only thing that exists is "what > > is", not "what should be." > > Well, I'll see you in the slave labor camp then. Logical fallacy: Reductio ad Absurdum. > >> Only the responsibility not to interfere with other people. What you say, > >> your religion, your ability to defend yourself, your home, your property, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Since we have them until someone places a boot on our neck, that would > indicate they are inherent. That's still circular reasoning. Thus, your statement has no validity. You have to PROVE that rights are inherent. Merely claiming it doesn't amount to proof, logical or empirical. > >> For > >> instance, there is no right to health care because it requires making [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > See you don't even understand what a right is. I'm just correcting your statement. My comments have no bearing on whether or not I think health care is a right. But hey, 100 years ago, if you were a woman, you didn't have the right to vote. > > There are those that do get something for nothing. But those folks get > > something for nothing anyway. So it's a wash. > > You don't understand what a right is. Hint: It's not a right when one > group of citizens has to pay for another group. Sure it is. What do you think the military is all about? A small group pays with blood for the majority's freedom. Our rights don't maintain themselves, you know. > >> So you are playing usenet games. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > You carefully choose words that imply something that you can back away > from later. The inferrences are all yours. I don't *inply* anything, I write what I write. If you have trouble dealing with the written word, then usenet isn't for you. Just read what's actually there, instead of making stuff up. But it is a really nice red herring to avoid proving that rights exist inherently. > When I did the same thing on purpose with the classifications > of solider, citizen, and terrorist you went for the obvious implication. And since you seemed to understand completely that they are arbitrary in the face of inherent rights, I understood your implication, and that you actually meant to imply it. Gamesmanship on your part, not mine. Try again. > > Instead of > > inventing a position to attack, why not just use the words I write, and > > nothing more? Then I don't have to point out your errors in logic and > > reasoning. > > Like I stated you are playing games. Strawman. Use the words I write, not the ones you invent in your head. If you don't understand, ask a question. If they seem ambiguous, ask. It's such a simple thing, I am not understanding why you can't seem to do it. > You make statements of obvious > inferences of your position, but worded carefully so you could back away > and then you claim I'm the problem for questioning if that obvious > inference is what you meant. How incredibly paranoid of you. Just read the written words, and save the internal conversations for some other time. > Now, if you were perfect and didn't jump to > obvious inferences yourself, you might have a leg to stand on, but oops, > you did when I set you up in the same manner so, STFU about it and start > playing straight up. I am playing straight up. You're the one with all the gaming going. Hell, I don't know if you actually believe half of what you are writing, or if you're just trolling. > Otherwise, I'll just play these usenet games with > you until I become bored with it. Well, it's good that you acknowledge you're playing games. That makes it much easier. A word of advice - just because you can't prevent yourself from playing games, that doesn't mean that EVERYONE else does the same thing. Think about it. > >> > You obviously like to infer statements not made. You are speculating > >> > that they would overthrow a king, then immediately, against all their [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Arguement by delcaration. LOL. Since you can't refute the plain logic of all but the last sentence, you focus on the last sentence and try and declare victory. Precious. > >> They haven't even been kicked out of office all that often. And if they > >> are, they are replaced by someone who does the same damn thing. > > > Nonsense. > > Arguement by delcaration. Nope. Your commentary is untrue, and easily seen by examining elections. > Two can play this game. Except you're the only one playing games. Just picking out some stuff you heard previously doesn't put you on an equal logic footing. You actually have to know what the stuff you're writing means. > >> >> Effective vs. what should be. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > You are calling "should be" utopia, an easy posistion to knock down since > there is no utopia on the planet and cannot be. That's right. And it has nothing to do with your claims. *I* am claiming that "should be" is Utopia. You may attempt to refute that claim if you choose, but it certainly isn't taking your position and making it weaker. Sheesh. Your position is automatically weak, because there is no place that exists where your "should be" scenario is in force. Thus, Utopia. Q.E.D. No strawman - straight refutation of your position, pure and simple. > >> Because you are not making one for yourself. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > language instead of by implications you could back away from. And what I > thought they were is remarkably close so far. LOL. I have stated my premise from the very first post: rights are not inherent; it is a rhetorical or philosophical construct. There is no proof whatsoever, either logical or empirical, that states any right is inherent. > >> > All > >> > you need to do is read what I write. I never claimed, ANYWHERE, that [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > enforcement, what level of control it is going to excerise. Thusly no > inherent rights means we just have what the government allows. Non sequitur. You have yet to quote where I denied that liberty and freedom exist. > >> > Nor did I say the basis of rights has no proof - I said that there is > >> > no proof for the position that rights exist INHERENTLY. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > choosing? Someone surpresses it by force. How does one not have the right > to self defense? Someone surpresses it by force. That is not proof. Nor are they even logical arguments. You are still operating using the basic assumption that rights are inherent. I don't think you quite understand the questions being put to you. > Rights by definition are something we inherently have, they do not > require being granted to practice. Circular reasoning, and invalid as proof. > Rights are inherent things because in order not to able excerise them, there > has to be active surpression. Or, the inverse - force, or threat of force, is used to prevent the *preventers* from acting. Which is exactly what we have in the U.S. - the threat of government action on those who attempt to deny our rights. Since the inverse of your statement is equally valid, your statement holds no value as proof. Try another tack. > >> > There is no proof that rights are inherent. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > You clearly don't understand what constitutes a right. I clearly do. It is you who seems to have a vague grasp of what a right is. Somehow, all these rights exist out in the ether, and they pop up from time to time. Like freedom for women to vote. Sometimes they disappear. Like the freedom to drink ethanol. Ooops, here it is back again. Or non-landowners to vote. Or non-whites. The freedom to serve as many terms as POTUS as you had votes for was there, and oops, now it's gone. Maybe healthcare WILL pop up! Who knows? :) Speaking of the president thingy - I have to correct you. I didn't say anyone had the right *to be* president. I said that the right to serve as many terms as you could get elected for existed, and then didn't. Those are not the same thing. > This funadmental > hole in your education is the problem. We could all agree that we all > have taxpayer funded ice cream on fridays and make an admendment, that > doesn't make it right. And yet, if the Ice Cream Friday Right amendment passed, there it would be, enshrined in the constitution. Now tell me more about my education. I'm very interested to hear how that scenario is "wrong" - the provisions for doing just that thing exists within the constitution itself. How can it be wrong if 67% of senators and 75% of states vote for Ice Cream Fridays? Isn't it just like giving women the right to vote? > >> > Of course there are. Otherwise there wouldn't be some much bickering. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Then maybe you should have read further. You like playing the thin cut. If you can show how your additional blather changes fundementally what I am quoting, I'll re-evaluate my position. (I've re-read it, and it doesn't change anything.) > >> > But the one thing they both crave is POWER. And the control that power > >> > gives. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Maybe you should have read further, but hey, the game of the thin-cut > helps you out. Reading further doesn't explain at all how a Maoist and a fascist are alike in anything except the seeking of power. I read it, and there's nothing of substance that explains your claim. > >> >> The 'sides' are a drama, a show, it keeps the > >> >> people destracted while ... [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > They use different excuses, sure. That doesn't address your central claim. > But controlling speech for political > correctness or because the terrorists will get us doesn't really matter, > I see the attempt to control speech. And in the end, no speech is controlled. So that's just a red herring. Use another example. > Boil off the surface distraction and > it's a very much a systematic progress as if the so called 'sides' were > working as a team. Paranoid nonsense. You have NO proof of this allegation. > If they were really working against each other, when > power flipped, what had been accomplished by one would be undone by the > other. Instead each uses the mechanisms the other installed to go to the > next step. How nice and vague. Prove your claim. Stepwise. > >> > Because most folks agree that humans should have rights, the > >> > constitution and the founding documents have value. When there begins [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Here is where you don't understand what a right is. No, here is where *you* don't understand what a "right" is. I am giving you concrete examples of mysteriously found "rights" in our history. These mystery finds are curious if rights are inherent, but perfectly logical if they are not. > You use every flaw as > evidence that there are no rights but what is granted. Or agreed to between people. Think amendment... > In reality there > is no excerise of what is surpressed when it comes to inherent rights. Declaration without evidence. > The > rights exist wether their practice is surpressed or not. Assertion is not proof. > BTW, voting is > not an inherent right, it's a mechanism of determining and controling > government. LOL. In a representative democracy, I would suggest to you that ALL rights flow from that one. Without it, none of the others mean anything. > You don't seem to understand what an inherent right really > is. You're right, I don't. Why? Because I do not believe that rights exist inherently. And nothing you have said even offers the first premise as to why they should be viewed as anything but a philosophical construct. > We could have a system of government where our inherent rights are > protected but there is no voting. A benevolent dictatorship for instance > may not surpress a person's inherent rights. More Utopia. > Voting is part of the system > of government, one of the mechanisms designed to prevent our inherent > rights from being surpressed. Hmmm. I think you just slipped a little, there... > Flaws in that system are not evidence that > there are no inherent rights. Of course they are. Asserting that they are not has no logical or empirical basis. > They are evidence that the system has at > times failed to protect inherent rights of some people. Or, equally valid, the rights are not inherent. > >> The rights we have. The founding documents are protection against > >> surpression of those rights. If the rights are surpressed, then indeed [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > surpress them. The rights still exist, they always exist, it's the > surpression that changes. Again, since suppression is the rule, rather than the exception, you are arguing my point for me. Sanction of the suppressors is the only way to prevent the suppressors from taking control. IOW, the use of force against those who would use force to suppress. > >> > But never forget that it's because the People agree that humans should > >> > have rights that we do have those rights. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Well maybe you shouldn't thin slice. I didn't cut the sentence at all. Hey, if you made a bad sentence, there's no shame - everyone does it. What follows it doesn't do anything to make this sentence have meaning. > > The USC is a compact between people. It says "I allow you this as a > > right, if you allow me the same right." Everybody (mostly) says "OK", > > and thus it is a contract that binds upon them. > > Nothing more. > > The USC is an agreement upon how government will function. Among other things. It also is an agreement about what rights are retained by whom. This has no bearing on the fundemental question as to whether rights are inherent or not. > It is a design > for a government that is designed to make the surpression of inherent [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > is far more difficult to accomplish. You confuse the protection excerise > rights with the rights themselves. Actually, I don't. This is your strawman. > >> Most people seem > >> to believe in rights for people who think like they do, but those other [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > No. It points out an aspect of human nature. Wait, aren't rights also inherent in human nature? Which is it? > >> That's why the bill of rights is written, > >> why it exists in the form it does. It's to protect against that tendency of [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > There is nothing that has to be done for you to have it. Action has to > occur for you _NOT_ to be able to _EXCERISE_ it. Sophistry. If you were born and raised and lived in Afghanistan, you'd live your whole life without any freedom at all - subject to a warlord's whim. No action at all need to take place for you to not have any rights. Just because a system guarantees or denies rights does not imply that the rights themselves are inherent. > >> Just because controllers were > >> somewhat successful now and then does not mean there are no inherent [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > It's clear you don't understand what a right really is because of > confusing language, poor education, or some other factor. Logical fallacy: ad hominem. > rights are > inherent. Assertion is not proof. > If they aren't inherent, they really aren't rights. Ah, your rigid thinking finally shows itself. We have been kindly discussing a conventional set of priviledges guaranteed by mutual agreement and consent, with the full force of our chosen government acting on our behalf. That some people wish to re-define these priviledges into rights and all the baggage that follows such semantic games is of NO VALUE TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THEY ARE INHERENT. Playing a semantics game is pretty crappy. > >> You could argue that because slavery once existed, there are no rights > >> period, inherent or otherwise. But it would be just as false. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > They had rights, the use of force prevented them from excerising them. So, in the real world, they had no rights. Again, you are assuming the inherent nature. > >> The fact > >> that sometimes some humans have succeeded in such control of others [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > You don't understand what a right is, that's not my problem. Actually, I do understand. You are the one having difficulty seeing outside of your self-imposed box. You can't claim that rights are inherent by the definition of the word. That is a tautology - and a logical fallacy. > >> > What about the "right to privacy"? The folks in control now don't > >> > think that right actually exists. Inherently, or not. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > freedom of religion. It's inherent, it was always there and always will > be, what changes is the level of surpression. Or, by Occam's razor, rights aren't inherent, and can't be exercised until we form a government that will protect them. The empirical difference between not having a right and not exercising a right is zero. It's only philosophical. > >> Let me explain it this way, ever use a parametric CAD > >> system? Say like proE or solidworks? If a feature is surpressed, it [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > years they stay there. They don't effectively exist until they are > uncovered a 1000 years later, but they never ceased to exist. There is empirical evidence that the coins existed and continue to exist. Your analogy fails. > Inherent rights are much the same, the moment the cover is removed, they > return, they are always there, everywhere, wether they can be effectively > excerised or not. The moment surpression is removed, the inherent rights > are still there. They are not destroyed, they are surpressed. Which is exactly the same thing, empirically. Only by philosophy is there any distinction. > >> It has an effectivity equal, in that there is no > >> excerise, but that's where it ends. To go back to the CAD system anology, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > There is considerable difference. Only philosophically. Without empirical or logical proof that rights exist externally to a government that is formed specifically to protect those rights, it cannot be said (logically) that the rights are inherent. Unless you fall back on the tautology that rights, by the definition of the word, are inherent. > A right that does not exist would not > be there after the surpression was removed. And a right that does exist would be suppressed forever until people got together to form a system that ensured the things they call rights. These are co-equal, philosophically. > > The only difference possible is in a > > philosophical construct - one that imagines that all people are born [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > removed my ability to force you to be quiet on it, would you have changed > your mind on it? No. Whether I speak about it or not, the philosophical aspect is exactly the same. Which is why my position is more compelling than your position - it holds true no matter what the conditions. No externalities affect the philosophy that rights are a construct of our particular form of government. None. > > While rights (inherent or not) do not flow from the government, > > governement is NECESSARY in order to exercise any rights. Because [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > The power seekers could simply be killed by the others. You have described what is actually the natural order. The order in which most of the world lives. Monarchy, Oligarchy, Dictatorship - that is the natural order. The order in which there are no inherent rights, except to those at the very top. Which implies that the rights are not inherent. > There are many > mechanisms one could devise to protect the excerise of rights. Some are > more effective or more practical than others. The one we have works better than the alternatives seen thus far. But it was set up to do it. > > If the previous paragraph is true, then whether rights are inherent or > > not is moot. > > If they weren't inherent government structure would be the grantor, not > the protector or the surpressor. No, it would not be. An agreement between the peoples governed is a possibility you do not include. E.P. >Logical fallacy: Reductio ad Absurdum. The reductio is a valid argument, not a fallacy. http://www.iep.utm.edu/r/reductio.htm SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. Your post is 778 lines. this is getting assinine. I'll trim to the basics. > And he's more qualified than you to INTERPRET the constitution, by > training and experience. I have a man who's qualifications trump any of those on the council of nine today who is in agreement with me. "To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy." - Thomas Jefferson <ed complains more about having the same things done back to him> >> Since we have them until someone places a boot on our neck, that would >> indicate they are inherent. > That's still circular reasoning. Thus, your statement has no validity. > You have to PROVE that rights are inherent. Merely claiming it doesn't > amount to proof, logical or empirical. I have two hands. They are inherent, I was born with them. I will have two hands even if they tied up together behind my back. > I'm just correcting your statement. My comments have no bearing on > whether or not I think health care is a right. But hey, 100 years ago, > if you were a woman, you didn't have the right to vote. Voting isn't an 'inherent' right. Voting is part of the system of government. You have been vastly confused by poor language where people call all sorts of things 'rights'. One could be able to exercise all inherent rights and live in a dictatorship and there wouldn't be any voting. Inherent rights are independent of the system of government by definition. Yeah yeah I know, you'll blather 'circular reasoning' or some such again. Not my fault you can't understand. >> > There are those that do get something for nothing. But those folks get >> > something for nothing anyway. So it's a wash. >> You don't understand what a right is. Hint: It's not a right when one >> group of citizens has to pay for another group. > Sure it is. What do you think the military is all about? A small > group pays with blood for the majority's freedom. Our rights don't > maintain themselves, you know. The rights do. The ability to excerise them is another story. How the defense of the nation is accomplished is, like the system of government independent of inherent rights and may only have an effect on the ability to excerise them. >> When I did the same thing on purpose with the classifications >> of solider, citizen, and terrorist you went for the obvious implication. > And since you seemed to understand completely that they are arbitrary > in the face of inherent rights, I understood your implication, and that > you actually meant to imply it. Gamesmanship on your part, not mine. > Try again. You really don't like it when your own game is turned on you. <more of ed complaining about the games he started> > LOL. I have stated my premise from the very first post: rights are > not inherent; it is a rhetorical or philosophical construct. There is > no proof whatsoever, either logical or empirical, that states any right > is inherent. The logic is very simple. You have a head attached to your body. In that head you have a brain. Your brain is inherent. Your ability to excerise it however may denied by outside conditions or other people, but your brain is still inherently part of you even if a thuggish government may prevent you from excerising it. <more of ed declaring there is no proof> > I clearly do. It is you who seems to have a vague grasp of what a > right is. You clearly have no clue, since you think voting is an inherent right. It's not. > Somehow, all these rights exist out in the ether, and they > pop up from time to time. Like freedom for women to vote. Sometimes > they disappear. Like the freedom to drink ethanol. Ooops, here it is > back again. Or non-landowners to vote. Or non-whites. The freedom to > serve as many terms as POTUS as you had votes for was there, and oops, > now it's gone. See, you just don't get it. The people still have the right to consume whatever they want, the government's attempt to surpress that doesn't change it. In fact, in the case of "ethanol" the government failed miserably in it's attempt to surpress it. What a person ingests, is an inherent right. A system of voting is a construct of organization and is not an inherent right. The fact you can't tell the difference between these shows you don't have a grasp on the subject matter. > Speaking of the president thingy - I have to correct you. I didn't say > anyone had the right *to be* president. I said that the right to serve > as many terms as you could get elected for existed, and then didn't. > Those are not the same thing. See, you are deeply confused on what an inherent right is. We could have a king and be able to excerise all our inherent rights. The system of government, how it functions, who can hold office, who leads, who decides, etc and so forth is completely independent of inherent rights. There is no inherent right to be president as many times as one can be elected, it's not inherent, one wasn't born with it. President, elections, voting, etc are all constructs of people for government. Just because being elected president 12 times is denied doesn't mean the inherent right to speech doesn't exist. >> This funadmental >> hole in your education is the problem. We could all agree that we all >> have taxpayer funded ice cream on fridays and make an admendment, that >> doesn't make it right. > And yet, if the Ice Cream Friday Right amendment passed, there it would > be, enshrined in the constitution. So what? > Now tell me more about my > education. I'm very interested to hear how that scenario is "wrong" - > the provisions for doing just that thing exists within the constitution > itself. How can it be wrong if 67% of senators and 75% of states vote > for Ice Cream Fridays? Isn't it just like giving women the right to > vote? Both aren't inherent rights. See, you view the constitution incorrectly. The constitution (actually the second one for the USA) is to describe how government will be constructed along with protecting the inherent rights of the people from that government. To vote isn't an inherent right. It's part of the system of government, part of the protection of inherent rights. rinse and repeat. it's pointless to go on since you don't grasp this very basic thing. [Re: Ed Pierro's previous posting <1143938876.571762.87540@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>] > Your post is 778 lines. this is getting assinine. I'll say. I don't recall ever seeing a post that long in a text group. > [Re: Ed Pirrero's previous posting ... ^^^^^^^ Correction noted. Sorry about misspelling your last name in my previous post. > > > > to show that the rights are "self-evident", protected rather than > > > > granted by government. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I agree. It is the basis of our government. That does not remove the > philosophical issue. This isn't a philosophical issue. This is a political issue. And, as our nation's Founders based our Constitution on the premise that Rights are Inherent, and originate with the Individual, any political discussion of US Law, or the Constitutionality of Rights, will simply have to accept that premise. >>> The fact is this: whether or not the Founders wished to believe that >>> rights were innate (rather than a human invention), when the most [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Look in the paper today or yesterday for his commentary on detainee > rights. Are the detainees U.S. citizens? Were they born here? Cheers, Bama Brian Libertarian > > Look in the paper today or yesterday for his commentary on detainee > > rights. > > Are the detainees U.S. citizens? Were they born here? If rights ARE inherent, then they belong to every human, regardless of arbitrary classification. If rights ARE NOT inherent, then they can be denied to all non-citizens. Of course, there is the argument that only some rights are inherent. That opens the door to suggest that no rights are truly inherent. Maybe you have a fourth choice. Let's hear it. E.P. > > > > Flynn is not going to grasp that detail. Rights are not given, granted, > > > > flow from, or anything of the sort by the constitution/bill of rights. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > disagrees with you, an engineer, whose opinion really holds more > value? The fact is this: Whether Rights are innate, or a human invention, or both, is irrelivant as the premise of Rights is that they originate with the Individual. And, as this is the same primise our nation's Founders built our Constitution upon, in matters of US Law and the Constitutionality of Rights, the opinion of anyone who would disagree is worthless. Do you have evidence Antonin Scalia's opinions are worthless? > > to show that the rights are "self-evident", protected rather than > > granted by government. > > "Self-evident" is proof by assertion. An assertion, or a premise, that our nation's Founders built our Constitution upon, and therefore in matters of US Law and the Constitutionality of Rights, it is assumed that Rights originate with the Individual, and are protected rather than given by government. > Step back and look for some external proof that the rights > guaranteed under the USC are inherent. Regardless if there exists proof that Rights are inherent, being as our nation's Founders built our Constitution upon the primise that Rights originate with the Individual, and as our Constitution does guarantee those Rights, in matters of US Law and the Constitutionality of Rights, the existence, or the lack thereof, of proof that Rights are inherent is irrelivant. > If you can't find any, then that implies that the rights ARE NOT > inherent, If you can't find any, that only implies that you can't find any. I can't find any proof God exists, but that does not imply God doesn't exist. Others can't find any proof God doesn't exist, and that does not imply God does exist. > and subject to fools and tyrants redefining them as they see fit. Not as long as our Constitution is in force. >>>> Um, go and reread the discussion here. You don't know what you're >>>> replying to and have no apparent basic knowledge of sentence structure [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > philosophical assertion. As such, counter-assertions are equally > valid. You're headed into solipsism. Rights exist in the U.S. The Founding Fathers believed that they were given to man by God, and so are ours when we are born. Keeping the gummint - at all levels - from destroying rights is now the issue. Government should be the defender of rights but it is most certainly now the enemy of our rights. Cheers, Bama Brian Libertarian > >> Um, go and reread the discussion here. You don't know what you're > >> replying to and have no apparent basic knowledge of sentence structure [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > rights, that they come from 'the creator'. They are not granted by or > allowed by government. Truly, if you can't understand the discussion you should go back to warming the bench. You fail to grasp anything that's said to you that is outside your own seventh-grade civics class-level understanding. Brent vs. all the courts in the land. I like it. I want a front-row seat at SCOTUS when you go to argue for the abolishment of driver's licenses. It's not the Big Bearded Guy in the Robe up in the Clouds who gave you these rights. How about the guy who doesn't believe in that? Where did his come from? Where did yours come from if that Guy isn't up there? The fact is, we have agreed in this society that human beings have these inalienable rights. And there are many societies that not only didn't or don't recognize the dignity of humankind but actively war against it. And due to this belief, we have set up a system to preserve and protect those rights through the Constitution. Many rights have been further defined and protected through it - this is what I mean when I say rights have flowed from it. You commit the fallacy of equivocation when you ignore my meaning and apply your own, then shoot down your own instead of mine. > Truly, if you can't understand the discussion you should go back to > warming the bench. You fail to grasp anything that's said to you that > is outside your own seventh-grade civics class-level understanding. > Brent vs. all the courts in the land. I like it. I want a front-row > seat at SCOTUS when you go to argue for the abolishment of driver's > licenses. You still don't understand my arguement. Learn how to read. Please. > > Truly, if you can't understand the discussion you should go back to > > warming the bench. You fail to grasp anything that's said to you that [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > You still don't understand my arguement. Learn how to read. Please. Actually I think it's *you* who doesn't understand your argument. "It's not permission, it's not a right..." Having failed to firmly establish any of your points, your bravado rings hollow. If you'd learn to write, maybe so many others wouldn't have this problem you think we have with reading you. >> > Truly, if you can't understand the discussion you should go back to >> > warming the bench. You fail to grasp anything that's said to you that [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Actually I think it's *you* who doesn't understand your argument. > "It's not permission, it's not a right..." You are very much confused. I never wrote that. Sad. very sad. > >> > Truly, if you can't understand the discussion you should go back to > >> > warming the bench. You fail to grasp anything that's said to you that [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > You are very much confused. I never wrote that. Sad. very sad. You're delusional. Re-read some of your early posts. Now *that's* sad. No one knew what the heck you were saying, and you never clarified it. You: "Driving is not a priviledge.[sic] (that doesn't make it a right)" And you again: "Anyone with any degree of reading skills could grasp that I am not arguing driving is a right." All you ever say is what you think it isn't, and you never get around to saying what you think it is. Now that's what's sad, very sad. > > > > You seem to believe the use of a Horse and Buggy on our Public > > > > Highways is a Right, even though it's not spicifically stated so in [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > many of them today through legislation passed in accordance with the > Constitution. Voting Rights Act, abortion rights, etc. Flynn starts off his responce by issuing me a directive, and follows that with a Personal Assult, known as an Ad Hominem. Then, after all the dirty work is out of the way, he proceeds to re-assert what I already agreed with, as if that were the point of disagreement. This seems to be a ploy of those who would seek to assert something patently false, that being to mix a bit of truth with it. In that way, when the patently false point is challenged, they will proceed to defend the bit of truth, as though that makes the patently false point any more true. It was never in disagreement that we possess Rights which are not specifically stated in the Constitution. The point of disagreement is your statement that Rights "flow from the Constitution". Rights do not "flow from the Constitution", but instead originate from the Individual, who Inherently posses them, and who collectivly either delegate those Rights to, or prohibit those Rights from, government by way of the Constitution. > > > > > You seem to believe the use of a Horse and Buggy on our Public > > > > > Highways is a Right, even though it's not spicifically stated so in [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Flynn starts off his responce by issuing me a directive, and follows > that with a Personal Assult, known as an Ad Hominem. In retribution for the insults tossed at me. PKB, you know. It's a bitch. > Then, after all > the dirty work is out of the way, he proceeds to re-assert what I [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > collectivly either delegate those Rights to, or prohibit those Rights > from, government by way of the Constitution. I completely disagree; rights that later are specifically identified and protected through appeal to the broader enjoyments listed in the Constitution can indeed be said to have flowed from the Constitution's guarantees. Any further disagreement on this would be purely semantics. > > > > > > You seem to believe the use of a Horse and Buggy on our Public > > > > > > Highways is a Right, even though it's not spicifically stated so in [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > In retribution for the insults tossed at me. PKB, you know. It's a bitch. Flynn now claims to be the victim of insults which clearly are not present in this chain of responses. I do remember that Flynn has repeatedly accused me of not knowing what I'm replying to, and of lacking a basic knowledge of sentence structure and logic. I suppose this is where we are supposed to divert entirely from the issue and begin trying to determine who said what, and who said it first. But, instead, let's use this opportunity to more closely focus on the issue, discover what wasn't said, and possibly get Flynn to take an actual position. Specifically, Flynn, I would appreciate answers to the following questions: You made the argument in another post that: "We made it up to the automobile without requiring licensing to operate such potentially dangerous equipment because it presented no significant public safety issue until the auto." Where you say: "it presented no significant public safety issue", are you saying: "[the horse and buggy] presented no significant public safety issue"? Where you say: "until the auto", are you saying: "[we made it without requiring licensing] until the auto"? If so, are you implying that: ~The extraordinary nature of the automobile at it's onset made licensing necessary~? Do you believe Driving the Horse and Buggy is a Right? If so, why do you believe Driving the Horse and Buggy is a Right? Do you believe the Horse and Buggy is safer than today's Automobile? > > Then, after all the dirty work is out of the way, he proceeds to > > re-assert what I already agreed with, as if that were the point [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Constitution's guarantees. Any further disagreement on this would be > purely semantics. What may be semantics to you is a technical detail to myself, much like the question if a hatch on a space ship opens, are the occupants sucked out, or blown out, into space. When you say Rights "flow from" the Constitution, the word "from" technically implies that the Constitution is the source of Rights. Same as when one says "water flows from the faucet", as opposed to saying "water flows through the faucet". Clearly, the water does not originate at the faucet, as the former technically implies. > > > > > > > You seem to believe the use of a Horse and Buggy on our Public > > > > > > > Highways is a Right, even though it's not spicifically stated so in [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Flynn now claims to be the victim of insults which clearly are not > present in this chain of responses. I thought the blind could not get driver's licenses, Proffy. That fact that you repeat the offending practice demonstrates clearly that your are an unrepentant clod. > I do remember that Flynn has > repeatedly accused me of not knowing what I'm replying to, and of > lacking a basic knowledge of sentence structure and logic. Accuse you? No, I merely point them out. You accuse yourself by parading the offenses before the ng. > I suppose > this is where we are supposed to divert entirely from the issue and > begin trying to determine who said what, and who said it first. No, Proffy, you could just drop it and we could go back to being civil. But I don't back down from insults. Your continuing demeaning manner when in full knowledge of it is indictment enough. > But, > instead, let's use this opportunity to more closely focus on the issue, > discover what wasn't said, and possibly get Flynn to take an actual > position. Specifically, Flynn, I would appreciate answers to the > following questions: f.ck off, Proffy, with your game playing. Your implication that I haven't taken an "actual position" is patently absurd given the exchanges up to here, false bravado too given how thoroughly you've been deconstructed. It's just more brutish behavior on your part. > > > > > Um, go and reread the discussion here. You don't know what > > > > > you're replying to and have no apparent basic knowledge of [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Proffy. That fact that you repeat the offending practice demonstrates > clearly that your are an unrepentant clod. Then, after claiming to be the victim of insults which Flynn is quite unable to produce evidence of, Flynn then proceeds to become even more insulting. Flynn, you claim I've insulted you, and now I challenge you to produce a link to the evidence you aren't a Liar. > > I suppose this is where we are supposed to divert entirely from > > the issue and begin trying to determine who said what, and who [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > But I don't back down from insults. Your continuing demeaning manner > when in full knowledge of it is indictment enough. Again, provide links to the evidence you aren't a Bald Face Liar. > > But, instead, let's use this opportunity to more closely focus > > on the issue, discover what wasn't said, and possibly get Flynn > > to take an actual position. Specifically, Flynn, I would appreciate > > answers to the following questions: > > f.ck off, Proffy You are becoming quite offensive in your method of dodging questions. > > f.ck off, Proffy > > You are becoming quite offensive in your method of dodging questions. And you're *not*? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Don't make me go back and quote you. -- C.R. Krieger (Been there, done that) > > > f.ck off, Proffy > > > > You are becoming quite offensive in your method of dodging questions. > > And you're *not*? Do you accuse me of being offensive toward k_flynn in this thread? > BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Don't make me go back and quote you. If you are accusing me of being offensive toward k_flynn in this thread, provide a link to the evidence you aren't a liar. > > > > f.ck off, Proffy > > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Do you accuse me of being offensive toward k_flynn in this thread? Where did you read *that*, moron? > > BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Don't make me go back and quote you. > > If you are accusing me of being offensive toward k_flynn in this > thread, provide a link to the evidence you aren't a liar. Nice of you to recognize that 'if', which I am not. Are you *really* dumb enough to think you can suck me into an argument you just made up? I am, however, accusing you of being offensive to a substantial portion of those posting in this thread, including myself, and hypocritically accusing others of the same offense. If it's OK for *you* to do it, it surely must be alright for others to do it ... you idiot. -- C.R. Krieger > > > > > f.ck off, Proffy > > > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Where did you read *that*, moron? Now you become offensive. But, knowing you as I do, I would expect no less. > > > BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Don't make me go back and quote you. > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > accusing others of the same offense. If it's OK for *you* to do it, it > surely must be alright for others to do it ... you idiot. The, provide a link to the evidence that you too aren't a Bald Face Liar. > > I am, however, accusing you of being offensive to a substantial portion > > of those posting in this thread, including myself, and hypocritically [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > The, provide a link to the evidence that you too aren't a Bald Face > Liar. Let's start with this one: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.autos.driving/msg/a53500ea680804df?hl=en& -- C.R. Krieger (Insulted) > > > I am, however, accusing you of being offensive to a substantial > > > portion of those posting in this thread, including myself, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Let's start with this one: > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.autos.driving/msg/a53500ea680804df... That post is not from this thread. This thead was initiated on March 21, 2006, and that post was posted on Oct 5 2005. This is a deliberate attempt on your part to introduce evidence to something other than your accusation. And, even within that evidence, I refer to your initiation of hostilities toward myself. This is a long standing pattern of behavior for yourself, one of which I am growing quite bored. Don't expect me to respond to any more of your taunts, and you won't be disapointed when I don't. Bye. > > > > I am, however, accusing you of being offensive to a substantial > > > > portion of those posting in this thread, including myself, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > That post is not from this thread. This thead was initiated on March > 21, 2006, and that post was posted on Oct 5 2005. So what? If you're going to make up an argument on the spot, I get to play to the extent of the rules you allow - or those you forgot about. This is clearly within them. Would you prefer that I take a poll to see how many in this thread are offended by you? > This is a deliberate > attempt on your part to introduce evidence to something other than your > accusation. YOU were OFFENSIVE to ME. Simple enough. I need prove nothing else at this point. > And, even within that evidence, I refer to your initiation > of hostilities toward myself. "Aw, Mom! HE DID IT FIRST!" Whiner. -- You already know my real name ... > YOU were OFFENSIVE to ME. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Whiner. I'll respond to say this: Pot, Kettle, Black. Hahahahahahaha!!!!! > > > > > > Um, go and reread the discussion here. You don't know what > > > > > > you're replying to and have no apparent basic knowledge of [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Then, after claiming to be the victim of insults which Flynn is quite > unable to produce evidence of... You mean you didn't follow up on what I posted and go back to re-read your posts in this thread? It's there in black and white. And you repeat the insulting manner of address even after being fully cognizant. That is why I say you are an unrepentant clod, Proffy. If you were to return to civil discourse, all would be forgiven and forgotten. > Flynn, you claim I've insulted you, and now I challenge you > to produce a link to the evidence you aren't a Liar. You just produced your own proof in the last sentence, Proffy. So even if you're too lazy to go back and re-read the exchange, you have it here. > > > I suppose this is where we are supposed to divert entirely from > > > the issue and begin trying to determine who said what, and who [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Again, provide links to the evidence you aren't a Bald Face Liar. You look even sillier now than before. > > > But, instead, let's use this opportunity to more closely focus > > > on the issue, discover what wasn't said, and possibly get Flynn [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > You are becoming quite offensive in your method of dodging questions. I've never dodged a question until you became insulting. At that point your game-playing is transparent and not worthy of civil repsonse. > > I suppose this is where we are supposed to divert entirely from > > the issue and begin trying to determine who said what, and who [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > exchanges up to here, false bravado too given how thoroughly you've > been deconstructed. It's just more brutish behavior on your part. First Flynn issues me a vulgar directive, then he dodges my questions asking him to take a position by complaining that I've implied he hasn't taken a position. Interesting technique, Flynn. But, you didn't take a position on my questions. I'll make it easire for you, and not ask so many questions this time. Do you believe Driving the Horse and Buggy is a Right? If so, why do you believe Driving the Horse and Buggy is a Right? Do you believe the Horse and Buggy is safer than today's Automobile? > > > I suppose this is where we are supposed to divert entirely from > > > the issue and begin trying to determine who said what, and who [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > asking him to take a position by complaining that I've implied he > hasn't taken a position. Interesting technique, Flynn. Oh, it's so much more than merely interesting! It also has the distinct advantage of being true and accurate! I have taken clear positions, you dodge them, twist them and straw-man them into somewthing you can try to knock down, then in the end you propvide cites that actuallymake my case better than yours. This has been too easy. > But, you > didn't take a position on my questions. Becasue of your insulting demeanor in this particualr part of the thread, Porffy. Observe for example that in other sub-threads we appear to be coldly civil. I thought you would take the hint. > > > > I suppose this is where we are supposed to divert entirely from > > > > the issue and begin trying to determine who said what, and who [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > try to knock down, then in the end you propvide cites that actuallymake > my case better than yours. This has been too easy. You make no case, and you have no position, other than to state the status quo. You say things which equate to nothing more than: ~We currently are required to obtain licenses to drive the automobile on public highways.~ as though that is some great revelation. > > But, you didn't take a position on my questions. > > Becasue of your insulting demeanor in this particualr part of > the thread, Porffy. It is you who have, and continue to be, insulting and demeaning. Not me. > Observe for example that in other sub-threads we appear to > be coldly civil. I thought you would take the hint. Do you believe Driving the Horse and Buggy is a Right? If so, why do you believe Driving the Horse and Buggy is a Right? Do you believe the Horse and Buggy is safer than today's Automobile? > > > > > I suppose this is where we are supposed to divert entirely from > > > > > the issue and begin trying to determine who said what, and who [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > You make no case, and you have no position, other than to state the > status quo. Sez you. Don't let the fact that you're wrong about that deter you! Frankly I laid it all out and you just don't like the outcome. You're married to the notion that because we have the inalienable right to travel, that means we can't require licensing of heavy equipment on the roads - that this would be unconstitutional. Courts disagree with you, fortunately, as do I. > You say things which equate to nothing more than: ~We > currently are required to obtain licenses to drive the automobile on > public highways.~ as though that is some great revelation. No. Your reading comprehension deficit is showing again. Through the discussion I laid out the justification, from the rights to safety and public welfare, that there is a fully constitutional requirement to submit to licensing in order to pilot three-ton vehicles down the public thoroughfares. Because you wish the outcome to be different, you stamp your feet and mischaracterize my thorough explanations and justifications from the constitutional perspective. But that's the pitfall of your tactic - predetermined outcomes must exclude any rational discourse that leads astray from them. > > > But, you didn't take a position on my questions. > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > It is you who have, and continue to be, insulting and demeaning. Not > me. Uh-uh. Clearly evident in your posts. I respond to taunts, if you don't like it then don't taunt. In this post, you refrained, as have I. > > Observe for example that in other sub-threads we appear to > > be coldly civil. I thought you would take the hint. > > Do you believe Driving the Horse and Buggy is a Right? Of course. > If so, why do you believe Driving the Horse and Buggy is a Right? It is a way of getting around. Of course, it is subject to rulemaking and regulation when it comes to trying to take one out on an interstate - where it would properly be restricted. But take one out on US 30 in Lancaster PA, for instance. It's OK. > Do you believe the Horse and Buggy is safer than today's Automobile? No clue. > > Do you believe Driving the Horse and Buggy is a Right? > > Of course. Do you believe Driving the Horse and Buggy should be a Right? > > If so, why do you believe Driving the Horse and Buggy is a Right? > > It is a way of getting around. Driving the Automobile is also a way of getting aroung. Today, it is the "ordinary way" of using our public highways. The US Supreme Court ruled we have the Right to use our public highways in the ordinary way. I have provided evidence the Automobile today is 4 to 5 times safer than the Horse and Buggy. Do you agree that one need not obtain permission to exercise that which is a Right? > Of course, it is subject to rulemaking and regulation when it comes > to trying to take one out on an interstate - where it would properly be > restricted. But take one out on US 30 in Lancaster PA, for instance. > It's OK. Do you agree that no Right shall be abridged or denied, except by Due Process of Law? Do you agree that no State shall make or enforce any Laws that would convert a Right into a permission? > > Do you believe the Horse and Buggy is safer than today's Automobile? > > No clue. Have you forgoten the evidence I provided from the Chicago Library, with sources, that the Automobile is 4 to 5 times safer than Horse Drawn Vehicles? Surely that would be a clue. > > > Do you believe Driving the Horse and Buggy is a Right? > > > > Of course. > > Do you believe Driving the Horse and Buggy should be a Right? Of course. Don't you? > > > If so, why do you believe Driving the Horse and Buggy is a Right? > > > > It is a way of getting around. > > Driving the Automobile is also a way of getting aroung. Today, it is > the "ordinary way" of using our public highways. Yup, with a license of course being part of that ordinary way. > The US Supreme Court > ruled we have the Right to use our public highways in the ordinary way. Not really. It ruled in your citation that a NYC taxi company wasn't entitled to injunctive relief against onerous liability insurance regulations. One of its findings of fact in so doing was the obesrvation that people have a right to use the public highways in the ordinary way of traveling. Note that this makes no prohibition against the then-current practices of states licensing operators of motor vehicles. When that's been put to the test, courts have upheld it. No court has ruled amid all the challenges against licensing and registration, after considering all the issues, that it is unconstitutional. For you to maintain this in light of all the case law is nonsense to say the least. > I have provided evidence the Automobile today is 4 to 5 times safer > than the Horse and Buggy. See below. Your cite was about horse and buggy usage in a different era. Not comparable. You earlier criticized me for noting that your cite proved contemporary autos were far more dangerous than the horse and buggy was in the early part of the last century, which was indeed true. So I must call you out on your inconsistency. > Do you agree that one need not obtain permission to exercise that which > is a Right? Absolutely not. There are thousands of examples of rights that can be exercised but for which certain procedures must be followed. It keeps society from devolving into chaos. > > Of course, it is subject to rulemaking and regulation when it comes > > to trying to take one out on an interstate - where it would properly be [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Do you agree that no Right shall be abridged or denied, except by Due > Process of Law? Sure, and that's been applied. > Do you agree that no State shall make or enforce any Laws that would > convert a Right into a permission? I don't know what you mean by this. We already have plenty of such instances that have passed legal challenges. > > > Do you believe the Horse and Buggy is safer than today's Automobile? > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > with sources, that the Automobile is 4 to 5 times safer than Horse > Drawn Vehicles? Surely that would be a clue. Oops. You equivocate yet again. Your cite was that horse and buggy travel *then* was more dangerous that the auto *today.* This says nothing about whether horse and buggy travel today, as limited as it is and as different as it might be, is not as safe or safer in its usage *today* that the current trends in automobile carnage. You continue not to understand the impications of your own citations -- most of which have ended up supporting *my* end of the discussion or at least have failed to support you in the way you use them. > > > > Do you believe Driving the Horse and Buggy is a Right? > > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Of course. Don't you? I believe we have a Right to use our public right of ways, including public highways, in the "ordinary way" and in any "extraordinary way" which doesn't obstruct the "ordinary way", but that any "extraordinary way" which obstructs the "ordinary way" can and should be licensed or prohibited on that particular right of way. On public sidewalks, the "ordinary way" is of course by walking, and therefore we have the Right to walk on our public sidewalks. On less crowded sidewalks, extraordinary ways which do not obstruct walkers, such as biking, is also a Right. On more crowded sidewalks, extraordinary ways which do obstruct walkers, such as biking, should be prohibited. Extraordinary ways of using sidewalks which obstruct walkers, such as driving the automobile or driving the horse and buggy, should be prohibited. On public bike trails, the "ordinary way" is of course by biking, and therefore we have the Right to bike on our public bike trails. On less crowded bike trails, extraordinary ways which do not obstruct bikers, such as walking or horse back riding, is also a Right. On more crowded bike trails, extraordinary ways which do obstruct bikers, such as walking or horse back riding, should be prohibited. Extraordinary ways of using bike trails which obstruct bikers, such as driving the automobile or driving the horse and buggy, should be prohibited. On public highways, the "ordinary way" is of course by driving the automobile, and therefore we have the Right to drive the automobile on our public highways. On rarely used highways, extraordinary ways which do not obstruct automobiles, such as walking, is also a Right. On moderately crowded highways, extraordinary ways which obstruct automobiles, such as walking, should be prohibited. On any highways, extraordinary ways which do not obstruct automobiles, such as biking or driving the horse and buggy, is also a Right. On more crowded highways, extraordinary ways which obstruct automobiles, such as biking or driving the horse and buggy, should be prohibited. > > I have provided evidence the Automobile today is 4 to 5 times safer > > than the Horse and Buggy. > > See below. Your cite was about horse and buggy usage in a different > era. Not comparable. You might be right. Although the Horse and Buggy in it's day was 4 to 5 times more dangerous than the Automobile is today, I'd say the Horse and Buggy today would be 10 or more times more dangerous than the Automobile is today. But, of course, that would be hard to determine. > > Do you agree that one need not obtain permission to exercise that > > which is a Right? > > Absolutely not. There are thousands of examples of rights that can be > exercised but for which certain procedures must be followed. It keeps > society from devolving into chaos. Obtaining permission to do something, and having to follow certain procedures in doing that thing are two entirely different things. Either your reading skills are sorely lacking, or you are attempting to play disingenious word games. One does not need to obtain permission to exercise their Right of Liberty, but they must follow certain procedures in doing so, such as not trespassing. One does not need to obtain permission to drive certain scooters on public highways, but they must still follow certain procedures in doing so, such as driving on the right, and stopping at red lights and stop signs. One does not need to obtain permission to exercise that to which they have a Right. > > > > > Do you believe Driving the Horse and Buggy is a Right? > > > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > way" which obstructs the "ordinary way" can and should be licensed or > prohibited on that particular right of way. Which is a perfectly fine political position to have. But it is a political one, not a legal one. There is no basis in the law to say you have a right to use public rights of way in "ordinary" or "extraordinary, but nonobstructing" ways. > > I believe we have a Right to use our public right of ways, including > > public highways, in the "ordinary way" and in any "extraordinary way" [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > right to use public rights of way in "ordinary" or "extraordinary, but > nonobstructing" ways. "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 > > > I believe we have a Right to use our public right of ways, including > > > public highways, in the "ordinary way" and in any "extraordinary way" [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > public in the ordinary way." -- Packard v. Banton, 264 U.S. 140 (1924) > - http://laws.findlaw.com/us/264/140.html#144 It's pretty obvious that streets are primarily for their ordinary use. That's redundant. And in any event, just because that's what they're primarily used for doesn't mean you have a right to use them. Runways are primarily used by aircraft. But can you fly your private plane onto any runway you wish? Of course not. Besides, you've completely taken that passage out of context. Let's look at the sentences around the quote you provide: "If the state determines that the use of streets for private purposes in the usual and ordinary manner shall be preferred over their use by common carriers for hire, there is nothing in the Fourteenth Amendment to prevent. The streets belong to the public and are primarily for the use of the public in the ordinary way. Their use for the purposes of gain is special and extraordinary, and, generally at least, may be prohibited or conditioned as the Legislature deems proper." So from these three sentences, including one you quoted, we can see the following details which demonstrate there is no right to drive: 1) The state gets to determine the use of streets. It can't be a right if the state gets to decide how it is used; and 2) The Legislature can "prohibit or condition" that usage however it deems proper. Again, its not a right if the legislature can prohibit it, now is it? Besides, you're convoluting the act of driving - operating a motor vehicle - with the act of travelling on a public road. The right to travel does NOT equal the right to drive, regardless of how common or ordinary driving is. Besides, if you had a right to drive, the government would have to provide cars to people to exercise that right, wouldn't they? > > > > I believe we have a Right to use our public right of ways, including > > > > public highways, in the "ordinary way" and in any "extraordinary way" [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > deems proper. Again, its not a right if the legislature can prohibit > it, now is it? Their use for "special and extraordinary" purposes may be prohibited or conditioned... > Besides, you're convoluting the act of driving - operating a motor > vehicle - with the act of travelling on a public road. The right to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Besides, if you had a right to drive, the government would have to > provide cars to people to exercise that right, wouldn't they? Nonsense. You have the right to free speech, does that mean the government can make anything other than doing so with your mouth illegal, or if not, that they must *provide* the necessary to do it? 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." >>>> I believe we have a Right to use our public right of ways, including >>>> public highways, in the "ordinary way" and in any "extraordinary way" [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > That's redundant. And in any event, just because that's what they're > primarily used for doesn't mean you have a right to use them. You pay the taxes to get them built, you get to use them. If not, it's called tyranny. > Runways > are primarily used by aircraft. But can you fly your private plane onto > any runway you wish? Of course not. Bad example. Runways are actually tollways. The users of the runways pay rent to use them. > Besides, you've completely taken that passage out of context. Let's > look at the sentences around the quote you provide: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > deems proper. Again, its not a right if the legislature can prohibit > it, now is it? The legislature you're quoting did say, "The streets belong to the public and are primarily for the use of the public in the ordinary way." IOW, they are banning the use of the streets exclusively for private interests. Now if I were to go out and set up a roadblock on I85 North bound out of Atlanta, and start collecting tolls, just how long do you think it would take for the authorities to convince me of the error of my ways? But instead, I go buy a strip of land a hundred yards wide and a hundred miles long, running from south of Atlanta, to north of Atlanta (rich as Croesus, I is), and build a toll road there, will I be allowed to collect tolls? Now can the legislature tell me what type of traffic to allow on my road? > Besides, you're convoluting the act of driving - operating a motor > vehicle - with the act of travelling on a public road. The right to > travel does NOT equal the right to drive, regardless of how common or > ordinary driving is. Then how DO you travel in a township which has neither buses nor taxis, but does have roads? > Besides, if you had a right to drive, the government would have to > provide cars to people to exercise that right, wouldn't they? The right to drive, or right to travel, is NOT a right to own personal property. Different issue altogether. The right to drive is a subset of the right to travel. Since the right to travel is, indeed, a right, then we must have a method to do this. If we are barred from walking, riding horses, rollerskating, bicycling, and the like from the roads, then we are forced by the state to drive. That we are now licensed by the state to drive "in the ordinary way" means that we have no right to travel "in the ordinary way"; instead we are exercising a state granted privilege. Regardless of how the courts see it. Cheers, Bama Brian Libertarian > >>>> I believe we have a Right to use our public right of ways, including > >>>> public highways, in the "ordinary way" and in any "extraordinary way" [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > You pay the taxes to get them built, you get to use them. If not, it's > called tyranny. Reminds me of the time I heard someone try to resist arrest. "I pay your salary, so you work for me. I order you not to arrest me!" the person yelled at the police officer. "Well, then, I want a raise!" the officer responded, and proceeded to make the arrest. > > Runways > > are primarily used by aircraft. But can you fly your private plane onto > > any runway you wish? Of course not. > > Bad example. Runways are actually tollways. The users of the runways > pay rent to use them. Which sounds like alot of highways. > > Besides, you've completely taken that passage out of context. Let's > > look at the sentences around the quote you provide: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > The legislature you're quoting did say, "The streets belong to the > public and are primarily for the use of the public in the ordinary way." Of course they "belong" to the public. All publicly owned buildings and resources do. Does that mean you can do whatever you want in them? Or that anyone can use any government resource at any time for its "ordinary business"? Of course not. > IOW, they are banning the use of the streets exclusively for private > interests. Now if I were to go out and set up a roadblock on I85 North [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > to collect tolls? Now can the legislature tell me what type of traffic > to allow on my road? Was there a point to this? > > Besides, you're convoluting the act of driving - operating a motor > > vehicle - with the act of travelling on a public road. The right to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Then how DO you travel in a township which has neither buses nor taxis, > but does have roads? Well, for starters, you can walk. Or ride a bike. Skateboard. Scooter. Segway. Or be a passenger in someone else's car. "travelling" and "operating a motor vehicle" are still different things. > > Besides, if you had a right to drive, the government would have to > > provide cars to people to exercise that right, wouldn't they? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > The right to drive is a subset of the right to travel. No, it isn't. Since there is no right to drive, it can't be a subset of anything. > Since the right > to travel is, indeed, a right, then we must have a method to do this. Sure. Walk. The state can't prevent you from going somewhere. > If we are barred from walking, riding horses, rollerskating, bicycling, > and the like from the roads, then we are forced by the state to drive. You're not forced to drive. You're forced to be in a motor vehicle. Still, that's not even the point. Because you can travel without being on the roads. Walk. > That we are now licensed by the state to drive "in the ordinary way" > means that we have no right to travel "in the ordinary way"; instead we > are exercising a state granted privilege. Regardless of how the courts > see it. Regardless of how you see it. > Cheers, > Bama Brian > Libertarian > > > > > > I believe we have a Right to use our public right of ways, > > > > > > including public highways, in the "ordinary way" and in [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > person yelled at the police officer. "Well, then, I want a raise!" the > officer responded, and proceeded to make the arrest. Thinking that one is entitled to break laws because he pays taxes for the enforcement of those laws, and thinking that one is entitled to use public right of ways because he pays taxes for the maintenance of those right of ways are two entirely different things. > > > Besides, you've completely taken that passage out of context. Let's > > > look at the sentences around the quote you provide: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Of course they "belong" to the public. And, they are primarily for the use of the public in the ordinary way. > All publicly owned buildings and resources do. All publicly owned buildings and resources are not public right of ways. > Does that mean you can do whatever you want in them? Strawman. Nobody is suggesting we can do with public right of ways whatever we want. We are only suggesting we have the Right to use public right of ways for personal travel in the ordinary way. > Or that anyone can use any government resource at any time for > its "ordinary business"? Of course not. All government resources are not public right of ways. > > > Besides, if you had a right to drive, the government would have to > > > provide cars to people to exercise that right, wouldn't they? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > No, it isn't. Since there is no right to drive, it can't be a subset of > anything. States are fond of saying "Driving is a Privilege". Guess what. A Privilege IS a Right. privilege - 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 Using US public highways is a "privilege" of those holding the position of being a US citizen. In other words, for US citizens, the use of US public highways is a Right. The 14th Amendment also refers to "privileges" as Rights, which may not be denied except 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 United States Constitution > > If we are barred from walking, riding horses, rollerskating, bicycling, > > and the like from the roads, then we are forced by the state to drive. > > You're not forced to drive. You're forced to be in a motor vehicle. > Still, that's not even the point. Because you can travel without being > on the roads. Walk. We have the Right to use our public highways. If every method of transit except the Automobile is prohibited on a certain highway, but driving is assumed to be a state given permission, then our Right to use that particular highway has effectivly been abridged. Yea yea! I know, you're going to say: "Take a bus, or a taxi". Well, Taking a bus or a taxi is not Traveling at one's own inclination, but instead is being Transported at the inclination of the transporter. We have the Right to Travel when and where we choose at our own inclination. We DO NOT have a Right to be Transported, because we do not have the Right to obligate others to provide us with Transportation against their Inclination. > > That we are now licensed by the state to drive "in the ordinary way" > > means that we have no right to travel "in the ordinary way"; instead we > > are exercising a state granted privilege. Regardless of how the courts > > see it. > > Regardless of how you see it. Regardless of how you see it. > > > > I believe we have a Right to use our public right of ways, > > > > including public highways, in the "ordinary way" and in any [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > That's redundant. And in any event, just because that's what they're > primarily used for doesn't mean you have a right to use them. You left out "the public". The streets belong to the public and are primarily for the use of the public in the ordinary way. > Runways are primarily used by aircraft. But can you fly your private > plane onto any runway you wish? Of course not. Runways, that I know of, aren't public right of ways, but instead are private property. > Besides, you've completely taken that passage out of context. > Let's look at the sentences around the quote you provide: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > deems proper. Again, its not a right if the legislature can prohibit > it, now is it? The only thing the addition of those two sentences do is give the state the power to license or prohibit COMMERCIAL use of our public highways, which, it says in both sentences, is still primarily for the use of the public. "If the state determines that the use of streets for private purposes in the usual and ordinary manner shall be preferred over their use by common carriers for hire, there is nothing in the Fourteenth Amendment to prevent." The phrase "private purposes" refers to the public, and the phrase "common carriers for hire" refers to commercial use. All that sentence is saying is that there is nothing in the Fourteenth Amendment to prevent the state from prefering public use of the streets over commercial use. "Their use for the purposes of gain is special and extraordinary, and, generally at least, may be prohibited or conditioned as the Legislature deems proper." And, in this sentence, the phrase "purposes of gain" is again refering to Commercial use, and it is merely saying such commercial use may be prohibited or conditioned. Nothing in that sentence suggests the state may prohibit or condition the use of the streets by the public. > Besides, you're convoluting the act of driving - operating a motor > vehicle - with the act of travelling on a public road. The right to > travel does NOT equal the right to drive, regardless of how common > or ordinary driving is. I convoluted nothing. I merely quoted the US Supreme Court. They state that we have the Right to use our public highways in the ordinary way. Rather, you see the obvious conclusion of that sentence, and for what ever reasons, you wish to seperate the "ordinary way" we use our public highways from what ever that "ordinary way" may be. > Besides, if you had a right to drive, the government would have > to provide cars to people to exercise that right, wouldn't they? This is an absurd argument. I have the Right to the press. Does this mean the government has to provide me with the equipment to produce a news paper? No. I have the Right to write a book. Does this mean the government has to provide me with pen and paper? No. I have the Right to speech. Does this mean that if I have no vocal cords the government must supply me some? No. I have the right to walk. Does this mean that if I have no legs the government must supply me with some? No. > > > > > I believe we have a Right to use our public right of ways, > > > > > including public highways, in the "ordinary way" and in any [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > You left out "the public". The streets belong to the public and are > primarily for the use of the public in the ordinary way. Welcome to the Department of Redundancy Department. Word soup. Gibberish. There is absolutely nothing of legal significance in that sentence. > > Runways are primarily used by aircraft. But can you fly your private > > plane onto any runway you wish? Of course not. > > Runways, that I know of, aren't public right of ways, but instead are > private property. Then you don't know of alot of runways. Very few major airports are privately owned. > > Besides, you've completely taken that passage out of context. > > Let's look at the sentences around the quote you provide: [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > what ever reasons, you wish to seperate the "ordinary way" we use our > public highways from what ever that "ordinary way" may be. Then how come SCOTUS - or any court, for that matter - has declared driver's licenses or any rules/regulations of the road unconstitutional? > > Besides, if you had a right to drive, the government would have > > to provide cars to people to exercise that right, wouldn't they? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > must supply me some? No. I have the right to walk. Does this mean > that if I have no legs the government must supply me with some? No. > > > > > > I believe we have a Right to use our public right of ways, > > > > > > including public highways, in the "ordinary way" and in [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > soup. Gibberish. There is absolutely nothing of legal significance > in that sentence. The gibberish here is your responce. > > > Runways are primarily used by aircraft. But can you fly your > > > private plane onto any runway you wish? Of course not. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Then you don't know of alot of runways. Very few major airports > are privately owned. Are runways public right of ways on which one, if they so choose, may take a stroll? And, corporately owned property is still private property. > > > > > > > I believe we have a Right to use our public right of ways, > > > > > > > including public highways, in the "ordinary way" and in [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > The gibberish here is your responce. I happen to be an attorney. What's your legal training or experience? > > > > Runways are primarily used by aircraft. But can you fly your > > > > private plane onto any runway you wish? Of course not. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Are runways public right of ways on which one, if they so choose, may > take a stroll? So there are only public rights of way in areas where the government lets people have a right of way? Hardly sounds like a right! > And, corporately owned property is still private property. True, but I'm not talking about corporately owned property. Just about every major airport in the country is publicly owned. > > > > > > > > I believe we have a Right to use our public right of ways, > > > > > > > > including public highways, in the "ordinary way" and in [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > I happen to be an attorney. What's your legal training or experience? Hahahahahaha!!! Another plea to Authority. Cease with the self adulation. I'm not here to debate my impression of yourself, nor am I here to debate your impression of myself. And, I'm definately not here to debate your impression of yourself. Hahahahahahaha!!!! > > > > > Runways are primarily used by aircraft. But can you fly your > > > > > private plane onto any runway you wish? Of course not. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > So there are only public rights of way in areas where the government > lets people have a right of way? Hardly sounds like a right! If it's not a public right of way, it's not a public right of way, and the public doesn't have the right to use that way. If it is a public right of way, it is a public right of way, and the public does have a right to use that way. Sounds like a Right to me. > > And, corporately owned property is still private property. > > True, but I'm not talking about corporately owned property. Just > about every major airport in the country is publicly owned. The mayor's office is a public facility, but it is not a public right of way through which the public has a Right to stroll at it's leasure. Duh!!! We are speaking of Public Right of Ways here. > > I happen to be an attorney. What's your legal training or experience? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > definately not here to debate your impression of yourself. > Hahahahahahaha!!!! You're plainly not here to debate anything. > > > > > > Runways are primarily used by aircraft. But can you fly your > > > > > > private plane onto any runway you wish? Of course not. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > right of way, it is a public right of way, and the public does have a > right to use that way. Sounds like a Right to me. Sounds to the rest of us that you have no idea what a "right of way" means. > > > And, corporately owned property is still private property. > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > of way through which the public has a Right to stroll at it's leasure. > Duh!!! But why not? It's an office building, and office buildings are used in "their ordinary way" by people doing work. So why can't I go to the mayor's office and do my work? > We are speaking of Public Right of Ways here. No, we're speaking of roads using extralegal definitions and regulations that you think apply to roads and nothing else. > > > So there are only public rights of way in areas where the > > > government lets people have a right of way? Hardly sounds [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Sounds to the rest of us that You can only speak for yourself. Quit trying to play to the audience. > you have no idea what a "right of way" means. I said: "If it is a public right of way, it is a public right of way, and the public does have a right to use that way." right of way 1: an easement or servitude over another's land conferring a right of passage 2 a: the area over which a right of way exists b: the strip of land over which is built a public road c: the land occupied by a railroad esp. for its main line d: the land used by a public utility (as for a transmission line) 3 a: a precedence in passing accorded to one vehicle over another by custom, decision, or statute b: the right of traffic to take precedence Sounds like I knew exactly what I was talking about. > > > > And, corporately owned property is still private property. > > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > But why not? Ah,,, well,,, Hmmmm,,, because it's NOT a Public Right of Way. > It's an office building, and office buildings are used in "their > ordinary way" by people doing work. It's the Mayor's Office, which are used in "their ordinary way" by the Mayor doing their work. It's not a Public Library. > So why can't I go to the mayor's office and do my work? Are you the Mayor? Your line of questioning is absurd. > > I believe we have a Right to use our public right of ways, including > > public highways, in the "ordinary way" and in any "extraordinary way" [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > have a right to use public rights of way in "ordinary" or > "extraordinary, but nonobstructing" ways. "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 > > > I believe we have a Right to use our public right of ways, including > > > public highways, in the "ordinary way" and in any "extraordinary way" [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > public in the ordinary way." -- Packard v. Banton, 264 U.S. 140 (1924) > - http://laws.findlaw.com/us/264/140.html#144 You parade this citation around as though it actually suports your position that licensing of motor vehicle operators is not constitutional. But the cite does nothing of the sort. The statement you quote was not the ruling of SCOTUS in Packard but rather was a statement made in the process of reaching the ruling, that a taxi company wasn't entitled to an injunction against high liability insurance NYC was demanding. The ruling contains no argument about licensing, nor does it define "use" in the "ordinary way" in a manner that would have invalidated public controls over that usage in such ordinary way -- a system of which licensing is a legal part. Further proof of this is the fact that this same court that made the above statement has also never ever ruled in the many legal challenges brought by kooks against driver licensing that it is unconstitutional. > > > > I believe we have a Right to use our public right of ways, > > > > including public highways, in the "ordinary way" and in any [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > position that licensing of motor vehicle operators is not > constitutional. It supports my position that we have the Right to use our public highways for personal travel in the ordinary way. It just happens to be, by definition, that one does not need to seek permission to do that that is already within their Rights. It also happens to be that states are forbidden, by the 14th Amendment, from making or enforcing any laws that would attempt to convert a Right into a permission. > The statement you quote was not the ruling of SCOTUS in > Packard but rather was a statement made in the process of > reaching the ruling, that a taxi company wasn't entitled to an > injunction against high liability insurance NYC was demanding. The ruling as a while establishes a preference for the public use over the commercial use of our public highways, and in doing so the ruling establishes the Right of the public to use our public highways in the ordinary way, and the power of the state to prohibit or condition the commercial use of our public highways. > The ruling contains no argument about licensing, It doesn't have to. Once a Right is established, it is assumed that one need not ask for permission to exercise that Right. The ruling establishes the Right of the public to use our public highways for personal travel in the ordinary way. Therefore, the public need not seek permission to do that that is already within their Rights. > nor does it define "use" in the "ordinary way" in a manner that would > have invalidated public controls over that usage in such ordinary way Correct. Nothing in the ruling invalidates the power of the state to Regulate how we exercise our Right to use our public highways in the ordinary way, so long as such regulations do not presume to convert the Right into a permission. Even having the Right to use our public highways for personal travel in the ordinary way, we must still abide by regulations, such as having to stop at stop signs, and can be brought up on charges for not doing so, and we must still drive on the right, and can be brought up on charges for doing otherwise. But, no such regulation shall presume to convert the primary Right into a permission. Just as in the exercise of our Right to Liberty, there are Regulations that we must abide by, such as those against Trespass, for which we can be brought up on charges. But, it is well understood that no Regulations upon our Right of Liberty may presume to convert this Right into a permission, such as the Licensing our Right to Liberty. The 14th Amendment invalidates any presumption by the state to convert a Right into a permission by the enforcement or creation of any laws. > -- a system of which licensing is a legal part. Back to your circular argument again: ~Licensing can be required because licensing is required~ Hahahahahahaha I realize you'll deny that's what you're saying, but that is what you're saying none the less. This is a Regulation that would presume to convert our Right to use the public highways for personal travel in the ordinary way into a state granted permission by Licensing our use of the public highways for personal travel in the ordinary way, and such a conversion is prohibited by the 14th Amendment. > > > "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. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > It supports my position that we have the Right to use our public > highways for personal travel in the ordinary way. Yep, and that way has ordinarily been with a system of licensing. > It just happens to be, by definition, that one does not need to seek > permission to do that that is already within their Rights. Give us the citation for that definition in this context then, and maybe account for why no court has ever seen it that way. If you're simply using a Webster dictionary definition, you have to realize that's not how case law works. > It also happens to be that states are forbidden, by the 14th Amendment, > from making or enforcing any laws that would attempt to convert a Right > into a permission. Really? Fanciful interpretation of the 14th Amendment, I'd say. Just where is that invisible sentence? It sounds like you're referencing the prohibition on states' abridgement of "privileges and immunities," which isn't the same thing. > > The statement you quote was not the ruling of SCOTUS in > > Packard but rather was a statement made in the process of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > ordinary way, and the power of the state to prohibit or condition the > commercial use of our public highways. OK. And again, none of that supports your spurious claim that this ruling somehow makes it unconstitutional for states to require motor vehicle operators on thepublic rights of way to be licensed. In fact, quite the contrary, if that had been the intenr then all states' licensing laws would haev been struck down 80 years ago. > > The ruling contains no argument about licensing, > > It doesn't have to. Once a Right is established, it is assumed that > one need not ask for permission to exercise that Right. By what authority is that false assumption made? > The ruling > establishes the Right of the public to use our public highways for > personal travel in the ordinary way. Therefore, the public need not > seek permission to do that that is already within their Rights. Wrong. Try that next time you want to have a picnic in a public park pavilion that already has been reserved by some church group. > > nor does it define "use" in the "ordinary way" in a manner that would > > have invalidated public controls over that usage in such ordinary way [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > ordinary way, so long as such regulations do not presume to convert the > Right into a permission. There is no basis int hat ruling or case law for you to make such an illogical leap as that. > Even having the Right to use our public highways for personal travel in > the ordinary way, we must still abide by regulations, such as having to > stop at stop signs, and can be brought up on charges for not doing so, > and we must still drive on the right, and can be brought up on charges > for doing otherwise. Not according to your argumentation. > But, no such regulation shall presume to convert > the primary Right into a permission. Hmmm. Now you're constructing a hierarchy of rights, some of which are more right-ful than others. > Just as in the exercise of our Right to Liberty, there are Regulations > that we must abide by, such as those against Trespass, for which we can [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 14th Amendment invalidates any presumption by the state to convert a > Right into a permission by the enforcement or creation of any laws. Again, this is not the accepted interpretation, even by your own cite. > > -- a system of which licensing is a legal part. > > Back to your circular argument again: I already disproved that fallacious argument of yours elsewhere. > ~Licensing can be required > because licensing is required~ Hahahahahahaha I realize you'll deny > that's what you're saying, Only because it is true that that is not what I was saying! > but that is what you're saying none the > less. No. you're wrong, as I proved. > This is a Regulation that would presume to convert our Right to use the > public highways for personal travel in the ordinary way into a state > granted permission by Licensing our use of the public highways for > personal travel in the ordinary way, and such a conversion is > prohibited by the 14th Amendment. Incorrect. Even at the time of the SCOTUS case (which was not a *ruling* on the public right to travel, BTW), states required licensure. This is SCOTUS affirmation of the status quo at the time. The ordinary way of highway usage at the time included licensure of private operators of motor vehices. That was the orindary way then, as it is now. > > > > "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. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Yep, and that way has ordinarily been with a system of licensing. Again, you return to your circular argument. Given: M = "the massive level of VMT in this nation" and C = "the continued licensing of operators" you are stated: "Factors such as M justify C". Given O = "the ordinary way we use our public highways", then clearly: M = O, and you are saying: "Factors such as O justify C". Given: L = "the licensed operation of a motor vehicle", and your assertion (to which I disagree) that: L = O, you are saying: "Factors such as L justify C". Therefore, expanded, you are saying: ~Factors such as the licensed operation of a motor vehicle justify the continued licensing of operators~ And, that is still circular reasoning. > > It just happens to be, by definition, that one does not need to > > seek permission to do that that is already within their Rights. > > Give us the citation for that definition in this context then, and > maybe account for why no court has ever seen it that way. Do you contend that one may be required to obtain permission to do that that is already within their Rights? > > It also happens to be that states are forbidden, by the 14th Amendment, > > from making or enforcing any laws that would attempt to convert a Right [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > prohibition on states' abridgement of "privileges and immunities," > which isn't the same thing. Do you contend that one may be required to obtain permission to do that that is already within their Rights? > > > The statement you quote was not the ruling of SCOTUS in > > > Packard but rather was a statement made in the process of [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > ruling somehow makes it unconstitutional for states to require motor > vehicle operators on thepublic rights of way to be licensed. Do you contend that one may be required to obtain permission to do that that is already within their Rights? > > > The ruling contains no argument about licensing, > > > > It doesn't have to. Once a Right is established, it is assumed that > > one need not ask for permission to exercise that Right. > > By what authority is that false assumption made? Do you contend that one may be required to obtain permission to do that that is already within their Rights? > > The ruling establishes the Right of the public to use our public > > highways for personal travel in the ordinary way. Therefore, the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Wrong. Try that next time you want to have a picnic in a public park > pavilion that already has been reserved by some church group. Your analogy doesn't compare. Your analogy of the park pavilion pits one activity against a different activity, where it is assumed one or the other must give way. When I speak of using our public highways for personal travel in the ordinary way, it is not a case of one or the other. Although, having to obtain reservation to a park pavilion might analogize to having to obtain reservation to the Right of Way at highway intersections by a Green Light. These are those Regulations as to the use of such public facilities we have spoken of a number of times. Still, none of these Regulations may presume to convert the Right to use the park pavilion, or the public highways, into a state granted permission via Licensing. Obtaining a reservation to a park pavilion does not equate to having to obtain a License to use park pavilions altogether, no more than obtaining a reservation to the Right of Way at highway intersections by a Green Light equates to having to obtain a License to use our public highways altogether. Even pedestrians must wait for a "Walk" light before crossing as such regulated intersections, but that does not equate to them needing to obtain a License to walk. And, scooters must wait for a Green Light before proceeding across such regulated intersections, but that does not equate to them needing to obtain a License to use scooters. > > > nor does it define "use" in the "ordinary way" in a manner that would > > > have invalidated public controls over that usage in such ordinary way [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > There is no basis int hat ruling or case law for you to make such an > illogical leap as that. Do you contend that one may be required to obtain permission to do that that is already within their Rights? > > Even having the Right to use our public highways for personal travel in > > the ordinary way, we must still abide by regulations, such as having to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Not according to your argumentation. How can my argument not be my argument??? > > Just as in the exercise of our Right to Liberty, there are Regulations > > that we must abide by, such as those against Trespass, for which we can [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Again, this is not the accepted interpretation, even by your own cite. Do you contend that one may be required to obtain permission to do that that is already within their Rights? > > > -- a system of which licensing is a legal part. > > > > Back to your circular argument again: > > I already disproved that fallacious argument of yours elsewhere. You did nothing of the sort. > > ~Licensing can be required > > because licensing is required~ Hahahahahahaha I realize you'll deny > > that's what you're saying, > > Only because it is true that that is not what I was saying! I have demonstrated twice now that you did. > > but that is what you're saying none the > > less. > > No. you're wrong, as I proved. You have done nothing of the sort. > > > > > I believe we have a Right to use our public right of ways, > > > > > including public highways, in the "ordinary way" and in any [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > It supports my position that we have the Right to use our public > highways for personal travel in the ordinary way. But a state can close a road anytime they want, right? So that hardly seems to be a right. You're saying that the state has the prerogative, but not the obligation, to build roads. And while those roads exist, people have the "right" to use them for their "ordinary purpose." But the government can take away that "right" at any time by closing the road. This isn't a right at all. > It just happens to be, by definition, that one does not need to seek > permission to do that that is already within their Rights. Well, if the state can close the road at any time, it's not really a right at all. Its something the state lets you do. Kind of like, oh, I don't know, a privilege. Wait - come to think of it, that's exactly what the courts have called it. > It also happens to be that states are forbidden, by the 14th Amendment, > from making or enforcing any laws that would attempt to convert a Right > into a permission. Well, you need permission to drive on a public road, and courts have upheld those laws. Therefore, by your own argument, driving isn't a right. Compare this to traveling. The state can't convert the right to travel into something you need permission for. You don't need state approval to buy a bus ticket, or get into someone's car, or anything like that. You can travel - go from point A to point B - without acquiring permission. But you can't operate a motor vehicle without a license. > > > > > > I believe we have a Right to use our public right of ways, > > > > > > including public highways, in the "ordinary way" and in any [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > But a state can close a road anytime they want, right? So that hardly > seems to be a right. Closing a road for all public traffic, and requiring one to obtain permission to exercise their Right to use open public highways are two different things. > You're saying that the state has the prerogative, but not the > obligation, to build roads. I've never said any such thing, nor have I agreed or disagreed to any such thing. > And while those roads exist, people have the "right" to use them > for their "ordinary purpose." Wrong. We have the Right to use our open public highways for personal travel in the "ordinary way". > But the government can take away that "right" at any time by closing > the road. This isn't a right at all. The government can close a particular highway, but they can't take away our Right to use our open public highways for personal travel in the "ordinary way", except by Due Process of Law. And, in the closing of certain highways, the government must provide other right of ways for those effected to use. The government can not leave people land locked. > > It just happens to be, by definition, that one does not need to seek > > permission to do that that is already within their Rights. > > Well, if the state can close the road at any time, it's not really a > right at all. The government can close a particular highway, but they can't take away our Right to use our open public highways for personal travel in the "ordinary way", except by Due Process of Law. And, in the closing of certain highways, the government must provide other right of ways for those effected to use. The government can not leave people land locked. > Its something the state lets you do. States are required to provide Right of Ways in order that it's citizens may freely travel to their state and federal capatols in order to redress government. This isn't a thing states let you do, it is a thing states are required to do. > > It also happens to be that states are forbidden, by the 14th Amendment, > > from making or enforcing any laws that would attempt to convert a Right > > into a permission. > > Well, you need permission to drive on a public road, Circular argument. > and courts have upheld those laws. Therefore, by your own argument, > driving isn't a right. No, that's your argument, not mine. > Compare this to traveling. The state can't convert the right to travel > into something you need permission for. You don't need state approval > to buy a bus ticket, or get into someone's car, or anything like that. > You can travel - go from point A to point B - without acquiring > permission. None of these examples are Travel at one's own inclination, but instead are examples of being Transported at the inclination of another. We have a Right to Travel at our own inclination, and we have the Right to use our public highways for personal travel in the ordinary way. But, nobody has a Right to be Transported, as that would obligate others to Transport you. > But you can't operate a motor vehicle without a license. Circular argument. > > > > > > > I believe we have a Right to use our public right of ways, > > > > > > > including public highways, in the "ordinary way" and in any [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > permission to exercise their Right to use open public highways are two > different things. No, it isn't. In both case, someone is being denied their supposed "right" to use the road in its "ordinary way." > > You're saying that the state has the prerogative, but not the > > obligation, to build roads. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > those effected to use. The government can not leave people land > locked. Ummm, do you know geography? We don't have any bridges that span oceans. So we're all landlocked in a sense, if you only consider roads and motor vehicles. In any event, the government certainly CAN leave someone roadless if they want. Your town or city could tear up the main street in your town if they want to and replace it with a park, leaving all the homeowners there with no road to drive on. Sure, there might be lawsuits over it, but not because of the government's "obligation" not to leave people land-locked. Thanks for mentioning that. It gave me a good laugh. > > > It just happens to be, by definition, that one does not need to seek > > > permission to do that that is already within their Rights. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > those effected to use. The government can not leave people land > locked. Sure they can. > > Its something the state lets you do. > > States are required to provide Right of Ways in order that it's > citizens may freely travel to their state and federal capatols in order > to redress government. This isn't a thing states let you do, it is a > thing states are required to do. States are not required to provide roadways that go from any one point to another. And you can't show one statute, judicial decision, or constitutional provision that says otherwise. > > > It also happens to be that states are forbidden, by the 14th Amendment, > > > from making or enforcing any laws that would attempt to convert a Right [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Circular argument. How is this a circular argument? It's not even an argument - its a statement. > > and courts have upheld those laws. Therefore, by your own argument, > > driving isn't a right. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > nobody has a Right to be Transported, as that would obligate others to > Transport you. Actually, and this is the second thing that you've said to make me laugh, you have this 100% absolutely, completely backwards. There is no "right to be transported at your own inclination." Again, you won't find a single statute, decision, or constitutional provision in this history of the nation that says this. But there IS a "right to be transported by others." If someone is a common carrier - Greyhound, Amtrak, American Airlines, etc., then you have a right to be transported by them if you follow their rules. You can't be denied transport because of your race, for example. > > But you can't operate a motor vehicle without a license. > > Circular argument. Not an argument - a statement of fact. You really can't see how the right to travel and the act of driving a car are different? What happens in 50 years when hovercraft becomes the standard mode of travel? Do we then all have the right to hover on public roadways? > > > > > You parade this citation around as though it actually suports > > > > > your position that licensing of motor vehicle operators is not [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > No, it isn't. In both case, someone is being denied their supposed > "right" to use the road in its "ordinary way." Wrong. In the first case, EVERYONE is being denied access to a road that is no longer open to the public. In the second case, ONE is being denied access to a road that is open to the public. The first is equal sufferage. The latter is not. > > > But the government can take away that "right" at any time by closing > > > the road. This isn't a right at all. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Ummm, do you know geography? Don't ask me questions intended to imply ignorance. I consider such questions as nothing more than veiled Ad Hominems. > We don't have any bridges that span oceans. You can from your home reach the ports via Right of Ways without having to trespass upon another's private property. Regardless, I am speaking of matters internal to the United States. > So we're all landlocked in a sense, if you only consider roads > and motor vehicles. In any event, the government certainly CAN [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > drive on. Sure, there might be lawsuits over it, but not because > of the government's "obligation" not to leave people land-locked. Hog Wash. I lived on a farm which had no highway frontage. The road that use to go to the farm was closed to through traffic, where the land most of that road occupied was turned back over to our farm, and to the farms surrounding us. But, the government was required by law to continue to maintain the portion of that road which provided us with access to other public right of ways. They were required by law not to leave our farm landlocked, having no way but to trespass to reach a right of way. And, they were required to law to continue to maintain that road for us. Many times, they tried to GIVE the road to us, so they would no longer have to maintain it, even offering to blacktop it before giving it to us. But, we refused to take the road, and they continued to have to maintain it for us, and still do till today. So, don't try to feed me any of your hog wash. Additionally, one can not sell a portion of their land with no right of way access. They are required by law to provide a right of way access to any portions of their land they might sell. Regardless, you are getting so far off issue, it's laughable. > > > Its something the state lets you do. > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > States are not required to provide roadways that go from any one > point to another. I didn't say "roadways". I said "Right of Ways". There is a difference. > > > Compare this to traveling. The state can't convert the right > > > to travel into something you need permission for. You don't [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Again, you won't find a single statute, decision, or constitutional > provision in this history of the nation that says this. That is what I was saying. > But there IS a "right to be transported by others." If someone is a > common carrier - Greyhound, Amtrak, American Airlines, etc., then > you have a right to be transported by them if you follow their rules. > You can't be denied transport because of your race, for example. "if you follow their rules" AKA No Longer are you Traveling at your own Inclination. You are being transported at their inclination. I am speaking of our Right to Travel at our own Inclination. Therefore, Bus lines, taxis, airlines, etc are Irrelivant. > > > But you can't operate a motor vehicle without a license. > > > > Circular argument. > > Not an argument - a statement of fact. Well, I'm here to hear arguments, not to have the status quo preached at me. > You really can't see how the right to travel and the act of driving > a car are different? Did I claim I was unable to see how the Right to Travel and the Act of Driving an Automobile was different? No, I didn't. Have you asked me any questions relating to this? No, you haven't. Travel is a set containing numerous methods, among those being crawling, walking, hopping, swimming, flying, skipping, biking, riding, and driving. Driving is different from Travel in that Driving is not a set containing the methods crawling, walking, hopping, swimming, skipping, or riding, where Travel is a set containing those methods. I am well aware there are other methods of Travel than only Driving. I am also aware that not only do we have express Rights, but that we also have Implied Rights, such that an express Right includes all of it's Implied Rights. And, I am also aware that we have more than a simple, express, Right to Travel. We have the Right to personal travel on our public highways at our own inclination. We have the Right of Transit ordinarily used for personal travel on our public highways. And, we have the Right to use our public highways for personal travel in the ordinary way. These are all agreed by the US Supreme Court as being Implied Rights of our Right of Liberty. My primary basis of argumentation in this thread is that: We have the Right to use our public highways for personal travel in the ordinary way. > What happens in 50 years when hovercraft becomes the > standard mode of travel? Do we then all have the right to > hover on public roadways? We have the Right to use our public highways for personal travel in the ordinary way. What ever that ordinary way might be at any given time. Now Larry, let me ask a favor of you. Do not talk to me in a degrading manner. Otherwise, I will be forced by powers beyond your comprehension to cease all dialog with you. You're welcome. > > > > > > You parade this citation around as though it actually suports > > > > > > your position that licensing of motor vehicle operators is not [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > denied access to a road that is open to the public. The first is equal > sufferage. The latter is not. Sure it is. Everyone with a license can drive on the road. Everyone without one, can't. And the process to get a license is the same for everyone. > > > > But the government can take away that "right" at any time by closing > > > > the road. This isn't a right at all. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Don't ask me questions intended to imply ignorance. I consider such > questions as nothing more than veiled Ad Hominems. Yes, you consider many statements to be what they're not. We've established that - it is the basis of your misunderstandings. > > We don't have any bridges that span oceans. > > You can from your home reach the ports via Right of Ways without having > to trespass upon another's private property. Regardless, I am speaking > of matters internal to the United States. You think the government has the obligation to provide me with roads to get to ports? Do you think they have the obligation to provide roads at all? > > So we're all landlocked in a sense, if you only consider roads > > and motor vehicles. In any event, the government certainly CAN [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > to continue to maintain the portion of that road which provided us with > access to other public right of ways. What law is this? Cite, please. And I'm sure such law is a political creation, not a constitutional one. > They were required by law not to > leave our farm landlocked, having no way but to trespass to reach a > right of way. What law is this? Cite, please. > And, they were required to law to continue to maintain > that road for us. What law is this? Cite, please. > Many times, they tried to GIVE the road to us, so > they would no longer have to maintain it, even offering to blacktop it > before giving it to us. But, we refused to take the road, and they > continued to have to maintain it for us, and still do till today. So, > don't try to feed me any of your hog wash. What about the millions of people who live in private housing developments, who have to travel on private roads to get to a public roadway? > Additionally, one can not sell a portion of their land with no right of > way access. They are required by law to provide a right of way access > to any portions of their land they might sell. What law is this? Cite, please. That's absolutely untrue. If I want to sell someone a few square feet of my land, with no roadway leading to it, I'm perfectly able to. > Regardless, you are getting so far off issue, it's laughable. Not nearly as laughable as your baseless claims. If you're right, and its such an obvious issue, why has NO court in the country EVER struck down a driver licensing plan as unconstitutional? > > > > Its something the state lets you do. > > > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > That is what I was saying. Well, if there is no right to be transported at your own inclination, then there is no right to drive. Because you're defining them as the same thing. > > But there IS a "right to be transported by others." If someone is a > > common carrier - Greyhound, Amtrak, American Airlines, etc., then [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > speaking of our Right to Travel at our own Inclination. Therefore, Bus > lines, taxis, airlines, etc are Irrelivant. But I said above "there is no "right to be transported at your own inclination."" And you responded "That is what I was saying." So which is it? > > > > But you can't operate a motor vehicle without a license. > > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Well, I'm here to hear arguments, not to have the status quo preached > at me. Not every issue is debatable. There aren't two sides to the "issue" of whether driver licensing schemes are permissible. > > You really can't see how the right to travel and the act of driving > > a car are different? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > have Implied Rights, such that an express Right includes all of it's > Implied Rights. Cite a case that stated this. > And, I am also aware that we have more than a simple, > express, Right to Travel. Cite a case that stated this. > We have the Right to personal travel on our public highways at our own > inclination. Cite a case that stated this. > We have the Right of Transit ordinarily used for personal > travel on our public highways. Cite a case that stated this. > And, we have the Right to use our > public highways for personal travel in the ordinary way. Cite a case that stated this. > These are all > agreed by the US Supreme Court as being Implied Rights of our Right of > Liberty. Cite a case that stated this. Not the old case that you trudge out over and over again, which we've already demonstrated doesn't mean what you think it does. (And if you think we're wrong, as yourself why that holding has never been cited by the Supreme Court or a lower court as a basis to strike down a driver licensing scheme.) > My primary basis of argumentation in this thread is that: We have the > Right to use our public highways for personal travel in the ordinary > way. This is not a "basis of argumentation." It's your unsupported, baseless argument that has no support in statute, caselaw, or constitutional law. > > What happens in 50 years when hovercraft becomes the > > standard mode of travel? Do we then all have the right to > > hover on public roadways? > > We have the Right to use our public highways for personal travel in the > ordinary way. So the first guy with a hovercraft has no right to use it, but once a majority of people have them, it becomes a right? But how can you use them if the state doesn't allow it? Because otherwise it can't become the "ordinary" method! Your argument, aside from its other errors, has a chicken-or-egg flaw. > What ever that ordinary way might be at any given time. > > Now Larry, let me ask a favor of you. Do not talk to me in a degrading > manner. Otherwise, I will be forced by powers beyond your > comprehension to cease all dialog with you. I'm not engaging in a dialog with you for your benefit. I'm doing it so others can see through your flawed, faulty, and baseless arguments. > You're welcome. I didn't thank you for anything. Larrry, the landlock matter is off issue, and dropped. > > Regardless, you are getting so far off issue, it's laughable. > > Not nearly as laughable as your baseless claims. If you're right, > and its such an obvious issue, why has NO court in the country > EVER struck down a driver licensing plan as unconstitutional? Again with your contradictory question. As though indetermination was determination. As though indecision was decision. As though if it has never been decided, no use bringing it to test because it's already decided. Argue my points, or bugger off. I will entertain your contradictory questioning no further. You're Welcome. > > > There is no "right to be transported at your own inclination." > > > Again, you won't find a single statute, decision, or [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Well, if there is no right to be transported at your own inclination, > then there is no right to drive. Invalid Conclusion. > Because you're defining them as the same thing. No, I am not. In fact, there is no such thing as "being transported at your own inclination". It doesn't exist. It is a contradictory concept. When one is being Transported, they are being Transported at the Inclination of the Transporter. How can one have a Right to something that doesn't even exist? We have the Right to Travel at our own Inclination. We have the Right to use our Public Highways for Personal Travel in the Ordinary Way. > > > But there IS a "right to be transported by others." If someone > > > is a common carrier - Greyhound, Amtrak, American Airlines, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > But I said above "there is no "right to be transported at your own > inclination."" And you responded "That is what I was saying." Exactly! There is no such thing as being transported at your own inclination. It doesn't exist. It is a contradictory concept. When one is being Transported, they are being transported at the inclination of the Transporter. How can there be a Right to something that doesn't exist? > So which is it? We have the Right to Travel at our own Inclination. We have the Right to use our Public Highways for Personal Travel in the Ordinary Way. > > > > > But you can't operate a motor vehicle without a license. > > > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Not every issue is debatable. If you have no intention of debating the issue, bugger off. You're welcome. > > > You really can't see how the right to travel and the act of driving > > > a car are different? [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Cite a case that stated this. Emphasis Added: "In this free country, the people of which inherited certain traditionary rights and privileges from their ancestors, citizenship means something. It has certain privileges and immunities attached to it which the government, whether restricted by EXPRESS or IMPLIED limitations, cannot take away or impair. It may do so temporarily by force, but it cannot do so by right. And these privileges and immunities attach as well to citizenship of the United States as to citizenship of the States." -- In Re Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1872) - http://laws.findlaw.com/us/83/36.html For example: When government is restricted EXPRESSLY from abriding our Right of Speech, it is restricted from abriding all that IMPLIES, meaning everything that falls within the set of Speech, so long as it does not violate the Rights of any others (yelling fire in a crowded theater violates the Rights of others by inciting a riot which endangers people's lives, slander violates another Right of Innocence, falsely accusing them of guilt, etc). Among the set of Speech is included, Personal Speech, Fictional Speech, Scientific Speech, Religious Speech, Political Speech, etc, etc, all which belong to the great set, Speech itself. > > We have the Right to personal travel on our public highways at our own > > inclination. > > Cite a case that stated this. "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 > > We have the Right of Transit ordinarily used for personal > > travel on our public highways. > > Cite a case that stated this. "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 > > And, we have the Right to use our > > public highways for personal travel in the ordinary way. > > Cite a case that stated this. "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 > > These are all agreed by the US Supreme Court as being > > Implied Rights of our Right of Liberty. > > Cite a case that stated this. Not the old case that you trudge out over > and over again, which we've already demonstrated doesn't mean what > you think it does. Hahahahahahaha!!! "You have evidence? Well, I've decided to ignore your evidence. Provide me some more evidence, and I'll decide if I'll ignore it too." Hahahahahahaha!!! > (And if you think we're wrong, as yourself why that holding > has never been cited by the Supreme Court or a lower court > as a basis to strike down a driver licensing scheme.) There you go again with your contradictory suggestion. It can't be determined if it's UnConstitutinal. It's only Unconstitutional if it's already been determined. If it hasn't been determined, no use trying to determine it, because it's already been determined. > > > What happens in 50 years when hovercraft becomes the > > > standard mode of travel? Do we then all have the right to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > So the first guy with a hovercraft has no right to use it, Strawman. Not necessarly. Depends on it is obstructs with the transit ordinarly being used at the time. If it doesn't, he has the Right to use it. If it does, he doesn't. I stipulated this elsewhere in another post. I forget to who. Maybe it was you. > but once a majority of people have them, it becomes a right? You got it. > But how can you use them if the state doesn't allow it? Your question here is based on your Strawman above. I never said the first guy with a hovercraft has no Right to use it. That's your Strawman. > Because otherwise it can't become the "ordinary" method! > Your argument, aside from its other errors, has a > chicken-or-egg flaw. Does it make you feel good about yourself thrashing about Strawmen of your own fabrication? You sure haven't thrashed anything I said. > Larry, the landlock matter is off issue, and dropped. You raised the issue, lost the argument, and then noted it was "off issue." Nice move. > > > Regardless, you are getting so far off issue, it's laughable. > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > decided. Argue my points, or bugger off. I will entertain your > contradictory questioning no further. You're Welcome. So you admit there has never ever been a decision from any court in the country that supports your point of view. Got it. > > > > There is no "right to be transported at your own inclination." > > > > Again, you won't find a single statute, decision, or [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Invalid Conclusion. Conclusory label. > > Because you're defining them as the same thing. > > No, I am not. In fact, there is no such thing as "being transported at > your own inclination". It doesn't exist. It is a contradictory > concept. How is it contradictory? Just because you're using the passive voice doesn't make it contradictory. See, e.g., Walking. > When one is being Transported, they are being Transported at > the Inclination of the Transporter. How can one have a Right to > something that doesn't even exist? > > We have the Right to Travel at our own Inclination. Yes, you do. Walk. > We have the Right to use our Public Highways for Personal Travel in the > Ordinary Way. No, we don't. There isn't a single constitutional provision, statute, or judicial decision from any court in the country that states this. If I am wrong, provide a citation and I'll admit it. But if I am right, you should stop making this ridiculous claim. You look foolish. > > > > But there IS a "right to be transported by others." If someone > > > > is a common carrier - Greyhound, Amtrak, American Airlines, [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > of the Transporter. How can there be a Right to something that doesn't > exist? If I drive myself somewhere, am I not being "transported at my own inclination"? > > So which is it? > > We have the Right to Travel at our own Inclination. Even if we do, that does not mean that ... > We have the Right to use our Public Highways for Personal Travel in the > Ordinary Way. It's an illogical conclusion to draw that doesn't follow from the premise. > > > > > > But you can't operate a motor vehicle without a license. > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > If you have no intention of debating the issue, bugger off. You're > welcome. OK, let's debate. I can cite for you 50 different state driver licensing statutes, not one of which has been struck down as unconstitutional. You're response is "well, they've never been challenged!" That's not a debate. > > > > You really can't see how the right to travel and the act of driving > > > > a car are different? [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > endangers people's lives, slander violates another Right of Innocence, > falsely accusing them of guilt, etc). "Right of Innocence"?!?! I almost fell out of my seat laughing. "Judge, I'm not guilty! I have the right to be innocent!" > Among the set of Speech is > included, Personal Speech, Fictional Speech, Scientific Speech, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > other provisions of the Constitution." - Williams v. Fears, 179 U.S. > 270 (1900) - http://laws.findlaw.com/us/179/270.html#274 Locomotion = travel = walking, or getting from Point A to point B by any means you can arrange. > > > We have the Right of Transit ordinarily used for personal > > > travel on our public highways. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > other provisions of the Constitution." - Williams v. Fears, 179 U.S. > 270 (1900) - http://laws.findlaw.com/us/179/270.html#274 This doesn't say you have the right to the "ordinarily used" method of transit. In some cities, for example, subways are the "ordinary" method of transportation. You have no right to use the subway, though. > > > And, we have the Right to use our > > > public highways for personal travel in the ordinary way. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > public in the ordinary way." -- Packard v. Banton, 264 U.S. 140 (1924) > - http://laws.findlaw.com/us/264/140.html#144 Who the streets belong to and what they are "primarily" used for does not extrapolate to the conclusion that there is a RIGHT to use them. Besides, you don't know what dicta is, do you? > > > These are all agreed by the US Supreme Court as being > > > Implied Rights of our Right of Liberty. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > your evidence. Provide me some more evidence, and I'll decide if I'll > ignore it too." Hahahahahahaha!!! No, you're ignoring all the evidence I've presented, so I'm not going to present more. You're unable to comprehend it. > > (And if you think we're wrong, as yourself why that holding > > has never been cited by the Supreme Court or a lower court [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > already been determined. If it hasn't been determined, no use trying > to determine it, because it's already been determined. So why don't you challenge a driver licensing law, then? That way you could settle the issue. > > > > What happens in 50 years when hovercraft becomes the > > > > standard mode of travel? Do we then all have the right to [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > You got it. So you have a right to do whatever lots of other people do, but you don't have the right to do what is less common. Interesting. Tyrrany of the majority defined. > > But how can you use them if the state doesn't allow it? > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Does it make you feel good about yourself thrashing about Strawmen of > your own fabrication? You sure haven't thrashed anything I said. You haven't said anything that isn't self-thrashed anyway. > > Larry, the landlock matter is off issue, and dropped. > > You raised the issue, lost the argument, and then noted it was "off > issue." Nice move. No, you are the one who raised the issue of roads being closed. Not me. > So you admit there has never ever been a decision from any court > in the country that supports your point of view. Got it. I admit that any rulings which deny our Right to use our public highways for personal travel in the ordinary way are wrong. Although, if you have a reference to any cases where challenges to driver licensing was struck down, I would like to analize them. Once, there was a trial, and a murder was judged innocent. Another time, there was a trial, and an innocent man was juded guilty. Our courts aren't the last word when it comes to truth. > > > Well, if there is no right to be transported at your own inclination, > > > then there is no right to drive. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > How is it contradictory? Just because you're using the passive > voice doesn't make it contradictory. See, e.g., Walking. Because, when one is being Transported, they are being Transported at the Inclination of the Transporter. Duh,,, > > When one is being Transported, they are being Transported at > > the Inclination of the Transporter. How can one have a Right to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Yes, you do. Walk. Do not presume to issue me directives. And, don't bother coming back to say: "That wasn't a directive, it was an alternative." You critisize me elsewhere in this post for not completely specifying that "our Right of Innocence" is really "our Right of Innocence until proven guilty". So, What's good for the goose is good for the gander. "WALK." is a Directive. I'm about to fall out of my chair laughing at you thinking you have the authority to issue me directives. Hahahahahahahahaha!!!!! Besides, you're missing, or would that be dodging, the point. One can not be Transported at their own Inclination. That is a contradictory concept. > > We have the Right to use our Public Highways for Personal Travel in the > > Ordinary Way. > > No, we don't. Yes we do. You're dismissed. > There isn't a single constitutional provision, statute, or judicial > decision from any court in the country that states this. Irrelivant. Slavery is UnConstitutional. Slavery is a Violation of our Rights. Rights are Inherent. Therefore, even when there wasn't a single constitutional provision, statute, or judical decision from any court in the country that stated Slavery was a Violation of Rights, it was STILL A VIOLATION OF RIGHTS. Got it? Get it. You're Welcome. > > > But I said above "there is no "right to be transported at your > > > own inclination."" And you responded "That is what I was [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > If I drive myself somewhere, am I not being "transported at my own > inclination"? No. You are Traveling at your own Inclination. Your passengers, if any, are being Transported, at your (the transporter's) inclination, not their's. > > Emphasis Added: > > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > "Right of Innocence"?!?! I almost fell out of my seat laughing. > "Judge, I'm not guilty! I have the right to be innocent!" I assumed you understood. Right of Innocence until proven guilty. Get off the floor laughing at your strawman. Although, if wrongly accused, I would say "I'm not guilty! I have the Right to be innocent. And, therefore, I AM Innocent. UNTIL YOU PROVE ME GUILTY." Larry. I'm alergic to organic dust. Your Strawmen are beinging irritate me. > > > > We have the Right to personal travel on our public highways at our own > > > > inclination. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Locomotion = travel = walking, or getting from Point A to point B by any > means you can arrange. Do not presume to lecture me as to the meaning of Locomotion, when that wasn't even the point. You asked for me to cite a case that stated we have the Right to personal travel on our public highways at our own inclination. I did so. You're playing disingenious games, Larry. > > There you go again with your contradictory suggestion. It can't > > be determined if it's UnConstitutinal. It's only Unconstitutional if it's [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > So why don't you challenge a driver licensing law, then? That way you > could settle the issue. I have my methods. Don't let it worry you. > > > > > What happens in 50 years when hovercraft becomes the > > > > > standard mode of travel? Do we then all have the right to [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > don't have the right to do what is less common. Interesting. Tyrrany > of the majority defined. NO! Strawman. That IS NOT What I am saying. I will say this ONE MORE TIME: You have the Right to use the public highways for personal travel in the ordinary way. You also have the Right to use the public highways for personal travel in any way which doesn't obstruct the ordinary way. Either get it this time, or forget it. > > So you admit there has never ever been a decision from any court > > in the country that supports your point of view. Got it. > > I admit that any rulings which deny our Right to use our public > highways for personal travel in the ordinary way are wrong. Well then debating with you is truly pointless. "I'm right and everyone else is wrong" can't be debated. But at least you admit there are no court rulings or statutes that support your position. > Although, > if you have a reference to any cases where challenges to driver > licensing was struck down, I would like to analize them. Are you serious? There are many - you don't think you're the first person to have this crackpot idea, do you? But I'm not doing your homework for you, especially when you've already dismissed them as wrong. > Once, there was a trial, and a murder was judged innocent. > > Another time, there was a trial, and an innocent man was juded guilty. > > Our courts aren't the last word when it comes to truth. Not necessarily, but they are the last word when it comes to what's constitutional and what isn't. By definition. > > > > Well, if there is no right to be transported at your own inclination, > > > > then there is no right to drive. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Because, when one is being Transported, they are being Transported at > the Inclination of the Transporter. Duh,,, If you're walking, you're being transported at the inclination of the transporter, its just that you happen to be the transporter. Again, using the passive voice doesn't mean a third party is involved. > > > When one is being Transported, they are being Transported at > > > the Inclination of the Transporter. How can one have a Right to [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > of my chair laughing at you thinking you have the authority to issue me > directives. Hahahahahahahahaha!!!!! You really have little command of the Enlgish language, you know that? I wasn't issuing you a directive at all. I think its rather unlikely you would walk while posting messages on Usenet, and I wouldn't tell you to do so. I was telling you how you could exercise your "right to travel at your own inclination." As for your "right of innocence until proven guilty," this doesn't apply anywhere outside of a courtroom during a trial. Your job can suspend or fire you just for being arrested, if they want, whether you're "presumed innocent" or not. And think about this, it'll make your head spin: If the police and prosecutors had to presume everyone innocent, no one would ever be arrested or charged with crimes! And a judge would never be able to set bail on someone! > Besides, you're missing, or would that be dodging, the point. One can > not be Transported at their own Inclination. That is a contradictory > concept. No it isn't. Except by the word jumbles you like to use in an attempt to look smart. > > > We have the Right to use our Public Highways for Personal Travel in the > > > Ordinary Way. > > > > No, we don't. > > Yes we do. You're dismissed. You say we do, yet admit no court or law in the country supports you. Yet I'm the one being "dismissed" (ha!) for disagreeing. > > There isn't a single constitutional provision, statute, or judicial > > decision from any court in the country that states this. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Got it? Get it. You're Welcome. No, it wasn't. It was entirely legal until the Civil War Amendments were ratified. > > > > But I said above "there is no "right to be transported at your > > > > own inclination."" And you responded "That is what I was [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > I assumed you understood. Right of Innocence until proven guilty. This isn't a right. I should know, I am a prosecutor and deal with this every day. This is a presumption applied by the jury - nothing more. > Get off the floor laughing at your strawman. > > Although, if wrongly accused, I would say "I'm not guilty! I have the > Right to be innocent. And, therefore, I AM Innocent. UNTIL YOU PROVE > ME GUILTY." Only in terms of which one of us has the burden of proof in front of the jury. Nothing more. > Larry. I'm alergic to organic dust. Your Strawmen are beinging > irritate me. See a doctor. Maybe he can diagnose your other problems as well. > > > > > We have the Right to personal travel on our public highways at our > > > > > own [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > have the Right to personal travel on our public highways at our own > inclination. I did so. I'm not lecturing you. I'm defining basic words, which you have no grasp of. > You're playing disingenious games, Larry. Pot, kettle. > > > There you go again with your contradictory suggestion. It can't > > > be determined if it's UnConstitutinal. It's only Unconstitutional if [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > I have my methods. Don't let it worry you. Yeah, you're doing such a good job of convincing people on Usenet. Keep it up! > > > So you admit there has never ever been a decision from > > > any court in the country that supports your point of view. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Are you serious? There are many - Then, produce links to at least a few of them. > > > > > Because you're defining them as the same thing. > > > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > If you're walking, you're being transported at the inclination of > the transporter, its just that you happen to be the transporter. No. If you are Traveling, you are not being Transported, you are Traveling. Duh... > > > > When one is being Transported, they are being Transported > > > > at the Inclination of the Transporter. How can one have a [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > You really have little command of the Enlgish language, you know > that? Larry now issues personal assults at me. Larry has been becoming more and more offensive as time passes. > I wasn't issuing you a directive at all. Well of course you would deny it. > I think its rather unlikely you would walk while posting messages > on Usenet, and I wouldn't tell you to do so. You didn't say when, only what. > I was telling you how you could exercise your "right to travel > at your own inclination." If that were true, you would have said "You can walk". But, instead, you only said "walk." which is a directive. > As for your "right of innocence until proven guilty," this doesn't > apply anywhere outside of a courtroom during a trial. Your job > can suspend or fire you just for being arrested, if they want, > whether you're "presumed innocent" or not. In such a court is the only place where guilt applies, in the sinse we are speaking of them. > And think about this, it'll make your head spin: If the police and > prosecutors had to presume everyone innocent, no one would > ever be arrested or charged with crimes! And a judge would never > be able to set bail on someone! Until the court says their guilty, the accused is Innocent. If you wish to accuse someone, better have the evidence to back it up, else you make yourself libel for slander, and given the lacking of any evidence, you accusations alone provide evidence of your guilt for slander. > > Besides, you're missing, or would that be dodging, the point. > > One can not be Transported at their own Inclination. That is > > a contradictory concept. > > No it isn't. Except by the word jumbles you like to use in an attempt > to look smart. Hahahahahaha!!!!! What you would deny, you accuse of being jumbles. Convenient. > > > > We have the Right to use our Public Highways for > > > > Personal Travel in the Ordinary Way. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > You say we do, yet admit no court or law in the country supports you. Yes I have. > Yet I'm the one being "dismissed" (ha!) for disagreeing. For being wrong. > > > There isn't a single constitutional provision, statute, or > > > judicial decision from any court in the country that [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > No, it wasn't. It was entirely legal until the Civil War Amendments > were ratified. Numerous laws have been found in violation of our Rights. Supposidly, before being judged in violation of our Rights, "entirely legal", but in Violation of our Rights none the less. Crime is defined in two ways: 1: Anything against morality. 2: Anything against the law. What then is a "crime" when the Law itself is against morality? > > Larry. I'm alergic to organic dust. Your Strawmen are > > beinging irritate me. > > See a doctor. Maybe he can diagnose your other problems as well. Why should I take measures so that you may continue thrashing your Strawman and subsequently irritating me? > > > > > > We have the Right to personal travel on our public highways at our > > > > > > own [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > I'm not lecturing you. I'm defining basic words, which you have no > grasp of. Larry now bears witness to things of which he knows squat. This is also known as slander. Larry is slandering me, as a form of a personal assult. Larry is being deliberately offensive. Larry has been becoming more and more personally offensive of late. > Yeah, you're doing such a good job of convincing people on Usenet. Larry is not presuming to speak for others. In reality, Larry can only speak for himself. > > > > So you admit there has never ever been a decision from > > > > any court in the country that supports your point of view. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Then, produce links to at least a few of them. I'm not doing your homework for you. THis is your pet project, not mine. But they're not hard to find. > > > > > > Because you're defining them as the same thing. > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > No. If you are Traveling, you are not being Transported, you are > Traveling. Duh... Word soup. If I am in a car, whether I am the driver or passenger, I am being transported by the car (passive voice). In other words, I am traveling. Duh. > > > > > When one is being Transported, they are being Transported > > > > > at the Inclination of the Transporter. How can one have a [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Larry now issues personal assults at me. Larry has been becoming more > and more offensive as time passes. Ohhh, there's that darned third person again! There's no need for third person. I don't think anyone is reading this thread anymore, since everyone else realizes that your argument is baseless. > > I wasn't issuing you a directive at all. > > Well of course you would deny it. Of course I would deny something I didn't do. Damn logic foils you again! > > I think its rather unlikely you would walk while posting messages > > on Usenet, and I wouldn't tell you to do so. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > If that were true, you would have said "You can walk". But, instead, > you only said "walk." which is a directive. It depends on the context. I was not telling you what to do. I was telling you how you could achieve your goal. > > As for your "right of innocence until proven guilty," this doesn't > > apply anywhere outside of a courtroom during a trial. Your job [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > In such a court is the only place where guilt applies, in the sinse we > are speaking of them. Guilt applies in the world of public opinion, perhaps more strongly than in a court. > > And think about this, it'll make your head spin: If the police and > > prosecutors had to presume everyone innocent, no one would [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > evidence, you accusations alone provide evidence of your guilt for > slander. Nope, sorry. I happen to be an Assistant District Attorney, and I have absolute immunity for the charges I bring against someone. Besides, someone being found "not guilty" does not mean they are "innocent." Obviously. > > > Besides, you're missing, or would that be dodging, the point. > > > One can not be Transported at their own Inclination. That is [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > Numerous laws have been found in violation of our Rights. Correct. But our driver licensing laws are not among these laws. Yet people have tried. > Supposidly, > before being judged in violation of our Rights, "entirely legal", but > in Violation of our Rights none the less. > Crime is defined in two ways: 1: Anything against morality. 2: > Anything against the law. [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > assult. Larry is being deliberately offensive. Larry has been > becoming more and more personally offensive of late. If I'm slandering you, sue me. Just don't keep using the third person, you come off as ridiculous. > > Yeah, you're doing such a good job of convincing people on Usenet. > > Larry is not presuming to speak for others. > > In reality, Larry can only speak for himself. Facts speak for themselves, and no one has taken your side on Usenet. > > > > Although, if you have a reference to any cases where > > > > challenges to driver licensing was struck down, I would [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I'm not doing your homework for you. THis is your pet project, > not mine. But they're not hard to find. I can produce evidence that when I have made claims, you requested me to provide you with the evidence supporting my claim. I ask no more or less of you. > > > > Because, when one is being Transported, they are being > > > > Transported at the Inclination of the Transporter. Duh,,, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Word soup. I'm not the one trying to convince me that Traveling isn't Traveling. > If I am in a car, whether I am the driver or passenger, I am being > transported by the car (passive voice). In other words, I am > traveling. Duh. Word soup. If you are driving the car, you are Traveling in the car. If you are a passenger, you are being transported. > > > As for your "right of innocence until proven guilty," this doesn't > > > apply anywhere outside of a courtroom during a trial. Your job [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Guilt applies in the world of public opinion, perhaps more strongly than > in a court. In such a context, so would innocence. I notice that you are switching context. You seem to want your cake, and eat it too. > > > And think about this, it'll make your head spin: If the police > > > and prosecutors had to presume everyone innocent, no one [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Nope, sorry. I happen to be an Assistant District Attorney, Well, La De Da. > and I have absolute immunity for the charges I bring against > someone. Well, ain't you special! > > > > > There isn't a single constitutional provision, statute, or > > > > > judicial decision from any court in the country that [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Correct. But our driver licensing laws are not among these laws. > Yet people have tried. And, by your own lack of denial, none have made it to the US Supreme Court. Provide the evidence of your claim. > > > > > > > > We have the Right to personal travel on our public > > > > > > > > highways at our own inclination. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cite a case that stated this. As I have said, I ask no more or less of you. > > > > > > "Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to > > > > > > remove from one place to another according to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > > > > > Constitution." - Williams v. Fears, 179 U.S. > > > > > > 270 (1900) - http://laws.findlaw.com/us/179/270.html#274 But, clearly, I provide more than you. > > > Yeah, you're doing such a good job of convincing people on Usenet. > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Facts speak for themselves, and no one has taken your side on Usenet. Actually, they have. > > > Until the court says their guilty, the accused is Innocent. If you > > > wish to accuse someone, better have the evidence to back it up, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Well, ain't you special! I am special. Contrary to your claim above, I do have immunity if I accuse someone of a crime. You, on the other hand, don't. > > > > > > There isn't a single constitutional provision, statute, or > > > > > > judicial decision from any court in the country that [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > And, by your own lack of denial, none have made it to the US Supreme > Court. Provide the evidence of your claim. First you have to understand federal subject-matter jurisdiction and federalism. Then, and only then, can I begin to answer this question for you. > > > > > > > > > We have the Right to personal travel on our public > > > > > > > > > highways at our own inclination. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Actually, they have. Who, exactly? > > > > > > > Because you're defining them as the same thing. > > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > I am being transported by the car (passive voice). In other words, > I am traveling. Duh. Word soup. You are switching context between behaviors of citizens in the exercise of their Rights, and things or property, which have no Rights. Staying within the context of citizens, when they (a citizen) are Traveling at their own inclination, they are not being Transported at the inclination of their Transporter (another citizen). > Further proof of this is the fact that this same court that made the > above statement has also never ever ruled in the many legal challenges > brought by kooks against driver licensing that it is unconstitutional. You don't think a detail like that will stop him, do you? > > Further proof of this is the fact that this same court that made the > > above statement has also never ever ruled in the many legal challenges > > brought by kooks against driver licensing that it is unconstitutional. > > You don't think a detail like that will stop him, do you? Proffsl is making my case for me. I ought to just sit back and let him complete his hara-kiri. > > > Further proof of this is the fact that this same court that made the > > > above statement has also never ever ruled in the many legal challenges [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Proffsl is making my case for me. I ought to just sit back and let him > complete his hara-kiri. Misplaced Self Adulation. If you had a point, I would acknowledge it. > > > > Further proof of this is the fact that this same court that made the > > > > above statement has also never ever ruled in the many legal challenges [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Misplaced Self Adulation. Hardly. I've proven you wrong on every substantive point, you should at least allow me some moments of glee. You're the one who continues to claim that when I say "1+2+3+4=10" that I'm saying 4=10. > If you had a point, I would acknowledge it. You know what? Your history belies that. You cling to falsehoods as though simple endurance in a wrong crusade is proof of its righteousness. > > > > > Further proof of this is the fact that this same court that made the > > > > > above statement has also never ever ruled in the many legal challenges [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Hardly. I've proven you wrong on every substantive point, Tell yourself what ever you must to live with yourself. > you should at least allow me some moments of glee. Allow, or provide? I'll Allow you anything so long as you don't violate the Rights of others. But, I'm in no way obligated to provide you with squat. > You're the one who continues to claim that when I say > "1+2+3+4=10" that I'm saying 4=10. After studing your rebutal the first time, I corrected that omission on my part. I thought you would have noticed. Originally, I mistaken equated your S1 below to (M justifies C), leaving out "Factors such as", which is the "1+2+3" you keep going on about. So I corrected it to equate S1 below to (Factors such as M justify C). Here, I'll go over it again for you, where S1 and S2 are your original statements. S1 = (Factors such as the massive level of VMT in this nation provide ample justification for continued licensing of operators) M = (the massive level of VMT in this nation) C = (the continued licensing of operators) S2: (The ordinary way is and has been, if you choose that way to be by operation of a motor vehicle, to obtain a driver's license) O = (the ordinary way we use our public highways) L = (the licensed operation of a motor vehicle) S1 = (Factors such as M justify C) Clearly, today, M = O. You can't really deny that. The massive level of VMT in this nation today IS the ordinary way we use our public highways. So, you are saying: S1 = (Factors such as O justify C) Now, your second statement equates: S2 = (O = L) Therefore, what you are saying equates: S1 = (Factors such as L justify C) Expanding this: S1 = (Factors such as the licensed operation of a motor vehicle justify the continued licensing of operators) Which is circular. > > If you had a point, I would acknowledge it. > > You know what? Your history belies that. You cling to falsehoods > as though simple endurance in a wrong crusade is proof of its > righteousness. I was going to say the same thing about you. Listen, let's approach this in this way. I'm here to convince you. You're here to convince me. Quit playing to the audience. > > > > > > Further proof of this is the fact that this same court that made the > > > > > > above statement has also never ever ruled in the many legal challenges [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Tell yourself what ever you must to live with yourself. It was only an observation on the actual status of the discussion; you've been shown wrong on every substantive point, and in fact much of it through use of your very own citations. > > you should at least allow me some moments of glee. > > Allow, or provide? Read what I said. What you follow up with is a classic strawman conversion. It's rare the readers here get to see such bald-faced sophistry as you demonstrate here: > I'll Allow you anything so long as you don't > violate the Rights of others. But, I'm in no way obligated to provide > you with squat. See? Although it's true that your illogical ramblings have "provided" the moments of glee that all of us have had, I never indicated that you are obligated to continue amusing us with them. As you noted, you're more than happy to "allow" us to have them, which is *all* I said. This lesson provided free of charge! > > You're the one who continues to claim that when I say > > "1+2+3+4=10" that I'm saying 4=10. > > After studing your rebutal the first time, I corrected that omission on > my part. No you didn't. I responded. Rearranging the wording on the deck of your Titanic of an argument doesn't prevent it from sinking. You still commit fallacies of equivocation and it is still an invalid attempt to reduce my linear argument to circular. Sorry. > I thought you would have noticed. Originally, I mistaken > equated your S1 below to (M justifies C), leaving out "Factors such [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Clearly, today, M = O. You can't really deny that. Everybody would deny that. > The massive level > of VMT in this nation today IS the ordinary way we use our public > highways. Absolutely not. The massive level of VMT is a *product* of the way we ordinarily use our highways, which is auto driving. There is nothing about driving a car that necessitates a huge level of VMT. Driving could decline yet still be the ordinary way we use our highways. The two concepts are *not* equivalents, but one is a product of the other, so that there needs to be more factors in the equation. You simply rearranged the words, broke out a few subfactors but still tried to make the same two statements equal, and they still are not. > > > If you had a point, I would acknowledge it. > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I was going to say the same thing about you. And true to your form, that too would be wrong. > Listen, let's approach > this in this way. I'm here to convince you. You're here to convince > me. Quit playing to the audience. You're not here to convince anyone. You're hear to promote your long-discredited belief (I see you have done this on other occasions) that driver licensing is unconstitutional. > You're not here to convince anyone. You're hear to promote your > long-discredited belief (I see you have done this on other occasions) > that driver licensing is unconstitutional. Hey, proffsl, here's a simple question, and one that if you can answer should end this discussion: If you think driver licensing is unconstitutional, cite one case for us which says so. And I don't mean dicta in some other case where that wasn't an issue - I mean where the issue litigated and decided was a licensing scheme, and the court decision struck down the scheme on constitutional grounds. <cue crickets chirping as we wait...> > Hey, proffsl, here's a simple question, and one that if you can > answer should end this discussion: If you think driver licensing > is unconstitutional, cite one case for us which says so. If that were the test for Unconstitutionality, then why would anyone ever bring the case to court to begin with? That's like saying: If it's never been tested, might as well not test it. Your question is circular in absurdity. Determining the UnConstitutionality of something isn't determined on it already having been determined. Argue the points, or bugger off. > > Hey, proffsl, here's a simple question, and one that if you can > > answer should end this discussion: If you think driver licensing [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Argue the points, or bugger off. Ooops. Caught in an other illogical argument I see. It *has* been tested. That's the point There are many peopel like you over the years who have argued the same line, driven with slf-made "organic citizen" papers, been cited and then gone into court to *challenge* the system now in place on constitutional grounds. It's been upheld. So when Larry asked you to cite a case where it's been found unconstitutional, he's asking that whethera mong all of the cases, has one ever gone against the licensing system. I don't know of any, otherwise, frankly, I'd be driving around without a license right now. You respond as though you don't know about all the other folks out there who've gone through the wringer on this. > > > Hey, proffsl, here's a simple question, and one that if you can > > > answer should end this discussion: If you think driver licensing [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > You respond as though you don't know about all the other folks out > there who've gone through the wringer on this. He's conveniently ignoring those cases, since they prove him wrong. After all, there's that one sentence from that 1900 case that he can still cling to!!! > > You respond as though you don't know about all the other folks out > > there who've gone through the wringer on this. > > He's conveniently ignoring those cases, since they prove him wrong. > After all, there's that one sentence from that 1900 case that he can > still cling to!!! Larry. You don't get it. I don't care if there are cases which wrongly struck down challenges to driver licensing. In truth, there wrong. Just that simple. Our courts aren't infalable. Our courts aren't even above corruption. I opened this thread stating that our States are LYING to us. Surely you aren't so gullable as to think our government would never lie to us, are you? Although, as I said earlier, I would appreciate links to these cases where challenges to driver licensing was struck down. I would like to study them, if they exist. I've searched through the US Supreme Courts, and I haven't found one. I have found cases where Commercial Driver Licensing challenges were struck down, and I agree with them. Commercial entities exist entirely at the permission of the state, and as such are subject to far far more control than Individuals. But, I'm not speaking of Driver Licensing of Commercial use of our public highways. I'm speaking of Driver Licensing for the personal use of the public highways. There is a considerable difference. So, if you have a reference to a challenge of Driver Licensing for the personal use of our public highways, I would appreciate a link so I can study them for their flaw. If they exist, they are definately wrong. I'm telling you, we have the Right to use our public highways for personal travel in the ordinary way. And, anybody or anything that would say to the contrary is flat out wrong. I don't care what their "authority" is. In your face. You're Welcome. > > > You respond as though you don't know about all the other folks out > > > there who've gone through the wringer on this. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > States are LYING to us. Surely you aren't so gullable as to think our > government would never lie to us, are you? Regardless, they are the final word of what we legally can and cannot do. I'm almost afraid to ask, but WHY, precisely, is there a vast conspiracy between the federal government and all 50 state governments, between all the legislatures and the courts, and up and down all levels of appellate courts, over driver's licenses? > Although, as I said earlier, I would appreciate links to these cases > where challenges to driver licensing was struck down. Do your own homework. I'm not doing it for you. > I would like to > study them, if they exist. Why? I thought you said they're all wrong. > I've searched through the US Supreme > Courts, and I haven't found one. Because drivers licenses are not a federal issue. You do understand the concept of federalism and jurisdiction, don't you? > I have found cases where Commercial > Driver Licensing challenges were struck down, and I agree with them. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > our public highways, I would appreciate a link so I can study them for > their flaw. If they exist, they are definately wrong. Great to see you're so openminded! > I'm telling you, we have the Right to use our public highways for > personal travel in the ordinary way. And, anybody or anything that > would say to the contrary is flat out wrong. I don't care what their > "authority" is. I know what you're "telling" us. But that doesn't make it right, no matter how much you believe its right. It just makes you kooky. >.....WHY, precisely, is there a vast conspiracy > between the federal government and all 50 state governments, between all > the legislatures and the courts, and up and down all levels of appellate > courts, over driver's licenses? It gives them a way around Constitutional protections that allows them to intrude into your life any time you're on their roads operating a vehicle. It's touted as the single most important law-enforcement tool there is. It allows them access to your 'commerce', to your whereabouts, your address and personal particulars without oversight/regulation. Between the drivers' license, open-book reporting to the IRS, domestic terrorism wiretaps and surveillance off the books, drug-testing, net harvesting, credit reporting and ssn tracking- we're pretty much without an expectation of any sort of privacy anymore. The function of government is to extend government, and their only product/marketplace is us. Chas > > Although, as I said earlier, I would appreciate links to these cases > > where challenges to driver licensing was struck down. > > Do your own homework. I'm not doing it for you. You are the one who claims they exist. Produce your evidence. > > I would like to study them, if they exist. > > Why? I thought you said they're all wrong. Produce them. > > I've searched through the US Supreme Courts, and I haven't found one. > > Because drivers licenses are not a federal issue. Ah ha! This is what I suspected. You are refering to state court cases. What you're telling me is that the US Supreme Court hasn't ruled that Driver Licenisng is Constitutional. On the other hand, they have recognized our Right to use or public highways for personal travel in the ordinary way. > > I'm telling you, we have the Right to use our public highways for > > personal travel in the ordinary way. And, anybody or anything that [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I know what you're "telling" us. But that doesn't make it right, no > matter how much you believe its right. It just makes you kooky. I didn't make it a Right. I simply recognize the truth when I see it. > > > Although, as I said earlier, I would appreciate links to these cases > > > where challenges to driver licensing was struck down. > > > > Do your own homework. I'm not doing it for you. > > You are the one who claims they exist. Produce your evidence. You made the claim that we do have a "right" to drive. I have no obligation to provide the proof you're wrong. Keep chasing your windmills. I think it's funny, actually. > > > I would like to study them, if they exist. > > > > Why? I thought you said they're all wrong. > > Produce them. Find them yourself. You can't win by taking a head-in-the-sand approach. "No one is showing me them so I deny they exist so I must be right." > > > I've searched through the US Supreme Courts, and I haven't found one. > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > have recognized our Right to use or public highways for personal travel > in the ordinary way. You know nothing of certiorari and federal subject-matter jurisdiction, do you? Seriously - there is a reason SCOTUS has never heard these cases. I can explain if you need me to. > > > I'm telling you, we have the Right to use our public highways for > > > personal travel in the ordinary way. And, anybody or anything that [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I didn't make it a Right. I simply recognize the truth when I see it. > > > > Although, as I said earlier, I would appreciate links to these cases > > > > where challenges to driver licensing was struck down. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > obligation to provide the proof you're wrong. Keep chasing your > windmills. I think it's funny, actually. You made the claim certain cases exist. I have no obligation to provide your proof. > > > > I would like to study them, if they exist. > > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Find them yourself. You made the claim they exist. Produce them. > You can't win by taking a head-in-the-sand approach. I think it's funny, actually, that you would make claims certain things exist, yet refuse to produce them. > "No one is showing me them so I deny they exist so > I must be right." I haven't denied or affirmed that they exist. I have merely asked you to produce them. I ask no more or less of you than you have asked of me when I made claims. > > > > I've searched through the US Supreme Courts, and I > > > > haven't found one. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > You know nothing of certiorari and federal subject-matter jurisdiction, > do you? I'm not here to debate your impression of myself. This is known as an Ad Hominem. > Seriously - there is a reason SCOTUS has never heard these > cases. I can explain if you need me to. You don't even provide evidence to support your claims. > > > > > Although, as I said earlier, I would appreciate links to these cases > > > > > where challenges to driver licensing was struck down. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > You made the claim certain cases exist. I have no obligation to > provide your proof. The cases exist, whether I "prove" it to you or not, whether you believe me or not. If you want to learn more about this topic, in which you are so heavily invested, look for them. If you want to keep living in ignorance, don't believe me. It doesn't affect me one whit either way. > > > > > I would like to study them, if they exist. > > > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > You made the claim they exist. Produce them. Nah, its not worth my time. > > You can't win by taking a head-in-the-sand approach. > > I think it's funny, actually, that you would make claims certain things > exist, yet refuse to produce them. It's not within my control to "produce." They're out there. You can find them as easily as I can. > > "No one is showing me them so I deny they exist so > > I must be right." [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > I'm not here to debate your impression of myself. This is known as an > Ad Hominem. It's not an ad hominem. But if you understood those two concepts, you'd understand why there are no Supreme Court cases on the issue. Seriously, ask and I'll explain. > > Seriously - there is a reason SCOTUS has never heard these > > cases. I can explain if you need me to. > > You don't even provide evidence to support your claims. You want evidence that SCOTUS won't hear claims about state driver licensing statutes? Learn about federal subject-matter jurisdiction and federalism. > > > > > > Although, as I said earlier, I would appreciate links > > > > > > to these cases where challenges to driver licensing [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > The cases exist, whether I "prove" it to you or not, whether you believe > me or not. You made the claim these certain cases exist. I have no obligation to provide your proof. > > > > > > I would like to study them, if they exist. > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Nah, its not worth my time. Hahahahaha!! That's funny. You obviously think it's worth your time to respond to my posts numerous times, yet it's not worth your time to back up your own claims. > > > You can't win by taking a head-in-the-sand approach. > > > > I think it's funny, actually, that you would make claims > > certain things exist, yet refuse to produce them. > > It's not within my control to "produce." Are you trying to say in a round-a-bout way that you CAN'T produce it? > They're out there. > You can find them as easily as I can. You make the claim. If there out there, produce them. > > > "No one is showing me them so I deny they exist > > > so I must be right." > > > > I haven't denied or affirmed that they exist. I have merely > > asked you to produce them. I ask no more or less of you > > than you have asked of me when I made claims. > > > > > > I've searched through the US Supreme Courts, and I > > > > > > haven't found one. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > you'd understand why there are no Supreme Court cases on the issue. > Seriously, ask and I'll explain. Seriously Larry. I haven't tried to turn this into a personal vendetta against yourself. Why you feel the need to do so with me doesn't elude me. > > > Seriously - there is a reason SCOTUS has never heard > > > these cases. I can explain if you need me to. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > driver licensing statutes? Learn about federal subject-matter > jurisdiction and federalism. All I ask is that you provide evidence of your claim so I can examine it. > > > > > > > Although, as I said earlier, I would appreciate links > > > > > > > to these cases where challenges to driver licensing [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > You made the claim these certain cases exist. I have no obligation to > provide your proof. I'm not asking you to provide me with anything. I am telling you where to go if you want to learn why your position is flawed. If you want to live in ignorance, I can't stop you. > > > > > > > I would like to study them, if they exist. > > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > to respond to my posts numerous times, yet it's not worth your time to > back up your own claims. I'm done trying to educate you, since you're not willing to do a simple search to further this discussion. => > > > You can't win by taking a head-in-the-sand approach. > > > I think it's funny, actually, that you would make claims > > > certain things exist, yet refuse to produce them. > > > > It's not within my control to "produce." > > Are you trying to say in a round-a-bout way that you CAN'T produce it? No, I mean that you don't understand the legal definition of "production." > > They're out there. > > You can find them as easily as I can. > > You make the claim. If there out there, produce them. If you want to learn about them, find them. I'm not your teacher. \ > > > > "No one is showing me them so I deny they exist > > > > so I must be right." [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > against yourself. Why you feel the need to do so with me doesn't elude > me. Its not an ad homeniem. But to understand why there are no SCOTUS cases on the issue you need to understand the ideas of federalism and dual sovereignty, as well as federal subject-matter jurisdiction. Do you want me to briefly to explain them to you or are you aware of those concepts? > > > > Seriously - there is a reason SCOTUS has never heard > > > > these cases. I can explain if you need me to. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > All I ask is that you provide evidence of your claim so I can examine > it. > > > > > > > > Although, as I said earlier, I would appreciate > > > > > > > > links to these cases where challenges to [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > I'm not asking you to provide me with anything. Actually, when I made claims, you have asked me to provide evidence. And, I'm asking you to provide me with evidence supporting your claim. > I am telling you where to go if you want to learn why your > position is flawed. You are the one who claims this proof exists. Provide it. > If you want to live in ignorance, I can't stop you. I have no problem with being ignorant of proof supporting your claim. Seemingly, as it is your claim, you would be more than willing to enlighten me, along with that unseen audience reading this thread. > > > > > > > > I would like to study them, if they exist. > > > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > I'm done trying to educate you, since you're not willing to do a > simple search to further this discussion. What you're really saying is: "I'm done trying to support my claims, since you're not willing to do it for me." Although, as you never even began to support your claims, how can you be done? > > > > > > > > I've searched through the US Supreme Courts, > > > > > > > > and I haven't found one. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Its not an ad homeniem. It is a personal assult, designed to portray me in a negative sense, in the hope of bolstering your position. Aka, Ad Hominem. > It is a personal assult, designed to portray me in a negative sense, in > the hope of bolstering your position. Aka, Ad Hominem. Pot meet kettle. That is what Proffsl has done to Larry, continually. 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 > > It is a personal assult, designed to portray me in a negative sense, in > > the hope of bolstering your position. Aka, Ad Hominem. > > Pot meet kettle. That is what Proffsl has done to Larry, continually. Provide the evidence you aren't a Liar. Provide a link using Google Groups to any post in this thread where I attacked Larry's abilities. Provide the evidence you aren't a liar. > > > It is a personal assult, designed to portray me in a negative sense, in > > > the hope of bolstering your position. Aka, Ad Hominem. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Groups to any post in this thread where I attacked Larry's abilities. > Provide the evidence you aren't a liar. Proffsl was personally abusive in his above two posts. Proffsl has continually made bogus accusations against Larry, like accusing him of ad hominem attacks when none were issued by Larry. When Proffsl started losing the debate a week ago, he began issuing massive amounts of personal abuse toward those posters who were refuting his bogus arguments. 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 > > > > It is a personal assult, designed to portray me in a negative > > > > sense, in the hope of bolstering your position. Aka, Ad [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Proffsl was personally abusive in his above two posts. Repeating accusations is not proof. I have not once attacked Larry's abilities. > Proffsl has continually made bogus accusations against Larry, > like accusing him of ad hominem attacks when none were > issued by Larry. Ad Hominems issued by Larry: "Well, proffsl also fails to realize" "You're unable to comprehend it." "You really have little command of the Enlgish language" "Except by the word jumbles you like to use in an attempt to look smart." "Your command of the English language is about as poor as your understanding of the law." "Keep chasing your windmills." "You know nothing of certiorari and federal subject-matter jurisdiction" "you do not know the definition of dicta." "you do not know the definition of precedent." "Not to mention your glaring ignorance" "Don't lie to us - or yourself - and claim you have an open mind" "First you have to understand federal subject-matter jurisdiction and federalism. Then, and only then, can I begin to answer this question for you." "If you want to keep living in ignorance, don't believe me" "Learn about federal subject-matter jurisdiction and federalism." "If you want to live in ignorance, I can't stop you" "I'm done trying to educate you, since you're not willing to do a simple search to further this discussion." "No, I mean that you don't understand the legal definition of "production."" "And as I think the message is faulty, flawed, and lacking even one iota of legal basis, I certain think the creator of that message has faulty and flawed reasoning, and no legal education or knowledge whatsoever." "That's the part you can't grasp" > When Proffsl started losing the debate a week ago, he > began issuing massive amounts of personal abuse toward > those posters who were refuting his bogus arguments. Provide a link using Google Groups to a post of mine in this thread where I made any personal attacks toward anyone. Provide the evidence you aren't a liar. Oh! By the way. Pointing out their personal assults isn't a personal assult against them. > Repeating accusations is not proof. I have not once attacked Larry's > abilities. > > Ad Hominems issued by Larry: (snip) Nearly all of the quotes you list are not actual ad hominem attacks. Merely mentioning that you didn't understand something, failed to realize something, or even that you have little command of the English language, doesn't make the statement an ad hominem attack. To be ad hominem, Larry would actually have to have relied on or presented those statements as his evidence that your argument is incorrect. *That* would make it ad hominem. The fact that your argument is faulty lies completely in the contradictions that are embedded in it, independently of whether you failed to realize the meanings of Larry's or my previous proofs of your errors. > Nearly all of the quotes you list are not actual ad hominem attacks. > Merely mentioning that you didn't understand something, failed to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > statements as his evidence that your argument is incorrect. *That* > would make it ad hominem. In effect, Larry was attempting to support his position by attacking my abilities. And, they definately were Personal Assults. > The fact that your argument is faulty lies completely in the > contradictions that are embedded in it, independently of whether > you failed to realize the meanings of Larry's or my previous proofs > of your errors. Don't start it again. And, there is no fault in my position that we have the Right to use our Public Highways for Personal Travel in the ordinary way, and that State Driver Licensing is a denial of this Right without Due Process of Law. And, I will not listen to argumentation along the lines of: "Government decides what your Rights are, and if they say it isn't a Right, it isn't a Right." That is unmitigated HOG WASH. The ONLY thing government decides is what Rights they will recognize. They don't create Rights, and therefore they don't decide what is a Right. Nor do I, or you, or anybody else. All we can do is make our best effort to discover what those Rights are, and develope our best methods to test their validity. Now, if you are willing to speak of this issue without all the legal mealy mouth I'm superior to you and you only have what government says you have bull crap, fine. Otherwise,,,, Bugger off. > > Nearly all of the quotes you list are not actual ad hominem attacks. > > Merely mentioning that you didn't understand something, failed to [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > In effect, Larry was attempting to support his position by attacking my > abilities. And, they definately were Personal Assults. READ my post again, fercryinoutloud. Whether he personally insults you or not, to do so *is not in and of itself* a fallacious ad hominem attack on your position. It's just a personal insult. To be an ad hominem fallacy, Larry would have to rely on his personal position on your intellectual acumen as the *basis* for his refutation of it. He did not do this. What you consider to be his "assaults" on you are more like gratuitous enhancements to his post. His refutation of your position, like mine, is based on sound logical analysis of the facts of the matter at hand. They stand on their own, a few insults thrown in notwithstanding. That's the distinction I'm trying to point out to you. Get it? > > The fact that your argument is faulty lies completely in the > > contradictions that are embedded in it, independently of whether > > you failed to realize the meanings of Larry's or my previous proofs > > of your errors. > > Don't start it again. Why? It completely demolished your argument before. Now that you're trying to revive it with CPR, it's only fitting to put it out of its misery. > And, there is no fault in my position that we have the Right to use our > Public Highways for Personal Travel in the ordinary way, and that State > Driver Licensing is a denial of this Right without Due Process of Law. Of course there is. There's *every* fault about it to the extent that the position itself is fundamentally flawed. 1) The case you keep citing did *not* strike down licensing, in fact had nothing to *do* with it. 2) Ordinary way has legally included licensing and registration almost since the dawn of auto travel, and SCOTUS has upheld it so. 3) There is no showing on your part that the licensing procedure isn't, by its nature, the very due process you keep saying isn't present here. > And, I will not listen .... So we've noted. > to argumentation along the lines of: "Government > decides what your Rights are, and if they say it isn't a Right, it > isn't a Right." Then it's no wonder you cannot resolve the logical contradictions in your position and it falls like a house of cards. The very purpose of the courts is to be the entity that does the above. By definition, the courts interpret how our rights are practiced. > Now, if you are willing to speak of this issue without all the legal > mealy mouth I'm superior to you and you only have what government says > you have bull crap, fine. Otherwise,,,, Bugger off. Again with the personal insults. Just can't seem to stop yourself. Look, your futile attempts to brush off the solid foundation we've presented for you as "conspiracy" and lies by successive generations of the public through its government doesn't do you well. > Ad Hominems issued by Larry: > [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > "That's the part you can't grasp" In other words, you have such thin skin that any negative comment about the strength (or lack thereof) of your argument is an ad homineem. > [personal assults deleted] You have ignored this over and over, but I am not here to debate your projected impression of myself. > > > It is a personal assult, designed to portray me in a negative sense, in > > > the hope of bolstering your position. Aka, Ad Hominem. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Groups to any post in this thread where I attacked Larry's abilities. > Provide the evidence you aren't a liar. Wow, you really don't know how to google anything for yourself, do you? > > > > It is a personal assult, designed to portray me in a negative > > > > sense, in the hope of bolstering your position. Aka, Ad [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Wow, you really don't know how to google anything for yourself, do you? Would you like to put your money where your mouth is, or are you primarily interested only in taking cheap shots? Don't bother answering, I already know. > > > > > It is a personal assult, designed to portray me in a negative > > > > > sense, in the hope of bolstering your position. Aka, Ad [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > primarily interested only in taking cheap shots? Don't bother > answering, I already know. I'll put my money where my mouth is. I'll bet that you won't google this for yourself and find the applicable cases. > > > > > > It is a personal assult, designed to portray me in a > > > > > > negative sense, in the hope of bolstering your position. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > I'll put my money where my mouth is. I'll bet that you won't google > this for yourself and find the applicable cases. As has been typical of you throughout discussion, other than your offensive nature by your own admission, you claim one thing, then defend another. First you claim I can't Google anything, then try to defend I won't google something specific. And, your contribution here isn't even germane to my discussion with Scott. > > > > > > It is a personal assult, designed to portray me in a > > > > > > negative sense, in the hope of bolstering your [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > I'll put my money where my mouth is. I'll bet that you won't google > this for yourself and find the applicable cases. Typical for you, other than your offensive nature by your own admission, you claim one thing then attempt to defend another. First you claim I can't Google anyting, then try to defend that I won't Google something in spicific. > > > > > > It is a personal assult, designed to portray me in a > > > > > > negative sense, in the hope of bolstering your [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > I'll put my money where my mouth is. I'll bet that you won't google > this for yourself and find the applicable cases. Typical for you, other than your offensive nature by your own admission, you claim one thing then attempt to defend another. First you claim I can't Google anyting, then try to defend that I won't Google something in spicific. > Typical for you, other than your offensive nature by your own > admission, you claim one thing then attempt to defend another. First > you claim I can't Google anyting, then try to defend that I won't > Google something in spicific. Is it just me, or can anyone make sense of the statement above? > > Typical for you, other than your offensive nature by your own > > admission, you claim one thing then attempt to defend another. > > First you claim I can't Google anyting, then try to defend that > > I won't Google something in spicific. > > Is it just me, or can anyone make sense of the statement above? Flynn, I have discovered you have a rather selective capability to understand. > > > Typical for you, other than your offensive nature by your own > > > admission, you claim one thing then attempt to defend another. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Flynn, I have discovered you have a rather selective capability to > understand. That come to you in a divine dream also? That's like Mickey Mouse discovering Stephen Hawking has selective ability to u nderstand. > > > Typical for you, other than your offensive nature by your own > > > admission, you claim one thing then attempt to defend another. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Flynn, I have discovered you have a rather selective capability to > understand. Says the guy who cites Supreme Court caselaw in support of his argument when he thinks it helps him, and dismisses it as wrong and irrelevant when it doesn't. > > Typical for you, other than your offensive nature by your own > > admission, you claim one thing then attempt to defend another. First > > you claim I can't Google anyting, then try to defend that I won't > > Google something in spicific. > > Is it just me, or can anyone make sense of the statement above? Here's as best as I can decipher it: The first sentence consists of a sarcastic comment ("typical for you"), followed by an ad hominem personal attack ("other than your offensive nature by your own admission,"), and ending with a misstatement of my previous post ("you claim one thing then attempt to defend another.") The second sentence starts off with a mischaracterization of my previous posts ("First you claim I can't Google anyting [sic],") and finishes with another mischaracterization, this one of my most recent response to him ("then try to defend that I won't Google something in spicific [sic].") I hope this interpretation helps. As an side, for someone as smart as proffsl claims to be, his sentence structure is about as bad as his spelling, isn't it? > > > Typical for you, other than your offensive nature by your own > > > admission, you claim one thing then attempt to defend another. First [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > As an side, for someone as smart as proffsl claims to be, his sentence > structure is about as bad as his spelling, isn't it? I guess my problem was that he first seemed to claim you were being inconsistent, yet the example he gave contained no inconsistency, at least as far as I could tell after hacking my way through his horrible sentence structure. He says you claim he can't Google anything, yet you "defend" that he won't Google some specific thing. Where is the contradiction here? With either statement, he isn't Googling anything. > > > > Typical for you, other than your offensive nature by your > > > > own admission, you claim one thing then attempt to [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > contradiction here? With either statement, he isn't Googling > anything. First he claims I can't Google anything. Which is to claim I can Google nothing. Then, he defends his claim by saying I won't Google something spicific. That defense does not prove his original claim. Refusing or not desiring to Google something spicific does not prove one can't Google anything. > > > > > Typical for you, other than your offensive nature by your > > > > > own admission, you claim one thing then attempt to [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > Refusing or not desiring to Google something spicific does not prove > one can't Google anything. Earth to Proffy: Neither do they contradict; both can be true. > > > > > > Typical for you, other than your offensive nature by > > > > > > your own admission, you claim one thing then [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > > Earth to Proffy: Neither do they contradict; both can be true. Reality to Flynnsie Winsiee: I didn't say they contradicted, or that both couldn't be true. I merely said the two were not the same things. He claimed one thing, and defended another. DUH. > > > > > > > Typical for you, other than your offensive nature by > > > > > > > your own admission, you claim one thing then [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > both couldn't be true. I merely said the two were not the same things. > He claimed one thing, and defended another. DUH. Fwee wesson to Pwoffy-Woffie: If this latest explanation by you clarifies your earlier gibberish correctly, then there is *no* criticism to be validly made of Larry's post. There is no logical problem with making two separate assertions; one doesn't have to defend the other. Both can be true and consistent. Here's what you just said, now listen again, and think how stupid this sounds: "I merely said that the two [previous statements by Larry] were not the same things. He claimed one thing, and defended another." Gadzooks, man, are you so densely blinded by your failing attempt to prop up the fallacies and fatal flaws of your argument that you see some problem with Larry saying two thngs in one post? If they don't contradict each other, as you now admit, then there is no issue. What is the problem with 1) Making statement A and then 2) making statement B, both of which point out your inadequacies. Whether B is a defense of A or not is immaterial. You make multiple assertions ad nauseum in this thread, and in fact they *are* contradictory, yet you see something wrong with Larry saying two things in one post. DUH! So much for Mr. Bwilliant! > > > > > > > > Typical for you, other than your offensive nature by > > > > > > > > your own admission, you claim one thing then [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] > "I merely said that the two [previous statements by Larry] were not the > same things. He claimed one thing, and defended another." If you let proffsl go on for awhile, he tends to undermine his own arguments. > Gadzooks, man, are you so densely blinded by your failing attempt to > prop up the fallacies and fatal flaws of your argument that you see [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > So much for Mr. Bwilliant! Maybe he's too brilliant (or stupid, to us stupid people) to comprehend two different topics at once. > > > > > Typical for you, other than your offensive nature by your > > > > > own admission, you claim one thing then attempt to [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > First he claims I can't Google anything. Which is to claim I can > Google nothing. I did not make such a claim. > Then, he defends his claim by saying I won't Google something spicific. As I did not make such a claim, I did not defend said claim. Although I admit to having made the statement, but not as a defense to any supposed claim. > That defense does not prove his original claim. As it was not a defense, and I did not make the alleged claim, I certainly wasn't defending a claim, so it doesn't surprise me that a statement I made didn't defend something I never said. > Refusing or not desiring to Google something spicific does not prove > one can't Google anything. > > > > Typical for you, other than your offensive nature by your own > > > > admission, you claim one thing then attempt to defend another. First [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > least as far as I could tell after hacking my way through his horrible > sentence structure. Oh, I see. I was elaborating on his sentence structure, while your question pertained to its meaning. I admit, I'm stumped there as well. > He says you claim he can't Google anything, yet you "defend" that he > won't Google some specific thing. Where is the contradiction here? With > either statement, he isn't Googling anything. I never even made the statement that he can't Google anything, but that's a whole 'nother problem with his post. > > He says you claim he can't Google anything, yet you "defend" that he > > won't Google some specific thing. Where is the contradiction here? > > With either statement, he isn't Googling anything. > > I never even made the statement that he can't Google anything, but > that's a whole 'nother problem with his post. http://groups.google.com/group/alt.law-enforcement/msg/b9d1aed00390332f?dmode=source Larry wrote: "Wow, you really don't know how to google anything for yourself, do you?" "don't know how" = "can't." Next, you defend that accusation in: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.law-enforcement/msg/5d76816dfcf089d3?dmode=source Larry wrote: "I'll put my money where my mouth is. I'll bet that you won't google this for yourself and find the applicable cases." So, Larry, is this a learned behavior on your part, or is it an inbred characteristic? > > > He says you claim he can't Google anything, yet you "defend" that he > > > won't Google some specific thing. Where is the contradiction here? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > "don't know how" = "can't." And here comes the lesson in basic English for Pwoffie Woffie. Larry's post you quoted was an interrogative sentence. It was a question, not a declarative statement. Here's a clue for the next time you go off on a wingnut crusade: That mark at the end of the sentence that is squiggly and has the dot at the bottom, like this: "?" That's a question mark. So, Pwoffie, is this a learned behavior on your part, or is it an inbred characteristic? > > > > He says you claim he can't Google anything, yet you "defend" that he > > > > won't Google some specific thing. Where is the contradiction here? [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > that is squiggly and has the dot at the bottom, like this: "?" That's a > question mark. Heh, should have read all the posts before I responded in a very similar manner. Though I think "squiggly" is a better word than my choice, "curly." > So, Pwoffie, is this a learned behavior on your part, or is it an > inbred characteristic? Careful, he's going to accuse you of making a claim about him! > > > He says you claim he can't Google anything, yet you "defend" that he > > > won't Google some specific thing. Where is the contradiction here? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > "don't know how" = "can't." See that funny looking curly thing at the end with a dot under it? It's a question mark. Claims don't end in question marks. Questions do. I was asking you a question, not making a claim. > Next, you defend that accusation in: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > won't google > this for yourself and find the applicable cases." This is not defending a claim. I was willing to bet that in that particular instance, you wouldn't google it for yourself. My offer to you (and it was an offer, not a defense) did not indicate whether I thought you would not google it yourself because you don't know how to, or whether it was because you know how to use Google, but chose not to in this situation. > So, Larry, is this a learned behavior on your part, or is it an inbred > characteristic? Shut up and go away. > Shut up and go away. No. > As an side, for someone as smart as proffsl claims to be, his > sentence structure is about as bad as his spelling, isn't it? Brilliance isn't measured by one's ability to spell, no more than it is measured by one's ability to recite the presidents of the US, each of which are learned, or memorized things. Computers can be programed to recite all the presidents, perform perfect spelling, and even sentence structure, yet one wouldn't suggest a computer is brilliant. Brilliance is an ineffable quality, sometimes even mistaken as stupidity, but usually only by the stupid. > > As an side, for someone as smart as proffsl claims to be, his > > sentence structure is about as bad as his spelling, isn't it? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Brilliance is an ineffable quality, sometimes even mistaken as > stupidity, but usually only by the stupid. Stupidity, however, tends to be rather clear. The brilliant at least tend to make sense. > > > As an side, for someone as smart as proffsl claims to be, > > > his sentence structure is about as bad as his spelling, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Stupidity, however, tends to be rather clear. The brilliant at > least tend to make sense. Only to those who can comprehend. > > > > As an side, for someone as smart as proffsl claims to be, > > > > his sentence structure is about as bad as his spelling, [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Only to those who can comprehend. That explains the lack of sense in your posts then. Thank you! First insight you've shown here! > > As an side, for someone as smart as proffsl claims to be, his > > sentence structure is about as bad as his spelling, isn't it? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Brilliance is an ineffable quality, sometimes even mistaken as > stupidity, but usually only by the stupid. Great answer. "I'm brilliant because I say I am, even though it can't be measured. And anyone who thinks I am stupid only thinks so because they are stupid themselves." I really admire you. Inside that tin-foil hat is quite a self-assuring world you've created. You can do no wrong, say no wrong, and anyone who challenges you is obviously not only wrong, but stupid. <attributions snipped> > > > > > > > > > Although, as I said earlier, I would appreciate > > > > > > > > > links to these cases where challenges to [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Actually, when I made claims, you have asked me to provide evidence. > And, I'm asking you to provide me with evidence supporting your claim. And I'm telling you where to go to find the evidence yourself. > > I am telling you where to go if you want to learn why your > > position is flawed. > > You are the one who claims this proof exists. Provide it. Nah... > > If you want to live in ignorance, I can't stop you. > > I have no problem with being ignorant of proof supporting your claim. Obviously. > Seemingly, as it is your claim, you would be more than willing to > enlighten me, along with that unseen audience reading this thread. I have no interest in enlightening you. Like I said in my last post, it's not "my" position. The law is what it is. If you read my posts, I have never expressed my personal opinion as to your argument. I have never expressed my personal opinion as to the current state of the law or whether I think driver licensing laws are constitutional or not, or beneficial or not. I've been telling you what the law *is,* and, frankly, if you don't want to learn, its no skin off my back. > > > > > > > > > I would like to study them, if they exist. > > > > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > What you're really saying is: "I'm done trying to support my claims, > since you're not willing to do it for me." Again, they're not my claims. The law is what it is, regardless of what you or I or anyone else (except judges and legislators) want the law to be. > Although, as you never even began to support your claims, how can you > be done? When I make a subjective claim, I support it. When I refer to public documents, news events, and similar occurrences, I assume those who are interested can find out more about those things on their own. If I say the Yankees won today, I don't need to provide you evidence of it. It happened, whether you accept it or not, whether you believe me or not. But if I say Alex Rodriguez is the best player in baseball, I better be able to provide support for my contention. > > > > > > > > > I've searched through the US Supreme Courts, > > > > > > > > > and I haven't found one. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > It is a personal assult, designed to portray me in a negative sense, in > the hope of bolstering your position. Aka, Ad Hominem. Since you are not the passive messenger, but are the creator of the message, I understand you take it personally when I point out your message is baseless and not grounded in any rational interpretation of the law. > > Actually, when I made claims, you have asked me to provide evidence. > > And, I'm asking you to provide me with evidence supporting your claim. > > And I'm telling you where to go to find the evidence yourself. You claim the courts have upheld Driver Licensing, and I asked if you could provide links to these rulings, but it's obvious you have no intention of providing anything to back up your claim. And, your suggesting I Google them strangly enough produced links to other debates concerning the invalidity of Driver Licensing. Googling isn't the answer to everything. I would still like to get links to these cases, but for what ever reason, you seem unwilling to provide them. I've done some extensive searches on findlaw website, but they primarly archive US Supreme Court cases. And, as I've said, and as I believe you've acknowledged, this issue has never made it to the US Supreme Court. Licensing of Commercial entities have, but never Licensing of Private Individuals. I would be interested in how the validity of Driver Licensing of Commercial entities made it to the US Supreme Court, when the validity of Driver Licensing of Private Individuals haven't. > The law is what it is. If you read my posts, I have never expressed > my personal opinion as to your argument. I have never expressed > my personal opinion as to the current state of the law or whether I > think driver licensing laws are constitutional or not, or beneficial or > not. What are you eluding to here? > I've been telling you what the law *is,* and, frankly, if you don't want > to learn, its no skin off my back. I have never said I didn't want to learn. I just resent your methods of teaching. I find your methods personally offensive. I've been speaking in terms of what I have come to realize our Rights really are, not what today's lying representatives in government say they are. I've used quotes from the US Supreme Court from early dates supporting my position, which you kept remarking about their dates, because this was from a time when government representatives weren't such liars. Obviously, we are approaching this issue from two incompatable directions. > > It is a personal assult, designed to portray me in a negative sense, in > > the hope of bolstering your position. Aka, Ad Hominem. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > message is baseless and not grounded in any rational interpretation of > the law. Larry, compairing you with k_flynn, I find you to be the lesser of two evils. Your personal attacks were somewhat less offensive than flynn's. But, none the less, you have made numerous attacks upon my skills and qualifications. That's why I say above that I resent your "teaching" methods. You can't teach people anything if the first thing you do is close the doors to reasonable discussion. Frankly sir, I am quite inteligent, maybe even briliant. I've never claimed to be learned in all fields of study, including the law. But, I'm sure there is nothing in law I am unable to comprehend. Come to think of it, you've also attacked my powers of comprehension. None the less, if you have constructive advice towards my ends, I would be gratfull if you provided it in an elegant manner, absent of personal assults. Otherwise, your hostile methods leave me suspecting your motivations, thereby the quality of your advice. I am quite convinced we have the Right to use our public highways for personal travel in the ordinary way, and that our States are Lying to us, that State Driver Licensing laws are an abridgment of that Right without Due Process of Law. I also believe our States have become so involved in this lie that they will never admit to it, unless forced to by the US Supreme Court, or by massive citizen outcry. If there is a way to get this issue to the US Supreme Court with the hope of winning, I would be gratefull if you eluded to that way, although I wouldn't know if I would have the financial resources to conduct such a battle. Otherwise, I'm here to convince others of what I've been convinced of. And, I might add, I am making headway on that side of the battle. This isn't the only place where I spread my gospel, and I am always making converts. And, people like Motorhead, k_flynn will not detour me from my mission. There nothing more than bitter hateful freaks who's only pleasure in life is to be personally assulting to others, and who should be in a zoo. My final judgement on you is still pending. No skin off my nose one way or the other. So, Larry, what's it going to be? A respectful discussion, or otherwise? > > > Actually, when I made claims, you have asked me to provide evidence. > > > And, I'm asking you to provide me with evidence supporting your claim. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > suggesting I Google them strangly enough produced links to other > debates concerning the invalidity of Driver Licensing. Then you should have read them... they all deal with how folks who share your opinion about the right to drive without licensing have lost their cases, and how they might go about trying to get around the huge mountain of legal precedence that stands against them. This is the adjudication we have been trying to tell you about.... There are plenty enough people who share your opinion and have tested their theories in court and they have generally lost (one or two succeed on technicalities but never on the foundational issue of constitutionality of licensing). So as I have been telling you, your claim that you have never heard of any of these cases seemed pretty suspect since you were well-versed in the arcania of the issue. With as much to say as you have had, I foudnit doubtdful you'd never known that these positions had been tested in court and found without merit. > Googling isn't > the answer to everything. I would still like to get links to these [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Court. Licensing of Commercial entities have, but never Licensing of > Private Individuals. Incorrect. Your Googling should have taken you to a very early SCOTUS case that upheld driver licensing as within the legitimate public interests of the states. > I would be interested in how the validity of Driver Licensing of > Commercial entities made it to the US Supreme Court, when the validity > of Driver Licensing of Private Individuals haven't. Both have. Hendrick v Maryland, 1915 > > The law is what it is. If you read my posts, I have never expressed > > my personal opinion as to your argument. I have never expressed [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > What are you eluding to here? Eluding? Interesting. > I've been speaking in terms of what I have come to realize our Rights > really are, not what today's lying representatives in government say > they are. I've used quotes from the US Supreme Court from early dates > supporting my position, As I proved to you earlier but you continue to ignore, the Packard case you kept citing does *not* invalidate licensing. The case wasn;t about that, it was about taxi liability insurance. The "ordinary way" of using the highways, as Hendrick outright says, is with *licensing* of operators, commerical *and* private. > which you kept remarking about their dates, > because this was from a time when government representatives weren't > such liars. Nonsensical remark, betraying little knowledge of how there has been corruption in government in the past. > Larry, compairing you with k_flynn, I find you to be the lesser of two > evils. Your personal attacks were somewhat less offensive than > flynn's. Holy crap, again? You started it, and I was civil until then, and in any post that you dind't engage in it I was civil afterward. > But, none the less, you have made numerous attacks upon my > skills and qualifications. That's why I say above that I resent your > "teaching" methods. But what if those observations were warranted by your presentation? You could still resent them, but they would also still be true. > Frankly sir, I am quite inteligent, maybe even briliant. Hmmmm, anyone else catch the ironic humor in that last remark? > I am quite convinced we have the Right to use our public highways for > personal travel in the ordinary way, Yes, we do. >and that our States are Lying to us... No, they're not. All the laws have been passed openly and above board and have been tested constitutionally by the processes set up to do so. The fact that you continue to have a different interpretation doesn't mean the states are "lying," it merely means you need to hire a better lawyer to more convincingly persuade five of nine SCOTUS justices that 100 years of case law and jurisprudence is all a big conspiracy to steal our rights. Good luck. I mean that. I could use a few extra bucks in my pocket from not having to get a license *or* a registration! >that State Driver Licensing laws are an abridgment of that Right > without Due Process of Law. The process you go through *is* the due process, so therefore, no violation. >I also believe our States have become so > involved in this lie that they will never admit to it, unless forced to > by the US Supreme Court, or by massive citizen outcry. Massive citizen outcry might be the other way around, when they keep getting hit by hit-and-run drivers who have no accountability because no tags or licenses. And SCOTUS already has upheld licensing. > If there is a way to get this issue to the US Supreme Court with the > hope of winning, I would be gratefull if you eluded to that way, > although I wouldn't know if I would have the financial resources to > conduct such a battle. It's been there. > Otherwise, I'm here to convince others of what I've been convinced of. Try "moon is made of green cheese" for a while, see how that goes. > And, I might add, I am making headway on that side of the battle. This > isn't the only place where I spread my gospel, and I am always making > converts. Until the black helicopters come for you. > And, people like Motorhead, k_flynn will not detour me from my mission. We already have. Just because you continue to say things that have been proven wrong doesn't mean you are making headway. YOu can walk a thousand miles down the wrong road... you'll still end up in the wrong place. I know folks who have argued and argued and argued that the income tax is illegal and they have brought people over to their side too... and some of them are nowe in jail or deeply in debt to IRS -- which means deeply in debt to we who already pay our bills *and* theirs. See? Persistence in a wrong mission doesn't make it right. > There nothing more than bitter hateful freaks who's only pleasure in > life is to be personally assulting to others, and who should be in a > zoo. Hmmm. I think the fact that I have soundly beaten your argument with facts might be contributing to your massive delusion that it is I rather than you who is bitter and hateful. I hate no one, am bitter toward no one. I am not the one on the losing side of a century-long debate that's been throughly tested. It's difficult to be on your side, I understand, because it's like pounding your head against a brick wall of logic and precedent. Self-delusion such as yours is a necessary coping skill. I suppose there's some way you would rationalize this personal assault in me and deny later that yoiu engaged in any insulting behavior, but I'll make note of it, a.shole. > > > > Actually, when I made claims, you have asked me to > > > > provide evidence. And, I'm asking you to provide me [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Then you should have read them... You make way too many presumptions on my part which I find offensive. If you could drop this, and other, offensive characteristics in your writing, you might actually find within yourself the ability to contribute to a discussion. Till then,,,, > they all deal with how folks who share your opinion about the right to > drive without licensing have lost their cases, and how they might go > about trying to get around the huge mountain of legal precedence that > stands against them. This is the adjudication we have been trying to > tell you about.... You haven't tried to tell me much of anything except: ~You're wrong because you're ignorant, you didn't look, you're lacking in reading skills, and because you're incapable of comprehension~ Don't believe me? Go back and re-read yourself. (yep, that's a directive) > > > The law is what it is. If you read my posts, I have never expressed > > > my personal opinion as to your argument. I have never expressed [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Eluding? Interesting. This is just another example of your offensive nature. > > Larry, compairing you with k_flynn, I find you to be the > > lesser of two evils. Your personal attacks were somewhat > > less offensive than flynn's. > > Holy crap, again? You started it, and I was civil until then, and > in any post that you dind't engage in it I was civil afterward. k_flynn, you initiated the offensive attacks upon myself instead of simply addressing the issue. I am suspect of anyone who seeks to debate their impression of the messenger instead of the message. > > But, none the less, you have made numerous attacks > > upon my skills and qualifications. That's why I say above [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > presentation? You could still resent them, but they would > also still be true. Here you go again, attemtping to make the subject of discussion your impression of myself rather than the issue. > > Frankly sir, I am quite inteligent, maybe even briliant. > > Hmmmm, anyone else catch the ironic humor in that last > remark? Well, as I entered myself as subject for discussion here, I probably asked for this one. Although, nowhere else have I entered myself as subject for discussion, and I found your attempts to do so, instead of simply addressing the subject, offensive. And, I will consider any further such attempts equally offensive. > > Otherwise, I'm here to convince others of what I've been convinced of. > > Try "moon is made of green cheese" for a while, see how that goes. There you go again with your offensive discussion methods. > > And, I might add, I am making headway on that side of the battle. This > > isn't the only place where I spread my gospel, and I am always making > > converts. > > Until the black helicopters come for you. And, again,,,, > > There nothing more than bitter hateful freaks who's only > > pleasure in life is to be personally assulting to others, and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > argument with facts might be contributing to your massive > delusion that it is I rather than you who is bitter and hateful. And, again,,, > Self-delusion such as yours is a necessary coping skill. And, again,,, > I suppose there's some way you would rationalize this personal assault > in me and deny later that yoiu engaged in any insulting behavior, but > I'll make note of it, a.shole. Hahahahahahaha!!! > > they all deal with how folks who share your opinion about the right to > > drive without licensing have lost their cases, and how they might go [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > because you're ignorant, you didn't look, you're lacking in reading > skills, and because you're incapable of comprehension~ Yep, that is a pretty spot-on analysis of what we've been trying to tell you. But you're going to dismiss this as an ad hominem, claim you're brilliant, and state that you and your followers all know The Truth (tm) while the rest of us are being Lied To by the Government. > Don't believe me? Go back and re-read yourself. (yep, that's a > directive) [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > This is just another example of your offensive nature. No, its another example of someone pointing out an error in your reasoning/spelling/word choice/comprehension, which you are taking personally and deem to be "offensive." I think its because you believe anyone who disagrees with you is "offensive." > [even more personal assults deleted] See if you can wrap your thoughts around this concept such that you comprehend. I AM NOT HERE TO DEBATE YOUR PROJECTED IMPRESSION OF MYSELF. > > > > > Actually, when I made claims, you have asked me to > > > > > provide evidence. And, I'm asking you to provide me [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > You make way too many presumptions on my part which I find offensive. Too bad. You set yourself up to read offense in things that are not. As I say, you should have read them if you found them, for then you would not continue saying the things you have been saying. That's all; that's nothing close to insulting. > If you could drop this, and other, offensive characteristics in your > writing, you might actually find within yourself the ability to > contribute to a discussion. It's not offensive; it's the discussion. You said you Googled it and found the pertinent hits. Had you read them and understood their meanings, you would not have continued to maintain that the constitutionality of driver licensing hasn't been tested in courts, including SCOTUS. I'm just trying to move the discussion along here. So you can drop that entire line of argument. You said that "strangly enough" you found links to other debates concerning invalidity of licensing. That this has long been debated has never been denied by any of us here. What is undeniably true, though, is that every constitutional test of licensing has upheld it. It has never been ruled unconstitutional in any of those attempts. If you'd read the hits, you'd have known that. Hence my advice. > Till then,,,, Till then? Another directive? I am not a farmer. > > they all deal with how folks who share your opinion about the right to > > drive without licensing have lost their cases, and how they might go [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > You haven't tried to tell me much of anything except... Oooops. Wrong-o!! I have dealt with every issue you've raised, far as I can tell. I thoroughly demolished your line of reasoning, based entirely on factual analysis and logic. Nothing you've maintained has stood up to factual scrutiny. As a result, you resort to personal insults. > ~You're wrong > because you're ignorant, you didn't look, you're lacking in reading > skills, and because you're incapable of comprehension~ What else is one to presume when your replies demonstrate that you completely misread what I write; when you maintain absolutes - "Supreme Court has never ruled" - that are not true; when you claim you look at Google hits but don't write as though you actually read them for what they said? I mean, what else can we conclude? Those remarks, which were *not* my argument at all but which were observations about your methods, aren't ad hominem, as I demonstrated earlier. Your argument fell of its own fallacious construction long before, under the factual and logical analyses of myself and others; an ad hominem fallacy would have relied solely on presenting your shortcomings as evidence your position was not correct. As I said earlier, those observations weren't part of our argument; they were simply asides based on, for instance, your persistent misinterpretations of what others wrote. > Don't believe me? Go back and re-read yourself. (yep, that's a > directive) I don't get it. Is that supposed to be insulting? I've been following your exchanges with others and it seems pretty thin-skinned on usenet to take umbrage when someone says "you should have read them?" Holy moley. I've followed the discussion. I know the positions I took; I know - and I suspect you do too - that you are wrong and simply posturing when you say I've done nothing but insult you. That's nonsense. I provided clear and, well, maybe not concise, but actually lengthy factual and logical rebuttals to your easily defeated arguments. That you choose to focus on remarks like "you should have read them" is like Custer complaining about a hangnail as the Indians are leaving the battle. > > > > The law is what it is. If you read my posts, I have never expressed > > > > my personal opinion as to your argument. I have never expressed [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > This is just another example of your offensive nature. Bullshit. It's just an excuse for you to "elude" the real point and divert attention from you losing argument. You're the one who said you were "inteligent" and maybe "briliant." You should know this. Fact is, I thought your malapropism was fitting given your elusive behavior. > > > Larry, compairing you with k_flynn, I find you to be the > > > lesser of two evils. Your personal attacks were somewhat > > > less offensive than flynn's. You know, I *am* offended by that one! Larry's been much much more insulting and offensive to you than I have. Much much more! I've winced at some of the things he's said to you. I, on the other hand, have merely replied in kind to your insults. He's been much more personal and pointed than I ever would be, and I think he deserves to be recognized for that! I've been a choir boy compared to him! C'mon, Larry, stand up for yourself here! > > Holy crap, again? You started it, and I was civil until then, and > > in any post that you dind't engage in it I was civil afterward. > > k_flynn, you initiated the offensive attacks upon myself instead of > simply addressing the issue. Nope. You did. > I am suspect of anyone who seeks to > debate their impression of the messenger instead of the message. Well, include me out then. I am not debating my impression of *you* when I point out your obvious misinterpretations of things I write. I am simply *pointing out* that you have misunderstood this or that. You find that insulting? Tough sh.t. It's an essential part of the discussion itself when I have said "black" yet you reply "why do you say white?" How else do I bring up those erroneous readings? Fact is, I believe it's obvious that you focus on that stuff in order to avoid dealing with the complete logical dismantling of your argument. > > > But, none the less, you have made numerous attacks > > > upon my skills and qualifications. That's why I say above [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Here you go again, attemtping to make the subject of discussion your > impression of myself rather than the issue. Nope. Just responding to your post above. It sounds arrogant of you to think you can attack me but somehow remain immune from being attacked in return. Don't happen that way. I get to reply. You merely attack me again for having the temerity to actually respond to your false allegation. I don't care. I'll just continue to point out such hypocrisy. > > > Frankly sir, I am quite inteligent, maybe even briliant. > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > simply addressing the subject, offensive. And, I will consider any > further such attempts equally offensive. Boo hoo. P-K-B!! > > > Otherwise, I'm here to convince others of what I've been convinced of. > > > > Try "moon is made of green cheese" for a while, see how that goes. > > There you go again with your offensive discussion methods. You really ought to thicken up, man. There's nothing intrinsically offensive about that statement. It's an analogy - your argument, that you are out to convince others of that which you have apparently managed to convince yourself, is fantasy as we've shown. To analogize it to a well-recognized fantasy is an illustration. It's not insulting on its face. If you take it that way, not my problem. If you dish it out, don't boo-hoo when it comes back at you. > > > And, I might add, I am making headway on that side of the battle. This > > > isn't the only place where I spread my gospel, and I am always making [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > And, again,,,, Fully justified observation based on the preceding comment. Spreading your gospel? Making converts? It almost sounds like you have a Messianic complex. > > > There nothing more than bitter hateful freaks who's only > > > pleasure in life is to be personally assulting to others, and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > And, again,,, Bwahahahahahaaa! "Bitter hateful freaks?" This insult of yours is somehow regarded as respectful discourse in your part of the world? This convinces me that you really have no observing ego. You call me a "bitter hateful freak" but when I reply that your own behavior after I defeated your arguments makes you sound delusional, you go crying to all of Mommy Usenet? That's pathetic. > > Self-delusion such as yours is a necessary coping skill. > > And, again,,, Hey, I am reaching out in an effort to understand this Holy Crusade you now admit to be on. Gospel, converts and all that. > > I suppose there's some way you would rationalize this personal assault > > in me and deny later that you engaged in any insulting behavior, but > > I'll make note of it, a.shole. > > Hahahahahahaha!!! You would benefit from more time reading those Google hits and less time insulting people who prove you wrong. > It's not offensive; it's the discussion. You said you Googled it > and found the pertinent hits. Had you read them and understood their > meanings, you would not have continued to maintain that the > constitutionality of driver licensing hasn't been tested in courts, > including SCOTUS. I'm just trying to move the discussion along here. > So you can drop that entire line of argument. Don't hold your breath. <snip> > Oooops. Wrong-o!! I have dealt with every issue you've raised, far as > I can tell. I thoroughly demolished your line of reasoning, based > entirely on factual analysis and logic. Nothing you've maintained has > stood up to factual scrutiny. As a result, you resort to personal > insults. Well said. Both succinct and accurate. <snip> > > > > Larry, compairing you with k_flynn, I find you to be the > > > > lesser of two evils. Your personal attacks were somewhat [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > be recognized for that! I've been a choir boy compared to him! > C'mon, Larry, stand up for yourself here! Guilty as charged. I call 'em as I see 'em. You're more diplomatic than I am, k_flynn. But really, were you expecting proffsl to have an accurate grasp of reality? (sorry, couldn't resist) > > > Holy crap, again? You started it, and I was civil until then, and > > > in any post that you dind't engage in it I was civil afterward. [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > allegation. I don't care. I'll just continue to point out such > hypocrisy. Not to mention, proffsl seems to think it is OK for him to tout his supposed intelligence (remember, he claims to be brilliant, and there isn't a single concept that he doesn't understand), but the second one of us questions the reasoning of his position, he's offended and we're engaging in ad homenims. Sigh. > > And, people like Motorhead, k_flynn will not detour me > > from my mission. > > We already have. No, you haven't. My mission remains. > Just because you continue to say things that have been > proven wrong doesn't mean you are making headway. Frankly, you can't prove me wrong, as this is my opinion, or a realization of powers greater than any court. Call it a political mission, or a religious mission, if you like, but is is my mission none the less, and it remains. Simply because some court ruled in opposition to my opinion doesn't prove me wrong. All you, or anyone, can hope to do is to convince me I'm wrong. Contrary to what you may believe, I am a reasonable person. And, there is a possibility that you could convince me I'm wrong, if you're even interested in trying. A slim chance, but a chance none the less. Now, I have re-organized your responce here to place a prior responce to below: > > I would be interested in how the validity of Driver Licensing of > > Commercial entities made it to the US Supreme Court, when the validity > > of Driver Licensing of Private Individuals haven't. > > Both have. Hendrick v Maryland, 1915 >From that case, denoted hereafter as HvM, found at: http://laws.findlaw.com/us/235/610.html HvM: "The movement of motor vehicles over the highways is attended by constant and serious dangers to the public," This might have been true in 1915, as the public wasn't so much active in the use of the automobile as they were subject to other's use of it. But, today, this is no longer the case, and in fact I contend that the Registration of Motor Vehicles, and the Licensing of Drivers is attended by a constant and serious danger to public welfare and safety. Registration has become a financial boondoggle which severly threatens the welfare of all US Citizens, draining more on more on their ever shrinking resources, more and more driving the use of the Automobile artifically out of many's budget. Often, the cost of all that is entailed with registration process actually costs more than many people's automobiles themself cost. This ever increasing cost, of course, is driven by Mandatory Liability Insurance, which is becoming more and more expensive every day due to the ever increasing cost of medical expenses, which coinencidentally enough, is also drivin my Insurance costs. Mandatory Liability has been wrongly justified via fear mongering, greed, and just plain old wrong thinking. The opinion that the majority of drivers are criminally dangerous on our highways is widely propigated in order to instill an irrational fear which prevents many from rational thought. The opinion that anyone should be able to get rich of the insurance of another driver at fault in an accident drives the greed factor in many which gives them every reason to ignore rational thought. And, the wrong thinking is the notion that others are responsible to provide you security from themself, this notion being devoid of rational thought. HvM: "and is also abnormally destructive to the ways themselves." Again, this might have been true in 1915, but no longer today. As the automobile IS the normal way of using our public highways today, how can their destructivness to our public highways be "abnormal"? This today is a contradiction. HvM: "Their success depends on good roads, the construction and maintenance of which are exceedingly expensive; and in recent years insistent demands have been made upon the states for better facilities, especially by the ever-increasing number of those who own such vehicles. As is well known, in order to meet this demand and accommodate the growing traffic the state of Maryland has built and is maintaining a system of improved roadways." Well, Registration and Licensing Fees do not go to maintain our public highways. So, this can't be a justification for either. And, neither does Mandatory Liability go to maintain our public highways. Highway usage taxes applied to the sale of gasoline are what primarily supports the maintanance of our public highways. The more we use Automobiles on our highways, the more gasoline we purchase, therefore the more taxes being paid to maintain those highways. HvM: "Primarily for the enforcement of good order and the protection of those within its own jurisdiction the state put into effect the above described general regulations, including requirements for registration and licenses." Driver Licensing provides no additional means of enforcement of good order that didn't already exist via Reckless Endangerment Laws, or via Laws Regulating the use of Automobiles (not the Right to use them) on our public highways, such as stop signs, speed limits, and other such rules of the road, which everyone regardless if their required to be Licensed or not must abide by. HvM: "A further evident purpose was to secure some compensation for the use of facilities provided at great cost from the class for whose needs they are essential, " Again, Registration and Licensing Fees do not go toward this. HvM: "and whose operations over them are peculiarly injurious." Maybe in 1915, when the use of the Automobile did pose a greater risk than the use of a Horse and Buggy, but via public familiarity with the Automobile, better highways, and better designed vehicles, the Automobile today is actually safer than the Horse and Buggy was in 1915, or today. HvM: "In the absence of national legislation covering the subject, a state may rightfully prescribe uniform regulations necessary for public safety and order in respect to the operation upon its highways of all motor vehicles,-those moving in interstate commerce as well as others." Considering the importance of the Automobile to virtually everybody's every day life today, I'd say "national legislation" recognizing and protecting our Right to Drive is long overdue, if in reality it doesn't already exist in an unrecognized form (which I maintain). HvM: "And to this end it may require the registration of such vehicles and the licensing of their drivers, charging therefor reasonable fees graduated according to the horse-power of the engines,-a practical measure of size, speed, and difficulty of control." This only bring to mind that fact that the "graduated" fees according to horse-power for Registration of Automobiles no longer exist. It costs just as much to register a Honda Civic as it does to register a Corvette in most states that I am aware of. And, I believe the added cost of Mandatory Liability goes far and beyond what could be considered reasonable. HvM: "This is but an exercise of the police power uniformly recognized as belonging to the states and essential to the preservation of the health, safety, and comfort of their citizens; and it does not constitute a direct and material burden on interstate commerce." Police Power Defined and Limited: "The police power of a State today embraces regulations designed to promote the public convenience or the general prosperity as well as those to promote public safety, health, and morals, and is not confined to the suppression of what is offensive, disorderly, or unsanitary, but extends to what is for the greatest welfare of the state." -- U.S. Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment, Annotations - http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment14/03.html Concerning the public convenience, and given the importance of the Automobile in our daily lives, it should be in your face obvious that Registration or Licensing are both contrary to this end. A Police Power designated to promote public convenience may regulate the inconvenient only if it's enforcement actually does promote public convenience. But, the use of the Automobile today for Personal Travel on Public Highways is not inconvenient, and it's Licensing would actually be counter to public convenience. Cocerning the public's general prosperity, and also given the importance of the Automobile iin our daily lives, it should be in your face obvious that both Automobile Registration, with it's associated Mandatory Liability requirements, and Driver Licensing are today both contrary to this end. A Police Power designated to promote public prosperity may regulate commerce only if it's enforcement actually does promote public prosperity. But, the use of the Automobile for Personal Travel on Public Highways is not commerce, and it's Licensing would actually be counter to public prosperity. Concerning public safety, it is easily demonstrateable that the primary factor related to highway safety has to do with if a person WILL drive safely, not if they CAN drive safely. Licensing can only determine if one CAN drive safely, which in fact the vast majority can. Licensing can not even pretend to determine if one WILL drive safely. Driver Licensing, nor Automobile registration provide nothing to promote public safety. A Police Power designated to promote public safety may prohibit the disorderly only if it's enforcement actually does promote public safety. But, Licensing does nothing to prohibit the disorderly, nor does it do anything to promote public safety. If the use of the Automobile on Public Highways is itself judged disorderly, Police Powers may prohibit them only if it promotes public safety, but in that case Police Powers may not License the disorderly. Concerning public health, it is not so much the Automobile itself, but rather the form of fuel used in the Automobile, and as such it should be this fuel, not the Automobile, which should be subject to any police powers. A Police Power designated to promote public health may prohibit the unsanitary only if it's enforcement actually does promote public health. If the use of the Automobile on Public Highways is judged unsanitary, Police Powers may prohibit them only if it promotes public health, but in that case Police Powers may not License the unsanitary. Concerning public morals, this simply does not apply, as I do not believe it is immoral to drive. A Police Power designated to promote public morals may prohibit the offensive only if it's enforcement actually does promote public morals. If the use of the Automobile on Public Highways is judged offensive, Police Powers may prohibit them only if it promotes public morals, but in that case Police Powers may not License the offensive. Now, I believe Police Powers, when properly applied, are justifiable. But, I do not find Registration or Licensing a proper application of Police Powers. > > > And, people like Motorhead, k_flynn will not detour me > > > from my mission. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > opposition to my opinion doesn't prove me wrong. All you, or anyone, > can hope to do is to convince me I'm wrong. We've given up hope of that long ago. > Contrary to what you may believe, I am a reasonable person. I'm sorry, but the paragraph above belies this statement. You claim to know of legal powers greater than any court, proclaim your beliefs to be a "mission," and state that not even court opinions against your position convince you that you're legally wrong. Yet you think you're reasonable? You really do? > And, there > is a possibility that you could convince me I'm wrong, if you're even [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > This might have been true in 1915, as the public wasn't so much active > in the use of the automobile as they were subject to other's use of it. You're stating that motor vehicles don't pose serious dangers? MVAs are among the leading causes of injuries and death - especially among those under 25. > But, today, this is no longer the case, and in fact I contend that the > Registration of Motor Vehicles, and the Licensing of Drivers is > attended by a constant and serious danger to public welfare and safety. I'm almost afraid to ask, but how does a licensing and registration scheme endanger public safety? > Registration has become a financial boondoggle which severly threatens > the welfare of all US Citizens, draining more on more on their ever > shrinking resources, more and more driving the use of the Automobile > artifically out of many's budget. Have you ever met someone who wants to drive, but doesn't, for the sole reason they can't afford a driver's license or vehicle registration? In the litany of costs associated with car ownership - lease/financing payments, insurance, gas, service/repairs, this license/registration fee is nominal. And your claim is laughable. > Often, the cost of all that is > entailed with registration process actually costs more than many > people's automobiles themself cost. Well, then, I think you're getting ripped off for your driver's license! > This ever increasing cost, of course, is driven by Mandatory Liability > Insurance, which is becoming more and more expensive every day due to > the ever increasing cost of medical expenses, which coinencidentally > enough, is also drivin my Insurance costs. Ah-hah, you do have a horse in this race! It's beginning to become quite clear now..... > Mandatory Liability has been wrongly justified via fear mongering, > greed, and just plain old wrong thinking. The opinion that the > majority of drivers are criminally dangerous on our highways is widely > propigated in order to instill an irrational fear which prevents many > from rational thought. What evidence do you have to support your ridiculous claim that this view is widely-propigated? I don't know of anyone who thinks the majority of drivers are criminally dangerous. In fact, liability insurance has nothing to do with criminal liability, as it won't be much assistance to you in a criminal case. > The opinion that anyone should be able to get > rich of the insurance of another driver at fault in an accident drives > the greed factor in many which gives them every reason to ignore > rational thought. And, the wrong thinking is the notion that others > are responsible to provide you security from themself, this notion > being devoid of rational thought. You'd know all about being devoid of rational thought. > HvM: "and is also abnormally destructive to the ways themselves." > > Again, this might have been true in 1915, but no longer today. As the > automobile IS the normal way of using our public highways today, how > can their destructivness to our public highways be "abnormal"? This > today is a contradiction. OK, even if you're right on this, this one sentence - no not even a sentence - this one _clause_ is no longer applicable. Ooooh, good job! > HvM: "Their success depends on good roads, the construction and > maintenance of which are exceedingly expensive; and in recent years [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > accommodate the growing traffic the state of Maryland has built and is > maintaining a system of improved roadways." Still applicable today. Nonetheless, this isn't a legal holding. > Well, Registration and Licensing Fees do not go to maintain our public > highways. So, this can't be a justification for either. They don't? Not in any one of the fifty states? Are you sure about that? > And, neither > does Mandatory Liability go to maintain our public highways. Duh. > Highway > usage taxes applied to the sale of gasoline are what primarily supports > the maintanance of our public highways. You sure about this? Cite? > The more we use Automobiles on > our highways, the more gasoline we purchase, therefore the more taxes > being paid to maintain those highways. Sounds good to me. I happen to be a fan of use taxes. > HvM: "Primarily for the enforcement of good order and the protection > of those within its own jurisdiction the state put into effect the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > rules of the road, which everyone regardless if their required to be > Licensed or not must abide by. Sure it does. You can be guilty of driving without a license without being guilty of anything else. Hence, there is additional enforcement of good order. Res Ipsa Loquitur. > HvM: "A further evident purpose was to secure some compensation for > the use of facilities provided at great cost from the class for whose [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Automobile today is actually safer than the Horse and Buggy was in > 1915, or today. So what? Relevance? > HvM: "In the absence of national legislation covering the subject, a > state may rightfully prescribe uniform regulations necessary for public > safety and order in respect to the operation upon its highways of all > motor vehicles,-those moving in interstate commerce as well as others." EUREKA! He's got it!!! See the part that says "of ***ALL*** motor vehicles"? There ya go. I guess this settles thing, and I assume you will now concede your view is in error... > Considering the importance of the Automobile to virtually everybody's > every day life today, I'd say "national legislation" recognizing and > protecting our Right to Drive is long overdue, if in reality it doesn't > already exist in an unrecognized form (which I maintain). .... but I guess not. Once again, you simply do not know the meaning of federal subject-matter jurisdiction, do you? There simply cannot be national legislation on this topic, regardless of how wise it may or may not be. > HvM: "And to this end it may require the registration of such vehicles > and the licensing of their drivers, charging therefor reasonable fees [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > costs just as much to register a Honda Civic as it does to register a > Corvette in most states that I am aware of. Well, you're not aware of many states then. New York, for one, bases registration costs on the weight of the motor vehicle. And many states charge less for motorcycles than for four-wheel vehicles, which is in turn less than the cost of registering 18-wheel trucks. > And, I believe the added > cost of Mandatory Liability goes far and beyond what could be > considered reasonable. You're not paying that to the state. Still, with the ease of which a car accident could cause a debilitating injury and/or death, many think the costs of insurance are reasonable. And if you disagree, shop around! We do have private insurance companies that compete for your business. > HvM: "This is but an exercise of the police power uniformly recognized > as belonging to the states and essential to the preservation of the > health, safety, and comfort of their citizens; and it does not > constitute a direct and material burden on interstate commerce." In other words, there is no federal subject-matter jurisdiction. > Police Power Defined and Limited: > [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > But, I do not find Registration or Licensing a proper application of > Police Powers. > > > Both have. Hendrick v Maryland, 1915 > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > MVAs are among the leading causes of injuries and death - > especially among those under 25. The Automobile today is safer than the Horse and Buggy was in it's day. If, as many would claim, Driving the Horse and Buggy is a Right, then why isn't Driving the Automobile? If the automobile poses such a serious danger, why would hundreds of millions of people willingly expose themselves to such a serious danger? Besides, I believe it is easily to demonstrate that Licensing does nothing to enhance highway safety. > > But, today, this is no longer the case, and in fact I contend > > that the Registration of Motor Vehicles, and the Licensing of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I'm almost afraid to ask, but how does a licensing and registration > scheme endanger public safety? It gives them a false sense of security, which actually leads to insecurity. As I have said, and maintain, Driver Licensing does nothing to enhance highway safety which laws against reckless endangerment, and the enforcement of other driving regulations (not including licensing) didn't already provided. > > Registration has become a financial boondoggle which > > severly threatens the welfare of all US Citizens, draining [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > - lease/financing payments, insurance, gas, service/repairs, this > license/registration fee is nominal. As I point out later, registration entails the purchase of Mandatory Liability, which does indeed often cost more than many people's automobiles them self. Lease and financing payments aren't a necessary component to using an automobile. Service and repair costs can be greatly reduced if one is so inclined and able to do it themselves. Granted, gasoline is becoming astronomically high in cost, but one could simply choose to drive less, as opposed to being prohibited entirely without Registration and Licensing. Still, even with the high cost of gasoline today, some people still pay more for Mandatory Liability insurance then they do on gasoline. Mandatory Liability premiums aren't generally calculated by miles actually traveled. > > Often, the cost of all that is entailed with registration > > process actually costs more than many people's > > automobiles themself cost. > > Well, then, I think you're getting ripped off for your driver's > license! As I point out shortly, registration entails the purchase of Mandatory Liability insurance. > > This ever increasing cost, of course, is driven by Mandatory > > Liability Insurance, which is becoming more and more [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Ah-hah, you do have a horse in this race! It's beginning to > become quite clear now..... > > Mandatory Liability has been wrongly justified via fear > > mongering, greed, and just plain old wrong thinking. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > view is widely-propigated? I don't know of anyone who thinks the > majority of drivers are criminally dangerous. Are you socially ostracized or isolated, or are you just playing ignorant for the sake of argument? Nobody believes you haven't heard others who are convinced more than half of all drivers should be denied their Right to Drive in the least, and probably even be in prison. (see, I can apply your methods of debate). > In fact, liability insurance has nothing to do with criminal > liability, as it won't be much assistance to you in a criminal > case. Strawman Goose Chase. I never claimed Liability had anyting to do with criminal liability. > > The opinion that anyone should be able to get rich of > > the insurance of another driver at fault in an accident drives [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > You'd know all about being devoid of rational thought. Is this your way of dodging the point, or are you truly socially ostracized or isolated? Nobody believes you haven't heard how insurance settlements are increasing in both frequency and cost at an alarming rate, not to mention insurance fraud. Nobody believes you haven't heard of gold diggers, seeking to make their fortune off another's insurance policy. > > HvM: "and is also abnormally destructive to the ways > > themselves." [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > a sentence - this one _clause_ is no longer applicable. > Ooooh, good job! You're even sarcastic in submission. > > HvM: "Their success depends on good roads, the construction and > > maintenance of which are exceedingly expensive; and in recent years [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > They don't? Not in any one of the fifty states? Are you sure about > that? After registration and licensing fees are depleated by the actual cost of the process of registration and licening itself, how much is left over for anything else? Can't be much. Even if it does go to maintain our highways, which you'll have to prove before I'll believe it, it can't even begin to touch the amounts collected from highway usage taxes applied to gasoline. > > And, neither does Mandatory Liability go to maintain > > our public highways. > > Duh. Yea, exactly. > > Highway usage taxes applied to the sale of gasoline are > > what primarily supports the maintanance of our public > > highways. > > You sure about this? Cite? Google it yourself. Hahahaha!!! State excise taxes average out at about 18 cents per gallon. The average US Driver consumes 429 gallons of gasoline per year. That's about $77 per year. This doesn't include other state and federal taxes applied to gasoline. > > The more we use Automobiles on our highways, the > > more gasoline we purchase, therefore the more taxes > > being paid to maintain those highways. > > Sounds good to me. I happen to be a fan of use taxes. One shining attribute on your side. (see! I can play your game too) > > HvM: "Primarily for the enforcement of good order and the > > protection of those within its own jurisdiction the state put [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > without being guilty of anything else. Hence, there is > additional enforcement of good order. Are you suggesting that the act of driving without a license in and of itself somehow constitutes a danger to others? If there were true, you should be able to simply observe someone driving and determine by that alone if they have a driver license or not. You should realize the absurdity of such a claim. > Res Ipsa Loquitur. Do you believe your repeating this Latin term for "a thing that speaks for itself" somehow makes you seem more intelligent to myself or the audience? Who are you playing to here, Larry? > > HvM: "A further evident purpose was to secure some > > compensation for the use of facilities provided at great [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > So what? Relevance? Why is Driving the Horse and Buggy considered a Right, but not Driving the Automobile? > > HvM: "In the absence of national legislation covering the > > subject, a state may rightfully prescribe uniform regulations [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > motor vehicles"? There ya go. I guess this settles thing, and > I assume you will now concede your view is in error... No. They can have all the stinking badges on earth, and what their doing is still wrong. > > Considering the importance of the Automobile to virtually > > everybody's every day life today, I'd say "national legislation" [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > .... but I guess not. Guess you're wrong then. > Once again, you simply do not know the meaning of federal > subject-matter jurisdiction, do you? There simply cannot be > national legislation on this topic, regardless of how wise it > may or may not be. Well, I am convinced our Right to Liberty, and all it implies, is federal subject-matter jurisdiction enough. > > And, I believe the added cost of Mandatory Liability goes > > far and beyond what could be considered reasonable. > > You're not paying that to the state. Still, with the ease of > which a car accident could cause a debilitating injury and/or > death, many think the costs of insurance are reasonable. Many don't think the costs of insurance are reasonable. > > HvM: "This is but an exercise of the police power uniformly > > recognized as belonging to the states and essential to the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > In other words, there is no federal subject-matter jurisdiction. I am convinced our Right of Liberty, and all that it implies, is federal subject-matter jurisdiction eough. > > > > Both have. Hendrick v Maryland, 1915 > > > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > The Automobile today is safer than the Horse and Buggy was in it's day. If true, so what? > If, as many would claim, Driving the Horse and Buggy is a Right, then > why isn't Driving the Automobile? You're the only one who thinks driving a horse and buggy was a right. You're also the only one who thinks that driving an automobile a right. Come to think of it, you're the only one who thinks our rights include whatever the modern technology happens to be. > If the automobile poses such a > serious danger, why would hundreds of millions of people willingly > expose themselves to such a serious danger? Because the liklihood of danger and the seriousness of the danger are different things. And because for many, its worth the risk. But that doesn't mean its not dangerous. > Besides, I believe it is > easily to demonstrate that Licensing does nothing to enhance highway > safety. Well, for a license, you need to pass both a road test and rules-of-the-road test. You might think these are ineffectual and should be tightened, but I can't see any merit in the argument that letting people who can't pass these tests drive on the open roads. > > > But, today, this is no longer the case, and in fact I contend > > > that the Registration of Motor Vehicles, and the Licensing of [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > endangerment, and the enforcement of other driving regulations (not > including licensing) didn't already provided. Most traffic violations are not criminal offenses, and therefore provide more protections than the criminal laws you cite. > > > Registration has become a financial boondoggle which > > > severly threatens the welfare of all US Citizens, draining [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Liability, which does indeed often cost more than many people's > automobiles them self. It does? Cite, please. > Lease and financing payments aren't a necessary > component to using an automobile. Service and repair costs can be > greatly reduced if one is so inclined and able to do it themselves. > Granted, gasoline is becoming astronomically high in cost, but one > could simply choose to drive less, as opposed to being prohibited > entirely without Registration and Licensing. If you drive less, you usually get an insurance discount, too. > Still, even with the high > cost of gasoline today, some people still pay more for Mandatory > Liability insurance then they do on gasoline. Mandatory Liability > premiums aren't generally calculated by miles actually traveled. Every company offers a low-mileage insurance discount. > > > Often, the cost of all that is entailed with registration > > > process actually costs more than many people's [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > As I point out shortly, registration entails the purchase of Mandatory > Liability insurance. So what? And buying a car entails paying sales tax! You can repeat this as much as you want, but you're implying a causal connection when there isn't one. A state could get rid of vehicle registration, yet still require insurance. And registration keeps insurance costs DOWN. By every car having a license plate, more at-fault drivers can be held responsible for causing damage, especially in hit-and-run cases. Without license plates, there would be more un-recoverable claims, in which people would have to take the loss or make a claim against their own insurance company. Which would make their rates go up, instead of the at-fault driver's rates. > > > This ever increasing cost, of course, is driven by Mandatory > > > Liability Insurance, which is becoming more and more > > > expensive every day due to the ever increasing cost of > > > medical expenses, which coinencidentally enough, is also > > > drivin my Insurance costs. It's not coincidental. You establish the cause-and-effect in the previous sentence. Do you even read your own arguments? You know, you're actually making the point for TIGHTER rules for licensing and registration! See, if there were fewer, safer drivers out there, then there would be fewer injuries, and fewer insurance claims, keeping rates down. > > Ah-hah, you do have a horse in this race! It's beginning to > > become quite clear now..... [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Are you socially ostracized or isolated, or are you just playing > ignorant for the sake of argument? None of the above. > Nobody believes you haven't heard > others who are convinced more than half of all drivers should be denied > their Right to Drive in the least, and probably even be in prison. > (see, I can apply your methods of debate). Actually, as an Assistant District Attorney, I know precisely who should be in prison and what you have to do to get there. Do I think there are alot of bad drivers out there? Yes. Do I think cops should give out more tickets and enforce the rules of the road more? Yes. Do I think these bad drivers are "criminals" who belong in prison? No. Do most people think that most drivers are criminals? No. Not even close. > > In fact, liability insurance has nothing to do with criminal > > liability, as it won't be much assistance to you in a criminal > > case. > > Strawman Goose Chase. I never claimed Liability had anyting to do with > criminal liability. You were just talking about drivers being "criminally dangerous"! Dangerous drivers cause accidents. Accidents result in insurance claims. These claims involve liability coverage. Ergo, by your own argument, criminally dangerous drivers have an effect on insurance coverage. I know you don't buy it when other people show you 1+2=3, but I'd think you'd know when you made the argument yourself. > > > The opinion that anyone should be able to get rich of > > > the insurance of another driver at fault in an accident drives [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > haven't heard of gold diggers, seeking to make their fortune off > another's insurance policy. You can't make a fortune off of it, except by fraud. Insurance liability policies usually don't pay punitive damages, which is where the "riches" are. > > > HvM: "and is also abnormally destructive to the ways > > > themselves." [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > can't even begin to touch the amounts collected from highway usage > taxes applied to gasoline. So maybe we should just raise these fees and rates to keep up with the times! > > > And, neither does Mandatory Liability go to maintain > > > our public highways. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > of gasoline per year. That's about $77 per year. This doesn't include > other state and federal taxes applied to gasoline. Most states make more in tolls than they do in gas taxes. > > > The more we use Automobiles on our highways, the > > > more gasoline we purchase, therefore the more taxes [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Are you suggesting that the act of driving without a license in and of > itself somehow constitutes a danger to others? Absolutely. > If there were true, you > should be able to simply observe someone driving and determine by that > alone if they have a driver license or not. You should realize the > absurdity of such a claim. You should realize a non-sequitur when you see one. Or make one. > > Res Ipsa Loquitur. > > Do you believe your repeating this Latin term for "a thing that speaks > for itself" somehow makes you seem more intelligent to myself or the > audience? Who are you playing to here, Larry? I'm not playing to anyone. But the saying fits, in Latin or English. > > > HvM: "A further evident purpose was to secure some > > > compensation for the use of facilities provided at great [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Why is Driving the Horse and Buggy considere |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message