From: k_flynn on
On Mar 2, 11:06 pm, Ashton Crusher <H...(a)nowhere.net> wrote:
> On 1 Mar 2007 20:18:16 -0800, "k_fl...(a)lycos.com" <k_fl...(a)lycos.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Mar 1, 8:33 pm, Larry <x...(a)y.com> wrote:
> >> In article <1172806269.072397.151...(a)v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>,
>
> >> "proffsl" <prof...(a)my-deja.com> wrote:
> >> > Our States are lying to us.
>
> >> Not this again. The only liar around here is you, proffy.
>
> >> > Driving is not a privilege.
>
> >> Yes it is.
>
> >> > Driving is a
> >> > Right.
>
> >> No it isn't.
>
> >Larry,
>
> >He's upset because I just pounded him into hard ground over another
> >lie in another thread, where he was claiming the US was not set up as
> >a democratic state.
>
> The US is a Republic, not a Democracy.

Uh, it is both. They are not mutually exclusive. A constitutional
republic, which we have, is a form of democracy. WHat you said is akin
to saying "This is an apple, not a fruit." It's both.

From: k_flynn on
On Mar 2, 11:05 pm, Ashton Crusher <H...(a)nowhere.net> wrote:
> Driving is a right for private citizens. The courts have so ruled.

Then you should have no trouble providing the court case citation.

Here:____________________

From: proffsl on
On Mar 2, 4:38 pm, "Andrew Tompkins" <andy...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
> proffsl wrote:
> >
> > Our States are lying to us. Driving is not a privilege. Driving
> > is a Right. Our public streets were built on our property with our
> > money for the purpose of enhancing our Right of Liberty. But, the
> > more our public highways are made unusable by anything but the
> > automobile, the more this LIE that driving is a privilege makes us
> > all prisoners of privilege behind bars of blacktop.
> >
> > A Rightful Republic may only derive it's Rightful Powers via the
> > Rightful Consent of the Citizens. If one does not have a Right to
> > do something, they can not give others, or government, their
> > Rightful Consent to do that thing. The individual has no authority
> > to prohibit, deny or obstruct others from doing things which do not
> > violate the Rights of others. Therefore, they can not give a
> > Rightful Republic their Rightful Consent to prohibit, deny or
> > obstruct others from doing things which do not violate the Rights
> > of others.
>
> > When individuals form a collective, they bring into existence
> > certain behaviors that could not exist before, such as the behavior
> > of representing the collective. Therefore, only the collective has
> > the authority to give their Rightful Consent to such collective
> > behaviors, where no individual of that collective has such
> > authority. But, under no circumstances may the collective presume
> > to bestow upon themselves, or upon their representatives, the
> > privilege to prohibit, deny, obstruct, endanger or violate any
> > Rights of any innocent others.
>
> > This is because Rightful Powers may only be derived by the Rightful
> > Consent of the Citizens. No Citizen has the authority to prohibit,
> > deny, obstruct, endanger or violate the Rights of any innocent
> > others, therefore they may not individually, or collectively, give
> > their Rightful Consent bestowing upon their representatives the
> > privilege to prohibit, deny, obstruct, endanger or violate the
> > Rights of any innocent others. It's just that simple.
>
> > Nor shall the collective, or it's representatives, presume to
> > convert individual behaviors into collective behaviors, as this is
> > nothing more than a deceptive manner of attempting to convert
> > Rightful individual behaviors into collective privileges. Neither
> > the collective, nor it's representatives, may presume to convert a
> > Right into a privilege.
>
> Sources?

Sources? Is there something above that you either deny or question?
Specify.


> Otherwise, it's just you doing a lot of talking without
> saying a whole lot.

Just because you don't hear a tree fall doesn't mean it hasn't. Just
because you can't see the light in the refrigarator doesn't mean it's
off.


> Preferably quotes of the material that you intend to
> use as support as well as cites of the documents.

Documents? Is there something in my arguments that you either deny or
question? Specification is required.


> > Driving safely is not a collective behavior that only comes into
> > existence upon the forming of a collective. Driving safely is an
> > individual behavior. Therefore, the collective, or it's
> > representatives, may not presume to convert driving safely into a
> > collective behavior.
>
> > Therefore, driving safely can only be one of two remaining types of
> > behaviors. Driving safely is either a Rightful behavior, or a
> > Wrongful behavior. Driving safely is a Wrongful behavior if it
> > prohibits, denies, obstructs, endangers or violates the Rights of
> > any others. Otherwise, it is a Rightful behavior.
>
> > If driving safely is a Wrongful behavior, a behavior which
> > prohibits, denies, obstructs, endangers or violates the Rights of
> > others, then everybody should be prohibited from the behavior of
> > driving safely, and the collective may not presume to bestow upon
> > any individual, or representative, the privilege of driving safely.
>
> > Otherwise, if driving safely is a Rightful behavior, a behavior
> > which DOES NOT prohibit, deny, obstruct, endanger or violate the
> > Rights of any others, then no innocent individual should be
> > prohibited from driving safely. And, no collective, or their
> > representatives, may presume to convert this individual behavior of
> > driving safely into a collective behavior, thereby presuming to
> > convert a Right into a privilege.
>
> > Driving safely is an individual behavior, not a collective behavior.
> > Driving safely does not prohibit, deny, obstruct, endanger or
> > violate the Rights of any others. Therefore, Driving safely is a
> > Right.
>
> Now you're changing your argument from the 'right to drive' to the
> 'right to drive safely'.

Not really changing it, but better specifying it.

I would have thought everybody should understand that we are required
to SAFELY exercise our Right, such that we do not endanger or violate
the Rights of any others. But, apparently there are a number of
people out there who never got that memo. When I would tell them we
have the Right to do something, they would try to suggest I was saying
we have the Right to do that thing in a DANGEROUS manner, such that
the Rights of others are endangered or violated.


> That actually may have some merit conceptually.

Well,,,,, Ummm....


> It has no merit in the real world until you can get
> all of the drivers in this country to drive safely all the
> time and not drive when they are ill, injured,
> distracted, drowsy, impaired, etc.

You seem to be trying to suggest that unless everybody exercised their
Rights in a safe manner, then nobody would have those Rights. That of
course would be to suggest that if anybody victimizes another while
exercising their Rights of Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness,
then everybody should be denied of their Rights of Life, Liberty and
Pursuit of Happiness. That, of course, would be absolutly absurd.


> > Our States ARE lying to us. Driving IS NOT a privilege.
> > Driving IS a Right.
>
> > Our public streets were built on our property with our money for the
> > purpose of enhancing our Right of Liberty, and we each have the
> > 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
>
> > But, the more our public highways are made unusable by anything
> > but the automobile, the more this LIE that driving is a privilege makes
> > us all prisoners of privilege behind bars of blacktop.
>
> Already dealt with when you dropped by previously. Move on.

Move on? So, as you have not specified even one point in my arguments
to which you either deny or question, am I to assume you agree with me
100%?

From: Scott M. Kozel on
k_flynn(a)lycos.com wrote:
>
> Ashton Crusher <H...(a)nowhere.net> wrote:
>
> > Driving is a right for private citizens. The courts have so ruled.
>
> Then you should have no trouble providing the court case citation.
>
> Here:____________________

"Ashton Crusher" sounds like another one of Proffsl's sockpuppets.
From: Harry K on
On Mar 2, 10:05 pm, Ashton Crusher <H...(a)nowhere.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Mar 2007 03:33:43 GMT, Larry <x...(a)y.com> wrote:
> >In article <1172806269.072397.151...(a)v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>,
> > "proffsl" <prof...(a)my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >> Our States are lying to us.
>
> >Not this again. The only liar around here is you, proffy.
>
> >> Driving is not a privilege.
>
> >Yes it is.
>
> >> Driving is a
> >> Right.
>
> >No it isn't.
>
> Proffs is correct. Driving is a right for private citizens. The
> courts have so ruled. It is not a right for commercial purposes. Just
> look at the Motor Vehicle licensing laws. The state has pretty much
> zero description in issuing a license. There are a couple almost
> meaningless hoops to jump thru that simply weed out the criminally
> incompetent, the rest get a license.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

So why do you have a license? Rights do not need one.

Harry K