Your Right to Drive
in [Drive]
|
From: Andrew Tompkins on 3 Mar 2007 20:41 proffsl wrote: > 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. > I question all of it until verified. You expect me to trust you on blind faith after last summer? With your choices of sources that were taken out of context, showed the opposite of what you thought they did, didn't pertain to the topic at hand, full of bad data, etc, you haven't earned the level of trust needed to accept information from you without detailed scrutiny of source material, much less blind faith. > >> 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. > Just because you say something is so doesn't make it so. Just because you say something is a right doesn't make it a right. > >> 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. > See above. > >>> 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. > Driving, which most of us do every day, and driving safely, which is something we seem to have trouble with as evidenced by the aprox. 40000 people we kill on the road every year with injuries numbering in the 6 or 7 figures and near misses probably even more, are 2 very different things. The sheer numbers indicate why the degree of enforcement, regulation and revocation is needed. > >>> 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? > I, and several others, have shown how you misused this source in several ways last summer. Old news. 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%? > Don't even think that you can speak for me. You haven't shown that any of the stuff that you are saying is actually true. I don't have enough source information to agree with you at all. -- --Andy -------------------------------------------------- Andrew G. Tompkins Software Engineer Beaverton, OR http://home.comcast.net/~andytom/Highways --------------------------------------------------
From: proffsl on 3 Mar 2007 21:19 "Chas" <chascleme...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > <k_fl...(a)lycos.com> wrote > > "Chas" <chascleme...(a)comcast.net> wrote:> > > > > > > I never have understood you guys that prefer to limit > > > freedoms rather than nurturing them. > > > > That's a wholly unsupportable jump to a conclusion. I love > > freedom. Especially the freedom that comes from keeping > > as many unqualified drivers off the road and from smashing > > into me, which helps preserve my right to life and liberty > > and pursuit of happiness. > > So your exercise of freedom is dependent on restricting that of > others, on the off-chance something bad may happen? And > you're willing to sacrifice your freedoms, as well as those of > others', to enjoy some theoretical drop in actuarial probabilities, > accepting the traffic police state in trade? > noted. This one, and the others, live in a state of mind where prohibition is Pursuit of Happiness, where confinement is Liberty, where death is Life, and where the Truth can only be obtained from the Liars. They have no problem accepting that obligations are Rights, and even less of a problem imposing those obligations on others.
From: k_flynn on 3 Mar 2007 21:55 On Mar 3, 7:19 pm, "proffsl" <prof...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > "Chas" <chascleme...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > <k_fl...(a)lycos.com> wrote > > > "Chas" <chascleme...(a)comcast.net> wrote:> > > > > > I never have understood you guys that prefer to limit > > > > freedoms rather than nurturing them. > > > > That's a wholly unsupportable jump to a conclusion. I love > > > freedom. Especially the freedom that comes from keeping > > > as many unqualified drivers off the road and from smashing > > > into me, which helps preserve my right to life and liberty > > > and pursuit of happiness. > > > So your exercise of freedom is dependent on restricting that of > > others, on the off-chance something bad may happen? And > > you're willing to sacrifice your freedoms, as well as those of > > others', to enjoy some theoretical drop in actuarial probabilities, > > accepting the traffic police state in trade? > > noted. > > This one, and the others, live in a state of mind where prohibition is > Pursuit of Happiness, Nope. Not at all. You live in a world where dope smoking is the way to "enlightenment." > where confinement is Liberty, Nope. We confine no one. > where death is Life Nope. Nowhere have any of us ever said anything remotely to be construed in such an incorrect way. > ... and where the Truth can only be obtained from the Liars. Bwahhhaahaaaaahaaa! Now with this one you take the cake. I mean, here you stand, wholly caught red handed LYING and FABRICATING your court cites! What nerve. You must really be smokin' some dyn-o-mite weed tonight, Proffy. > They > have no problem accepting that obligations are Rights, and even less > of a problem imposing those obligations on others. Nothing of the sort. Note, meanwhile, that the gentleman to whom you're responding made a declarative statement, that there is a law "specifying" that driving is a privilege, and when asked for a citation to this specific statute he references, can only fumble around and send me to a dictionary, of all things. Proffy, you are truly a one-of-a-kind troll! Go make up another court case, please, and post it so we can laugh at you some more! I mean, really here, Proffy, you were CAUGHT fabricating a court case to try to prop up your losing argument. Get it? You are the LIAR here. Hands down. It's an embarrassment for you ever to call anyone else a liar. You are the KING of LIARS. Out front and undeniably - you were CAUGHT. Game over, man. Go suck on your bong again.
From: Larry on 3 Mar 2007 21:57 In article <QBkGh.282$mI6.221(a)trndny08>, "Snap Whipcrack.............." <snapw(a)aol.com> wrote: > Larry wrote: > > In article <1172806269.072397.151900(a)v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>, > > "proffsl" <proffsl(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. > > If walking on the sidewalk is a right then so too is driving on the highway. This is a complete non-sequitur. You have the right to walk on public rights of way, and generally, the right to travel. That does not translate into a right to operate a multi-ton machine.
From: Bob Gorski on 4 Mar 2007 00:16
On Mar 3, 9:57 pm, Larry <x...(a)y.com> wrote: > This is a complete non-sequitur. You have the right to walk on public > rights of way, and generally, the right to travel. That does not > translate into a right to operate a multi-ton machine. How about the right to create sock puppets? =) |