From: k_flynn on
On Mar 3, 10:19 pm, "Chas" <chascleme...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
> <k_fl...(a)lycos.com> wrote
>
> >> That would be the 'compelling State's interest' in authorizing something
> >> otherwise unConstitutional, neh?
> > Not at all. The mechanism for doing so actually is *in* the
> > Constitution.
>
> Yes; for dealing with actions the State wants to take that would, otherwise,
> be outside their authority granted under the Constitution- hence,
> unConstitutional.

That's a self-contradictory position that fails on its face. Sorry,
not compelling at all.

From: proffsl on
"Andrew Tompkins" <andy...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
> proffsl wrote:
> > "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 question the statement that "Our public streets were built on our
property with our money for the purpose of enhancing our Right of
Liberty."? You question the statement that "A Rightful Republic may
only derive it's Rightful Powers via the Rightful Consent of the
Citizens"? You question so basic aspects of our Republic government's
purpose and function? Surely not, because if this were true, there is
absolutely no common ground on which we can peacefully meet to discuss
this issue any further. Otherwise, if you really don't question all of
it, then would you specify what parts of it you either deny or
question, and explain your reasons.


> > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > > 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%?
>
> 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.

Are you incapable of independent thought? Clearly, by your response
to my **QUESTION**, you don't agree with me 100%. Above, you claim
you disagree with 100% of it, which I doubt very much. So, if in
reality, you only deny or question portions of it, specify which
portions of it you disagree with or question, and explain your
reasons.

Otherwise, it becomes more than natural to suspect your motives for
even responding.

From: Larry on
In article <1172998330.817633.119220(a)h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
"proffsl" <proffsl(a)my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> Otherwise, it becomes more than natural to suspect your motives for
> even responding.

You suspect everyone's motives who disagrees with you, then you resort
to calling them names and insults. It's a classic persecution complex.

Its a defense mechanism for someone who knows he cannot win on the
merits.
From: Chas on
"Larry" <x(a)y.com> wrote
> One need not participate in any of these things, by not getting a
> driver's license.

Yes; you don't have to exercise the privilege- and you can't exercise your
Right without waiving your due process rights.
Good point.

> I think that every state offers a non-driver's ID
> card that is just as valid for ID purposes as a driver's license.

Yes; another option for an adult i.d. card-
'yo'r paperz pleez'

Chas


From: Chas on
<k_flynn(a)lycos.com> wrote
> The state does not regulate free travel.

Certainly it does; on foot, on bicycle, any sort of motor vehicle, using
public transportation (must present i.d. to board interCity buses), 'ports
of entry', 'tax' stops, alcohol checks, 'safety' checks,....

> No right is converted into
> any privilege. Everyone who can drive safely will get a license.

nope- lots of 'non-safety' regulations surrounding the issuance of a
license- from requiring muslim women to be photographed without a veil, to
dead-beat dads.

> There
> is no fiat to it. The state doesn't say to you "We don't like your
> haircut so you don't get a license."

But they could if they cared to do-
as contrasted with a 'Right'.

> Demonstate a minimal level of
> competency to pilot this two-ton machine in traffic with others, and
> you will get your license. It's up to you. Even if you fail, your
> right to travel isn't regulated. You can get on a bus, go with a
> friend, take a train, walk, bike, whatever.

Regulation is de facto arrogation of the authority to curtail a Right- the
issuance of a Privilege, at the whim of the government.
It's the same as 2nd Amendment rights- the State's regulation serves to
restrict the Right from some citizens, and not others. Owning a firearm has
become a privilege; carrying a firearm has become a privilege.

> Nope. You have it backward. Since the early days of the last century,
> the license and registration requirements gradually came into place
> for reasons related to driving. That late in the century it became
> handy to use it for other purposes is incidental.

'Incidental'??
Which others of our Rights do you find 'incidental'?

> No, it isn't. Really, regulating driving is not the definition of
> privilege.

It is when it can be extended or withdrawn at the whim of the government-
It is when a waiver of your Rights is a requirement for exercise of the
privilege.
It is when the exercise of the privilege can be withdrawn for other-than
'safety' reasons- like financial indemnity, defaulted civil judgments,
'registration', 'current address',.....

>> And they have just such a power, should they care to exercise it.
> No, they do not. OK, you think so, cite me any state's MV code that
> grants the power to DMV to deny a license to a qualified applicant
> because they do not like his name or hair color or for any willy nilly
> reason. I can't wait for this.

Doesn't have to spell it out- witness the withdrawal for default of civil
judgment in domestic cases. The privilege is being used to enforce utterly
non-traffic oriented matters. It's used to enforce patronization of private
enterprise insurance providers

>> They certainly will withdraw your privilege to drive, regardless of your
>> ability, if you default on certain civil judgments like child-support.
> Irrelevant to the issue.

Seminal to the issue- the abuse and misuse of the driving privilege to
enforce compliance by citizens to unConstitutional exercise of authority by
the State.

> It has to do with your ability to make me whole should you collide
> with me in your two-ton vehicle.

Yup- forced indemnification through private for-profit commercial
enterprises.
You needs no insurance for your pistol, or for your press, or to guarantee
due process for yourself.
But you do in order to receive the privilege of driving on the roads you pay
for.

>> Sure it has- and it's particularly evident in the demand for current
>> updates, or a 'fixed' address.
> Wrong. That doesn't restrict your freedom.

Sure it does.
Do you file a change of address about your pistol? How about for your press?
Must you file it to receive due process rights? or to petition the
government for redress of grievance?
For what other exercise of Liberty must you file an address change?

> You'd better be financially able to handle the issues that stem from
> driving. If you aren't prepared for that, again, don't drive.

A privilege for the well-to-do, that is denied to the poor?
You don't need a license to own property- nor do you have to carry insurance
on it.
But to operate any motor vehicle, you must pay for the privilege. No other
exercise of a right demands that you indemnify someone else- on the
off-chance you damage them.

> That's been demonstrated amply over the last century. Now, where's the
> citation to anything in the body of law that "declares" that driving
> is a privilege? From where things stand now, it just sounds like your
> politically based opinion more than anything based on actually what
> the body of law says.

You, yourself, ims, referred to the Compelling State's Interest that allows
them to intrude into an area for which they had no Constitutional authority-
the conversion of a Right to a Privilege.
And it's happened with others of our Rights- in spite of direction to
refrain from infringing.

> No whim involved. You qualify, you get it.

As opposed to an inalienable Right.
Those are called 'privileges'.

Chas