From: Chas on 4 Mar 2007 11:33
"Larry" <x(a)y.com> wrote
> Yeah, you're right. I'm gonna head to the airport and fly a Boeing 747.
> Heck, I don't know how.... but there's such a slim chance I crash into
> *your* house, right?
Any pilot can suicide- some have, from what I've heard.
> There is just one license to operate motor vehicles. Other licenses are
> required to undertake other acts, however.
Licenses must be renewed, for a fee, and waiver of constitutional rights-
nothing to do with the ability to drive, nor a record of driving safely.
The extension of your privilege; not an affirmation of your Right.
> So don't get a driver's license. No one is forcing you to.
I don't have one- or more precisely, don't have but one- 1969, I believe. I
passed the test, left it at that.
> Many people
> don't have one. Virtually every state, if not every state, offers a
> non-driver's ID card that is just as valid for identification purposes.
Yesss; yo'r paperz pleez.
First action of a police state is to control free movement; second is
> Don't drive, and you don't have to worry about abiding by the rules of
> the road. Problem solved!
No, even being a passenger subjects you to search, seizure of effects,
required production of identification without probable cause to interfere
with you at all.
Riding may be a privilege as well-
From: Chas on 4 Mar 2007 11:50
"Larry" <x(a)y.com> wrote
> Isn't the "everyone does it" argument a hoot?
Not so much as the 'we get to say who can do it' argument.
Our social contract is skewed towards 'Liberty'. Government authority is
delimited soas to rob them of the opportunities to abuse/misuse what little
authority we grant them.
The presupposition is; yes, 'everybody does it' is sufficient to preclude
intrusion by the government. An example would be 'prohibition'- they needed
a Constitutional Amendment to allow them to intrude into peoples' exercise
of their right; another to reinstate the recognition of that right.
> I mean, that's like saying if everyone in the country bought a Segway,
> there would thus be created a "right" to use one.
Nope; you already have the right- the authority of the government to intrude
into your Liberty, or your Pursuit of Happiness doesn't extend any further
than is specifically mentioned. Anything else is an unwarranted arrogation
of power by force- just the thing we fought a Revolution over in the first
If the State can demonstrate another 'compelling interest' in regulating
them, they'll no doubt be able to find a Court to uphold another intrusion
into your Liberty. The 'Law' seems more than happy to cert the extension of
the police state- that doesn't make it right, only preferrable to their
exercise of force to compel compliance.
> Or if private jets
> were more affordable, then all of a sudden pilot licensing would become
You can pilot a plane without a license- you can build a plane without a
license- you can fly the plane you built without a license. The restriction
doesn't start until you reach a certain level of power in the vehicle.
It doesn't seem to be much worth the government's interest unless it's
taxable- nothing to do with safety.
From: Chas on 4 Mar 2007 11:55
> Another friggin' freeloader, eh? Stay off my roads if you don't wanna
> pay your share.
The freeloaders are those that can qualify for the privilege of using the
roads that the rest of us pay for involuntarily. We support a huge tax
burden to facilitate your exercise of privilege denied to other citizens and
From: Brent P on 4 Mar 2007 12:01
In article <abmdnZscCa5SaXfYnZ2dnUVZ_tGlnZ2d(a)comcast.com>, Chas wrote:
> Yesss; yo'r paperz pleez.
> First action of a police state is to control free movement; second is
> disarming them.
The first action is to dumb down the population, then manipulate that
population and make sure that anyone who sees what is going on is
kookified. Then it's restriction of movement and disarming the
>> Don't drive, and you don't have to worry about abiding by the rules of
>> the road. Problem solved!
> No, even being a passenger subjects you to search, seizure of effects,
> required production of identification without probable cause to interfere
> with you at all.
> Riding may be a privilege as well-
People were so well conditioned into producing papers on demand when
driving that the scheme has been carried to where it is everywhere and
has been ruled acceptable by the government's courts.
Once a person steps outside their home they may be forced by a
government employee to produce ID based on reasoning that can be easily
From: Andrew Tompkins on 4 Mar 2007 12:08
> "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? 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.
You're the one that is trying to show that something is true. To do
so, you have to support the items that you use to do so. Every item.
You have yet to do this with any item above. All I have to do is
knock holes in your proof. I haven't had to do that yet because you
refuse to support your material thus knocking holes in your own proof
>>>>> 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
It's not a case of using independent thought on your opinion. It's a
case of needing support material, then using independent thought to
develop an opinion of my own on the topic at hand. Like I said
before, you haven't developed that level of trust needed to take you
at your word on blind faith. Your track record is abysmal at best.
Until you support your information, I will neither agree nor disagree
with what you have to say. You obviously got this material from
someplace and melded it together to form your argument. Let's see the
sources for it.
Andrew G. Tompkins