From: Chas on
"Brent P" <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)> 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
> population.

I can live with that progression.

> 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
> manufactured.

Yeah; I'm old enough to remember when talking to a policeman at all was very
rare- you could actually tell your kids to seek one out for help and expect
that they wouldn't be clubbed casually.


From: Larry on
In article <-8CdnVv5L5Jad3fYnZ2dnUVZ_oytnZ2d(a)>,
"Chas" <chasclements(a)> wrote:

> "Larry" <x(a)> 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.

Do you think you sound like you're making a valid point by using terms
like "due process" out of context?

Someone does not need to exercise his privilege to drive. Yet the
person still has the right to travel, with or without a driver's
license. There is no due process involved, nor a waiver of due process

> > 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'

Someone doesn't have to obtain a non-driver's ID card any more than you
need a driver's license. But its foolish to think that you will be
granted access to do what you want and go where you please without
identifying yourself to appropriate personnel (public AND private) from
time to time.
From: Larry on
In article <DMadnQOHxPZYb3fYnZ2dnUVZ_vShnZ2d(a)>,
"Chas" <chasclements(a)> wrote:

> <k_flynn(a)> 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,....

What city requires ID to ride the bus?
From: Larry on
In article <abmdnZscCa5SaXfYnZ2dnUVZ_tGlnZ2d(a)>,
"Chas" <chasclements(a)> wrote:

> "Larry" <x(a)> 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.

Avoidance of the question noted.

> > 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.

You know, you keep referring to this waiver of constitutional rights.
Yet one who has a drivers license and operates a vehicle has the same
rights as anyone else.

You must be referring to the fact that there are different rules
permitting the stops of motor vehicles that stopping people who are
walking down the street. Yet these are not "waived" constitutional
rights, these rules are *based* on the constitution and the bill of
rights. Specifically the language in the fourth amendment that doesn't
prohibit any objective search or seizure, it simply prohibits
"unreasonable" ones.

> > 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.

Good for you. You're proof that there is no requirement that you have
the dreaded "papers" that you keep referring to.

> > 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
> disarming them.

We don't control free movement; we control who can operate complex,
multi-ton machines that could easily cause serious injury or death if
improperly used.

> > 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,

Not a search of your person without probale cause. Do you have caselaw
that says otherwise?

> seizure of effects,

Only those in plain view in the car, just as if they were in plain view
anywhere else. Do you have caselaw that says otherwise?

> required production of identification without probable cause to interfere
> with you at all.

Nope, a passenger cannot be forced to provide identification without
reason. Do you have caselaw that says otherwise?

> Riding may be a privilege as well-

It's not. It is an absolute right.
From: Larry on
In article <evOdnafJ9JeJZ3fYnZ2dnUVZ_o6gnZ2d(a)>,
"Chas" <chasclements(a)> wrote:

> <k_flynn(a)> wrote
> > 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
> taxpayers.

The same can be said for virtually everything funded by tax revenue.
There isn't a person in the county that benefits from every single
government expenditure.