Your Right to Drive
in [Drive]
|
From: Larry on 4 Mar 2007 14:36 In article <V7ydnd9-c-XCZnfYnZ2dnUVZ_sWdnZ2d(a)comcast.com>, tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > 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 > population. > > > > >> 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 > manufactured. This is factually and legally incorrect.
From: Scott M. Kozel on 4 Mar 2007 14:43 "Chas" <chasclements(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > "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. Yes, but they can't be allowed to potentially take hundreds of other people with them. -- Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com
From: Larry on 4 Mar 2007 14:58 In article <I6qdnVYI0KgmZXfYnZ2dnUVZ_uygnZ2d(a)comcast.com>, "Chas" <chasclements(a)comcast.net> wrote: > "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. So majority rule it is, then? 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 > place. > 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. I think most people would agree it is better to exert authority through law than force. You disagree? > > > Or if private jets > > were more affordable, then all of a sudden pilot licensing would become > > unlawful. > > 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. You see no safety rationale to ensuring that people who operate powerful aircraft are qualified to do so? You really can't be that dumb, can you?
From: proffsl on 4 Mar 2007 15:54 "Chas" <chascleme...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > <k_fl...(a)lycos.com> wrote: > > > > 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. "[The Individual] owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights." -- Hale vs. Hinkel, 201 US 43, 74-75 - http://laws.findlaw.com/us/201/43.html#74
From: Larry on 4 Mar 2007 16:19
In article <1173041669.450029.202280(a)8g2000cwh.googlegroups.com>, "proffsl" <proffsl(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > "Chas" <chascleme...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > <k_fl...(a)lycos.com> wrote: > > > > > > 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. > > "[The Individual] owes nothing to the public so long as he does not > trespass upon their rights." -- Hale vs. Hinkel, 201 US 43, 74-75 - > http://laws.findlaw.com/us/201/43.html#74 The best you got is dicta from a 1905 case involving a writ of habeas corpus regarding grand jury subpoenas served on a corporation? For cryin' out loud, that case has nothing to do with driver licensing! |