Your Right to Drive
in [Drive]
|
From: Larry on 1 Mar 2007 23:24 In article <1172809085.165157.73910(a)s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>, "MLOM" <grvan(a)netzero.net> wrote: > > With an opinion like you posted, is it any wonder Lt. H is smoking you > like a cheap joint? Ziiiiing!
From: k_flynn on 1 Mar 2007 23:25 On Mar 1, 9:18 pm, "MLOM" <g...(a)netzero.net> wrote: > On Mar 1, 9:31 pm, "proffsl" <prof...(a)my-deja.com> wrote:> Our States are lying to us. Driving is not a privilege. Driving is a > > Right. > > <snip long monologue> > > Not exactly right: we all have to pass a test and meet certain > requirements to operate 1.5T+ machines at speeds that make them > potential WMDs. Driving is risky business, and we have to show that > we can handle that risk. If it were not for the license process and > certain reasonable laws, driving would be about like a game of > Calvinball (making up the rules as you go). > > With an opinion like you posted, is it any wonder Lt. H is smoking you > like a cheap joint? If it's March, Proffy must be postin' nonsense again. Wait until he gets to the part where he begins to fabricate court cites and call everyone else liars.
From: proffsl on 1 Mar 2007 23:27 "Scott M. Kozel" <koze...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > "proffsl" <prof...(a)my-deja.com> 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. > > Proffsl, this is the same screed that you posted here almost > a year ago, and it was thoroughly and soundly refuted by a > number of different posters; It was throughly and soundly DENIED by a number of different posters, and it may have even been CONFOUNDED by contradicting laws, but I am even more convinced that Driving is a Right this year than I was last year. > You lost the argument, utterly and completely. My previous argument was not lost. My previous argument was harassed and slandered by certain posters. My argument in this thread is from an entirely different approach, and I will continue to make it. > Accept it and move on. I will not accept the heckles, personal attacks and slander perpetrated by certain other posters as reason to stop my mission to enlighten the citizens to the truth that Driving IS a Right. That our public highways were intended to enhance our Right of Liberty. That our public highways were built on our property, using our money, for the purpose of enhancing our Right of Liberty. That we have the Right to use our Public Highways in the ordinary way. And, that the more our public highways are made unuseable by anything but the automobile, the more this lie that driving is a privilege makes us all prisoners of privilege behind bars of blacktop. If that disturbs you, put your blinders back on, and don't bother responding. Otherwise, address my points as presented. If you can. 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. 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.
From: k_flynn on 1 Mar 2007 23:29 On Mar 1, 9:27 pm, "proffsl" <prof...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > "Scott M. Kozel" <koze...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > Proffsl, this is the same screed that you posted here almost > > a year ago, and it was thoroughly and soundly refuted by a > > number of different posters; > > It was throughly and soundly DENIED by a number of different posters, > and it may have even been CONFOUNDED by contradicting laws, but I am > even more convinced that Driving is a Right this year than I was last > year. Proffy, that's because you are still STONED. Please cut to the part where you begin making up court cases and logging on with sock puppet identities to create the illusion anybody agreed with you, so we can end this tonight.
From: k_flynn on 1 Mar 2007 23:30
On Mar 1, 9:24 pm, Larry <x...(a)y.com> wrote: > In article <1172809085.165157.73...(a)s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>, > > "MLOM" <g...(a)netzero.net> wrote: > > > With an opinion like you posted, is it any wonder Lt. H is smoking you > > like a cheap joint? > > Ziiiiing! Maybe he'll create several more sock puppet posting shells to make his own fan club again! |