From: proffsl on
"Andrew Tompkins" <andy...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
> proffsl wrote:
> > "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.
>
> 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 yourself.

You are the one that is trying to claim everything I said is false.
But, you refuse to even pretend to "knock holes" in any of it, thereby
knocking holes in your own claim that everything I said was false. As
I said above, it's highly doubtful that you would actually deny, or
even question, everything I have said, as you have claimed. In the
unlikely event you do, considering the most elemental nature of some
of the things I have said, there will be no common grounds upon which
we can peacefully meet to discuss this issue any further.

Now, either you disagree with everything I have said, and there is no
further use in even pretenting to have reasonable dialog with you, OR
you don't disagree with everything I have said, and I once again ask
that you specify exactly what you disagree with, and explain your
reasons.


> > > > > > 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.
>
> 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.

If you are capable of independent thought to developed an opinion of
any supporting material I might produce, then surely you are capable
of independent thought to developed an opinion of the material I have
already produced. You ask for sources, but you refuse to specify what
it is you disagree with, or explained your reasons for disagreeing
with it.

As I said above, it's highly doubtful that you would actually deny, or
even question, everything I have said, as you have claimed. In the
unlikely event you do, considering the most elemental nature of some
of the things I have said, there will be no common grounds upon which
we can peacefully meet to discuss this issue any further, and you
should be gone.

Now, either you disagree with everything I have said, and there is no
further use in even pretending to have reasonable dialog with you, OR
you don't disagree with everything I have said, and I once again ask
that you specify exactly what you disagree with, and explain your
reasons.


> Like I said before, you haven't developed that level of trust
> needed to take you at your word on blind faith.

I haven't asked you to take my word on blind faith. If there is
something I have said that you disagree with, specify exactly what you
disagree with, and explain your reasons. If you disagree with 100% of
what I have said, then be gone because there is no common ground upon
which we can peacefully meet.


> Until you support your information, I will neither agree nor
> disagree with what you have to say.

This seems to indicate that you are either unwilling or unable to
think independently. If this is the case, then be gone because there
is no common ground upon which we can peacefully meet.

From: Scott M. Kozel on
"proffsl" <proffsl(a)my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> "Andrew Tompkins" <andy...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > Until you support your information, I will neither agree nor
> > disagree with what you have to say.
>
> This seems to indicate that you are either unwilling or unable to
> think independently. If this is the case, then be gone because there
> is no common ground upon which we can peacefully meet.

Proffsl, -you- are the one with the argument, so -you- are the one who
needs to provide documentation and substantiation of your claims.

Logical fallacy -- burden of proof.

Proffsl is trying to shift the burden of proof from where it rightfully
belongs (himself), to others.

If Proffsl can't or won't obtain a drivers license, then he is welcome
to travel as a passenger in someone else's car, to travel on public
transportation, to travel on a bicycle, and to travel by walking.

--
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: Chas on
"Larry" <x(a)y.com> wrote
>> 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?

Do you think you own the term- that it's your jargon alone?
The police can interact with you as you operate a vehicle in ways they could
not do in any other situation- commensurate with their authority as you
exercize a privilege, not a Right.

> 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
> rights.

The conditions of your driver's license gives them authority to interdict
you with scant attention to 4th through 9th guarantees- a function of the
Compelling State's Interest recognized by the court; the Weasel giving
permission to the Fox for chicken inspection.

> 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.

Yes; and we lost something with that.
There is something about having one's life flayed open for scrutiny and
judgment based on nothing but a failure to produce the government card that
is anti-American. It should be in the same scrapheap as 'vagrancy'/'no
visible means of support'/Jim Crow laws.

Chas


From: Chas on
"Larry" <x(a)y.com> wrote
> What city requires ID to ride the bus?

Greyhound; intercity- 'Homeland Security' stuff.

Chas


From: Brent P on
In article <x-6E37ED.14230504032007(a)news.west.earthlink.net>, Larry wrote:

> 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
> rights.

Do you means specifically driver's license or government issued ID in
general? Because the later isn't practically true anymore with court
victories being few in the 'post-911-world'.

>> > 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.

Then he better have a passport.

> 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.

Private when there is credit or trust (such as a check) is involved I can
see. I cannot think of any other reason for it other than an illusion of
security.