Your Right to Drive
in [Drive]
|
From: Larry on 4 Mar 2007 18:04 In article <CL-dndfbgrGH0nbYnZ2dnUVZ_qWvnZ2d(a)comcast.com>, "Chas" <chasclements(a)comcast.net> wrote: > "Larry" <x(a)y.com> wrote > > So majority rule it is, then? > > Better than the tyranny of the few. Majority rule is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. Only the wolves want that, but then again, the wolves would get by just fine under any system of rule, no? > > I think most people would agree it is better to exert authority through > > law than force. You disagree? > > Given a Contitutionally granted authority and no sovereign- ok. > What's yer pernt? That your apparently-inflamatory statement was so neutered and basic as to be pointless. > > 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? > > Hey buddy- it's your 747, fly it any way you want to. If you can get 100 > people to ride with you, you should be giving inspirational talks, not > practicing law. And if I'm unqualified, so it puts everyone at risk?
From: Chas on 4 Mar 2007 18:22 "Larry" <x(a)y.com> wrote > I don't own it, but, having been to law school and now being an > experienced prosecutor, I know what the term means. It's something I > think about nearly every day. What makes you think you understand it? A plain reading of the Document- it's obvious that the founding fathers had no intention of setting up a police state to regulate driving around the country. The concept is so utterly antagonistic to the concepts of 'Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness', and the retention of un-named rights to the citizen, that it's offensive on every level. Of course it came with a 'safety' tag- lots of unwarranted intrusions into private life do. >> 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. > So you admit it is a privilege, not a right? You sure are waffling. I admit that the government has arrogated to itself the authority to treat driving as a privilege, and that it wrongfully abrogates a Right- thrust of my argument, matter of fact. >> Yes; and we lost something with that. > What did we lose, exactly? We're alot safer for it, with minimal > intrusion into anyone's lives. We're no 'safer'- and 'safe' is not a price I care to pay for Liberty anyway. > So now driving a car means your life is "flayed open for scrutiny"? > Hyperbolize much? My own characterization of what happened to me- basis of my Federal suit. I was a passenger in a car- stopped, searched, handcuffed on my knees for almost an hour. No contraband, no charges, no nothing- profile stop. Chas
From: Brent P on 4 Mar 2007 18:27 In article <x-1E488D.17365704032007(a)news.west.earthlink.net>, Larry wrote: >> Greyhound; intercity- 'Homeland Security' stuff. > > Greyhound is a private company, they're allowed to require whatever > documentation they want as long as its not discriminatory. And they do it because government demands it. If they don't do what government demands, they are quickly denied the permits/licensing,etc they need to operate and if not that they are harrassed by government about every ticky-tacky detail. That's how it works with the airlines and everyone else by using the 'private' angle as an end run around the constitutional protections in the bill of rights. Let's say I had the money of Bill Gates and wanted to operate NO-ID airlines and buslines. Suddenly there would be no place to legally land the aircraft and no roads to legally operate the buses on.
From: Chas on 4 Mar 2007 18:30 "Larry" <x(a)y.com> wrote >> Greyhound; intercity- 'Homeland Security' stuff. > Greyhound is a private company, providing a public service- city buses are often private companies as well (here at least). > they're allowed to require whatever > documentation they want as long as its not discriminatory. A requirement by Homeland Security- think it's even referenced on the signs by the ticket counter. Who knows what they might find 'non-discriminatory'? > Or should a bus company be required to let anyone on their property > without knowing who the person is? They do on city buses- it's a public transportation, and one of the options you guys were touting as the immediate alternative to driving. Although, i.d. checks on city buses might be in the not-too-distant future. It's for the children, you know. You can't go on foot, by bicycle, hitch-hike on interStates- and they're the shortest route between points- most suitable for foot-travel/bikes or multiple rides. Where's your 'right to free travel' in that? Chas
From: Larry on 4 Mar 2007 18:34
In article <JeSdnf0y4-RuyHbYnZ2dnUVZ_uninZ2d(a)comcast.com>, tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > In article <x-1E488D.17365704032007(a)news.west.earthlink.net>, Larry wrote: > > >> Greyhound; intercity- 'Homeland Security' stuff. > > > > Greyhound is a private company, they're allowed to require whatever > > documentation they want as long as its not discriminatory. > > And they do it because government demands it. If they don't do what > government demands, they are quickly denied the permits/licensing,etc > they need to operate and if not that they are harrassed by government > about every ticky-tacky detail. Do you have a cite to a government regulation that makes such a demand? Or even news stories where such government demands are discussed? And even if it is true, do you really think that Greyhound doesn't support such rules? If you owned a bus company, would you let anyone who buys a ticket aboard, no questions asked? I highly doubt it. Its common sense. > That's how it works with the airlines and everyone else by using the > 'private' angle as an end run around the constitutional protections in > the bill of rights. > > Let's say I had the money of Bill Gates and wanted to operate NO-ID > airlines and buslines. Suddenly there would be no place to legally land > the aircraft and no roads to legally operate the buses on. Sure there are. You can operate the buses on any public roadway in the country. |