From: Brent P on 4 Mar 2007 19:38
In article <x-8BF58A.19330704032007(a)news.west.earthlink.net>, Larry wrote:
> In article <D5GdndyCyPEO-XbYnZ2dnUVZ_q_inZ2d(a)comcast.com>,
> tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>> In article <x-2C9D8B.18345104032007(a)news.west.earthlink.net>, Larry wrote:
>> > 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?
>> Quite obviously you are living in denial of the obvious. The TSA
>> homeland security edicts are not debatable by the airlines. Have you not
>> paid attention in the last 6 years?
> I didn't ask about airlines, I asked about private bus companies.
Homeland security doesn't have public regulation, it just makes demands
and the companies have to follow it. See the Gilmore lawsuit on flying.
Also see the Davis case, which is regarding
>> > 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.
>> Checking ID doesn't solve the so called problem you're looking to solve.
>> There is no telling who might go psycho. Many if not most people who just
>> flip out or become jiadist terrorists have clean records before said
>> event. It's an illusion.
> And many criminals are recidivists, so knowing who they are is clearly
So a criminal shows you a DL as I board the bus, that helps you exactly
how? Or maybe one of those matricula(sp?) cards. You don't know squat
about the person, it's just an excerise in illusion and power.
>> >> 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.
>> Not without government permission.
> Where is that stated?
Read state government code regarding running bus services. Pick any
state you want, I doubt any are absent of requirements to meet and
government's ok that they have been met.
From: Fred G. Mackey on 4 Mar 2007 19:53
> 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?
Actually, I just hopped on over to their website just to see what kind
of ID they require.
A quote from their page:
"To pick up tickets, the recipient must present both valid photo ID and
the reference number (displayed after purchase). If the traveler does
not have identification, you can create a password here to serve as ID.
You must give this password to the person picking up the tickets."
You can also use cash to purchase tickets with cash at the bus terminal
- there's no mention of an ID being required unless you're paying with a
So, it would appear that there is no gov't regulation requiring ID
checks for buses, nor does Greyhound appear to want to check everyone's ID.
FFS, can you imagine the burden that would put on them? If some bum
can scrape together enough cash for a bus ticket and doesn't have an ID,
do you think they're going to tell him his money is no good?
> 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.
Why would I care as long as they paid their fare?
From: Fred G. Mackey on 4 Mar 2007 20:26
> "Larry" <x(a)y.com> wrote
>>We require licenses to do all sorts of things before the person does
>>them, so your argument is ridiculous. Teachers, bail bondsmen, lawyers,
>>cosmetologists, and dog catchers all must obtain licenses before doing
>>the act that the license covers. Just like driving, hunting, and many
>>other similar acts.
> Some of which are unwarranted intrusions as well; others the granting of a
> privilege by the State for commercial purposes;
A few years ago, an enterprising high school student in Arizona decided
to offer his services to help secure people's attics from roof rats by
covering openings such as chimneys and ventilation holes with mesh.
He was charging about 1/10th of what the "licensed professional pest
control" industry was charging. He did this work for $30, while the
"licensed professionals" charged around $300 for such a service.
His business grew and he was apparently making decent money (hiring 3 of
his friends to help with the demand for his services) - that's when the
professionals complained to the state and the state told this guy he had
to stop because he did not have a pest control license.
He wasn't using pesticides (which is presumably why the state would want
to make sure those offering pest control services are licensed), he was
installing mesh to prevent rats from coming into people's homes.
Only after much press and public outcry (including the threat of a
lawsuit from The Institute for Justice) did the state relent.
Here's another interesting story I ran across while finding that link.
"The State of Arizona requires all landscaping and gardening businesses
to prove they employ someone with a �qualifying party� license�an
individual with a minimum of 3,000 hours of actual field experience in a
five-year period�before they can offer weed control services to their
customers. This means that for a gardener to spray the same weed
control products (such as Round-Up) that anyone can purchase over the
counter at the nearest home improvement store, he must first demonstrate
he has spent about 12 hours a week for five straight years spraying
weeds. This purposefully anti-competitive licensing requirement is in
addition to the �applicators license� requirement that every employee
involved in weed control must meet, involving a test that covers issues
of safety and technique."
"The 3,000-hour requirement makes it impossible for small gardeners and
landscapers to do their job legally. Because most of these individuals
are self-employed, they would have to spend no less than 18 months
full-time (40 hours a week) just spraying weeds in order to reach the
3,000-hour threshold. And this doesn�t even count the time it takes to
drive from one client to another, or to complete the other,
non-weed-spaying, work on any given job. Plus, even if a gardener were
able to find a way to spend 18 months full-time spraying weeds, he�d
still have to admit to the Commission that he was spraying illegally
when he went to prove his hours. Thus, independent gardeners are left
with two choices: give up gardening, or go to work for a larger, fully
licensed company (their competition) to get the required hours."
From: Brent P on 4 Mar 2007 22:00
In article <mZadneHCVZoN7HbYnZ2dnUVZ_hudnZ2d(a)comcast.com>, Fred G. Mackey wrote:
> A few years ago, an enterprising high school student in Arizona decided
> to offer his services to help secure people's attics from roof rats by
> covering openings such as chimneys and ventilation holes with mesh.
> He was charging about 1/10th of what the "licensed professional pest
> control" industry was charging. He did this work for $30, while the
> "licensed professionals" charged around $300 for such a service.
> His business grew and he was apparently making decent money (hiring 3 of
> his friends to help with the demand for his services) - that's when the
> professionals complained to the state and the state told this guy he had
> to stop because he did not have a pest control license.
> He wasn't using pesticides (which is presumably why the state would want
> to make sure those offering pest control services are licensed), he was
> installing mesh to prevent rats from coming into people's homes.
> Only after much press and public outcry (including the threat of a
> lawsuit from The Institute for Justice) did the state relent.
That is a common tale of why much of the regulation exists. Connected
businesses trying to stomp out competition.
> "The 3,000-hour requirement makes it impossible for small gardeners and
> landscapers to do their job legally. Because most of these individuals
> are self-employed, they would have to spend no less than 18 months
> full-time (40 hours a week) just spraying weeds in order to reach the
> 3,000-hour threshold. And this doesn?t even count the time it takes to
> drive from one client to another, or to complete the other,
> non-weed-spaying, work on any given job. Plus, even if a gardener were
> able to find a way to spend 18 months full-time spraying weeds, he?d
> still have to admit to the Commission that he was spraying illegally
> when he went to prove his hours. Thus, independent gardeners are left
> with two choices: give up gardening, or go to work for a larger, fully
> licensed company (their competition) to get the required hours."
And there is the other, big business having legislation enacted that
makes it impossible for smaller businesses to exist.
From: k_flynn on 5 Mar 2007 11:25
On Mar 4, 9:24 am, "Chas" <chascleme...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
> <k_fl...(a)lycos.com> 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,....
None of that is regulation of free travel. Most of it is ensuring free
travel is safe, some of it is commercial travel.
> > No right is converted into
> > any privilege. Everyone who can drive safely will get a license.
> nope- lots of 'non-safety' regulations surrounding the issuance of a
> license- from requiring muslim women to be photographed without a veil, to
> dead-beat dads.
A dead beat dad will get a license... he just might not be able to renew
it. A Muslim woman will get a license. Again, self-selected, not at
the whim of the state. Please try to keep this straight. I don't
necessarily agree with all the added-on uses of licensing that are non-
driving related, mind you. But those secondary abuses of the ID came
about because of the convenience and ubiquity of licensing. They are
not the primary purpose of licensing, which is the point of this
discussion. I'd like to see those secondary abuses go away in many
cases, but not necessarily the primary use.
> > There
> > is no fiat to it. The state doesn't say to you "We don't like your
> > haircut so you don't get a license."
> But they could if they cared to do-
> as contrasted with a 'Right'.
No, they could not do that at all. It would not be legal or
> > Demonstrate a minimal level of
> > competency to pilot this two-ton machine in traffic with others, and
> > you will get your license. It's up to you. Even if you fail, your
> > right to travel isn't regulated. You can get on a bus, go with a
> > friend, take a train, walk, bike, whatever.
> Regulation is de facto arrogation of the authority to curtail a Right- the
> issuance of a Privilege, at the whim of the government.
No, it is not. There is no whim involved in this. "Drive on the right"
or "stop on red" is not a whim and sure, it limits your "right" to
drive head-on into oncoming traffic or to T-bone cross-traffic. But
puh-lease, it doesn't arrogate any of your rights but quite the
opposite, enhances the right to travel by helping to foster your safe
arrival at your destination.
> > Nope. You have it backward. Since the early days of the last century,
> > the license and registration requirements gradually came into place
> > for reasons related to driving. That late in the century it became
> > handy to use it for other purposes is incidental.
> Which others of our Rights do you find 'incidental'?
Please read for comprehension. I didn't say any rights are incidental.
> > No, it isn't. Really, regulating driving is not the definition of
> > privilege.
> It is when it can be extended or withdrawn at the whim of the government-
Then I am correct and you are wrong. It isn't extended or withdrawn at
the whim of the government. No one is sitting around DMV today
thinking, "I'll withdraw Chas's license today because he's posting
nonsense about us on usenet."
Whether you lose your license is entirely within your hands, not the
> It is when a waiver of your Rights is a requirement for exercise of the
It isn't, then.
> It is when the exercise of the privilege can be withdrawn for other-than
> 'safety' reasons- like financial indemnity, defaulted civil judgments,
> 'registration', 'current address',.....
Again,purely self-selected and not at the whim of the state, even
though I agree with you that these are abuses uses of the license
system. Change it at the legislature, because the people themselves
have demanded these abuses to enforce their judgments. Some of your
examples, incidentally, are driving related such as insurance.
> >> And they have just such a power, should they care to exercise it.
> > No, they do not. OK, you think so, cite me any state's MV code that
> > grants the power to DMV to deny a license to a qualified applicant
> > because they do not like his name or hair color or for any willy nilly
> > reason. I can't wait for this.
> Doesn't have to spell it out- witness the withdrawal for default of civil
> judgment in domestic cases. The privilege is being used to enforce utterly
> non-traffic oriented matters. It's used to enforce patronization of private
> enterprise insurance providers
Even though I agree with you that some of these should not be in the
law, they are. That is not willy nilly, which is what I asked for.
"Whim" of the state means DMV would withdraw your license for a reason
not in the law. A law is not the "whim" of the state but the voice of
the people through their elected representatives. So no, the state
doesn't have the power to do anything it wants willy nilly like deny
you a license for your hair color "should it care to exercise it." It
would need specific authority to do that, and I dare say such a
proposed law would never get passed.
> >> They certainly will withdraw your privilege to drive, regardless of your
> >> ability, if you default on certain civil judgments like child-support.
> > Irrelevant to the issue.
> Seminal to the issue- the abuse and misuse of the driving privilege to
> enforce compliance by citizens to unConstitutional exercise of authority by
> the State.
No, irrelevant to the issue of whether the licensing of drivers is
constitutional or a good idea on its own merits. Do away with the
deadbeat dad provision, that has nothing to do with the issue of the
advisability of licensing drivers in the first place. You keep
changing the issue. Again, read for comprehension, not polemics.
> > 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
Thank you! You'd better be prepared to make whole. Self-insure if you
don't want to pay Allstate.
> 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
It's not a privilege. Given the financial ruin that comes from
uninsured drivers, this is a good thing.
> >> Sure it has- and it's particularly evident in the demand for current
> >> updates, or a 'fixed' address.
> > Wrong. That doesn't restrict your freedom.
> Sure it does.
No it doesn't. Writing down your address, in the first place, doesn't
restrict any freedom at all so your initial premise is false.
> Do you file a change of address about your pistol? How about for your press?
> Must you file it to receive due process rights? or to petition the
> government for redress of grievance?
We don't need to have your address on file for any of those things.
But if you run over my kid and drive away, I wanna know where you
And anyway, firearms, press and redress are in the Bill of Rights.
Driving a car isn't.
> For what other exercise of Liberty must you file an address change?
Voting. The people need to ensure you are voting for your own
representatives and not for other people's.
> > You'd better be financially able to handle the issues that stem from
> > driving. If you aren't prepared for that, again, don't drive.
> A privilege for the well-to-do, that is denied to the poor?
Self-selected again. It's not a privilege. Not many people can't
afford insurance, and if they can't, they certainly can't afford to
pay my medical bills if they run over me, so they'd better not be out
> You don't need a license to own property- nor do you have to carry insurance
> on it.
You do if there's a mortgage on it.
> But to operate any motor vehicle, you must pay for the privilege.
Of course (and it's not a privilege).
> No other
> exercise of a right demands that you indemnify someone else- on the
> off-chance you damage them.
So? Given the amount of loss and damage, the people have demanded it.
It helps safeguard rights to ensure you can't wipe me out and walk
> > That's been demonstrated amply over the last century. Now, where's the
> > citation to anything in the body of law that "declares" that driving
> > is a privilege? From where things stand now, it just sounds like your
> > politically based opinion more than anything based on actually what
> > the body of law says.
> You, yourself, ims, referred to the Compelling State's Interest that allows
> them to intrude into an area for which they had no Constitutional authority-
> the conversion of a Right to a Privilege.
No, I never referred to any such thing. So I guess the answer to the
question you've refused to address since the first reply is, no, you
don't really have any actual statutory basis to say the law declares
driving to be a privilege.
> > No whim involved. You qualify, you get it.
> As opposed to an inalienable Right.
> Those are called 'privileges'.
No, they are not, not in the way you and others have extended it. You
and others have said that you are talking about the sort of
"privilege" that can be extended or withdrawn at the whim of the
state; that doesn't describe the system of licensing and registration
at all. There is no "whim" involved in a due process system of
qualifying and violating a set of agreed-upon standards. Whether a
person gets and keeps a drivers license or not is entirely up to him
and his driving behaviors, not the state's "whim."