Your Right to Drive
in [Drive]
|
From: Andrew Tompkins on 5 Mar 2007 15:22 proffsl wrote: > "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. > I don't recall claiming that anything you have said, in this discussion, is false. I question the veracity of your material until such time as I have something to base my own opinion on other than your opinion. This is not the same thing a saying that your material is patently 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. > You want me to form an opinion based on your opinion only. I would rather form an opinion based on the same material from which you formed your opinion. This is the common ground of which you speak. Only you can provide it. Until you do, there will be no common ground from which we may discuss the merits of the issue and the only things being discussed will be procedural issues as is now happening. Your record of source use has be abysmal at best. The answer to that is not to hide your sources, but to choose and present better sources and use them more wisely. > > 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. > I've already gone over this. I don't disagree with everything you've said. I don't agree with anything that you've said either. I cannot do either until I can form my own opinion on the issue which will not happen until I have the same sources from which to form it as you did for your's. > >>>> 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. > I'm not going to form an opinion based solely on your opinion. I will form one based on the same material from which you formed your's. From what did you form your opinion? The Declaration of Independence; the Constitution and amendments; the Federalist Papers; a speech from one of the early legislators; something more recent like case law or something one of the current Supreme Court justices has said? Present it so that I may form my own opinion and we can discuss something other than procedural issues. > >> 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. > Of course you are. You're asking me to form an opinion based on your opinion alone, not on the same information from which you formed your opinion. The only common ground there is your opinion, not a common set of information from which we both form opinions. > >> 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. > Thinking independently is based on using the same information to form opinions, not being forced into one side of an issue. -- --Andy -------------------------------------------------- Andrew G. Tompkins Software Engineer Beaverton, OR http://home.comcast.net/~andytom/Highways --------------------------------------------------
From: k_flynn on 5 Mar 2007 16:30 Andrew Tompkins wrote: > proffsl wrote: > > 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. > > I don't recall claiming that anything you have said, in this > discussion, is false. I question the veracity of your material until > such time as I have something to base my own opinion on other than > your opinion. This is not the same thing a saying that your material > is patently false. Proffy has reading comprehension problems; he's probably stoned right now. Either that or he's busy FABRICATING yet more citations. > > 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. > > > > You want me to form an opinion based on your opinion only. I would > rather form an opinion based on the same material from which you > formed your opinion. This is the common ground of which you speak. > Only you can provide it. Until you do, there will be no common ground > from which we may discuss the merits of the issue and the only things > being discussed will be procedural issues as is now happening. Your > record of source use has be abysmal at best. Proffy *has* given you sources on which he's based his opinions. The problem is, they clearly are sources that CANNOT reasonably lead to his opinions! That's because he's a pothead he suffers delusions when he reads anything he can remotely associate with his preconceived opinions. He thinks because a court ruling says "travel" that it means he has the right not to get a driver license or to register his car. For instance, he continually cites that Packard case, the Manhattan taxi cab liability insurance case, as some kind of evidence that driver licenses are unconstitutional. Yet as we all know from when I personally soundly and convincingly defeated Proffy last year on this very thread he's resurrected much to his dismay, Packard never even mentions the word "license" in its dicta. This is the same delusional pothead who thinks a case of habeas corpus on a tax beef from a guy who failed to pay support for wounded Confederate Civil War vets somehow means he doesn't have to get a license. The guy is entertainment value only; don't expect any worthwhile discussion with the cement head.
From: proffsl on 5 Mar 2007 18:04 "Andrew Tompkins" <andy...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > proffsl 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. > > Thinking independently is based on using the same information > to form opinions, not being forced into one side of an issue. You've had that information all along. It is you who refuses to add any information on which I can form yet another opinion. It is you who is preventing any dialog between ourselves. Quite deliberately in my opinion. I won't bother to answer any more of your responces until, and if, you choose to form an opinion on the "same information" that I have provided and that we both have.
From: Alan Baker on 6 Mar 2007 16:07 In article <x-6E37ED.14230504032007(a)news.west.earthlink.net>, Larry <x(a)y.com> wrote: > In article <-8CdnVv5L5Jad3fYnZ2dnUVZ_oytnZ2d(a)comcast.com>, > "Chas" <chasclements(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > "Larry" <x(a)y.com> wrote > > > One need not participate in any of these things, by not getting a > > > driver's license. > > > > 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? > > 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. Assume that driving is a privilege and explain how one can exercise one's right to travel without depending on the state for the grant of that privelege... We're waiting... > > > > 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. 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. It used to be that you could go where you wanted without the need to carry *any* ID. You had that right. -- "The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" -- "I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone and how he missed the demo of the iPhone speakerphone.
From: k_flynn on 6 Mar 2007 16:37
Alan Baker wrote: > In article <x-6E37ED.14230504032007(a)news.west.earthlink.net>, > Larry <x(a)y.com> wrote: > > > In article <-8CdnVv5L5Jad3fYnZ2dnUVZ_oytnZ2d(a)comcast.com>, > > "Chas" <chasclements(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > "Larry" <x(a)y.com> wrote > > > > One need not participate in any of these things, by not getting a > > > > driver's license. > > > > > > 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? > > > > 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. > > Assume that driving is a privilege... Getting a DL is not a government granted privilege in the sense people here have been using it. It's a due process in which qualified applicants get the license. The state doesn't arbitarily say "Alan can have a license because we like his haircut, but Proffy cannot because he's s doper." > ... and explain how one can exercise > one's right to travel without depending on the state for the grant of > that privelege... > > We're waiting... Walk, bike, taxi, bus, plane, ridealong with your mom.... > > > > 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. 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. > > It used to be that you could go where you wanted without the need to > carry *any* ID. You had that right. And all of these subsequent uses -- or abuses -- of DLs speaks nothing to the issue of whether driver licensing is/should be utilized for its primary purpose. Strip all of those "papers please" ancillary uses away from the DL, it still remains as a license to drive a vehicle. |