Your Right to Drive
in [Drive]
|
From: Larry on 6 Mar 2007 21:37 In article <alangbaker-45B90D.14582506032007(a)news.telus.net>, Alan Baker <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote: > In article <1173217046.544307.212450(a)p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>, > k_flynn(a)lycos.com wrote: > > > 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." > > Except that, if it's a privilege, they can arbitrarily decide not to > grant it to *anyone*. This is not true. Even privileges, if granted by the government, must be granted (and revoked) according to due process. The government cannot do *anything* arbitrarily. > > Moving on... > > > > > > > ... 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, > > > Okay. Next... > > > taxi, bus, plane, ridealong with your mom.... > > All require the government to have granted this "privilege" and thus > they can disappear whenever the government wants, so all those are out. None of these do. You need no privilege to do any of those things, nor to WALK, which was left off that list but is still the basic mode of travel. > > > > > > 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. > > But I have the *right* to travel. Liberty isn't much without the right > to move around, now is it? You can travel all you want. But you can't operate a multi-ton movable machine without a license and demonstrated ability to do so.
From: Alan Baker on 6 Mar 2007 22:06 In article <x-63AE33.21352906032007(a)news.west.earthlink.net>, Larry <x(a)y.com> wrote: > In article <alangbaker-C99B2B.13075006032007(a)news.telus.net>, > Alan Baker <alangbaker(a)telus.net> 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 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... > > You don't have to wait for long. There are plenty of ways to travel > without driving: biking, walking, taking a bus, taking a train, being a > passenger in a car, and flying, just to name a few. Except for biking and walking, all of those require someone to be granted what you insist is only a privilege... I'm sorry you can't see how that is anathema to a free society. -- "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: Larry on 6 Mar 2007 22:07 In article <alangbaker-34E649.19062506032007(a)news.telus.net>, Alan Baker <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote: > In article <x-63AE33.21352906032007(a)news.west.earthlink.net>, > Larry <x(a)y.com> wrote: > > > In article <alangbaker-C99B2B.13075006032007(a)news.telus.net>, > > Alan Baker <alangbaker(a)telus.net> 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 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... > > > > You don't have to wait for long. There are plenty of ways to travel > > without driving: biking, walking, taking a bus, taking a train, being a > > passenger in a car, and flying, just to name a few. > > Except for biking and walking, all of those require someone to be > granted what you insist is only a privilege... > > I'm sorry you can't see how that is anathema to a free society. It has nothing to do with "a free society." You asked about the "right to travel." You have the right to travel regardless of whether YOU are licensed to operate a multi-ton machine. Heck, people travelled just fine before the days of cars.
From: k_flynn on 6 Mar 2007 22:56 On Mar 6, 6:48 pm, Arif Khokar <akhokar1...(a)wvu.edu> wrote: > k_fl...(a)lycos.com wrote: > > Alan Baker wrote: > >> All require the government to have granted this "privilege" and thus > >> they can disappear whenever the government wants, so all those are out. > > No, they cannot just disappear at the whim of "they." First of all, > > taxi, bus and plane are commercial enterprises which are duly > > regulated separately. But for the greater part, these are not granted > > or withheld by any arbitrary process either, but are result of proper > > due process which carries no arbitrariness. > > The "no fly" list is completely arbitrary. It's conceivable that the > government can institute a "no ride" list for buses, trains, ferries, > and possibly taxis. It's not arbitrary. It may be overly broad, but there is a formula behind it. That is not arbitrariness. "Arbitrary" would be if TSA just randomly put names on it. I know it must seem that way to any one caught up in it <cough/Ted Kennedy/cough> but it really isn't. It's just stupid, but not arbitrary. > IIRC, there was a ruling by the California supreme court that allowed > police to search passengers in stopped vehicles, but I'm unable to find > the post that mentioned it. But that could be done with someone just standing on the strete. It's not a restriction on the right to travel. It's just bullshit that happens *while* you travel (or just stand on a streetcorner).
From: proffsl on 6 Mar 2007 23:05
Alan Baker <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote: > k_fl...(a)lycos.com wrote: > > Alan Baker wrote: > > > Larry <x...(a)y.com> 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. > > > > > > 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... > > > > Walk, bike, > > Okay. Next... Those public highways on which we hae the Right to safe personal travel and the Right to transport our personal property on, see what happens if you attempt to walk on them while pushing a cart with your personal property in it. You'll be told to get off that public highways because you'd be obstructing the ordinary locomotion, the automobile. Take a bicycle, and you'll have to leave that cart with your property behind. And, either walk or bicycle on public highways, and you are forced to sacrifice safety and putting your life in the hands of every automobile driver. Try either not on, but merely along beside our Interstates, and you'll be told to get off, or thrown in jail. A popular claim by the anti-Right-to-Drive brainwashed fanatics is that neither our Constitution nor any US Supreme Court ruling mention Driving an Automobile as being included in our Right of Locomotion. I doubt they mention Walking or Biking as being included either. So, why do they assume they are Rights, and that Driving the Automobile isn't? Dispite the fact that driving the automobile is by far and away the most ordinary means of personal travel on our public highways, they will do back-flips to exclude the automobile from such US Supreme Court statements as: "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 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. |