From: k_flynn on 6 Mar 2007 23:11
On Mar 6, 5:36 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote:
> In article <1173223550.991140.103...(a)q40g2000cwq.googlegroups.com>,
> k_fl...(a)lycos.com wrote:
> > Alan Baker wrote:
> > > In article <1173217046.544307.212...(a)p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>,
> > > k_fl...(a)lycos.com wrote:
> > > > Alan Baker wrote:
> > > > > In article <x-6E37ED.14230504032...(a)news.west.earthlink.net>,
> > > > > Larry <x...(a)y.com> wrote:
> > > > > > In article <-8CdnVv5L5Jad3fYnZ2dnUVZ_oytn...(a)comcast.com>,
> > > > > > "Chas" <chascleme...(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 arbitrarily 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*.
> > No, they can't. That's precisely the point. It is not an arbitrary
> > process at all. In fact, it's almost too easy. "They" can't just
> > decide not to grant DLs.
> Yes, they can. With the wave of a legislator's pen. That's what
> "privilege" means.
Absolutely and completely incorrect. No, no legislator could do that.
Any legislature that attempted even to pass such a nonsensical thing
as denying licenses to people with spiked blue hair - and none would -
would find it almost immediately overturned as unconstitutional. You
are really carrying this definition of "privilege" over the edge of a
cliff here. You seem to think that because a license is sometimes
called a "privilege" that this encompasses all of the possible
meanings of "privilege." It does not. It's a term of art. It's due
process, not willy nilly approval or denial based on hair style, eye
color or some whim of the government. It really really isn't.
> > > > > ... 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.
> > 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.
> So by your logic, the government should be allowed to pass a law
> requiring you to have a license to have...
> ...a printing press.
Nope, not at all. Aside from the obvious 1st Amendment issue and the
special guarantees listed therein, there is no comparison between a
public conveyance such as a taxi and a newspaper or magazine on the
That said, of course, local governments can and do require licenses or
permits for newspapers to install racks on public rights of way.
Similarly, when commercial enterprises wish to profit off the public
facilities (highways, streets, etc.) the people through their elected
representatives have the right to require certain things. All through
> > Second, your mom's DL is not given to her as a privilege by the state
> > either. She gets it by passing a standard test that ensures a minimal
> > level of knowledge and skill. IOW, it's up to her, not the state. She
> > passes, she gets it even if the DMV clerk doesn't like her hair color.
> Until they decide that citizens should be licensed *at all*.
Did you actually mean "should be licensed *not* at all?" In that case,
then everyone can drive, even blind people! Have fun with that one.
> Until they make you give up other rights (such as the right against
> being arbitrarily stopped while going about your busines) by claiming
> that you have to waive those rights when you agree to a driver's license.
Still, such an abuse is irrelevant to whether licensing drivers in the
first place is constitutional, which it has long been found to be. You
keep coming up with secondary abuses of the fact that people already
are licensed to somehow indicate they shouldn't be licensed for
driving purposes. Yet your premises don't go there at all. Get rid of
all the abuses of licenses-as-ID and you still have licensing for
> > > > > > > > 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?
> > Of course, and again, none of this has anything to do with whether DLs
> > are constitutional. You're talking about ancillary unrelated abuses to
> > the fact of *having* a DL. Again, do away with all those abuses like
> > revoking for nonpayment of child support, for instance, and you still
> > have a justifiable system of licensing and registration.
> No. The system *itself* infringes on my rights.
Not at all. You've taken not one step to demonstrate this. I haven't
seen you show one right that's been infringed by the fact that you
need to be licensed to operate a vehicle on my street.
From: Larry on 6 Mar 2007 23:16
In article <1173240694.482496.157740(a)h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> Did you actually mean "should be licensed *not* at all?" In that case,
> then everyone can drive, even blind people! Have fun with that one.
Why not? Proffsl thinks blind people should be able to drive!
Remember when he even said cats and dogs can drive, as long as they
don't infringe on his rights?
From: k_flynn on 6 Mar 2007 23:22
On Mar 6, 9:05 pm, "proffsl" <prof...(a)my-deja.com> wrote:
> 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.
Boy, then I'd say it's a darn good thing that we have a system of
licensing and registration to begin to ensure some order and safety on
our roads! Thank you, Proffy, for providing yet one more justification
for the current system! You're priceless!
> 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
We explained all this to you before, stoner. Safety and general
welfare clause. Look it up. SCOTUS has ruled on it, you lose again.
> Dispite the fact that driving the automobile is by far and away the
> most ordinary means of personal travel on our public highways,...
Which is precisely why it is the mode that stands out for some system
of regulation... thanks again for pointing out the obvious reasons to
> 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
You're the one doing the back flips, dopehead.
Packard was the Manhattan taxicab liability insurance case. The word
"license" doesn't appear anywhere in it. A judge cannot "accidentally"
make licensing unconstitutional when that is not the question or issue
before the court. Your cite is irrelevant to the issue.
And even the quote you cite says nothing about whether regulation is
constitutional. Remember that I proved to you that the courts regard
"the ordinary way" as cited there to include the then-in-use system of
licensing and registration.
You lose twice in the same post!!
From: proffsl on 7 Mar 2007 05:38
Larry <x...(a)y.com> wrote:
> k_fl...(a)lycos.com wrote:
> > Did you actually mean "should be licensed *not* at all?"
> > In that case, then everyone can drive, even blind people!
> > Have fun with that one.
> Why not? Proffsl thinks blind people should be able to drive!
> Remember when he even said cats and dogs can drive,
> as long as they don't infringe on his rights?
I never said any such a thing. This issue really brings out the LIAR
in these two liars. I suppose it would since they are supporting the
LIE that driving is a privilege. They have to LIE to defend a LIE. I
have never said toddlers, cats or dogs can drive, much less drive
Originally, I asked: these two liars: If someone is driving an
automobile safely, what objection can they have? It was a perfectly
valid question, which these two liars wished to avoid answering at all
costs. As an avoidance mechanism, these two liars began asking me if
minors, or even toddlers, should be allowed to drive. To demonstrate
that my original question was perfectly valid, I replaced the
"someone" in it with your suggestion of a "toddler" and even went on
to replace the "someone" in it with "a cat" and "a dog".
"If a toddler is driving an automobile safely, what substantive
objection can you have?"
"If a dog is driving an automobile safely, what substantive objection
can you have?"
"If a cat is driving an automobile safely, what substantive objection
can you have?"
I would have thought that should have demonstrated that my original
question was perfectly valid and elicit an answer from these two
liars. But, no, that wasn't to be. These two liars were too busy
fabricating lies to actually answer questions.
And in fact, for these two liars to take my questions above and claim
I was saying that toddlers, cats and dogs should be allowed to drive
only serves to indicate that it is these two liars who think that
toddlers, cats and dogs can drive safely.
Pigs grunt. Birds twerp. Dogs bark. And, Liars LIE.
From: k_flynn on 7 Mar 2007 12:36
On Mar 1, 8:31 pm, "proffsl" <prof...(a)my-deja.com> wrote:
> 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)
And all this is true. However, you need to recognize the ordinary way
we use streets and highways is with licensed drivers and registered
vehicles. So, yes, the dicta is an accurate statement but your
conclusion is incorrect.