PDA

View Full Version : Driving: privilege or right?




07041826
04-30-2010, 04:24 PM
Does anyone know why driving is considered a privilege and not a right? I believe we all have a natural right to travel freely from one place to another on public roads, so why is driving any different from riding my bike or walking? Also, if it were a right should states still require a license and/or some sort of insurance?

Vessol
04-30-2010, 04:27 PM
It's a state's issue whether or not they want to require a license for the roads in which they maintain. On private roads they should have no jurisdiction however.

07041826
04-30-2010, 04:32 PM
It's a state's issue whether or not they want to require a license for the roads in which they maintain. On private roads they should have no jurisdiction however.

So could they require a license to walk, skate, or bike on public roads and require insurance for those methods of travel as well?

brandon
04-30-2010, 04:34 PM
Sovereign individuals do not need permission to travel. Only slaves do.

Vessol
04-30-2010, 04:35 PM
So could they require a license to walk, skate, or bike on public roads and require insurance for those methods of travel as well?

Waking=No, as it can not over time require maintenance to fix the damage done.

The main reason that state's have drivers licenses is to raise money for road maintenance that vehicles make necessary, I believe, correct me if I'm wrong.

MelissaWV
04-30-2010, 04:37 PM
Does anyone know why driving is considered a privilege and not a right? I believe we all have a natural right to travel freely from one place to another on public roads, so why is driving any different from riding my bike or walking? Also, if it were a right should states still require a license and/or some sort of insurance?

More or less what Vessol said. "Public" roads are actually Government roads, the public just funds them one way or another. That means Government dictates who drives what where. They even dictate who walks, or rides their bike, or other forms of movement, on some portions of those Government roads.

You do have the right to move freely, and you should not be deprived of your right to change your location unless you've done something pretty awful, or are suspected of it on solid grounds and are waiting for it to be cleared up, or for your own agreed-upon good (do you really want to be able to move freely during open-heart surgery on yourself?). You don't have the right to do it any whichway you please. That is up to the owner of the medium through/on which you are moving.

If it's your medium, you can move on it however you wish (well, in theory). "Driving" doesn't work absolutely everywhere. If driving is a right, then it is universal! My right to drive extends to swimming pools, and Government buildings! Of course not. I may swim in a pool the owner allows me to swim in, and I may move within Government buildings so long as I don't go into the badge areas. Most of them are boring anyhow.

brandon
04-30-2010, 04:38 PM
Waking=No, as it can not over time require maintenance to fix the damage done. Sure it does. Tons of money is spent all the time repairing and clearing walking trails. Sidewalks, dirt paths, and rocky mountain hiking trails all require maintenance.




The main reason that state's have drivers licenses is to raise money for road maintenance that vehicles make necessary, I believe, correct me if I'm wrong.

The states don't make money from drivers licenses. How would they? It costs all of what... $10 every 5 years to keep a valid license. State DMVs are not profitable at all, they are money pits.

Licenses came about because the state wanted to have control over people's lives.

mrsat_98
04-30-2010, 04:46 PM
Does anyone know why driving is considered a privilege and not a right? I believe we all have a natural right to travel freely from one place to another on public roads, so why is driving any different from riding my bike or walking? Also, if it were a right should states still require a license and/or some sort of insurance?

They are restricting/ regulating your right to travel via the amended trading with the enemy act ( March 9, 1933 )

07041826
04-30-2010, 04:47 PM
So since most roads are public and therefore controlled and regulated by the government and the private property in the city where I live is sliced up by these public roads, can I really argue that I have the right/freedom to go where I like? Couldn't the state/local government decide that for the next 24 hrs there will be no use of any public roads? Where could I go?

peacepotpaul
04-30-2010, 04:48 PM
it's a privilege, otherwise it wouldn't be limited to sane adults.

Vessol
04-30-2010, 04:51 PM
Keep in mind, I think roads would be a lot better off of they were privatized.

brandon
04-30-2010, 04:54 PM
it's a privilege, otherwise it wouldn't be limited to sane adults.

You don't need a law to prevent children and the disabled from driving. They wouldn't drive anyway, because they would not be able to afford a car.

malkusm
04-30-2010, 04:54 PM
Sure it does. Tons of money is spent all the time repairing and clearing walking trails. Sidewalks, dirt paths, and rocky mountain hiking trails all require maintenance.




The states don't make money from drivers licenses. How would they? It costs all of what... $10 every 5 years to keep a valid license. State DMVs are not profitable at all, they are money pits.

Licenses came about because the state wanted to have control over people's lives.

What about vehicle registration, tags, the requirement to have valid insurance, and the ability to take away your ability to drive if the state deems you to be a hazard?

Personally, yes, driving is a RIGHT. I am able to do it without the government's assistance, through my own ability, and without interacting with any other person. Why should I not be able to drive a car, which is my property, anywhere I please? If I incur costs to other drivers in an accident, I am responsible for reimbursing the owner of the car just as in any dispute over destruction of property.

Am I a minor, and the government my mother, for me to require her consent to enjoy the "privilege" of driving?

MelissaWV
04-30-2010, 04:54 PM
So since most roads are public and therefore controlled and regulated by the government and the private property in the city where I live is sliced up by these public roads, can I really argue that I have the right/freedom to go where I like? Couldn't the state/local government decide that for the next 24 hrs there will be no use of any public roads? Where could I go?

You can walk... on the sidewalks! If the city declares an emergency, though, you're out of luck. Curfews or quarantines.

You're talking about just not being able to drive. Can you really not think of anything else to do, any other way to get around, than to fold yourself into a machine and let it do all the work?

07041826
04-30-2010, 04:57 PM
it's a privilege, otherwise it wouldn't be limited to sane adults.

The right to bear arms is our right and the government takes that away from the insane, doesn't it?

ClayTrainor
04-30-2010, 04:58 PM
Keep in mind, I think roads would be a lot better off of they were privatized.

Yup. I'm personally 100% convinced of this. Every time i Travel the 400 series highways in Toronto I take the ETR407 (http://www.407etr.com/). It's not fully privatized, but it is a marketable service that you can purchase, as oppose to the fully socialized roads that are "free" for everyone. The fully socialized roads are always backed up at Rush hour and seem to be in a constant state of construction.

The 407 on the other hand is always moving fast, extremely well maintained and never bogged down with construction. If I want to guarantee that I travel without traffic jams, I pay for that service. If they failed to provide this service to people, they would refuse to pay. Markets work!

http://www.407etr.com/

Vessol
04-30-2010, 05:00 PM
Preferably I think local towns/cities should be able to manage their own roads, and private enterprise manage highways in between.

07041826
04-30-2010, 05:00 PM
You're talking about just not being able to drive. Can you really not think of anything else to do, any other way to get around, than to fold yourself into a machine and let it do all the work?

Certainly; and I can defend myself with a baseball bat, so is owning and using a gun a privilege too since it "does all the work"?

MelissaWV
04-30-2010, 05:02 PM
You don't need a law to prevent children and the disabled from driving. They wouldn't drive anyway, because they would not be able to afford a car.

No one under 16 has ever stolen anything ;)

peacepotpaul
04-30-2010, 05:04 PM
You don't need a law to prevent children and the disabled from driving. They wouldn't drive anyway, because they would not be able to afford a car.

so you're saying as long as cars are abandoned and one wants to risk his own life, he should be legally free to do it.

brandon
04-30-2010, 05:05 PM
No one under 16 has ever stolen anything ;)

I'm sure the requirement to have a driver's license is a great deterrent to young thieves. ;)

(PS I "borrowed" my dads car several times when I was 15. God I hope I never have a son like me)

Natalie
04-30-2010, 05:10 PM
Driving is a right. We shouldn't even need drivers licences, imo.

phill4paul
04-30-2010, 05:20 PM
The federal highway system is a sham. Designed to allow for the rapid transportation of troops the system has become a way for the federal authorities to strong arm states into national agendas.
The majority of society believes it is a privilege. I believe it is a right. What has changed since the days that settlers could pull their wagons across the dusty trails to distant locations?
Of course I could still pull a wagon. However, car drivers would hurl insults and beer bottles much like they do at bicyclists. And I couldn't do it on an interstate.

peacepotpaul
04-30-2010, 05:23 PM
The right to bear arms is our right and the government takes that away from the insane, doesn't it?

I often wonder if people who are for "bear arms" ever recognize a limit, should a citizen have a nucular bomb? should children be allowed to use guns?

You are right though, that the FACT government takes certain rights (or what are thought of as rights) away from some people have made the right, in reality, a privilege.

peacepotpaul
04-30-2010, 05:24 PM
You don't need a law to prevent children and the disabled from driving. They wouldn't drive anyway, because they would not be able to afford a car.

just like you don't need a law to prevent children (or even adults) from murdering, right? They wouldn't murder anyway, because they couldn't afford the weapons.

Danke
04-30-2010, 05:24 PM
Driving is a right. We shouldn't even need drivers licences, imo.

"Driving" is a privilege.

Traveling is a right.

Motor Vehicle laws deal with commerce, which the government can and does regulate.

peacepotpaul
04-30-2010, 05:26 PM
Driving is a right. We shouldn't even need drivers licences, imo.

do you believe children, handicapped, visually impaired, and insane should be allowed to drive? (assuming they didn't steal another person's car)

phill4paul
04-30-2010, 05:27 PM
"Driving" is a privilege.

Traveling is a right.

Motor Vehicle laws deal with commerce, which the government can and does regulate.

Commerce is a much different animal than traveling IMHO.

07041826
04-30-2010, 05:32 PM
Motor Vehicle laws deal with commerce, which the government can and does regulate.

Is it commerce if I drive to my mom's house from my apartment? What is the commerce taking place?

phill4paul
04-30-2010, 05:33 PM
Is it commerce if I drive to my mom's house from my apartment? What is the commerce taking place?

No. It is not.

peacepotpaul
04-30-2010, 05:34 PM
Is it commerce if I drive to my mom's house from my apartment? What is the commerce taking place?

the fact you are using a shared road built by somebody's money, not your own, means you are subject to the rules and jurisdiction thereof. Am I wrong?

brandon
04-30-2010, 05:35 PM
do you believe children, handicapped, visually impaired, and insane should be allowed to drive? (assuming they didn't steal another person's car)

Dude think about what you're asking. I mean, really think about it. Do we need a law to prevent that? Is the benefit of having such a law really worth the trouble that comes with it?


And be careful with your assumptions that the "insane" can't drive. Most mentally ill people can drive just fine. Furthermore, "insanity" is a legal term that is often used to persecute the enemies of the state. Watch the movie "changeling" to get a better idea of just how the police and government use this to their advantage.

brandon
04-30-2010, 05:37 PM
the fact you are using a shared road built by somebody's money, not your own, means you are subject to the rules and jurisdiction thereof. Am I wrong?

What do you mean it wasn't built with his money? Are you implying he is not a taxpayer?

Chieppa1
04-30-2010, 05:40 PM
I can't believe this is a thread. Its a right to travel. Not a right to travel in a multi-ton machine.

I could see liberals making it a "right", so everyone gets a car. And we subsidize those too poor too afford one.

Like that awesome idea the EU has about the "human right of tourism".

Drivers licenses are complete bullshit though.

peacepotpaul
04-30-2010, 05:42 PM
Dude think about what you're asking. I mean, really think about it. Do we need a law to prevent that? Is the benefit of having such a law really worth the trouble that comes with it?


Do we need a law to prevent ANYTHING?

I'm not sure whether you're questioning IF the law has benefits, or whether the result IS beneficial.




And be careful with your assumptions that the "insane" can't drive. Most mentally ill people can drive just fine. Furthermore, "insanity" is a legal term that is often used to persecute the enemies of the state. Watch the movie "changeling" to get a better idea of just how the police and government use this to their advantage.

Do you not benefit from people being scared and told that it's illegal to rob and rape your family? Do you think you're capable of defending and protecting your family 24/7? Or would you rather get some help from your neighbors, your local police and some tyrannical government, so you can spend more time drinking beer and watching NASCAR?

07041826
04-30-2010, 05:42 PM
the fact you are using a shared road built by somebody's money, not your own, means you are subject to the rules and jurisdiction thereof. Am I wrong?

Well, since we taxpayers pay for the roads with taxes and fees do we all get to decide the rules for ourselves? Can I tell those who don't pay taxes how they can use the roads I helped pay for?

peacepotpaul
04-30-2010, 05:43 PM
What do you mean it wasn't built with his money? Are you implying he is not a taxpayer?

I'm implying he's not the person who paid for it fully, at most partially.

peacepotpaul
04-30-2010, 05:44 PM
Well, since we taxpayers pay for the roads with taxes and fees do we all get to decide the rules for ourselves?


YES.



Can I tell those who don't pay taxes how they can use the roads I helped pay for?

YES, and you SHOULD.

brandon
04-30-2010, 05:46 PM
Do you not benefit from people being scared and told that it's illegal to rob and rape your family? Do you think you're capable of defending and protecting your family 24/7? Or would you rather get some help from your neighbors, your local police and some tyrannical government, so you can spend more time drinking beer and watching NASCAR?

You're headed off in a whole different direction that I would gladly discuss in another thread. But relevant to this thread, I do not benefit from the state requiring licenses to operate a motor vehicle.

mczerone
04-30-2010, 05:47 PM
(1) who owns the road?

(2) who owns the vehicle?

If you own both, you have a right to use both. If you have permission to use both from the owner, you have the privilege of using both.

malkusm
04-30-2010, 05:50 PM
I can't believe this is a thread. Its a right to travel. Not a right to travel in a multi-ton machine.

I could see liberals making it a "right", so everyone gets a car. And we subsidize those too poor too afford one.

Like that awesome idea the EU has about the "human right of tourism".

Drivers licenses are complete bullshit though.

Not sure what you're getting at here. If you assume that those who recognize driving as a right mean that everyone should be given a vehicle to drive, you're sorely mistaken. As I previously stated - people should be able to do with their own property as they wish. No one should tell me that I can't drive a car that I just paid for - but I should take on the obligation of paying for any property damage I cause while doing so.

As for paying for the roads, the excise tax on gasoline is more than sufficient to pay for the maintenance costs of public roadways, without being granted "permission" to drive through state licenses, and without being identified and turned into a number through vehicle registration and tagging.

peacepotpaul
04-30-2010, 05:50 PM
(1) who owns the road?

(2) who owns the vehicle?

If you own both, you have a right to use both. If you have permission to use both from the owner, you have the privilege of using both.

I agree. And most people don't own both.

07041826
04-30-2010, 05:53 PM
YES, and you SHOULD.

So it is within my rights to tell teenagers or children to not ride their bikes on the bike lanes of the street? Or to tell a person who just immigrated here legally from another country that since he hasn't paid any taxes yet, he can use the roads when I allow him to?

peacepotpaul
04-30-2010, 05:53 PM
You're headed off in a whole different direction that I would gladly discuss in another thread. But relevant to this thread, I do not benefit from the state requiring licenses to operate a motor vehicle.

Then all I can say is you don't live in a place where you see the benefit.

I'm thankful I do.

Natalie
04-30-2010, 05:54 PM
do you believe children, handicapped, visually impaired, and insane should be allowed to drive? (assuming they didn't steal another person's car)

Of course not. But I don't think It's up to the nanny state to regulate that. If an old or young or handicapped person shoots a gun, there is no crime by the act of shooting the gun itself. It's not until they hurt someone that there is an actual crime. I don't see why it would be different with driving a car. It's all about personal responsibility.

peacepotpaul
04-30-2010, 05:55 PM
So it is within my rights to tell teenagers or children to not ride their bikes on the bike lanes of the street?


Yes and no.

You have the right to tell them, but think about who designated the bike lanes to begin with and how many people would take you seriously.



Or to tell a person who just immigrated here legally from another country that since he hasn't paid any taxes yet, he can use the roads when I allow him to?

again, that depends on whether the rest of the "owners" think it's the issue.

Golding
04-30-2010, 05:55 PM
"Driving" is a privilege.

Traveling is a right.

Motor Vehicle laws deal with commerce, which the government can and does regulate.This is more or less what I was going to reply. Traveling is a right. The mechanism by which you exercise that right, should you want to advance it beyond what you're inherently free to do, can be privileged.

malkusm
04-30-2010, 05:56 PM
(1) who owns the road?

(2) who owns the vehicle?

If you own both, you have a right to use both. If you have permission to use both from the owner, you have the privilege of using both.

If you pay for shares of stock, you are giving money to a company which they can use to invest. You are also given the ability to vote in shareholder meetings, and can sell your shares if you disagree with the company's decisions.

Why shouldn't public roadways be treated in this way? I'm paying into them, and since I am a citizen who is part of "the public," I have some partial ownership of them. However, at present, I cannot withdraw the tax money that goes towards funding them, and my ability to affect decisions on them is limited to elections of representatives. If I had options regarding (1) how much I gave to public roadway funding and (2) whether or not I chose to use publiuc roadways in the face of viable alternatives....my decisions would be much different. Fact is, I'm forced to use the public roadways due to the tyranny of the leeching, subsidy-seeking majority. Is it moral that I am not allowed to transport myself using my own property, because most people in society disagree?

phill4paul
04-30-2010, 05:58 PM
I can't believe this is a thread. Its a right to travel. Not a right to travel in a multi-ton machine.
.

So I could peddle a bike, ride a horse or a moped in the slow lane of of I-40?

And while we are on the subject let's talk conspiracy.

The international highway system was originally concieved as a way for the rapid deployment of troops. It then became a much larger system. A spiderweb of intersecting crossroads.

As America was the originator of personal motor transit, and Ford Motor Co. specifically, does anyone see how there could possibly be a link between government funded roads, traversable by machines unreliable compared to animals on muddy trails and the creation of a national highway system?

America once ran on rails. The car changed that. The car was a novelty and relegated to townships until reliable roads were built. HMMM?

What ever happened to the steel rails?

peacepotpaul
04-30-2010, 05:59 PM
Of course not. But I don't think It's up to the nanny state to regulate that. If an old or young or handicapped person shoots a gun, there is no crime by the act of shooting the gun itself. It's not until they hurt someone that there is an actual crime. I don't see why it would be different with driving a car. It's all about personal responsibility.

People who say personal responsibility always assume everybody can be responsible.

When you say "of course not" you admitted I struck a nerve on you and you know you'd rather not have people you don't trust doing things that you fear. While I sympathize there's no perfect method, some risks aren't worth it for me (nor is it for most Americans, or they'd have voted to change it).

You seem to say, if a person isn't concerned about breaking his car, he should be allowed to drive blindfolded, there's no crime or harm in driving blindfolded, but is the risk worth it?

I'm not the best person to tell you where to draw the line, but I'm also not so idealist as to say there isn't or shouldn't be a line, or that government is always wrong about regulation (when often times it's authorized by the local community).

Natalie
04-30-2010, 06:01 PM
Of course not. But I don't think It's up to the nanny state to regulate that. If an old or young or handicapped person shoots a gun, there is no crime by the act of shooting the gun itself. It's not until they hurt someone that there is an actual crime. I don't see why it would be different with driving a car. It's all about personal responsibility.

Also, parents don't let their kids play with guns so why would they let them drive? I highly doubt that if we got rid of Drivers licences that people would allow their 6 year old to drive a car.

phill4paul
04-30-2010, 06:02 PM
This is more or less what I was going to reply. Traveling is a right. The mechanism by which you exercise that right, should you want to advance it beyond what you're inherently free to do, can be privileged.

So do I have the right to walk down the slow lane on a federal interstate that I have payed for?

peacepotpaul
04-30-2010, 06:03 PM
Also, parents don't let their kids play with guns so why would they let them drive? I highly doubt that if we got rid of Drivers licences that people would allow their 6 year old to drive a car.

I agree with you, that laws don't prevent crimes, but they provide punishment and remedy if a person is caught.

bad parents exist whether there are laws or not, but laws against bad parenting make parents less likely to do stupid things (and hold them accountable if they are caught doing it)

dwdollar
04-30-2010, 06:06 PM
Doesn't the federal government force states to require driver licenses? I don't see how it has anything to do with the interstate commerce clause unless you're hauling goods for trade.

07041826
04-30-2010, 06:09 PM
So to recap:

I have the right to travel anywhere by foot, horse, bike, scooter, etc, but not by motor vehicle because....... I'm still not sure

I have the right to travel on public roads unless the government says I can't, in which event I have the right to travel within the limits of my private property

I help pay for the roads, so I have the right to tell others how to use them, but theoretically no one would follow my directions

.....do I really have any rights in the real world?

malkusm
04-30-2010, 06:13 PM
People who say personal responsibility always assume everybody can be responsible.

Uh, no....we assume that people who aren't responsible will have to pay for the consequences of their actions.

peacepotpaul
04-30-2010, 06:15 PM
Uh, no....we assume that people who aren't responsible will have to pay for the consequences of their actions.

then whats wrong with using laws to punish them for it?

InterestedParticipant
04-30-2010, 06:21 PM
privilege is not a legal concept. it is a propaganda term.

dwdollar
04-30-2010, 06:41 PM
So to recap:

I have the right to travel anywhere by foot, horse, bike, scooter, etc, but not by motor vehicle because....... I'm still not sure

I have the right to travel on public roads unless the government says I can't, in which event I have the right to travel within the limits of my private property

I help pay for the roads, so I have the right to tell others how to use them, but theoretically no one would follow my directions

.....do I really have any rights in the real world?

Kind of what I got out of it too.

Chieppa1
04-30-2010, 06:54 PM
Not sure what you're getting at here. If you assume that those who recognize driving as a right mean that everyone should be given a vehicle to drive, you're sorely mistaken. As I previously stated - people should be able to do with their own property as they wish. No one should tell me that I can't drive a car that I just paid for - but I should take on the obligation of paying for any property damage I cause while doing so.

As for paying for the roads, the excise tax on gasoline is more than sufficient to pay for the maintenance costs of public roadways, without being granted "permission" to drive through state licenses, and without being identified and turned into a number through vehicle registration and tagging.

I read the thread title as "the right to drive". As in, if you don't have a car, and can't drive because of it....your rights are being violated. I was playing the liberal side. Devil's Advocate if you will. :)

I totally agree with you.

mczerone
04-30-2010, 07:00 PM
If you pay for shares of stock, you are giving money to a company which they can use to invest. You are also given the ability to vote in shareholder meetings, and can sell your shares if you disagree with the company's decisions.

Why shouldn't public roadways be treated in this way? I'm paying into them, and since I am a citizen who is part of "the public," I have some partial ownership of them. However, at present, I cannot withdraw the tax money that goes towards funding them, and my ability to affect decisions on them is limited to elections of representatives. If I had options regarding (1) how much I gave to public roadway funding and (2) whether or not I chose to use publiuc roadways in the face of viable alternatives....my decisions would be much different. Fact is, I'm forced to use the public roadways due to the tyranny of the leeching, subsidy-seeking majority. Is it moral that I am not allowed to transport myself using my own property, because most people in society disagree?

This is precisely the direction I wanted to steer the conversation. The nature of "Public Property" is really undefined, and your comparison to the corporate form is really enlightening: for all the crap that Wall St. gets about "investor abuse", it remains that the smallest shareholder is better treated than the average taxpayer.

Brooklyn Red Leg
04-30-2010, 07:02 PM
9th Amendment says its a Right. Doesn't get any clearer than the fact that OUR rights are Unlimited, the Government's Power is SUPPOSED to be Limited. That limit does NOT include being able to regulate travel. How any of you can't understand that is rather baffling.

Live_Free_Or_Die
04-30-2010, 07:09 PM
YouTube - San Francisco Cable Car Market Street 1905 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mkX8ecvtqU)

cpike
04-30-2010, 07:10 PM
A DL/ and Roads are two of the few things I don't really have a problem government being involved with. As long as they are payed for by the people who choose to use them. I don't like the Gas Tax, but requiring a Driver's License with it's fee and/or levying tolls isn't really theft as long as those are the only people paying for and using the roads. It gets muddy when you use taxes paid by those who don't drive to also help pay for the roads, or use the Gas for the Lawn Mower. As long as it is operated as a business I'm fine with it, but otherwise stay away from it.

fj45lvr
04-30-2010, 10:17 PM
Congress at one time recognized the rights of the people:

the "EQUAL FOOTING DOCTRINE" of the states

The congressional Act admitting States to the Union requires that “all the navigable waters within said State shall be common highways and forever free.”

This shows an intent towards what are "common highways" when at the time there were no on-land "highways" of modern transport....water was their "highway" at the time.

Ninja Homer
04-30-2010, 10:48 PM
This same topic seems to pop up every 3 months or so.

Yes, you have a right to drive. That right is limited by property rights, so as long as you own the property you're driving on, and you own the vehicle, you have a right to drive it. If you're driving on somebody else's property or it's somebody else's vehicle, then it's obviously a privilege.

Whether you have a right to drive on public land or not is debatable.

The biggest problem is that almost nobody truly owns their vehicle. In almost all cases, the state owns the allodial title. Even if you think you own your vehicle, you probably just have the certificate of title, not the actual title. Since the state is the true owner, they can make you jump through whatever hoops they want to for the privilege of driving their vehicle.

By the way, land is pretty much the same way... the state almost always holds the allodial title to it, even if you think you own it. That's how they can legally enforce building codes and about every other regulation and law having to do with property.

07041826
04-30-2010, 11:38 PM
Even if you think you own your vehicle, you probably just have the certificate of title, not the actual title. Since the state is the true owner, they can make you jump through whatever hoops they want to for the privilege of driving their vehicle.

By the way, land is pretty much the same way... the state almost always holds the allodial title to it, even if you think you own it. That's how they can legally enforce building codes and about every other regulation and law having to do with property.

Well then isn't our fight for liberty just a farce if we don't even truly own our land or vehicles? How are we any better than slaves on a U.S. sized plantation?

Danke
04-30-2010, 11:40 PM
"The right to travel on the public highways is a constitutional right."
--Teche Lines v. Danforth, Miss. 12 So 2d 784, 787.

"The right to travel is part of the liberty of which a citizen cannot be deprived without due process law under the 5th Amendment. This Right was emerging as early as the Magna Carta."
-- Kent vs. Dules, 357 US 116 (1958).

"With regard particularly to the U.S. Constitution, it is elementary that a Right secured or protected by that document cannot be overthrown or impaired by any state police authority." --Connolly vs. Union Sewer Pipe Co.184 US 540

"The claim & exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime."
-- Miller vs. U.S., F486, 489

It is undisputed that the use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is NOT a mere PRIVILEGE, but a "COMMON AND FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT" of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived. (Emphasis added) See: Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, supra; Ligare v. Chicago, 28 N.E. 934; Boone v. Clark, 214 S.W. 607; American Jurisprudence 1st Ed., Highways 163

Travel. Noun: A constitutional right under the Fifth Amendment to the United States
Constitution. Aptheker v Secretary of State, 378 US 500, 12 L Ed 2nd 992, 84 SCt 1659. The act of taking a trip. Ex parte Archy, 9 Cal 147, 164. To travel is to pass or make a journey from place to place, whether on foot, on horseback, or in any conveyance. Traveling is the act of making a journey; change of place; passage.

In transit. Literally, in the course of passing from point to point.

Right of Way. A right of passage; an easement.

Traveler. One using a public way. As for whom a public way must be kept reasonably safe, anyone rightfully using the way viatically, or who has occasion to pass over the way for the purpose of business convenience, or pleasure. 25 Am J1st Highway §427.

Way. A road, sidewalk or path. In a more technical sense, a right of way, that is, the right of one person, or several persons, or the community at large to pass over the land of another. 25 Am J1st Highway § 3.

Public Highway. A way for the use of the public; a highway. Any way used by the public in going form one place to another . . .”

The term "public highway," in its broad popular sense, includes toll roads -- any road which the public have a "RIGHT" to use even conditionally, though in a strict legal sense it is restricted to roads which are wholly public.” –See Weirich v. State, 140 Wis. 98.

The term "public highway," in its broad popular sense, includes toll roads -- any road which the public have a "RIGHT" to use even conditionally, though in a strict legal sense it is restricted to roads which are wholly public. (Emphasis added). See: Weirich v. State, 140 Wis. 98.

Public. The people.

Sovereign state. A people . . . exercising through the medium of an organized government, independent sovereignty and control over all persons and things within its boundaries.” 30 Am JRev ed Internat L § 10.

--Ballentine’s Law Dictionary

"The sovereignty of a state does not reside in the persons who fill the different
departments of its government, but in the People, from whom the government emanated; and they may change it at their discretion. Sovereignty, then in this country, abides with the constituency, and not with the agent; and this remark is true, both in reference to the federal and state government." -- Spooner v. McConnell, 22 F 939, 943.

"This word `person' and its scope and bearing in the law, involving, as it does, legal
fictions and also apparently natural beings, it is difficult to understand; but it is absolutely necessary to grasp, at whatever cost, a true and proper understanding to the word in all the phases of its proper use ... A person is here not a physical or individual person, but the status or condition with which he is invested ... not an individual or physical person, but the status, condition or character borne by physical persons ... The law of persons is the law of status or condition." -- American Law and Procedure, Vol 13, page 137, 1910:

"The word `person' in legal terminology is perceived as a general word which normally includes in its scope a variety of entities other than human beings., see e.g. 1, U.S.C. paragraph 1." -- Church of Scientology v. US Department of Justice (1979) 612 F2d 417, 425:

"The people, or sovereign are not bound by general words in statutes, restrictive of
prerogative right, title or interest, unless expressly named. Acts of limitation do not bind the King or the people. The people have been ceded all the rights of the King, the former sovereign ... It is a maxim of the common law, that when an act is made for the common good and to prevent injury, the King shall be bound, though not named, but when a statute is general and prerogative right would be divested or taken from the King [or the people] he shall not be bound." -- The People v. Herkimer, 4 Cowen (NY) 345, 348 (1825):

WAY. A passage, path, road or street. In a technical sense, a right of passage over land
.
PRIVATE WAY. A right which a person has of passing over the land of another. In anothersense a private way is one laid out by the local public authorities for the accommodation of individuals and wholly or chiefly at their expense, but not restricted to their exclusive use, being subject, like highways to the public easement of passage.

TRAVELED WAY. The traveled path, or the path used for public travel. Within located limits of the way. Also called “traveled part of highway. –Black’s Law Dictionary

Pursuant to this notice, the definition of “motor vehicle,” as codified in the Federal Criminal Code, and other related terms from the Motor Vehicle Compact between the compact states and listed below, with reference to my status; to their “meaning and signification;” to “the true and proper understanding to the term in all the phases of its proper use;” and for any future “legal proceeding;” shall be as follows and ONLY as follows.

The principle of in pari materia dictates that this definition in 18 USC § 31 must be applied in all Federal and/or State statutes that contain or include the term “motor vehicle,” which statutes are limited in their application and operation, and that can embrace only one, single subject matter: the regulation of certain State-created entities: persons who operate said “motor vehicles” that are “used for commercial purposes.”

If any person claims that any other definition of the term “motor vehicle,” that varies from the definition below that would include any carriage or contrivance NOT used for commercial purposes, exists at law, or in any Federal and/or State statute, let him come forth by sworn affidavit, as such a claim would nullify, under the Void for Vagueness Doctrine, all statutes or rules that include the contradictory term.

Title18, UNITED STATES CODE Sec. 31
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 2 - AIRCRAFT AND MOTOR VEHICLES
Sec. 31. Definitions
When used in this chapter the term –

“Motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or
drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo;

“Used for commercial purposes” means the carriage of persons or property for any
fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection
with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit[.]”

"... [T]he exemptions provided for in section 1 of the Motor Vehicle Transportation
License Act of 1925 (Stats. 1925, p. 833) in favor of those who solely transport their
own property or employees, or both, and of those who transport no persons or
property for hire or compensation, by motor vehicle, have been determined in the
Bacon Service Corporation case to be lawful exemptions. --In re Schmolke (1926) 199 Cal. 42, 46.

"It is obvious that those who operate motor vehicles for the transportation of persons or property for hire enjoy a different and more extensive use of the public highways. * *

* Such extraordinary use constitutes a natural distinction and a full justification for their separate classification and for relieving from the burden of the license tax those who merely employ the public highways for the transportation of their own property or employees."

--Bacon Service Corporation v. Huss, 129 Cal. 21, 248 P. 235, 238." (State v. Karel, 180 So. 3 at 8.)

Etc.
Etc.
Etc.....

Danke
04-30-2010, 11:43 PM
Is it commerce if I drive to my mom's house from my apartment? What is the commerce taking place?

No.

Ninja Homer
05-01-2010, 12:12 AM
Well then isn't our fight for liberty just a farce if we don't even truly own our land or vehicles? How are we any better than slaves on a U.S. sized plantation?

It doesn't make it a farce, it adds to the flame to fight for liberty.

Welcome to the rabbit hole. The first step's a doozy, and you'll learn just how much has been stolen from you. You haven't hit the bottom yet. For example, a marriage license is a contract with the state, so the state shares ownership of any production (children) from that marriage. A social security number isn't just a number given so you can collect retirement money, it's essentially a product tracking number.

Yes, we're basically slaves. When the government tells you that you can keep a certain percentage of your wages and takes the rest in taxes, you're at least partial slave. The question is, does that make you feel like giving up, or does it make you want to fight for your liberty more?

07041826
05-01-2010, 12:45 AM
It doesn't make it a farce, it adds to the flame to fight for liberty.

Welcome to the rabbit hole. The first step's a doozy, and you'll learn just how much has been stolen from you. You haven't hit the bottom yet. For example, a marriage license is a contract with the state, so the state shares ownership of any production (children) from that marriage. A social security number isn't just a number given so you can collect retirement money, it's essentially a product tracking number.

Yes, we're basically slaves. When the government tells you that you can keep a certain percentage of your wages and takes the rest in taxes, you're at least partial slave. The question is, does that make you feel like giving up, or does it make you want to fight for your liberty more?

True. In regards to the gay/straight marriage issue I don't want the government involved in private religious matters like marriage- let the churches decide what is moral. (Should I go to the government for baptism or confession?) Anyway, I will take from the discussion that driving is my right as much as anything else that doesn't infringe on the liberty of others, but that the government is not in the business of protecting all my natural rights and therefor will never acknowledge this.

Anti Federalist
05-01-2010, 01:11 AM
privilege is not a legal concept. it is a propaganda term.

That^

It's a semantic game that government plays.

Call it a "privilege" and now the burden of proof is on you, not government.