Flying, and other forms of travel, are a RIGHT not a government privilege

[Anti Federalist]

Pistole Proven Wrong That Flying Is Not a Right

Posted by Michael S. Rozeff on November 23, 2010 12:54 PM

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/70821.html

Pistole is totally wrong when he says that flying is a privilege, not a right. Flying is a means of travel, and everyone has a right to travel and to travel by a means of their choice. See my earlier blog. I add here the following quote from a Supreme Court case (U.S. v. Guest 383 U.S. 745 (1966)): “In any event, freedom to travel throughout the United States has long been recognized as a basic right under the Constitution.”

Another US Supreme Court case, Shapiro v Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969) very strongly supports the right to travel.

“‘The constitutional right to travel from one State to another . . . has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized.’ United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745, 757 . This constitutional right, which, of course, includes the right of ‘entering and abiding in any State in the Union,’ Truax v. Raich, 239 U.S. 33, 39 , is not a mere conditional liberty subject to regulation and control under conventional [394 U.S. 618, 643] due process or equal protection standards. 1 ‘[T]he right to travel freely from State to State finds constitutional protection that is quite independent of the Fourteenth Amendment.’ United States v. Guest, supra, at 760, n. 17. 2 As we made clear in Guest, it is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. 3 Like the right of association, NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 , it is a virtually unconditional personal right, 4 guaranteed by the Constitution to us all.”

Pistole is also wrong to say that “the government” has a role to play in public safety and specifically airline safety. The national government has no such constitutional safety role. The only time the term appears in the Constitution is where it says “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”

The TSA is violating due process at every turn. They do not have warrants. They detain persons (keep them from proceeding) unless they bow to the TSA’s will and be x-rayed or molested. This detainment is assault in and of itself! (Thank you, Ralph Haulk for pointing this out.)

[dean.engelhardt]

Excellent. Freedom of travel is so fundemental to liberty.

[Anti Federalist]

The Right To Travel Goes Way Back

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/70761.html

Posted by Michael S. Rozeff on November 22, 2010 06:06 PM

According to a UCLA Law Review source dating from 1975 and written by Stewart Abercrombie Baker, Magna Carta (ch. 42, 1215) “guaranteed free passage into and out of the realm.” “Blackstone’s Commentaries proclaims a right to travel which includes ‘the power of loco-motion, of changing situation, or removing one’s person to whatsoever place one’s own inclination may direct; without imprisonment or restraint, unless by due process of law.’” (volume 1, *134). “The right to travel was declared ‘natural and inherent’ by the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776″ (ch. 1, para. XV (1776)). Article IV of the Articles of Confederation protected “free ingress and regress to and from any other State…” The Constitution dropped that language and instead incorporated the right to travel under the privileges and immunities clause of article IV, section 2. “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.” Baker writes: “The change was made not to disparage the right to travel, but because specific protection for the right would be redundant. Free travel was considered to be a necessary corollary to the ‘more perfect Union’ which the Constitution created.” The Supreme Court has recognized this right in numerous cases.

I do not claim that the right to travel as interpreted by a Supreme Court of 2010 would allow the traveler unimpeded travel or prevent placing such a burden on the traveler that it would effectively foreclose travel by air. The Court would probably back the TSA and provide some sort of balancing test. I assert that such a test would be unconstitutional and would destroy the right to travel. I assert that the TSA’s search procedures place a burden on the right to travel that destroys that right for millions of protesting Americans.

[Clairvoyant]

The government owns the universe, existence is a privilege.

[Anti Federalist]

The government owns the universe, existence is a privilege.

That which is not required, is prohibited.

[Pericles]

That which is not required, is prohibited.
Works in Switzerland:D It might be a managed economy, but at least for the most part, it is a well managed economy.

[tremendoustie]

That which is not required, is prohibited.

Required by the government, of course. What you require is irrelevant.

[nate895]

I have been trying to make this point to everyone who supports the use of drivers' licenses. Like the idea of driver's licenses? Then join King John's army and march against those annoying Northern Barons!

[CCTelander]

The government owns the universe, existence is a privilege.


For a while, years back, I needed a state-issued ID, but did not wish to actually get a driver's license.

When I got the ID I noticed that they called it a "Non-Driver license."

I've often pondered what exactly it might be that they thought they were "licensing" me for.

[Anti Federalist]

Required by the government, of course. What you require is irrelevant.

Silence, Mundane, that sort of talk is not permitted.

[Number19]

Pistole Proven Wrong That Flying Is Not a Right

Posted by Michael S. Rozeff on November 23, 2010 12:54 PM

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/70821.html

Pistole is totally wrong when he says that flying is a privilege, not a right. Flying is a means of travel, and everyone has a right to travel and to travel by a means of their choice. See my earlier blog. I add here the following quote from a Supreme Court case (U.S. v. Guest 383 U.S. 745 (1966)): “In any event, freedom to travel throughout the United States has long been recognized as a basic right under the Constitution.”

Another US Supreme Court case, Shapiro v Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969) very strongly supports the right to travel.

“‘The constitutional right to travel from one State to another . . . has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized.’ United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745, 757 . This constitutional right, which, of course, includes the right of ‘entering and abiding in any State in the Union,’ Truax v. Raich, 239 U.S. 33, 39 , is not a mere conditional liberty subject to regulation and control under conventional [394 U.S. 618, 643] due process or equal protection standards. 1 ‘[T]he right to travel freely from State to State finds constitutional protection that is quite independent of the Fourteenth Amendment.’ United States v. Guest, supra, at 760, n. 17. 2 As we made clear in Guest, it is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. 3 Like the right of association, NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 , it is a virtually unconditional personal right, 4 guaranteed by the Constitution to us all.”

Pistole is also wrong to say that “the government” has a role to play in public safety and specifically airline safety. The national government has no such constitutional safety role. The only time the term appears in the Constitution is where it says “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”

The TSA is violating due process at every turn. They do not have warrants. They detain persons (keep them from proceeding) unless they bow to the TSA’s will and be x-rayed or molested. This detainment is assault in and of itself! (Thank you, Ralph Haulk for pointing this out.)This time you are wrong AF - flying is not a right because this implies someone must provide you with the means to fly. You have the right to build or purchase an aircraft and having done so, have a right to use that aircraft. But your rights extend no further than this. Anyone owning an aircraft, or an airline, has the right to refuse you service. You have no right to demand.

One more thing. You do have a right to flap your arms as hard and as long as you please.

[jclay2]

This time you are wrong AF - flying is not a right because this implies someone must provide you with the means to fly. You have the right to build or purchase an aircraft and having done so, have a right to use that aircraft. But your rights extend no further than this. Anyone owning an aircraft, or an airline, has the right to refuse you service. You have no right to demand.

One more thing. You do have a right to flap your arms as hard and as long as you please.

Technically, you are right and we should probably be a little more careful with how we state things so some little lemming doesn't get the wrong idea. Its kind of like claiming healthcare is a right. No, we have a right to purchase healthcare if we have the funds and if they are being offered to us.

[Anti Federalist]

This time you are wrong AF - flying is not a right because this implies someone must provide you with the means to fly. You have the right to build or purchase an aircraft and having done so, have a right to use that aircraft. But your rights extend no further than this. Anyone owning an aircraft, or an airline, has the right to refuse you service. You have no right to demand.

One more thing. You do have a right to flap your arms as hard and as long as you please.

Apples and bowling balls Number19.

I own an airline, I can refuse you service. Back in the day, before slob-itus wreaked havoc on the American people's sensibilities, airlines would refuse you first class seating unless you were, at a bare minimum, dressed in "business casual". Now people slouch onto the flying bus in bare feet and shit stained boxer underwear.

If airlines had their property rights, "real security" would be achieved, by arming pilots and passengers and, dare I say it, refusing passage for those fitting the "profile".

I am government, I cannot refuse you the right to solicit that service, or the right to use the airway infrastructure that my taxes pay for.

I have no right to own a car.

I have a right to use my freely bought and paid for car on roads that my taxes pay for.

[Anti Federalist]

///

[Anti Federalist]

///

[Matt Collins]

YouTube - The Audacity of Grope: A TSA Exposé (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zq8IOC8Sqw)

[MelissaWV]

This time you are wrong AF - flying is not a right because this implies someone must provide you with the means to fly. You have the right to build or purchase an aircraft and having done so, have a right to use that aircraft. But your rights extend no further than this. Anyone owning an aircraft, or an airline, has the right to refuse you service. You have no right to demand.

One more thing. You do have a right to flap your arms as hard and as long as you please.

This, and I'm glad someone beat me to it.

However, you do not currently have the right to fly even if you own your own airplane. Only certain sorts of flying machines can be launched and steered through the skies. The Government decides which ones, and will be pretty pissed at you if you decide to fly around in a huge jet with no flight plan and no contact with the local air traffic control (and even worse if you're flying in military airspace, of course). That's its own problem.

[Anti Federalist]

This, and I'm glad someone beat me to it.

However, you do not currently have the right to fly even if you own your own airplane. Only certain sorts of flying machines can be launched and steered through the skies. The Government decides which ones, and will be pretty pissed at you if you decide to fly around in a huge jet with no flight plan and no contact with the local air traffic control (and even worse if you're flying in military airspace, of course). That's its own problem.

Already answered, post #13.

This is not the airlines stopping anybody.

This is government stopping people from gaining access to a building and an airway navigation infrastructure that our taxes help pay for.

[Adolfo Mena Gonzalez]

Well, without a state, travel would be a private privilege. If the State didn't have a monopoly on roads and airport security, and it was privately owned, it would be a privilege. The Bill of Rights is essentially a bill of privileges in my mind. I mean, don't get me wrong, I like them, but they ain't natural, and they aren't given by a deity, they never all existed in any society before the United States. Rights are just a subjective human concept to explain human freedoms that the majority of society wants to codify into law to protect. At least, that is my take, and I know that might not be a popular view on this board. And don't misunderstand me, I love the condition of human freedom and free markets, but I just don't believe rights exist objectively.

To this end, I don't think there is a right to travel, or to move. If that was the case, trespass laws would violate an individual's rights, which I think is absurd. I think property owners should be able to determine who goes onto their property. In a stateless society, I think airlines and road owners should be able to determine the conditions of travel. In a global society with states, there should be defended borders and conditions for using roads, which will have to be set by governments. But I agree with you on air travel, airlines should have to set up their own security, and the Federal Government shouldn't be violating our Constitutional "Rights" through these invasive scanners and procedures.

I just think it is dangerous to call travel a right, because rights to positive liberty violate the negative liberties of others. What about the right of an airline to deny service, or a boat to deny service? Or so on? I just think it is a dangerous precedent to set.

[Matt Collins]

The interview starts around 3:30 into the video!


YouTube - Campaign For Liberty's Steve Bierfeldt on the Mike Church Radio Show Nov 2011 - WeWontFly.com (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFbbGU1fPh0)

[Travlyr]

Well, without a state, travel would be a private privilege. If the State didn't have a monopoly on roads and airport security, and it was privately owned, it would be a privilege. The Bill of Rights is essentially a bill of privileges in my mind. I mean, don't get me wrong, I like them, but they ain't natural, and they aren't given by a deity, they never all existed in any society before the United States. Rights are just a subjective human concept to explain human freedoms that the majority of society wants to codify into law to protect. At least, that is my take, and I know that might not be a popular view on this board. And don't misunderstand me, I love the condition of human freedom and free markets, but I just don't believe rights exist objectively.
What is in bold is not true. Not to derail this thread, but I have the right to speak, defend myself, find happiness, enjoy property, move around, and live. Those rights are inherent. Nobody gave them to me. Those rights, among others, are mine because I am here and I claim them. When someone tries to take my rights away from me they find out exactly what rights I claim, and what it means to me to defend my rights.

Privileges are granted by others.

[Travlyr]

I have a right to travel.

[Anti Federalist]

I have a right to travel.

Sorry but...

Travlyr has a right to travel.

:D

[Adolfo Mena Gonzalez]

What is in bold is not true. Not to derail this thread, but I have the right to speak, defend myself, find happiness, enjoy property, move around, and live. Those rights are inherent. Nobody gave them to me. Those rights, among others, are mine because I am here and I claim them. When someone tries to take my rights away from me they find out exactly what rights I claim, and what it means to me to defend my rights.

Privileges are granted by others.

You don't have a right to speak, people are born mute, or you could have been born into a situation where your parents chose not to teach you a language. And you could live in a society where for this speech you could be arrested(which we are heading towards in my mind). You only have the privileges the State happens to grant you. You could also be an invalid, and be unable to defend yourself, and the limits of self defense can be limited by the State, they can ban guns and knives among other things. Property can be state owned like in the Soviet Union, individual property can be prohibited by the State. You most certainly don't have a right to property, that is a positive liberty, you aren't born with property, and could go your whole life without it. You could argue you have a right to obtain property, but even that has been limited by the state you live within to certain degrees, thus it is a privilege. If it was a natural right, it would exist the same everywhere, it would be universal. You most certainly don't have the right to move around, you could be on house arrest, you can be prohibited from crossing international borders, you can be denied a driver's license, put on a no flight list, and there are trespass laws which prohibit you from entering private property without the owner's consent. I don't like your logic, you claim that because you exist, and because you claim them, that these "rights" are universal. By that logic, since I am here, I claim health insurance as a universal right, and could expect everyone else to pay for it. Your logic goes down a bad road in my opinion where individuals demand all kinds of positive liberties. Everything you mentioned is a privilege to a varying degree.

[teacherone]

Adolfo Mena Gonzalez (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?u=28192)
Member

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/image.php?u=28192&dateline=1289431944 (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?u=28192)

Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Near the Red River
Posts: 15


You only have the privileges the State happens to grant you.

The Red River wouldn't happen to be the Moskva (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moskva_River)would it?

[Romulus]

Privileges are granted by others.

the devil says, The gov gives you those privileges and can take them away any time they like. You know why? The power does what it wants.

Japanese Americans WW2.

Yes we have rights and gov has limitations, until they decide to infringe and expand... so do we really still have those rights when they are taken away? I mean, we do, but the power ultimately always wins when it is used.

[payme_rick]

Don't want to derail the the thread off of the direction it has taken (haven't really read it), but I also don't want to load up the first page with another thread... since my questions are related to the topic:

The airports decide whether or not to use TSA, not the airLINES, correct or no?

The airlines do NOT own the airports, correct or no?

Do not answer as if you're trying to answer a libertarian <---- This goes for you, AF... no "The government owns everything and you, mundane!" answers, ha...

I'm having a discussion about the TSA with just a few people of other opinions on a totally different forum...

I just ran into a problem with my philosophy on it... here's the problem:

If the airports are chosing to allow the TSA scans etc..., isn't it pretty much the AIRPORTS refusing us a flight because of non-complience with the government's standards/what have you? what is the role of the airlines in this?

I'm still not fine with it and do NOT believe the government should be involved, but I'm just having a hard time explaining things OUR way with this situation now that I'm under the impression that the airports in the end are making this decision...

[Anti Federalist]

Don't want to derail the the thread off of the direction it has taken (haven't really read it), but I also don't want to load up the first page with another thread... since my questions are related to the topic:

The airports decide whether or not to use TSA, not the airLINES, correct or no?

The airlines do NOT own the airports, correct or no?

Do not answer as if you're trying to answer a libertarian <---- This goes for you, AF... no "The government owns everything and you, mundane!" answers, ha...

I'm having a discussion about the TSA with just a few people of other opinions on a totally different forum...

I just ran into a problem with my philosophy on it... here's the problem:

If the airports are chosing to allow the TSA scans etc..., isn't it pretty much the AIRPORTS refusing us a flight because of non-complience with the government's standards/what have you? what is the role of the airlines in this?

I'm still not fine with it and do NOT believe the government should be involved, but I'm just having a hard time explaining things OUR way with this situation now that I'm under the impression that the airports in the end are making this decision...

Ah-hem, I'll try to be as objective as possible.

The airports have to use TSA or contract outside security services, that will conform to TSA screening standards and be supervised and audited by TSA.

You are seeing this correctly, this has nothing to do with the airlines refusing you service, this is a government agency denying you access to a (at least in part) government funded building.

[payme_rick]

The airports have to use TSA or contract outside security services, that will conform to TSA screening standards and be supervised and audited by TSA..

I believe you here, is there a quick link to that? On here via phone right now and kinda short on time... A link would be much appreciated...

Mundane!-smack may resume :)

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

This reminds me I need to get my sidewalk permit renewed.

[Travlyr]

You don't have a right to speak, people are born mute, or you could have been born into a situation where your parents chose not to teach you a language. And you could live in a society where for this speech you could be arrested(which we are heading towards in my mind). You only have the privileges the State happens to grant you. You could also be an invalid, and be unable to defend yourself, and the limits of self defense can be limited by the State, they can ban guns and knives among other things. Property can be state owned like in the Soviet Union, individual property can be prohibited by the State. You most certainly don't have a right to property, that is a positive liberty, you aren't born with property, and could go your whole life without it. You could argue you have a right to obtain property, but even that has been limited by the state you live within to certain degrees, thus it is a privilege. If it was a natural right, it would exist the same everywhere, it would be universal. You most certainly don't have the right to move around, you could be on house arrest, you can be prohibited from crossing international borders, you can be denied a driver's license, put on a no flight list, and there are trespass laws which prohibit you from entering private property without the owner's consent. I don't like your logic, you claim that because you exist, and because you claim them, that these "rights" are universal. By that logic, since I am here, I claim health insurance as a universal right, and could expect everyone else to pay for it. Your logic goes down a bad road in my opinion where individuals demand all kinds of positive liberties. Everything you mentioned is a privilege to a varying degree.

I accept this meaning of a right:
Definition of RIGHT: something to which one has a just claim

I would like to respond to each of your points in another thread, but this thread is specific to the right to fly which I claim.

[Anti Federalist]

I believe you here, is there a quick link to that? On here via phone right now and kinda short on time... A link would be much appreciated...

Mundane!-smack may resume :)

Let's see what the google gods have to say...

Here you go, straight from TSA's Blogger Bob



http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_q3XC1jEMnmk/TGKuOtlGmsI/AAAAAAAAAD0/t5c8bpsW7nA/s320/Baghdad+Bob-746275.gif

http://blog.tsa.gov/2010/11/airports-who-opt-out-of-tsa-screening.html

Airports Who Opt out of TSA Screening are Still Regulated by TSA

There has been a lot of confusion after a recent report that the Orlando Sanford Airport (SFB) has requested to opt out of TSA screening.

Any commercial airport can apply to TSA’s Screening Partnership Program (SPP), which has been around since the inception of TSA. After approval from TSA and a competitive bidding process, SPP allows airports to transition to private screeners while maintaining TSA oversight and the corresponding increased level of security implemented since 9/11.

So… if an airport applies and is accepted into the SPP program, they receive the same screening from a private company instead of TSA officers. That’s the only difference. All commercial airports are regulated by TSA whether the actual screening is performed by TSA or private companies. So TSA’s policies – including advanced imaging technology and pat downs – are in place at all domestic airports.

If you’ve flown out of one of these airports, you’ve experienced privatized screening from an SPP airport.

Charles M. Schulz-Sonoma County Airport (STS); Dawson Community Airport (GDV); Frank Wiley Field (MLS); Greater Rochester International (ROC); Havre City County Airport (HVR); Jackson Hole (JAC); Joe Foss Field (FSD); Kansas City International (MCI); Key West International Airport (EYW); L.M. Clayton Airport (OLF); Lewistown Municipal Airport (LWT); Roswell International Air Center (ROW); San Francisco International (SFO); Sidney Richland Regional (SDY); Tupelo Regional (TUP); Wokal Field (GGW)

[eugenekop]

I think it makes sense for the local authorities to require permission to fly, because there can be potentially many airplanes and there has to be some order as to avoid crashes.

[Anti Federalist]

I think it makes sense for the local authorities to require permission to fly, because there can be potentially many airplanes and there has to be some order as to avoid crashes.

Orderly flow of traffic, on the ground or in the air can be achieved without having to ask government "permission".

It's a subtle but important difference in perspective.

I have a right to fly and I have a right to drive therefore, to restrict these rights, government must follow due process and show probable cause.

It doesn't mean that common sense rules for orderly flow of traffic cannot be implemented, it just mean that government cannot arbitrarily restrict my right to travel just by virtue of government calling it a privilege.

My argument here is the same argument made to successfully bring "shall issue" CCW to almost all fifty states.

Prior to that, the right to carry concealed was a "privilege" that was routinely restricted by government on a very arbitrary basis.

Now, it's a right, that government must prove guilt and cause to restrict, not the citizen having to prove innocence and "need" to exercise.

Is that freedom in it's purest sense? No, not by a long shot, but it's miles ahead of where we were.

[Adolfo Mena Gonzalez]

Adolfo Mena Gonzalez (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?u=28192)
Member

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/image.php?u=28192&dateline=1289431944 (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?u=28192)

Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Near the Red River
Posts: 15



The Red River wouldn't happen to be the Moskva (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moskva_River)would it?
No, the Red River in Texas. Don't try to paint me as a Communist, I am not, I support the human condition of Freedom and Liberty, I just believe the subjective concept of natural rights doesn't exist, and that freedoms/privileges granted by the state vary from society to society.

[Adolfo Mena Gonzalez]

I accept this meaning of a right:
Definition of RIGHT: something to which one has a just claim

I would like to respond to each of your points in another thread, but this thread is specific to the right to fly which I claim.

You didn't disprove the notion that natural rights are subjective, rights in general are subjective. What is considered just is also subjective.

[jmdrake]

It's simpler than that.

Amendment 4: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

It doesn't matter what our collective "rights" are. The government doesn't have the right to search our bodies (persons), dwellings (houses), information (papers) or stuff (effects). It doesn't matter how your body, information or stuff moves about or where your dwelling is. While the founding fathers couldn't imagine a "right to use the telephone" or a "right to send emails" like they could a "right to travel", but restricting what the government can do (as opposed to asserting what a person can do) everything is covered. Mr. Pistole has badly framed the argument. That we have the "option" not to fly isn't the point. We have the "option" never to leave home too. You could work from home and have all of your food and other needs delivered. But that doesn't matter. Your body is a "mobile free speech zone" and mobile "do not search without a warrant zone" that no amount of government legislation, regulation or obfuscation can diminish.

[Pericles]

It's simpler than that.

Amendment 4: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

It doesn't matter what our collective "rights" are. The government doesn't have the right to search our bodies (persons), dwellings (houses), information (papers) or stuff (effects). It doesn't matter how your body, information or stuff moves about or where your dwelling is. While the founding fathers couldn't imagine a "right to use the telephone" or a "right to send emails" like they could a "right to travel", but restricting what the government can do (as opposed to asserting what a person can do) everything is covered. Mr. Pistole has badly framed the argument. That we have the "option" not to fly isn't the point. We have the "option" never to leave home too. You could work from home and have all of your food and other needs delivered. But that doesn't matter. Your body is a "mobile free speech zone" and mobile "do not search without a warrant zone" that no amount of government legislation, regulation or obfuscation can diminish.
+rep for you

[Anti Federalist]

It's simpler than that.

Amendment 4: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

It doesn't matter what our collective "rights" are. The government doesn't have the right to search our bodies (persons), dwellings (houses), information (papers) or stuff (effects). It doesn't matter how your body, information or stuff moves about or where your dwelling is. While the founding fathers couldn't imagine a "right to use the telephone" or a "right to send emails" like they could a "right to travel", but restricting what the government can do (as opposed to asserting what a person can do) everything is covered. Mr. Pistole has badly framed the argument. That we have the "option" not to fly isn't the point. We have the "option" never to leave home too. You could work from home and have all of your food and other needs delivered. But that doesn't matter. Your body is a "mobile free speech zone" and mobile "do not search without a warrant zone" that no amount of government legislation, regulation or obfuscation can diminish.

Only until such time as the government declares what you are doing to be a "privilege" and not a right anymore.

[jmdrake]

+rep for you

Thanks.


Only until such time as the government declares what you are doing to be a "privilege" and not a right anymore.

That's exactly why we cannot let them frame the debate. I posted a video recently where Ron Paul was talking about the problem with a national ID card. The interviewer said "What's so bad about a thumbscan" or something to that effect. The question isn't "What's wrong" with the government doing something, but rather what's "right" about it. If we frame the debate this way "The government simply doesn't have the power to do X" then it doesn't matter about what our "rights" versus our "privileges" are. Do I have a right to smoke marijuana? Does the government have the right to tell me I can't? (For the record I don't do any drugs, not even caffeine. I'm merely putting this forward as an example.)

We just can' t win these debates playing along with their rules. So we've got to change the rules.

[mczerone]

This time you are wrong AF - flying is not a right because this implies someone must provide you with the means to fly. You have the right to build or purchase an aircraft and having done so, have a right to use that aircraft. But your rights extend no further than this. Anyone owning an aircraft, or an airline, has the right to refuse you service. You have no right to demand.

One more thing. You do have a right to flap your arms as hard and as long as you please.

Okay, fine. State it as "You have a right to contract for air travel with a willing party, or to provide such service yourself."

The point being made was that you have a right to move yourself, and a right to choose the means of doing so. You have a right to fly if you can procure the means of flying.

Obviously no one, not Rozeff, not AF, not me, says that you have a right to fly whenever you want to, regardless of the provider's willingness to provide such service.

[Anti Federalist]

That's exactly why we cannot let them frame the debate. I posted a video recently where Ron Paul was talking about the problem with a national ID card. The interviewer said "What's so bad about a thumbscan" or something to that effect. The question isn't "What's wrong" with the government doing something, but rather what's "right" about it. If we frame the debate this way "The government simply doesn't have the power to do X" then it doesn't matter about what our "rights" versus our "privileges" are. Do I have a right to smoke marijuana? Does the government have the right to tell me I can't? (For the record I don't do any drugs, not even caffeine. I'm merely putting this forward as an example.)

We just can' t win these debates playing along with their rules. So we've got to change the rules.

That's precisely right.

That's why I mentioned the CCW laws.

In spite of issues, serious differences and setbacks, overall, the "gun rights community" (of which I've been a part of for over 25 years now) has been wildly successful in changing the very nature and landscape of the debate.

Going into 1980, the default position for government and the vast majority of people was "more restrictions and limitations".

I'm pleasantly surprised when looking back at that, to look now and see almost every state being a "shall issue" CCW state, states adding the RKBA to their state constitutions, the SCROTUS ruling in favor of the "individual rights" view, millions more people exercising their RKBA...

[Anti Federalist]

Okay, fine. State it as "You have a right to contract for air travel with a willing party, or to provide such service yourself."

The point being made was that you have a right to move yourself, and a right to choose the means of doing so. You have a right to fly if you can procure the means of flying.

Obviously no one, not Rozeff, not AF, not me, says that you have a right to fly whenever you want to, regardless of the provider's willingness to provide such service.

That^^^

I thought the issue was a rather small splitting of hairs kind of thing.

You have a right to keep and bear arms. No one is demanding that government extort tax dollars from you to buy a firearm.

You have a right to free speech. Again, no one is demanding that government provide you a printing press, radio station or blogsite.