Driving is not your right, it's a privilege

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

A long time ago when I took my permit test I was told that, is it against the constitution to tell me that?

[Kalash]

A long time ago when I took my permit test I was told that, is it against the constitution to tell me that?


Wrong place for this - but yes, the driver's license IS unconstitutional - according to case law.

However, in common practice and belief you have another thing coming.


You can challenge it - and be correct legally - but traffic court isn't exactly fair - or legal.


This isn't the proper place for this.
http://lawyerdude.8m.com

For all the malum prohibitum legal problems you'll ever face.
http://adventuresinlegalland.com - Marc Steven's site is helpful as well.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

Wrong place for this - but yes, the driver's license IS unconstitutional - according to case law.

However, in common practice and belief you have another thing coming.


You can challenge it - and be correct legally - but traffic court isn't exactly fair - or legal.


This isn't the proper place for this.
http://lawyerdude.8m.com

For all the malum prohibitum legal problems you'll ever face.
http://adventuresinlegalland.com - Marc Steven's site is helpful as well.and what about being required to have car insurance? I don't see the need for it since i'm a good driver and i've never hit anything, not even the curb.

[Kalash]

and what about being required to have car insurance? I don't see the need for it since i'm a good driver and i've never hit anything, not even the curb.


Malum prohibitum = unconstitutional.


Malum prohibitum crimes are "bad because it's prohibited"

Or... bad because "we said so"

Drug laws, prostitution laws, seatbelt laws, speed limits, etc... = malum prohibitum laws

These laws do not punish CRIME - but disobedience to a greater authority than yourself.

A crime consists of 2 parts;

A party suffering injury or loss AND
Another party responsible for that injury or loss.

That's it.
An injury is someone infringing upon your rights - even if you suffer no loss.
Me, walking across your lawn, injures your RIGHT to private property. You suffer no loss, but I have violated your right.

If you do not have car insurance, who's rights have you violated?

If you use drugs, who's rights have you violated?

If you whore yourself out, who's rights have you violated?

These laws are nothing more than moral codes imposed upon society unconstitutionally.


However, liberty and freedom no longer mean what they did when the constitution was written.

And this is our problem - people BELIEVE they are free because they continue to HEAR that this is the land of the FREE.

Reality no longer matches up with the law...
And the law no longer matches up with the constitution.



And again - this isn't the right place for this; it is a legal discussion better suited to either Lawyerdude's site or Marc Steven's forums...



However, the underlying issue DOES belong here
http://revolutioni.st/ivc.html - Individualism v. Collectivism
And....
http://revolutioni.st/liberty.html - the Expanded Philosophy of Liberty

Rights > Privileges
The government rules by privileged consent.

Therefore the Government < Individual's rights

Licensing and/or malum prohibitum laws are therefore unconstitutional and invalid - because the privilege to make laws CANNOT supersede the RIGHTS of the individual.

This is Ron Paul's reasoning for wanting to abolish the War on Drugs (or one of them...)



The first step of freeing yourself from slavery is recognizing that you are, indeed, a slave. (http://www.gopetition.com/online/16529.html)
When your rights are stripped from you, then licensed back to you as mere privileges - granted at the whim of another - you are no longer free.
When you lost the right to possess that which you owned without the proper license, you were robbed.
When you lost the right to travel without a license, you became imprisoned.
When you lost the right to gather the profits from your labors directly - without paying a duty upon them, you became a slave.
What good is freedom in name when it is never found in practice?

[jcims]

A long time ago when I took my permit test I was told that, is it against the constitution to tell me that?

You can drive all you want...just pave a few roads and go at it.

[S3eker]

don't see the need for it since i'm a good driver and i've never hit anything, not even the curb.

Wait for the day when you get hit by a person who is poor. Then you will understand how important insurance is.

The drivers license on the other hand, can be debatable. I do believe people should be required to have one as proof they know how to operate a vehicle and understand the laws. I believe people should be tested yearly. But today, we renew the damn thing every 4 years (and drivers get worse every year as cars get smarter) and use it as sole identification. In some states, it is required that you have ID with you at all times. Most people look at the license as their MAIN ID. Why can't I use my fishing license? So yes, the drivers license is used in the incorrect manner. So is the SSN IMO.

[Kalash]

Wait for the day when you get hit by a person who is poor. Then you will understand how important insurance is.

Socialist thought.
"Everyone must pay for insurance so that they are protected from the actions of others, rather than hold each person responsible for their own actions."

Yes - insurance is a SMART thing to have - but to have it be a legal requirement?
Eh...
Poor person hits your car, they have to pay off the debt to you.
Self responsibility.

Insurance should be optional - but not having insurance and getting into a wreck, and not being able to pay for the damages?
Criminal offense.

Merely not having insurance? Not criminal, just unwise.


The drivers license on the other hand, can be debatable. I do believe people should be required to have one as proof they know how to operate a vehicle and understand the laws.

Your belief does not make you the ruler of the world.
Believing that everyone needs to believe in god or be killed is a belief some people have - and WISH would become law.
If you believe someone HAS TO DO SOMETHING - and they don't want to do it - and you FORCE THEM (using threats of violence (police) or acts of violence) to coerce them into doing this thing, you have committed a crime.

(I agree with you though. For exactly what you say below)


I believe people should be tested yearly. But today, we renew the damn thing every 4 years (and drivers get worse every year as cars get smarter) and use it as sole identification.

Ah - yes...
The purpose of the driver's license laws are to ensure that the person operating a vehicle on a public roadway has the required knowledge to operate the vehicle safely.

It would be nice to have the reason for a law written into the law so that it doesn't become corrupt...


In some states, it is required that you have ID with you at all times. Most people look at the license as their MAIN ID. Why can't I use my fishing license? So yes, the drivers license is used in the incorrect manner. So is the SSN IMO.

Again - have the reason for the law written into the law - so that is it NOT broadly interpreted and misused to waylay the rights of the citizens for the claimed intended purpose of ensuring safety of society.

[FTL]

If you drive, then you take a risk. If you don't want to risk injury or death, then take a bus or stay home and hide under the kitchen table in case the sky falls.

If some poor guy causes the bus to wreck, then the bus company can pay for your injuries or funeral.

That poor guy should be punished for doing harm to others.

[Kalash]

If you drive, then you take a risk. If you don't want to risk injury or death, then take a bus or stay home and hide under the kitchen table in case the sky falls.

If some poor guy causes the bus to wreck, then the bus company can pay for your injuries or funeral.

That poor guy should be punished for doing harm to others.

That poor guy is operating under a commercial license (privilege) because the public roadways are being used for commerce (personal gain).

He's also insured by the bus company - so his personal liability is limited.

[mokkan88]

Couldn't one argue that these laws are in place to protect others? Of course, that opens a plethora of loopholes, but at what point do you draw the line between protecting one's liberty and protecting one from another?

[S3eker]

Poor person hits your car, they have to pay off the debt to you.
Self responsibility

How will you make this happen? Who enforces how this occurs. What's to stop you from killing someone as required retrobution? Let's say someone destroys your car and they can't pay. How will you get to work tomorrow? We still need laws! RP isn't about anarchy. Yes, insurance isn't perfect but we are debating if it's needed, not whether it works in the current form.


Your belief does not make you the ruler of the world.
Believing that everyone needs to believe in god or be killed is a belief some people have - and WISH would become law.
If you believe someone HAS TO DO SOMETHING - and they don't want to do it - and you FORCE THEM (using threats of violence (police) or acts of violence) to coerce them into doing this thing, you have committed a crime.



When I say I BELIEVE I mean it in the verb sense: to think; to feel sure of; to accept as true; to trust

I never said everyone else should believe, I said "I" believe hence I'm not saying I should be the ruler of the world.


If you believe someone HAS TO DO SOMETHING - and they don't want to do it - and you FORCE THEM (using threats of violence (police) or acts of violence) to coerce them into doing this thing, you have committed a crime.

Now you are saying coercion is a crime? who decided

Also, do you believe your doctor should be licensed? Do you think airline pilots should be licensed?

[Thomas Paine]

A long time ago when I took my permit test I was told that, is it against the constitution to tell me that?

That is correct.

[nodope0695]

:confused:What the hell does this have to do with Grassroots????:confused:

[S3eker]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Warrior_of_Freedom
A long time ago when I took my permit test I was told that, is it against the constitution to tell me that?

That is correct.


I don't understand - where in the constitution does it say EVERYONE has the right to drive a vehicle?

Besides, riding in cars is extremely dangerous and the government doesn't tell you you can't do this extremely dangerous thing where 52000 people die every year.

But if it where baby carriages and 52000 babies died in it a year, would you want them to step in?

Smoking - I don't smoke, never did - If someone smokes in a public place where I am at, then I leave. If the owner wants to decide to allow smokers, then it's their business. If the smoker dies from cancer, it's not my problem. I shouldn't have to pay. If you start making me pay for the smokers medical, then don't allow smoking because I don't want to have to pay in the future.

step in at any time...

[FTL]

Life is a risk.

[trispear]

and what about being required to have car insurance? I don't see the need for it since i'm a good driver and i've never hit anything, not even the curb.

I don't even know where to start. Yes, driving is a right. You have to understand what a right in this sense is: the state cannot take it away from you willy-nilly, they have to follow an established procedure. They can legislate this procedure.

Thus it does not mean it can't be taken from you.

A national driver's license may be unconstitutional, but the states have the power to do this, per the constitution. They can regulate the public roads. If that means everyone needs a license to drive, then that is the way things are.

And in such a way, if you want to travel and public roads and they mandate insurance for every -- then that's the way it is.

Sorry, I don't think having to pay insurance is an infringement on your freedom. I also don't want to hear about taking personal responsibility and letting people drive without insurance -- I really want to worry about collecting bills from you after you damage my car or hurt me. I dealt with enough flakes in my time where once money becomes an issue personal responsibility and all that flies out the window. I also don't want to hear about how good of a driver you are -- you aren't perfect and neither am I. Excellent drivers get into accidents every day. And who do I collect from if this excellent driver crashes into me, promply dies, and has no estate to collect from? This is a good of the general welfare issue.

If you want to drive at any speed, without a license, without insurance -- go build your own roads or track on your private property property. I heard the deserts out west are ideal for this.

[Kalash]

I don't understand - where in the constitution does it say EVERYONE has the right to drive a vehicle?



That - RIGHT there.

You hit it perfectly.


YOU DO NOT HAVE A SINGLE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.

Constitutional rights do not exist.

The constitution does not enumerate RIGHTS (see amendment #9) - it enumerates the PRIVILEGED powers of government.

The Bill of Rights was written NOT to establish specific RIGHTS but to establish a stronger restraint upon governmental powers.



You are granted your RIGHTS as a SOVEREIGN individual - at birth, by your creator.

In law and practice, this is no longer the case - our sovereignty has been stolen from us by our privileged government.

We no longer have RIGHTS that cannot be taken away - we have PRIVILEGES (in practice, mind you...) that can be taken away at whim - or licensed - where we must PAY to exercise our rights... and those licenses can be revoked at the will of the government.


The fundamental problem with dealing with an attorney is that they believe in enumerated rights.

This is a fiction.
The courts and legislature deal with rights in the same manner - as if they were privileges which may be abrogated at will.


And the people believe this very same thing; that RIGHTS are granted by the government.

Any "right" granted by the government is a privilege.
Again;
http://revolutioni.st/ivc.html - Individualism v. Collectivism.

Please - go watch that if you're still having difficulty with this.



I'm not proposing anarchy.
And as for the "I believe" statement - that's one I got into with my mom. Sorry. She was defending truancy laws and other nonsense - where the government becomes the parent of everyone - even the parents, and arrests them for not forcing their child to go to school...


Coercion IS a crime.
Duress? Blackmail?

Pointing a gun at someone's head and telling them to do something is NOT a crime?

What about the right to liberty? How can you have liberty under duress?

Big can of worms;
Taxation = Criminal Protection Racket

Pay taxes so the government will protect your life, liberty and property.

Refuse to pay and the government takes your property (tax liens), liberty (prison sentence), and if you struggle, your life (police brutality).


The government CANNOT commit a crime against the people.



And I've said twice already that this is not the proper place for this discussion....
(As much fun as it may be.)



Anarchy = no law

I like the law.
Just not when the LAW is violating my rights.

Property/contract rights (drug laws, taxation, and others)
Self ownership/slavery (prostitution)

The purpose of the government is to protect and defend my RIGHTS - not my property.
If someone violates my RIGHTS - the government's SOLE PURPOSE is to assist me in protecting and defending my RIGHTS.

This means they assist in my defense if I am attacked (I call the police, they show up and help defend me.)
They assist me in recuperating my losses if a crime is committed against me.
The help me hold responsible the person causing my loss or harm.


They don't attack my liberties and RIGHTS in an effort to protect the rest of the world from a hypothetical harm that may or may not occur because of my actions.

Anarchy is every man for himself - with no assistance ensuring equality under the law (or equal rights)
What we have now is a legalized form of enslavement - where Congress is the sole master - and we're all obligated to do as our master dictates.
If we fail, we are guilty of the CRIME of disobedience.

But disobedience is not a CRIME - as no one's rights have been abrogated.

So Congress is committing the CRIME by limiting our rights.

[S3eker]

Yes, driving is a right

If you do it on your own property on your own private roads, it's probably a right.

If the states say it's a previlidge, then it is. If the states say it's a right - then it's a right.

To me, a right is something that cannot be taken away. Life, liberty, persuit of happines. Does a blind man who has never driven have the 'right' to drive a car on public roads?

Does a 10 year old child have the right to drive a vehicle?

If it's a right, then banning 10 year olds on the road is unconstitutional


If you want to drive at any speed, without a license, without insurance -- go build your own roads or track on your private property property. I heard the deserts out west are ideal for this.


QFT

[Kalash]

If you do it on your own property on your own private roads, it's probably a right.

If the states say it's a previlidge, then it is. If the states say it's a right - then it's a right.

To me, a right is something that cannot be taken away. Life, liberty, persuit of happines. Does a blind man who has never driven have the 'right' to drive a car on public roads?

Does a 10 year old child have the right to drive a vehicle?

If it's a right, then banning 10 year olds on the road is unconstitutional



QFT


In practice you are correct.
In law, you are incorrect.

"The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived." [emphasis added] Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22; Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934; Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607; 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways Sect.163.
http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/driver_licensing.htm

Unfortunately the law is not known, and therefore our RIGHT has become a privilege in the mind of the public - and the public has demanded that the government strip the rest of the people of their rights.

Slow steady encroachment.

Same with the drug laws...
The government says it's bad. It's a THREAT.
And the people BEG them to remove the THREAT to keep them safe - thereby stripping the people that wish to use drugs of their RIGHT to possess their private property, exercise their personal liberty, and pursue happiness.

And it keeps going.
One small concession at a time, until there are no more rights; just privileges.

Free Speech Zones - PRIVILEGED areas.
The RIGHT to free speech no longer exists.

Encroachment and usurpation of the rights of the sovereign (though they legislated our sovereignty away as well...) rulers of this nation; the people, through unconstitutional enactments of law.

[S3eker]

Kalash, I agree with all of your last post but lets look at coersion:

Coercion is the practice of compelling a person to behave in an involuntary way (whether through action or inaction) by use of threats, intimidation or some other form of pressure or force. Coercion may typically involve the actual infliction of physical or psychological harm in order to enhance the credibility of a threat. The threat of further harm may then lead to the cooperation or obedience of the person being coerced.

This is legal in other countries but we are talking about the USA. coersion is a crime for the people, but not government. So is it a crime?

Crime insinuates there is a law. Coersion is not a crime if a body coercing does not fall under the law in question. In the US, government coerces at every level and is not criminal to do so.

There is no law if there isn't enforcement of that law.

If coersion where a crime, EVERYONE would be voting for Ron Paul and not Mc Cain or Rommney.


What the hell does this have to do with Grassroots????

The Constitution! Plus we are RP supporters and we are keeping our skills up. :)

[acptulsa]

Look, we are promoting a candidate that many people consider "radical", and in many ways he is. It's a damn pity that a strict Constitutionalist is considered "radical", but it's true. So, keeping ourselves up on this stuff is important if we're going to sell our candidate to potential voters who happen to have a clue.

It's also topical. The basic fundamentals covered so far may not be something that will be disputed soon, but the Neocons, especially in the Red States, have gotten out of hand, and this foundation of knowledge leads into some hot topics.

Virginia is imposing special "fees" that amount to fines, but aren't called fines. This is a direct violation of habeus corpus, because the Commonwealth doesn't feel the need to prove that a crime was even committed before levying these "fees".

Oklahoma (among others) will suspend your license if you let your liability insurance expire and impose a special inflated reinstatement fee to get it back. Your car can break down and, unless you make the insurance lobby happy by insuring a car you aren't driving (or even can't drive), you will get suspended (which could effect you livelihood) and will have to pay one of those "fees" that amount to a fine to get your license back.

If this isn't a violation of the Constitutional protection of habeus corpus, what is? They are imposing a "fee" that amounts to a fine (there's a different reinstatement fee for other circumstances) and they aren't even bothering to prove you drove without insurance.

There are more Constitutional violations going on around the nation than just Guantanimo!

[derekjohnson]

Wrong place for this - but yes, the driver's license IS unconstitutional - according to case law.

However, in common practice and belief you have another thing coming.


You can challenge it - and be correct legally - but traffic court isn't exactly fair - or legal.


This isn't the proper place for this.
http://lawyerdude.8m.com

For all the malum prohibitum legal problems you'll ever face.
http://adventuresinlegalland.com - Marc Steven's site is helpful as well.

I disagree. This is the big L libertarianism line of thought, rather than the small l libertarianism thought.

The tenth ammendment clearly states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"

Drivers licenses fall under this clause. State governments have the right to establish laws as long as those laws do not violate the constitution. I don't think I have ever seen something in the constitution that would indicate drivers licenses are illegal. The reason people think that Paul supporters, and libertarians are whacko fringe are these big L Libertarians/anarchists that think there should be no government intervention in any aspect of our lives. The constitution did limit the federal government in many ways, but left state and local governments the ability to regulate in any way as long as the regulations do not explicitly contradict the constitution.

[Gimme Some Truth]

Can someone tell this guy to leave me alone?

Ask the Government to .. only kiddin ;)

Ignore him.

I think a drivers licence is ok , since you dont own the roads(atleast not fully) that you will be driving on. If you own some land then sure, drive without a license , drive as fast as you want etc.

It is wise to have insurance, tho I dont think it should be a law.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

Ask the Government to .. only kiddin ;)

Ignore him.

I think a drivers licence is ok , since you dont own the roads(atleast not fully) that you will be driving on. If you own some land then sure, drive without a license , drive as fast as you want etc.

It is wise to have insurance, tho I dont think it should be a law.
hm I guess that makes the most sense, that I don't own the roads.

[Sematary]

A long time ago when I took my permit test I was told that, is it against the constitution to tell me that?

No, because it's true

[Ninja Homer]

Driving is a right, but driving somebody else's car is a privilege, and driving on somebody else's road is a privilege.

You might think you own your car, but almost nobody truly owns their car. Even if you have the certificate of title for your car, it doesn't mean you own it. A certificate of title basically says that the state owns your car, but you have the exclusive privilege to use it.

You don't really own your car unless you have the allodial title for it. If you have the allodial title, you flat out own your car, and can't be charged taxes on it, you don't need a driver's license to drive it, you don't need insurance to drive it, you don't need license plates, etc. Good luck driving it around on public roads though... I'm sure you can imagine the problems you might have without plates, insurance, or a license.

It really comes down to property rights. The state really owns the car, then gives you the privilege to use it, and sets the conditions for you to keep that privilege, like paying taxes on it, insurance, etc.

It's pretty much the same thing with owning a house or land. The state has the real title.

For more info, watch Michael Badnarik's US Constitution Class:
http://www.archive.org/details/Michael_Badnarik

[Grandson of Liberty]

and what about being required to have car insurance? I don't see the need for it since i'm a good driver and i've never hit anything, not even the curb.

They are called "accidents" for a reason.

[werdd]

and what about being required to have car insurance? I don't see the need for it since i'm a good driver and i've never hit anything, not even the curb.

i think insurance should be optional, it would drive prices down and enbolden the free market, and people that decide not to have insurance would have to accept in the event of a wreck they would lose everything.

[JMann]

They call driving a privilege but in most places in this country it is a need in order to work and obtain food. As far as I know if you lose you license you can't mount up the horse and go to work anymore. More most driving (freedom of travel) is a requirement to life and liberty which seems to me to be a right.

We have given legislatures the power to take away our rights and driver license are state issued so whether they are protected by the US Constitution is the problem.

[EvilEngineer]

It may be a privledge, but it's a damn necessity in the way we've structured our cities and infrastructure. In Texas if you don't have a car, you can't go anywhere... bikes / walking / etc... just don't cut it when you have to go on average 30 minutes (by car) to get anywhere.

[jointhefightforfreedom]

What until you find out you dont really own your car or house!
research allodial title,land patent
and as for your car you have a "CERTIFICATE" of title
the Actual Title your state owns in essence you and the state are co-owners
and you pay them rent in the form of registration!

Think about it if it is your property why would you have to pay tax to anyone!
Last time i checked there were no kings or queens in America !

[Starks]

How the hell is a state issued drivers license unconstitutional?

I thought that all powers not expressly given to the federal government are reserved for the state.

[A Ron Paul Rebel]

My main field of expertise IS driving mastery and
'the true cause of mass traffic congestion'!!!

And there are many things in the works to transform
our current situation into one of a more honest system
where people will be judge on being safe or unsafe as
opposed to lawful or unlawful.

There is a driving revolution that is waiting to be tapped
into. Stay tuned and I'll share how we will achieve driving
freedom as well as guarantee victory for Dr. Paul!

Hunter

P.S. Insurance is NOT required up here in New Hampshire! :):D

[robert4rp08]

Driving is a right, but driving somebody else's car is a privilege, and driving on somebody else's road is a privilege.

You might think you own your car, but almost nobody truly owns their car. Even if you have the certificate of title for your car, it doesn't mean you own it. A certificate of title basically says that the state owns your car, but you have the exclusive privilege to use it.

You don't really own your car unless you have the allodial title for it. If you have the allodial title, you flat out own your car, and can't be charged taxes on it, you don't need a driver's license to drive it, you don't need insurance to drive it, you don't need license plates, etc. Good luck driving it around on public roads though... I'm sure you can imagine the problems you might have without plates, insurance, or a license.

It really comes down to property rights. The state really owns the car, then gives you the privilege to use it, and sets the conditions for you to keep that privilege, like paying taxes on it, insurance, etc.

It's pretty much the same thing with owning a house or land. The state has the real title.

For more info, watch Michael Badnarik's US Constitution Class:
http://www.archive.org/details/Michael_Badnarik

I'm pretty sure an allodial title is for land. You're referring to the manufacturer's certificate of origin. I would also not take Badnarik's thoughts on the MCO for truth. If you do some research you will find arguments against Badnarik's explanation of the MCO. (For example: http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/MCOs.htm)

[uncloned21]

You need to attack the foundation of the whole issue and that is whether the public should own the roads or if they should be owned by private enterprise. It is completely the right of the government to tax/regulate/police the roads if it is their roads.

[enjerth]

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The Constitution does not delegate the powers of driving motor-vehicles. Therefore, it is reserved to the States, or to the people.

Drivers licenses are issued by each of the states, and the law is enforced by state and local law enforcement. It's not unconstitutional.

[affa]

Anarchy = no law



Incorrect.

Anarchy means without archons, or 'without rulers'.
So in anarchy there is 'no hierarchy', no one above you. Although that's not even necessarily true - a popular form of anarchy, anarcho-syndicalism, believes that temporary hierarchy is useful for larger projects but then should be immediately dissolved once the project is complete (avoiding the potential corruption of power).

Anarchism does not prohibit law, though it certainly would limit it in the same way that libertarians might. Libertarianism is often considered anarcho-capitalism for that very reason.

There are many, many variations of anarchist thought and I'm sure some exclude all laws; but this is certainly not any sort of requirement.

It's about not putting people above ourselves. No kings. Period.

[Swmorgan77]

A long time ago when I took my permit test I was told that, is it against the constitution to tell me that?

Yes, but there are a lot of court decisions upholding that it is not your right because it is not in the "normal conveyance of the time".

The Supreme Court decisions that ruled that licenses for automobiles are Constitutional was decided in the 30's and rests on the presumption that a horse and buggy is the "normal conveyance" and that an automible is an unusual mode of travel and therefore can be licensed.

When you get a judge willing to overturn all of that and rule on common sense, they you'll have your Constitutional right to travel upheld by the court, but don't hold your breath :D

[Swmorgan77]

That's correct.

Statuatory law, or the acts of ruling bodies, is only ONE type of law. In theory, the whole purpose of statuatory law is to UPHOLD natural law, which still exists without government.

I do personally believe, however, that minimal government and statuatory embodiment of Natural Law such as the Constitution represents the best balance if those laws can be held inviolate.

[Swmorgan77]

Incorrect.

Anarchy means without archons, or 'without rulers'.
So in anarchy there is 'no hierarchy', no one above you. Although that's not even necessarily true - a popular form of anarchy, anarcho-syndicalism, believes that temporary hierarchy is useful for larger projects but then should be immediately dissolved once the project is complete (avoiding the potential corruption of power).

Anarchism does not prohibit law, though it certainly would limit it in the same way that libertarians might. Libertarianism is often considered anarcho-capitalism for that very reason.

There are many, many variations of anarchist thought and I'm sure some exclude all laws; but this is certainly not any sort of requirement.

It's about not putting people above ourselves. No kings. Period.

That's correct.

Statuatory law, or the acts of ruling bodies, is only ONE type of law. In theory, the whole purpose of statuatory law is to UPHOLD natural law, which still exists without government.

I do personally believe, however, that minimal government and statuatory embodiment of Natural Law such as the Constitution represents the best balance if those laws can be held inviolate.

[Goldwater Conservative]

It's a privilege on public roads, it's a right on private roads (if the owner gives you permission).

[1000-points-of-fright]

In some states, it is required that you have ID with you at all times. Most people look at the license as their MAIN ID. Why can't I use my fishing license? So yes, the drivers license is used in the incorrect manner. So is the SSN IMO.

I've started using my concealed handgun license as ID. People are usually confused, but it's a legal state ID. I think everyone with a CCW (or CHL depending on your state's terminology) should use it as their ID as often as possible. Try it, it's fun.

[Kalash]

Kalash, I agree with all of your last post but lets look at coersion:

Coercion is the practice of compelling a person to behave in an involuntary way (whether through action or inaction) by use of threats, intimidation or some other form of pressure or force. Coercion may typically involve the actual infliction of physical or psychological harm in order to enhance the credibility of a threat. The threat of further harm may then lead to the cooperation or obedience of the person being coerced.

This is legal in other countries but we are talking about the USA. coersion is a crime for the people, but not government. So is it a crime?

Crime insinuates there is a law. Coersion is not a crime if a body coercing does not fall under the law in question. In the US, government coerces at every level and is not criminal to do so.

There is no law if there isn't enforcement of that law.

If coersion where a crime, EVERYONE would be voting for Ron Paul and not Mc Cain or Rommney.




That's just the thing...
The government has no authority to commit a crime...
They have no authority to threaten and/or coerce people to behave in a certain way.

They have usurped our rights, and have threatened us with violence if we choose to exercise them.

This IS unconstitutional; i.e. it IS illegal.

But it has become common practice, and the people just don't care about their rights any more.


(There's another page of stuff - I'll go read it and probably add more.)

[Kalash]

It's a privilege on public roads, it's a right on private roads (if the owner gives you permission).

No - it's a privilege granted to you by the owner of the private road.

[No1ButPaul08]

How the hell is a state issued drivers license unconstitutional?

I thought that all powers not expressly given to the federal government are reserved for the state.

I think a lot of people don't quite understand States Rights. Not just on here, but the Federal Gov't also

[Kalash]

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The Constitution does not delegate the powers of driving motor-vehicles. Therefore, it is reserved to the States, or to the people.

Drivers licenses are issued by each of the states, and the law is enforced by state and local law enforcement. It's not unconstitutional.


Yes, but it is still firmly established that the rights of the people are superior to any act of legislature.

If driving is a RIGHT - it is existent prior to the establishment of government.
The government CANNOT - at any level - strip the people of this right and license it back to the people (charge them to exercise this right, because it is now a privilege they must pay for, or attain permission for.)



We're getting closer...

Rights are not GRANTED by the government...
They are not GRANTED at any human level...
They can only be taken away at the human level.

A license is an act of prohibition.
Does any level of government have the authority to prohibit the possession of private property for one's personal use or profit?

No.
Therefore the drug laws are in violation of the property rights of the people, are unconstitutional (Rights are superior to privileges of government), and are CRIMES against the American People.
Title 18 Chapter 13 Sections 241 and 242 of the U.S. Code. (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000241----000-.html)
Congress is not immune to the law - yet they have violated it....
And the people who have suffered need to ask for justice; equal protection under the law.

Houses/cars/boats/things for which property taxes must be paid;
Do you OWN the item? If you OWN it, why do you have to pay the state in order to keep it?
This is theft - the government steals your property and rents it back to you. If you fail to pay your rent, they come and take your property from you.
That's unconstitutional and illegal.

Same thing here...
You are being deprived of your RIGHT to possess and use your private property. This is a CRIME - it's even in the criminal code.

There is no statutory limitation excluding congress.


And... just to clear this one up now - an act of congress is NOT due process - any act of legislation which deprives someone of their rights is NOT a valid law. It is unconstitutional and no one is obligated to obey it, and no court is obligated to enforce it.


Whittling away at the misconception that the government grants us our rights...
They don't.
They can't.
Our rights existed (prior to, but were firmly established) at the time of the authoring of the Declaration of Independence.
The Constitution was written to ensure those rights were protected - from the government.

Any right the government infringes upon is a criminal act of a privileged government; it is an abuse of authority that must be kept in check - or those powers abolished as they become destructive of the rights they are intended to protect.

[Kalash]

I think a lot of people don't quite understand States Rights. Not just on here, but the Federal Gov't also



It's the concept of RIGHTS to begin with...
Most people believe that RIGHTS originate with the government.
This isn't correct - this makes them PRIVILEGES bestowed upon the people by the government.


One step at a time...
;)

Once we have our RIGHTS established and recognize them for what they are, we can ensure that the government has not taken them from us and turned them into privileges which may be stripped from us at the will of the government (i.e. Martial Law)

[S3eker]

Does a 10 year old have the right to drive a car in public roads?

[Goldwater Conservative]

No - it's a privilege granted to you by the owner of the private road.

You know what I meant. :D The government can't say jack if you're on private property with the owner's permission (and the owner could be you).

[JMann]

Does a 10 year old have the right to drive a car in public roads?

A 10 year old used to have the right to travel and work prior to the invention of the car. If a 10 year old can demonstrate the ability to drive a car much like they used to have to ride a horse, then yes a 10 year old should have the same rights as anyone else. Now if I was the parent of said 10 year old they would never have the keys, unless I had been drinking and needed a DD.