History of DMV, Driving laws and licence?

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 01:44 PM
link   
Nah, it is more than that. But you are welcome to your one sided opinion. Kinda funny little comment that you just made, are you listening to anything I say? Probably not.



Who are you talking to here, gottr? Me? I actually have been out of the country. I grew up overseas.


Yes I was talking to you.

[edit on 6-9-2005 by gottr]



[edit on 6-9-2005 by gottr]




posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 05:56 AM
link   
So driving into work this morning I started thinking about this thread and how it got off course a little and decided to sum up my position.

Saying it is the law is basically saying the same thing as "because I told you so". Any free thinking and intelligent person that excepts that answer is just rolling over. Despite what country I was born in, I would never except that as an answer, because it is opression. I would rise up against it as I am now. Saying I have to have insurance in order to drive, or else I cant drive, is opression. Who are you to tell me what I can and cannot do. See people think they are free cause they can wake up and decide what coffee they want to drink, but they are not truly free because they cannot make all of there own decisions. Why should anyone have to obey the law that was decided by a handful of people. If I dont agree with it then I shouldnt have to obey it. Because I will be punished? Sounds very similar to slavery. You will do this or you will face the punishment. I am not buying it. Driving is more of a risk than anything else. You and me risk getting into our cars everyday and driving somewhere. You should understand that accidents can happen. And if they do you should be held responsible for the damages if necessary. It is a personal problem. Not a group concern. Only the individual parties in the incident need to worry about it. So if I can pay out of pocket to fix everyones problems why shouldnt I be able too? Why must a third party come in and say that I have to have insurance. It should be an option that you choose, that would be freedom. Knowing the risk that I could get into an accident at any given time and be held personally responsible I may opt to have insurance, but that is a choice I choose to take. Being forced to pay money for fines and insurance is just this lifetimes way of taxation and opression. Taking money out of peoples pockets. This is not fair, just, or right, despite who says so.



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 07:52 AM
link   
So basically you're saying that all laws are simply oppression?

Gotcha.

Good luck finding a country to suit your needs!



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 08:12 AM
link   
Can you debate it other wise? No, because they are.



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by gottr
Can you debate it other wise? No, because they are.


LOL, yup, I can actually.

But as it'd be pointless, it's hardly worth us considering, is it?

Your stance is simple: You're anti-law.

Mine is simple: I never see it that black and white.

I'm wondering how you'd argue that the laws making it illegal to kill your parents, are somehow oppressing you.

Or, how the laws that make it illegal to rape/murder are oppressive. Or do the desires of the rapist supercede the rights of the victim? (I think we'd both agree that a basic "right" is the right to life, no?)

(I'm genuinely curious as to how you think on this one)



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 08:56 AM
link   
Actually, automobile insurance isn't required in all states. It is a requirement if you have a lienholder (req'd by the bank or lienholder to protect themselves). My state doesn't require it, although I'd be stupid to not have it. I just couldn't imagine losing my entire life savings and possessions over a traffic accident.

License isn't a requirement if you are on private property (unless req'd by said property owner); however, if you choose to drive on state or local roads then each state has the right to request certain documentation from you. (If it were your property, you'd have the right to make your own demands of those who use your property) Each state is different in their required documentation, but wouldn't you agree that the owner should be the one who chooses how his property is going to be used? If you drive on the state's property, then you shouldn't have a problem providing the credentials they request.

If you purchase a car, then it's your own property and you can do what you want with it. Once you move your property onto someone else's property, then they have the 'right' to certain expectations. You then have the 'right' to choose whether to use their property, or not (ie: state roads, highways, local streets)

Let me ask you this;

If a bar owner requests that hats be removed prior to entering the premise, do you have the 'right' to keep your hat on? If so, does the owner have to serve you? Should he not have the right to kick you out for not abiding by his rules? (His bar, his rules)

If a movie theater requests that only people with a movie ticket can watch the movie, do you have a 'right' to watch the movie even if you 'choose' to not purchase a ticket?

Nobody is forcing you to drive on public roads, go to private bars, or view cinema movies. That is your 'right' to choose which and what you want. Just as others have the 'right' to certain expectations if you 'choose' to visit their establishments or drive on their property.



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by gottr
This is where we differ, I will not characterize being born American. I am born human and have all rights that any free creature has. In that is the right to drive a car, or piss on your lawn.

No, you do not have those rights. You've chosen to live in a society where your rights are enurmerated and backedup by the force of law. You do not have right to destroy private property nor do you have a right to operate a vehicle on public property.


People always want to put everything into a nice little box and label it.

Just try to pass the driving exam and get on with your life.



You technically dont need it to drive.

You require a license and insurance to legally operate a motor vehicle on public property. Sure, you don't need a license to illegally operate one.


Plus we pay tax dollars to maintaine those roads.

Yes, precisely. We pay taxes to maintain the public roads, and we decide what the requirements are to use said roads. We have decided that you need a valid and legal driver's license and certain minimum's of insurance.


Yet she has a hard time getting around without a vehicle.

Tuff noogies.


The reason she wont drive is because it is the LAW to have insurance, it is funny, that this LAW is opressing her

Bwa hahahahahaha! Oppressed, thats a good one.


yet she still chooses to obey it. She could go drive is she wanted too.

Obviously she's not physically prevented from driving an unregistered uninsured vehicle with no license. She's also not physically prevented from running down pedestrians with her car either. So what? If she gets caught doing either she's going to get punished.

There is no reason why anyone should get in the way of me living my life.

There's lots of reason's. You're obviously a bit of a hinderance in other people's lives, and apparently we all have to work, as a society, to keep people like you from going around damaging us and our society.

I am tired of living in a society that is governed by laws

And you are doing what about it precisely? It seems more like you are tired of obeying the laws, rather than tired of benefiting from those laws. Compare a society with a complex and intricate system of laws and rights, to a society where there are practically no laws and no recognition of rights.

the right to steal them because you already have that right

You do not have a right to take someone else's property.

I have the right to drive a vehicle

You do not have a right to operate a vehicle on public roads without insurance and a license.

the right to do whatever I want whenever I want = freedom. Simple

Incorrect. You have a small set of rights, they are enumerated and protected in the Constitution. Rights do not equal completely wanton and unrestrained action.

I bet there are places out there that are better or just as good. I will send you a postcard.

So you admit that it is infact you who has never been to these other countries and that it is you who are merely assuming that there are these places. Why don't you go out into the world and see what a wretched, vile, nasty little place it is where there are no laws.

Saying it is the law is basically saying the same thing as "because I told you so".

This is simply not true. The law hasn't been dictated to us, its been crafted by groups of the people who are bound by the law, and those groups of people continously agree to be bound by the law by participating in The System.

Being forced to pay money for fines and insurance is just this lifetimes way of taxation and opression.

Law is not oppression. Oppression is what happens when those who rule do not respect actual rights, actual rights, not these made up ones that you are having a problem with only because you apparently can't afford to pay insurance or want to steal stuff from other people. Law is not oppression, Law is freedom. Without law, you can not realize your full potential in a society. In the absence of law, you will be oppressed by the powerful, be it a corporation on the other side of the planet, a regional warlord, or a stronger and more violent neighbhor.With a combination of laws in accord with actual rights, then you have the most freedom. So long as you merely demonstrate a minimal driving ability and basic understanding of the markings and signs on the road, and can hire a company to pay for any of the massive damage that you might wreak should you get into an accident, then you can drive anywhere. License tests and insurance payments are nothing compared to what you'd have to pay in a lawless society to travel across long distances. You'd have to bride thugs, get beat up by bandits, fight to get fuel, kill to get food, steal to get medecine, and all sorts of things, to go across a country without law and society. Neverminding that you'd not have a car in such a society anyway, or paved roads to drive them on, maps to determine which way to go, or anything else. If you want 'absolute freedom', there are places all over the world that have no legitimate government, and even places that have absolutely not government at all, legit or otherwise. Feel free to check them out. Just remember to bring plenty of ammunition, food stock, and medical supplies.



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 09:25 AM
link   


If you drive on the state's property, then you shouldn't have a problem providing the credentials they request.


How does the state have property? Where did it get the money to buy it?



Nobody is forcing you to drive on public roads


So which is it public or state?

Laws however are forcing me to get insurance. In order to do A you MUST have B. It is not there decision to choose whether or not I want to drive. Different story with your other examples. You are getting rights and the law mixed up. I have the right to wear my hat, he has the right to throw me out. Nothing I can do about it. But I did have the RIGHT to wear my hat. I have the RIGHT to drive my car. Does the "state" have the right to pull me over and fine me an outrageous fine for making a left hand turn where I wasnt suppose to? Who decided that making a left hand turn there was a bad idea? Why am I not allowed to decide for myself? By them saying you CANT make a left hand turn there they are taking away my right to choose.

The owner of the bar never took away my right to choose. He probably said, take off your hat, I said no, he said please leave, I said I will take my business to a hat liking place.

What is funny about your example is that the state is forcing taverns to go non smoking. How is that possible, his property - whos rules?



I'm wondering how you'd argue that the laws making it illegal to kill your parents, are somehow oppressing you.


You are getting confused. Just because it is a law, does not mean I dont have the right to do something. If you said you cannot kill, then you would be oppressing me, but I doubt I would have any pity, because it is wrong. I can kill them if I chose too. Simple. People shouldnt steal or kill, do laws currently stop them, no. It will happen. Yes there should be personal liability, but not at the states jurisdiction. Not all laws are oppressive, some are more of a general guide line. Is there even a law that says, dont kill? Probably somewhere.



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by gottr
Just because it is a law, does not mean I dont have the right to do something


Actually, that's exactly what it does mean. It might not be me who's confused here




. If you said you cannot kill, then you would be oppressing me, but I doubt I would have any pity, because it is wrong. I can kill them if I chose too.


No - again, you're confused. You simply do not have any inherent right to do that...don't you understand?


Is there even a law that says, dont kill? Probably somewhere.


I'm assuming you're kidding us with this one, right?


I'm still wondering - if you don't like this society, with all of it's laws, why are you still choosing to live here?



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 09:34 AM
link   
Are you working on a paper or thesis?



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 09:36 AM
link   


Law is not oppression. Oppression is what happens when those who rule do not respect actual rights, actual rights, not these made up ones that you are having a problem with only because you apparently can't afford to pay insurance or want to steal stuff from other people. Law is not oppression, Law is freedom. Without law, you can not realize your full potential in a society. In the absence of law, you will be oppressed by the powerful, be it a corporation on the other side of the planet, a regional warlord, or a stronger and more violent neighbhor.With a combination of laws in accord with actual rights, then you have the most freedom. So long as you merely demonstrate a minimal driving ability and basic understanding of the markings and signs on the road, and can hire a company to pay for any of the massive damage that you might wreak should you get into an accident, then you can drive anywhere. License tests and insurance payments are nothing compared to what you'd have to pay in a lawless society to travel across long distances. You'd have to bride thugs, get beat up by bandits, fight to get fuel, kill to get food, steal to get medecine, and all sorts of things, to go across a country without law and society. Neverminding that you'd not have a car in such a society anyway, or paved roads to drive them on, maps to determine which way to go, or anything else. If you want 'absolute freedom', there are places all over the world that have no legitimate government, and even places that have absolutely not government at all, legit or otherwise. Feel free to check them out. Just remember to bring plenty of ammunition, food stock, and medical supplies.


All opinion and you have a right to it. Tired of discussing this, you all have your views and I have mine. Nothing is true but facts, everything else is just opinion. And youve stated yours.



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 09:40 AM
link   


Are you working on a paper or thesis?


No, why?



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by gottr
Nothing is true but facts, everything else is just opinion. And youve stated yours.

Interesting that you felt other people weren't doing enough to support their positions in this discussion but now you are simply saying that your opinion is your opinion and thats all there is to it.



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 11:08 AM
link   
I think I defended my case as well and monotinously as I could. You can only beat a dead horse so much before you get tired. Things were getting a little Insane.



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 08:41 PM
link   
Sensible enough.


Its been said that the internet can be a place where a group of people are standing around furiously beating with sticks a bare patch of ground where, years ago, a dead horse lay.



posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 07:05 AM
link   
I like that saying.

Yeah I came to a conclusion yesterday. It is impossible to live in a LARGE society without giving up some of your freedoms. It is the amount of them you are willing to give up that matter. But that is only relative to the individual. My fight is not your fight. Because we are all so radically different I cant change anyones perspective to mine. I can only hope to present facts and persuade their decision. We live in a world where facts are god. It is black and white.



posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 07:17 AM
link   
Yup.

I rarely see anything in black and white terms (except: there are laws, and most of us don't like some of these laws - that's fairly black and white
) - just shows that there are many opinions, many differences (and many similarities) shared by us all.

So, I'll happily share my horsie


and be happy that we can, at least, agree to disagree.



posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 07:43 AM
link   
Absolutely.



posted on Sep, 17 2005 @ 03:02 PM
link   
Every person has the inherent right to do anything they want to as long as it does not harm someone else. (Whether it be physical harm or theft, etc - if it affects another person in a negative way, it's wrong) The government may say I don't have the right to do some things, but I do.

That being said... There probably needs to be a license to drive on public roads, because there's a great possibility of harming another person if you don't know what you are doing. However, that license does not need to contain the large amount of information that it does. I think this would be an effective method:

You take a driving test and get a license linked to a fingerprint. The fingerprint and the license are not linked to a name or address. You can show the license to a police officer and confirm that it is, in fact, you that are licensed to drive, but they do not need to know any other personal information.

That's how I'd like it to be. It won't ever be that way, however, I realize. And there's really not much we can do to change the fact that there WILL be national ID cards and we WILL have to use it to do just about everything in the near future. As I posted in an ATS thread, you now have to show a government-issued ID to ship a package because of Homeland Security rules.



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 10:36 AM
link   
Three laws of driving in the Southern U.S.

#1. When you see an emergency vehicle coming like a bat outta hell toward you, that means MOVE cuz we will run your ass over!!
#2. It is legal to pick roadkill up off the side of the road and take it home.
#3. Always address the police officer that pulled you over for thinking that you were in the Indianapolis 500 as Ma'am or Sir.





new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum