Police encounter. Freeman gets off driving without a license.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

I don't believe for a second you are a stupid person, so your twisted reasoning is indicative of something far worse, and this makes you a dangerous man, clearly looking to rule over other people instead of respect their rights. This is your most egregious failure.

I'm sorry to go off topic here, but that sounds strangely familiar to me. Wish I could place exactly who I dealt with that was *just* like that in another thread.

OK, carry on, I've made my peace.

reply to post by autowrench


Question for ya:

Who, in your utopia, builds the roads, bridges, tunnels, overpasses, etc? Who maintains them? Who sweeps up the body parts from the roadways in this unregulated world of yours?

OK, I lied, more than one question is was.

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

You certainly have the right to free travel, doesn't mean that you have the right to drive a car. After all, you have your feet.

LET THEM EAT CAKE!!!

Didn't work so well then, either.

What should the government do? Give you a free car? Perhaps hire drivers for everyone?

As for the larger argument, this idea about anarchy being the bees knees, it's all bull.

So someone comes in and kills you, your families only recourse is to sue them, but without police to arrest those people, how in the HELL are you going to get them to a court room in order to face the trial?

I don't want the government to do anything. You seem to miss it. I want the government to do nothing that it isn't required to do. Nor hire drivers for everyone. I just want them to allow people to use their own property without taxation and licensing.

No one is promoting anarchy, least of all myself. That is a strawman argument.

No one has said that we should not have police to arrest these people. You are making a leap in logic that is not there.

So, at the end of it all, what part of your reply above is based in truth? I see lots of strawmen, and some wild leaps. But outside of fallacy, what else would you like to discuss?

reply to post by whatukno

What should the government do? Give you a free car? Perhaps hire drivers for everyone?

Hell Wuk, this nonsense quoted above is not even intellectual dishonesty it is just a stupid lie, from a wanna be tyrant. Rights are not entitlements that mandate government supply these rights, and Declaration of rights and The Bill of Rights are not grants of rights but prohibitions on government from abrogating and derogating those rights. No one in this thread is arguing for a welfare program giving people "free" cars, and only a socialist collectivist who believes in such programs would make such a stupid argument.

Originally posted by Geeky_Bubbe
reply to post by autowrench

 

Question for ya:

Who, in your utopia, builds the roads, bridges, tunnels, overpasses, etc? Who maintains them? Who sweeps up the body parts from the roadways in this unregulated world of yours?

OK, I lied, more than one question is was.

The people who gather up the taxes from fuel sales.

Licensing does not pay for any of that stuff. It pays for things like more officers to enforce more laws for which there is not victim.

Not sure that helps your argument.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


Taxing, I agree.

Licensing: Dang man! The jails will be crammed with John [or Jane] Doe "Freemen" then.

Did it ever occur to anyone against licensing that the primary reason you can be issued a traffic ticket and sent on your way is that the officer can reasonably presume that the Driver's License you present is in fact *you*. Without this presumptive identification mechanism all people issued "a ticket" would have to be hauled into jail to be fingerprinted, "run through the system," then cash bond demanded.

There was a day in this country when you had to pay the officer then and there for your traffic violation as a "bond" against guarantee to appear in court. With positive ID, or presumptively so, we no longer have to cough up all that cash. Our name is literally our bond at that point.

reply to post by Geeky_Bubbe

Did it ever occur to anyone against licensing that the primary reason you can be issued a traffic ticket and sent on your way is that the officer can reasonably presume that the Driver's License you present is in fact *you*. Without this presumptive identification mechanism all people issued "a ticket" would have to be hauled into jail to be fingerprinted, "run through the system," then cash bond demanded.

There was a day in this country when you had to pay the officer then and there for your traffic violation as a "bond" against guarantee to appear in court. With positive ID, or presumptively so, we no longer have to cough up all that cash. Our name is literally our bond at that point.

Our name is our bond with or without a licensing scheme, and any person can give their name upon verified oath and this works just the same as a license does, and if it didn't then signatures on a drivers license would not be required. That signature is the bond, and it would work just the same without a license. Those inclined to elude justice will do so with or without a license.

Your argument that "there was a day in this country when "you" had to pay the officer then and there for your traffic violation as a "bond" against guarantee to appear in court, is not supported by any documentation to prove such a wild ass claim, and if an officer did such a thing, this would be a flagrant violation of due process of law. A charge of a crime is not a presumption of guilt.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


I yield the argument. It has grown tiresome.

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

While the constitution protects a person's right to pursue happiness, it does not guarantee that happiness.

So, you have still failed to show how driving a car is a fundamental right.

I don't mean to nitpick, but can you please point out where in the Constitution it says anything about 'happiness'? I think maybe my copy had that edited out.

Although I did manage to find mention of 'happiness' in the Declaration of Independence.

reply to post by sirnex


He is responding the Article I Section 1 of the California Constitution I posted earlier:

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Ah OK, so he's not talking about the Constitution that actually counts and matter's in this discussion. Thanks for the clarification!

Originally posted by Geeky_Bubbe
reply to post by autowrench

 

Who sweeps up the body parts from the roadways in this unregulated world of yours?

Unregulated world? Who's advocating for that, and where can I sign up for that plan?

It's probably really just me, but I just don't see how a lack of micro-management of the affairs of others equates to a completely unregulated environment.

It it truly either/or? No middle ground possible there? That would make the regulatory scheme of the Freemen impossible, then, and the only choices become either your micro-managed total regulation, soviet style, or your completely unregulated environment.

If those are to be the only two choices presented, it's not difficult for me to decide which choice to make, but a complete lack of regulation will take some getting used to. Lots of modern folks won't survive that. Neither choice is satisfactory.

Originally posted by Grossac
Obviously, by the video, you see that you ARE allowed to drive without a license if you know your rights and are prepared. The guy in questions knew his rights and answered the questions without falling into a trap.

I wouldn't be so quick to believe that video. Maybe you just believe everything you read, hear, and see?

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

Ah OK, so he's not talking about the Constitution that actually counts and matter's in this discussion. Thanks for the clarification!

It doesn't surprise me at all that you would dismiss a state constitution as not mattering as a point of law. Your ignorance of the law is no excuse.

There are no federal acts, codes, or ordinances requiring people to have a drivers license, and such acts, codes, and ordinances belong with the states.

[edit on 27-6-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

Originally posted by Geeky_Bubbe
reply to post by autowrench

 

Question for ya:

Who, in your utopia, builds the roads, bridges, tunnels, overpasses, etc? Who maintains them? Who sweeps up the body parts from the roadways in this unregulated world of yours?

OK, I lied, more than one question is was.

Are you saying, that if invited to live in such a world, that you would not be willing to work for what you have to enjoy? Taxes build those things, and I am for a consumer tax, one that everyone pays at the cash register when a purchase is made. Just two years of this kind of tax, doing away with the IRS and all "hidden taxes," America's coffers would be filled to the brim, as would Social Security and Medicare. I am taking banning any sort of kind of Central Bank, and leaning toward small town banks, where the money in the bank belongs to the people of the county. The State Government makes all decisions concerning the State, and the States are again allowed to do business with each other, and on the International Marketplace. We have Peace Officers instead of Policy Enforcers. Instead of an Executive Branch that holds all governmental power, we again have the three branches with a true separation of powers, and a set system of checks and balances. CIA, NSA, and FBI are all rolled into Homeland Security, and they have their own military force to deal with things like invasions from a neighboring county. America goes back to work. We produce the best there is in solar technology, and free energy devices receive the best funding and science to make the best possible products. We ban the use of lumber, and go to other building materials, such as hemp. We ban plastics and find something besides oil to make things from. We remove and ban forever any attorney at law from holding public office by reinstating the original 13th.
Amendment, and we do completely away with the 14th. amendment, it was never ratified anyway.

And, by the way, we build the best roads, bridges, tunnels, overpasses, schools, and hospitals in the entire world. We even have a crew to pick up all the body parts for you.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by sirnex

 

He is responding the Article I Section 1 of the California Constitution I posted earlier:

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

Can you give me the legal definition of happiness? You people seem to be giving legal definitions of driving, traveling, etc... etc...

How about the legal definition of happiness?

Can't find it? Maybe it's just semantics, a "trap" to make you think a certain way, just like all the idiots who think driving a car and traveling in a car are the same thing.

Both sides end the same.

[edit on 27-6-2010 by RestingInPieces]

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


Well, the fact that I don't have a license or a car and I seem to be doing ok makes y'alls entire point invalid.

The people arguing for this freeman anarchy society somehow want to what they want when they want and how they want with no repercussions if what they want to do violates the rights of others.

The idea that you can just go around without a state issued identification, and somehow you are going to be honest with the "sheriff" when you get busted speeding is completely bogus.

You all are relying on the honor system for this entire anarchic society of yours and it won't work.

So let's put it this way, you get pulled over for doing 97 in a 25 mph zone, the cop issues you a citation for that infraction of the societies rules, you give him the name of your buddy, now your buddy is liable for your crime, because in your freeman society, you don't have to carry any form of identification whatsoever and the cop has no choice but to just take your word for who you are.

I see poor John Smith getting into a lot of trouble for things he didn't do.

reply to post by RestingInPieces


No one needs a "legal" definition for happiness in order to pursue it. If you are asking because "(We) people seem to be giving legal definitions" of terms such as driving and travel, you are missing the point. If there is a legal definition then that definition has to be considered when operating within the confines of the law. If there is a legal definition, it is not "(we) people" who imposed this definition, but rather a legislature that did.

In terms of the "legal" definition of the term happiness, the first thing that should be noted is that what is protected is the right to pursue it. Pursuit or pursing is no more defined by the California constitution then happiness is, and since it is not defined by constitution, then the legislature can not at a later date seek to define it, which is why you are having difficulty finding a "legal" definition of the term happiness.

When there is no "legal" definition supplied by constitution or statute, then we must turn to the ordinary usage of the word. Webster's online dictionary provides:

Main Entry: hap·pi·ness
Pronunciation: \ˈha-pē-nəs\
Function: noun
Date: 15th century
1 obsolete : good fortune : prosperity

2 a : a state of well-being and contentment : joy
b : a pleasurable or satisfying experience
3 : felicity, aptness

Webster's defines pursue as:

1. Main Entry: pur·sue
Pronunciation: \pər-ˈsü, -ˈsyü\
Function: verb Inflected Form(s): pur·sued; pur·su·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French pursure, pursiure, from Latin prosequi, from pro- forward + sequi to follow — more at pro-, sue

Date: 14th century
transitive verb

1 : to follow in order to overtake, capture, kill, or defeat
2 : to find or employ measures to obtain or accomplish : seek
3 : to proceed along
4 a : to engage in b : to follow up or proceed with
5 : to continue to afflict : haunt
6 : 2chase 1c

Given the context of the word, both the second, and third definitions would be most applicable.

Since you wish to quibble over what legal definitions are, perhaps you would be interested to note what the legal definition of license is:

The permission granted by competent authority to exercise a certain privilege that, without such authorization, would constitute an illegal act, a Trespass or a tort. The certificate or the document itself that confers permission to engage in otherwise proscribed conduct.

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

Well, the fact that I don't have a license or a car and I seem to be doing ok makes y'alls entire point invalid.

The people arguing for this freeman anarchy society somehow want to what they want when they want and how they want with no repercussions if what they want to do violates the rights of others.

The idea that you can just go around without a state issued identification, and somehow you are going to be honest with the "sheriff" when you get busted speeding is completely bogus.

You all are relying on the honor system for this entire anarchic society of yours and it won't work.

So let's put it this way, you get pulled over for doing 97 in a 25 mph zone, the cop issues you a citation for that infraction of the societies rules, you give him the name of your buddy, now your buddy is liable for your crime, because in your freeman society, you don't have to carry any form of identification whatsoever and the cop has no choice but to just take your word for who you are.

I see poor John Smith getting into a lot of trouble for things he didn't do.

C'mon, Wukky...your busting my chops here. I am giving you decent discussion and you are throwing this back at me?

I cannot keep repreating the same stuff and having you shrug it off. If you aren't challenging the point, then you need to acquiesce.

It is not anarchy to live in the manner intended by our founding fathers. Not in the least. You are just accustomed to free range slavery and are not really open to other considerations. I get that...and do not fault you for that. Not in the least. But to keep calling them an "anarchy group" and saying that they just want whatever they want regardless of other peoples rights is untruthful, and does nothing to deny ignorance. I am disappointed that you are taking such tact.

You are not required to have an ID on you when you are questioned by police. Even though they may claim such. You just need to let them know your name. So, there is not a basis to be concerned about honesty. If i am stopped for any other potential crime, and have no ID on me, it is only an issue if the officer wants to pretend that it is.

In your last example, it already happens. In Lamesa, TX a girl got pulled over. She was a black girl, with typical afrocentric features (dark hair, dark eyes). She gave a name that was not hers to the local officer that pulled her over. He issued her a ticket based on the DL number that came back for that person.

2 years later, a friend of mine gets pulled over. They arrest her for failing to appear on the ticket in Lamesa. This friend of mine is black, as well, but has green eyes and dark hair. The person pulled over was her cousin, who already had a warrant.

You have not given a logical argument against the movement without invoking untrue, fear deriving terminology such as "anarchist". Do you not have any such dialogue to share?

reply to post by whatukno

You all are relying on the honor system for this entire anarchic society of yours and it won't work.

It is not surprising, given your profound disregard for due process of law, that you have disregard for honor as well. You advocate your licensing schemes predicated on the notion that all people are guilty before proven innocent, and this is not the way American jurisprudence works.