It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ga. Lawmaker Proposes Doing Away With Driver's Licenses

page: 15
35
<< 12  13  14    16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by zcflint05
 





I'm curious where it states in the constitution that we have a "right" to drive.....


You have it ass backwards. The Constitution states what the government is ALLOWED to do not what rights the people have. It RESTRICTS the government's power to remove rights from the people.

To be specific:
Amendment 9
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed
to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment 10
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.




posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by crimvelvet
reply to post by zcflint05
 





I'm curious where it states in the constitution that we have a "right" to drive.....


You have it ass backwards. The Constitution states what the government is ALLOWED to do not what rights the people have. It RESTRICTS the government's power to remove rights from the people.

To be specific:
Amendment 9
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed
to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment 10
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 "right to travel" is not delegated to the United States by the Constitution. If it is, show me.

Otherwise, the powers not GIVEN and the powers not DENIED rest solely upon the States. A state CANNOT deny free speech because the constitution delegates that power to the United States. Likewise, a state CAN deny anything not delegated to the United States by the constitution (such as smoking in public, or operating certain types of machinery)..

This all falls in line with most if not all of the "case law" quotes presented. They are all either STATE or PRIVATE court cases. Just look at the ones muzzleflash posted.. sure they mention traveling and some mention automobiles:



Thompson vs. Smith
Cummins vs. Homes
Packard vs. Banton
Willis vs. Buck
Teche Lines vs. Danforth


Another guy quoted: "Kent v. Dulles"

... and look at this. I posted these cases that conclude the complete opposite:



Salina v. Wisden
Bismarck v. Stuart
State v. Davis


These are all STATE or PRIVATE cases.

Do you guys care to show show case law with authority (i.e v US)and specificity regarding AT LEAST "traveling" and at most actual mention of automobiles?

Look, even his "definitions" are from STATE cases or PRIVATE books, which make perfect sense since this is all an issue for the States to handle.



Century Dictionary
Bovier's Law Dictionary
Locket vs. State


Even the Bill for this thread is a STATE bill.

Surely the only "Conspiracy" here is that the States are using the power not prohibited or reserved by the Constitution and that all of you "Constitutionalists" in this thread are really self-serving manipulators.
edit on 2-2-2011 by RestingInPieces because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 10:55 PM
link   
reply to post by RestingInPieces
 





The "right to travel" is not delegated to the United States by the Constitution. If it is, show me.


This is precisely the ass backwards thinking that zcflint05 is speaking to. The "right to travel" is a right retained by the people and that right was not "delegated to the United States - presumably you mean federal government - by the Constitution. Your ass backwards thinking is even more demonstrable in your next paragraph:




Otherwise, the powers not GIVEN and the powers not DENIED rest solely upon the States. A state CANNOT deny free speech because the constitution delegates that power to the United States. Likewise, a state CAN deny anything not delegated to the United States by the constitution (such as smoking in public, or operating certain types of machinery)..


Here you treat the right to travel as if it is either a power GIVEN the federal government to presumably then pass onto the people, or not DENIED that federal government, but whom has given and whom would be denying this dubious power - that of "the right to travel" - is necessarily we the people. Perhaps it is just an awkwardly written sentence, and because of this you have not sufficiently stated your case. It is also fairly presumed that your use of the word delegated is confused. A delegation is a transfer of power. The prohibitory nature of the Bill of Rights is less a delegation of power to government and more a restraint placed upon the federal governments delegated power. The very same power delegated from we the people to the federal government, acknowledged from the get go by the Preamble of the Constitution for the United States, has also been delegated to the states by the people of that state and is acknowledged in every State Constitution.

It has been all ready pointed out that each state Constitution has a Section in its Declaration of Rights, or Bill of Rights that echoes the Ninth Amendment of the Federal Constitution. Your insistence on convolving delegated powers of government with rights of the people not to be denied or disparaged by the delegated power is ass backwards. You are either, through ignorance of law, or through hackneyed magic tricks, attempting to frame rights as something that government has authority over and gets to decide what is and what is not a right. This is not a power that has been GIVEN either the federal government, nor any of the states, but has been expressly denied both the federal government, and the states.




This all falls in line with most if not all of the "case law" quotes presented. They are all either STATE or PRIVATE court cases. Just look at the ones muzzleflash posted.. sure they mention traveling and some mention automobiles:


It is unclear what you mean by PRIVATE court cases. Unless by PRIVATE court cases you mean private arbitration systems that operate outside of the legal jurisdiction of Constitutionally delegated powers, then there is no PRIVATE court case, and all are PUBLIC, either state, or federal.




These are all STATE or PRIVATE cases.


None of the case law you have referenced is PRIVATE, and not all are STATE cases. Packard v Banton and Kent v Dulles are Supreme Court Cases which means they were both STATE and FEDERAL Cases. Who knows what you mean to convey by the use of the term PRIVATE, but it is nonsensical in this context.




Do you guys care to show show case law with authority (i.e v US)and specificity regarding AT LEAST "traveling" and at most actual mention of automobiles?


Again, your language is vague enough to actually provide case law that in its "specificity" is regarding "traveling", and while the case law I am going to cite does not seem to make any specific reference to the term "automobile", I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are not playing a game of semantics and will further assume that terms such as "motor carrier" or "truck" will suffice. The Case is Robertson v Department of Public Works, 180 Wash 133. The link I provided goes to my own personal Lexis/Nexis account, so it may not work for those members who do not have an account with Lexis/Nexis, but the Supreme Court of Washington Case is not readily available on the internet. You will find numerous "right to drive" sites that cite this Case law, but interestingly most of the ones I have seen that cite it, fail to point out that the citations by Justice Tolman are of the dissent, and not of the majority ruling in this case.

However, your challenge did not demand that the citations be what was affirmed, and given the fallacious argument underlying your premise, that being that rights are ultimately decided by judges, and if there is no case law to support the assertion of a right, then it is not a right. This is a logical fallacy, and in this regard, citing Justice Tolman's dissent is a good example of how judges rarely agree with each other on what is the law and what are rights, to further refute your fallacious argument by implication that case law is necessary in order to assert a right not enumerated by Constitution.


I am not particularly concerned about the rights of haulers by contract or otherwise, but I am deeply interested in the rights of the public to use the public highways freely for all lawful purposes.



If the definition of a contract hauler, contained in section one of the act, had been limited to cover only one who carries the goods or merchandise of several or many shippers at one and the same time in one and the same load and over the same [***17] route,or if the courts may construe the statute to have that meaning, then at least a plausible argument may be advanced to the effect that the words of the statute which say that such a business is affected with a public interest, are intended to and do mean that such a carrier is doing a business which partakes of the qualities of the business of a common carrier, so that the legislature might forbid the use of the public highways for such a purpose. But we have no such question here, and I make these suggestions, not as expressing my views or committing myself for the future, but only in the hope that they may possibly aid those charged with the duty of solving these perplexing questions.



Our highways are public highways, and are maintained for the use of the public without discrimination or favoritism. The employer is a vitally interested party, and in regulating the operator, by law or departmental rule, care must be used to do so in a way which will not deny the use of the highways for any legitimate purpose.



A producer, a manufacturer, or a merchant may drive his own truck (if it be a proper one) over the highways to obtain or to deliver his materials or merchandise, subject [***18] only to such general rules and regulations as are applicable to all like traffic, such as reasonable limitations as to speed, weight of the [*144] vehicle, weight of the load, the character of the vehicle as it affects the highway itself and as it affects the safety of others, and all like matters. In the exercise of the police power, undoubtedly the state may, by such rules, protect its highways and insure, so far as possible, the safety of all upon them, but the rules must be general in their application, so that anyone and everyone complying therewith may have free use of the highways, subject only to such police regulations.



"The phrase 'affected with a public interest' can, in the nature of things, mean no more than that an industry, for adequate reason, is subject to control for the public good."



Complete freedom of the highways is so old and well established a blessing that we have forgotten the days of the "Robber Barons" and toll roads, and yet, under an act like this, arbitrarily administered, the highways may be completely monopolized. If, through lack of interest, the people submit, then they may look to see the most sacred of their liberties taken from them one by one by more or less rapid encroachment.


While this opinion is a dissent, in a court of law, using the dissenting opinions of judges for other authorities is long held and cherished tradition. More importantly, Justice Tolman's dissent illustrates the degrees of disagreement on issues before a court. To hold up the courts as the end all and be all of what is and what is not a right is absurd, particularly since no valid case law is PRIVATE, and all valid case law is PUBLIC which means whatever was held was decided by Constitutionally appointed or elected judges who derived their authority to do so directly from the people. The same people who it has been recognized by the Ninth Amendment of the Bill of Rights, and by every State Constitution, that the enumeration of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 11:17 PM
link   
reply to post by zcflint05
 


Umm....airplanes aren't "traveling on the land," now are they? I would also point out that the sky, being wide open and un-laned, though a public space, clearly requires traffic control on the order that roads do not.

I believe you actually attempted to refute my argument without truly responding to it. I think you think this is an effective strategy. Your point is merely cute, and hardly cute at that.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by RestingInPieces
 


The "right to travel" is a right retained by the people and that right was not "delegated to the United States - presumably you mean federal government - by the Constitution.


Obviously, this "right to travel" is not based on any constitution, law, or statute.



None of the case law you have referenced is PRIVATE, and not all are STATE cases. Packard v Banton and Kent v Dulles are Supreme Court Cases which means they were both STATE and FEDERAL Cases.


... and this means what, exactly to your position? I find it odd that you state the right to travel doesn't come from the constitution (which you are certainly correct) and presumably any laws or statutes... yet you and everyone else continues to cite them as one of your main points. Ironically, in many of the citations, the quotes cite the constitution to make the same point you are trying to make.







edit on 3-2-2011 by RestingInPieces because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 11:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by joechip
reply to post by zcflint05
 


Umm....airplanes aren't "traveling on the land," now are they? I would also point out that the sky, being wide open and un-laned, though a public space, clearly requires traffic control on the order that roads do not.


It clearly does not. The only thing they control air traffic with is radar. On a road you have vast numbers of signs, lane markings, barriers, lights, and other signals.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 12:24 AM
link   
reply to post by RestingInPieces
 





Obviously, this "right to travel" is not based on any constitution, law, or statute.


The right to travel is a natural and unalienable right not a civil or legal right. Natural rights preexist constitutions, and statutes. Legislation is not law, merely evidence of law.




... and this means what, exactly to your position? I find it odd that you state the right to travel doesn't come from the constitution (which you are certainly correct) and presumably any laws or statutes... yet you and everyone else continues to cite them as one of your main points. Ironically, in many of the citations, the quotes cite the constitution to make the same point you are trying to make.


I have cited the Constitutions, both State and Federal in regards to rights being retained by the people, and that enumerated rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage those rights. It is clear and simple language that you are steadfast in your avoidance of. There is a reason you avoid speaking directly to the Ninth Amendment, or the numerous Sections in State Constitutions prohibiting government from denying or disparaging rights retained by the people. You avoid speaking to it because it does not help your argument. The Constitutions of both federal, and the several states within the United States are not about granting rights to the people, they are about delineating and restraining the powers delegated to the branches of government by the people.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 12:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by zcflint05
I'm curious where it states in the constitution that we have a "right" to drive.


That is because people have a misunderstanding that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights gives no rights. Many have come to believe that since there are specific rights mentioned within the first ten amendments that those must be the rights the government recognizes or grants. On the contrary we can easily see this is not true by examining the Federalist No. 84. In it, Alexander Hamilton states "Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing; and as they retain every thing they have no need of particular reservations."

He is explaining to the people of New York that a Bill of Rights is not only needed but danger lies within them for they can be twisted and construed to deny the very rights they set to protect. Speaking directly to the calls for a Bill of Rights, he states "I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?"

Bills of rights were contradicting the premise of the Constitution of being solely a limiting document upon the political interest of government. Since he argued that the people surrender nothing to the Constitution nor the Government, there is no need to even list particular rights when no power is given to Government to declare or grant such rights.

When we apply this to the logic of "where in the Constitution does it give the right to drive" it is easy to see how the logic is false, as the Constitution give nothing in the way of rights. Those rights are held by the people as clearly stated in the Ninth Amendment and by the understanding of the framers intent in the Federalist Papers.

The argument that could be made is does government have the power to regulate such a right, as they do with speech and arms? I argue they do and it is evident and clear when we see the laws and regulations that govern the public road ways. Maintaining a driver's license does not guarantee nor prove that an individual will operate within the prescribed laws.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 01:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by RestingInPieces
It clearly does not. The only thing they control air traffic with is radar. On a road you have vast numbers of signs, lane markings, barriers, lights, and other signals.


Eh now you entered a realm in which you clearly have no idea or knowledge.

Radar is just one component and tool that an air traffic controller uses. For En Route air travel (planes that have left local terminal airspace) an air traffic controller utilizes a number of tools to direct traffic. Radar is just one of those. They utilize radios to maintain contact and in the event of loss of radar contact, they can relay bearing and speed to ATC. They use GPS, they use beacon (secondary radar). They use VOR (which simplified creates highways in the sky).

In a terminal environment they still use the above in addition to glideslopes to bring the aircraft down on a 3deg decent onto the runway. There are other systems varying from airport to airport.

The complexities and dance that occurs from takeoff to landing is well coordinated, involves much more than radar and requires highly skilled persons on both sides.

Post Script:
Point being, trying to compare the rules and regulations that govern the road and then oversimplifying air traffic and the complex rules they must adhere to in order to ensure a single engine puddle hopper doesn't smash into a fully loaded 747 is ridiculous.
edit on 3-2-2011 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 01:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by RestingInPieces
It clearly does not. The only thing they control air traffic with is radar. On a road you have vast numbers of signs, lane markings, barriers, lights, and other signals.


Eh now you entered a realm in which you clearly have no idea or knowledge.

Radar is just one component and tool that an air traffic controller uses. For En Route air travel (planes that have left local terminal airspace) an air traffic controller utilizes a number of tools to direct traffic. Radar is just one of those. They utilize radios to maintain contact and in the event of loss of radar contact, they can relay bearing and speed to ATC. They use GPS, they use beacon (secondary radar). They use VOR (which simplified creates highways in the sky).

In a terminal environment they still use the above in addition to glideslopes to bring the aircraft down on a 3deg decent onto the runway. There are other systems varying from airport to airport.

The complexities and dance that occurs from takeoff to landing is well coordinated, involves much more than radar and requires highly skilled persons on both sides.

Post Script:
Point being, trying to compare the rules and regulations that govern the road and then oversimplifying air traffic and the complex rules they must adhere to in order to ensure a single engine puddle hopper doesn't smash into a fully loaded 747 is ridiculous.
edit on 3-2-2011 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)


So, you admit that you are trying to play catch-up with the rules of the road then with your beforehand immutable airplane argument.

I like the distinction you made between radar and radio. It really shows how much you know.
edit on 3-2-2011 by RestingInPieces because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 02:22 AM
link   
I hate to interrupt such heated and erudite arguments here, but it did occur to me the honourable gentlman was merely preparing the fine state of Georgia for all those Mexican truckers thatll be on the highways ....we wouldnt want to embarass our guests.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 03:03 AM
link   
reply to post by RestingInPieces
 


Really do you want me to describe the difference between the two?

RADAR: RAdio Detection and Ranging utilitzes an RF signal that is not directed towards any receiver. Instead a transmitter such as a Magnatron (what you find in your microwave), Travelling Wave Tube, Klystron or Solid state components depending upon technology used or distance requirements sends out pulse modulated RF (typically). Sending the signal out via various types of antennas such as a parabolic, slotted waveguide or 'pin-pointing'.

As the signal travels into space it is not awaiting any reception except what it may encounter. Once the RF signal encounters a solid body (rain, earth or airplane) it is reflected back barring the surface it has hit is not specifically designed to deter such a return. That signal then returns to the antenna and and is routed to a receiver. That receiver than typically converts the RF to IF and is conditioned. It is sent then to the processor for further conditioning and preparing for presentation upon a radar "scope" (in these modern times it is sent to an automation system such as STARS or ARTS for more processing and display for use). At its very basic function, a radar will give the information of range and azimuth of whatever object it encountered.

Radio on the other hand uses a simple transmitter, is considerably lower wattage and can routed to an antenna that is either omni-directional or directional. That signal, which is modulated typically by AM has both the original frequency and carrier frequency. It is then received by a different radio to be demodulated and striped so that only the voice (or data) is present and passed on to a speaker.

While both utilize RF, they are markedly different in their function and capacity. A radar signal has no receiver, outside its own, waiting for the signal to capture. A radio on the other hand, needs an external receiver tuned to the transmitted frequency to function properly. At very basic, a radio is used to transmit data (typically voice) over a predetermined distance.

Nonetheless, it is obvious you didn't want to bother with the point I made at the end of my post, which is trying to make air travel easier and less complicated than driving upon a road because of all those darn signs that we have to follow shows you don't want to actually address other posters, just pick and choose and then argue. Never learn, never contemplate, never critically think about what is said.


edit on 3-2-2011 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-2-2011 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-2-2011 by ownbestenemy because: stray point



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 04:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

Originally posted by GovtFlu
Those "drunks" and "convicted felons" boogie-men you fear.. are fellow American citizens.. who would join you in a second in a fight against "the man"


No they wouldn't.

Don't be absurd.

As preposterous, illogical and fantastical as your comments may be, I really need to query you on the assertion that ''drunkards'' and ''criminals'' would in any way fight against ''the man''.


We really need to let logic and rationality trump some of these fantastical comments and thoughts on this thread.


edit on 1-2-2011 by Sherlock Holmes because: (no reason given)


Seen the protests in Egypt?.. are there none of your undesirables amongst the masses?.. looks to me like dunks, felons, teachers and preachers are in the street hand in hand defiantly uniting.. a display of cum-by-yah, screw the man, anti dictator goodness.

That's what I'm talking about.

Being able to ID drivers is one thing.... what the govt currently gets away with is another. I'd be all for removing the govt from the licensing process... and the governing process lol



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 05:36 AM
link   
Okay. For those that keep believing that licensing makes the roads safer:

Would you accept a private association consisting of the AAA and MADD (or whatever group pertaining to driving) as providing endorsement? Most likely under this scenario, insurance companies would be involved and would provide incentive to private individuals to seek out that endorsement. But, such endorsement is not needed to operate an automobile.

Such an endorsement would be far more subjected to the individual operating within the prescribed laws of the road, coupled with incentives to join and be endorsed by such an association to obtain reductions and benefits from your insurance company.

In the end, if an individual wishes to operate an automobile without such an endorsement they can but most likely will incur higher premiums. A safe driver, seeking to maximize their savings will seek out the endorsement and the lower premium benefit and strive to maintain a safe driving record to enjoy those benefits.

Of course, many are opposed to privatization of anything...but there ya go...a solution with no need for the State to step in and deem you as worthy.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by stirling
I hate to interrupt such heated and erudite arguments here, but it did occur to me the honourable gentlman was merely preparing the fine state of Georgia for all those Mexican truckers thatll be on the highways ....we wouldnt want to embarass our guests.


Being born here on this planet. Does it not make sense that even a "Mexican" has the natural right to travel on this planet? Anywhere he so chooses?

Personally, I find the lines in the sand and the letters of privilege granted by incorporeal entities all amusingly childish.

Could you imagine the dichotomy of such lines in the sand, and the false dilemma of this whole discussion, to the primitive (and pristine) mentality of the natives of both Mexico and the US in the times before Christopher Columbus.

In their eyes, as in mine, it's all hogwash.

I am a freeman and I have inherent natural rights, which includes my right to speak and travel. What could possibly give a fictitiously conceived institution the power to deny me such?

Am I a slave of mechanical institution? Or am I a FREE man born of this earth under heaven?

epochal revelations in truth,

Sri Oracle
edit on 3-2-2011 by Sri Oracle because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
reply to post by RestingInPieces
 


Really do you want me to describe the difference between the two?

RADAR: RAdio Detection and Ranging utilitzes an RF signal that is not directed towards any receiver. Instead a transmitter such as a Magnatron (what you find in your microwave), Travelling Wave Tube, Klystron or Solid state components depending upon technology used or distance requirements sends out pulse modulated RF (typically). Sending the signal out via various types of antennas such as a parabolic, slotted waveguide or 'pin-pointing'.

As the signal travels into space it is not awaiting any reception except what it may encounter. Once the RF signal encounters a solid body (rain, earth or airplane) it is reflected back barring the surface it has hit is not specifically designed to deter such a return. That signal then returns to the antenna and and is routed to a receiver. That receiver than typically converts the RF to IF and is conditioned. It is sent then to the processor for further conditioning and preparing for presentation upon a radar "scope" (in these modern times it is sent to an automation system such as STARS or ARTS for more processing and display for use). At its very basic function, a radar will give the information of range and azimuth of whatever object it encountered.

Radio on the other hand uses a simple transmitter, is considerably lower wattage and can routed to an antenna that is either omni-directional or directional. That signal, which is modulated typically by AM has both the original frequency and carrier frequency. It is then received by a different radio to be demodulated and striped so that only the voice (or data) is present and passed on to a speaker.

While both utilize RF, they are markedly different in their function and capacity. A radar signal has no receiver, outside its own, waiting for the signal to capture. A radio on the other hand, needs an external receiver tuned to the transmitted frequency to function properly. At very basic, a radio is used to transmit data (typically voice) over a predetermined distance.

Nonetheless, it is obvious you didn't want to bother with the point I made at the end of my post, which is trying to make air travel easier and less complicated than driving upon a road because of all those darn signs that we have to follow shows you don't want to actually address other posters, just pick and choose and then argue. Never learn, never contemplate, never critically think about what is said.


edit on 3-2-2011 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-2-2011 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-2-2011 by ownbestenemy because: stray point


Please, splitting hairs to make an argument is childish and silly.

It would be like me arguing that there are white lanes, yellow lanes, dotted lanes, etc.. etc.. the fact is they are all made of paint, just applied differently.

Of course, I'm not as desperate as you to make my points apparently.
edit on 3-2-2011 by RestingInPieces because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sri Oracle

Originally posted by stirling
I hate to interrupt such heated and erudite arguments here, but it did occur to me the honourable gentlman was merely preparing the fine state of Georgia for all those Mexican truckers thatll be on the highways ....we wouldnt want to embarass our guests.


Being born here on this planet. Does it not make sense that even a "Mexican" has the natural right to travel on this planet? Anywhere he so chooses?

Personally, I find the lines in the sand and the letters of privilege granted by incorporeal entities all amusingly childish.



What makes the "house" of a government (a country) and more different than your house? I'm sure you don't let people freely travel into your domain.

The government is supposed to represent the people, and the country is the house of the people.

Borders are perfectly logical in a society where privacy exists.

Most of you fundamental constitutionalists are a mixed bag of communistic socio-anarchists.
edit on 3-2-2011 by RestingInPieces because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 12:50 PM
link   
How do you propose that the police enforce the rules of the road? Should there be rules of the road or is anarchy the best governing method?

With no way for a person to be held accountable other than incarceration right then and there, the jails will get mighty full.

Licensing is about practicality. Record keeping is important to ensure accountability.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by grahag
 


There's a reason that all the civilized countries use licenses... Because it works. Anyone thinking otherwise needs to check out some third world countries that don't require licenses and see what the traffic situation is there...



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by grahag
reply to post by grahag
 


There's a reason that all the civilized countries use licenses... Because it works. Anyone thinking otherwise needs to check out some third world countries that don't require licenses and see what the traffic situation is there...


The traffic situation in third world countries has nothing to do with licensing, It has to do with a lack of infrastructure. If you have a 4 lane Highway in a 1st world country to handle 1 million vehicles a day and a 3rd world country only has a 2 lane unpaved road to handle the same amount of vehicles then of course the traffic is going to be much worse.



new topics

top topics



 
35
<< 12  13  14    16  17 >>

log in

join