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: 16
35
<< 13  14  15    17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by grahag
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?


[sarcasm]
Well OBVIOUSLY we have the natural right to speed and swerve between traffic, so there is no need to enforce a ban on our rights and liberties!

Look, what you don't SEEM TO UNDERSTAND with your ass backwards thinking is that you have a natural right to just pass right through a red light whenever you want.



The constitution limits the powers of government and you have the freedom to travel past stop signs without stopping, because the government IS NOT ALLOWED to infringe your NATURAL BORN right of continious travel without stopping.

MAYBE if you would study CASE LAW and understand the WORDS OF MAZES the legal system is made of, you would WAKE UP.



YOU PEOPLE need to talk to the NINTH amendment because it will tell you that just because certain rights are described in the constitution, it doesn't mean that the rights which aren't described are to be construed to be denied or obstructed.



[/sarcasm]




posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by RestingInPieces
 


Where on this thread did anyone say that someone had a right to pass through a moving traffic flow without stopping?




posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by RestingInPieces
 


Do you honestly believe that people are so stupid that they cannot see through your desperation? It matters not that you have couched your desperate arguments in sarcasm, you clearly cannot rely upon the truth in order to back up your assertions, so you fall back on falsehoods, and apparently believe that your reification that characterizes those you disagree with in this thread are advocating lawlessness. Quite the contrary what those of whom you disagree with are advocating is the rule of law.

Consider that for a moment. It is not you advocating the rule of law, you are advocating rule by law, which is to say you advocate whimsy as an appropriate form of legislation. It has been addressed by several members in this thread that the enforcement of traffic regulations, and parking regulations do not need any licensing and registration schemes in order to have validity. In fact, it has been stated that proper traffic and parking regulations are those that facilitate natural unalienable rights, not impede them.

You have, through out this entire thread falsely presented law, either through misunderstanding of law, or through misinterpretation, or worse, through willful misrepresentation. Of course all that you have left is to smugly pretend your sarcasm is erudite, and perhaps you actually believe that people will read your foolishness and be impressed with it. I do not hold such contempt for people and tend to believe that people are not, as a general rule, as stupid as you seem to think they are. This includes you. While I do not think you are stupid, your hubris is plain to see. You have chosen to praise tyranny, and just like any other sycophant of tyranny you dig your hole deeper and deeper, sadly entrenching yourself in arguments that reveal you for who you are. You are not advocating freedom of any kind, and instead are insisting that people must be regulated and licensed by "authority" in order to have a "society".

Your foolish dismissal of the Ninth Amendment say's it all. You have finally addressed that which you steadfastly avoided in this thread, and how did you address it? With a pretense of sarcasm, and without one scintilla of logic or reason to support what your pretended sarcasm implies, you apparently think all you have to do is dismiss the language of the Ninth Amendment with this pathetic pretense at sarcasm and this somehow rebuts what you clearly have no valid rebuttal for.

Rolling your eyes and going "pffffftttt" is not a rebuttal.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by RestingInPieces
 


Do you honestly believe that people are so stupid that they cannot see through your desperation? It matters not that you have couched your desperate arguments in sarcasm, you clearly cannot rely upon the truth in order to back up your assertions, so you fall back on falsehoods, and apparently believe that your reification that characterizes those you disagree with in this thread are advocating lawlessness. Quite the contrary what those of whom you disagree with are advocating is the rule of law.

Consider that for a moment. It is not you advocating the rule of law, you are advocating rule by law, which is to say you advocate whimsy as an appropriate form of legislation. It has been addressed by several members in this thread that the enforcement of traffic regulations, and parking regulations do not need any licensing and registration schemes in order to have validity. In fact, it has been stated that proper traffic and parking regulations are those that facilitate natural unalienable rights, not impede them.

You have, through out this entire thread falsely presented law, either through misunderstanding of law, or through misinterpretation, or worse, through willful misrepresentation. Of course all that you have left is to smugly pretend your sarcasm is erudite, and perhaps you actually believe that people will read your foolishness and be impressed with it. I do not hold such contempt for people and tend to believe that people are not, as a general rule, as stupid as you seem to think they are. This includes you. While I do not think you are stupid, your hubris is plain to see. You have chosen to praise tyranny, and just like any other sycophant of tyranny you dig your hole deeper and deeper, sadly entrenching yourself in arguments that reveal you for who you are. You are not advocating freedom of any kind, and instead are insisting that people must be regulated and licensed by "authority" in order to have a "society".

Your foolish dismissal of the Ninth Amendment say's it all. You have finally addressed that which you steadfastly avoided in this thread, and how did you address it? With a pretense of sarcasm, and without one scintilla of logic or reason to support what your pretended sarcasm implies, you apparently think all you have to do is dismiss the language of the Ninth Amendment with this pathetic pretense at sarcasm and this somehow rebuts what you clearly have no valid rebuttal for.

Rolling your eyes and going "pffffftttt" is not a rebuttal.



Thanks for the critique. It's clear to see that your whole position is:

1) Declare that driving is actually traveling
2) Make pointed comments and remarks about those who context your invalid reasoning.

You sadly can''t back up your claims with anything substantial, which is why the great core of all of your posts are concentrated on your opponents rather than the position which you attempt to defend.

... but then, in your mind you don't even NEED to defend it; it's a natural right after all... which explains why your posts lack the required content to make even a chimp believe you.

So, go ahead: Give us all a history lesson about how license statutes were passed while ignoring every other statute that chips away at your *personal* "natural rights" because the vast majority consider reality over ideoology.

... I don't think you will because it will only prove to yourself that you go against the concept of a republic and democracy. It will reveal your anarchistic ways and show everyone but mostly your inner self that you are nothing more than a self-serving anarchist who would rather ignore the laws of the people.

The fact is that the States and the people did exactly what they had the power to do: pass legislation requiring training and licensing in order to operate a vehicle. The good of the many outweigh the needs a few - a few nut jobs that is, who want to let people drive without at least some form of mandatory training/familiarization.

You can go right on ahead thinking that the ninth amendment means that you personally have every right you want reserved for yourself, but you couldn't be more wrong.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by MMPI2
reply to post by RestingInPieces
 


Where on this thread did anyone say that someone had a right to pass through a moving traffic flow without stopping?



Where in the constitution does it say that someone has the right to travel in an automobile?

Just like the answer to my question, the answer to your question about the right to swerve or speed in an automobile is: nowhere.

Therefore, according to the ninth amendment, it is a right retained by the people and can not be denied or disparaged.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by RestingInPieces
 


There you go again, relying on falsehoods in order to justify your cause. If your cause is so just then why must you lie in order to defend it?

I have not declared that driving is actually traveling. I have not relied upon such semantics in order to make my arguments. I do not need to rely upon semantics in order to speak to what is clear, and that is that our rights preexist governments and governments do not have any lawful authority to declare our rights a privilege only.

Your backpedaling that you are putting my arguments in the "context" - and presumably the context of those who will rely upon semantics in order to escape bogus legislation - only goes to show how dangerous backpedaling is. You have not offered one valid argument as to why my reasoning is "invalid" and simply rely upon reification. Simply declaring reasoning invalid without any reason to support your declaration is not at all reasoning, neither inductive, nor deductive.

Here is my claim: Driving is a right, not a privilege. I have relied upon the numerous Sections of State Constitutions that echo the Ninth Amendment to support my claim. I have further argued that rights are defined by the lack of harm they cause, unless that harm is lawful self defense. I have argued that driving in and of itself does not cause harm and as such those who drive do so by right. I have also argued that reckless driving is not a right, and that the clear and present danger caused by reckless driving makes it self evident that such an action is not a right. I have relied upon sound logic and reasoning, while you have done nothing but play silly games of semantics, set useless traps with questions that if you were a hunter would leave you starving. You have pretended to speak in some imitation of legalese only further revealing your ignorance of legalese, and most assuredly your ignorance of the law.

The democratic republic established by Constitutions was established as such to prevent democratic majorities, and even well oiled minorities from denying and disparaging the rights of the individual, which is the greatest minority there is. Your pretense of defending this democratic republic by sticking your finger in your ears and screaming "La - la - la - la - anarchist - la - la - la - I can't hear you - la la la la - stupid anarchist!", is not at all a defense of the democratic republic established by we the people, and is nothing more than unadulterated democracy dressed that is not even dressed in the clothing of a republic. People are just not as stupid as you think they are and can see right through your illogical rants. Out of democracy rises tyranny, and this is clearly what you advocate.

Your bogus insistence that you are some sort of a "realist" ignores the fact that this thread is about a Representative from the State of Georgia attempting to use the legislative process to correct the problem of denying a right of the people. This is real. Your claim of "realism" is fantasy. You subscribe to the Hitlerian credo that if you say it loud enough and long enough people will begin to believe it as true. It is quite obvious what you stand for, and again, while you pretend to have respect for the republic which was established in this nation, you can't resist using language that reveals your true beliefs, such as; "The fact is that the States and the people did exactly what they had the power to do: pass legislation requiring training and licensing in order to operate a vehicle", and even more astonishingly; "The good of the many outweigh the needs a few", as if drivers licensing and registration schemes some how adequately address the good of the many.




You can go right on ahead thinking that the ninth amendment means that you personally have every right you want reserved for yourself, but you couldn't be more wrong.


The Ninth Amendment not only means I personally have every right I reserve for myself, it means all people do. That is what makes rights law, it is simple, true, universal and absolute. You claim I am wrong, you just refuse to explain how it is I am wrong constantly convinced that reifying will suffice. That's your special brand of "realism".



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by RestingInPieces
 


Look.

In order to understand the concepts that have been offered to you, you must be able to think in abstract and concrete terms almost simultaneously.

There is no magic recipe or rule book that will help you understand these ideas in a format written in the linear conceptual style in which you appear to organize your thoughts. It does not exist. There are no easy answers.

My sense here is that you truly are struggling with these ideas, and that the resistance you offer within this thread is the emotional dissonance your mind transmits to your heart about the issue of freedom and personal sovereignty. These ideas have been made alien to us unknowingly by our parents and intentionally by the people with a vested interest in keeping us from realizing that each of us is a Sovereign/King/President in our own right.

Please. Don't dismiss the stuff here that's been discussed and presented. It is hard to "think around" the programming to which we have been subjected, but once you get into the practice of it you will find that you look at your life and world in a much different and richer way.



I share your struggle.






posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by RestingInPieces
 


Here is my claim: Driving is a right, not a privilege.

I have argued that driving in and of itself does not cause harm and as such those who drive do so by right.

I have also argued that reckless driving is not a right, and that the clear and present danger caused by reckless driving makes it self evident that such an action is not a right.


So I see that the ideological "as long as it causes no harm" has been presently diluted into "as long as it is clear that it will cause no harm in the immediate future".

The simple fact is someone who is not trained or familiar with driving is for all practical purposes a wreckless driver just as someone who is not trained or familiar with flying is probably not a very good pilot. A driver must be trained and have experience to understand outcomes of their actions will be while driving. Humans don't live in forests anymore. We live in constructed societies that only exist because common rules and regulations are followed.

A road isn't a wacky-fun bumper car ride with no rules, it's a systemic construct complete with rules that you must follow, boundaries that you must stay within, velocities which you must not exceed, and countless other regulations in place for the practical purpose of safety and efficiency. It's enough to know that statutes were put in place to require actual testing.

A license doesn't stop drunks from driving, wreckless teenagers, accidents, or road rage. It's not a magical piece of plastic that gives you super-human driving abilities.

All it is in a validation that you have been formally familiarized with driving on the familiar infrastructure... and it's this way because that's what the republic wants. Talk to it, and it will tell you that the American People are driven by confidence: confidence that currency is valuable, confidence that our government isn't *that* corrupt, that our neighborhoods are safe, confidence that our borders are safe, and confident that we have our freedom.... and in this case, that the road we are driving on is safe.

This bill will never pass, and you know it, because it will strip away the nations confidence that current exists in regards to our roads and highways.. although, I have to admit I bet there would be some pretty funny sketches on SNL and some good stories on the Daily Show & Colbert Report if this ever came into fruition. The people don't want it to pass. It's almost like you live in a democratic society.



I have relied upon sound logic and reasoning


Hah. All of your logic and reasoning stems from a supposition. You have in no way offered a basis for your reasoning other than that it is "natural", or that it is a "right".



Your bogus insistence that you are some sort of a "realist" ignores the fact that this thread is about a Representative from the State of Georgia attempting to use the legislative process to correct the problem of denying a right of the people.


Yeah, I can see how ideology would make you so stupid that $50 and a test is a huge obstacle to being able to legally drive. I'm sure you've been rather hypocritical about it all along though.. you know, seeing as how you drive every day.



This is real.


It's as real as all of the other thoughtless bills, I'll give you that.



It is quite obvious what you stand for, and again, while you pretend to have respect for the republic which was established in this nation, you can't resist using language that reveals your true beliefs, such as; "The fact is that the States and the people did exactly what they had the power to do: pass legislation requiring training and licensing in order to operate a vehicle", and even more astonishingly; "The good of the many outweigh the needs a few", as if drivers licensing and registration schemes some how adequately address the good of the many.


Apparently, you do not agree with lawful passing of statutes and regulations, voted on either directly or indirectly by the people of this republic.



The Ninth Amendment ... means I personally have every right I reserve for myself


Correct. For yourself.



That is what makes rights law, it is simple, true, universal and absolute.


Oh, so NOW rights become laws? Why on earth would they need to be enumerated when we have the good old ninth amendment?

Do you think maybe, just maybe, because of something called interaction?



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 09:37 PM
link   
Not sure this has been posted but i will make a few points.

1) In texas a "motor vehicle" used to be defined as a "vehicle to make commerce" and thus should be taxed
2) In regards to having a license I do not get the arguments in here going from one extreme to another. A license is simply a money making tool designed to make you think its a privilege. Look at getting married, do you really need a license to fall in love? Carrying a gun, building a home etc. These are all rights. Do i think everyone should exercise these rights.. hell yes. In time the bad apples will be weeded out and the strong homes will stay standing and gather a good reputation as such and ACTIVE drivers will still be on the road.
3) If using a vehicle for commerce then yes you should have to get a license for that and it should be closely related to your tax number
4) This guys sums up rights, priveldges and freedoms. Please watch video.google.com...#



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by RestingInPieces
 





So I see that the ideological "as long as it causes no harm" has been presently diluted into "as long as it is clear that it will cause no harm in the immediate future".


Again you play games of semantics in order to justify your own cognitive dissonance. Reckless driving is harmful, not future harm, but harm in and of itself. Reckless driving causes all sorts of reactions that cause harm, even if this harm is not demonstrable by a collision. It is strangely ironic that while you have spent a great deal of time in this thread attacking strict constructionists, when it seems to suit your purposes, you will fall back on strict construction yourself.




The simple fact is someone who is not trained or familiar with driving is for all practical purposes a wreckless driver just as someone who is not trained or familiar with flying is probably not a very good pilot.


The simple fact of the matter is that licensing and registration schemes do not provide these trained drivers you are harping on. No one in this thread has argued at all that people have the right to drive without being properly trained to do so, any more than gun advocates argue that people have the right to keep and bear arms without proper training. Do you honestly believe your bad smoke and mirror parlor tricks confuse the issue. What foolishness is this?




We live in constructed societies that only exist because common rules and regulations are followed.


If this were true there would not be prisons, and fines, or tort law. Keep kidding yourself, but you are not fooling the rational thinkers of this thread. Constructed societies exist because individuals endeavored to construct them, warts and all.




A road isn't a wacky-fun bumper car ride with no rules...


No one in this thread arguing that driving is a right and not a privilege has made any such assertion. This is the type of lying I am talking about. You feel compelled to lie and present your opponents argument as you have because if you spoke to your opponents argument honestly you would look just as foolish. The only difference between your foolishness now, and the foolishness of attempting to honestly address your opponents points while still maintaining your position, is that the latter would at least be honorable, the former is demonstrative of something else entirely.




It's enough to know that statutes were put in place to require actual testing.


Here is a prime example of the blind faith you put into the religious dogma of the authority of the state. If the legislature were to legislate an act requiring Pi being treated as 3.0 in order to make the math easier, you would sing its praises and declare "Hallelujah! Mathematics just got easier thanks to the Great and Powerful Legislature." Never mind the bridges that would collapse, the buildings that would fail because of this legislation, it is enough to know that a statute was put in place.




A license doesn't stop drunks from driving, wreckless teenagers, accidents, or road rage. It's not a magical piece of plastic that gives you super-human driving abilities.


A license by definition is the grant of permission to do an act that would otherwise be illegal. This is the complaint with the licensing scheme for driving vehicles, and no on other than yourself is relying on "magic", but then again, no one other than yourself believes "reality" is decided by legislative fiat.




All it is in a validation that you have been formally familiarized with driving on the familiar infrastructure... and it's this way because that's what the republic wants.


It is clearly what you want, and other fearful sycophants of tyranny, but you do not represent the public, you are just a single sycophantic rhetorical automaton who apparently believes it is your duty to lecture the public on what the law is, even though you have no understanding of the law, even though you have demonstrated in the very thread that your pretense at legalese is akin to a child mimicking their parents language. Why don't you give us another lecture about the PRIVATE court cases you know all about?




Talk to it, and it will tell you that the American People are driven by confidence: confidence that currency is valuable, confidence that our government isn't *that* corrupt, that our neighborhoods are safe, confidence that our borders are safe, and confident that we have our freedom.... and in this case, that the road we are driving on is safe.


For crying out loud, do you even pay attention to the language you use? "Talk to it..."? Would you mean by "it" the public? Is this how you view the public? Some gargantuan it you can actually talk to as a living breathing entity. If you had ever bothered to talk to the public at all, you would understand that doing so requires talking to many, many people, and if you had ever bothered to do that you would discover that no so many of these people buy into your nonsense.




This bill will never pass, and you know it, because it will strip away the nations confidence that current exists in regards to our roads and highways..


You keep getting more and more absurd with each post. Are you asserting that if this bill passed that people would stop driving because their confidence in "safe" roads and highways would collapse? What do you do just sit at your key board and let your fingers type the mental diarrhea that squirts out of your brain? If you are going to make such assertions the least you could do is attempt to back them up with some sort of evidence to support the argument. I guess that School of Logical Fallacy you graduated from really paid off...in spades.




Hah. All of your logic and reasoning stems from a supposition. You have in no way offered a basis for your reasoning other than that it is "natural", or that it is a "right".


All law is self evident. All laws of justice are premised on the foundation of the lawful right to self defense. This is not supposition. This is self evidently so. While there are indeed some people who will not rely upon their right to defend themselves, and instead offer themselves up to the sacrificial alter, the vast majority of people will act to defend themselves when necessary, and the long history of revolution is a testament to this natural proclivity to defend oneself. Supposition? I think not. There is plenty of evidence to support this, you can ignore it all you want, but what you cannot do is convince reasonable people that they are subject to the whims of legislatures, even when their legislation places them in harms way.

It is from this premise -- the lawful right to self defense - that I use reason and logic to make the assertion that driving is a right and not a privilege. Since all people have the lawful right to self defense, it follows then that people have the right to collectively form a government towards that same end. This is what the law is, it is a collective organization of the individuals right to lawful defense. Any legislation that strays from this premise is not law, but merely legislation. Imposing licensing and registration schemes is not in any way an act aiming towards the individuals right to lawful defense. Passing legislation declaring reckless driving a crime is an act that aims towards the individuals right to lawful defense.




Yeah, I can see how ideology would make you so stupid that $50 and a test is a huge obstacle to being able to legally drive. I'm sure you've been rather hypocritical about it all along though.. you know, seeing as how you drive every day.


Here you reveal your profound arrogance. I do not drive a car you buffoon! I do not have a drivers license, and I have been pulled over a few times by police officers who have actually threatened me with arrest for not having one. Here is your precious drivers license scheme! You could care less that the tyrants you so foolishly praise have deigned it to now be a crime to not be in possession of a "State issued I.D." of which one would get at the DMV. Of course, it is not a crime, and I have had to match these errant LEO's threats with warnings of my own, and insisted on a duly elected Sheriff or Deputy of the Sheriff be called, while I continued to explain that all I need to do is swear by verified oath that I am who I say I am, and this is more than enough. I have never been arrested, merely threatened with the arrest simply because I refuse to go along with all of these identification schemes. Hypocrite? I think those who matter to me in this site know who the hypocrite in this thread is.




Apparently, you do not agree with lawful passing of statutes and regulations, voted on either directly or indirectly by the people of this republic.


Apparently you do not understand what lawfully passing legislation means. Apparently you have no idea what judicial review means. Apparently you have no regard for the rule of law what-so-ever.




Correct. For yourself.


Here again is an example of the disingenuous equivocation you rely upon. You purposely cut out of my quote the assertion that all people have the right to reserve their rights. You have done this foolishly so, as if people will not recognize what you are doing. It is demonstrative of just how stupid you think "it" is...that would be your characterization of the public.




Oh, so NOW rights become laws?


Many in this thread get how dense you are being, but I will patiently explain. No, not NOW do rights become laws. Rights were always law. It is just that simple.




Why on earth would they need to be enumerated when we have the good old ninth amendment?


This is precisely why so many were dead set against a Bill of Rights to begin with, and the Ninth was drafted to appease that concern. Here is the fact in this thread, while you continue to dismiss mine and others understanding of the Ninth Amendment, you have not even attempted to explain what you think it means. Why is that, I wonder?



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 12:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by RestingInPieces
 





The simple fact of the matter is that licensing and registration schemes do not provide these trained drivers you are harping on.


What the hell is this supposed to mean, then?



No one in this thread has argued at all that people have the right to drive without being properly trained to do so


Where are these people getting their training then, and are they doing it legally or being wreckless about it? You make zero sense.



If this were true there would not be prisons, and fines, or tort law. Keep kidding yourself, but you are not fooling the rational thinkers of this thread. Constructed societies exist because individuals endeavored to construct them, warts and all.


Constructed societies exist because the people choose to keep them.

It is true, and prisons, fines, and tort law are all part of these rules and regulations. You can cherry pick reality all you want to defend your false perception, but you aren't fooling anybody other than yourself.



No one in this thread arguing that driving is a right and not a privilege has made any such assertion. This is the type of lying I am talking about. You feel compelled to lie and present your opponents argument as you have because if you spoke to your opponents argument honestly you would look just as foolish. The only difference between your foolishness now, and the foolishness of attempting to honestly address your opponents points while still maintaining your position, is that the latter would at least be honorable, the former is demonstrative of something else entirely.


Hey, at lest I *can* present an argument. You're argument is a malleable goo that keeps shifting around. I've been talking to you for how many posts (and we've done this before, same subject) and I still get surprised by every post you make.

If you *do* have any argument, it is *precisely* that you *only* don't want to have to be licensed to drive, and that is it. It's a paper-thin pathetic argument based in supposition that driving is a right we are born with.

I honestly doubt that you feel you are presenting a strong argument anyway. All you do is type little quips and jabs as if they mean anything. Not to mention the idiotic and completely wrong analysis of my online personality. You sound like someone who majored in psychology for two years and then dropped out.



Here is a prime example of the blind faith you put into the religious dogma of the authority of the state. If the legislature were to legislate an act requiring Pi being treated as 3.0 in order to make the math easier, you would sing its praises and declare "Hallelujah! Mathematics just got easier thanks to the Great and Powerful Legislature." Never mind the bridges that would collapse, the buildings that would fail because of this legislation, it is enough to know that a statute was put in place.


"Oh, blah blah more lies, blah blah foolishness" You are a complete hypocrite. You are full of LIES!!!!!!! LIES!!!!

You are actually, and pathetically comparing change the value of a constant to a populace voting for drivers who drive on THEIR roads to be licensed? Nice one.



A license by definition is the grant of permission to do an act that would otherwise be illegal. This is the complaint with the licensing scheme for driving vehicles, and no on other than yourself is relying on "magic", but then again, no one other than yourself believes "reality" is decided by legislative fiat.


If you want to know what the definition of driver's license or license is, go look at the supplied definition in the context of the statute that it appears.

You don't pick up (well, you do obviously) general definitions and apply them to statutes which have terms defined.



It is clearly what you want, and other fearful sycophants of tyranny, but you do not represent the public, you are just a single sycophantic rhetorical automaton who apparently believes it is your duty to lecture the public on what the law is, even though you have no understanding of the law, even though you have demonstrated in the very thread that your pretense at legalese is akin to a child mimicking their parents language.


Ok boss, just point me to the online dictionaries where you studied and I'll be a lawyer like you in no time.



Why don't you give us another lecture about the PRIVATE court cases you know all about?


Apparently, you don't read normal dictionaries. You must be spending so much time with the online legal dictionaries that you no longer speak the language of the commoners. Here, I'll help you out:



pertaining to or affecting a particular person or a small group of persons; individual; personal: for your private

confined to or intended only for the persons immediately concerned; confidential: a private meeting.

not holding public office or employment: private citizens.

not of an official or public character: private life.



Obviously, none of those court cases can be described with the above definitions of PRIVATE.
Maybe you can refute me by checking on the online legal dictionary?



For crying out loud, do you even pay attention to the language you use? "Talk to it..."?


You see, I've been theorizing that because your posts are so disjoined in logic and context, that you may suffer from some type of cognitive impairment. I suppose I was right, considering you can't even remember what you wrote a few posts back:

"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."

"Speaking? Bah! Blah Blah Blah!! What kind of language!

Of course, because you have no REAL argument here, you continue to pick out trivial things... sad really. I am very sorry for your lots.




Would you mean by "it" the public? Is this how you view the public? Some gargantuan it you can actually talk to as a living breathing entity. If you had ever bothered to talk to the public at all, you would understand that doing so requires talking to many, many people, and if you had ever bothered to do that you would discover that no so many of these people buy into your nonsense.


I don't know. Apparently you view the Ninth Amendment as something you can talk to... Likewise, if you bothered speaking to anyone except for your precious, then you might see that the majority of people want other drivers to be licensed.




You keep getting more and more absurd with each post. Are you asserting that if this bill passed that people would stop driving because their confidence in "safe" roads and highways would collapse? What do you do just sit at your key board and let your fingers type the mental diarrhea that squirts out of your brain? If you are going to make such assertions the least you could do is attempt to back them up with some sort of evidence to support the argument. I guess that School of Logical Fallacy you graduated from really paid off...in spades.


... says you as you are sliding down the slope. Your purpose here is becoming more and more obvious.




All law is self evident.


Great, another supposition...



All laws of justice are premised on the foundation of the lawful right to self defense. This is not supposition. This is self evidently so.


It's not a supposition. It's worse, it's a proposition assumed true without proof by it's very nature.



I do not drive a car you buffoon!


Yeah, yeah, you "travel" in one... sure, we get it.




You could care less that the tyrants you so foolishly praise have deigned it to now be a crime to not be in possession of a "State issued I.D." of which one would get at the DMV.


We live in a sociecty. How do you expect people to be accountable for themselves? A microchip? Maybe you are fine with just "I swear my name is ... " but anyone with a brain wouldn't be.



I continued to explain that all I need to do is swear by verified oath that I am who I say I am, and this is more than enough.


I'll be waiting for that to come up for a vote.



I think those who matter to me in this site know who the hypocrite in this thread is.


Starting to lean on external support, huh?




Here again is an example of the disingenuous equivocation you rely upon. You purposely cut out of my quote the assertion that all people have the right to reserve their rights.


Correct, all people can reserve rights for themselves. People can reserve rights that the State has not reserverd, and the State can reserve rights that the Federal Government has not reserved. See the nice structure there fella?



Many in this thread get how dense you are being, but I will patiently explain. No, not NOW do rights become laws. Rights were always law.


Your support structure again: Other people, and suppositions.



Ninth Amendment, you have not even attempted to explain what you think it means. Why is that, I wonder?


"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Let's see... The... listings... in.... rights... interpret... deny.... belittle.... retained...

"It's impossible to enumerate every right imaginable, and consequently every action that the government can't do, so if "driving" ever comes into question, just tell the cops to screw off!"



edit on 4-2-2011 by RestingInPieces because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 02:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 




The simple fact of the matter is that licensing and registration schemes do not provide these trained drivers you are harping on. No one in this thread has argued at all that people have the right to drive without being properly trained to do so, any more than gun advocates argue that people have the right to keep and bear arms without proper training. Do you honestly believe your bad smoke and mirror parlor tricks confuse the issue.


Describe me a system which ensures only people properly trained will have the right to drive on public roads, which does not use licensing or some equivalent of it. Otherwise you ARE arguing that all that people should have the right to drive without being properly trained to do so!



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Here again is an example of the disingenuous equivocation you rely upon. You purposely cut out of my quote the assertion that all people have the right to reserve their rights.



Correct, all people can reserve rights for themselves. People can reserve rights that the State has not reserverd, and the State can reserve rights that the Federal Government has not reserved. See the nice structure there fella?

To expound upon this, because I am certain you will cover it in goo and rearrange out however it pleases your case: notice that it says "the people" and not "each person". When "the people" propose a bill or a statute, or decide to vote on a proposed bill or statute, then it logically follows that if such a statute or bill confers a restriction upon an unenumerated right and that the people have voted FOR such a restriction, then one must conclude that "the people" have elected NOT to retain that right.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 





Describe me a system which ensures only people properly trained will have the right to drive on public roads, which does not use licensing or some equivalent of it. Otherwise you ARE arguing that all that people should have the right to drive without being properly trained to do so!


You have failed to describe a system which ensures only people properly trained will be driving on public roads. DMV's do not even come close to ensuring that properly trained drivers are the only ones issued drivers licenses. Every state DMV has issued licenses to people of dubious driving skills, and actual proper training of driving an automobile goes well beyond the simple driving test, and written test that DMV's require in order to obtain a license. What you are arguing is that it doesn't matter that the DMV's fail to issue license to only properly trained drivers, it's the thought that counts. It is a sloppy thought that is not at all well thought out and taken to its ultimate conclusion, the doling out of this so called privilege has nothing to do with road safety and has much more to do with aggregation of power. It is a bureaucratic system that ensures nothing other than revenue collection.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

DMV's do not even come close to ensuring that properly trained drivers are the only ones issued drivers licenses. Every state DMV has issued licenses to people of dubious driving skills, and actual proper training of driving an automobile goes well beyond the simple driving test, and written test that DMV's require in order to obtain a license.


They come a lot closer than "everyone has a natural right to drive" license.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


They surely come closer than no license at all. There are surely exceptions, but thats a moot point, because the legitimacy or morality of a law has NOTHING to do with our ability to enforce it. Or would you argue that murdering or stealing should be legalised if somehow police would not be able to prevent all murders or robberies everywhere?



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by RestingInPieces
 





Correct, all people can reserve rights for themselves. People can reserve rights that the State has not reserverd, and the State can reserve rights that the Federal Government has not reserved. See the nice structure there fella?


Both the State and Federal government cannot "reserve" any "rights", it is power that has been delegated to them by we the people . You are the one who keeps insisting that members in this site show you where in the Constitution it say's that people have the right to drive, but look at the crap you write. Show us where in the Constitution the Federal government has any right to "reserve" rights to that institution. There is nothing, Constitutionally speaking, that authorizes either the federal, or the states, to "reserve" rights to each institution respectively.

There is the 10th Amendment, which reads:




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.


Take note how the word "rights" is not at all mentioned in the 10th Amendment. It is a delineation of power, and what has been delegated to the federal government is reserved for the federal government, what power has not been delegated to the federal government is reserved to the States, but this is just part of what that Amendment is saying. It also makes clear that what powers have been prohibited by the United States Constitution to the States are powers that States do not have. There is no mention at all about any powers being prohibited to the People by that Constitution, nor does it use the term and/or when explaining that those powers not belonging to the federal government either belong to the States, or the people. See the nice, and actual structure there, fella?




To expound upon this, because I am certain you will cover it in goo and rearrange out however it pleases your case: notice that it says "the people" and not "each person". When "the people" propose a bill or a statute, or decide to vote on a proposed bill or statute, then it logically follows that if such a statute or bill confers a restriction upon an unenumerated right and that the people have voted FOR such a restriction, then one must conclude that "the people" have elected NOT to retain that right.


Cover in goo the goo you have blurted out? Rearrange the rearrangement of Constitutional powers you have disingenuously posted?

Your silly games of semantics are no where near the level of a linguist, or rhetorical master. Your game of pointing out that "it" say's "the people" and not "each person" is nonsensical. Are you suggesting that rights exist in a collective sense only, and do not exist on an individual basis? Is it your argument that "each person" does not have the right to free speech, or to publish, or freedom to exercise their religion to the dictates of their own conscience? Are you arguing that "each person" does not have an individual right to keep and bear arms, and that only collectives do? Are you arguing that a soldier can quarter "each persons" house, and the "owner" is only meant to describe collectives?

You earlier made reference to the U.S.'s "democratic republic" but apparently have no idea what is meant by the Constitutional guarantee of a republic to each state. In the United States, either by the federal government, or by the state or local governments, it is unlawful to deny or disparage the rights of people, and this is not to say that people collectively cannot have their rights denied or disparaged - of which of course, they can - but that individuals cannot have their rights denied or disparaged by the federal, state, or local governments.

The "people" cannot, on a federal level, demand that Congress legislate an act that denies individuals the right to free speech and expect this to be treated as lawful legislation. That "Congress shall make no laws respecting..." is pretty damn clear, and it matters not if Congress has passed legislation that denies the collective, or an individual the right to worship religion freely, or speech, or of the press or to peaceably assemble or to petition the government for a redress of grievances, and it matters not if the majority of people who elected the members of Congress agree with this legislation, if it is unlawful then it cannot stand as law.

This is why judges have the authority of judicial review. This is why every individual charged with certain crimes have the right to a jury of their peers. If the "crime" in question is some unlawful act of legislation, individuals have the right to challenge that legislation and assert their rights, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

It does not logically follow that majorities have the power to deny or disparage the rights of individuals simply because they simulated a legal process in doing so. This is evident by the federal Constitution and the prohibitory nature of the Bill of Rights respecting governmental power, and it is evident in every State Constitution. Let's just look at some of the enumerated rights of just a few of the State Constitutions.


Section 1:

Source of Power

All political power is inherent in the people and government is instituted for their protection, security and benefit; and they have the right to alter, reform or abolish the same, in such manner as they may think proper.


Article II, Section 1; Arkansas Constitution

All political power is inherent in the people, and it logically follows that every individual is a holder of that political power, and that government was instituted for their protection, individually and collectively, their security, individually and collectively, and their benefit, individually and collectively. In terms of the right to alter, reform, or abolish the same, it logically follows that such an undertaking would have to necessarily be accomplished collectively, but is not necessarily reserved for the collective, and individuals have at all times the authority of non acquiescence, which is to say that if their right/s are being denied or disparaged, they do not have to acquiesce to such a thing, and can on an individual basis alter, reform, and even if they have the wherewithal to do so, abolish that part of a government that has denied and/or disparaged their right/s.

It also logically follows that this inherent political power was not granted to them by government, and this is why the word "inherent" is used. It also logically follows that governments that do grant "rights" are not inclined to grant the right to alter, reform, or abolish that government in such a manner as they think proper.


Section 2:

Freedom and Independence

All men are created equally free and independent, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights; amongst which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; of acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and reputation; and of pursuing their own happiness. To secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed


Article II, Section 2; Arkansas Constitution

All men are created equally free and independent, and this is not an exclusionary Clause denying women that same equality and independence, and it logically follows that women are also created equally (under the law) free and independent, and all have certain inherent and inalienable rights...and to secure these rights governments are instituted and derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. There is nothing about this section, nor section 1 that supports your arguments, but certainly supports mine.


Section 3:

Equality Before the Law

The equality of all persons before the law is recognized, and shall ever remain inviolate; nor shall any citizen ever be deprived of any right, privilege or immunity; nor exempted from any burden or duty, on account of race, color or previous condition.


Article II, Section 3; Arkansas Constitution

Equality under the law, which means that all people have the same rights, and that these rights ever remain inviolate. Again, this language only supports my argument, and not at all yours.

The next several sections are certain enumerated rights which I will not compel anyone to read in this post, but will post Section 29, for obvious reasons:


Section 29:

Enumeration of Rights of People Not Exclusive of Other Rights -

Protection Against Encroachment This enumeration of rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people; and to guard against any encroachments on the rights herein retained, or any transgression of any of the higher powers herein delegated, we declare that everything in this article is excepted out of the general powers of the government; and shall forever remain inviolate; and that all laws contrary thereto, or to the other provisions herein contained, shall be void.


Article II, Section 29; Arkansas Constitution

Shall be void! Do you understand how your argument that the "people" have the "right" to deny and disparage certain rights through legislation has no legal authority in the State of Arkansas? Your argument is a useless one when confronted with Section 29 of their Constitution.

Let's look at another State Constitution:


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.


Article I, Section 1; California Constitution


SEC. 24. Rights guaranteed by this Constitution are not dependent on those guaranteed by the United States Constitution...This declaration of rights may not be construed to impair or deny
others retained by the people.


Article I, Section 24; California Constitution (In part.)

Before you begin again with your absurd notion that because a phrase is stated "the people" and not "each person" it means something other than what it means, pay close attention to Section 1 which states that "all people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights". It is disingenuous to infer that rights are only recognized as a collective concept, and that individuals cannot rely upon their rights as individuals because the Constitution that did not grant them their rights didn't phrase it in a way you think proper to make clear that individuals who have inalienable rights are included in the prohibitions placed upon the State of California regarding those rights.

Let's take a look at one more State Constitution just for good measure:


SECTION 1. INHERENT AND INALIENABLE RIGHTS

All men are by nature free and independent and have certain inherent and inalienable rights among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. To secure these rights and the protection of property, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.


Article I, Section 1; Illinois Constitution


SECTION 24. RIGHTS RETAINED The enumeration in this Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the individual citizens of the State.


Article I, Section 24; Illinois Constitution

Now pay strict attention to the language of Section 24 of the Illinois Constitution. Apparently the people of Illinois, being acutely aware of the disingenuous nature of people like you, took great care to make perfectly clear that any unenumerated rights that exist, exist for all individual "citizens" of that State.

There are just too many states to list all of them in a single post to show that your arguments are baseless. If you think you can find even one State Constitution that supports your arguments, then by all means, find that Constitution and post it. Good luck with that.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 





They surely come closer than no license at all. There are surely exceptions, but thats a moot point, because the legitimacy or morality of a law has NOTHING to do with our ability to enforce it. Or would you argue that murdering or stealing should be legalised if somehow police would not be able to prevent all murders or robberies everywhere?


They "surely" come closer, do they? Prove it. There are "surely exceptions, but that's a moot point", is it? Why is it moot, and what exceptions are you talking about? The legitimacy and "morality" of a law has EVERYTHING to do with the ability to enforce it. Case in point, the 18th Amendment and the subsequent legislation prohibiting alcohol. Some would argue this was a "moral law", and in terms of legitimacy the Supreme Court certainly upheld the 18th Amendment as "legitimate", and even so, Congress was forced to repeal this Amendment 13 years later precisely because they could not enforce it, and because it created more problems than it attempted to fix.

In terms of murder and theft, I keep making the same argument, ad nauseum at this point, that murder and theft are natural laws that cannot lawfully be "legalized". Murder and theft is an abrogation and derogation of rights, and no one has the right to abrogate and derogate the right of another. This is my argument. What is yours?


edit on 4-2-2011 by Jean Paul Zodeaux because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by MMPI2 ...each of us is a Sovereign/King/President in our own right.

Please. Don't dismiss the stuff here that's been discussed and presented. It is hard to "think around" the programming to which we have been subjected, but once you get into the practice of it you will find that you look at your life and world in a much different and richer way.


here! here!



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 09:45 PM
link   
This guy isn't serious is he? He thinks that requiring a license to drive is a violation of Constitutional rights?

You VOLUNTARILY sign up for a driver's license when you decide to drive. It's not a right to be able to drive.

Therefore, you have to agree to any provision that you need to be allowed to drive.

Taking driver's licenses away would be INSANE.



new topics

top topics



 
35
<< 13  14  15    17 >>

log in

join