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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
I have relied upon sound logic and reasoning
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.
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.
The Ninth Amendment ... means I personally have every right I reserve for myself
That is what makes rights law, it is simple, true, universal and absolute.
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.
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 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..
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".
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.
Apparently, you do not agree with lawful passing of statutes and regulations, voted on either directly or indirectly by the people of this republic.
Correct. For yourself.
Oh, so NOW rights become laws?
Why on earth would they need to be enumerated when we have the good old ninth amendment?
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)
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.
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.
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!
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.