Ga. Lawmaker Proposes Doing Away With Driver's Licenses

There is no basic right to travel by car, it is a privilege that should be granted only to those that have proven some appropiate ability to drive safely on public roads. Large portion of accidents are commited by new drivers, so driver licences need to be more strict, if anything.

"Drivers" by definition, have a tendency to be employed in the business of operating a conveyance to move people or goods.

"Travelers" are just conveying themselves, and their possessions, perhaps.

Conveyances change with time, and allowing time to change the meanings of words is a great way to accommodate folks that are more concerned about limiting the liberty of others, rather than enjoying their own.

"Drivers" by definition, have a tendency to be employed in the business of operating a conveyance to move people or goods.

"Travelers" are just conveying themselves, and their possessions, perhaps.

Conveyances change with time, and allowing time to change the meanings of words is a great way to accommodate folks that are more concerned about limiting the liberty of others, rather than enjoying their own.

Originally posted by Human_Alien

Originally posted by Miraj
reply to post by Human_Alien

 

I understand the proposition.

I also understand that cars take time to learn to operate and it would be a horrible idea to let any one just drive a car without proving they can blend with the rest of traffic and that they are capable of controlling their vehicle.

I've had a few experience where experience and ability to control the card made the difference between a dead (or seriously injured) and a live person.

But it all boils down to money/revenue. Why can't I....a licensed driver, teach someone else to drive?
Clearly I'm qualified cause I paid for that card telling me so!

But nope!
It has to be from an instructor (who knows no more about driving than I do) where he.... had to take classes to BECOME a certified teacher.....who then, turns around to charge YOU to learn to drive where YOU then, go PAY for a permit until it's time to PAY for a license.

And oh no. The fun doesn't stop there.
The car you're about to receive as a gift?
You now have to pay taxes on it and....you'll have to register it too!

That's right. That free car your daddy gifted you? Comes with a hefty price tag! Oh...then you have to carry insurance on it so if you hit another car, a good lawyer (that you hire of course) can turn a little fender bender into a profitable law suit!
The fun just never stops here in this Free and greedy country o'ours

The license certifies you to drive,not to teach others.You must have a centralized,regulated hub for training to make sure the core competencies are being correctly taught. Imagine if you,holding only your license,taught someone how to drive and then that person turned around taught someone else how to drive, ect... Imagine the level of knowledge and skill the 20th person down the line would possess. Not good...

This is why a Ph.D. can't just teach someone in his or her home and then print out a diploma for them. Teaching of anything requires peer review and oversight. There have to be checks and balances in the way knowledge is taught and how people are evaluated during the learning process to ensure the best level of quality and consistency. Teaching,by the way,requires a wholly different set and type of core competencies. Just because you know how to do something doesn't mean you know how to teach. Learning and teaching are two different animals entirely.

Not everything is a conspiracy or full-frontal assault on our well-being. Some things.like car insurance, are actually in our best interest,even if we don't really like them.

Meh. I don't know. This both doesn't make sense and raises a couple of red flags.

Constitutional and free travel arguments aside, there is a demonstrated need for some sort of ID. The drivers license has thus far saved us from a "national ID card" that could be worse.

In addition, if they're trying to herd us toward a no-currency state, they could use this as an argument to say "look how convenient and all-purpose this all is!" You don't need any ID...no drivers license, no credit cards, just one all-purpose, all-controlling chip!

Could be a set up.

And finally, people are bad enough drivers with licensing tests that demonstrate at least a bare minimum of control over their vehicles. Can you imagine what would happen without it? Shudder.

Nice utopian ideal but huge reality fail.

Do the Amish need a licence to have a horse drawn buggy?

NO? Why NOT???

Oh , because we DO have a right to travel....

Does the Constitution say "Right to bare horses and carriages" No???

Therefore it is implied that cars fall under the same distinction as carriages.

Also, rocket packs fall under this too.

Yes you have a right to a rocket pack(if you can build it).

The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by horse drawn carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city can prohibit or permit at will, but a common Right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." [emphasis added] Thompson vs. Smith, 154 SE 579.

Well well well....

and

"...For while a Citizen has the Right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that Right does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose no person has a vested right to use the highways of the state, but is a privilege or a license which the legislature may grant or withhold at its discretion." State vs. Johnson, 243 P. 1073; Hadfield, supra; Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171; Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 256; and other cases too numerous to mention.

Let's not forget this one...

"Heretofore the court has held, and we think correctly, that while a Citizen has the Right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that Right does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place of business for private gain." Barney vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82; Willis vs. Buck, 263 P.l 982.

Or this one...

"The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business." Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784; Thompson vs. Smith, supra.

Please read the actual law people.
Please go get some law books and check out the Truth written within.

Citizens can travel freely in any device they choose, but businesses and corporations must obtain licencing since their use of the roadways for profit is an 'extraordinary' use.

It's really simple and the courts agree....

Doing away with licences may not be the best idea. Since it's only corporations who are required to get them in the first place.

Why should we allow corporations to freely use our public roadways for profits? For the state, it's a source of tax revenue.

The sad truth is, that 99% of citizens believe THEY ARE corporate entities.

You don't need a license to drive. Tell me where you insert your driving license when you enter a vehicle? You don't. You insert a key, meaning a key is necessary to start a car, (unless you have a car that starts without a key) but a license is just a piece of paper that gives one the impression of capability not actual capability to drive.

Originally posted by filosophia
You don't need a license to drive. Tell me where you insert your driving license when you enter a vehicle? You don't. You insert a key, meaning a key is necessary to start a car, (unless you have a car that starts without a key) but a license is just a piece of paper that gives one the impression of capability not actual capability to drive.

A Driver's Licence is a regulation and a taxation of for-profit use of the public roadways.

It's as simple as that.

The term "driver" in contradistinction to "traveler" is defined as: "Driver One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle..." Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., p. 940.

"Travel: To journey or to pass through or over; as a country district, road, etc. To go from one place to another, whether on foot, or horseback, or in any conveyance as a train, an automobile, carriage, ship, or aircraft; Make a journey." Century Dictionary, p.2034.

"Traveler: One who passes from place to place, whether for pleasure, instruction, business, or health." Locket vs. State, 47 Ala. 45; Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., p. 3309.

"Traffic: Commerce, trade, sale or exchange of merchandise, bills, money, or the like. The passing of goods and commodities from one person to another for an equivalent in goods or money..."; Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., p. 3307.

Some sources to review.
link
link2
link3

Originally posted by joechip

So just to comprehend your thoughts about "traveling on the land" are you saying that airline pilots shouldn't have to be trained or licensed as well? How about Air Force pilots? Or professional drivers such as taxicab; livery car? Should someone with 5 DUI's be able to pick you up in a cab; or fly a plane?

reply to post by zcflint05

 

Actually, I believe these examples you cite would fall quite comfortably under the legitimate regulatory powers of congress, being commercial "driving" rather than "traveling." Interesting you should use these examples, as they kind of illustrate the types of "driving" that may Constitutionally be regulated and licensed.

Good point. These types of activities would be classified as commerce, which is allowed to be regulated.
The people who bring up drunk drivers, the issue isn't having a piece of people saying you can drive, it's enforcement. If you cause an accident or death, the crime should be assault or murder and charged accordingly. Whether or not you have a license is irrelevant.

Originally posted by krakencampbell
I think this is a terrific idea. And for those of you that are complaining about "well, what about drunk drivers and others that can cause harm by being behind the wheel", guess what, they're driving now, right on our streets every day. I say this, let this law pass, and the if you get pulled over for dui, the state gets your vehicle. If you're dui and cause an accident, the state gets your vehicle. If you are dui and cause an accident with a death involved, you get the death penilty (an eye for an eye). You people act like just because someone is driving they actually have a license. Their are quite a few that do not.

You seriously think it's a 'terrific idea' to allow anyone to operate something weighing a few thousand pounds that can travel at great speed to roam about freely.

Sorry, but I think it's idiotic. To get a driver's license, you need to show you're capable not only of driving the vehicle in the first place, but also know the laws of driving. What do you seriously think would happen when you allow tens/hundreds of thousands of people with no training to go out, buy a car & start driving it about the streets/freeways? It would be absolute carnage!

A license isn't a restriction/violation of freedom, it's a badge that shows you're legally qualified to drive a dangerous machine on the public streets/freeways.

The clown who is proposing this should be struck off as he's obviously not fit for purpose!

Someone has the right idea about freedom.

Imagine that, being able to travel without zed paperz, Heil!

reply to post by Hefficide


This is not a waste of time.
First there are generations of who don't even know what rights are? They have been brain washed into the "fall in line and follow" generation. This lets people know there was a different way and we have evolved away from that and in some instances not in a good way. Will this get traction, I doubt it. Will it get people asking questions? Yes, and when people start asking questions we empower them to seek knowledge. Seeking knowledge leads to unseeding of corruption.

Originally posted by SlyingFaucers
reply to post by Human_Alien

 

I dont see why you would not first deem one fit to drive?

I do see your point, but the fact of the matter is this deterrent does keep a large portion of dangeroous drivers off of the road.

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

Just because you can parallel park and manage to brake and drive in traffic does NOT mean you're a good or safe driver.

Driving comes down to common sense and constant observation which.....many are losing anyway.
So if they want to test people for common sense and their ability to pay attention then, I'm all for it.

If people were deemed good drivers because they possess a license then, why does south Florida have an accident every five minutes?

Again, this law is not about good or bad drivers. It's about the Right to drive without a license.

Hey, real bad, mean, unloving, semi-psycho, drug addicted, drunkard people have children.
Should they?
Probably not.
But, it's their RIGHT to bear children.

It's not a perfect world but let's not lose sight of our Rights verses pre-qualifications!

Maybe perhaps a better approach would be: give everyone their due-Rights then, once they abuse them (in any way) then, take it away until proven worthy of having them again?

That to me would solve a lot of issues.

But, I don't think this world, as we know it, will continue much longer anyway.
So 'licences' will be the least of our concerns in the not too near future.
Something will happen and all this 'freedom' we think we have now? Will be gone.
So.......be it as it may.

To Everyone claiming that because we didn't have Cars 200 years ago that the constitution doesn't apply. We had health 200 years ago and there was nothing in the Constitution referring to any "rights to it" and guess what? The FDA says exactly that. "There is No Generalized Right to Bodily and Physical Health."

www.gaia-health.com...

There is a right to travel on public roads and since we cannot use anything but motorized vehicles to access said roads then yes driving must in fact be deemed a "right" and not a privilege in order to pursue the right to the "fruits of your own labor" which you do in fact have a right to.

To all people deemed to drive because you possess a driver's license:



And if you're honest you'll note, they DON'T teach that in driver's ed!
So I go back to good drivers aren't good because they can safely merge into traffic!

Being good is about being alert (which most aren't) and that includes towards your own government, their agenda and of course, their cover-ups!

reply to post by Human_Alien


Sounds good in a fashion. But if you think about how bad the drivers are already. How much worse will it get after a bill like this passes. Drunk drivers, 13yo riding on books. There is no way this bill really passes.
How many people will this kill?

Hmmm. What about car insurance. I would guess, and this is only a guess, that insurance companies would lobby for it, so they themselves can then further raise their prices. I.e.
Insurance co.: Oh mr. Smith you need car insurance...well that will be 800.00/ month.
Mr Smith: but I'm a great driver just check my driving record.
Insurance co: oh poor mr smith...didn't you hear, they did away with those last month...all principals and deductibles have subsequently gone up because , well to be honest, we have no way to account for any of the drivers on the road. We just have to plan for the worst you know. Will that be cash or charge.

No incentive to even be a responsible driver. No way for insurance competition for the better drivers in the pool.