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: 6
35
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 12:04 PM
link   
i know that i cannot ever beg for permission to do something that is not unlawful like drive again. I will not register my property to be under the control of a criminal enterprise again. Thank you to those involved in the right to travel act. I have not read it yet. It sounds like a great idea. I hope that I am not disappointed by manipulation in reading it.




posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 12:16 PM
link   
According to the statistics, the United States has 12.3 traffic fatalities per 100K of the population whereas the UK only has 3.59. Canada has 9.2 fatalities but isn't as densely populated either.

Germany still has stretches of the Autobahn with absolutely no speed limits, where I personally have reached almost 170mph in my Porsche years ago before lifting off of the accelerator due to traffic.

Even with no speed limits still in Germany, They still only have 5.5 traffic fatalities per capita which is less than half of those in the USA.

Why ? Because they are required to do more than simply parallel park and learn the rules of the road in which to gain a drivers license.

It isn't a freedom issue, it's a safety issue. One still has the right to travel which in essence is what the constitution was originally referring to.

I can still travel freely on foot without a license. I can still travel freely using my bicycle without a license.
Or I could travel by horseback as well if I wanted .....
I can even travel using my moped without a license since it is less than 5 HP and tops out at 25 mph.

The difference being that it is highly unlikely that my bicycle could suddenly go out of control and kill someone.

If one looks back at the dawn of the motorcar, people were being killed left and right simply due to the fact that there were no rules. If you could afford a car then you just got in and drove regardless of whether you were Blind, handicapped ....it didn't matter if you could afford to buy the car.

But as the roadways became more crowded AND more and more people were killed simply due to there being no rules.
There had to be some semblance of organization and rules. Getting everyone on the same page so to speak.

If you want to see what an unregulated system of driving looks like then simply go driving in Mexico where they have 20.7 fatalities per capita.

There is blatant disregard for traffic signals, speed limits and stop signs are completely voluntary.
And if you get in an accident, you simply conveniently run away !



en.wikipedia.org...




edit on 1-2-2011 by nh_ee because: Typos



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 12:26 PM
link   
While it pains me to say it because I'm all for personal freedom and rights without government intervention, my opinion (and I'll explain) is that *driving* is not a right.

First you must define what driving is. Seems stupid at first, but is riding a bicycle driving? Is operating one of those scooters you push along with one foot driving?

Lets define it as operating a machine able to transport you from one place to another under it's own power capable of exceeding (a predetermined) speed and exceeding (a predetermined) weight... for example, a motor vehicle. You may freely operate a motor vehicle on private property without a license. Speed, do doughnuts, jump ramps and kill yourself in the process ... any crazy thing you want so long as you do not endanger others.

Operating that machine on public roads without endangering others requires some level of competency. This is where licensing comes in. Requiring a license to operate a motor vehicle does not negate your right to travel. You are free to walk, ride a bicycle, have someone else drive you, etc ... Licensing ensures (at least it is supposed to) that you have the basic skills to operate that machinery safely on public roads.

I agree that license renewals and vehicle registration are just revenue streams.

And why does someone ALWAYS compare this to the second amendment? Well, if you can drive without a license because of the 'right to travel', does that mean you can own a nuclear weapon because of the 'right to bear arms'?

First, 'driving' is not specifically mentioned in the constitution .. only traveling. The right to keep and bear arms is, so right off the bat you can't compare the two.

Secondly, why yes .. you should be able to own anything considered arms including machine guns, grenade and rocket launchers. You would be surprised at what you are able to obtain legally.

WHAT?!?!! That's crazy talk!!!!

No, not really. Owning any physical object should be the business of nobody but you. Putting that object to use is another story. Threatening to use it extends beyond mere possession and now becomes a criminal matter but the simple act of possessing something should not be illegal.

The second amendment was put into place as a means for the people to fight against tyranny if necessary. The founders would, IMO based on their writings, expect the people to be able to posses any weapon that the government or invading force is capable of using against them.

But now I've strayed off topic......



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 12:36 PM
link   
yes it would be nice to drive with out having to prove you can by a piece of plastic, or to prove who you are just by saying you are you we sad to say it just is not so nor will it be the feds have done and gone it the NATIONAL ID is the REAL ID program see for your self non citizen i have mine do you have yours www.flhsmv.gov... i think we all nee to read this. sad to say, but i do not think the op's thread bill will pass.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 12:39 PM
link   
I hate to say it but I'm kindof against this. As far as I know, everybody has the right and ability to get a driver's license and to travel freely with it. It's not until they cause serious vehicular crimes, such as driving while under the influence, or harming/killing another person does their right get restricted or taken away.

As long as people are responsible with their vehicles, as it should be, there's nothing restricting their right to drive or travel in a car.

Operating a car isn't some simple, safe thing. You can easily kill yourself or others if you don't understand how it operates or the rules of the roads.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Royal76
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?


Maybe this is a part of a bigger agenda? De-population? (just kidding)

Personally, I don't care anyway. This world has officially spun out of control and any amendment that may possibly fix a small problem is like putting a band aide on a broken bone.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Primordial
 


I'm going to do a little futuristic projection. Let's say (try if you will to imagine) we learn to teleport ourselves. Which I don't believe is impossible. Do you mean to tell me the government will then control that?

It's the same thing. And although we cannot even fathom what kind of problems that might entail, I am sure, the government will convince you it's for your own good that they control that too.

I think the fact that many people are so screwed up (and might not be deemed 'good drivers' etc) is due to being the bi-product of rules, laws (vaccinations etc), restrictions, goals, expectation, money, classes, pressure, depression etc.

I feel if we were without governments and more spiritual? I think most people would get along fabulously.

Remember or better yet; realize (because it's right there in front of you....)
Govern = Control
Mental = Your mind

There is NO coincidence in that word folks.
You are ALL slaves to the system. A system run by the Elite who do NOT care about you at all. They care about control which means, money.

Money
Money
Money



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


I truly do understand where you are coming from Human_Alien. I honestly do. I am as leery of systemic control as the next person.

But, having said that, I have learned, from life experiences, that some controls are there because... Well... Because they are necessary. Many of the laws we have, today, exist not because of avarice but, rather, because there was a past public outcry for them. And it can be hard for us, living under the prophylactic effect of those laws to really grasp what life without them would be like.

I honestly feel that the licensing of drivers is one of those areas. Now... if you want to address this issue from a slightly different POV... such as tax dollars covering the fees for licensing - IE, if you pay taxes, then you should receive this service without additional charge... these kinds of things are morally explorable for me.

But to imagine a world where anyone with the means to purchase a car and the ability to turn the key and reach the pedal could be on the same roads that I drive upon? That's just a scary thought. Even with the controls we have in place driving is just about the most dangerous part of my day. To exacerbate that risk seems frivolous to me.

~Heff



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Human_Alien
reply to post by Primordial
 


I'm going to do a little futuristic projection. Let's say (try if you will to imagine) we learn to teleport ourselves. Which I don't believe is impossible. Do you mean to tell me the government will then control that?

It's the same thing. And although we cannot even fathom what kind of problems that might entail, I am sure, the government will convince you it's for your own good that they control that too.

I think the fact that many people are so screwed up (and might not be deemed 'good drivers' etc) is due to being the bi-product of rules, laws (vaccinations etc), restrictions, goals, expectation, money, classes, pressure, depression etc.

I feel if we were without governments and more spiritual? I think most people would get along fabulously.

Remember or better yet; realize (because it's right there in front of you....)
Govern = Control
Mental = Your mind

There is NO coincidence in that word folks.
You are ALL slaves to the system. A system run by the Elite who do NOT care about you at all. They care about control which means, money.

Money
Money
Money


In an ideal world where there weren't so many stupid people, then yeah we could imagine a place with no rules and everyone did the right thing, got along, and no one got hurt. Unfortunately that's not the case.

In your scenario of the future where we are teleporting, you may not need a licence to BE teleported. You may only need one to operate the teleporter machine. Using my imagination I could envision a person who is not familiar with operating the machine properly obliterating someone into quantum particles never to be heard from again, or teleporting them to the proper destination ... but 200 feet too high, leaving them to suddenly begin accelerating to the proper location.

If I were being teleported somewhere I would want to be sure the operator knew what he was doing so as to not be blown into atoms never to be seen again. The only way I see to be sure of this is to have some regulatory agency responsible for certification.




I feel if we were without governments and more spiritual? I think most people would get along fabulously.


No, sadly we would just be warring with each other just as we always did, even before government existed.

"Government" isn't bad in and of itself, but there are bad governments. Ours has become so, though we (the American people) must take most of the blame for we have not upheld our responsibility as laid out in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution.
edit on 1-2-2011 by Primordial because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


You have a right to travel but not a right to put others in danger. A car is a 2 ton killing machine for those whom use it irresponsible. Driving is a privileged not a right. Same thing with anything that has the potential to do massive damage.

It's in the constitution too. You have a right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But look what comes first. Life threatening pursuits of happiness are fine as long as you are the only one involved. A car involves everyone.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by comody88
reply to post by Human_Alien
 
Although I tend to agree with just about any law that gives us more freedom and less gov't restrictions I really don't see how driver licenses are unconstitutional


It is a mandate that restricts travel within Georgia. Even the urban center of Atlanta is impossible to navigate and travel without a car and economically prohibitive in Georgia to rely upon a taxi. The license, which is stripped from many people, prevents travel which prevents economic success.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Human_Alien
 

You have a right to travel but not a right to put others in danger. A car is a 2 ton killing machine for those whom use it irresponsible. Driving is a privileged not a right. Same thing with anything that has the potential to do massive damage.

It's in the constitution too. You have a right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But look what comes first. Life threatening pursuits of happiness are fine as long as you are the only one involved. A car involves everyone.


I don't see how requiring a license, and by extension a license fee, has anything to do with what you have stated. If a driver does not have a license in Georgia, he/she gets in a car and drives anyway. If they cause an accident then it usually comes out later that the driver was not licensed (or was as is most often the case).



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by nh_ee
If you want to see what an unregulated system of driving looks like then simply go driving in Mexico where they have 20.7 fatalities per capita.

There is blatant disregard for traffic signals, speed limits and stop signs are completely voluntary.
And if you get in an accident, you simply conveniently run away !

edit on 1-2-2011 by nh_ee because: Typos


I've snipped most of your strawman. Your argument does not address the issue at all. It is not a declaration for an unregulated system. The traffic laws will exist and will be enforced. Comparing Europe and Atlanta (Georgia) - well it cannot be done. You have to drive in Atlanta (with a license) to understand that the license itself has no bearing on anything you've stated. Call it cultural if you like.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ararisq
It is a mandate that restricts travel within Georgia. Even the urban center of Atlanta is impossible to navigate and travel without a car and economically prohibitive in Georgia to rely upon a taxi.


Well maybe you're approaching this issue in the wrong way.

Perhaps you'd be better off advocating full pedestrian access to Atlanta city centre, thereby actually giving everybody the right to move and travel there without being forced to purchase a vehicle to do so.

I fail to see how getting a taxi could be economically prohibitive to somebody, when the cost of a car and petrol is far more economically prohibitive.


Originally posted by ararisq
The license, which is stripped from many people, prevents travel which prevents economic success.


Of course it doesn't prevent travel. This is a completely frivolous assertion.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 01:36 PM
link   
A driver's license isn't a right to travel. You can legally travel without a driver's license.

A "regular" driver's license is just a license to operate a non-commercial vehicle weighing less than 26,001 pounds. The operation includes proper knowledge of road signs, traffic maneuvers, emergency routines, etc.. etc...

It has *nothing* to do with traveling, and so neither do the tests that you must pass to gain state authorization to operate a < 26,001 lb vehicle in the public.

It's fairly obvious...



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by ararisq
 


I think your argument is valued for guns and things meant to hurt people. But for things that can hurt people but are not meant to, people have a different thought process. In as much as a gun is associated with war and power, a car is associated with freedom and power.

Note the difference.

power is what binds them both.

Those seeking destruction and power will get what they want irregardless of law. Those seeking power and freedom will wait to receive that freedom when promised.

The "if no one gets hurt its ok" approach is not wise. While it certainly is nice, the simple fact is that we need the defined legal term of what a car is and what a gun is and what they are used for. So that when someone misuses either, they can be charged accordingly.

But I certainly do not favor fees for either.

The simple fact is this. If you're some how unable to drive a car and try to, you have a much greater chance of killing people than if you don't know how to use a gun and try to. In the later case, mostly you'll just hurt yourself. in the first case, you may drive dozens of people off the road to their deaths.

This is why movement is a right, and why we have buses and trains etc etc (Which I also don't think should have fees), but if you are going to drive or something, you have to be bound to the state to certain responsibilities. It's the same with any militia, group, protesters, etc etc. You have to have responsibility bound to the state in public forums where you could hurt other people very fast and very carelessly. Now if you want to take your car and drive however you want on the land you freely purchased, go right ahead. Your land, your rules. As long as everyone's happy, the state is not needed. but in a public forum, responsibility is key. Recklessness leads to the downfall of society. I assume you would treat the people you elected into office with the same responsibility. Think of a car as your road-based politician. You elected to get the one that would serve you and privilege you the best. You elected to get one that would keep you safe and obey the people's rights, but make sure that your own rights are not violated. A car, much like a politician, is a careful selection with much responsibility put into selecting the right one. without responsibility, you could do horrible things with a wild car and a wild politician.

That said, that doesn't mean ban people from voting whom are retarded.

It boils down the the risk. if there is a high risk that someone's freedom could jeopardize the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness of the community as a whole, that person had to be carefully inspected and the state must find that person to have responsibility and the ability to respect the right to live liberty and the pursuit of happiness of those around them. Inability to do so strips you of your privilege to have that thing which gives you that power and freedom.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


They still better be required to pass a drivers test! And they better have a certificate for that!



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by nh_ee
According to the statistics, the United States has 12.3 traffic fatalities per 100K of the population whereas the UK only has 3.59. Canada has 9.2 fatalities but isn't as densely populated either.


Interesting statistics. How do you explain Egypt? It's figure is 8.1. I saw one traffic light in Cairo. The rest of the time they just go for it. On the freeway set up for four lanes they turn it into six lanes. "Yield" is not a concept there. It sounds very much like your description of Mexico.

So here's Egypt where traffic laws are completely ignored having a significantly less rate than the US, one of the most highly regulated countries in the world.

You are cherry-picking your statistics here by choosing those that seem to prove your point while ignoring those that don't.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by nh_ee
 


Didn't even have to parallel park.

Just had to back up along a curb.

The driving test is a joke.. I think the only reason I failed it before I passed is because I was so nervous.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


You have a right to travel but not a right to put others in danger. A car is a 2 ton killing machine for those whom use it irresponsible. Driving is a privileged not a right. Same thing with anything that has the potential to do massive damage.

It's in the constitution too. You have a right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But look what comes first. Life threatening pursuits of happiness are fine as long as you are the only one involved. A car involves everyone.


Anyone can put anyone in danger with a lighter and gasoline. Or rat poison and a crowded bar (with drinks) etc.

Please stop with cars are killing machines and they're dangerous. Because....
No kidding? You think?

But a license does NOT stop or assure anyone they're sharing the road with someone safe.

Hell, I feel more in danger standing on a long hot sweaty line....at post office with others than I do on the road.

Fear!
Money!!!

They work wonderfully together.
edit on 1-2-2011 by Human_Alien because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
35
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join