Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Time to Take Motor Vehicles Away From the American Public!

page: 18
88
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


I beg to differ, without a drivers license and without registration, there is not contract between you and they, and if they attempt to impose these bogus codes upon you, they are the ones at a disadvantage if you know the law. Because you've not made any contract agreeing to surrender your right to drive, they have no jurisdiction. This means they have no lawful authority to do anything other than leave you alone, unless you've broken some actual law, like vehicular homicide, drunk driving, or even running a stop sign, but driving without a license? Nope. Coercion. Driving without insurance? Nope. Coercion on their part.

If a cop cites you under this circumstance, they are now guilty of extortion. Guilty of simulation of legal process. Guilty of impersonating a law officer. Guilty of malicious prosecution, and guilty of obstruction of justice. If you know the law, they are at the disadvantage if they think they can win in court.




posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 12:29 AM
link   
So democracy giving females the right to vote is good? Why is it only a good thing when it does what you want and bad when you disagree?



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 01:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by sonnny1

People kill People. Even my OWN children seem to understand this. I often wondered if we were to abolish stupidity,if the world would be in a better place........



Watched (I think it was a Twilight Zone episode) a show where the parents of a young boy were frightened that the boy wouldn't pass an I.Q. test. Not passing it meant death. It did make me wonder what this world would be like if 18 year olds were put to sleep for being stupid? I think my neighborhood would be completely wiped out.



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 02:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by aching_knuckles

At what point in human history do you feel that there was no government where people could do as they wished? The Romans? The Sumerians? There were even rules at the birth of our mighty republic,no? You are arguing from a fallacious point.


A fallacious argument. You are confusing "government" with "rules". A man may live by rules, yet have no government at all. This has occurred all through human history, and even now in some places.



I see....so who enforces "rules" if not a government of some form? a vigilante mob? can you tell me exactly who enforced the Code of Hammurabi? was it not a government?



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 02:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
I don't know why you believe a reliance on logical fallacies is the mark of an educated man, but to each their own. Your strawman reads as desperation.......
Sure. The "three-fifths" compromise within the Constitution was wonderful! How nice these educated men thought it prudent to diminish certain People (slaves) in order to appease slaveholders. What a great mark of education this compromise is!


So, you accuse me of having a strawman argument...and then in that same post, equate compromise to the 3/5s slavery compromise, as if that is the only compromise ever reached in mankind. LOL you are truly a work JPZ. An ATS treasure, if you will.



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 02:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by aching_knuckles

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Further, you seem to be coming from a point of view that people own arms because governments let them. I am coming from the point of view that governments exist because people let them. Before these people let that government exist, these people all ready had their rights and certainly did not create a government just so they could have rights. Such a thing would be...well, "stupid logic".



At what point in human history do you feel that there was no government where people could do as they wished? The Romans? The Sumerians? There were even rules at the birth of our mighty republic,no? You are arguing from a fallacious point.


The U.S. federal government was created in 1789 by The Constitution for the United States of America. Prior to that, there was a national government under the Articles of Confederation of Perpetual Union, which was ratified in 1777. Before this, there were states, such as Virginia, that had their own Constitution, which was created in 1776.

Article I of that Virginia constitution is their Declaration of Rights, which begins:


A DECLARATION OF RIGHTS made by the good people of Virginia in the exercise of their sovereign powers, which rights do pertain to them and their posterity, as the basis and foundation of government.


Oh my! Look at that! The good people of Virginia getting all "fallacious" and then codifying their fallacy.

Their Declaration of Rights continue:


Section 1. Equality and rights of men.

That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their post erity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.


Dear Lord! Those Virginians are the masters of "fallacy".


Section 2. People the source of power.

That all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people, that magistrates are their trustees and servants, and at all times amenable to them.


Somebody stop the "fallacious" madness!


Section 3. Government instituted for common benefit.

That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community; of all the various modes and forms of government, that is best which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety, and is most effectually secured against the danger of maladministration; and, whenever any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubitable, inalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal.


Oh my God! Will the "fallacy's" never stop?

Even before these state constitutions that predate national or federal constitutions, the People of the 13 colonies kept and bore arms, this is how they were able to fight the Revolution of Independence in 1776. I suppose you might call this a "fallacious" historical fact.



Holy crap, what a lot of wind with no substance!

Are you saying that in this Virginia Commonwealth (which it still is, as a matter of fact) that there were no laws, and no sherriff enforcing them? There will always be rules and someone enforcing them. Power from the people yes, and the people have historically voted for laws that limit things. So whats the problem? If the people now do not like it, vote to have them changed.
edit on 8-4-2012 by aching_knuckles because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 02:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu
I have yet to meet a 10 yer old capable of endangering "everyone else in the world". You must have some terribly advanced 10 year olds where you live. What do they have which is more powerful than nukes, which certainly aren't powerful enough to "endanger everyone else in the world"


Reductio ad absurdum, take it somewhere else. It is obvious what I meant by my argument of a 10 year old driving.

If you think it should be legal in any way for a 10 year old to drive around in public, you have a mental issue. 10 year olds lack the mental capacity and physical abilities to be good drivers. They should not be behind the wheel of a car, period. So, therefore, should there not be a law stating that, so some idiot doesnt let his kid drive down I-90 sop he can take a nap?

Lets go with the other issue...if we all are given inalieable rights at birth, and age is not a factor in consent, then I guess sex with an 8 year old is allright, as long as the kid agrees? I mean, there should be no rules or laws right? And age is not a factor in ones own right to self determination and happiness, as per JPZs theorems.

Thats all I am asking - does your 10 year old have all the rights I do as a 35 year old adult? According to JPZ, yes they do. And I say thats stupid, theres a reason juveniles are juveniles and there are laws that protect them.

Im sure if you want more examples, I can think of them, I am a creative person.



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 03:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by MsAphrodite

There is a very fine line between liberty and safety.



Not really. Freedom is inherently unsafe, and not for the timid. In freedom, you take your chances, and accept that at times your chances will take you.


The problem with this, is that at times your chances are gonna take you...and 4 other people. Thats we have laws that do not allow driving like an idiot, lest you get a ticket for Reckless Endangerment or some such. So with unrestricted freedoms, do you think Americans as you see them would make good decisions? In their lives right now most of them cant even dedicate themselves to a healthy diet for 3 days of their life, and you want people to walk around strapped and no need for laws? Great idea.



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 03:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by poet1b
 


It's also due to ignorance of the law. People will enter into kangaroo courts assuming they are valid courts. People will gladly say what administrative agencies need them to say so they can construe a grant of jurisdiction, or say too little which can then be construed as tacit grant of jurisdiction. People will readily plead not guilty to something not understanding that this is not a direct challenge of the bogus legislation, or misapplication of sound legislation, but rather language that can be construed as agreement that the charge was valid.

When one say's "guilty", the acceptance of the legislation is expressly clear. When people say "not guilty", because no challenge of jurisdiction was offered, then it legally assumed that the defendant has no issue with jurisdiction.



This sounds like its about to be followed up with the words from the greatest hoax of all "Maritime Law"! Are you gonna start talking about gold fringed flags now too?



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 03:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by poet1b
 


I beg to differ, without a drivers license and without registration, there is not contract between you and they, and if they attempt to impose these bogus codes upon you, they are the ones at a disadvantage if you know the law. Because you've not made any contract agreeing to surrender your right to drive, they have no jurisdiction. This means they have no lawful authority to do anything other than leave you alone, unless you've broken some actual law, like vehicular homicide, drunk driving, or even running a stop sign, but driving without a license? Nope. Coercion. Driving without insurance? Nope. Coercion on their part.

If a cop cites you under this circumstance, they are now guilty of extortion. Guilty of simulation of legal process. Guilty of impersonating a law officer. Guilty of malicious prosecution, and guilty of obstruction of justice. If you know the law, they are at the disadvantage if they think they can win in court.



And here we go folks, false information at its best. Go ahead and try this. You will get laughed out of court, possibly charged with contempt of court depending on how you act in court. DO NOT TAKE THIS AS LEGAL ADVICE ANYONE PLEASE

This doesnt even make sense, driving without a license is against the law. you cant go into court and say "I never broke a law! I never signed into a contract with the state to drive!" because by not getting your license you broke the law. This is terrible advice, and it has been refuted in many courts many times over, but that never stops a person who thinks they are a lawyer from trying it....and failing miserably.
edit on 8-4-2012 by aching_knuckles because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 03:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by aching_knuckles

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by aching_knuckles

At what point in human history do you feel that there was no government where people could do as they wished? The Romans? The Sumerians? There were even rules at the birth of our mighty republic,no? You are arguing from a fallacious point.


A fallacious argument. You are confusing "government" with "rules". A man may live by rules, yet have no government at all. This has occurred all through human history, and even now in some places.



I see....so who enforces "rules" if not a government of some form? a vigilante mob? can you tell me exactly who enforced the Code of Hammurabi? was it not a government?


You have to have someone else tell you how to comport yourself and how to follow your rules?

Why are you unable to control yourself? Is it a chemical thing?

As far as the Code of Hammurabi goes, I don't know. I wasn't there, nor do I live under that law now. Giving an example of a government doesn't confirm the need for one, only that it exists or has existed. That would be another logical fallacy, trying to claim that just because a thing exists, it is needed. It does not necessarily follow. There are many things which exist and are entirely unnecessary.




edit on 2012/4/8 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 04:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by aching_knuckles

Originally posted by nenothtu
I have yet to meet a 10 yer old capable of endangering "everyone else in the world". You must have some terribly advanced 10 year olds where you live. What do they have which is more powerful than nukes, which certainly aren't powerful enough to "endanger everyone else in the world"


Reductio ad absurdum, take it somewhere else. It is obvious what I meant by my argument of a 10 year old driving.


Negative. It was you who made the initial statement that a 10 year old was capable of "endangering everyone else in the world". That absurdum was not MY reductio. There are 7 billion people in the world. I'm thinking the ten year old would have to at least stop for an oil change or more gas before he could manage to put all of us in danger. Surely someone could subdue him while the car was on the oil rack if he were endangering very many people at all.



If you think it should be legal in any way for a 10 year old to drive around in public, you have a mental issue.


If you think I care what your opinion of my mental state is, then it may be you who has the mental issue.



10 year olds lack the mental capacity and physical abilities to be good drivers. They should not be behind the wheel of a car, period. So, therefore, should there not be a law stating that, so some idiot doesnt let his kid drive down I-90 sop he can take a nap?


That is a blanket statement which does not account for individual variations. I drove from the time I was 9 up to around 2005. In all that time, I never killed a single soul driving. It seems that if my mental capacity were such as you claim, I should have endangered SOMEONE, even if I couldn't quite manage to endanger "everyone else on the planet".



Lets go with the other issue...if we all are given inalieable rights at birth, and age is not a factor in consent, then I guess sex with an 8 year old is allright, as long as the kid agrees? I mean, there should be no rules or laws right? And age is not a factor in ones own right to self determination and happiness, as per JPZs theorems.


That would be on you. I respectfully suggest that the child you fool around with not be mine. Law or no, that would be a pretty dangerous situation.

As I read JPZ, age is not a barrier to having rights. I don't believe he's addressed self-determination, other than to say you have the right not to let your own 10 year old drive, but you don't have the right to dictate to your neighbor how he runs HIS family.



Thats all I am asking - does your 10 year old have all the rights I do as a 35 year old adult? According to JPZ, yes they do. And I say thats stupid, theres a reason juveniles are juveniles and there are laws that protect them.


Of course they do. at what age were YOUR rights issued to you, and by what agency were they issued? If your rights were issued at all, then you have no rights, you have only revokable privileges, since anyone who can give you a thing can revoke it as well. If your rights were never issued to you, then they have, by necessity, either always been there, or never were. Which is it? Either way, you have the same rights as the 10 year old, and vice versa. The only question is if that amounts to ANY rights.

Juveniles are juveniles because living organisms grow, and they all pass through a juvenile stage, not because they are waiting on someone to issue their rights.



Im sure if you want more examples, I can think of them, I am a creative person.


Yes, that is apparent.



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 04:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by aching_knuckles

Originally posted by nenothtu

Not really. Freedom is inherently unsafe, and not for the timid. In freedom, you take your chances, and accept that at times your chances will take you.


The problem with this, is that at times your chances are gonna take you...and 4 other people. Thats we have laws that do not allow driving like an idiot, lest you get a ticket for Reckless Endangerment or some such. So with unrestricted freedoms, do you think Americans as you see them would make good decisions? In their lives right now most of them cant even dedicate themselves to a healthy diet for 3 days of their life, and you want people to walk around strapped and no need for laws? Great idea.


Legislation does not dictate chance. My chances will take NO ONE else. They are MY chances. If others get taken by chance, it is their own chances doing the taking.

I think they would make decisions. Whether those are good or bad are irrelevant to me unless they impact me. I don't care how they eat. that's none of my business. I don't care if they go armed. Furthermore, I see no correlation between diet and weapons capability.

We already have laws concerning weapons. The very first weapons law in America is that government is restricted from infringing on the individual's right to go packing. That's really the only one we need concerning weapons.

The particular laws I think you are really concerned with here are the laws governing murder, mayhem, manslaughter, justifiable homicide, and malicious injury. I don't think you are really concerned with laws governing inanimate objects at all, but rather the ones governing their use or misuse.

That use or misuse is perpetrated by animate people, not inanimate objects. I do not need a law telling me that if someone is about to shoot me, I better do something about that. Whether or not you need a law to motivate you into action or authorize action is of course your own decision.





edit on 2012/4/8 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 05:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


I would say that in theory, you are right, but in all practicality, at our current times, taking on the government by claiming you do not need a license, is a battle you can not win.

The saying, "choose your battles" comes to mind.

edit on 8-4-2012 by poet1b because: add ""



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 05:09 AM
link   
reply to post by aching_knuckles
 


It is an interesting strategy to dismiss the Virginia State Constitution, which is their Supreme Law of the Land, and declare it a lot of wind with no substance, only to turn around and then pretend that it is someone else who has no regard for law. Interesting in that morbid way people slow down to look at the mangled steel of a train wreck.

It makes sense, of course, given you have openly admitted you find people to be idiots, that you would presume that all you have to do is rely on that tired canard sycophants of tyranny love to declare; "You can vote".



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 05:09 AM
link   
reply to post by aching_knuckles
 


Get laughed out of a kangaroo court? A traffic court where the judge acts as both prosecutor and judge? Laughed out of this court, where no court reporter is made available to record the circus act that follows? Nah, they will not get laughed out, and no doubt the faux judge acting as prosecutor will huff, and puff, and bellow loudly while demanding the challenger leave his court room and never return, but this is all that will happen, nothing more.



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 05:15 AM
link   
reply to post by aching_knuckles
 


Actually, there was a time when 10 year olds could drive. Under some circumstances, there are many ten year olds that can drive adequately.

Not all ten year olds are the same, and many have the capability, the problem is identifying those circumstances.

The bigger can of worms is your point about an 8 year old prostitute. I don't think any 8 year old would do such a thing willingly. It would be a situation of guilt and coercion.

These are valid points, and the separation is between ideal and practicality.

It has been a pretty good debate between you and JP.



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 05:20 AM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


I was ten the first time I ever got behind the wheel. Out on the farm, grandpa would give his youngsters the chance to drive the tractor as soon as they were big enough to work the clutch. Of course at first with an adult riding along, until proven capable.

Your funny, enjoy your posts.



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu
You have to have someone else tell you how to comport yourself and how to follow your rules?

Why are you unable to control yourself? Is it a chemical thing?


I can control myself just fine. However, alot of the other population cannot. This has been proven time and again. Like I said, one bad apple...the one guy who wants to let his 10 year old drive down the interstate while he takes a nap, and causes a 72 car pileup has just now made it illegal for 10 year olds to drive.

Absolute Freedom is a wonderful ideal. However, it is a pipe dream due to the condition of humanity, namely stupidity. Some idiots need rules, it is unfortunate, but true.



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

That is a blanket statement which does not account for individual variations. I drove from the time I was 9 up to around 2005. In all that time, I never killed a single soul driving. It seems that if my mental capacity were such as you claim, I should have endangered SOMEONE, even if I couldn't quite manage to endanger "everyone else on the planet".




So, when you started driving at nine, you never made a mistake, or pulled out in front of someone, or anything?

Good sir, I call you a liar. Anyone who has driven for any amount of time makes those mistakes. And a 10 year old does not have the physical skills to control a 5000 lb car in an emergency. Has the wheel ever turned on you?

Furthermore, drunk drivers endanger people every day....but you think that should be allowed too as well? Suuuuure buddy.





new topics

top topics



 
88
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join