quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse

I think that the OP is is a smart ass punk. His bs wouldn't fly in this country.

quote:

the public roads (which are paid for by the people, and belong to the people NOT the government)

quote:

ORIGINAL: UncleNasty

In times past things considered crimes, for which a violator or guilty party could be held accountable, were limited to only 2 circumstances:

1) When one harmed anothers person
2) When one harmed anothers property

Were I to travel, or operate a motor vehicle, or drive, on the public roads (which are paid for by the people, and belong to the people NOT the government) without having a license or vehicle registration sanctioned by the state, doing such in accordance with safe practices, arriving at my destination having harmed no one, and having harmed no one's property, where is the logic or reason in deeming such activity a crime, and me a criminal?

quote:

ORIGINAL: UncleNasty 

A sorta reversal of the argument saying that driving is not a right, but rather a privilege, goes something like this:

If a driver of a motor vehicle, who has been granted the privilege to do so by the state, and sanctioned as a safe driver by the state, is the cause of an accident that DOES harm another person, why cannot the harmed person sue also the state in order to be made whole?

The states issuance of licenses clearly does not protect any of us, as evidenced by the numbers of accidents, injuries and deaths that occur annually. Given that is true what then is the purpose of a license?

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Antartica is subject to some international law and world court squabbling, on a pretty regular basis.

Thing about laws is there has to be some threat of enforcement, or consequence. I am sure if you want to unload some gold and fly you a traffic copper up to the moon, when those guys start hotrodding all over the Mare Ingenii, you can have him check the license, registration and decide whether or not they were weaving, a taillight was out, or whether they had rolled thru a stopsign.

Ron

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

the public roads (which are paid for by the people, and belong to the people NOT the government)

People who elect a government and hire the police to enforce regulations on our public roads.

quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy

We don't elect congress.

Lobbyists do.  It is all bought and paid for.  Who are you fooling?

If things were so - of the people- these blizzard of shoddy laws would have been put to referendum.   They don't put it to referendum- because they know they do not serve the people.

They work for the banks.   Not you.  You have no say so.

NONE.     Amazing how folks who "think" they are part of the power structure are no where  even close to it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thornhappy

quote:

ORIGINAL: UncleNasty

In times past things considered crimes, for which a violator or guilty party could be held accountable, were limited to only 2 circumstances:

1) When one harmed anothers person
2) When one harmed anothers property

Were I to travel, or operate a motor vehicle, or drive, on the public roads (which are paid for by the people, and belong to the people NOT the government) without having a license or vehicle registration sanctioned by the state, doing such in accordance with safe practices, arriving at my destination having harmed no one, and having harmed no one's property, where is the logic or reason in deeming such activity a crime, and me a criminal?

Referring to ownership of the roads...how do you figure the exact ownership?  Roads may be a mix of local, state, and federal money.  So if you live and pay taxes in Ohio, and drive to Indiana, or across the country for that matter, shouldn't you have to pay each municipality/county/state partial compensation, since your state and local taxes didn't pay for those specific roads?  Same for maintenance.  When I drive to my parents' house, I benefit by their township's road crews in the wintertime.  But I don't compensate them.

This is where I think libertarian approaches break down.  These structures, to me (and it's not a legal opinion), seem to be part and parcel of living in a society at large, not in your own private kingdom.  The same way I pay taxes for schools, and make up for folks who get tax deductions for children, even though I have none.

Now as for licensing and such.  You're out and about operating a dangerous piece of equipment; you may be a paragon of virtue, but what about the incompetent ones?  I'd rather have a screening function than let everyone loose on the road.  You can do some terrible driving without harming life or property; you'll just inspire sheer panic on the road instead.

quote:

ORIGINAL: UncleNasty 

A sorta reversal of the argument saying that driving is not a right, but rather a privilege, goes something like this:

If a driver of a motor vehicle, who has been granted the privilege to do so by the state, and sanctioned as a safe driver by the state, is the cause of an accident that DOES harm another person, why cannot the harmed person sue also the state in order to be made whole?

The states issuance of licenses clearly does not protect any of us, as evidenced by the numbers of accidents, injuries and deaths that occur annually. Given that is true what then is the purpose of a license?

For the first question, the state was not operating the vehicle at the time.  You could have a blowout and cause an accident, why would the state be responsible?

Regarding the number of accidents and such with licensing in place, the problem with this assumption is that you have no idea what the accident rate would be if the entire population was unlicensed. 

Seems like the purpose of a license is to see if you've got enough skill with a car to not endanger people or property.  Would you rent a car to someone without a license, and nothing but their own word as to whether they're a good driver?  It's at least a starting point.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

CASE #1: "The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy
They don't put it to referendum- because they know they do not serve the people.

They work for the banks.   Not you.  You have no say so.

NONE.     Amazing how folks who "think" they are part of the power structure are no where  even close to it.

Uh........we do elect Congress, and the reason we do not put every law to referendum is because we would be voting on proposed legislation on a daily basis, which is why we elect people to do that for us.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

CASE #2: "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.

It could not be stated more directly or conclusively that citizens of the states have a common law right to travel, without approval or restriction (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S Constitution.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

CASE #2: "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.

It could not be stated more directly or conclusively that citizens of the states have a common law right to travel, without approval or restriction (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S Constitution.

Except for your inability to read the next paragraph of the case....

"The regulation of the exercise of the right to drive a private automobile on the streets of the city may be accomplished in part by the city by granting, refusing, and revoking, under rules of general application, permits to drive an automobile on its streets; but such permits may not be arbitrarily refused or revoked, or permitted to be held by some and refused to other of like qualifications, under like circumstances and conditions."

Although this particular case has not be overruled since the initial decision in 1930, it has received significant negative treatment.

It's very easy to pick one statement out of a case and try to make it seem as though it supports your viewpoint. It's quite another to actually be able to read and understand the case. I would suggest getting subscription to WestLaw or Lexis as opposed to pulling them off your "freedom fighter" sites. Then again, that would only be if you want the whole story, which you obviously don't.

quote:

ORIGINAL: UncleNasty
1) My understanding is that funding for roads comes from, well basically a usage tax placed on gasoline. There is a Federal tax and a State tax. I'm uncertain about a more localized tax. Chances are if you drive in or through a state you'll be purchasing gasoline in that same state, thereby paying for your use of the public roads.

quote:

ORIGINAL: UncleNasty
2) You have no idea what that accident rate would be either.

quote:

ORIGINAL: UncleNasty
You're making an assumption as well that without state issued licenses the roads would be completely chaotic, and that, in essence, the majority people are of such low character that they would routinely act in complete disregard for both their own, and others, safety.

The first reason I drive responsibly is to save my own skin. The second is to save the skin of everyone else sharing the road with me. The last reason is obeyance of the laws, or any fears of being ticketed. I think most people are concerned enough about their own skin that they won't blatantly endanger themselves. For the ones that are so wreckless... Well, they probably have licenses anyway, yet that doesn't seem to deter them. It didn't deter the licensed driver that caused the accident I was in two years ago. Pulling out into oncoming traffic seems like something they would teach you to avoid doing. Or maybe common sense would proscribe the action. Whatever the case the piece of laminated paper the state had issued him didn't protect me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: UncleNasty
3) The purpose of licenses is obviously not to ensure safety. If that were the case then testing, either written, active driving, or both, would be required on a regular basis. Instead what we have is a system in which you simply hand over more money to the DMV every 4-6 years to renew with no testing whatsoever. But peoples abilities change over time (and some that managed to pass the test had scant to no abilities to begin with).

eyesight changes
reaction time changes
awareness changes
prescription drugs alter driving abilities
everything changes as we become elderly

Florida is filled with elderly drivers whose ability to safely operate a motor vehicle has become so compromised that they should not be on the roads at all. Yet taking away a license from an elderly person in Florida is very difficult to do.

I purchased a motorcycle from out of state a few years ago. Kentucky requires out of state vehicles being newly registered in state to be inspected. A fee of $4.00 is charged. So I went to comply with the law. The clerk was quite willing to take my money, but she was not willing to walk outside on a gorgeous day and physically inspect my bike. The law requires a physical inspection. I had to argue with her and actually MAKE her do her job. It was beyond ridiculous. And this from a governmental official whose duty it is enoforce the laws and protect the citizens.

Licenses (and most traffic laws) are about revenue. Go into any traffic court and watch and listen to the proceedings. It is a rare event for the ticketing officer to be present (which is required), or for the prosecutor to have taken all required steps in the prosecution of the case. Most cases are plea bargained in a pre-trial conference and are not even heard or fully adjudicated.

A two to three hour session in traffic court is likely to "process" 100 people, each of whom typically accepts the plea bargain and pays $100-150 in fines, and an equal amount in court costs, rendering the county and/or state $20,000-30,000 in revenue. In larger cities there will be several to many traffic courts, each running 3-5 sessions daily, 5 days a week, and sometimes on Saturdays.

5 courts, at 5 sessions, operating 5 days a week, produces $2,500,000.00 a week. Calculated for 100 people per session and $200.00 fines and costs.

10 courts, at 5 sessions, operating 6 days a week, produces $9,000,000.00 a week. Calculated for 100 people per session and $300.00 fines and costs.

Very noteworthy is that the majority of the "violations" do not involve any accident victims.

Draw your own conclusions.

Uncle Nasty

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy

We don't elect congress.

Lobbyists do.  It is all bought and paid for.  Who are you fooling?

If things were so - of the people- these blizzard of shoddy laws would have been put to referendum.   They don't put it to referendum- because they know they do not serve the people.

They work for the banks.   Not you.  You have no say so.

NONE.     Amazing how folks who "think" they are part of the power structure are no where  even close to it.

Uh........we do elect Congress, and the reason we do not put every law to referendum is because we would be voting on proposed legislation on a daily basis, which is why we elect people to do that for us.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne


Thanks but I like lois law better as a rule.  Especially since they let me use it for free :)

quote:


Driving is a "commercial" activity hence fair game for regulation.

You hire a "driver", while on the other hand you do not hire a traveler.

That is how you distinguish and how they distinguish between what can be regulated and what cannot.

Traveling is not a commercial activity you see?

(so you cannot use a private auto for commercial purposes because if you do the commercial takes precedence.)

quote:

ORIGINAL: UncleNasty

Florida is filled with elderly drivers whose ability to safely operate a motor vehicle has become so compromised that they should not be on the roads at all. Yet taking away a license from an elderly person in Florida is very difficult to do.

quote:


Licenses (and most traffic laws) are about revenue. Go into any traffic court and watch and listen to the proceedings. It is a rare event for the ticketing officer to be present (which is required), or for the prosecutor to have taken all required steps in the prosecution of the case. Most cases are plea bargained in a pre-trial conference and are not even heard or fully adjudicated.

quote:


A two to three hour session in traffic court is likely to "process" 100 people, each of whom typically accepts the plea bargain and pays $100-150 in fines, and an equal amount in court costs, rendering the county and/or state $20,000-30,000 in revenue. In larger cities there will be several to many traffic courts, each running 3-5 sessions daily, 5 days a week, and sometimes on Saturdays.

5 courts, at 5 sessions, operating 5 days a week, produces $2,500,000.00 a week. Calculated for 100 people per session and $200.00 fines and costs.

10 courts, at 5 sessions, operating 6 days a week, produces $9,000,000.00 a week. Calculated for 100 people per session and $300.00 fines and costs.

quote:


Very noteworthy is that the majority of the "violations" do not involve any accident victims.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne


Thanks but I like lois law better as a rule.  Especially since they let me use it for free :)

And Lois Law is not always up to date. Regardless of whether it is or it isn't up to date, you did not understand the cases you were citing because they don't support you theory.

quote:


Driving is a "commercial" activity hence fair game for regulation.

You hire a "driver", while on the other hand you do not hire a traveler.

That is how you distinguish and how they distinguish between what can be regulated and what cannot.

Traveling is not a commercial activity you see?

(so you cannot use a private auto for commercial purposes because if you do the commercial takes precedence.)

I understand perfectly. You are trying to say that if you are operating a vehicle for your own personal purpose, you are not "driving" but "traveling." The law does not support that opinion.

The bottom line is that you can be as hateful of the government as you like, and you can say as much as you want about being a "sovereign" and not having to obey things you feel violate your constitutional rights. The constitution doesn't have "laws" in it and it never will.

Laws and "codes" are the same thing. The "Criminal Code" is a collection of Statutes (also known as "laws") that describe in detail what type of conduct is or is not acceptable.

And just so you know, Lois Law is not even considered an acceptable source in courts. That's how trustworthy they are.