Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Codee
First lets take the right to travel. This incompases alot of things like WALKING, DRIVING/USING/MOVING-IN A CAR, FLYING A PLANE, TAKING A TRAIN. All of these things are part of travelling.
Now if the state wants to only condition part of the right because it finds that a part is dangerous. Lets take flying a plane. The state wants to limmit flying of planes to only capable people/persons. Are they going to call it a "travelling permit." NO they are not. Why? Because they are not licensing your right to travel, they are regulating a part of it. So the state needs to come up with a term for this conditioned "part" of a right. The term they choose is "privilige." It is not a real privilge because the state cannot take it away "at will." It is really a conditioned right.
|
i can see you saying that to a p.e.o."the state cannot take my privilage away at will" as he/she/it takes you into custody.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Codee
To condition "THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL" (as it is discussed in supreme court cases) upon a license means you would need a license just to RIDE IN A CAR, TAKE A TRIP IN A TRAIN, WALK TO THE STORE, CRAWL LIKE A BABY FROM ROOM TO ROOM, TAKE A TRIP ON A PLANE. This is not the situation in the states, because they have not conditioned your right to travel, only a little aspect of that right, which they call a privilige, and what I call a conditioned right.
I wish it was different, but most of the "NO LICENSE" arguments SUCK. I think time would be better spent arguing things like:
1) Jurisdiction of courts
2) Jurisdiction to arrest for non-crimes
3) Show clear evidence as to what ellements constitute a crime
4) Show that not having a license can't be made into a crime, but should be a civil violation.
5) Learn default proceedure.
6) Learn how obtain a license from foreign jurisdictions.
7) Learn what is a jurisdiction
8) Ask David Merrill more about being a court of competent jurisdiction which issues Licenses.
There are so many other ways around this issue then consistantly and intentionally ignoring "At will" and "without due process." These terms gut your arguments and are found in almost EVERY cite on this subject. AGAIN if I am wrong it should not be hard for this forum to easily prove it.
Further I will state my opinion that issuing driver's licenses is the clearest example of propper use of police powers of the state. I am not scared of my country getting invaded, nor even my house. I am more so afraid of the cars on the street then any stand alone criminal, terrorist cell, or foreign power. In all likely hood I may die in a car accident.
GOOD LUCK!
|
so, because you are frghtened you run to "mama" government to protect you?
i assume this irrationale fear stems from the government sponsored statistical propaganda
that falsely claims that speed kills?or some similar fear generating propaganda?
why then, are you not more fearful of dieing under the care of a doctor?
they kill lots more people per year than speed or car accidents according to statistics.
from your postings it would be logical to assume you desire not freedom but safety.
i believe the fear you speak of is exaktly what the powers that be want us all to feel.
fear is a great tool for controling someone.
as posted previously, this all boils down to responsibility.
without us being responsible there can be no freedom.
you are unwilling to be responsible for your own safety thus, you surrender your liberty for the safety the government promises yet fails to deliver.
if licensing is such a great use of the states "police power" tell us why so many deaths still occur upon the highways & biways that you fear will be your own undoing?
surely enough time has passed with these perverted licensing practices in place that any sane, rational being could logically conclude it is a dismal failure.
especially considering it's stated purpose of "public safety"
dead men tell no tales or they would be the first to tell you "it doesn't work!".
had the licensing scheme been a success we would have alot larger population.
with this in mind you continue to support the illogical conclusion that travelling is a privilage.
hmm.