Privilege And Driving Rights

Ok, i just want to say that people continueing to post the privilege issue is bugging me. You who do, not saying any names,, *cough planetmark, ahem*
do not seem to be able to discern the two.. Yes there is an absolute right to "travel". Note the quotation. To travel is something that is not defined in any codes for a certian effect of the people. notice how it is drive.
It is a right to travel, for the sovereign man or woman, (just for you kitchie), to drive or operate a motor vehicle or other things of that nature is a privilege granted to the statutory and juristic "person", Person would be your strawman, not the living you.
People really need to start making the distinction between these two things.
Privilege versus Rights.
When you are a sovereign and declare with affidavit that you are not a "person" or strawman. You have the right to travel. They will always call you on that until you have done so. A legal fiction is subject to codes and regulations of the corporation. a sovereign is not.

[squirrel]

They know the two are different.
They know what they are doing.

They know that when the truth comes out, they will be swinging on the end of a rope !

[charlesa6]

Of course, they do, but they don't care. They create the law, and the rules and regulation, at the same token they provide the remedy, and the remedy is the one you want to dig out, and present it to them, with no way out for them if you do it right.

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

whats the remedy? Is it found in the codes?

[charlesa6]

Yea, some like that. Base on your situation.

[greatwolf75]

Originally Posted by farmer_giles_of_ham

whats the remedy? Is it found in the codes?

Most of the remedies that you will find are found somewhere in the same code. You have to know the word art game for some of them. Remember that words in law mean different things than what they do in everyday use. When studying law, whether it be codes, statutes or whatever it would be a wise idea to have a law dictionary on hand for reference.

[charlesa6]

Yep!! You get it. Knowledge is powerful; it can lead you to unknown territory.

[johngr]

I think there's two levels of reality that get mixed up on this. Let me explain. Around the turn of the last century, there were no cars. No one would have dreamed of such a silly idea as "driving" a horse on common roads being a "privilege". Take away somone's horse and you'd better give him due process.

Then someone produced and drove the first car. At that point, it was neither right nor privilege, it was just driving. To call driving a "right" would have been redundant at the least. It would have been the equivalent of saying "you have the right to walk to the store". Yeah, so what?

That's the philosophical level and it was the only level that existed before the black-robed tyrants and their guild partners in barratry and extortion intervened.

They played on the public's fear incrementally to judicially and legislatively convert (split infinite necessary) a right to a privilege so that we have what we have to-day: rampant extortion, highway robbery, kidnapping, id checks under threat of violence carjacking and other crimes (if the same actions were taken by the badgeless).

At that level, I absolutely stand on my right go from A to B by whatever means I choose so long as it doesn't harm another human being.

At the legal level, since there are so many mafia thugs and most of the sheep confuse the two levels and accept the statist view, I choose to pay the protection fee and accept qualified ownership of my car and bike and do the best I can to thwart the thugs' further extortion attempts with the limited process the system offers (and usually do quite well, I might add). I will leave the argument of "right" or "privilege" at that level to my betters here and elsewhere but I do read about it with interest.

The statists, I've noticed, very often are not explicit about which level they're talking about. It would be more accurate (or at least less inaccurate) to say, "the law of state X treats driving as a privilege." It's a legal opinion, not a metaphysical certainty like "driving is a privilege" makes it sound. Of course, it wouldn't serve their agenda to make that distinction.

[greatwolf75]

I do agree with you to a certain extent john. You stated that if you take a mans horse then you better give him due process. To me they kind of do that with peoples cars today with the whole impound thing. Aside from that they have made it illegal to ride horses on most public roads today. So if you have a long distance to go to get somewhere you are pretty much forced into taking a car. My thinking on this is, if they take away your right to travel by horse and leave you with only a car option then they should be ready to face the consequences. Instead however, they penalize the thing that they made you do in the first place. It's a catch 22.

[Shoonra]

Originally Posted by greatwolf75

Instead however, they penalize the thing that they made you do in the first place. It's a catch 22.

Nobody makes you sit behind the steering wheel.
You wanna travel, you can be a passenger - in a taxi, in a bus, in the car of a licensed driver. The right to travel is merely the right to go from Point A to Point B, not the right to insist on a particular mode of travel, much less a "right" to insist on operating the vehicle yourself.

The fact that you concede that horses are no longer allowed on city streets, is a clear indication that the govt does have authority to regulate modes of travel.