Privilege And Driving Rights

[johngr]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

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.

I'm a misnamed nominalist and amateur general linguist a la Wittgenstein (google Verification Principle) and Robert Anton Wilson (I actually prefer to call myself a "real" realist and "the other side" nominalist). I believe that "authority" is a word that points to no discoverable object. (There is no spoon, either, but that's another story.)

Where's this "authority" you're talking about located? How big is it? What color is it? What does it look, smell, sound and feel like? Whence does it come? Was it here before men (common gender)? Where was it then? Whither would it go if there were no men?

This "authority" of yours sounds alot like the "freedom" that the young men in Iraq are fighting and dying for and the the young men in Vietnam fought and died for. I'll pass on it, thanks.

Another thing, it doesn't seem like there's alot that "government" doesn't have the "authority" to do (torture comes to mind).

Steve Molyneux demolishes any possible moral argument for one group to have "authority" over another, if you care to read his paper (it is rather long). http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux7.html

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

Authority comes from the barrel of a gun, more or less. This can take many forms, including asserting your own rights, defenses, projecting your own power one way or another. Authority comes from harnessing the forces of nature in such a way as to gain the respect of others. You can try to philosophically reason with someone, and that might help, or invoke regulations that govern that someones employment, or whatever. There are often many remedies, if we can think of them. Someone else already has, for their own interests.

[mrg]

Authority is inseperable property of Author.

As a term it is widely misused and misunderstood, often confused with the terms Power, Force, etc.

[johngr]

This little story illustrates what I mean with the "nominalism": (from http://www.mind-trek.com/reports/tl07a.htm)

Two Tribes
Consider two different isolated tribes somewhere in the jungles of South America. Call them Tribe 1 and Tribe 2. Each has its unique language with its own structure. The language of Tribe 1 (Language 1) tends to be very literal. A man who fishes, for example, is called "man-who-fishes." The same man, while sleeping, is called "man-who-sleeps"; while talking, "man-who-talks"; while running, "man-who-runs"; while eating, "man-who-eats"; while writing, "man-who-writes"; while making a chair, "man-who-makes-chair"; while giving orders, "man-who-gives-orders"; etc. In Language 1, distinctions are made between different kinds of words: "Thing-words," "Do-words," "How-words," "Story-words," "Funny-words," "Order-words," "Panic-words," "What-words," "Who-words," "Why-words," "When-words," "Where-words," etc. High-level abstractions are rare in language 1. To the people of Tribe 1, any word that doesn't refer to something physically perceivable, is highly suspect. Their test for reality is physical.

The language of Tribe 2 (Language 2) is very different. A man who obtains his wherewithal mostly by fishing, is called "fisherman." (This system of nomenclature would seem absurd to the people of Tribe 1 -- how can you call someone a "fisherman" when he is not fishing, but sleeping?) Language 2 contains many high-level abstractions -- like "happiness." People from Tribe 2 can talk for hours about "happiness." (To someone from Tribe 1, this would be incomprehensible -- they only talk about "woman-who-is-happy" while she is happy, and "woman-who-is-sad" while she is sad. The notion that you could separate "happiness" from a real person being happy, and talk about "happiness" as if it existed by itself, would be completely unthinkable to someone from Tribe 1.)

To the people from Tribe 2, any word being used is automatically assumed to be part of existence, otherwise people wouldn't use it. (To someone from Tribe 1, the word "existence" would be a meaningless absurdity, because in their mentality only particular objects exist.) In Tribe 2, the test for reality is agreement. If other people agree with a word and the way it seems to be used, then that word is automatically accepted as valid and useful.

One day a strange man arrives at the place where the people of Tribe 1 live. They ask him: "Who you?" He: "I King." They: "Your name King?" He: "No; my name John." They: "Why call self King if name John?" He: "I special person, agent of God." They: "You look different but not special; who God?" He: "God creator of world." They: "Where God?; How create world?" He: "God everywhere; God all-powerful." They: "How we see God?" He: "Can't see God." They: "You speak crazy." He: "No; I special; I show you." Whereupon the stranger performs various tricks like apparently making objects appear and disappear. They: "You clever man-who-tricks." He: "I special; I King." They: "You speak funny; you clever John-who-tricks." He: "I King; my word law." They: "What law? -- special word?" He: "Yes; my word law -- you must obey." They: "Ah! You mean order-word!" He: "Yes; I King; I make law." They: "No; you speak order-word?" He: "Yes; I special." They: "What special? -- Anybody speak order-word?" He: "You not understand." They: "No."

Eventually John-the-stranger gives up trying to convince the people of Tribe 1 that he has a "special status" and that his words are different from the words of anyone else -- so he leaves, to search for more gullible and impressionable victims elsewhere...

For many days and nights he trudges through the jungle before discovering the people of Tribe 2. They: "Who you?" He: "I King." They: "Your name King?" He: "No, my name John." They: "Why call self King if name John?" He: "I special person, agent of God." They: "You look different; what God?" He: "God creator of world." They: "Where God?; How create world?" He "God everywhere; God all-powerful." They: "Show special?" Whereupon the stranger performs various tricks like apparently making objects appear and disappear. They: "You King, agent of God." He: "Yes, my word law." They: "What law?" He: "Law special word of God through me; you must obey." Whereupon the people of Tribe 2 bow down and kiss the feet of John -- they do not habitually test abstractions against reality, so they readily accept John-the-stranger as their "King" and his word as "law." Thereafter all he has to do to subjugate, control, and dominate them, is open his mouth...

"Language creates spooks that get into our heads and hypnotize us." - Robert Anton Wilson

The people from Tribe 1 reject the Slavespeak words of John the would-be-terrocrat -- making them impossible to subjugate, control, and dominate. To them the terrocrat is merely a clever liar and trickster.

The Tribe 2 people accept John's word "King" to describe himself. They believe that "King" John has special powers because of the tricks he performs and because of his connection to "God." By accepting John's terrocrat words they automatically place him in a superior position and themselves in inferior positions. Just by accepting, believing, and using the terrocrat word "King," they yield their power to the terrocrat -- they subjugate themselves.

It's worth emphasizing that just by accepting the concepts/words of the would-be tyrant, you place yourself at a huge disadvantage. By doing so, you relinquish your power, enabling the would-be tyrant to become an actual tyrant. Instead of laughing at his silly notions, you'll probably end up begging him to "change the law" so you can be free. And guess who has the last laugh!

[Dillon Hunt]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

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.

You have the right to travel about freely in America without undue hindrance, harassment or restrictions by government. You have the right to travel about via the most common method of transportation within your means. Yet, you have allowed the government to usurp those rights with a prior restraint rule. The rule is that you get a driver's license from a government agency. To do this you must prove, in advance, that you are qualified to exercise your rights as a citizen by taking certain tests. The test will, supposedly, permit a civil servant to determine if you are an unsafe driver. (See Chapter 11 - Licenses - “Get Out of Jail Free” Card)
A rule usually demands action on your part. The Constitution specifically forbids prior restraint and if the driver's license were a mandatory law, it would do just that—prohibit you from driving until you proved yourself worthy. When you VOLUNTEERED, by applying for a driver's license, you agreed to give the rule the force of law.
Rules or regulations, to be enforced as law, must have your agreement. Most rules are not passed by Congress or a state legislature. The rules are made by bureaucrats. The Constitution does not make provisions for anyone to pass laws except the Legislative Branch of government. The Administrative Branch and the Judicial Branch can pass all the rules they want regarding their own actions, but they have no authority to foist rules off as laws and then compel the citizens to obey them. They can, however, attempt to intimidate or bribe you to accept their rules as valid laws.

http://www.breaktherulesandwin.com/index2.html See Chapter 11

[robhalford88]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

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.

You still here cluttering up the place? Lets deal with your disinfo.
1. Does the government have the right to tell us how we can and can't travel, if no one is damaged by our actions? Yes or no?
2. Who says you can't?
A 'free' man or woman can do AS THEY PLEASE, without limit, UNTIL they harm another. Government is a commercial entity created FOR THE BENEFIT of man, not to dictate to him.

[redy2fiyt]

Damn, most of you really missed a big point with Codee. We do have the right to travel as secured by the constitution by the fourth amendment as "personal liberty". This is defined in Black's as "the right to personal locomotion" aka the right to travel.

The government cannot license a constitutionally guaranteed right. This is seen by:

6. PRIVILEGE OR RIGHT?
6.1 The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is NOT a mere PRIVILEGE, but a "COMMON AND FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT" of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived. (Emphasis added) See: Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, supra; Ligare v. Chicago, 28 N.E. 934; Boone v. Clark, 214 S.W. 607; American Jurisprudence 1st Ed., Highways 163

6.2 Citizen's "RIGHT" to travel upon public highways includes right to use usual conveyances of time, including horse-drawn carriage, or automobile, for ordinary purposes of life and business. (Emphasis added) See: Thompson v. Smith (Chief of Police), 154 S.E. 579, 580

6.3 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 RIGHT" which he has under the "RIGHT" to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. (Emphasis added) See: Thompson v. Smith, supra.

7. It could not be stated more conclusively that Sovereigns of the states have a "RIGHT" to travel, without approval or restriction, (license), and that this "RIGHT" is protected under the U.S. Constitution. After all, who do the roadways belong to anyway? The People-At-Large. Here are other court decisions that expound the same facts:

7.1 .... [T]he streets and highways belong to the public, for the use of the public in the ordinary and customary manner. See: Hadfield v. Lundin, 98 Wn. 657; 168 P. 516;

7.2 All those who travel upon, and transport their property upon, the public highways, using the ordinary conveyance of today, and doing so in the usual and ordinary course of life and business. See: Hadfield, supra; State v. City of Spokane, 109 Wn. 360; 186 P. 864.

7.3 The "RIGHT" of the Citizen to travel upon the highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, differs radically and obviously from that of one who makes the highways his place of business and uses it for private gain .... (Emphasis added) See: State v. City of Spokane, supra.

7.4 ...... [F]or while a Citizen has the "RIGHT" to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that "RIGHT" does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place of business for private gain. For the latter purposes no person has a vested right to use the highways of the state, but is a MERE PRIVILEGE or license which the legislature may grant or withhold at its discretion .... (Emphasis added). See: Hadfield, supra; State v. Johnson, 243 P. 1073; Cummins v. Jones, 155 P. 171; Packard v. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 257, 264 U.S. 140 and other cases too numerous to mention.

Now, with that said how do we deal with this today? Codee's approach, in my humble opinion, works well. I will explain it again:

Government Code Section 201: The State may punish for Crimes

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/di...0&file=200-204

Now, look up People V. Sava and People V. Battle. Both uphold that infractions ARE NOT crimes. So, if an infraction is not a crime, the State has no power to penalize for infractions.

Enough said. I wish you guys would have listened a little more carefully to where Cody was going with his research. His latest essay goes into extensive detail on this.

Bummer for the forum man.

[Shoonra]

Again, confusion between the right to travel and the privilege of operating a motor vehicle on the public roads.

Not a single one of those cases held that someone was entitled to operate a motor vehicle on the public roads without a DL; in fact, the Thompson decison acknowledged the necessity of having a DL.

The authority of a state to regulate highway traffic, including the restriction of allowing only licensed drivers on the highway, has been upheld repeatedly by the US Supreme Court; Hendrick v. Maryland (1915) 235 US 610, 59 L.Ed 385, 35 S.Ct 140; similarly of requiring drivers to be insured, Bell v. Burson (1971) 402 US 535, 29 L.Ed.2d 90, 91 S.Ct 1586. "The power of a state to regulate the use of motor vehicles on its highways had been recently considered by this Court and broadly sustained. It extends to non-residents as well as to residents." Kane v. New Jersey (1916) 242 US 160 at 167, 61 L.Ed. 222, 37 S.Ct 30.

There is, of course, always the possibility that you know law better than the US Supreme Court, but the smart money isn't betting that way.

[aksis]

Shoonra,

Is the supreme Court holding that operating a motor vehicle registered in one of the States and traveling in a car is the same thing?

Are they holding that an automobile is a motor vehicle?

Are they holding that one has no right to use their private property anyway they want so long as there is no infringment on the rights of others?

Are they holding that you have no real freedom unless you get premission to do something from the Government or some municipal corporation?

Is this the same supreme Court saying that private property can be taken from a private party, by Government, and given to other private parties for private use via principles of eminent domain?

Do these people that you call the supreme Court have dominion over you shoonra?

Are they greater then your Soul?

Do you feel free shoonra?

Do you feel like these people in government truly serve your best interests and also the best interests of your family and friends?

Do you think people in government are honest and forthright?

Do you believe their actions are in harmony with real justice?

Do you think they follow the law?

Do you think they even know the sum of the verbage that composes what they call law?

Do you think anyone can ever read all the books and papers and acts and codes and writings that constitute what you call law?

Can you require people to do something that you are not even capable of shoonra? Do you know the law? Can you prove it?

[redy2fiyt]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Again, confusion between the right to travel and the privilege of operating a motor vehicle on the public roads.

...

There is, of course, always the possibility that you know law better than the US Supreme Court, but the smart money isn't betting that way.

Shoonra,

Wow. You never cease to amaze me. Please explain my/Codee's little loophole regarding infractions and the Sava and Battle cases then.

I'll be waiting.