We have an inherent RIGHT to travel, the government has tricked us into accepting a "license" aka "privilege" to drive and we are entrapped via contract law by registering our vehicles with a title -- really all you need is the MSO (Manufacturer Statement of Origin) the TRUE "title" of property ownership.
For more information on these concepts, see Michael Badnarik's Constitution Course:
We have an inherent RIGHT to travel, the government has tricked us into accepting a "license" aka "privilege" to drive and we are entrapped via contract law by registering our vehicles with a title -- really all you need is the MSO (Manufacturer Statement of Origin) the TRUE "title" of property ownership.
For more information on these concepts, see Michael Badnarik's Constitution Course:
We have an inherent RIGHT to travel, the government has tricked us into accepting a "license" aka "privilege" to drive and we are entrapped via contract law by registering our vehicles with a title -- really all you need is the MSO (Manufacturer Statement of Origin) the TRUE "title" of property ownership.
For more information on these concepts, see Michael Badnarik's Constitution Course:
We have an inherent RIGHT to travel, the government has tricked us into accepting a "license" aka "privilege" to drive and we are entrapped via contract law by registering our vehicles with a title -- really all you need is the MSO (Manufacturer Statement of Origin) the TRUE "title" of property ownership.
For more information on these concepts, see Michael Badnarik's Constitution Course:
We have an inherent RIGHT to travel, the government has tricked us into accepting a "license" aka "privilege" to drive and we are entrapped via contract law by registering our vehicles with a title -- really all you need is the MSO (Manufacturer Statement of Origin) the TRUE "title" of property ownership.
For more information on these concepts, see Michael Badnarik's Constitution Course:
You have a right to travel, but not necessarily the right to own a car.
Actually, it was better stated earlier when it was said you have a right to own a car, and a right to travel.
But using roads owned by someone else, in this case the government, you need a provledge to be granted to you. (a license)
A farmer can own a car, without any registration or government intervention.\\
You have a right to own a car.
An unregistered, unlicensed car. (In most or all states of the US)
You can own it, and your 10 year old kid can drive all over the farm, sometimes hundreds of miles a week. (pickup trucks and cars, not just tractors)
But to go out on the road between your fields, or the main road to town, you must be granted that privledge through the licensing process of the governemnt and the vehicle must pass the registration and fit for travel inspection details of your governement.
And if you don't like the deal, don't drive on their roads.
This is actually the closest thing to what Apple is doing.
Hey, if you don't like the registration fee and process you must go through to get the privledge to ride on their information superhighway using their onramp and offramp to their customers, go pay the fees Rimm charges.....
This is not a right, it's a privledge.
If you don't like it.... excersize your "Right" to travel for free by walking away.
(or excersize your privledge granted to you to drive away on roads you don't own)
We have an inherent RIGHT to travel, the government has tricked us into accepting a "license" aka "privilege" to drive and we are entrapped via contract law by registering our vehicles with a title -- really all you need is the MSO (Manufacturer Statement of Origin) the TRUE "title" of property ownership.
For more information on these concepts, see Michael Badnarik's Constitution Course:
You apparently don't understand what is required under law, and the difference between a right and a privledge.
If you did understand what a certificate of title is, and what the registration process is, and how they are different from each other and of course how and why they are NOT required for anyone doing business, then you would probably be much happier and sleep better in your cacoon.
And of course, if you want access to the publicly owned property for your own private property, you have to play with the rules for the privledge.
But in no way, is anyone compelling you to follow any of those "rules" unless you decide it's in your best interest. And if you complain it shouldn't have to be this way to be in your best interest, well that's your problem not a "lack of rights under the constitution".
Actually, it was better stated earlier when it was said you have a right to own a car, and a right to travel.
But using roads owned by someone else, in this case the government, you need a provledge to be granted to you. (a license)
It was only said better if you happen to agree with it.
Actually, the requirement of a license can be considered to be the equivalent of the purchase of a car. Without the license, all you can do with that car, is garage it, unless you can afford a chauffeur.
It's not the argument that the roads are owned by the government. all roads, except those on private property are public. Even those going through private property may be considered to be semi-public, in that the property (and road owners) may be required to allow ride throughs.
Licenses are required as proof of the ability to drive, and understand the rules.
Quote:
A farmer can own a car, without any registration or government intervention.\\
You have a right to own a car.
An unregistered, unlicensed car. (In most or all states of the US)
You can own it, and your 10 year old kid can drive all over the farm, sometimes hundreds of miles a week. (pickup trucks and cars, not just tractors)
But to go out on the road between your fields, or the main road to town, you must be granted that privledge through the licensing process of the governemnt and the vehicle must pass the registration and fit for travel inspection details of your governement.
And if you don't like the deal, don't drive on their roads.
This is actually the closest thing to what Apple is doing.
Hey, if you don't like the registration fee and process you must go through to get the privledge to ride on their information superhighway using their onramp and offramp to their customers, go pay the fees Rimm charges.....
This is not a right, it's a privledge.
If you don't like it.... excersize your "Right" to travel for free by walking away.
(or excersize your privledge granted to you to drive away on roads you don't own)
I realize news may be slow to reach some parts, but the rights vs. privileges distinction hasn't been a part of due process analysis for over 40 years.
Anyway, lib's assumptions are simple wrong. A *true* libertarian will simply buy a strip of land between his current place and his destination, build a fence around it, and drive on that strip without having a license for himself or his car.
Anyway, lib's assumptions are simple wrong. A *true* libertarian will simply buy a strip of land between his current place and his destination, build a fence around it, and drive on that strip without having a license for himself or his car.
And then the government would take it by eminent domain because it's in the public's "best interest." The cycle continues.
And then the government would take it by eminent domain because it's in the public's "best interest." The cycle continues.
A true libertarian is really an anarchist. After all, to refuse to impede your own liberty, you must impede that of others. As they won't allow that to happen, you will clash.
It can't work in reality. Only democratic governments can allow even the semblance of libertarianism to exist.
A true libertarian is really an anarchist. After all, to refuse to impede your own liberty, you must impede that of others. As they won't allow that to happen, you will clash.
It can't work in reality. Only democratic governments can allow even the semblance of libertarianism to exist.
The early years of the USA were damn close to anarchy. Until Wilson, the USA was, by today's standards, a libertarian country. Anarchy can certainly work, though, it's just that life would be different.
Moreover, mankind is in the middle of a "blip" right now. It has been roughly 200 years since it has been impossible to set off in search of new land and new hopes. From the time pre-humans left Africa until the 19th century, man has developed himself into a sort of natural state in sync with the libertarian ideal. In another 200 or so years, I can only hope that there are expats establishing colonies on far-off worlds, bringing back exploration, defiance, and independence into the human cultural mainstream. Our current society is the irregular, unnatural one.
Comments
For more information on these concepts, see Michael Badnarik's Constitution Course:
http://www.constitutionpreservation.org/
We have an inherent RIGHT to travel, the government has tricked us into accepting a "license" aka "privilege" to drive and we are entrapped via contract law by registering our vehicles with a title -- really all you need is the MSO (Manufacturer Statement of Origin) the TRUE "title" of property ownership.
For more information on these concepts, see Michael Badnarik's Constitution Course:
http://www.constitutionpreservation.org/
You could see more clearly if you took off that tinfoil hat.
We have an inherent RIGHT to travel, the government has tricked us into accepting a "license" aka "privilege" to drive and we are entrapped via contract law by registering our vehicles with a title -- really all you need is the MSO (Manufacturer Statement of Origin) the TRUE "title" of property ownership.
For more information on these concepts, see Michael Badnarik's Constitution Course:
http://www.constitutionpreservation.org/
Yes, you have the right to travel.
You do not, however, inherently have the right to use a motor vehicle on a government owned road.
For example, one can drive a truck on a private farm once they reach the pedals. Similarly, you can walk along a government road without a license.
It's their road, so you have to play by their rules.
---
On topic: A real calculator (that appears to match the scientific one in Leopard) is a very welcome addition.
We have an inherent RIGHT to travel, the government has tricked us into accepting a "license" aka "privilege" to drive and we are entrapped via contract law by registering our vehicles with a title -- really all you need is the MSO (Manufacturer Statement of Origin) the TRUE "title" of property ownership.
For more information on these concepts, see Michael Badnarik's Constitution Course:
http://www.constitutionpreservation.org/
You have a right to travel, but not necessarily the right to own a car.
We have an inherent RIGHT to travel, the government has tricked us into accepting a "license" aka "privilege" to drive and we are entrapped via contract law by registering our vehicles with a title -- really all you need is the MSO (Manufacturer Statement of Origin) the TRUE "title" of property ownership.
For more information on these concepts, see Michael Badnarik's Constitution Course:
http://www.constitutionpreservation.org/
I'm a longtime supporter of Libertarian thought, but Badnarik pushes it sometimes. His arguments are too flaky for my unrestrained support.
You have a right to travel, but not necessarily the right to own a car.
Actually, it was better stated earlier when it was said you have a right to own a car, and a right to travel.
But using roads owned by someone else, in this case the government, you need a provledge to be granted to you. (a license)
A farmer can own a car, without any registration or government intervention.\\
You have a right to own a car.
An unregistered, unlicensed car. (In most or all states of the US)
You can own it, and your 10 year old kid can drive all over the farm, sometimes hundreds of miles a week. (pickup trucks and cars, not just tractors)
But to go out on the road between your fields, or the main road to town, you must be granted that privledge through the licensing process of the governemnt and the vehicle must pass the registration and fit for travel inspection details of your governement.
And if you don't like the deal, don't drive on their roads.
This is actually the closest thing to what Apple is doing.
Hey, if you don't like the registration fee and process you must go through to get the privledge to ride on their information superhighway using their onramp and offramp to their customers, go pay the fees Rimm charges.....
This is not a right, it's a privledge.
If you don't like it.... excersize your "Right" to travel for free by walking away.
(or excersize your privledge granted to you to drive away on roads you don't own)
We have an inherent RIGHT to travel, the government has tricked us into accepting a "license" aka "privilege" to drive and we are entrapped via contract law by registering our vehicles with a title -- really all you need is the MSO (Manufacturer Statement of Origin) the TRUE "title" of property ownership.
For more information on these concepts, see Michael Badnarik's Constitution Course:
http://www.constitutionpreservation.org/
You have NO IDEA what you're talking about.
You apparently don't understand what is required under law, and the difference between a right and a privledge.
If you did understand what a certificate of title is, and what the registration process is, and how they are different from each other and of course how and why they are NOT required for anyone doing business, then you would probably be much happier and sleep better in your cacoon.
And of course, if you want access to the publicly owned property for your own private property, you have to play with the rules for the privledge.
But in no way, is anyone compelling you to follow any of those "rules" unless you decide it's in your best interest. And if you complain it shouldn't have to be this way to be in your best interest, well that's your problem not a "lack of rights under the constitution".
Certainly not an easy word to spell.
For the record, it's spelled "privilege".
Certainly not an easy word to spell.
Eye No.
Where am I? What's going on? Who are you people?
Actually, it was better stated earlier when it was said you have a right to own a car, and a right to travel.
But using roads owned by someone else, in this case the government, you need a provledge to be granted to you. (a license)
It was only said better if you happen to agree with it.
Actually, the requirement of a license can be considered to be the equivalent of the purchase of a car. Without the license, all you can do with that car, is garage it, unless you can afford a chauffeur.
It's not the argument that the roads are owned by the government. all roads, except those on private property are public. Even those going through private property may be considered to be semi-public, in that the property (and road owners) may be required to allow ride throughs.
Licenses are required as proof of the ability to drive, and understand the rules.
A farmer can own a car, without any registration or government intervention.\\
You have a right to own a car.
An unregistered, unlicensed car. (In most or all states of the US)
You can own it, and your 10 year old kid can drive all over the farm, sometimes hundreds of miles a week. (pickup trucks and cars, not just tractors)
But to go out on the road between your fields, or the main road to town, you must be granted that privledge through the licensing process of the governemnt and the vehicle must pass the registration and fit for travel inspection details of your governement.
And if you don't like the deal, don't drive on their roads.
This is actually the closest thing to what Apple is doing.
Hey, if you don't like the registration fee and process you must go through to get the privledge to ride on their information superhighway using their onramp and offramp to their customers, go pay the fees Rimm charges.....
This is not a right, it's a privledge.
If you don't like it.... excersize your "Right" to travel for free by walking away.
(or excersize your privledge granted to you to drive away on roads you don't own)
This is all pretty much what I'm saying.
1. libertyforall is clearly a bot
2. I have no idea what this thread is about.
FWIW:
1. libertyforall is clearly a bot
2. I have no idea what this thread is about.
The thinking machines have finally arrived and are putting out a global smackdown.
The thinking machines have finally arrived and are putting out a global smackdown.
I wonder if we could start a thread that numerous bots would post to and end up having a conversation with themselves. Hmm....
FWIW:
1. libertyforall is clearly a bot
2. I have no idea what this thread is about.
Anyway, lib's assumptions are simple wrong. A *true* libertarian will simply buy a strip of land between his current place and his destination, build a fence around it, and drive on that strip without having a license for himself or his car.
Anyway, lib's assumptions are simple wrong. A *true* libertarian will simply buy a strip of land between his current place and his destination, build a fence around it, and drive on that strip without having a license for himself or his car.
And then the government would take it by eminent domain because it's in the public's "best interest." The cycle continues.
And then the government would take it by eminent domain because it's in the public's "best interest." The cycle continues.
A true libertarian is really an anarchist. After all, to refuse to impede your own liberty, you must impede that of others. As they won't allow that to happen, you will clash.
It can't work in reality. Only democratic governments can allow even the semblance of libertarianism to exist.
A true libertarian is really an anarchist. After all, to refuse to impede your own liberty, you must impede that of others. As they won't allow that to happen, you will clash.
It can't work in reality. Only democratic governments can allow even the semblance of libertarianism to exist.
The early years of the USA were damn close to anarchy. Until Wilson, the USA was, by today's standards, a libertarian country. Anarchy can certainly work, though, it's just that life would be different.
Moreover, mankind is in the middle of a "blip" right now. It has been roughly 200 years since it has been impossible to set off in search of new land and new hopes. From the time pre-humans left Africa until the 19th century, man has developed himself into a sort of natural state in sync with the libertarian ideal. In another 200 or so years, I can only hope that there are expats establishing colonies on far-off worlds, bringing back exploration, defiance, and independence into the human cultural mainstream. Our current society is the irregular, unnatural one.