Traveling in automobile without regulation is fanatical

Discussion in 'Pandora's Box' started by revjoel2013, Jan 21, 2014.

  1. #1 revjoel2013, Jan 21, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 21, 2014
    I don't agree with Freeman and Sovereign that you don't need driving credentials and license plate to drive an automobile. I understand the statutes are defective and there are arguments that can be made that you should able to drive without a license.  There are court cases that state that traveling is a constitutional guarantee right not a privilege. 
    I believe there should be reform with the traffic laws. The tickets are too high in price. Sentencing by jury or reduced fine for poor people should be available so the man or woman don't become a slave and cannot drive.
    I don't agree with the laws that you must register for selective services or pay child support to maintain a license because it doesn't relate to the person's ability to drive. I also don't agree with paying excise tax on automobile that is not used for commercial purposes.  An individual should be able to get plates for the life of the automobile without paying excise tax. 
    Driver license can be replaced with a driver's certificate which is good for life. It certify that the individual meet certain driver's education requirement.
    I really don't agree to live in a society that there is no educational requirement to do certain dangerous activities.  Driving on the road is not a private life.  An individual is sharing the road with other people.
    Do you want to live in a society where someone can perform surgery without a medical education and a physician license?  Yes, there are court cases that may say that the practice of law and medicine is a common law right. I really don't want to live in a society that doesn't have any regulation.
    As long as the government is not banning activities and regulating them, you should not have problems with the government regulating medicine or operating an automobile. Not everything is perfect and there can be major improvement that can be made. I don't think majority of the public agree on a society with no regulation and you can do anything because you are not in commerce.
    I wish the sovereigns and freeman will fight in areas to free us from government intruding in private lives like drugs, prostitution, gun control, Obama care, etc. and stop trying to operate an automobile without a license and no plates.
    You may not think much about prostitution or drugs because you may not use them.  If you are elderly and have hard time to find a girlfriend, you should be able to purchase sex without government interference. If you are traveling to another state for work and you are lonely, you should able to hire escort without the fear of police doing stings.  We have the invention of condom so there is not a problem of the act is unsafe.
    There are many young people today that cannot find a girlfriend or boyfriend because of uncertainty and bad economy. Many young people cannot attend night clubs or socialize because they are low on money.  Escort services can help Americans to meet their needs.
     If you need medical marijuana, you should be able to access it without the government telling you what you can do with your bodies in private. You may not be a user of drugs. There will be less gang problem and drug dealers roaming the streets if drugs can be purchased by a licensed dispensary. 
    Obama care is hurting many Americans. Many Americans are getting their hours cut and have to face high insurance cost.
    These are the important issues that need to be fought.  I really cannot believe that it is OK to live in a world where teenagers who are 16 years old or older can travel (behind the wheel) in a private automobile without driver's training.   
    When someone gets hurt, there will be public outcry about teenagers getting behind the wheel without a driver's license and driver's education. I don't think you have the public support on your ideology on operating or traveling in your private automobile without regulation.
    I don't believe that mandatory insurance to operate an automobile is just. You should not be forced to purchase insurance. You should be able to deposit the liability amount according to state law and opt out of the insurance requirement.  Do you want to get into an accident with someone who cannot pay you for their damage?  Do you know that most people got into a car accident in their lifetime?
    Judges, police officers, attorneys, and the prosecutors realize there will be serious consequences for no license plates, no insurance, no driver's licenses, and no driver's education. That why they are not going to support you in the issue of operating an automobile without any regulation.
    Yes, there may be some trick or legal argument that can get you out. Do you really want to live in a society like this?  Please think about it!!
    “Your Honor. I have the right to fly a private plane without a FAA pilot license, insurance, and serial number. The constitution gave me the constitutional right to fly my private plane without FAA pilot license, insurance, and serial number. The license is a privilege not a right.  The United State is converting a right to travel into a privilege by licensing the sovereign flying a private plane for noncommercial purpose. The court decisions said that a person have the right to noncommercial travel. The court case said that only flying plane for hire can be regulated.  The laws are null and void because it violates the constitution. ” Yea, the plane crashed into someone's home and the homeowner cannot recover any money from the sovereign because he live at home without a job with his mom and dad.  How stupid this sound!!

  2. Way too long. Didnt read the whole thing. But as much as I hate to admit it, roads and highways are technically government property, and as such, you have to follow whatever rules they lay down for the privilege of driving on their property. Otherwise they have the right to prosecute you to the extent of the law that they have put forth.
  3. I agree to a certain point the government have the right to regulate.  I don't agree with the excise tax on noncommercial vehicles or the high fines. I think that a jury should determine the fines. I believe in regulation like driver's education and certification.
  4. I think for the most part we are on the same page. I hate traffic fines and think most are bogus just to fill quotas. But it is private property and so they can do as they please. Just as I have the right to shoot anyone trespassing on my property. And I will! The government has the same rights with their their land/infrastructure.
  5. you got your licence suspended someway didnt you?
  6. Maybe he got STD's because he though condoms were safe.
  7. Sorry bro your post is super long so I didn't read the latter half. But in response to the paragraph where you said a permanent driving certificate good for life - I disagree here (however I agree with most everything else you wrote) if you were to get a certificate like you said or a license good for life there would be no retest for the people that have bad vision and things like that. But I certainly agree. Driving is not a privilege. It's almost a necessity to be able to live unless you live close to a grocery store and your job. It's ridiculous that it's so expensive to maintain a lifestyle that should be available to everyone. If you were to take someone's car away or their driving "privileges" the person would most likely respond with something pertaining to maintaining their lively hood without a car being next to impossible. Sent from my iPhone using Grasscity Forum
  8. Who did the government buy the roads from?
    Or who was responsible for funding what the government claims they built and have the rights to?
  9. exactly we the people driving on the roads paid for the roads so they are our fucking roads. government is just a bunch of dicks that try to do shit with the money they force from us.
    regulation is a scam
    all business regulations are a scam
    who do regulations benefit, only those already established in the business.
    heres a little story now follow along closely
    you crash land on an island.
    you discover that you can either spend your time fishing and on average you can get about 2 fish per day or you can make bread and get about 2  loaves of bread a day.
    now after some time and your investment in fishing you meet another guy on the island by chance who decides he'd rather make bread than fish so he does just that. he can make about  2 loaves of bread a day.
    so you two start talking and decide that you are tired of eating fish every day and want a variety so you two agree that one loaf of bread is worth one fish for trading so now every day you can eat 1 loaf of bread AND 1 piece of fish. increased variety.
    now after that goes on for a while a third man appears on the island and he decides to make bread also, but he can make it more efficiently so he can produce 4 loaves of bread per day. and he comes to you and says i'll trade you 2 loaves of bread for 1 fish. currently you're getting 1 loaf of bread for your one fish so you take his offer as you will receive an extra loaf of bread per day.
    now much to the original bread makers dismay you stop coming to him to trade as you have found a better value for your heard earned fish- 2 breadloafs instead of 1- so the original bread maker isn't happy as your not trading with him anymore so what does he do? he calls the nearby police over and says "look look over there officer  jim is making 4 loafs of bread per day but only because he doesn't have adequate sanitary conditions where he makes the bread, his bakery is filthy! you must close him down or force him to comply with the safety standards for the sake of the island."
    so you are now forced to go back to only receiving 1 loaf of bread per 1 fish. whereas originally without that regulation put in the original bread maker would be forced to find something he could produce that one would buy from him voluntarily. he has in effect robbed you of your extra loaf of bread per day. shouldn't you be able to decide for yourself if you want 2 loafs a day even though they may have been made in a slightly dirtier environment?
    originally if he never called the cops on the other breadmaker he would of been forced to find something he could produce that you would come to him to buy voluntarily.
    this is essentially what business regulations do and if you look at who lobbies for these regulatory laws to be put in place it's the company that is already in that business. why would a company lobby and pay to have regulations against itself? because it helps keep away the competition.
    from here it's not a far stretch to say why corporate bailouts are a horrible idea. the company that needs a bailout isn't producing a product at a price which can be maintained and that will have customers VOLUNTARILY coming to purchase them.  when this happens they should be forced to change their production methods or otherwise adapt to the changing business conditions. and in the end if they adapt they will be producing a product which one will be happy to buy and if they cannot they will go out of business like they should if they are not producing anything worthwhile anymore. why should they receive free money to keep producing a product that society no longer deems worthy of the cost?
    for what for jobs? no one wants jobs they only want what jobs bring which is wealth and money.
    if you want to read more on this and want more detailed explanation of the island read the book " the alpha strategy" by john pugsley

     i just realized this thread isn't about the economy but only loosely mentioned regulations in the OP.

Share This Page