For every step forward....

eye95 · Dec 4, 2012

georg jetson said:
Agreed.

The state does not have the authority to allow or disallow. There are many ways people can cause property damage accidentally. Making a distinction because they are on publicly paid for right-of-ways is a pathway to tyranny. It gives the power of regulation to the state. The problem is easily solved by acquiring uninsured/under insured protection.

You not only agree with mandated insurance, but have fooled yourself into thinking it is inline with a free republic. A government regulating it's citizens' movements is tyranny in it's most basic form.

I missed nothing. The distinction is irrelevant. Insurance mandates do not require that the insured have coverage that can pay any damage amount. There are limits. The problem still exists that damages may be incurred that cannot be paid for. That's life and there is no getting around it no matter how much you want government to make it go away. Getting the government involved with this is another mistake that trades liberty for perceived safety.

The State absolutely has the authority to allow or disallow anything within its constitutionally defined powers (State constitution in the case of auto insurance laws). Whether or not you THINK they should is a matter of opinion.

Some people incorrectly define a free Republic as anarchy. The Founders, the Framers, and I do not. You do. Your rights allow you to do so, but your opinion doesn't and won't ever hold sway.

You don't see the significance of the distinction. I will point it out again, not for your benefit (since you refuse to see it, plain though it may be), but for the benefit of those reading the thread and honestly trying to arrive at a rational conclusion:

Seatbelt and helmet laws protect us from ourselves. We are quite capable of making trade-offs that involve only us, whereby we can sacrifice a measure of safety in the pursuit of happiness. Insurance laws protect us from the actions of others who are using the publicly-owned byways. That distinction is factual, and not opinion. IMO, because of that distinction, it is reasonable for government to protect my property from the irresponsible actions of folks using the public byways.

Your opinion differs. I don't care. The case has been stated for those reading the thread, so I will move on. Have a good day.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

gunnieman · Dec 4, 2012

what's really wrong with drunk drivers is

nobody pulls their sorry butts out of their cars, knocks them to the ground and kicks their lower spines until the ONLY driving they CAN do is with a wheelchair!

Grapeshot · Dec 4, 2012

gunnieman said:
what's really wrong with drunk drivers is
nobody pulls their sorry butts out of their cars, knocks them to the ground and kicks their lower spines until the ONLY driving they CAN do is with a wheelchair!

That type of thinking is hardly condoned here.

WalkingWolf · Dec 5, 2012

Driving a vehicle is not a right, it is a privilege, insurance or bond is one of those thangs that is required for the privilege. I do not see it as a liberal or conservative issue.

sudden valley gunner · Dec 5, 2012

WalkingWolf said:
Driving a vehicle is not a right, it is a privilege, insurance or bond is one of those thangs that is required for the privilege. I do not see it as a liberal or conservative issue.

Why is it a privilege?

Does this mean that any new invention of basic rights like traveling, free speech, bearing arms....etc....are privileges?

I used to buy into that state argument, I don't anymore.

georg jetson · Dec 5, 2012

sudden valley gunner said:
Why is it a privilege?

Does this mean that any new invention of basic rights like traveling, free speech, bearing arms....etc....are privileges?

I used to buy into that state argument, I don't anymore.

This idea caught on because the word "driving" has a legal definition and is usually used in the context of commerce which, the state has the authority to regulate. The state has simply applied that term to all modes of conveyance and has usurped our right to travel.

eye95 · Dec 5, 2012

Driving is not a privilege.

Traveling is indeed a right and not a privilege.

Operating a motor vehicle on a public byway is a privilege. That is reality, whether you like it or not.

WalkingWolf · Dec 5, 2012

sudden valley gunner said:
Why is it a privilege?

Does this mean that any new invention of basic rights like traveling, free speech, bearing arms....etc....are privileges?

I used to buy into that state argument, I don't anymore.

You do not need a drivers license and a car to travel, or free speech, or to bear arms.

georg jetson · Dec 5, 2012

eye95 said:
The State absolutely has the authority to allow or disallow anything within its constitutionally defined powers (State constitution in the case of auto insurance laws). Whether or not you THINK they should is a matter of opinion.

My state does not include in its constitution the authority to regulate private modes of transportation. Does yours? I doubt it. Just because it can regulate the insurance business within its borders hardly gives it the authority to regulate travel.

eye95 said:
Some people incorrectly define a free Republic as anarchy. The Founders, the Framers, and I do not. You do. Your rights allow you to do so, but your opinion doesn't and won't ever hold sway.

Anarchy? Strawman.

eye95 said:
You don't see the significance of the distinction. I will point it out again, not for your benefit (since you refuse to see it, plain though it may be), but for the benefit of those reading the thread and honestly trying to arrive at a rational conclusion:

Yes there is a distinction and it is irrelevant when determining authority of the state.

eye95 said:
Seatbelt and helmet laws protect us from ourselves. We are quite capable of making trade-offs that involve only us, whereby we can sacrifice a measure of safety in the pursuit of happiness. Insurance laws protect us from the actions of others who are using the publicly-owned byways. That distinction is factual, and not opinion. IMO, because of that distinction, it is reasonable for government to protect my property from the irresponsible actions of folks using the public byways.:

I have a right to use the publicly-owned byways. That is factual and not opinion. Where in your state's constitution does it get the authority to regulate my right? By your logic, we should all have to have mandated insurance to carry a firearm.

BTW - Insurance laws protect us from nothing... as is evident from the number of complaints about un-insured people. This is the same type of poor arguments used for "common sense" gun control.

eye95 said:
Your opinion differs. I don't care. The case has been stated for those reading the thread, so I will move on. Have a good day.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

My opinion does differ and you should care. I have seen you make quite a bit of progress over the last few months and you're gradually coming to the side of liberty. Maybe one day you'll finally make the complete trip and join those that fight for liberty even when we disagree with it. Have a good day as well.

WalkingWolf · Dec 5, 2012

georg jetson said:
(snip)
I have a right to use the publicly-owned byways. That is factual and not opinion. Where in your state's constitution does it get the authority to regulate my right? By your logic, we should all have to have mandated insurance to carry a firearm.

BTW - Insurance laws protect us from nothing... as is evident from the number of complaints about un-insured people. This is the same type of poor arguments used for "common sense" gun control.

My opinion does differ and you should care.

Who is stopping you from using publicly owned byways? You do not need a DL to travel THAT is a fact. Gun control and drivers privileges are two seperate things, one is a right spelled out in the constitution and one is a privilege which is not spelled out in the constitution. As far as caring about everybody else opinion, that's a laugh. There is a certain amount of pleasure from being responsible for one's own actions, thoughts, words, and opinions. You should try it, it is much more doable than trying to form others.

OC for ME · Dec 5, 2012

Technological improvements in personal transport do not justify state mandated motor vehicle, or other conveyance, insurance. The owner of the transport, horse and buggy or motor vehicle should be held liable for any injury to life and limb, and property damage that he may create. It is reasonable to purchase insurance to avoid a personal financial hit, but it should not be mandated by the state. The only thing I have used my auto insurance company for, over the past 40 years, is as a resource to get a local tow truck for mechanical failures or a lock smith to open my car. But, i am required to pay for a "product" that I do not need nor want.

If you behave stupidly while on the public roads expect to be put in the poor house when you screw up. Simple "bad luck accidents" should be left to a jury of our peers to determine the level of liability. Auto insurance prevents citizens who have no business driving to continue to drive.

Big Insurance and their bought and paid for legislators have generated this scam.

georg jetson · Dec 5, 2012

eye95 said:
You, sir, are a condescending ass. Go ahead and report this personal insult.

No need to report... the insult doesn't bother me. Sometimes it becomes difficult to focus on some topics based on the sensitivity of those involved. I understand.

eye95 said:
But I see the above as holier-than-thou crap and a personal attack.

I intended no personal attack and apologize if you perceived it that way.

eye95 said:
My position on Liberty has not changed and I certainly will not change in order to please your conceited ego. I have not just moved on from conversation. I will move on from all future conversations with a self-important jerk like you.

Well that's a shame. However, I will not cease engaging your posts when I see a difference of opinion.

eye95 said:
Grow up and learn to deal with differing opinions without having to feel that only you can possibly be right, and that those who disagree with you need to make "progress" toward seeing things in your way--IMO, your warped way.

Piss off, *******.

When I'm on the side of liberty, I'm right.

No need to get so wound up... it's only a discussion.

georg jetson · Dec 5, 2012

WalkingWolf said:
Who is stopping you from using publicly owned byways? You do not need a DL to travel THAT is a fact. .

A LEO will stop you from using publicly owned byways if you don't abide by the regulations of the state. It is a feeble excuse to say one can use the bus or ride a bike. Even those forms of "travel" are being regulated in some manner. Our right to travel is being violated on a daily basis.

WalkingWolf said:
Gun control and drivers privileges are two seperate things, one is a right spelled out in the constitution and one is a privilege which is not spelled out in the constitution..

SNIP

Well sort of... if you refer to the privilege of "driving" then you are correct. However, I'm not speaking of the privilege of "driving". I'm speaking of the right to travel the byways with whatever private conveyance I choose without regulation. That's different than using the byways for profit which I don't have a right to do.

Additionally, all of our rights are not enumerated. The right to travel is a basic right... so basic that it was left out of the enumerated rights in my state.

EMNofSeattle · Dec 5, 2012

NavyLCDR said:
Uninsured drivers are an issue in every state.

I like the answer given in a post of "Ask me in court." That's a good one.

Here is the law in Washington State. Insurance check is not a legal reason for a checkpoint in Washington State:

RCW 46.64.060
Stopping motor vehicles for driver's license check, vehicle inspection and test — Purpose.

The purpose of RCW 46.64.060 and 46.64.070 is to provide for the exercise of the police power of this state to protect the health and safety of its citizens by assuring that only qualified drivers and vehicles which meet minimum equipment standards shall operate upon the highways of this state.

RCW 46.64.070
Stopping motor vehicles for driver's license check, vehicle inspection and test — Authorized — Powers additional.

To carry out the purpose of RCW 46.64.060 and 46.64.070, officers of the Washington state patrol are hereby empowered during daylight hours and while using plainly marked state patrol vehicles to require the driver of any motor vehicle being operated on any highway of this state to stop and display his or her driver's license and/or to submit the motor vehicle being driven by such person to an inspection and test to ascertain whether such vehicle complies with the minimum equipment requirements prescribed by chapter 46.37 RCW, as now or hereafter amended. No criminal citation shall be issued for a period of ten days after giving a warning ticket pointing out the defect.

The powers conferred by RCW 46.64.060 and 46.64.070 are in addition to all other powers conferred by law upon such officers, including but not limited to powers conferred upon them as police officers pursuant to RCW 46.20.349 and powers conferred by chapter 46.32 RCW.

aren't those statutes unconstitutional as a result of Prouse v. Delaware?

sudden valley gunner · Dec 5, 2012

WalkingWolf said:
You do not need a drivers license and a car to travel, or free speech, or to bear arms.

My post was worded poorly.

I believe we have the fundamental right to travel, automobiles are the modern method of that.

I believe we have the fundamental right to free speech, we use modern conveniences like computers that make it easier to do so.

I believe in the fundamental right to bear arms, my 15 round semi automatic Glock was not around in common law era.

This does not mean I don't recognize that states say it's a privilege to drive a modern vehicle on the by ways. What I was asking what gives them the right to restrict my modern, convenient way of travel. Like I believe they shouldn't have the right or authority to say, I am only allowed 10 rounds, and it can't be a black evil looking gun made in a foreign country.

Common law rights to me are protected under the 9th amendment. And when you look at the history of licensing it seemed the state legislatures agreed at first because commercial driving was licensed then it morphed into a privilege for everyone else.

georg jetson · Dec 5, 2012

sudden valley gunner said:
My post was worded poorly.

I believe we have the fundamental right to travel, automobiles are the modern method of that.

I believe we have the fundamental right to free speech, we use modern conveniences like computers that make it easier to do so.

I believe in the fundamental right to bear arms, my 15 round semi automatic Glock was not around in common law era.

This does not mean I don't recognize that states say it's a privilege to drive a modern vehicle on the by ways. What I was asking what gives them the right to restrict my modern, convenient way of travel. Like I believe they shouldn't have the right or authority to say, I am only allowed 10 rounds, and it can't be a black evil looking gun made in a foreign country.

Common law rights to me are protected under the 9th amendment. And when you look at the history of licensing it seemed the state legislatures agreed at first because commercial driving was licensed then it morphed into a privilege for everyone else.

Your first post may have been poorly worded but... nice recovery. I think the reason it's difficult to discuss the "right to travel" versus ""driving privilege is because our right to travel has been violated for so long and so often. It is a commentary on what will eventually happen to our enumerated rights as they are infected by license and mandates as well.

In keeping with the OP, yes we are in a quandary in this country. Our masters have found out how to divide us in order to acquire more power. The liberals are correct on some issues and the other side is right sometimes as well. Let's stop taking the sides offered and take the side of liberty though we may not always agree with a specific type of liberty.

Grapeshot · Dec 5, 2012

georg jetson said:
--snip--

In keeping with the OP, yes we are in a quandary in this country. Our masters have found out how to divide us in order to acquire more power. The liberals are correct on some issues and the other side is right sometimes as well. Let's stop taking the sides offered and take the side of liberty though we may not always agree with a specific type of liberty.

Time to cue the old cliché: Either we stand together or surely we shall swing alone.

Based on Ben Franklin's assertion that, "We must all hang together, or surely we shall all hang seperately."

sudden valley gunner · Dec 5, 2012

[FONT=Georgia, serif]it is natural toman to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyesagainst a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren tillshe transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engagedin a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be ofthe number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hearnot, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? Formy part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to knowthe whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.[/FONT]

Patrick Henry

georg jetson said:
Let's stop taking the sides offered and take the side of liberty though we may not always agree with a specific type of liberty.

Yep this is where I am at.

I took some creative liberties with Citizens tag line to write a letter to an Editor about fighting for rights.

Grapeshot said:
Time to cue the old cliché: Either we stand together or surely we shall swing alone.

Based on Ben Franklin's assertion that, "We must all hang together, or surely we shall all hang seperately."

I wonder if it was easier in Franklin's time to band against a handful of local Oligarchs and people 3000 miles away. These were the people benefiting from the taxation and the "oppression" put upon the colonists. I look at this turning point in our history and wonder how we will hang and who will hang.

For every step forward....

eye95

Well-known member

gunnieman

Regular Member

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior

WalkingWolf

Regular Member

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member

georg jetson

Regular Member

eye95

Well-known member

WalkingWolf

Regular Member

georg jetson

Regular Member

WalkingWolf

Regular Member

OC for ME

Regular Member

georg jetson

Regular Member

georg jetson

Regular Member

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member

georg jetson

Regular Member

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member