Can't Require a License to Exercise a Right

idea(l)s said:

You see: ask yourself the question: if driving without "insurance" were illegal, then why are insurance companies authorised to offer "uninsured motorist" coverage...? (driving without insurance is never a good idea but the fine folk at dmv offer a much simpler solution in the form of a bond, just an fyi)

Click to expand...

Killing others is illegal also. Should we not go armed for protection because it must be inconceivable that we would need defend against it, because it is illegal?


It isn't simply 'insurance.' It is financial responsibility. Uninsured motorist coverage is quite valid, as the law making it illegal to drive without insurance no more protects against it than does a prohibition against killing others protects us from murderers. That 'point' is a non-starter, without relevance.

idea(l)s said:

They can somewhat "amend" those laws but they cannot however amend the intent of the laws. The intent of 49 CFR 392 is to regulate "traffic", not you or I tooling around in our automobiles.

Part of the MD code reads as follows:

Code of Maryland Regulations, Public service Commission
20.95.01.03
.03 Definitions.
(3) Motor Vehicle.
(a) "Motor vehicle" includes all vehicles or machines propelled by any power other than muscular used upon the public roads, not on rails, for public transportation of persons for compensation.
(b) "Motor vehicle" does not include a taxicab.
(4) "Operator" means any person engaged in driving a motor vehicle for which a permit has been issued.
(5) "Owner" means the individual, partnership, carrier, or company to whom a permit has been issued.
(6) "Permit" means the permit issued by the Commission
[emphasis mine]

Click to expand...

Where do you find that in the MD code? Got linky?


Here is what I find for MD:

§ 11-135. Motor vehicle


(a) In general. --

(1) "Motor vehicle" means, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, a vehicle that:

(i) Is self-propelled or propelled by electric power obtained from overhead electrical wires; and

(ii) Is not operated on rails.

(2) "Motor vehicle" includes a low speed vehicle.

(b) Moped or motor scooter. -- "Motor vehicle" does not include:

(1) A moped, as defined in § 11-134.1 of this subtitle; or

(2) A motor scooter, as defined in § 11-134.5 of this subtitle.

Click to expand...

Oh My GOODNESS! You are attempting to pass off 'Public Service Commission' of Maryland as if it was the DMV!

http://www.dsd.state.md.us/comar/subtitle_chapters/20_Chapters.aspx
The definition you posted has absolutely no relevance. You are NOT good at this.


<Snort!>

http://www.dsd.state.md.us/comar/getfile.aspx?file=20.95.01.01.htm

Here is the authorities where that definition YOU chose, applies:

.01 Authority.

The laws of Maryland require that the service and facilities furnished by means of motor vehicle in the public transportation of passengers or property for hire within the State shall be safe and adequate and in all respects just and reasonable, and vest in the Public Service Commission authority to formulate standards for, and definitions of, service and facilities. The service and facilities of all motor vehicles engaged in the transportation of persons or property for hire and operating under permits issued by the Public Service Commission shall conform to these regulations.

Click to expand...

Of course CFR49 for motor carriers will apply to public transportation.

Either you are attempting to troll us here, or someone has trolled YOU. Go ahead use those cites to drive without a license, and report back with the results when you confront an actual policeman and an actual court about it. Please.


:lol:

THis deserves.....

Here is the MD statute section of Transportation that states what needs registered:

§ 13-402. Vehicles subject to registration; exceptions


(a) General rule; parking unregistered vehicles. --

(1) Except as otherwise provided in this section or elsewhere in the Maryland Vehicle Law, each motor vehicle, trailer, semitrailer, and pole trailer driven on a highway shall be registered under this subtitle.

(2) If a motor vehicle required to be registered under this subtitle is not registered, a person may not park the unregistered motor vehicle on any:

(i) Public alley, street, or highway; or

(ii) Private property used by the public in general, including parking lots of shopping centers, condominiums, apartments, or town house developments.

(3) The provisions of paragraph (2) of this subsection do not apply to a motor vehicle that is exempt from registration under this section or § 13-402.1 of this subtitle.

(b) Certificate of title required for registration. -- Except as otherwise expressly authorized in this title, the Administration may not register or renew the registration of a vehicle unless the Administration has issued to the owner a certificate of title of the vehicle or has received an application for the certificate of title.

Click to expand...

11-135 is the definitions for Transportation, not 20.90.

Further, 16.100 speaks to driver's licensing. 16.800 speaks separately to commercial licensing.

NOTE: 16.800 includes definitions specific to commercial driver's licenses, which are for that subtitle only, and aren't for the 16.100.

marshaul said:

That language doesn't say or do what you're claiming. It merely affirms that whoever commits the violation is guilty of it –

You are correct: whoever commits the violation stands guilty, ask yourself though: how can you stand guilty prior to a trial?

as opposed to some third party, for instance the car's owner. (none of which was implied)



Again, government doesn't need to bother with elaborate justifications and trickery in the form of subtle machinations of law. Government simply demands. With a gun.

Government can demand anything within its delineated authority, nothing more/nothing less. Agreed: their guns work pretty well for intimidation purposes

California, for instance, has no compunction about declaring it illegal to drive without insurance. (every state declares it to be illegal)


I've been to California courts. The best reaction you could hope to get with these sorts of arguments is a laugh.

Unless you know how to proceed.

Incidentally, uninsured motorist coverage makes perfect sense even in states like California (where driving without insurance is strictly illegal), because the mere existence of a law requiring everyone to have insurance doesn't actually mean that everyone on the road has insurance

For good reason, only those motor vehicles required to be registered need to be insured, per the law.

Click to expand...

..

wrightme said:

Here is ...

Click to expand...

Instead of trying to belittle, mock, pooh pooh, snort at and blah blah this commentators' writings, which belie your personal insecurity, you too could learn to stand the law as opposed to buy into the deliberated fraud of public policy.

Try to comprehend that of what you read, I have shown (post 147), how the traffic laws convert private rights into public rights through public policy. You still have not grasped the concept, especially when two agencies (PSC and DMV) work in unison.

Read it again, digest it, research and look up the definition(s) of the words that are statutorily defined.

All you have shown is an attempt to disprove that what you don't comprehend through usage of single statutes you pluck out of a code here and there. Bodies of law are a tad more complicated.

Other than that: your use of those funny emoticons and pictures is truly a work of art. Congrats!

marshaul said:

I love how some folks can't seem to reconcile the fact that the government has no authority to pass a law with the fact that the government has passed a law.

First, I'd like to remind the forum that I am as big a champion of an unlicensed right to travel (drive) as any on this board.

Then I'd like to argue that the government doesn't need elaborate ruses to enforce unconstitutional abrogations of right. The only thing preventing them from doing so is the courts; therefore, if the courts can be convinced, the act stands, even when they have no authority whatsoever.

Government has never operated on anything loftier than the threat of a gun to your head – they don't give a crap about the principle of consent enough to bother tricking you into giving yours. And it's the same might-makes-right justification which leads to the de facto licensure of that which is a right, contrary to all the government's own logic.

It goes like this: we pass the law, the statist sycophants in the courts don't deign to object, and we threaten to kill you if you don't comply. Nowhere is there some need to trick people into agreeing to this. If you don't agree, they take your property and ultimately your life. End of debate.

Click to expand...

Apparently, we think along similar lines about the issue. Well stated, sir.

idea(l)s said:

Instead of trying to belittle, mock, pooh pooh, snort at and blah blah this commentators' writings, which belie your personal insecurity, you too could learn to stand the law as opposed to buy into the deliberated fraud of public policy.

Click to expand...

Do NOT make the mistake of thinking my disagreement with your theory to mean I am insecure or don't understand the concept you present. DO accept that I am pointing out that your failure to make your point is clear. Citing incorrect statute, and failing to cite what you claim is there, makes your point a complete and utter failure.

idea said:

Try to comprehend that of what you read, I have shown (post 147), how the traffic laws convert private rights into public rights through public policy. You still have not grasped the concept, especially when two agencies (PSC and DMV) work in unison.

Click to expand...

Once again, do NOT confuse my lack of agreement with any failure to comprehend that which I read. If I say you have not proved your point, it is on YOU to do such.

idea said:

Read it again, digest it, research and look up the definition(s) of the words that are statutorily defined.

Click to expand...

LOL, I cited the statute definitions that contradict the ones you presented. To accurately use definitions in statute, you must first cite the definitions for the title you are using the definitions in, not the definitions from another title or section. If you cannot understand that, you really are in over your head expecting others to accept what you claim.

idea said:

All you have shown is an attempt to disprove that what you don't comprehend through usage of single statutes you pluck out of a code here and there. Bodies of law are a tad more complicated.

Click to expand...

Which is exactly appropriate to counter your usage of single statutes that are NOT from the statutes you claim they are relevant to.

idea said:

Other than that: your use of those funny emoticons and pictures is truly a work of art. Congrats!

Click to expand...

You have attempted to declare what you feel is true to be true. You have failed utterly to show any connection, except in your own mind. I have pointed out where you failed in the NM cite, the NV cite, and the MD cite. I have pointed out that you have not shown what you claim re NV statute, and you didn't present any evidence to support your claim. I will not attempt to prove YOUR claims, and it is clear that you refuse to also.


When you cite public transportation statute and attempt to claim it defines DMV 'motor vehicle,' it IS worth the 'double facepalm.'




Maybe you have a point. You have utterly failed to present it, other than attempts at empty declarations. Empty declarations aren't proof. What is the source of your claims, because what you present so far, isn't making the connection you think it makes.

Originally Posted by idea(l)s
Instead of trying to belittle, mock, pooh pooh, snort at and blah blah this commentators' writings, which belie your personal insecurity, you too could learn to stand the law as opposed to buy into the deliberated fraud of public policy.

wrightme said:

Do NOT make the mistake of thinking my disagreement with your theory to mean I am insecure or don't understand the concept you present. DO accept that I am pointing out that your failure to make your point is clear.

Click to expand...

There is no need to go any further than the first sentence you wrote, you perfectly demonstrate again that you do not comprehend that of what you read; never did I make the mistake of thinking that your disagreement with what you call "my theory" means you are insecure.

To wit: your insecurity manifests itself solely through your condescending tone, your mocking of my commentary, your cute emoticons to emphasize your "points" and pooh mine, your belittling of my writings, your snort interspersed within sentences you use, the lol/roftl/facepalms etcetera.

Work on your reading comprehension first, then try to reason as an adult, thank you.

idea(l)s said:

Instead of trying to belittle, mock, pooh pooh, snort at and blah blah this commentators' writings, which belie your personal insecurity, you too could learn to stand the law as opposed to buy into the deliberated fraud of public policy. There is no need to go any further than the first sentence you wrote, you perfectly demonstrate again that you do not comprehend that of what you read; never did I make the mistake of thinking that your disagreement with what you call "my theory" means you are insecure.

Click to expand...

So, you claim I misunderstood your post since I said that? Yet you don't see that your comment shows that you do misunderstand my posts.

idea said:

To wit: your insecurity manifests itself solely through your condescending tone, your mocking of my commentary, your cute emoticons to emphasize your "points" and pooh mine, your belittling of my writings, your snort interspersed within sentences you use, the lol/roftl/facepalms etcetera.

Work on your reading comprehension first, then try to reason as an adult, thank you.[/COLOR]

Click to expand...

LOL, I comprehend your statements. They do NOT create the proof of your claims.

I first attempted to reason with you as if you were an adult.

The condescending tone isn't a sign of any problem in me. It is a result of your refusal to actually discuss the points I presented in reply to your posts about NM and MD and NV statutes. I first entered into discussion with you. You refused to even contemplate my points; instead posting in a condescending matter to me. NOW you wail about it when I stoop to your level? At best, that is disingenuous.
You claim that my singling out of statutes isn't valid, yet you single out statutes in an attempt to prove your claim. Either singling out statutes is valid, or it is not.


You also haven't addressed the inconsistencies in statute titles and the definitions you try to rest your theory upon. You also haven't addressed one key concept.

Adopting the statue construction of another entity, does not indicate grasping authority to regulate from that other entity.

If some father forces their son to get a haircut like Justin Bieber, that does not mean that Justin Bieber conveyed that authority onto the father. That is the claim you are attempting to present.

idea(l)s said:

Very astute observation.

As I have mentioned numerous times: the same or similarly worded statutes can be found in every state of the union, the scheme is set up in identical fashion, look it up.

Click to expand...

How they are set up, re identical fashions, does not prove your claim. It simply shows that the schemes are set up the same.


Since you claim 'the same or similarly worded statutes can be found in every state of the union,' link them here so we can see what it is you have found out. Or, alternatively, if you got that information from a separate source and are merely parroting it off, link your source. It doesn't become fact via proclamation.

You did claim all states do the same, yet you also state that you haven't looked at all the states statutes. Either you have nothing, or you have something from someone else. Which is it?

idea(l)s said:

The United States in Congress assembled has been granted the authority to regulate commerce, we do "enjoy" a commerce clause after all.

Unless you can cite the alleged authority to regulate private lives, you have no argument implying one needs to do any of the above quoted.

Click to expand...

wrightme said:

Congress doesn't issue or cause you to need a driver's license, the state does.

Click to expand...

idea(l)s said:

You are mistaken, every state in the union has a State Plan in place, adopting the traffic laws as found in the Code of Federal Regulations.
In NM it reads as follows:

18.2.3.12 DRIVING OF MOTOR VEHICLES:
The department of public safety hereby adopts Part 392 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (49 CFR 392 - Driving of Motor Vehicles)***, with no amendments.
[2-3-93; 11-17-93; 2-14-95; 11-17-95; 4-30-97; 18.2.3.11 NMAC - Rp 18 NMAC 2.3.11, 6-29-00]
[emphasis mine]

Click to expand...

The fed CAN regulate commerce; i.e., commercial vehicles. You have not presented a clear link between that authority, and what the States regulate with their DMV offices for private parties. The argument there has nothing to do with federal. It is only an argument between state vs citizen. You are presenting a 'connect the dots' theory that you have failed to prove.

idea(l)s said:

Part of the MD code reads as follows:

Code of Maryland Regulations, Public service Commission
20.95.01.03
.03 Definitions.
(3) Motor Vehicle.
(a) "Motor vehicle" includes all vehicles or machines propelled by any power other than muscular used upon the public roads, not on rails, for public transportation of persons for compensation.
(b) "Motor vehicle" does not include a taxicab.
(4) "Operator" means any person engaged in driving a motor vehicle for which a permit has been issued.
(5) "Owner" means the individual, partnership, carrier, or company to whom a permit has been issued.
(6) "Permit" means the permit issued by the Commission
[emphasis mine]

Ask yourself the question: were you issued the required "permit" prior to "operate" and register your "motor vehicle"?
The "registration" part of the various motor vehicle codes is uniform throughout the states codes as well.

Click to expand...

When you present definitions from the Public transportation and commercial statute, the question you present is irrelevant; because your question is answered by a separate statute with its own definitions. You do understand this, don't you?

idea(l)s said:

There you go: "the authority to regulate motor carriers", you are right on point. This ties in with the fact that they have the authority to regulate commerce, not private lives.

I am very well on subject, Title 58 tells how the DMV was established and by whom and what their "powers" are. It's pretty evident
NRS 481.019  Creation; powers and duties.

1.  The Department of Motor Vehicles is hereby created.

2.  The Department is vested with the powers and authority provided in this chapter and shall carry out the purposes of this chapter.

It is imperative to understand that chapter so that we know their power and authority (god forbid they should ever act outside of that scope...!)

We will deal with Title 43 later.

Click to expand...

That post was an excellent example of where you spoke with ersatz knowledge. You were not 'very well on subject.'

Title 58 didn't tell how the DMV was established, it conveyed a power upon the DMV to regulate commercial vehicle traffic. I pointed that out to you, and you obviously didn't even check prior to posting your denial here. The section you pulled from my post was not title 58.

It appears that most of the rest of the statutes you cite were gathered in a fashion as follows:

1) Come up with a desired point that argues against authority to license vehicles or drivers

2) Search for specific phrases in state code and ignore those that do not fit in your preferred theory

3) Post it in internet forums

4) Belittle those who disagree with you

wrightme said:

...Oh My GOODNESS! You are attempting to pass off 'Public Service Commission' of Maryland as if it was the DMV!...

Click to expand...

Do I need to post cowscantape again? He doesn't get it. He never will.

Give it up! He doesn't understand that he can't get his BS past folks who can read the law and actually do.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

idea(l)s said:

I am not making my case? Really, let's recap then: I have shown that The United States in Congress assembled has the power to regulate commerce, you have not offered any argument or proof to the contrary, neither have you shown where they would derive the authority to regulate private lives.

Click to expand...

I never argued that the US Congress does not have the power to regulate commerce.
Nor have I presented any argument that states a derived authority to regulate private lives. That isn't relevant to states ability to regulate private lives at all though.

idea said:

I have shown that the individual states ride on the back of CFR Title to enforce "traffic" laws. You have claimed that the states can "force" those but your rebuttal consisted of a "sigh" and nothing else. I'll ask again: if you believe the individual states can "force" the issue then show me where such power and or authority originates from, I am an eager learner.

Click to expand...

No, you have not shown that at all. You have shown that three states adopt the CFR title for the commercial statutes, but failed to account for the separate statute titles that cover non-commercial vehicles. One does not govern the other.

idea said:

You are partially correct in the above quote, the only mistake is that our representatives do not write the "codes", they write the laws into the federal and state registers, these laws then get "codified" and that's how we end up with the codified statutes.

Click to expand...

Pedantry. Not useful. And you wail about me being condescending......

Well,,,

OK,,, so now I am confused....
I will ask each of you,,, wrightme an ideal....

Which of you guys are trying to teach a pig to dance?
Nooooo thats not it..
Which of you is wrestling with a pig? you got a little mud there... and I think he is enjoying it too much!

stealthyeliminator said:

<snip>

Click to expand...

That being said, <buzzer noise>, wrong. Maybe it's nothing more than semantics, but, Libertarianism aligns with anarchy. The absolute application of libertarian principles can only lead to a society free of any form of traditional government. Some would reject the idea that any hierarchy whatsoever can exist in true anarchy (meaning the rejection of things like capitalism) and that anarchy is not merely the abolishment of state type organizations, but that's for another discussion altogether. There is a youtube video called "the Philosophy of Liberty", you may have seen it already, but here's a link anyway https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBfg8JrF2RI It is about 8 minutes long. It's very basic and generalized but I think it hits home.

Click to expand...

I refer you to the LP website. Those libertarians see a necessary role for a government.

You go on to say that our Framers created the best known yet form of government, and I guess you imply that the ideals used align with your ideology, but how could that be possible when your ideology does not allow for reshaping of government structure in the pursuit of liberty? If they rejected the notion of radically reshaping government in the pursuit of liberty and justice then they would have never created what they did. Their implementation was certainly not "the norm"

Click to expand...

Our Founding Document, the Constitution, contains the mechanism for reshaping our government. The trick is to get a democratic majority to keep liberty alive and well in our republic.

Secondly, and this may just be more semantics, but I don't understand what you mean when you say that they have authority to do something but perhaps should not do something. In what sense should they not? For what reason should they not? Typically when someone says that a person "should not" do something, they mean that it would be unethical or immoral. If it would be immoral to do then they do not have authority to do it. Authority aligns with morality - morality being the only legitimate basis upon which one person can have authority over another - which generally only provides for authority when you're either a) in the context of family or b) when a mutual and consensual transaction has taken place that establishes that authority

Click to expand...

Congress has the authority to declare was, Article I, Section 8. No pretext for such a declaration is present in that short passage. Should congress declare war without a justified pretext? Different question. But, Congress clearly has the authority regardless of the morality of such a declaration.

Authority and ability are obviously not the same, so offering the fact that a legislator has written law as evidence that the legislator had authority to do so is just, well, silly. It is entirely possible for someone to do something that they do not have the authority to do. That includes writings laws, imposing taxes, and enforcing punishments for failure to follow laws. I guess what I'm saying is, you can't use law to prove legitimacy of authority because authority is not derived from law, it's derived from morality. To deny this is to deny the very notion of morality - which certainly regulates delegation of authority over other human beings.

Click to expand...

Lawmakers by definition have the authority to write laws. Our republican form of government has checks to ensure that the laws written or constitutional. The fact that unconstitutional laws are written is not germane to this discussion. But the authority clearly exists. Laws are essentially the will of the citizenry, delegated to our elected representative, to manage how the powers granted in US Constitution and the respective state constitutions are implemented. Correct or incorrect implementation is also not germane to this discussion.

Anyway, <snip>

Click to expand...

Anyway. Authority is clearly granted to the necessary government officials via our elected representative. Just cuz it ain't getting done right is not germane to this discussion.

By your logic, the existence of criminals conveys upon them an authority to act criminally.

Frankly, I have yet to hear a single valid defense for any authority per se.

marshaul said:

By your logic, the existence of criminals conveys upon them an authority to act criminally.

Frankly, I have yet to hear a single valid defense for any authority per se.

Click to expand...

^^^THIS!!!^^^

I am compelled to obey or suffer the consequences.

My mom and dad were the only authority that I did not question the validity of. As I think marshaul is stating, virtually all other claims to authority are dubious at best and most likely undeserved.