• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Favor Owed--Fourth Amendment dot Com

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
The exercise of such a common right the city may, under its police power, regulate in the interest of the public safety and welfare; but it may not arbitrarily or unreasonably prohibit or restrict it, nor may it permit one to exercise it and refuse to permit another of like qualifications, under like conditions and circumstances, to exercise it. (emphasis is mine).
Would you consider mandatory vehicle registration to the tune of more than $100 "reasonable" when they could lower the rate to say, $50, once every five years unless a person moves or sells their vehicle, the same requirements as we have here in Colorado for our CHP? (CC permit)
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,433
Location
White Oak Plantation
There should be no recurring tax on private property. A usage fee, gas tax regarding vehicles, should be. I consider vehicle property taxes to be a unlawful seizure of my property. Just as Terry v. Ohio was implemented to protect state agents and not the individual liberty of our fellow citizens. Any cop who believes that Terry favors the citizenry is a liar.
 

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
Not one state apologist has shown where the state can create priviliges such as driving?
SVG, I believe you know the exact answer to your statement. But I shall entertain your query.

Citizens either out of ignorance or fear, or may be a bit of both, surrender rights to the state for the mere state privilege. The state, the courts, the lawyers, the street revenue cops,etc, make billions of dollars off the backs of those aforementioned fearful, ignorant, citizens, who wait in long lines to simply contract for their state issued privilege to drive... They purchase a DL, and here is the funniest part, said citizen is not even ALLOWED to smile on his/her own license.. Therefore the dmv, instantly removes the "right to smile".. and starts their authority over the fearful, ignorant, non-smiling citizen, that just surrendered a right, for a government issued privilege.. " Smile not required, to surrender a right".

There, my Patriot friend, is the complete answer to your query, however, like I previously opined, a pro-citizen like yourself, was already aware of the answer.

Like Voltaire, " Judge of a man by his questions, rather than by his answers".

SVG, please don't be a stranger, always a pleasure Sir!

Regards
CCJ
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
There should be no recurring tax on private property. A usage fee, gas tax regarding vehicles, should be. I consider vehicle property taxes to be a unlawful seizure of my property. Just as Terry v. Ohio was implemented to protect state agents and not the individual liberty of our fellow citizens. Any cop who believes that Terry favors the citizenry is a liar.
I agree 100%, OC. I alone earned it. The government didn't lift a single finger to put either vehicle on my lot or money in my bank account.

1913 was an abominable year in U.S. history.
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
Not one state apologist has shown where the state can create priviliges such as driving?
It appears that in addition to engaging in petty insults ("state apologist" is nothing but an epithet from the person who wrote it), the anarchist also has either a reading disability or is being deliberately obtuse. It was actually one of the "no license required" crowd who provided a court ruling declaring the city/State may regulate the operation of motor vehicles on public roads.

Thompson v Smith from Virginia:


The regulation of the exercise of the right to drive a private automobile on the streets of the city may be accomplished in part by the city by granting, refusing, and revoking, under rules of general application, permits to drive an automobile on its streets; but such permits may not be arbitrarily refused or revoked, or permitted to be held by some and refused to other of like qualifications, under like circumstances and conditions.

Nightmare and Marshaul have both provided sound arguments in other threads as to why traffic laws are necessary: It boils down to the risk to the public and/or the infringement of others' rights if certain rules are not followed.

I realize that since the anarchists deny any proper power for government to exist in the first place, they set an impossible standard to meet in terms of demonstrating that government may then exercise any power whatsoever. But for those who recognize the necessity, perhaps even the desirability of government, I note that the 10th amendment to the US Federal Constitution provides that powers not delegated to the federal government remain under the purview of the States or in the hands of the People themselves.

In the Utah State Constitution, Art VI. Sec 1, legislative power is delegated to the State House and State Senate. So far as I'm aware, all other States/Commonwealth's have a similar vesting of legislative power. Unlike the federal government that is strictly confined to delegated powers, States tend to have broader powers including regulatory powers over matters of concern to the public safety and order.

Putting a 4000 pound vehicle into motion at upwards of 80 mph is most certainly of imminent and immediate concern to public safety and order. Such a vehicle traveling at even 30 mph does a pretty good job of smashing through typical residential construction and ending up in people's living rooms if not properly controlled on a moment-to-moment basis.

While I fully agree that fees and taxes charged are excessive and amount to simple revenue generation, and while I also agree that certain traffic rules (ie speed limits) are often used far more for revenue generation than for actual safety, on the basic question of whether government has or should have the proper authority to impose some sort of regulation on the operation of motorized (and even non-motorized) vehicles on public streets, there is no doubt such authority is proper and generally of benefit.

Those who claim such authority does not exist have never, NEVER, in the 30 years I've been asking, been willing or able to provide any substantive backing to their claim, nor even willing to detail how they go about avoiding problems with the government. They revert to childish insults (sheep, state apologists) and demands for me to prove them wrong.

I wish they'd demonstrate I'm wrong by showing me how to avoid paying registration fees and being hassled by needless vehicle inspections. But those who make claims about travel by right are either full of crap or are members of some club that refuses to assist others to gain their level of enlightenment and freedom.

In the end, it doesn't much matter which is true because the end result is the same for all the rest of us.

Charles
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
Thanks for putting me in such lofty company. Marshaul is indeed missed. I hope that his career flies.

Apropos the budding engineer Marshaul, I'll mention that a properly engineered speed limit is effective, and is the 85th percentile of the uncontrolled speed observed in the area. The speed limit is not supposed to be the normal and proper speed.
Much as he and I tangled and disagreed on certain non-RKBA social poilcies, I also miss Marshaul's contributions. When he wasn't making a personal attack on me, he frequently had great insights.

The 85th percentile speed is generally the best way to set speed limits on highways, freeways, and major commute routes.

There are, however, other situations where speed limits need to be set via different means including based on the risk of significant injury or death to pedestrians should a collision with a vehicle occur. For example, as shown at this link the risk of severe injury to a pedestrian hit by a car is 10% if the car is moving at 16 mph. At 23 mph, the risk rises to 25%. At 32 mph, that risk doubles to 50%. And by 58 mph the risk is 90%.

Speed also affects reaction time. Assuming a child runs into the street without warning, a car traveling at 16 mph will cover about 24 feet per second. At 32 mph, obviously, the car covers twice that or 48 feet per second. Additionally, actual stopping time/distance will increase with speed as well. At 16 mph, the car will stop in about 15 feet after the brakes are applied. At 32 mph, that is going to increase to something like 30 feet. As noted at this link reaction time while driving might well vary between 0.7 seconds (to apply the brakes) to 1.5 seconds.

So total time to stop a car after a child runs into the road is going to be about 50 feet at 16 mph and about 100 feet at 32 mph. And should a car hit a child, the odds of the child being seriously injured jump from 10% (at 16 mph) to 50% at 32 mph.

This report details the limitations of children's ability to judge the dangers posed by cars traveling on the road as well as their inability to properly judge speed and distance.

In other words, when children are present, full responsibility to avoid collision must fall onto the driver of cars as children are simply not capable of making the necessary decisions.

Hence, school zone speed limits of 15 or 20 mph during times when children are present make a lot of sense.

Similarly, residential speed limits of 25 or 30 mph also make good sense regardless of what the 85th percentile speed might be. As we move into commercial areas or major commute routes without homes or school zones, the 85th percentile makes a lot of sense. There are also cases where engineering expertise about what is the safe speed for a section of road may be needed. This is true in cases where a roads risks are not apparent such as being much steeper than is normally perceived, or a turn that is shaper than it appears, or a sharp turn with a negative bank.

Good road design in residential or other populated areas can encourage drivers to drive at a lower, safer speed without relying purely on enforcement. But in many cases, this costs more than building a road on which drivers may want to drive faster than is actually safe for pedestrians or adjacent property owners.

Charles
 
Top