The Right to Travel

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


So if driving is a right, wouldn't that make any and all driving rules and restrictions null and void?

They would be infringing on your tight to travel.

Originally posted by peck420
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

So if driving is a right, wouldn't that make any and all driving rules and restrictions null and void?

They would be infringing on your tight to travel.

Of course not. Freedom of speech is a right, but there are laws restricting speech such as slander or yelling fire in crowded theater. Freedom of the press is restricted by libel laws, and freedom of religious worship is restricted by human sacrifice laws. The right to keep and bear arms does not give a person the right to shoot off those arms in a public square without regard for the safety to the other people around them.

Traffic regulations do not necessarily infringe upon a persons right to travel. Stop signs and lights implemented to ease the congestion of traffic do not infringe upon a right to travel, but ignoring these rules while others obey them most certainly infringes upon the rights of others in a traffic situation.

Rights do not mean that people may act however they please whenever they please, rights are universal, and as such, one persons rights cannot infringe upon another persons rights. There are parking rules and regulations that are designed to protect the rights of people who whose rights would otherwise be infringed upon by indiscriminate parking. There are directional regulations, and right of way traffic rules designed to protect the rights of people, not infringe upon them.

Actually I think that this needs to go to the beginning of the illusion, every car on the road starts out as a nice shiny brand new vehicle sitting to be purchased at the dealer (post production), and without certain measures you cannot purchase this vehicle. Such as a license or insurance, or the follow-up of paper tags to fully registered tags.

The OP should build his own car from the ground up. He will own it in whole and will not be required to register it. He then can muse about without the license or the insurance (his own no-fault is his wallet), and then go against the "establishment". Buck the system but buck it from the very beginning. I am certain you do not need a license for any other 'created' vehicle. If you build a ship to the Moon do you need to have an Astronauts license? NO you do not. If you own a horse must you prove you can ride it? No because if you cannot it will not work.

I think the real catch to all of this is that the vehicle in question is actually the 'Contract' no matter who signed it or when but that it was in place long before the vehicle left the showroom floor. To void it you simply discard the vehicle and use something that has never been under such guises.

I am still hoping for a favorable outcome for the OP even if I am only praying for something that cannot be (because it never was). Good luck, again!

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Thank you. Just needed some clarity.

Second line.

reply to post by Namaste


You are forgetting one point, we all agreed to use driver's licenses as a means of control, the majority of us. You are breaking a social contract and we like to use the law to punish you. It is us against you, not a corporation of government.

Originally posted by earthdude
reply to post by Namaste

 

You are forgetting one point, we all agreed to use driver's licenses as a means of control, the majority of us. You are breaking a social contract and we like to use the law to punish you. It is us against you, not a corporation of government.

The Constitutions that set up the form of governance, both sate and federal, in the United State of America, is a republic, and those republics were expressly created to to prevent the tyranny of the majority from trampling over the rights of the minority. In terms of law, and the law of contract, the so called "social contract" is unenforceable as a contract.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by earthdude
reply to post by Namaste

 

You are forgetting one point, we all agreed to use driver's licenses as a means of control, the majority of us. You are breaking a social contract and we like to use the law to punish you. It is us against you, not a corporation of government.

The Constitutions that set up the form of governance, both sate and federal, in the United State of America, is a republic, and those republics were expressly created to to prevent the tyranny of the majority from trampling over the rights of the minority. In terms of law, and the law of contract, the so called "social contract" is unenforceable as a contract.

I agree, but we enforce it anyway, It is the only way to keep the crazy people off the road.

reply to post by Namaste


Sure...you have the right to travel...but stay the hell off the roads we as a society have agreed will be used with rules in place.


I'm gonna make a prediction and say that you lose your court case.

I'll make another prediction you will come back here and cry about the "injustice".

reply to post by earthdude

I agree, but we enforce it anyway, It is the only way to keep the crazy people off the road.

And yet, crazy people are not kept off of the roads, and this is why terms such as "road rage" exist.