Privileges vs. Rights.

[SemperFiUSMC]

You obviously don't understand what I'm saying. I would invite you to go to law school with what's his name. Then we can talk intelligently. Take a philosophy class too. Otherwise I'm done.

I hate when people quote inside my quotes.

Would you PLEASE read what I say with out any bias. I was talking about OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE. When did I say I "have no problem being licensed to carry a firearm out in public on a public street or sidewalk"? I have said I comply with the LTCH because it's not worth the lost opportunity cost not to. That doesn't mean I have no problem. It means it's not worth going to prison for. You obviously have strong feelings that the LTCH is an infringment of your rights. Do you set your principles aside and get an LTCH?

Operating a vehicle, traveling in a vehicle, if you're going to nitpick I'm not going to try to converse with you again on this subject. AND I'm not the one being biased here. I'm calling it like i see it. You said you don't have a problem being required to carry a LTCH because you don't mind being required to have a DL.

Licensing is not an onerous restriction of any right since such rights do not exist. It is a required step in the process to securing the privilege of operating a motor vehicle on public roads.

You posted that, right? You don't see that driving a car is a right, when in fact, it is. Travel, by any means that you control, is a right. You have no problem saying that driving is a privilege but some people see carrying a pistol as a privilege. You don't have to have a license for a bicycle, or a horse, or a 49cc moped, but you do for a car or truck. Licenses don't prevent deaths, they're only there for money. $17 + TAX x 300 million is a lot of money.

That's not what I said. No license is required to travel in any vehicle of any size. To OPERATE a 2000lb vehicle is a privilege predicated by receiving a license to do so. Is that not in fact the truth?

See? Nit picking. Your question may be truth, but it is a right that was taken from us long ago and people like you accept it and call it privilege. It is not. I own that vehicle outright so I have a RIGHT to drive it anywhere I please unless I'm violating someone's rights. Is my driving down the Highway violating your rights? I didn't say erratically or dangerously, but just DRIVING DOWN THE ROAD.

I didn't ignore it. I said the the people through their representative rejected it and demanded licensing. The political process was followed. Is that not in fact the truth?

So because people are willing to violate other people's rights, you're willing to go along with that? The political process was NOT followed because people decided to violate another person's rights.

I'm not arguing for or against laws that have been passed. My personal opinion is that driving is a privilege, not a right. This based more on the current state of the law than anything else. If a law were passed tomorrow that made it a right I would be OK with that.

So you are basing your [strike]infringements[/strike] beliefs on the current state of law instead of on what is right and wrong? So if a law were creating and passed tomorrow saying that it is a privilege to own property in general you would be ok with that because the Majority is ok with it? They call this system a Democracy, which fortunately we don't live with.


I haven't commented on the efficacy of licensing because I don't have any idea how effective licensing is. I endeavor to not make wild unsubstantiated statements.

I believe I can help you with this. Just as LTCHs don't stop criminals from killing people with guns, DLs don't stop people from killing other people. The whole license scheme is just that. A scheme. Worse, it's a direct infringement. Not only does it tell me I can't travel by means under my control without permission, it also makes my property (a vehicle) completely useless. Can you imagine what would happen if they required you to be licensed to own a home? It's not a right to own a house, so why not require a license to do so. Oh wait, it's just a tax. Property tax. So you really never own anything.



And now on to the second part....

How the hell do you get that I am defending anything? I described the current state. Reality. The truth. That is not defending anything.

You are defending the 16th by calling it Constitutional. Theft is NOT Constitutional which means the 16th is not either.

And?

This is WHY the 16th came about and another reason WHY it is unConstitutional. To fund a government that had grown beyond it's legal means.


Again, how what have I said that gives you any impression I am defending anything? How much is too much? A fraction of the government intrusion we have now is still too much. How much control am I willing to have? Enough that I am willing to say screw it and do something about it. I'm nowhere near that point yet. It's a Zen thing. They can control things in my life, but they control me only to the extent I allow them to. I let a lot roll off and hit the ground as I walk away never looking back.

I didn't ask how much control YOU were willing to have. I asked how much control are you willing to GIVE THEM? So far you're willing to give them over half your income and to register your property, be licensed to used your property, and to never truly own your property.


It's like the TSA thing. I am unwilling to comply with the naked pictures or the groping. I'm voting with my feet. My choice is to not fly. If I have to fly I'll charter. If I have to travel internationally I'll fly out of Toronto where they don't have those silly rules. There's always a way around everything.

So there's a way around a DL? A LTCH? Property and Income Tax? Sure. If you're willing to give up EVERYTHING. So, if you value your life, no, there's NOT a way around everything.

BS. That is a load of . If it is in the Constitution it is by definition Constitutional. You may not like it. I don't like it. I didn't vote for it. I didn't for the guy who voted for it. But to say something is not Constitutional when it is in the Constitution is so void of logic and a grasp of reality I can't even respond to statements like that anymore.

I'm sorry you have problems grasping reality. But it is reality. Income Tax is THEFT of your PROPERTY. The Founding Fathers warned against this. There was a REASON they didn't put this in the Constitution. Just as there was a REASON they put in the Constitution that half of Congress would be elected by STATE Legislature and not the PEOPLE. If you can't grasp that Income Tax is THEFT and a violation of our right, therefore UNCONSTITUTIONAL then we really are done here. That would be you DEFENDING the Income Tax as Constitutional. It is not.

So since it's an infringment do you exercise your right and opt out of compliance, or sacrificing your principles do you have a driver's license, license plates, insurance, and everything else you may believe infringes your rights? That's a rhetorical question. I don't expect a response.

Just because I spew a fact doesn't mean I support it. Please keep this in mind.


Well I'm responding anyway because you assume too much. As I stated in my original post, I am only one man and cannot change the law or the mind of millions. Millions of complacent, brain washed people who have no interest in the rights of others at the expense of the beliefs of a few.

Also keep in mind that defending something illegal or that violates the rights of others IS supporting that something. You may not agree with it, but you are, in fact, defending it.

(See? I can nitpick too!)

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

You consistently remove "or to the people" from the 10A. I am of the belief that the 2A is a prime example of why that phrase must be included there... The power to infringe the RKBA is not granted to the federal government in any way, shape, or form. In the 2A, because it does not, as the 1A does, specify Congress, I am of the belief that that power is denied the states as well. Thus, in whom would be the power to restrict, to infringe upon, the RKBA? Governments have the powers granted them by the people, people therefore must have the powers to grant them, thus, that power remains with the people. The catch is that, as you recently pointed out, only governments can infringe upon rights. Thus, that power is denied to all, which fits the text of the 2A exactly: "...the right...shall not be infringed."

I'm not leaving it out. For the sake of the current discussion it is irrelevent. We are talking about state's rights, not enumerated rights held to the people and powers prohibited to the states.

Read the history of the 10th Amendment. In the debates few felt it was necessary. Even Madison conceded it was superfluous (his word). He introduced and insisted on its passage knowing and acknowledging it was a feel good amendment that added no additional meaning or clarification to the Constitution. This is a historical fact. SCOTUS consistently believes it is a statement of truth (a truism) rather than law to be interpreted and applied. This is also a historical fact.

The point is that the 10A DOES restrict those powers to the states, yes, but also/instead, to the people. If the people have the full complement of rights and powers, unfettered by excessive regulation as we both deplore, we have little to fear from a state gov that gets, for lack of a better term, "froggish". Should they choose to leap, an unfettered body politic would quickly quash the usurption. I'm sure the concept of a politician being tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail, being shot at the wall with a blindfold and a cigarette, or being hanged from the nearest tree when he violated his oath of office is not wholly abstract.

The founder's intent was that elections would be the weapon of revolution. The instrument of choice to keep a tyrannical government from taking root. Contrary to popular belief, they were not revolutionaries. They were thoughtful men. Acedemics. Lawyers. Doctors. Ministers. Businessmen. Criminals. Drunks. Most thought after the war we would reconcile with the Crown.

(handwaggle)

1. "Congress shall make no law..." (and oh, if only they'd stopped with those five words! )
2. "...shall not be infringed."
3. "No soldier shall..."

I read those not as affirmative listings but as denials of powers.
Likely a "tomayto"/"tomahto" thing, though. As for me, my glass is at 50% capacity.

They are both.

Dang, and we were doing so well, too! So, because you can't personally change it, you just accept it and shrug your shoulders? Gura could have done that when he saw what opposition he faced at Heller and at McDonald. I do not accept. I can't change all of it myself. But boy howdy, I can make a hell of a stink

about stuff that's wrong. A former boss of mine used to talk about the difference between complaining and b****ing, wherein the former involved putting it on paper so someone could do something about it. I believe in a healthy measure of both when it comes to things that are wrong.

No I don't just shrug my shoulders. I weigh opportunity costs when I evaluate anything to determine my response. If I didn't someone would alway be pissing me off and there would always be 5,000 people on my "I hope they choke and die" list.

I am not the same person I was when I was in far away places doing unspeakable things. OK I am but I try really hard not to be. As I've said before I have an obsessive compulsive personality. If I start down the road of anger hatred can consume me. I know this from experience. I avoid extreme feelings. For lack of a better term and at the risk of sounding an idiot, I try to be more Spock-like. Keeping things on a reasoned level keeps me emotionally balanced.

Some things are worth fighting for. Some things are worth killing for. Some things are worth dying for. Having to get a driver's license to drive isn't on any of those lists. $100 to get an LTCH isn't either. Try to hurt my family? All lists.

There are a lot of (most) things government at all levels do I don't like. But I refuse to spend my entire life being upset by them.

Don't confuse accepting reality with being a sheeple. Accepting reality means I'm not going to go hack someone's door down with an ax. Today. But let there be no mistake - I still have the ax. And a pitchfork.

(handwaggles again) I don't know on that. I'm not sure I'd call it a right or a privilege at this point. I'm mulling the idea, but I'm leaning toward right.... not like that's any surprise, pun intentional. Did I get a license? Sure. Had it since I was 16. Yes, I could have not-renewed it in the interim, but man, I voted for Clinton in that time frame. TWICE! Yes, I was young and stupid. Some would claim I never grew out of one of those two. Which one, I leave to the reader's imagination. Compromise principles? On the subject of driving as a right vs. privilege, I have no quandary at present. Just giving it some strong thought. You are correct on your last point, though: It would be incorrect of me to assume (we know how to divide that word) that you don't fight for change, too.

I define a right as absolute and inalienable. Any action or behavior that can be regulated is not a right. Those are the terms I think in.

OK, so we have a different information base and you lean one way while I lean the other. Or so you think. Having weighed the opportunity cost of non-compliance, I've decided the potential ramifications (prison) is not worth the risk and therefore comply. Based upon reality and reason I accept that driving is a privilege.

The LTCH is a different thing altogether. It is a right that is abridged by the government. Even though I comply with the provisions of the law (only because non-compliance is futile and the ramifications dire), I hold that it is a right.

In other words, I am capable of seeing that circumstances and facts change outcomes, and do not falsely draw corollaries between unrelated situations.

In this instance and with this set of circumstances and facts, I'm willing to accept there is no presumtive right to drive. In another instance, with difference circumstances and facts, I may militantly decide my behavior is a right. This is not inconsistent. It is thoughtful.

I hold no illusions that everyone will ever be reasonable and responsible. Even in colonial times, there was the concept of the village idiot. (We no longer have villages, so instead, we send those people to Washington. ) Seriously though, I'd just like to see the day when it was even 50% +1 in my lifetime. I'd like to know that in my daughter's lifetime, it would be a great majority. I don't expect either to come true, but I just keep setting those brushfires in minds.

And it is for these reasons that while yes, we must accept it's presence as it is as a fact today, we must also keep working to get people in office who realize how totally wrong-headed that is and will work to reverse the abuses and absurdity.

With this statement you and I agree 100%.

I hold no delusions of grandeur. I do what I can to wake up those sleeping Americans... To get them up and aware and rebelling in the way our Founders fought for us to be able to rebel: civilly, at the polls and at the lecterns, speaking at meetings, voicing support for rollbacks of tyrannical laws, voicing opposition to whatever regulations the other side seems to continuously spout. And yes, mandatory plug here, I Appleseed.

Two for two. I think we've gotten somewhere Bill.

I'll take your comment about the 20 year old's "serenity prayer" as a compliment. You ever see anyone more zealous to change the world than a 20 year old? Couple that with a strong libertarian bent, find me a few more people like that, and man, we can make a difference!

Wow. And you thought we were in disagreement.

As for readability... I didn't go to any Ivy League university. I spent a couple of years at Texas Tech and I finally got my degree a few years ago from Ivy Tech. Nonetheless, I think most of the time I understand you. A member upthread mentioned that your thinking was... utilitarian, I think he called it. it's almost 3 AM and I'm too lazy to look it up, but his point seemed to me to be that your principle changed depending on the subject. Maybe that method works for you in the meat world, I dunno. I doubt you would still be doing it at this point in your life if it didn't. My principles aren't set in stone... given a good reason, a rational explanation, I'm willing to consider that they could be improved, but I'll need a hell of a reason to do so.

My principles don't change. My response does. I've done some 180s. I used to be a strong proponent of the death penalty. I wanted to know where you stood in line to get the job throwing the switch. I was going to do it for free.
To make a long story short I reestablished a relationship with . In analyzing the I came to the conclusion that holding a posiiton where murdering good babies was bad but murdering bad people was good was inconsistent. I'm anti death penalty. That doesn't mean I cry for anyone of these people that die or are murdered by their cellmates. Just that my morals have evolved to the point I cannot in good concience say the death penalty is just.

That method works for me. I don't know about generalities, I think about broad effects of laws good and bad, but I think in terms of examples. You seem to interpret my examples as red herrings; they're not, they're attempts to better illustrate concepts that don't seem to be as well-conveyed as I'd thought by one example, so I look for another.

I like examples. But you can't justify A by substituting the circumstances for B. Sometimes your examples turn in to red herrings. That's not a personal attack. It's a thoughful analysis. I don't point it out to denegrate, but rather strengthen your argument. We all do it from time to time, myself included.

Blessings,
Bill

See. We're pretty much in agreement.

 

[rambone]

How the hell do you get that I am defending anything? I described the current state. Reality. The truth. That is not defending anything.

Again, how what have I said that gives you any impression I am defending anything?

I got the impression you were defending licensing when you were justifying more stringent requirements than actually exist under this already controlling government. There are no such tests that make a person prove he doesn't have a "bad heart" that could explode any minute in mid-flight, nor should there be. Blackhawk also pointed out how you can fly around under a certain altitude without a license. So I actually got the impression you wanted even more government based on the things you were saying.

I'm not arguing for or against laws that have been passed. My personal opinion is that driving is a privilege, not a right. This based more on the current state of the law than anything else. If a law were passed tomorrow that made it a right I would be OK with that.

This was not evident to me.

 

[SavageEagle]

You obviously don't understand what I'm saying. I would invite you to go to law school with what's his name. Then we can talk intelligently. Take a philosophy class too. Otherwise I'm done.

How very mature of you. Some people just can't stand to be wrong.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

How very mature of you. Some people just can't stand to be wrong.

I was thinking exactly the same thing.

You don't listen. You don't think. You spew ignorance with no apparent willingness to process what others say nor desire to overcome it. It's a theme that transcends threads. That's fine. It's your ABSOLUTE right to think what you want to think, as incorrect and outrageous as it is. It's my right to tire and give up. We are both right.

 

[SavageEagle]

I was thinking exactly the same thing.

You don't listen. You don't think. You spew ignorance with no apparent willingness to process what others say nor desire to overcome it. It's a theme that transcends threads. That's fine. It's your ABSOLUTE right to think what you want to think, as incorrect and outrageous as it is. It's my right to tire and give up. We are both right.

REALLY?!?!?! I understood COMPLETELY what you said! If you didn't mean what you said, why would you post it? You believe that your Right to drive your own property from point A to point B is a privilege. You're absolutely wrong about this and can't grasp it.

You also can't grasp the FACT that the Income Tax is THEFT. Thievery is against the law, is it not? If so, then that makes it unConstitutional.

So what part am I wrong about?

 

[dross]

See. We're pretty much in agreement.

To sum up your general philosophy, it seems as if you're saying that you have strong opinions about what is and isn't a right, and it often is at variance with what is recognized by society or law or even SCOTUS as to what is a right, but you don't use much energy worrying about the relatively minor violations of rights when there's a relatively easy workaround.

You also seem to be saying that you don't waste a lot of energy even on serious violations of rights when you don't see that energy is going to make much of a practical difference.

Is this close?

 

[machete]

I was thinking exactly the same thing.

You don't listen. You don't think. You spew ignorance with no apparent willingness to process what others say nor desire to overcome it.

No need to pick on SE like that.

Lots of people here think youre wrong and have given excellent arguments on just how youre wrong... You ignore all of them,,,and think youre right. I guess you feel pretty good about your schools but just because you parrot something they teach at law school dont make it right... When you get out of that ivory tower,,,you still have to prove your work,,,not just say well professor so and so told me something...

You talk about law school telling you about law,,,well I aint seen a law school yet teach graduate-level seminars on Plato or Aquinas so I dont know how some guy who does bankruptcy, ambulance chasing and an occasional law review article comes to be qualified to teach Philosophy or natural law... If I want to learn about what law really is Ill go to the people who deal with the writers who were there at the beginning,,,

Your dividing line between right and privilege is a gateway to statism as you rest the determining factor on how much the act affects others... That is no foundation for Philosophy...its called a fallacy as your argument relies on consequences not up front moral deliberation,,, Rights talk about what we can do in the beginning so your argument is looking at the wrong place... Would you make speech illegal if a political speech on the corner caused so many people to listen that traffic was tied up for five hours???

SE, I think you listen and think.

 

[SavageEagle]

No need to pick on SE like that.

Lots of people here think youre wrong and have given excellent arguments on just how youre wrong... You ignore all of them,,,and think youre right. I guess you feel pretty good about your schools but just because you parrot something they teach at law school dont make it right... When you get out of that ivory tower,,,you still have to prove your work,,,not just say well professor so and so told me something...

You talk about law school telling you about law,,,well I aint seen a law school yet teach graduate-level seminars on Plato or Aquinas so I dont know how some guy who does bankruptcy, ambulance chasing and an occasional law review article comes to be qualified to teach Philosophy or natural law... If I want to learn about what law really is Ill go to the people who deal with the writers who were there at the beginning,,,

Your dividing line between right and privilege is a gateway to statism as you rest the determining factor on how much the act affects others... That is no foundation for Philosophy...its called a fallacy as your argument relies on consequences not up front moral deliberation,,, Rights talk about what we can do in the beginning so your argument is looking at the wrong place... Would you make speech illegal if a political speech on the corner caused so many people to listen that traffic was tied up for five hours???

SE, I think you listen and think.

I appreciate the compliment! I may not be a law professor, or even be able to communicate my thoughts perfectly, but I CAN admit when I'm wrong. I'm just trying to figure out what part of my posts were wrong. Maybe the rest of you can help me out with that?

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

To sum up your general philosophy, it seems as if you're saying that you have strong opinions about what is and isn't a right, and it often is at variance with what is recognized by society or law or even SCOTUS as to what is a right, but you don't use much energy worrying about the relatively minor violations of rights when there's a relatively easy workaround.

You also seem to be saying that you don't waste a lot of energy even on serious violations of rights when you don't see that energy is going to make much of a practical difference.

Is this close?

The answer to your first question is yes.

The answer to your second question is a little more qualified. I work quite extensively, in many ways, to enable others to change things I don't like. I plant seeds. In the mean time I comply. I dont hand wring or lament. I don't moan or complain. I get on with life.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Ryan,

I understand your dislike of the whole writing inside of quotes thing. My suggestion to make it easier to follow would be to use the

button.

It will insert [noparse][/noparse] into your post. Then all you have to do is change that slightly by moving the / mark so it reads [noparse][/quote]

[/noparse] That will drop out of the quote, separate your answer, and make it quotable for the next reply.

You can also, when writing your post, add [noparse][/noparse] tags around the other person's words. It might make it a little easier for you to handle. I know it does when I'm answering.

One other point... On the question of the 16th, or any Amendment: A friend of mine several years ago lost his leg when he was hit by a car. He walks on a prosthetic now. Prior to the accident, no one would have said that the now-amputated leg was a part of him. Today, he still refers his prosthetic as "my leg". Though it was not originally a part of him, it has been made a part of his body and no one thinks of it otherwise.

In the same way, the 16th was not originally a part of the Constitution, but having passed the Amendment process (however questionably), it is now a part of the document. It might be correct to say that it's not right, fair, correct, or in line with the intent of the Founders and Framers, but it is impossible to correctly state that it is "unConstitutional".

You consistently remove "or to the people" from the 10A. ...

I'm not leaving it out. For the sake of the current discussion it is irrelevent. We are talking about state's rights, not enumerated rights held to the people and powers prohibited to the states.

To say that the states have all powers seems disingenuous in this context, at least to me, and that doesn't even begin to discuss the concept of states' "rights". However, the term is one of art and I'll use it myself on occasion, so I'll leave that part alone. I will grant that the states are far more powerful (again, meaning "might") than are individual persons.

Read the history of the 10th Amendment. In the debates few felt it was necessary. Even Madison conceded it was superfluous (his word). He introduced and insisted on its passage knowing and acknowledging it was a feel good amendment that added no additional meaning or clarification to the Constitution. This is a historical fact. SCOTUS consistently believes it is a statement of truth (a truism) rather than law to be interpreted and applied. This is also a historical fact.

What a shame that is!

The founder's intent was that elections would be the weapon of revolution. The instrument of choice to keep a tyrannical government from taking root. Contrary to popular belief, they were not revolutionaries. They were thoughtful men. Acedemics. Lawyers. Doctors. Ministers. Businessmen. Criminals. Drunks. Most thought after the war we would reconcile with the Crown.

They were all of those things, to include "revolutionaries". Res ipsi loquitor, if I use the term correctly. Those who have come and gone between the Founders' time and ours have failed to make the vote the weapon of revolution of which you speak, but this was, I believe, compounded by the far more nefarious factions who have "gamed the system" and taken positions of power to largely neuter the vote. (What's the old saying about the big fecal sandwich and everyone taking a bite?)

Dang, and we were doing so well, too! So, because you can't personally change it, you just accept it and shrug your shoulders? Gura could have done that when he saw what opposition he faced at Heller and at McDonald. I do not accept. I can't change all of it myself. But boy howdy, I can make a hell of a stink

about stuff that's wrong. A former boss of mine used to talk about the difference between complaining and b****ing, wherein the former involved putting it on paper so someone could do something about it. I believe in a healthy measure of both when it comes to things that are wrong.

No I don't just shrug my shoulders. I weigh opportunity costs when I evaluate anything to determine my response. If I didn't someone would alway be pissing me off and there would always be 5,000 people on my "I hope they choke and die" list.

I am not the same person I was when I was in far away places doing unspeakable things. OK I am but I try really hard not to be. As I've said before I have an obsessive compulsive personality. If I start down the road of anger hatred can consume me. I know this from experience. I avoid extreme feelings. For lack of a better term and at the risk of sounding an idiot, I try to be more Spock-like. Keeping things on a reasoned level keeps me emotionally balanced.

I'm beginning to better understand your positions. It's not a lack of outrage, just a refusal to allow the outrage to turn to action. One cannot, for example, unring a bell.

Some things are worth fighting for. Some things are worth killing for. Some things are worth dying for. Having to get a driver's license to drive isn't on any of those lists. $100 to get an LTCH isn't either. Try to hurt my family? All lists.

Well.. for you, spending $100 for a LTCH is not necessarily unreasonable. It wasn't for me either. The principle of it is the problem because there are so, so many people who cannot afford that $100 and should not be denied the ability to exercise their rights of self-defense should they dare to actually leave their homes. As to whether it's worth killing or dying for, I suppose that's the central issue, isn't it? It would take finding the perfect plaintiff, of course, but what a case that would make: The man who either was able to purchase the tool or the permission to have it, not both and having gotten the tool, had occasion to use it, correctly, now on trial, charged not with killing his assailant, not with any crime of violence, but simply under IC 35-47-2-1(a), CWOL. I suppose there are actually prosecutors in this state who might pursue such a charge.

There are a lot of (most) things government at all levels do I don't like. But I refuse to spend my entire life being upset by them.

Don't confuse accepting reality with being a sheeple. Accepting reality means I'm not going to go hack someone's door down with an ax. Today. But let there be no mistake - I still have the ax. And a pitchfork.

And this is what defines LTCH holders, law-abiding and peaceable people, from so many others, and also the point that the gun grabbers cannot seem to grasp. I am forced to wonder if the reason for that is that they fall into the group that would not trust themselves to own the axe, either.

I define a right as absolute and inalienable. Any action or behavior that can be regulated is not a right. Those are the terms I think in.

Is it? Free speech can be regulated. It's still a right. The carrying of arms is regulated. It's still a right. The question, I think, is more correctly directed to the validity of the regulation rather than the acceptance of its presence.

OK, so we have a different information base and you lean one way while I lean the other. Or so you think. Having weighed the opportunity cost of non-compliance, I've decided the potential ramifications (prison) is not worth the risk and therefore comply. Based upon reality and reason I accept that driving is a privilege.

The LTCH is a different thing altogether. It is a right that is abridged by the government. Even though I comply with the provisions of the law (only because non-compliance is futile and the ramifications dire), I hold that it is a right.

In other words, I am capable of seeing that circumstances and facts change outcomes, and do not falsely draw corollaries between unrelated situations.

In this instance and with this set of circumstances and facts, I'm willing to accept there is no presumtive right to drive. In another instance, with difference circumstances and facts, I may militantly decide my behavior is a right. This is not inconsistent. It is thoughtful.

There are some situations that I've quoted with enough similarity to still be applicable- all of them, from my perspective- and as such, the corrolaries apply. That a government entity defines X as a "privilege" today does not make it so, for if that same entity was to claim the same of something else it would change only that the exercise of the right was being infringed, not the nature of the right itself. Take the 3A for example: Nowhere in the text of it does it specify that it is a right. Further, if the troops show up and say, "Mister Semper, you will sign this form consenting to us staying in your home or we will burn it to the ground with you and your family in it", you would have given your consent (albeit under duress, but try to prove it) and thus have that right to not house soldiers without your consent be infringed. The right would still exist, however.

With this statement you and I agree 100%.

Two for two. I think we've gotten somewhere Bill.

Wow. And you thought we were in disagreement.

We both seemed to for a while there.

My principles don't change. My response does. I've done some 180s. I used to be a strong proponent of the death penalty. I wanted to know where you stood in line to get the job throwing the switch. I was going to do it for free.
To make a long story short I reestablished a relationship with . In analyzing the I came to the conclusion that holding a posiiton where murdering good babies was bad but murdering bad people was good was inconsistent. I'm anti death penalty. That doesn't mean I cry for anyone of these people that die or are murdered by their cellmates. Just that my morals have evolved to the point I cannot in good concience say the death penalty is just.

Are you using the smiley to indicate a discussion outside of INGO rules? Not asking you to violate, I want to understand if what you're referencing there is a relationship with the Deity, as it appears. (understand that the mod staff here is perceptive and discerning enough to understand a violation of a rule and a violation of the spirit of a rule and the difference between them. ) I see where you're coming from. We differ on our interpretations, but I can definately see your logic. Understanding is not the same as concurrance.

I like examples. But you can't justify A by substituting the circumstances for B. Sometimes your examples turn in to red herrings. That's not a personal attack. It's a thoughful analysis. I don't point it out to denegrate, but rather strengthen your argument. We all do it from time to time, myself included.

If they do, it is, I think, a matter of perception. I try to choose examples that illustrate, not that detract from, a particular point, such as the reference above to my friend whose leg was amputated. Clearly, that I have a friend who had that event in his life has not one whit to do with the 16A, the taxing of income, or the existence of the Infernal Revenue Service (no typo!), but yet, I don't believe it distracted from the larger point that once made a part of the document by the vote of the People, a part it is, just as the 18A, though repealed, is still a part of the Constitution.

See. We're pretty much in agreement.

I knew you were smart. You agreed with me and proved it.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

REALLY?!?!?! I understood COMPLETELY what you said! If you didn't mean what you said, why would you post it? You believe that your Right to drive your own property from point A to point B is a privilege. You're absolutely wrong about this and can't grasp it.

You also can't grasp the FACT that the Income Tax is THEFT. Thievery is against the law, is it not? If so, then that makes it unConstitutional.

So what part am I wrong about?

Let's start with these two simple examples and expound on them.

Point 1

You own a car. Let's say its a Corvette. You own real property. We'll say 100 acres. You have an absolute right to operate your Corvette on your own real property. We should be able to absolutely agree to this.

You may want to leave the confines of your property. Unless you are otherwise restricted you may freely travel from one point to another. We should be able to agree this far as well.

The type of conveyance is not an element of travel. It is a means. Let me know if I lost you.

There are roads. They are the property of the collective known as the people. These roads are paid for through tax and other sources of revenue collected by the people's representatives, the government. They are available for use for travel. Tell me if we're still together.

You may or may not have participated in the financing of the construction and maintenance of these roads. Even if you did, the roads are not your personal property. They are the property of the collective. Still with me?

Here's where it will get dicey. The roads do not belong to you. They belong to the collective. As the property owner the collective through its representative, the government, can establish rules and regulations about how its property may be used.

Therefore in order to operate your Corvette on roads that do not belong to you you must follow the rules of the owner. If you fail to follow the owner's rules the owner can prohibit use of its property.

Tell me at what point you disagree.

Point 2

The Constitution was created to form a collective.

The Constitution establishes, among other things, the representatives of the collective, the form of governance, the roles and responsibilities of the government and the collective, and methods for amending the Constitution.

The Constitution established a representative legislature to pass laws, a Chief Executive to implement and administer the laws passed by the legislature, and a judiciary who's duties include interpreting laws passed by the legislature and determining if a law is in conflict with the Constitution.
The judiciary is the only entity empowered by the Constitution to determine a law constitutional or unconstitutional.

If an amendment follows the process delineated in the Constitution for amending the Constitution and is ratified it becomes part of the Constitution.

The 16th Amendment was ratified according to the rules for amending the Constitution as delineated in the Constitution.

By virtue of its ratification the 16th Amendment is Constitutional.

So there are my suppositions. Fire away.

 

[SavageEagle]

Let's start with these two simple examples and expound on them.

Point 1

You own a car. Let's say its a Corvette. You own real property. We'll say 100 acres. You have an absolute right to operate your Corvette on your own real property. We should be able to absolutely agree to this.

You may want to leave the confines of your property. Unless you are otherwise restricted you may freely travel from one point to another. We should be able to agree this far as well.

The type of conveyance is not an element of travel. It is a means. Let me know if I lost you.

There are roads. They are the property of the collective known as the people. These roads are paid for through tax and other sources of revenue collected by the people's representatives, the government. They are available for use for travel. Tell me if we're still together.

You may or may not have participated in the financing of the construction and maintenance of these roads. Even if you did, the roads are not your personal property. They are the property of the collective. Still with me?

Here's where it will get dicey. The roads do not belong to you. They belong to the collective. As the property owner the collective through its representative, the government, can establish rules and regulations about how its property may be used.

Therefore in order to operate your Corvette on roads that do not belong to you you must follow the rules of the owner. If you fail to follow the owner's rules the owner can prohibit use of its property.

Tell me at what point you disagree.

Point 2

The Constitution was created to form a collective.

The Constitution establishes, among other things, the representatives of the collective, the form of governance, the roles and responsibilities of the government and the collective, and methods for amending the Constitution.

The Constitution established a representative legislature to pass laws, a Chief Executive to implement and administer the laws passed by the legislature, and a judiciary who's duties include interpreting laws passed by the legislature and determining if a law is in conflict with the Constitution.
The judiciary is the only entity empowered by the Constitution to determine a law constitutional or unconstitutional.

If an amendment follows the process delineated in the Constitution for amending the Constitution and is ratified it becomes part of the Constitution.

The 16th Amendment was ratified according to the rules for amending the Constitution as delineated in the Constitution.

By virtue of its ratification the 16th Amendment is Constitutional.

So there are my suppositions. Fire away.

Point 1 is not as black and white as you may think. You seem to talk about laws and regulations as if we live in a Democracy where majority rules. This simply is not the case. Just because a majority of people agree that driving cars on the roads should be heavily taxed and regulated does not make it right. Who are you to tell me I can't drive my truck from here to California and back because I didn't pass a useless skills test at 16y/o? (This is an Example. I passed both tests with A's at 15 and 16)

See, there are no licenses required for people who ride bicycles, mopeds, or drive farm equipment on the roads. I'm pretty sure you're smart enough to know that farm equipment includes everything from cars and trucks to semis and tractors.

It is a RIGHT to travel by any MEANS which you own. If I own a horse, I don't have to be licensed to ride it across country. Even if I hook a car to the back of two horses I don't have to have a license.

I think we can agree that no one has a RIGHT to travel by plane, however. That is, unless they own the plane and keep it below controlled airspace.

Point 2

So, you are saying that if tomorrow they passed a Constitutional Amendment stating that slavery was once again OK, you would consider that Constitutional?

If forceful theft has become Constitutional then (as I point my gun at your head) I would like to take your vehicles, any money you may have, and all your guns. Thanks. I appreciate your cooperation.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

One other point... On the question of the 16th, or any Amendment: A friend of mine several years ago lost his leg when he was hit by a car. He walks on a prosthetic now. Prior to the accident, no one would have said that the now-amputated leg was a part of him. Today, he still refers his prosthetic as "my leg". Though it was not originally a part of him, it has been made a part of his body and no one thinks of it otherwise.

In the same way, the 16th was not originally a part of the Constitution, but having passed the Amendment process (however questionably), it is now a part of the document. It might be correct to say that it's not right, fair, correct, or in line with the intent of the Founders and Framers, but it is impossible to correctly state that it is "unConstitutional".

That was EXACTLY my point. You cannot claim that if you replace a tire on your car it is not part of your car.

They were all of those things, to include "revolutionaries". Res ipsi loquitor, if I use the term correctly. Those who have come and gone between the Founders' time and ours have failed to make the vote the weapon of revolution of which you speak, but this was, I believe, compounded by the far more nefarious factions who have "gamed the system" and taken positions of power to largely neuter the vote. (What's the old saying about the big fecal sandwich and everyone taking a bite?)

I've studied the founders extensively. It took nearly 40 years of abuse before they reluctantly declared independence. They thought their action would force reconciliation with England. These are not the actions of revolutionaries in the classic sense.

I'm beginning to better understand your positions. It's not a lack of outrage, just a refusal to allow the outrage to turn to action. One cannot, for example, unring a bell.

Close. I would change one word. It's not a lack of outrage, just a refusal to allow the outrage to turn to [strike]action[/strike] anger.

Are you using the smiley to indicate a discussion outside of INGO rules? Not asking you to violate, I want to understand if what you're referencing there is a relationship with the Deity, as it appears. (understand that the mod staff here is perceptive and discerning enough to understand a violation of a rule and a violation of the spirit of a rule and the difference between them. )

Yeah. I was being a little cute.

I see where you're coming from. We differ on our interpretations, but I can definately see your logic. Understanding is not the same as concurrance.

I knew you were smart. You agreed with me and proved it.

+1

That is one of the most important concepts to arise in this thread.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Seriously. I'm trying, but I can't communicate with you if you are going to continue going down irrelevent tangents. I put forth a suppostion. Tell me point by point where we agree and where we don't. Argue the point with reason. Not fallacies.

Point 1 is not as black and white as you may think. You seem to talk about laws and regulations as if we live in a Democracy where majority rules. This simply is not the case. Just because a majority of people agree that driving cars on the roads should be heavily taxed and regulated does not make it right. Who are you to tell me I can't drive my truck from here to California and back because I didn't pass a useless skills test at 16y/o? (This is an Example. I passed both tests with A's at 15 and 16)

See, there are no licenses required for people who ride bicycles, mopeds, or drive farm equipment on the roads. I'm pretty sure you're smart enough to know that farm equipment includes everything from cars and trucks to semis and tractors.

It is a RIGHT to travel by any MEANS which you own. If I own a horse, I don't have to be licensed to ride it across country. Even if I hook a car to the back of two horses I don't have to have a license.

I think we can agree that no one has a RIGHT to travel by plane, however. That is, unless they own the plane and keep it below controlled airspace.

Point 2

So, you are saying that if tomorrow they passed a Constitutional Amendment stating that slavery was once again OK, you would consider that Constitutional?

If forceful theft has become Constitutional then (as I point my gun at your head) I would like to take your vehicles, any money you may have, and all your guns. Thanks. I appreciate your cooperation.

 

[rambone]

The 16th Amendment was never properly ratified

Just sayin.

 

[machete]

The type of conveyance is not an element of travel. It is a means.

Well,,,lets do this the right way I suppose.

You"ve laid out the first peg in your argument... Lets see if we can stand on it and move on to the next step...

Whats the difference between an element and a means???--whats the definition of these terms???--where did these terms come from???--and why were these terms chosen???

 

[Bill of Rights]

...
Here's where it will get dicey. The roads do not belong to you. They belong to the collective. As the property owner the collective through its representative, the government, can establish rules and regulations about how its property may be used....

It does get just a little dicey here in that neither the collective nor the representative, the government, is a person. I'm not disputing that no individual owns the roads, however.

Point 1 is not as black and white as you may think. You seem to talk about laws and regulations as if we live in a Democracy where majority rules. This simply is not the case. Just because a majority of people agree that driving cars on the roads should be heavily taxed and regulated does not make it right. Who are you to tell me I can't drive my truck from here to California and back because I didn't pass a useless skills test at 16y/o? (This is an Example. I passed both tests with A's at 15 and 16)

It doesn't make it right, it just makes it fact, Ryan. Under our system of government, our elected reps (at least as far back as President Eisenhower) have decided that to travel on those roads built with funds extorted from the taxpayers, a license and various other things are required. I'm still thinking about whether or not I want to claim that that's an infringement of a right or not.

See, there are no licenses required for people who ride bicycles, mopeds, or drive farm equipment on the roads. I'm pretty sure you're smart enough to know that farm equipment includes everything from cars and trucks to semis and tractors.

It is a RIGHT to travel by any MEANS which you own. If I own a horse, I don't have to be licensed to ride it across country. Even if I hook a car to the back of two horses I don't have to have a license.

Most of those methods of conveyance are forbidden on actual highways, so you'd have difficulty taking any of them from here to California and back... Why you'd want to go there is beyond me. Be that as it may, however, the dictated "rules of the road" do not require licenses for those vehicles, true, and at least partly for that reason, the right of travel is not impeded by restriction on one or more methods, just like restriction of a type of firearm is not a restriction on the RKBA. Once again, please note that I'm not claiming it's correct, just that it's a fact under our current system. Fight to change it, you'll have no argument from me.

I think we can agree that no one has a RIGHT to travel by plane, however. That is, unless they own the plane and keep it below controlled airspace.

Point 2

So, you are saying that if tomorrow they passed a Constitutional Amendment stating that slavery was once again OK, you would consider that Constitutional?

If forceful theft has become Constitutional then (as I point my gun at your head) I would like to take your vehicles, any money you may have, and all your guns. Thanks. I appreciate your cooperation.

You're confusing moral, legal, and Constitutional. He said it was Constitutional (meaning only that it's part of the document), not that it was right (that is, moral). Hell, the 3/5 compromise is still a part of the Constitution, albeit an inoperative part, thanks to the slavery amendments.

Further, who is the "they" you refer to passing this hypothetical new slavery amendment? The process of amendment only begins in the Congress. It requires a supermajority of the People to be ratified.

The theft to which you refer is a function of government, and part of the reason I've recently quoted the fact that government is not reason or persuasion, but force. I don't like it, I don't support it, I just recognize it as a fact of our form of government. Again, work to repeal it, you'll find no argument here.

(commentary about revolutionaries)

I only meant that they did, in fact, start a revolution.

Rambone, you made a point while I was typing this that the 16A was not properly ratified. I've heard this before, as have many of us. SCOTUS, however, ruled it valid. I still don't agree, but this is our system. if the dictates of our government are too onerous for you, you have three possible choices within the law: Live with it anyway, work to change it, or leave and find somewhere else to live.
Your fourth choice is to refuse to pay or to comply with those laws. That choice carries with it the dubious benefit of three meals a day and a state-provided bed to sleep in, albeit without your choice of roommates.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Well,,,lets do this the right way I suppose.

You"ve laid out the first peg in your argument... Lets see if we can stand on it and move on to the next step...

Whats the difference between an element and a means???--whats the definition of these terms???--where did these terms come from???--and why were these terms chosen???

Cool. Here we go.

The type of conveyance is not an element of travel. It is a means.

From Dictionary.com:

Travel is defined as as going from one place to another place.
Conveyance is defined as the means of transporting.
Element is defined as a component or constituent of a whole or one of the parts into which a whole may be resolved by analysis.
Means is defined as to bring, cause, or produce as a result.

Travel can occur with any type of conveyance.

The act of travelling is independent of the type of conveyance.

Therefore the type of conveyance is not an essential element of travel.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

It does get just a little dicey here in that neither the collective nor the representative, the government, is a person. I'm not disputing that no individual owns the roads, however.


Further, who is the "they" you refer to passing this hypothetical new slavery amendment? The process of amendment only begins in the Congress. It requires a supermajority of the[strike] People [/strike] states to be ratified.

The theft to which you refer is an [STRIKE]function[/STRIKE] action of government, and part of the reason I've recently quoted the fact that government is not reason or persuasion, but force. I don't like it, I don't support it, I just recognize it as a fact of our form of government. Again, work to repeal it, you'll find no argument here.


Blessings,
Bill

Sure it is. The Constitution establishes the collective as the United States of America. That makes the collective, the United States of America a legal person. Not a natural person, but a legal person.

FIFY