Right of Locomotion Ordinarly used for Personal Travel on our Public Highways

Imagine how your Right to Free Speech and of the Press would be
affected if you were required to obtain a License in order to Operate a
Computer on the Internet today.

Consider how your Right to Liberty and of Locomotion is affected by
being required to obtain a License in order to operate an Automobile on
our Public Highways today.

Our States are Lying to us. 'Driving' IS NOT a Privilege, 'Driving' IS
a Right! We have the Right of the Locomotion Ordinary used for
Personal Travel on our Public Highways. We have the Right to Drive
Safely.

"Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one
place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal
liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the
territory of any state is a right secured by the 14th Amendment and by
other provisions of the Constitution." - Williams v. Fears, 179 U.S.
270 (1900) -
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bi...&invol=270#274

The "right of locomotion" is the "right to remove from one place to
another according to inclination" and is the "right, ordinarly, of free
transit from or through the territory of any state". The territory of
any state includes public highways, and on our public highways today
the automobile is the locomotion used, ordinarly.

A hundred and fifty years ago, the horse and buggy was the locomotion
ordinarly used for personal travel on our public highways, and nobody
would have even tried to deny this Right. But, that was a hundred and
fifty years ago, and today is today. And, today, the automobile is the
Locomotion ordinarly used for personal travel on our public highways,
yet this Right is wrongfully denied by our state governments.

Some will say neither the Constitution nor the Supreme Court mentions
the automobile, and therefore the Right of Locomotion doesn't include
the automobile. Then, they will turn around and claim there is a Right
to walk, bicycle, horseback, or horse and buggy, dispite the fact their
not listed in the Constitution either!

Today, our public highways are mostly unuseable by anything but the
automobile. All others are either too dangerous to consider, or would
interfere with the locomotion ordinarly used, the automobile, and be
prohibited. The more the automobile is the locomotion ordinarly used
for personal travel on our public highways, the more state laws
requiring licensing the use of the automobile on public highways
converts our Conveyors of Liberty, our public highways, into Bars of
Blacktop.

We have lost our Right of Locomotion beside the highway so long ago,
many have forgoten, or never witnessed the truth, and have accepted
this lie as the truth, and will defend it to no reason. Some will
become defensive, fearing havoc, and others will become offensive,
resorting to personal assults. Would one become so offensive if it was
their money lost beside the highway that was being returned? No.

The first step to regaining this Right is to recognize this Right.

if you've got a problem with the car go buy a horse.

Dave

Dave wrote:
>
> if you've got a problem with the car go buy a horse.

He doesn't DESERVE a horse.

--
Cheers, Bev
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Please hassle me, I thrive on stress.

Dave wrote:
>
> if you've got a problem with the car go buy a horse.

I'm not here seeking directives from beligerant strangers.

And, you're obviously not here to debate the issue.

Especially as you don't even seem to know the what the issue is.

So, let me politely suggest you **** Off.

The Real Bev wrote:
> Dave wrote:
> >
> > if you've got a problem with the car go buy a horse.
>
> He doesn't DESERVE a horse.

Those who give up their Rights for security DESERVE and GET NEITHER.

If you truly believe that nonsense then go find an uninhabited island
in northern Alaska to exercise your right.

John S wrote:
>
> If you truly believe that nonsense then go find an uninhabited
> island in northern Alaska to exercise your right.

In other words, you are incapable of defending your position, and
resort to issuing directives instead.

I'm not here seeking either advice or directives from hostiles who
can't debate the issue.

Unless you would wish to seriously debate the issue, please, let me
politely advise and direct you to Go **** Yourself.

You're Welcome.

proffsl wrote:
> John S wrote:
> >
> > If you truly believe that nonsense then go find an uninhabited
> > island in northern Alaska to exercise your right.
>
> In other words, you are incapable of defending your position, and
> resort to issuing directives instead.
>
> I'm not here seeking either advice or directives from hostiles who
> can't debate the issue.
>
> Unless you would wish to seriously debate the issue, please, let me
> politely advise and direct you to Go **** Yourself.
>
> You're Welcome.

Hmmm...you seem to have an unusual fascination with hemaphroditic
sexual intercourse. If you are trolling this site to find others
equally attracted to this odd pleasure with I suggest you look
elsewhere. Maybe a public restroom in central park or online in one of
the Alt. news groups where you could participate in real or virtual
group sessions.

For those of us who live in a society with other human beings there are
very few absolute rights because we have to live together. We all have
to live with one another and the right to engage in certain behaviour
has to be tempered by it's effect on other human beings. Piloting a
4,000 pound wheeled vehicle at high speed in close proximity to others
has to be a privilege granted to those who have shown some measure of
responsibility and maturity required to operate their vehicle. If we
as a society granted the absolute right to drive to all there would be
bloody chaos. So, as I said previously: If you truly believe that
nonsense then go find an uninhabited island in northern Alaska to
exercise your right to drive. If you kill someone, it will likely only
be yourself. Who knows, you might also find someone with an interest in
that solitary pleasure that you seem so fascinated with.

John S wrote:
>
> [smart ass remarks deleted]
>
> For those of us who live in a society with other human beings

Are you attempting to suggest I don't live in a society with other
human beings so that you can pretend to lecture me?

Refrain yourself from such judgments and lectures.


> there are very few absolute rights because we have to live together.

If we didn't have to live together, there would be no need for Rights.
Rights aren't something you give up to live with others. Rights are
something recognized and adopted to protect you from those others. I'm
not sure what you mean by "absolute rights", but I do know that Rights
are both Inherent and Inalienable. If by "absolute" you mean
"inalienable", I have to disagree, as our Rights ARE Inalienable.

But, if by "absolute" you are meaning, for instance, that one's Right
to Travel does not mean they can Travel without permission through
private property, you are correct. One's Right to Travel does not give
them a Right to Trespass. You have a Right to Travel. You do not have
a Right to Trespass. Or, for instance, one's Right to Speech does not
mean they can Speak Slander. You have a Right to Speech. You do not
have a Right to Slander. Or, for instance, one's Right to Keep and
Bear Arms does not mean they can Keep or Bear Arms Dangerously. You
have a Right to point a gun. You do not have a Right to point a gun at
innocent others. If that is what you mean by "absolute", I would
agree.


> We all have to live with one another and the right to engage in certain
> behaviour has to be tempered by it's effect on other human beings.

Rather, "it's effect on THE RIGHTS OF other human beings". For
instance, given our's and other human being's Right of Life, behavior
Endangering or Violating this Right is tempered by Laws to prosecute
such behavior. Laws against Murder. Given our Right of Property,
behavior Violating this Right is tempered by Laws to prosecute such
behavior. Laws against Theft. The purpose of our Constitutional
Republic government is to Identify (Enumerate) and Secure our Rights.

We can continue to debate the necessity for government and Laws, but it
seems rather elementary that we have this need, and I was looking for a
somewhat higher level of discussion. Or, ah,,, was it that you were
attempting to suggest I am unawair of the necessity for government and
Laws? Hmmmm. Yes, I believe it was.


> Piloting a 4,000 pound wheeled vehicle at high speed in close proximity
> to others has to be a privilege granted to those who have shown some
> measure of responsibility and maturity required to operate their vehicle.

Why? Because it's Dangerous? Because it Endangers those others in
it's close proximity? Because it Violates their Rights?

You're legal argument here can only be that piloting an automobile in
the close proximity of others Violates their Rights by Endangerment..

In responce: If this is true, then NOBODY should be allowed to pilot
an automobile in the close proximity of others, because it Violates
those other's Rights. Theft Violates the Rights of others. One CAN
NOT obtain a license to commit Theft. Assult Violates the Rights of
others. One CAN NOT obtain a license to Assult others. Murder
Violates the Rights of others. One CAN NOT Obtain a license to Murder
others (war & self defense not being murder). If piloting an
automobile in the close proximity of others Violates their Rights by
Endangerment, then one CAN NOT obtain a license to Endanger others in
that way (or any other way for that matter).

Everything we do poses a certain measure of danger to others. Our mere
existence poses a certain measure of danger to others. And, piloting
an Automobile is certainly no exception. The key to this is that
"certain measure". But, considering that the Automobile is by far the
most ordinary means of Locomotion on our Public Highways today, it is
clear that society has accepted the risk posed by Piloting an
Automobile Safely (as opposed to Endangeringly) on our Public Highways.
Society has made it clear that if one Pilots an Automobile Safely,
they are not posing such a risk as to constitute Endangerment.

Therefore, you have a Right to Drive Safely. You have the Right of
Locomotion ordinarly used for Personal Travel on our Public Highways.


> If we as a society granted the absolute right to drive to all there would
> be bloody chaos.

You're back onto the reasons for government and Laws, I see. Oh well,
let's get rudimental.

Society doesn't "grant" Rights. Rights in Inherently Endowed by our
Creation. Our Society can only recognize (enumerate), respect and
secure our Rights. Individually, our ONLY Inherent Obligation to
Society is to Honor and Respect the Rights of others, as we would have
them Honor and Respect our own similar Rights.


> So, as I said previously: If you truly believe that nonsense then go
> find an uninhabited island in northern Alaska to exercise your right
> to drive. If you kill someone, it will likely only be yourself. Who knows,
> you might also find someone with an interest in that solitary pleasure
> that you seem so fascinated with.

You are an offensive troll. You've spent most your post blasting at
me, personally, issuing directives, and being generally offensive and
beligerant. What little post you actually did apply to addressing the
issue was blown totally away, left you choking on the starting line
with your shoes untied. You're going to have to do a lot better than
that if you expect to intelligently oppose my position.

"Society doesn't "grant" Rights."
JS> Wrong again buckwheat. Rights and privileges such as we have are
defined by and relative to the members of the group we coexist with.
No rights exist independent of our existence. Sorry friend, but you
got it completely wrong again.

"Rights in Inherently Endowed by our Creation."

What h..l does that doubletalk mean. If by that you mean some superior
being granted some undefined rights, that is utter and complete
undocumented nonsense and you know it.