[suijurisfreeman]

Interesting cartoon in Charles A. Weisman's book, The Right to Travel (Liberty or License?), the first panel shows the gestapo detaining a 'citizen', "You vill be FREE to go as soon as I see if your papers are in order!" The second panel shows the KGB detaining a husband and wife, "You vill be FREE to go as soon as I see your travel permit!" The third panel shows an America family in their car being detained by a LEO, "You will be FREE to go as soon as I see your driver's license, registration and proof of insurance!"

Can it honestly be said that a people are free in a nation where they need the government's permission (i.e. license) before they are allowed to travel anywhere in that nation?

Isn't the illusion of freedom just as good as freedom itself?!

[Al Norris]

Isn't the illusion of freedom just as good as freedom itself?!
It would appear that the majority, if not the vast majority, of people would agree with this statement.

Some of us have had these arguements about travel/license/registration on TFL and elsewhere before. Most people defend the State. Some few of us say only commercial enterprise should/may be licensed. Private travel, whatever the method should not.

[hammer4nc]

sjfreeman,

The answer to your socratic question is no. The right to freely travel is as basic as any other. The whole concept of it being a "privelege" is false, IMO; just a powerful ruse to raise revenue and force behavior on the part of government. Look at all the things that can now trigger license revocation (child support, not passing high school, unpaid tax claims); stuff that has nothing to do with public safety, or even driving itself.

A general comment: I appreciate your posts. I find myself agreeing with you philosophically, but, as many have pointed out, "suing city hall" is a costly endeavor. I've known folks who have tried and succeeded to some extent. Unfortunately, it usually seems to involve a great effort and sacrifice; requiring one to divest themselves of material possessions. Removing the obvious target for govt. confiscation in civil proceedings. If the person isn't immediately harming anyone, officials often lose interest. From their point of view, cost exceeds benefit. But, has the person won? It could be termed a hollow victory.

Now, back to specifics. Re: the license question. Why can't the so-called patriot movement (for lack of a better word) pool its resources and establish a legal precedent that can be used by the public at large? Take for example, the Abby Newman case? (anybody can run a search). I know that there are smart people sympathetic to the cause, who could lend their support. But that never seems to happen. She ended up pleading guilty to a lesser charge, or at least not appealling, IIRC.

I guess what I'm looking for is practical solutions, suggestions for rolling back lost freedoms, if that is possible. You've obviously thought a lot about the subject.

[suijurisfreeman]

>Some of us have had these arguements about travel/license/registration on TFL and elsewhere before.<

I haven't been 'having arguements' about the right to travel, I've actually lived my right of locomotion (right to travel) for 10 years now! I've walked into the 'King's firery furnace' and walked out unharmed! I've been stopped 'let go', stopped 'ticketed', stopped and hauled off to jail once since June 4, 1993! When stopped at a Kentucky State Police roadblock on May 22, 2002 I was finally 'ticketed' and 'allowed' to leave, even though the State Troopers knew I didn't have a 'driver's license'! While the statement, 'driving is a privilege' is true for anyone that engages in commercial driving, the right of locomotion (the right to travel) is one of the absolute rights of a free Human Being, it's just like the RKBA! A right is a right, is a right, is a right!

hammer4nc,

>Look at all the things that can now trigger license revocation .....<

Several years ago, one of my nephews was given a citation for a 'barking dog', he failed to pay the fine for having a 'barking dog', finally he received notification that his Indiana 'driver's license' had been suspended for failure to pay the fine! So my question is, if he pays the fine would 'Barkie' quit barking?! I'm confused, how does that work?! :confused: :banghead: It's all about money and control, not about 'safe drivers'!

[Standing Wolf]

States never seem to tire of harping that "Driving is a privilege, not a right." They're wrong. They're just plain wrong.

[suijurisfreeman]

hammer4nc,

>......but, as many have pointed out, 'suing city hall' is a costly endeavor.<

To me it's not about 'sueing city hall', it's about exercising my rights as a free Human Being! However I personally have 'fought city hall' and won! What do you think the ultimate cost will be if we do absolutely nothing to reclaim our rights? :banghead: Read Vin Suprynowicz's at:
http://www.geocities.com/libertarianrev/art.vinguninstore.html

>It could be termed a hollow victory.<

Even though I spent a total of 50 days in jail for refusing to post bond it was not a hollow victory for me! I absolutely proved that they could not lawfully proceed if I held my ground! Most of the people in the ten man cell that I was held in were calling just about everyone they could think of to get 'bonded out', but even when my daughter drove 90 miles one-way and brought a bail bondsman from Elkhart, Indiana to bond me out, I refused to bond out! This is serious crap to me and has been for 10 years now! I live what I'm posting about, I don't just talk the talk, I've walked the walk!

>She ended up pleading guilty to a lesser charge ......<

I never did enter a plea to any of the false charges they filed against me, even told Judge Sanderson that I would not allow him to enter a plea of not guilty on my behalf! That's the problem today, those accused are not willing to hold their ground no matter what! They even charged me with a felony, resisting and obstructing a police officer, just because I refused to identify myself or answer their questions. I filed a Motion to Dismiss and Judge Sanderson dismissed the charge! If you believe in something then ya gotta stand up and be counted! My problem is not with any or all authority, it's with unlawful authority!

Remember the price of liberty is eternal viligance!

>I guess what I'm looking for is practical solutions, suggestions for rolling back lost freedoms, if that is possible.<

There is only one way to 'roll back lost freedoms',
start exercising your natural, inherent and inalienable rights! We the people are the sovereigns, we must hold public officicals to the limits we have placed on them! They are our servants, not our masters! Freedom is contagious, knowledge is the source of infection! Infect knowledge!

[NukemJim]

The whole concept of it being a "privelege" is false, IMO; just a powerful ruse to raise revenue and force behavior on the part of government. Look at all the things that can now trigger license revocation (child support, not passing high school, unpaid tax claims); stuff that has nothing to do with public safety, or even driving itself.

A very good point.

I am somewhat torn here. Travel in a car is not restricted i.e. I am not aware of any jurisdiction where police can legally require ID of passengers ( as always I could be wrong and I am sure I will be corrected if I am:) ).

Requireng Insurance or proof of financial responsibility is not IMHO an unreasonable idea. Driving a vehicle can kill/maim requiring 6+ digit payoffs for expenses for midical treatment. The vast majority of Americans do not have enough money to pay for the care of someone injured by a car without insurance ( and if you do most states have a provission allowing "proof of fincial responsibility" instead of insurance. )

As for the other example of not graduating high school, barking dog, child support etc.... sounds like Bovine Excrement to me.

Intereesting point.

NukemJim

[suijurisfreeman]

Brooklyn Center vs. Rippen, 255 Minn. 334 at 336-337: "The power to regulate does not necessarily include the power to license. In passing on the question of whether in a particular case the power to regulate includes the power to license, it is well to bear in mind the distinction between regulation and license. Regulations aply equally to all. A license, however, gives to the licensee a special privilege not accorded to others and which he himself otherwise would not enjoy. Once a power to license exists, certain acts become illegal for all who have not been licensed. See 33 Am Jur., licenses, sec. 2; 53 C.J.S., License, Sub, Sec. 1,3.

Shapiro vs. Thompson, 89 S. Ct. 1322 at 1329: "..... freedom to travel throughout the United States has long been recognized as a basic right under the Constitution."

Pavesich vs. New England Life, 50 S.E. 68 at 70: "Among the absolute rights referred to by the commentator just cited is the right of personal liberty. In the first is embraced a person's right to a 'legal and uninterupted enjoyment of his life, his limbs, his body, his health, and his reputation'; and in the second is embraced 'the power of locomotion, of changing situtation, or moving one's person to whatsoever place one's own inclination may direct, without imprisonment or restraint, unless by due course of law."

Chicago Motor Coach vs. City of Chicago, 169 N.E. 22 at 25: "Even the Legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience. Where one undertakes, however, to make a greater use of the public highways for his own private gain, as by the operation of a stagecoach, an omnibus, a truck, or a motorbus, the state may not only regulate the use of the vehicles on the highway, but may prohibit it. A muncipality can do so only under a power expressly granted by the state."

Ex parte Dickey, 76 W.Va. 576, 85 S.E. 781, L.R.A. 1915F, 840: "The right of a citizen to travel upon the highway and transport his property hereon, in the ordinary course of life and business , differs radically and obviously from that of one who makes the highway his place of business and uses it for private gain, in the running of a stage coach or omnibus. The former is the usual and ordinary right of a citizen, a common right, a right common to all, while the latter is special, unusual and extraordinary. As to the former, the extent of legislative power is that of regulation ; but as to the latter, its power is broader -- the right may be wholly denied, or it may be permitted to some and denied to others, because of its extraordinary nature, this distinction, elementary and fundamental in character, is recognized by all the authorities."

Swift vs. City of Topeka, 23 P. 1075 at 1076: "Public streets are highways, and every citizen has a right to use them. Both the sidewalks and roadways must remain unobstructed, so that people can walk along one without interruption of danger, or drive along the other without delay or aprehension. One of the most imperative duties of city governments in this country is to keep their public streets in such a condition that citizens can travel along them with safety, and without any unnecesary delay. Each citizen has the absolute right to choose for himself the mode of conveyance he desires, whether it be by wagon or carriage, by horse, motor or electric car, or by bicycle, or astride of a horse, subject to the sole condition that he will observe all those requirements that are know as the 'law of the road.' This right of the people to the use of the public streets of a city is so well established and so universally recognized in this country that it has become a part of the alphabet of fundamental rights of the citizen. While the tyranny of the American system of government very largely consists in the action of the municipal authorities, this right has not yet been questioned or attempted to be abridged."

Cofran vs. Griffin, 153 A. 817, 818, 85 N.H. 29: "Law of road relates to safety of travel, and is adjustment of rights of travelers using highway at same time, while 'motor vehicle law' is concerned with making safe the use and operation of motor vehicles upon the highways. Violation of 'law of road' is not violation of 'motor vehicle law', though motor vehicles are made subject to law of road."

[another okie]

There is insurance to cover your losses due to uninsured motorists. Even in states where insurance is mandatory you should have it, because drunks, deadbeats, and bad drivers (in other words the very people most likely to smash up your car) usually don't have insurance. There are ways around the requirement, there always are. Some just drive without it, or without a license.

There's another category, too. Here in Oklahoma illegal aliens basically get a free pass on insurance, because the police have learned that nothing is accomplished by ticketing or arresting them. They just go away and reappear under another name or continue to drive, refusing to pay the fine. If they are put in jail they serve their time, get out, and start driving with no insurance or license again, and the county is out significant bucks for jail costs.

So if a citizen is pulled over with a warrant for failure to pay tickets for no license or insurance, they go to jail, but if it's an illegal alien they often just send them on their way.

What a world.

[Graystar]

So if a citizen is pulled over with a warrant for failure to pay tickets for no license or insurance, they go to jail, but if it's an illegal alien they often just send them on their way. Why don't they get deported?

[Graystar]

"You will be FREE to go as soon as I see your driver's license, registration and proof of insurance!" I don't think this is the same as the other examples. In the US you are free to move about. But freedom to move about does not mean that your mode of movement should be free from any regulation.

There was a time when you didn't need a driver's license to drive. However, too many people were being hurt in accidents because there was no uniform system of rules. So testing and licensing were implimented in an effort to prevent peoples' rights from being violated by being hit by drivers that didn't know what they were doing.

Registration and insurance follow the same lines. The people, through their elected officials, have implemented these systems in an effort to perserve our rights.

So it is appropriate that a person that has been pulled over for something prove that all his papers are in order.

That said, I think pulling someone over for no reason is not right. In this country we are presumed innocent until proven guilty. That concept should extent outside the court to daily life. Unless a person does something illegal or suspicious, that person should never be detained.

[suijurisfreeman]

I'm not advocating irresponsible use of the highways, I have traveled something like 2,000,000 miles since 1965 and have never had an accident that was my fault. Since June of 1993, when my 'driver's license' expired, I have traveled probably 300,000 of those miles, without an accident. My 'driver's license' from 1965 to 1993 was never suspended or revoked, it just expired in 1993 and I never renewed it because I at that time became aware of the fact that I as a free Human Being had the 'right of locomotion', the right to travel. Obviously I follow the 'rules of the road', but I'm not subject to the Motor Vehicle Code. Does anyone here actually believe for one minute that getting a 'driver's license' qualifies someone to drive? Just watch this Labor Day weekend while your out and about, see all the competance that 'driver's licenses' gives us! Again I will say, it's all about control and money, just look at all the reasons that your driver's license can be suspended, things that have absolutely nothing to do with the safe operation of a motor vehicle!

[suijurisfreeman]

How many reading this thread have actually researched the facts on how we came to have 'driver's licenses' and 'registration' of motor vehicles? Jean Ventura and I did back in 1994-95, and believe me it's an eye-opener!
This is just another example of one of the people's rights being slowly, ever so slowly exchanged for a government granted privilege! After all everyone knows 'driving is a privilege'!

Traveling as a matter of right is like exercising any other right, it must be done responsibly! Without harming another person, their rights or property! By following the 'rules of the road' (which by the way, far too many 'lisenced drivers' certainly don't and that includes alot of LEO's!) injuries and damage to others property will be avoided. Taking a written test, or 'driving test' actually proves very little, how one conducts themselves on the road, day in and day out is where the rubber meets the road, where you either show yourself competent or incompetent in the use of a 'motor vehicle'!

I owned and operated my own business for 27 years, I traveled in excess of 60,000 miles a year, Chicago, Detriot, Indianapolis, Toledo, Cleveland, Dayton, all over the mid-west. I used to keep a notebook on my dash to keep track of all the moving violations that I observed LEO's committing, it's absolutely amazing what some of them would do, you or I would get a ticket for doing the same thing! After filling that notebook full of violations I just quit, too many to keep track of!

[BHPshooter]

This is a GREAT topic, because it's one that freqently gets my shorts in a knot.

The statement that driving is a privilege, not a right is heavily flawed. I hear on political radio all the time that "the Constitution says nothing about the right to drive." Sure, if you totally ignore the 9th and 10th amendments. Not to mention the entire ideological fallacy of believing that "rights" come from the Constitution. I think it's time someone read the Declaration of Independence.

Were horses and buggies registered and taxed in the 1700s? 1800s? No. Were riders licenced in either century? No.

If you were to go and tell the Minutemen that they had no "right" to own their own horses -- that it was all a privelege granted by Big Brother, you may have found yourself being tormented, barred from public life, excrement smeared on your home and places of business, tarred and feathered, or even killed. (Don't believe me? Research it.)

In the US you are free to move about. But freedom to move about does not mean that your mode of movement should be free from any regulation.

:scrutiny: It's time we got this straight, once and for all. America is not about regulation. It is not about security. America is about FREEDOM. So I can go anywhere I want, I just have to be told how I can go there? What kind of freedom is that?

This kind of rot is the thing that is changing what was once the most wonderful place on Earth into another USSR.

Wes :banghead: