order non hybrid seeds LandRightsNFarming: FW: [tips_and_tricks] Driver's Licensing vs Right to Travel

Thursday, March 14, 2013

FW: [tips_and_tricks] Driver's Licensing vs Right to Travel

Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 07:29:59 -0700
Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Driver's Licensing vs Right to Travel

From: stuff
Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Driver's Licensing vs Right to Travel
To: tips_and_tricks
Date: Wednesday, March 13, 2013, 1:21 PM

You keep saying that driving is a privilege.  We all know that driving commercially is a privilege but we are all obviously concerned with non-commerce driving.  So do you, or does anyone else here, have any evidence that driving while not engaged in commerce is a privilege?  If so please produce it so that the rest of us can examine it. 

Saying that we have to have a license simply because it would be chaos if people didn't get licensed is absurd.  That kind of thinking comes from the idea that the state is supposed to legally attack someone if they damage your car/you.  If someone injures you, it is your responsibility to prosecute the offender, not the state.    If there were no drivers licensing we would quickly have an equilibrium, probably more so than we do now.  Because 1, the lack of a license does not negate the responsibility of the party causing the injury and 2, if someone injured you and you took responsibility for protecting yourself with the legal system, and if others did the same, before long people would be more careful.  Why?  Because it would quickly be wide spread that being stupid and careless causes more problems than being responsible.  Of course no matter what the system there will always be that small percentage that doesn't give a rats patooie who that hurt.  Of course those are the people that tend to have their own permanent mailbox at the jail.

Consider this, if someone burns down your house, who is supposed to vindicate your injuries?  Well yes, it has become common practice for people to sit back complaining about what was done and waiting for a payoff and expecting the state to vindicate things for them.  But, the state doesn't get involved to vindicate the matter for you.  They get involved because its a lucrative business venture.  If you don't understand this concept, you need to wipe the sleepy dirt out of your eyes and get with the program.    When someone causes a wreck what is the first thing we see about after physical injuries are addressed?  Insurance of course.  If the person has insurance and they have enough coverage to cover your expenses and repair or replace your car, what business does the state have getting involved?  None, unless the incident was a criminal act and then only if you want them to do your prosecution for you.    If they don't have insurance well then I guess you will have to prosecute them huh?  Of course if they don't have anything the worst you can honestly do is toss them in jail but hey, its like that now too.

Licensing sounds like a good idea on the surface. But licensing is nothing more than an avenue for revenue generation and control. 

Wake up folks, you're arguing over which brand of control and tyranny is better. 

Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (22)
Recent Activity: