NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/alt/activism/19747

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-22 | 3.7 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!dtix!darwin.sura.net!spool.mu.edu!umn.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com!netcomsv!cruzio!snarfy
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: What? You're kidding, right?
Keywords: Driving priveleges
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 21 Dec 92 22:08:24 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Lines: 62



   In   message-ID:  <[e-mail]>  [e-mail]  (Jarett
   Weintraub) writes:


> What, you're kidding, right?

> Okay, at first I thought to myself, "What is this Silliness?" After all,
> it's only a little law. Than I thought, well, now wait a minute here. Lets
> look at this carefully. This law, like the law against suicide involves
> controlling a decision which is purely personal, a freedom that doesn't
> affect anyone else on a constitutional level, and so ought to be protected.
> Then I thought again, when someone mentioned driver's licenses. Driving on a
> PUBLIC roadway is not a right, but a privilege.

     By  that  sort  of reasoning , you would need to get a license to use a
   PUBLIC restroom.  If roadways  actually  belong  to  the  public  ,  then
   operating  a motorized vehicle upon them (the purpose for which they were
   unarguably constructed) by MEMBERS of  the  PUBLIC  is  a  right,  NOT  a
   privelege.  The police powers granted to the general government gives the
   government  the  power  to  police  and  regulate  COMMERCIAL  use of the
   publicly owned roadways, that is , it can regulate DRIVERS  or  TEAMSTERS
   who  ply  the  roadways in furtherance of a PRIVATE business or commerce.
   These sort of folks  do  not  usually  "drive"  their  own  vehicles,  so
   therefore  are  not  as  likely  to  be  as  responsible in their traffic
   behaviour as people who do.  When the Constitution was written ,the  word
   "  driver"  meant  a  carriage operator who was available for hire. These
   persons had to get a license to hire themselves out,  because  they  were
   going  to use the public thoroughfares for a Commercial benefit. A person
   going about his personal business in his own personal  carriage  was  not
   considered  to  be a "driver" (read: "Teamster") , and therefore ,did not
   need a "Driver's" license.


     Today , the general public is  so  unaware  of  what  the  Constitution
   really  means  that  it  allows  what  passes itself off as government to
   forget about this distinction,and  to  attempt  to  turn  EVERYBODY  into
   "wards of the State" (who soon WILL need to get a license to use a public
   restroom, if present trends continue).

     Registration is another interesting issue. If one assumes that we  need
   to  control firearms by registering them , why then do we not run down to
   the "Department" of "Firearm  Registration"  and  get  this  registration
   "renewed"  every  year?  Is  it  because the gun owners would then likely
   decide that it's Revolution Time?

      Or  are  the  computers  at  our  Department of Motor Vehicles somehow
   "forgetful", so that after one year we heve to go down  and  "renew"  our
   registrations,because they might just "drop off the database" after that?
   (  I  wish).  Aren't there disk drives that can store the little magnetic
   domains longer than that?

      When  I use the term "what passes itself off" as government I mean it.
   The People ARE the government. Those presently "holding the reins" of  the
   State  shot  their  way  into  the  "driver's  seat" by killing President
   Kennedy and establishing Private  Banking  scrip  and  fake  metal  token
   sandwich  coins as the national currency, in defiance of Kennedy's orders
   to the contrary (Executive Order # 11110). They DO  NOT  HAVE  A  LICENSE
   FROM US!

   Jim Ostrowski