Liberty and Rights

Sep 2019
1,086
432
Texas
Do you mean "Words have Meaning"?

You were way off base with your first comment, and when you said:

"How is driving without gov't permission a crime? Who was harmed? What harm has been caused by running a Stop Sign? Or driving over the Speed Limit? "

These issues are what causes accidents, and thus harm to others. So the drivers license becomes a method by which the government can attempt to prevent such incidents. Under that concept, the Bill of Rights does not list each, and every, unalienable right, and thus becomes a list of suggestions, or a guideline, not an absolute.

Sorry if that is too hard for you to grasp.

https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=3591&context=wmlr
I mean precisely what I said- words mean things- of course one has to be able to read in order to read.
 
Sep 2019
1,086
432
Texas
Harm need not be proven. Creating a risk of harm is enough. For example, just because no one was hurt in the mad rush out of the theater that wasn't on fire, you're not off the legal hook for knowingly, falsely yelling "fire!" and starting the stampede.




To my point above, an unqualified driver presents a risk to others. The need to eliminate that risk creates the compelling interest to curb the liberty of driving unlicensed. This is also true for most of the rest of the questions you raise. They proceed from the false premise that laws are only just when they address actual harm done. That is not the only criterion for law, and it never has been.
There are always extreme examples- one size does not fit all- just as punishing the many for the actions of the few doesn't prevent anything- it makes people feel good about their delusions about life.

Nowhere did I say what was a criterion for law- I said, laws are meant to punish- and they do- they punish the many for the actions of the few based on the premise of what might happen- what HAS happened be damned- THAT is the antithesis of Liberty- how many Stop Signs are not stopped at every day? How many people break the speed limit every day? How many lives do Dr's lose every day? How many people do cops kill every day? How many planes crash every day-

What authority does the state have to determine a qualification? Pass a test? LOL- I don't suppose actual experience counts- Dr's, Lawyers, Engineers, Judges, cops, pilots, etc., pass tests and still fail at their job- are they punished because they hurt another? No- we'd rather punish someone for running a Stop Sign and not hurting anyone-
 
Sep 2019
1,086
432
Texas
Do you mean "Words have Meaning"?

You were way off base with your first comment, and when you said:

"How is driving without gov't permission a crime? Who was harmed? What harm has been caused by running a Stop Sign? Or driving over the Speed Limit? "

These issues are what causes accidents, and thus harm to others. So the drivers license becomes a method by which the government can attempt to prevent such incidents. Under that concept, the Bill of Rights does not list each, and every, unalienable right, and thus becomes a list of suggestions, or a guideline, not an absolute.

Sorry if that is too hard for you to grasp.

https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=3591&context=wmlr
No, the issue has now become how many straw man arguments can be put forth in defense of the antithesis of Liberty.
 
  • Like
Reactions: YoursTruly
Feb 2006
13,167
2,147
California
Harm need not be proven. Creating a risk of harm is enough. For example, just because no one was hurt in the mad rush out of the theater that wasn't on fire, you're not off the legal hook for knowingly, falsely yelling "fire!" and starting the stampede.




To my point above, an unqualified driver presents a risk to others. The need to eliminate that risk creates the compelling interest to curb the liberty of driving unlicensed. This is also true for most of the rest of the questions you raise. They proceed from the false premise that laws are only just when they address actual harm done. That is not the only criterion for law, and it never has been.
With your analogy, there should be a test for president of the U.S. and we wouldn't have the incompetence We the People have been experiencing with Bush and Trump!
 
  • Like
Reactions: YoursTruly
Sep 2019
1,086
432
Texas
With your analogy, there should be a test for president of the U.S. and we wouldn't have the incompetence We the People have been experiencing with Bush and Trump!
And Obama, and Clinton, and Bush, and Ford and Nixon and Carter, LBJ, Kennedy, Ike, FDR- it's a long list.
 
  • Like
Reactions: YoursTruly
Apr 2015
2,069
2,329
Stockport, Cheshire. UK
Laws are meant to punish for crimes committed- what crime has been committed if no one was harmed?

How is driving without gov't permission a crime? Who was harmed? What harm has been caused by running a Stop Sign? Or driving over the Speed Limit? Not filing an Income tax Return?

The list of criminal acts that restrict Liberty is long- why is that?
Laws are the rules set by a society to protect its citizens from the behaviour of those that threaten their welfare. It doesn't matter if there was no actual harm caused, by committing these acts they endanger/hinder the welfare of their fellow citizens, something all modern societies consider unacceptable.
 
Last edited:
Jun 2018
570
395
La Pine, Oregon
There are always extreme examples- one size does not fit all- just as punishing the many for the actions of the few doesn't prevent anything- it makes people feel good about their delusions about life.

Nowhere did I say what was a criterion for law- I said, laws are meant to punish- and they do- they punish the many for the actions of the few based on the premise of what might happen- what HAS happened be damned- THAT is the antithesis of Liberty- how many Stop Signs are not stopped at every day? How many people break the speed limit every day? How many lives do Dr's lose every day? How many people do cops kill every day? How many planes crash every day-

What authority does the state have to determine a qualification? Pass a test? LOL- I don't suppose actual experience counts- Dr's, Lawyers, Engineers, Judges, cops, pilots, etc., pass tests and still fail at their job- are they punished because they hurt another? No- we'd rather punish someone for running a Stop Sign and not hurting anyone-

I have come to th econclusion you are nothing but a troll, an dwill be ignored in the future. When you asked "How is driving without gov't permission a crime? Who was harmed? What harm has been caused by running a Stop Sign? Or driving over the Speed Limit? " you ignore the basis for such a law, and try to justify your own version of "liberty" by then suggesting that there are certain "qualifications" that need be determined, but the history of such incidents making a law a requirement is to be ignored.