Car and Driver licensing

[BADecker]

Is not your car your property? And are you not a free man/woman in a free country? I think Government should pay us to get licensed and to have our vehicle licensed.

What do you think?

[1714767537]

1714767537

[1714767537]

1714767537

[1714767537]

1714767537

[Foxpup]

You don't need a licence to own a car, nor to drive one on private property, such as a racetrack. You only need a licence if you want to drive your car on public roads, which (by the definition of "public") are the property of the government, so the government is allowed to place restrictions on who is allowed to drive there.

[BADecker]

^^^ Thank you. But government should pay us to have to license.

I mean, the cop that stops you if you are speeding, has been ordered by his boss to do so. He gets paid to follow the orders of his boss.

So, if you get your licenses like they order you to, aren't they acting like your boss, when they order you to do something? If you follow their orders, shouldn't you get paid by them for doing so?

[darkangel11]

You guys still have a nice law over there in the US. If you were in Europe you'd be surprised how shitty it is in here.
In most EU countries you can't

Drive a car when someone with a license is sitting next to you.
Can't learn to drive with your father, like children used to do. You have to be in the presence of a certified instructor, you can't be alone or with parents even on some country roads.
In some countries when you get caught driving without a license you can be denied the right to drive for a year or two.
You can't drive a fucking moped without a license, which is insane.
Even when you think you know how to drive, you can't take the exam. You have to pay for the course first.
You can't drive a small electric car or one of those chinese micro cars without a license.
You need separate insurance for every car. This means that if one person owns 5 cars he has to pay the insurance 5 times. Ridiculous!

I'd really prefer the US corde and your nice wide roads to the shit we have in the EU.

[LTU_btc]

You guys still have a nice law over there in the US. If you were in Europe you'd be surprised how shitty it is in here.
In most EU countries you can't

Drive a car when someone with a license is sitting next to you.

I live in EU and in my country you can drive when someone  with a license and 2+ years experience is sitting next to you. But you have to pass theory exam first. Remaining things that you wrote is true. And if you just got your driver license, insurance will be f*cking expensive for you. Though, I'm not familiar with these things in USA, how it's different from EU there?
OP, your post doesn't makes much sense. Yeah, car is your proper, but public roads aren't. You can't do whatever you want there and you have to follow laws.

[crwth]

Then you are thinking selfishly if you are thinking about receiving payment just to use your own property. Like other taxes, it is imposed by the government to generate money for a public purpose. It's for everyone. The tax you pay goes into many places.

• Salary of government workers
• Garbage collection
• Police
• Firefighters
• Other government services

TBH, I don't like paying taxes as much as I would want to but it's required and it's for a better cause, if there are corrupt people collecting those fees, it's not on my conscience. I just know I'm doing the right thing and it's for the betterment of everyone in the country.

[squatz1]

You don't need a licence to own a car, nor to drive one on private property, such as a racetrack. You only need a licence if you want to drive your car on public roads, which (by the definition of "public") are the property of the government, so the government is allowed to place restrictions on who is allowed to drive there.

bUt nOt iF Im a sOvIeRiGeN CiTiZiEn bRo i dOnT HaVe tO FoLlOw uR LaWs

/s (if needed)

But in all seriousness. This is what it comes down to. You're able to own a car and drive it on your private land if ya want to -- but thats kinda useless if you want to use it for what everyone else in America wants a car for, transportation.

Suck it up and pay the freight.

[styca]

Is not your car your property? And are you not a free man/woman in a free country? I think Government should pay us to get licensed and to have our vehicle licensed.

What do you think?

I think if you use something that is provided by the government, then you should help to pay for it through taxes.
If you want to drive a car on roads and through traffic management systems that are run and maintained by the government, then you should pay to do so. Licence fees and vehicle taxes help to pay for what the government provides.

[Carlton Banks]

Then you are thinking selfishly if you are thinking about receiving payment just to use your own property. Like other taxes, it is imposed by the government to generate money for a public purpose. It's for everyone. The tax you pay goes into many places.

• Salary of government workers
• Garbage collection
• Police
• Firefighters
• Other government services

not really

these days, almost all of the money goes to servicing old government debts multiple decades in the past, so in a way you are paying for these things: from the 1930's, 1940's. 1950's, 1960's....

TBH, I don't like paying taxes as much as I would want to but it's required and it's for a better cause, if there are corrupt people collecting those fees, it's not on my conscience. I just know I'm doing the right thing and it's for the betterment of everyone in the country.

I disagree

If for instance, you live in the US and pay US federal taxes, some of your tax dollars are being used to pay for the Manhattan Project (assuming the funding is still outstanding, a distinct possibility), or certainly for the Vietnam War.

If I paid for the Vietnam War, I would find it weighing on my conscience. I guess everyone's conscience is different

[GideonGono]

You don't need a licence to own a car, nor to drive one on private property, such as a racetrack. You only need a licence if you want to drive your car on public roads, which (by the definition of "public") are the property of the government, so the government is allowed to place restrictions on who is allowed to drive there.

It is show that you passed your examination that you are ready to drive a car.  A license is a privilege but not a right.  License can also avoid accident because you passed your exam then of course you can drive a vehicle in a safe way.

[tsaroz]

When people lived in group, their interest conflicted. The acts of ones were affecting others. That's why they self created rules and ruler to govern over themselves.
We've created our government so that they'd restrict personal freedoms in the favor of communal comfort. Communal comforts are to be decided by the whole community through democracy. If you don't like what your government is doing, change them.

[n0ne]

You don't need a licence to own a car, nor to drive one on private property, such as a racetrack. You only need a licence if you want to drive your car on public roads, which (by the definition of "public") are the property of the government, so the government is allowed to place restrictions on who is allowed to drive there.

As you mentioned the roads were the properties of the government, but the roads were laid on the public money. To the increased number of vehicles on the road we can't allow everyone without proper learning to drive the car. This is why everyone who wants to drive a car needs to get licensed taking a driving test. This is the reason why we need license and not just because of governments road we need to take license.

[darkangel11]

As you mentioned the roads were the properties of the government, but the roads were laid on the public money.

Not all the roads. Some are dirt roads not managed by anyone, yet they are usually on the land owned by the government. So this means that if you go outside your home, you land on the property owned by the government, because there's no land that is not owned by anyone. The government made sure to sign every piece of land that nobody has laid claim to to itself. Once you had to maintain a piece of land to call it your own and demand people to ask before crossing it. The government is as always above the law, because it decide what the law is. It doesn't put signs or fences on the land it owns, it doesn't maintain it, but it can push you around if you step on it.

To the increased number of vehicles on the road we can't allow everyone without proper learning to drive the car. This is why everyone who wants to drive a car needs to get licensed taking a driving test. This is the reason why we need license and not just because of governments road we need to take license.

We can't allow? We as the majority? We as the bigger group that is going to dictate the smaller and weaker group what to do?
Maybe you're referring to the royal we? I'm not with you on this.

Wanna know what this "we can't allow" reminds me of?
We can't allow some people to be too rich, we have to redistribute! We can't allow these people to do what they want, they have to ask us first! We can't allow these people to be lazy we have to make them work for the good of the society. Do you see where this is going?

[BADecker]

You don't need a licence to own a car, nor to drive one on private property, such as a racetrack. You only need a licence if you want to drive your car on public roads, which (by the definition of "public") are the property of the government, so the government is allowed to place restrictions on who is allowed to drive there.

bUt nOt iF Im a sOvIeRiGeN CiTiZiEn bRo i dOnT HaVe tO FoLlOw uR LaWs

/s (if needed)

But in all seriousness. This is what it comes down to. You're able to own a car and drive it on your private land if ya want to -- but thats kinda useless if you want to use it for what everyone else in America wants a car for, transportation.

Suck it up and pay the freight.

Is not your car your property? And are you not a free man/woman in a free country? I think Government should pay us to get licensed and to have our vehicle licensed.

What do you think?

I think if you use something that is provided by the government, then you should help to pay for it through taxes.
If you want to drive a car on roads and through traffic management systems that are run and maintained by the government, then you should pay to do so. Licence fees and vehicle taxes help to pay for what the government provides.

Consider that the right to travel is a freedom that is supplied by government. Government has all kinds of ways to support payment of roads without licensing... such as toll roads. In addition, the rights of way that are "enhanced" by government making roads, are really an impediment to people who wished that the roads were not in their way, so they could travel on the rights of way.

However, Former LEO (Law Enforcement Officer), Jack McLamb, shows us that the right to travel is a basic legal right, even though most LEOs consider doing it without licensing is a crime. Right to Travel:

For years professionals within the criminal justice system have acted on the belief that traveling by motor vehicle was a privilege that was given to a citizen only after approval by their state government in the form of a permit or license to drive. In other words, the individual must be granted the privilege before his use of the state highways was considered legal. Legislators, police officers, and court officials are becoming aware that there are court decisions that disprove the belief that driving is a privilege and therefore requires government approval in the form of a license. Presented here are some of these cases:

    CASE #1: "The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.

    CASE #2: "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.

It could not be stated more directly or conclusively that citizens of the states have a common law right to travel, without approval or restriction (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S Constitution.

    CASE #3: "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.

    CASE #4: "The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right." Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.

As hard as it is for those of us in law enforcement to believe, there is no room for speculation in these court decisions. American citizens do indeed have the inalienable right to use the roadways unrestricted in any manner as long as they are not damaging or violating property or rights of others. Government -- in requiring the people to obtain drivers licenses, and accepting vehicle inspections and DUI/DWI roadblocks without question -- is restricting, and therefore violating, the people's common law right to travel.

The problem is that people don't generally know how to fight this in court when a LEO accuses them of a crime like this.

But the question in the OP essentially is, shouldn't government be forced to pay people who they force to get licensing? I mean, you can't legally force someone to do work on your property without paying him. So, since the public is in trust to government, shouldn't the government be forced to pay when they force you to get their licensing, especially when it is a right for you to do without their licensing?




EDIT: The 5th Amendment:

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Notice that the bolded part says that there needs to be due process of law, not due process of code or statute. By forcing payment for licensing, the property of the vehicle owner is essentially being forced into public use by license payment. To be fair and legal, the license payment should be to the vehicle owner if nothing else, as reimbursement for whatever payment he had to make to government.

[audaciousbeing]

You don't need a licence to own a car, nor to drive one on private property, such as a racetrack. You only need a licence if you want to drive your car on public roads, which (by the definition of "public") are the property of the government, so the government is allowed to place restrictions on who is allowed to drive there.

This your answer is just the perfect one. Since he is arguing that he should be paid for getting a license, then he should just avoid it all together because I have not seen how someone who is on wheel chair would need a licence. Most times people always think the only motive of government is to raise money via any means necessary forgetting that sometimes its actually a way to protect you and also protect other members of the society. Imagine everyone getting paid for a license then it means we all would have one even though we all cannot afford a car and say we all afford a car, then we all drive at once which overstretched the facilities then we get taxed higher to further complain about that not considering other effect to the atmosphere that exhaust pipes would caused.

[franky1]

Is not your car your property? And are you not a free man/woman in a free country? I think Government should pay us to get licensed and to have our vehicle licensed.

What do you think?

oh no badecker... i think you been watching them 'freeman of the land'.. 'sovereign' youtube videos from like 5 years ago.

let me catch you back up just a little bit..
sorry but there is alot of myths that got busted as to the 'freeman of the land'/sovereign crap

let m guess you have a silly belief that when we are born that a secret bank account is created in peoples 'Names' and all the bullony about the capitalisation of the name..
sorry that just was silly stuff that had alot of nonsense involved. purely to get a group of no-bodys to look like they are lawful scholars to then charge consultation and conference/meetup fee's

[Foxpup]

Consider that the right to travel is a freedom that is supplied by government. Government has all kinds of ways to support payment of roads without licensing... such as toll roads.

Licensing isn't just about money; it's also about public safety. A two tonne car travelling at 110 km/h (70 mph) has about 1 megajoule (750,000 foot pounds) of kinetic energy, equivalent to 250 grams (half a pound) of TNT, which, as it happens, is roughly the yield of an M67 hand grenade. As terrorists are (surprising recently) starting to figure out, a car makes a very effective guided missile that can (either accidentally or maliciously) destroy another car completely, kill or maim a whole crowd of pedestrians, or partially demolish a small building. Even the most ardent gun nuts will concede that some licensing restrictions are necessary on the use of such weapons in public.

Those who can't abide by these (rather generous, IMO) restrictions are free to travel by less dangerous methods.

[spadormie]

So, if you get your licenses like they order you to, aren't they acting like your boss, when they order you to do something? If you follow their orders, shouldn't you get paid by them for doing so?

These "bosses" are those people that are implementing rules and regulations in the road and those rules should be followed by us citizens. That point of yours is I think sorry to say but, doesn't make any sense. Since, it's your need/want to drive outside and outside is government's property. So if it's your needs/wants, then why should the government needs to pay you for doing what you want?

For the sake of argument, let's say that would be the case. Let's say the government will pay for people that got their car licensed and themselves licensed. Where do you think the funds will go? The whole fund for the year of the country will deplete more and more since many people got licensed and many more will follow.

[BADecker]

Consider that the right to travel is a freedom that is supplied by government. Government has all kinds of ways to support payment of roads without licensing... such as toll roads.

Licensing isn't just about money; it's also about public safety. A two tonne car travelling at 110 km/h (70 mph) has about 1 megajoule (750,000 foot pounds) of kinetic energy, equivalent to 250 grams (8 ounces) of TNT, which, as it happens, is roughly the yield of an M67 hand grenade. As terrorists are (surprising recently) starting to figure out, a car makes a very effective guided missile that can (either accidentally or maliciously) destroy another car completely, kill or maim a whole crowd of pedestrians, or partially demolish a small building. Even the most ardent gun nuts will concede that some licensing restrictions are necessary on the use of such weapons in public.

Those who can't abide by these (rather generous, IMO) restrictions are free to travel by less dangerous methods.

All you are suggesting is that government doesn't have to obey their own laws and court cases as listed in my post you quoted.

Watch this.
- Government places signs all over the place that tell people the limits of safety. Some of these are speed limit warning signs.
- At the same time, government never stops anyone who drives any speed he wants, except to advise him that he is driving dangerously.
- If there is an accident, the guilty party pays for others who have been injured/killed... if he lives, otherwise it is his insurance.
- They throw the whole book at the guilty person, to the point of execution, except if he was driving within the speed limit warning signs.

If these things were done, especially the execution thing, people would drive safely and carefully. People would be punished for the harm and damage they did. We would get rid of all kinds of stupid fines that enrich government people and LEO inappropriately. And with the threat of execution, people would drive safely. But if they didn't, they aren't going to do so now. They won't even obey not driving on a suspended license.

Let's clean things up, and allow people to be free. No more victimless crimes. No more pussyfooting around. Freedom, and real payment for negligence.

BUT...

That wasn't the point of the OP. The point was that government should pay us for forcing us into licensing ourselves and our vehicles.

[franky1]

Consider that the right to travel is a freedom that is supplied by government. Government has all kinds of ways to support payment of roads without licensing... such as toll roads.

Those who can't abide by these (rather generous, IMO) restrictions are free to travel by less dangerous methods.

to BD
the right to travel is not a freedom supplied by government. its a biological ability supplied by your feet.

to Fp
exactly people can walk to places, swim. under their own muscle power of their limbs
BaDecker has definetly ben watching too much of them 'freeman' videos.. im guessing it will take him a couple years to escape that loop as he seems to be stuck in 2014 trends