Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Your right to travel isn’t restricted if you dont have a drivers license.
Quote:
Originally Posted by YourWakeUpCall
Indeed. Online videos of Sovereign Citizens, Freeman, et al., using the "right to travel" argument when stopped by the police for a traffic violation are pure comedy gold. These fools apparently have an unlimited capacity for repeatedly whining "Am I being detained?", "I do not consent", "I'm traveling, not driving", "I do not wish to create joinder with you" and a relentless stream of other incoherent babble, all of which culminates in their window being smashed and them being forcibly removed from their car. Or, they could just sign the traffic ticket and make their (lost) case in court. Not the brightest bunch of folks.
Exactly. The way I see it, your license shows that you are qualified to operate a motor vehicle. Sure, you can travel by whatever means you wish, but if you choose to travel by operating a 2 ton machine that has the potential to injure/kill yourself or others, then you need to be in a fit state to operate it, and demonstrate (through the obtaining and maintenance of your possession of a license) that you are capable of doing so safely.
I didn't vote in the poll for the same reasons Reads2Much mentioned. I do think that you should be able to demonstrate that you can drive safely to have a driver's license. I do not think that a driver's license should be revoked for non-driving-related reasons for example though (e.g. in some places I've heard of them doing that for not paying child support).
I agree with the bolded and I agree with most of the current system. IMO, everyone should have the right to a drivers license unless they prove that they're a burden on the road or they're a liability. But also, have to prove that they can drive within the law. But I also think, in my opinion, it's not such "a privilege " because there are hefty prices to pay in order to drive. You have to buy the vehicle; pay for insurance; pay for gas, which is heavily levied by state and road taxes; car registration, etc... Some people argue that it's more of a burden than a "privilege".
By the way, the whole traveling argument loses weight since it glaringly ignores all the other accessible modes of transport and fixates on the personal automobile.
I think it should stay a privilege but I wonder why and how we can treat this a privilege yet gun ownership is a third rail right (I only use this fire to the defect by some gun owners.) I mean the OP and other posters make points that I do agree with, but at the end of the day, when you go out on the road you have to keep your vehicle under control. As for travel, let's remember that not all areas have the options for public transit and some people would have to actually go a town or two over to get the right public transportation.
While I do agree that cars can be dangerous, and their use should be regulated, the OP's argument isn't without merit. The right to travel within the country is a constitutional right. But think about it. When the constitution was written, anybody could travel within the country how they pleased, provided that they respected property rights. You could just strap on a backpack, then find a trail or road, or plop your raft down in a river, and just go. In other words, similar to the "freedom to roam" law in modern-day Sweden. Not to mention, the railroad network was huge; even godforsaken villages had a train station.
Mod cut.
Last edited by PJSaturn; 03-01-2018 at 03:41 PM..
Reason: Political commentary.
While I do agree that cars can be dangerous, and their use should be regulated, the OP's argument isn't without merit. The right to travel within the country is a constitutional right. But think about it. When the constitution was written, anybody could travel within the country how they pleased, provided that they respected property rights. You could just strap on a backpack, then find a trail or road, or plop your raft down in a river, and just go. In other words, similar to the "freedom to roam" law in modern-day Sweden. Not to mention, the railroad network was huge; even godforsaken villages had a train station.
Today in the US, we have a police state. You'll get arrested on some charge if you go into a forest preserve at night, or set foot into a river in a city, or walk along an expressway. Gotta keep that prison-industrial complex full, you know . Especially considering that in some small towns, an interstate expressway is the only way in and out. And Amtrak is a joke, compared to interurban trains in other countries. So without a car, knowing someone who has one, or moving to a less isolated place, you literally have no right to travel, because pedestrians aren't allowed on expressways. So what do you do then?
No merit whatsoever. The OP and so called travelers are fixated on trying to skirt automobile licensing and registration. They don't care about real travel.
Say someone wants to travel to the UK. Is anyone going to stop them?
A forest preserve isn't open access land. Walking on the highway is a safety concern. You want bodies by the side of the road? Sheesh.
Explain to me one place you want to travel to and then tell me how you're being prevented from going.
No merit whatsoever. The OP and so called travelers are fixated on trying to skirt automobile licensing and registration. They don't care about real travel.
Say someone wants to travel to the UK. Is anyone going to stop them?
A forest preserve isn't open access land. Walking on the highway is a safety concern. You want bodies by the side of the road? Sheesh.
Explain to me one place you want to travel to and then tell me how you're being prevented from going.
I was using a generic example, based on how I understood the OP when they said "travel". Look at history books: people put on a backpack, and set off on a journey, on their own, wherever their needs dictated. And if they didn't have a train station nearby, they walked along a road or rafted down a river. Not that it was the safest thing to do, but they just did. Such a thing is impossible today, due to the police state we created for ourselves. In many parts of the country, travel really is limited to cars.
Last edited by MillennialUrbanist; 02-28-2018 at 07:21 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. Especially considering that in some small towns, an interstate expressway is the only way in and out. And Amtrak is a joke, compared to interurban trains in other countries. So without a car, knowing someone who has one, or moving to a less isolated place, you literally have no right to travel, because pedestrians aren't allowed on expressways. So what do you do then?
