The Freeman Movement and England

Status
Not open for further replies.
chillzero said:
I agree. Since when was Georgia in England?
Click to expand...
Not since the revolution, I suppose. But it is named after the King of England. That's about on topic enough for standards of this thread, methinks.
 
Without getting too off topic, can we talk about the Georgia bill?

proposed law said:
(1) Free people have a common law and constitutional right to travel on the roads and highways that are provided by their government for that purpose. Licensing of drivers cannot be required of free people because taking on the restrictions of a license requires the surrender of an inalienable right;
Click to expand...

How exactly do drivers licenses cause the surrender of the right of travel? Don't people still have the right to travel by walking, to travel by biking, to travel by riding in taxis, buses, and friends' cars?

Is it really unconstitutional to ask people to demonstrate a minimum amount of proficiency before guiding 4000 pounds of metal at speeds of 65 mph?

Am I the only one who shudders at the thought of 1)no one on the road passing a driving test, 2) everyone looking at speed limits as optional suggestions and 3) no laws requiring people to have working headlights, brake lights, or turn signals? [those last two come from other FMOTL threads, not this one].
 
I've lived in the ME were a large percentage of the people don't actually know how to drive and don't feel like obeying the road signs - nor in the case of many Pakistani and Indian drivers they cannot read the signs at all....

Its fun

Its entertaining

Its dangerous
 
Little confused here. Back in the early 90's I went digging through the legal tomes searching for evidence that you need a driver's license to drive a car on public roads (arguing with someone who said that you didn't). I found case after case that stated that traveling was a right, but operating a car was a privilege. Did I get something wrong? There seems to be a mockery of the right to travel. (for reference, I'm in California)
 
patchbunny said:
Little confused here. Back in the early 90's I went digging through the legal tomes searching for evidence that you need a driver's license to drive a car on public roads (arguing with someone who said that you didn't). I found case after case that stated that traveling was a right, but operating a car was a privilege. Did I get something wrong? There seems to be a mockery of the right to travel. (for reference, I'm in California)
Click to expand...


Nope: you have other options (even in California). Not allowing you to drive without a licence does not prevent you from travelling.

Indeed, I do not drive, but that doesn't prevent me travelling. It just prevents me from driving.
 
Mojo said:
Nope: you have other options (even in California). Not allowing you to drive without a licence does not prevent you from travelling.

Indeed, I do not drive, but that doesn't prevent me travelling. It just prevents me from driving.
Click to expand...

Quite, I only got my license two years ago.
I contract over the country (UK), so used to simply train it to whatever site at the start of the week...no license needed.

Of course, a car is more convenient and opened up more contract opportunities, but I was not unable to travel before having one, or unable to do my job.
 
Tolls said:
Quite, I only got my license two years ago.
I contract over the country (UK), so used to simply train it to whatever site at the start of the week...no license needed.

Of course, a car is more convenient and opened up more contract opportunities, but I was not unable to travel before having one, or unable to do my job.
Click to expand...



Exactly. Insisting that the only way you can exercise your "right to travel" is by operating an automobile is like insisting that the only way you can exercise your "right to speak freely" is by operating a printing press.

Those things may make it easier to exercise those rights, but they're not at all essential.
 
Ladewig said:
Am I the only one who shudders at the thought of 1)no one on the road passing a driving test, 2) everyone looking at speed limits as optional suggestions and 3) no laws requiring people to have working headlights, brake lights, or turn signals? [those last two come from other FMOTL threads, not this one].
Click to expand...

1) I shudder with you
2) meh, That already seems to be case with most licensed non-FOTL drivers, and I seem to have survided 22 years of driving already.
3) I shudder with you.
 
Horatius said:
Exactly. Insisting that the only way you can exercise your "right to travel" is by operating an automobile is like insisting that the only way you can exercise your "right to speak freely" is by operating a printing press.
Click to expand...

Do we need to break out the Nancy Sinatra?
 
The major problem—one of the major problems, for there are several—one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.

To summarize: it is a well known fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job. To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem.
Click to expand...


The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 2 characters.
 
The travel right is a reflection of a historic time when the PTB prevented people from traveling - mainly to avoid some SOB and moving to another jurisdiction. This was part of the set of laws that tied people to the land, etc. These old concepts are long dead in the western world. But the freedom to travel is still there to remind us all that we are no longer tied to the land or that a PTB has the right to restrict or movement or direct where we live.

I wonder if in the FOTL world we can fly planes without a license?
 
Regarding the fundamental argument

...I suggest you guys have a listen to kanadian philosopher Stefan Molyneux.
For what I'm concerned he deliveres the points across the best, for he's well articulated and at the same time entertaining. Any of his "FreedomainRadio" shows are very thought provoking, but for the sake of this threat (which at core is all about freedom) I would suggest this particular video (1.5 hours): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=va1rEbRbBDQ (External youtube video blah blah blah, same disclaimer as always).

But please only bother if you have time to watch the full speech and if you are open to openly discuss the points of argument without getting personal.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom