North Texas Drivers Stopped at Roadblock Asked for Saliva, Blood

On 2013-11-25, Retired > wrote:
> On 11/24/13, 8:11 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
>> On Sun, 24 Nov 2013 11:30:33 -1000, Geoff Welsh >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Ashton Crusher wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 21 Nov 2013 07:48:11 -0800 (PST), m6onz5a
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "They need to make sure this doesn't happen again," she said.
>>>>>
>>>>> As long as it was truly voluntary, and they weren't getting the results on the spot I don't see the big deal.
>>>>
>>>> How can it be voluntary when the FORCE you to stop so they can ask you
>>>> "DO you volunteer"?? They only way this could be voluntary is if they
>>>> put up signboards along the shoulder that said '
>>>>
>>>> Anyone wishing to volunteer for an impaired driver study can go into
>>>> the next Rest Area. If you are not interested in participating you DO
>>>> NOT NEED TO STOP.
>>>
>>> Not sure about other countries, but in the USA, driving is a privilege,
>>> not a right, and you volunteered to stop, when asked/told to do so, when
>>> you accepted your LICENSE to drive.
>>>
>>> GW
>>
>>
>> For non-commercial driving it is a right. For commercial driving it's
>> a privilege.
>>
>
> Not in Connecticut.
> This quote from the Governor in the CT Driver's Manual.
>
> "We want to remind all license holders that driving is a privilege and
> not a right."
>
> Page 2 of http://www.ct.gov/dmv/lib/dmv/20/29/r12eng.pdf

Why do you think government is going to tell you the truth?
Government lies all the time. It requires certain perceptions on our
part such that those who own, operate, and employed by the government
can maintain the lifestyles to which they have become accustomed. It
works over long periods of time to convince us of things which it
benefits. That's why it took over the schools and has continually acted
to centralize them further and further.

Just read where things came from, try to find things that are in
publications like a state driver's manual in the law. You'll start
seeing that there are divergences between what government says and the
plain language of the law. Learning the history of things will also
uncover the long term scams.

Brent > wrote:
>
>Driving is not a privilege. Government has been telling people that for
>decades because the perception that it is gives government power. There
>is nothing about driving or usage of roads that is a privilege. It was a
>progression that started shortly after there were two automobiles on the
>road using the new technology as an excuse to grab power.

That's right, in America driving is a right that everybody shares! Just
because you're unable to figure out how to use the turn signals, you can't
remember to keep to the righthand lane, or you've already been in a dozen
accidents is no reason to stop driving! Because America has such poor
public transit, Americans are completely dependant on their cars and nobody
is willing to take their licenses away just for being incompetent and unsafe
on the road. So pull up a six pack and put it in drive, and get out on that
great American highway where driving is your right!
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On 2013-11-27, Scott Dorsey > wrote:
> Brent > wrote:
>>
>>Driving is not a privilege. Government has been telling people that for
>>decades because the perception that it is gives government power. There
>>is nothing about driving or usage of roads that is a privilege. It was a
>>progression that started shortly after there were two automobiles on the
>>road using the new technology as an excuse to grab power.
>
> That's right, in America driving is a right that everybody shares! Just
> because you're unable to figure out how to use the turn signals, you can't
> remember to keep to the righthand lane, or you've already been in a dozen
> accidents is no reason to stop driving! Because America has such poor
> public transit, Americans are completely dependant on their cars and nobody
> is willing to take their licenses away just for being incompetent and unsafe
> on the road. So pull up a six pack and put it in drive, and get out on that
> great American highway where driving is your right!
> --scott

As usual the response to logic is ridicule. Horses are quite dangerous
large animals that take training and skill to control, yet licensing is
something that came about with the motor vehicle. Furthermore the level
of competency testing for using a motor vehicle by government is so
incredibly poor it might as well not exist. What does exist of course is
often not holding people responsible but instead exploiting an
irresponsible minority for gains in political power.

Now, perhaps you would like to address the problem with granting a
privilege. That is the grantor's power in doing so. How is that
compatible in a society of free people? Why is the grantor given this
power in a society of equals? I know these are difficult logical
questions to deal with, but try to put the emotional reactions of blood
on the highway films aside a moment and attempt to answer them.

On Wed, 27 Nov 2013 20:15:10 +0000 (UTC), Brent
> wrote:

>On 2013-11-27, Scott Dorsey > wrote:
>> Brent > wrote:
>>>
>>>Driving is not a privilege. Government has been telling people that for
>>>decades because the perception that it is gives government power. There
>>>is nothing about driving or usage of roads that is a privilege. It was a
>>>progression that started shortly after there were two automobiles on the
>>>road using the new technology as an excuse to grab power.
>>
>> That's right, in America driving is a right that everybody shares! Just
>> because you're unable to figure out how to use the turn signals, you can't
>> remember to keep to the righthand lane, or you've already been in a dozen
>> accidents is no reason to stop driving! Because America has such poor
>> public transit, Americans are completely dependant on their cars and nobody
>> is willing to take their licenses away just for being incompetent and unsafe
>> on the road. So pull up a six pack and put it in drive, and get out on that
>> great American highway where driving is your right!
>> --scott
>
>As usual the response to logic is ridicule. Horses are quite dangerous
>large animals that take training and skill to control, yet licensing is
>something that came about with the motor vehicle. Furthermore the level
>of competency testing for using a motor vehicle by government is so
>incredibly poor it might as well not exist. What does exist of course is
>often not holding people responsible but instead exploiting an
>irresponsible minority for gains in political power.
>
>Now, perhaps you would like to address the problem with granting a
>privilege. That is the grantor's power in doing so. How is that
>compatible in a society of free people? Why is the grantor given this
>power in a society of equals? I know these are difficult logical
>questions to deal with, but try to put the emotional reactions of blood
>on the highway films aside a moment and attempt to answer them.

The law requiring you to get a license says the state SHALL issue one.
Doesn't say the state MAY issue one. SHALL is the term used. That's
because other then the minimal knowledge test to make sure you aren't
a complete idiot in terms of driving skills, driving is a RIGHT.

You'd think in a country of people who supposedly value their freedom
the idea that being able to drive is a mere privilege would provoke
outrage yet the sheep not only go along with that notion, they attack
those who speak the truth. It's like they are afraid to be released
from their chains.

Brent > wrote:
>On 2013-11-27, Scott Dorsey > wrote:
>> Brent > wrote:
>>>
>>>Driving is not a privilege. Government has been telling people that for
>>>decades because the perception that it is gives government power. There
>>>is nothing about driving or usage of roads that is a privilege. It was a
>>>progression that started shortly after there were two automobiles on the
>>>road using the new technology as an excuse to grab power.
>>
>> That's right, in America driving is a right that everybody shares! Just
>> because you're unable to figure out how to use the turn signals, you can't
>> remember to keep to the righthand lane, or you've already been in a dozen
>> accidents is no reason to stop driving! Because America has such poor
>> public transit, Americans are completely dependant on their cars and nobody
>> is willing to take their licenses away just for being incompetent and unsafe
>> on the road. So pull up a six pack and put it in drive, and get out on that
>> great American highway where driving is your right!
>
>As usual the response to logic is ridicule. Horses are quite dangerous
>large animals that take training and skill to control, yet licensing is
>something that came about with the motor vehicle. Furthermore the level
>of competency testing for using a motor vehicle by government is so
>incredibly poor it might as well not exist. What does exist of course is
>often not holding people responsible but instead exploiting an
>irresponsible minority for gains in political power.

The point I am making is that in the US, state governments (which is to
say mostly the court system) seems indeed to consider driving to be a
right, because society has made it necessary for survival. As a consequence,
we have a lot of people on the roads who have no business driving and
who never could have got a license in Europe.

>Now, perhaps you would like to address the problem with granting a
>privilege. That is the grantor's power in doing so. How is that
>compatible in a society of free people? Why is the grantor given this
>power in a society of equals? I know these are difficult logical
>questions to deal with, but try to put the emotional reactions of blood
>on the highway films aside a moment and attempt to answer them.

I'm perfectly willing to give up some of my God-given rights to the state
in exchange for them keeping incompetent drivers off the road. That's
how these things work; you can have absolute freedom or absolute safety
and most of the time most people would prefer some point in the middle.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On Friday, November 29, 2013 10:02:05 AM UTC-6, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Brent > wrote:
>
> >On 2013-11-27, Scott Dorsey > wrote:
>
> >> Brent > wrote:
>
> >>>
>
> >>>Driving is not a privilege. Government has been telling people that for
>
> >>>decades because the perception that it is gives government power. There
>
> >>>is nothing about driving or usage of roads that is a privilege. It was a
>
> >>>progression that started shortly after there were two automobiles on the
>
> >>>road using the new technology as an excuse to grab power.
>
> >>
>
> >> That's right, in America driving is a right that everybody shares! Just
>
> >> because you're unable to figure out how to use the turn signals, you can't
>
> >> remember to keep to the righthand lane, or you've already been in a dozen
>
> >> accidents is no reason to stop driving! Because America has such poor
>
> >> public transit, Americans are completely dependant on their cars and nobody
>
> >> is willing to take their licenses away just for being incompetent and unsafe
>
> >> on the road. So pull up a six pack and put it in drive, and get out on that
>
> >> great American highway where driving is your right!
>
> >
>
> >As usual the response to logic is ridicule. Horses are quite dangerous
>
> >large animals that take training and skill to control, yet licensing is
>
> >something that came about with the motor vehicle. Furthermore the level
>
> >of competency testing for using a motor vehicle by government is so
>
> >incredibly poor it might as well not exist. What does exist of course is
>
> >often not holding people responsible but instead exploiting an
>
> >irresponsible minority for gains in political power.
>
>
>
> The point I am making is that in the US, state governments (which is to
>
> say mostly the court system) seems indeed to consider driving to be a
>
> right, because society has made it necessary for survival. As a consequence,
>
> we have a lot of people on the roads who have no business driving and
>
> who never could have got a license in Europe.
>
>
>
> >Now, perhaps you would like to address the problem with granting a
>
> >privilege. That is the grantor's power in doing so. How is that
>
> >compatible in a society of free people? Why is the grantor given this
>
> >power in a society of equals? I know these are difficult logical
>
> >questions to deal with, but try to put the emotional reactions of blood
>
> >on the highway films aside a moment and attempt to answer them.
>
>
>
> I'm perfectly willing to give up some of my God-given rights to the state
>
> in exchange for them keeping incompetent drivers off the road. That's
>
> how these things work; you can have absolute freedom or absolute safety
>
> and most of the time most people would prefer some point in the middle.
>
> --scott
>
>
>
> --
>
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

If your drivers license gets pulled, you might not get it back for at least one year.

On 11/27/2013 2:15 PM, Brent wrote:
> As usual the response to logic is ridicule. Horses are quite dangerous
> large animals that take training and skill to control, yet licensing is
> something that came about with the motor vehicle.[...]

Of course, these days equestrians tend to be rich and well connected, so
of course they get preferential treatment.

--
T0m $herm@n

On 2013-11-29, Scott Dorsey > wrote:
> Brent > wrote:
>>On 2013-11-27, Scott Dorsey > wrote:
>>> Brent > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Driving is not a privilege. Government has been telling people that for
>>>>decades because the perception that it is gives government power. There
>>>>is nothing about driving or usage of roads that is a privilege. It was a
>>>>progression that started shortly after there were two automobiles on the
>>>>road using the new technology as an excuse to grab power.
>>>
>>> That's right, in America driving is a right that everybody shares! Just
>>> because you're unable to figure out how to use the turn signals, you can't
>>> remember to keep to the righthand lane, or you've already been in a dozen
>>> accidents is no reason to stop driving! Because America has such poor
>>> public transit, Americans are completely dependant on their cars and nobody
>>> is willing to take their licenses away just for being incompetent and unsafe
>>> on the road. So pull up a six pack and put it in drive, and get out on that
>>> great American highway where driving is your right!
>>
>>As usual the response to logic is ridicule. Horses are quite dangerous
>>large animals that take training and skill to control, yet licensing is
>>something that came about with the motor vehicle. Furthermore the level
>>of competency testing for using a motor vehicle by government is so
>>incredibly poor it might as well not exist. What does exist of course is
>>often not holding people responsible but instead exploiting an
>>irresponsible minority for gains in political power.

> The point I am making is that in the US, state governments (which is to
> say mostly the court system) seems indeed to consider driving to be a
> right, because society has made it necessary for survival. As a consequence,
> we have a lot of people on the roads who have no business driving and
> who never could have got a license in Europe.

These state governments have attached various non driving conditions to
having the grant of privilege. A popular one is being up to date on
child support payments. The state governments do indeed push the idea
that driving is privilege. Now the courts are interested mostly in
revenue and having people beg to retain their government granted
privilege. Anyone using a rights based argument will be sure to have
the book thrown at him.

>>Now, perhaps you would like to address the problem with granting a
>>privilege. That is the grantor's power in doing so. How is that
>>compatible in a society of free people? Why is the grantor given this
>>power in a society of equals? I know these are difficult logical
>>questions to deal with, but try to put the emotional reactions of blood
>>on the highway films aside a moment and attempt to answer them.

> I'm perfectly willing to give up some of my God-given rights to the state
> in exchange for them keeping incompetent drivers off the road. That's
> how these things work; you can have absolute freedom or absolute safety
> and most of the time most people would prefer some point in the middle.

What you'll get is neither your rights nor security/safety. The state
does not care about your safety. It cares about itself, or rather the
power and income of those running it, working for it, and close to it.
This is why roads are intentionally mis-engineered from speed limits
and signal timing.

Brent > wrote:
>
>What you'll get is neither your rights nor security/safety. The state
>does not care about your safety. It cares about itself, or rather the
>power and income of those running it, working for it, and close to it.
>This is why roads are intentionally mis-engineered from speed limits
>and signal timing.

So, it seems you don't like governments. Have you considered moving to a
place without one?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On 2013-12-04, Scott Dorsey > wrote:
> Brent > wrote:
>>
>>What you'll get is neither your rights nor security/safety. The state
>>does not care about your safety. It cares about itself, or rather the
>>power and income of those running it, working for it, and close to it.
>>This is why roads are intentionally mis-engineered from speed limits
>>and signal timing.
>
> So, it seems you don't like governments. Have you considered moving to a
> place without one?

I am realistic about what they are instead of emotionally delusional
about it. Perhaps you'd like to grow out of childhood fantasy and fairy
tales?