Economic Collapse

[GEO928]

Cimi.....

Ultimately, the power of our government to impose arbitrary laws and forms of government to restrict a Right can not be made acceptable by those conferring their just powers, or it will prove fatal to our existence. Americans retain by directive, via the Second Amendment, the capacity to fight back, to use force against a government which no longer represents the best interest of it's Citizenry.

IMO....your arguments regarding our rights lean towards the philosophical rather than the pragmatic. (let's confine our discussion to motor vehicles for personal use).

notice that I highlighted a phrase in red.......

I know you will agree that the first "driver's license" was issued in Germany in 1888 in response to the citizenry's complaint that Benz's automobile was noisy and emitted noxious smoke and fumes....

so, he was issued a "permit" or license which protected him from legal claims of disturbing the peace....

similarly, while your argument might be philosophically correct about the "right to drive a vehicle on a public road", as a practical matter, it fosters "vehicular anarchy"......

and, moreover, as a practical matter, the public mentality has succumbed (for more than 100 years) to the notion that a driver's license is appropriate in order to operate a vehicle.....so, your argument amounts to "bucking the system" and its social norms.

Not to mention, the personal inconvenience of having to defend yourself over and over and over just so you can prove a point.

bottom line: I don't think standards for vehicular control in the public venue is a glaring or important usurpation of our rights....

it's simply an aspect of voluntary social order....and, I say this because: via your definition(s), our society would be left in a state of complete anarchy insofar as almost any law can be argued as an infringement upon one of our "God given rights"...

I think where you go astray in thinking is that your argument has philosophical ramifications.....well, I'll confess: maybe they do.....but so what?......

you are ignoring the fact that social systems "theoretically" operate by the imposition of law via the consent of the governed....that's the philosophy you should be concerned about....

and, IMO, if you tempered the philosophical with a dash of pragmatism, you might come to other conclusions or at least see the need for compromise on some level....

if we consider everything to be a gross violation or usurpation of our inalienable rights, how do we make a society function for the reasonable good of all its members?

IMO....you would say: each individual must accept full responsibility for his actions.....

I would say: how do we deal with or control those who do not or will not accept that responsibility....?

hence, we have laws which slightly abridge or encroach upon our freedoms....

the question is: where is that line in the sand which distinguishes slight abridgement of rights from complete usurpation of a right.....

I don't think a driver's license or passenger vehicle registration crosses that line in terms of the common good.