Bah. Man should get the gallows.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

If he doesn't want to adhere to the rules on public roads- he should be allowed to drive as fast as he wants- but only on his own property, and banned from public roads. (license removed) But yes, guilty as charged.

I agree, Dag. Why should the concept of unlimited personal liberty apply to infrastructure?

So:
1) he was speeding
2) he got caught
3) he refuses to pay the fine with no extenuating circumstances other than he doesn't want to?

Is that correct?

A "crime" like speeding is not a victimless crime, because the reason speed limits exist is to minimize traffic accidents, which quite often lead to death or at least injury. They are indeed public roads, so the rest of us has the right to not be hit by his car, if it spins out of control. If it was a repeated offense, I also think they should just take his license. He can drive as fast as he wants on his own roads, but public roads are not just his.

I think the $200 sounds reasonable. Though, I'm not sure what the original ticket was? The fact that the people in the courtroom has to be there for his trial in itself, means that of course there should be an added penalty, because by protesting this wrongly, he has cost the state those peoples salary for that amount of time.

Let him not pay the fine; he's perfectly within his right not to. Then his license will get revoked and he will no longer be able to use a vehicle on the roads in which his fellow citizens helped pay for. And in effect, make them safer as he obviously speeds and doesn't care for the well-being of his fellow citizens to begin with. Case closed. Have fun riding your bike!

This is pretty much the consensus I expected here.

>> ^blankfist:
This is pretty much the consensus I expected here.

What if I phrase it in Lib-speak?

This man signed a contract when he applied for a license, he agreed to abide by a set of common driving protocols in exchange for the use of the roads held by The State inc.

He is in breach of contract, the court is doing what it should be doing, enforcing the contract through the agreed to penalty and revocation procedure.

This is something that irritates me constantly. Mostly because I am a speeder. Paying a fine of $200 is above and beyond ridiculous. If you get caught speeding, yes, there should be some sort of fine, but hundreds of dollars is excessive and it does not deter me from speeding. What it does do is make the people on the highway slow down to 10 MPH when a cop is on the fucking road.


Fine me, but make it reasonable. Especially in the current economic status of the country.

^So what would you propose as an alternative?

Derry? Ain't that the place where the deadlights manifest and devour the living? Obviously he has his priorities in order. Get the fuck outta Derry.

Speeding tickets are preemptive. If you agree with them, you should also agree with preemptive wars.

Speeding is reckless and potentially dangerous, but until a victim is created it's philosophically unreasonable to give him a ticket out of preemption.


dgandhi: "This man signed a contract when he applied for a license"

What choice does a citizen have? It's either sign the contract or go to jail if you decide to exercise your right to free mobility and drive a car. You're paying for the roads regardless, so shouldn't you have the right to drive on them without being coerced into signing a contract you cannot negotiate?

>> ^inflatablevagina:
This is something that irritates me constantly. Mostly because I am a speeder. Paying a fine of $200 is above and beyond ridiculous. If you get caught speeding, yes, there should be some sort of fine, but hundreds of dollars is excessive and it does not deter me from speeding. What it does do is make the people on the highway slow down to 10 MPH when a cop is on the fucking road.

Fine me, but make it reasonable. Especially in the current economic status of the country.


The point of a fine is to make you say "oh shit, that's a significant % of my paycheck." If it were "reasonable", then you'd be like "Who cares, it's only $(x dollars). I'm late so I really need to speed, and if a get a fine, no big deal."

There are several ways that reducing highway speeds benefit our society. Public safety aside, the efficiency of your car is greatly reduced at higher speeds. A simple way to "reduce our dependence on foreign oil" would be for everyone to just slow the fuck down a little bit.

>> ^KnivesOut:
The point of a fine is to make you say "oh shit, that's a significant % of my paycheck." If it were "reasonable", then you'd be like "Who cares, it's only $(x dollars). I'm late so I really need to speed, and if a get a fine, no big deal."


1. moving violation penalty
2. driving school cost (optional)
3. attorney fees (optional)
4. major long term insurance increase! Or worse, dropped from your insurance!

If you ever speed, I hope they empty your bank account so you really feel the sweet pang of justice. When you can't afford food or rent, that'll learn ya!

Clearly tyrannical, the way they gave him 30 days to pay, even though he didn't want it.

I mean, they may as well have nailed him to the cross (which he helpfully brought with him, just in case).

throw his uppity ass in the slammer!

>> ^blankfist:
Speeding tickets are preemptive. If you agree with them, you should also agree with preemptive wars.
Speeding is reckless and potentially dangerous, but until a victim is created it's philosophically unreasonable to give him a ticket out of preemption.

dgandhi: "This man signed a contract when he applied for a license"
What choice does a citizen have? It's either sign the contract or go to jail if you decide to exercise your right to free mobility and drive a car. You're paying for the roads regardless, so shouldn't you have the right to drive on them without being coerced into signing a contract you cannot negotiate?


Right to drive? Since when do we have that?

>> ^blankfist: so shouldn't you have the right to drive on them without being coerced into signing a contract you cannot negotiate?

He has every right to negotiate the contract, he has suffrage, and he is fully within his right to use that to effect the legislature, which defines the contract.

He does have a right not to sign the contract, just as I have a right not to buy your house, but I can't then kick you out and move into your house if I make that choice.

He also demonstrably benefits from the roads whether he drives or not, the price and availability of goods in the market is significantly improved through the licensed use of this infrastructure.

>> ^inflatablevagina:
hundreds of dollars is excessive and it does not deter me from speeding.


Try as I might I fail to see the logic in that sentence.


>> ^blankfist:
Speeding tickets are preemptive. If you agree with them, you should also agree with preemptive wars.

So from your argument it would appear that for you all preemptive actions are morally wrong, is that right? Or is it just preemptive action by a government/military action? In that vein - do you agree with what most critics of the Bush doctrine have said - that Iraq can more accurately be described as a preventive war rather than a preemptive one (I do)? Also, what do you think about the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis - should the U.S. NOT have engaged in preemptive action and created the blockade to disallow further buildup of Soviet armaments? I'm just asking these questions to see where you stand, buddy, no antagonism here.

@gwiz: I said right to free mobility, not a right to drive. It's a right to free movement. Ever heard of it? No? It's a Supreme Court recognized US constitutional right: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement#United_States

By restricting it to a licensed driver, you're effectively limiting that right.


@dgandhi: Suffrage? This is more of that "vote if you want to change policy" rhetoric, isn't it? Read my message to gwiz just above this one. We have a "fundamental constitutional right" to freedom of movement as defined by the Supreme Court. The driver's license contract is coercive and nonnegotiable except via way of your democratic process, which is 51% of the people taking the rights away from 49%.

Your analogy is flawed. If you don't buy my house there are plenty of other houses in the town, city, state and even country for you to purchase from other individuals that may be willing to negotiate terms with you without a majority vote. The DMV won't negotiate terms. Try it next time you're in there and tell me how that goes. And if you don't agree to their terms and decide to use your "freedom of movement" right, also let me know how far you get once the cops pull you over for improper tags.

>> ^blankfist:It's a right to free movement. Ever heard of it?

You mean "right of free ingress into other States, and egress from them." ? It has to do with crossing state lines, read you own link.

By restricting it to a licensed driver, you're effectively limiting that right.

By not giving you piles of money the government is limiting your right to own half the skyline of New York, they have not revoked the right, but it is limited.

This is more of that "vote if you want to change policy" rhetoric, isn't it?

Not necessarily, though that is one tactic. The asshat in the video could run for city council and push to have the speed limit changed on the road or roads in question. I personally know people who have successfully run for city/town council to further their agenda. Chances are most local officials are in it for their own causes.

If you don't buy my house there are plenty of other houses

And I can't use yours without your permission, or in ways we have not agreed to. The absence of an alternate road network is entirely irrelevant to the validity of the states property claim.

The DMV won't negotiate terms.

Yes they will, just not to anything you want. Want a boat license, semi, motorcycle? they will happily give you a license on different terms, but, just like any other person, business or organization, they will not just give you any random thing you want because you whine about it.

The state owns the roads, you can build your own roads and offer them for use on different terms, or you can take your share in the state and try to influence how the roads are managed. To imply you have the right to use somebody else's property in whatever way you want is not particularly cogent, unless you intend to argue that all property claims are invalid, but somehow I don't think that is your position.

>> ^blankfist:
dgandhi: "This man signed a contract when he applied for a license"
What choice does a citizen have? It's either sign the contract or go to jail if you decide to exercise your right to free mobility and drive a car. You're paying for the roads regardless, so shouldn't you have the right to drive on them without being coerced into signing a contract you cannot negotiate?


That's what you said.

>> ^blankfist:
@gwiz: I said right to free mobility, not a right to drive. It's a right to free movement. Ever heard of it? No? It's a Supreme Court recognized US constitutional right: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement#United_States
By restricting it to a licensed driver, you're effectively limiting that right.


The law is about crossing state lines and according to wikipedia "With the advent of the automobile, however, courts began upholding laws and regulations requiring licenses to operate vehicles on roadways."
You can walk, can't you? You're not allowed to exercise your right to free mobility in a airplane without a license.

You mean "right of free ingress into other States, and egress from them." ? It has to do with crossing state lines, read you own link.

Exactly, so limiting someone's ability to travel is infringing on this right. Gwiz mentioned walking as an example of a way to freely move without driving. In Gwiz's world you are free to walk and carry all of your worldly possessions on your back if you choose to move out of state. But, that's not practical.

Allow me another impractical example. If I decided to move my entire home from Los Angeles back to North Carolina and loaded everything onto a horse drawn buggy and headed down the roadways, how far do you think I'd get before I was stopped by men with guns?

By not giving you piles of money the government is limiting your right to own half the skyline of New York

I think you're grasping at straws with that one. Specifically giving you permission (which is what a driving permit is) is not the same as not giving you something you didn't necessarily earn. Not "giving" you something (i.e., money) isn't taking a right away. Having a right to something (i.e., movement, expression, press, etc.), then having a government give you specific permission to that right is the issue.

The freedom of movement is as important as freedom of speech and can be seen to work together hand-in-hand. If you were to protest the war, would it be fair for the government to restrict your movement on public property in front of the federal building because you didn't have a proper permit to protest? In cities, I understand why people prefer loads and loads of laws and regulations and government given permissions, but in rural areas those municipal laws tend to be dangerously out of place. But, that's a whole other conversation.

Yes [the DMV] will [negotiate the terms of the driver's license contract], just not to anything you want.

Oh really? I'm not sure you're telling the truth. I'm pretty sure NO ONE at the DMV has the "authority" to modify the terms of that contract. And if you asked, they'd probably look at you strange. A government contract is never negotiable when it comes to social services. Name one that is. Name one.


And, gwiz, right to free mobility isn't specifically a right to drive. It's a right to move, and driving is the most accessible personal mode of transportation. Are you just trying to mess with me.

The walking bit was just being snarky, but the point is still valid, I think. You are perfectly allowed to hire movers to move your stuff and yourself (a taxi, bus etc). It's a weak defense saying "I have to drive, because of free mobility laws" because you really don't have to.

It may be the easiest, but that doesn't really matter. You still have to be able to operate it safely, because we've all agreed that it's best for us all if only people who can operate their car safely is allowed to drive. So, we limit "your" freedom (to drive a car) to ensure our safety. You are perfectly welcome to try to get a license, which is the only way the state can now whether you can drive or not, but if you cannot, too bad. Traffic violations indicate that you can no longer safely operate your vehicle, if it is an especially egregious offense, we will take your license and you will be back in a cab again.

Doesn't that make sense?

Alcohol is one of the most dangerous drugs. For our safety, let's ensure people only drink a safe amount by limiting each person to a beer every 56 hours.

Doesn't that make sense?

You may laugh at it now, but I could see the rationing of alcohol to be a law in fifty years. The idea of getting a license to fish would've seemed preposterous to the framers of the U.S. Constitution when it was ratified in 1787, and if they'd known horse drawn buggies (automobiles of today) would require a license from the government, they'd probably think it was a joke.

The difference in our examples is that, one is a danger to yourself, the other is also a danger to others. We are limiting you by enforcing a license, yes, but it's not a very hard limit. You are always free to obtain that license and accept the rules that come with the car. Horse drawn buggies don't go 100 mph either.

Alcohol is a mind altering drug, so the argument certainly could be made that it makes you a danger to others. That's mostly the reason drugs are outlawed in the States. Maybe sidewalks should be banned, because they're dangerously close to the streets where those 100 mph vehicles are driving?

Did you know if you wanted to open your home to homeless and cook them food it goes against zoning? You need a commercial kitchen, certification from the board of health and a license. If your parents wanted to stay with you in a single-family zoned home, they would be evicted by the state because of zoning. You can't even grow your own food or raise goats (quieter animals than dogs) for milk in some places due to weird farm land zoning laws.

The Food Not Bombs chapter here in Los Angeles gets harassed by the police when they cook and feed the homeless because they're not properly licensed and haven't received certification from the board of health. Starvation, I suppose, isn't as dangerous as a bit of potential diarrhea from food poisoning.

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery." -Thomas Jefferson

What say you of this court case? Is Mr. Barskey wrong because he should be following the law because, well, it's the law?

He broke the law. Whether the law is just or unjust is immaterial to his case.

Is his decorum reprehensible therefore he's deserving of punishment?

I observed no 'extra' punishment for Mr. Barskey appearing sloppy and adversarial. I award him points for sounding like Ed Norton.

Or, are speeding laws ridiculous because it's a victimless crime?

Speeding tickets are not preemptive, they are a reaction to the unlawful act of speeding. Speeding is not a victimless crime, it creates unnecessarily higher risks of injury or death and destruction of property from an already inherently dangerous activity. It's entirely possible that certain speed limits and their excessive fines are designed mainly for revenue enhancement (like those "unlawful" ticket quotas) but that's not Mr. Barskey's battle.

Is a $200 fine appropriate for speeding?

There are no universal guidelines, but 20 MPH over the limit is usually bad, and even the most forgiving cops can't work around that.

Do you think it's fair courts can add a penalty to a penalty?

Yes, because time equals money.

As Obi-wan Kenobi said, "You can't win, but there are alternatives to fighting." Mr. Barskey could have asked for a lesser fine based on any number of variables. He could also have requested a payment plan if the $200 fine would be too much to pay all at once. While well within his rights, he's giving the "liberty movement" a bad name with these head-butting antics.

The State is a Beast, no doubt, and a necessary evil. Because the fksticks in my state's government--like all governments at all levels--spent more money than they had, one of their "solutions" was to double all license and tag registration fees. ALL the people are being punished during a recession for politicians' spending addiction (aka "biz as usual"). Life remains unfair.

>> ^blankfist: Exactly, so limiting someone's ability to travel is infringing on this right.

This claim is demonstrably false. My 60 year old neighbor has lived in Pittsburgh all her life and never learned to drive. Last month she called a cab, went to the airport and flew to Ireland. She has elected to not sign the contract. She has traveled across state and national boundaries without difficulty. She has, at the same time, not demanding the right to do whatever she wants with somebody else's (the state's) property.

If I decided to move my entire home from Los Angeles back to North Carolina and loaded everything onto
a horse drawn buggy...

If you decide to do something absurd, expect absurd results, hire a moving company next time, let them sign a contract with the state for the use of it's roads, so that you don't have to.

Specifically giving you permission (which is what a driving permit is) is not the same as not giving you something you didn't necessarily earn.

You, and video asshat, have not been given permission to drive over the speed limit, therefor misusing the state's property constitutes non-contracted use, which is indistinguishable from theft.

driving is the most accessible personal mode of transportation.

So you are not arguing for a right, you are arguing for means of expression. That was my point for the cash/NY skyline comment. You don't have a right to a means of expression, only to the right to express. You have abjectly failed to demonstrate that not having a license makes use of the right functionally impractical, and I have supplied a counter example.

"...with somebody else's (the state's) property."
"...sign a contract with the state for the use of it's roads"
"...misusing the state's property constitutes non-contracted use"
"...[you] have not been given permission to drive over the speed limit."

Wouldn't that be "the people's" property and therefore the people's roads? If so, shouldn't we all have fair use as long as we're not hurting someone else in the process or hurting the property? You seem to sound like a Stalinist when you write like that. And given your continued reference to "State property" and that they haven't given someone "permission" is, to me, the most dangerous, unreasonable and tyrannical way of thinking.

To me, public property should be open to all free citizens without infringement and inspection from the State. "Can I see your papers, Komrad!"

"So you are not arguing for a right, you are arguing for means of expression."

No. The right to free movement is intrinsically woven within the right to free expression. Purchasing a means of movement is the responsibility of the person, and I have said that. I'm asking what right the "state" has to restrict a free person's movement (in whatever vehicle he or she chooses to purchase or pay to move)? A license is a restriction of free movement because it says you can only freely move via car if you have their permission to do so. I understand people can walk or pay for a cab, etc. My point is, what right does the State have to restrict your means of free movement? If you choose to drive a perfectly safe automobile, why does the State have to restrict that?

Your answer is because the roads are the "State's" property as if we have no right to use the property freely. I think you've shown only a biased Stalinist perspective to government holding all the rights over man, and that is dangerous in my opinion.

200$ is peanut
s

My point is even if the fine is $1000 I am going to speed sometime. If you say you don't speed.... I am calling bullshit. (p.s. im not picking on you.. i like you)
The speed limit around here is mostly 60 MPH. Do you know how many people actually drive 60 all the time? I bet if there are any... it's a relatively small percentage. If I want to drive 70 or 75 so be it. I leave plenty of space between me and the car in front of me. If someone tailgates me I move. I am all about being safe, but mandatory arbitrary speed limits on highways are ridiculous to me. I am totally fine speed limits in residential neighborhoods and school zones. I obey those speeds as I suspect most do.

I don't like stupid rules to be placed on me because other people can't handle their shit. I have an issue with a cop chasing me down the highway at 70 MPH and giving me a $250-300 ticket for speeding. Fuuuuuuck that. Cops have many uses in society and I bet you, I BET, that if they didn't have to babysit the roads then they would be able to perform an ACTUAL service to the community. Those cops didn't sign up to sit on the fucking highway and pull over people to ticket, did they? No most likely they signed up to patrol and protect the citizens... they have no place monitoring my speed.

Too ranty?



>> ^KnivesOut:
>> ^inflatablevagina:
This is something that irritates me constantly. Mostly because I am a speeder. Paying a fine of $200 is above and beyond ridiculous. If you get caught speeding, yes, there should be some sort of fine, but hundreds of dollars is excessive and it does not deter me from speeding. What it does do is make the people on the highway slow down to 10 MPH when a cop is on the fucking road.

Fine me, but make it reasonable. Especially in the current economic status of the country.

The point of a fine is to make you say "oh shit, that's a significant % of my paycheck." If it were "reasonable", then you'd be like "Who cares, it's only $(x dollars). I'm late so I really need to speed, and if a get a fine, no big deal."
There are several ways that reducing highway speeds benefit our society. Public safety aside, the efficiency of your car is greatly reduced at higher speeds. A simple way to "reduce our dependence on foreign oil" would be for everyone to just slow the fuck down a little bit.

The logic in that sentence is this:

The fines are too much. Period. That being so, these fines don't stop me from speeding. I doubt they do anyone else either. Does that make sense? Sometimes what I am trying to say doesn't come out clearly.


>> ^inflatablevagina:
hundreds of dollars is excessive and it does not deter me from speeding.


Try as I might I fail to see the logic in that sentence.

>> ^inflatablevagina:
My point is even if the fine is $1000 I am going to speed sometime. If you say you don't speed.... I am calling bullshit. (p.s. im not picking on you.. i like you)
The speed limit around here is mostly 60 MPH. Do you know how many people actually drive 60 all the time? I bet if there are any... it's a relatively small percentage. If I want to drive 70 or 75 so be it. I leave plenty of space between me and the car in front of me. If someone tailgates me I move. I am all about being safe, but mandatory arbitrary speed limits on highways are ridiculous to me. I am totally fine speed limits in residential neighborhoods and school zones. I obey those speeds as I suspect most do.
I don't like stupid rules to be placed on me because other people can't handle their shit. I have an issue with a cop chasing me down the highway at 70 MPH and giving me a $250-300 ticket for speeding. Fuuuuuuck that. Cops have many uses in society and I bet you, I BET, that if they didn't have to babysit the roads then they would be able to perform an ACTUAL service to the community. Those cops didn't sign up to sit on the fucking highway and pull over people to ticket, did they? No most likely they signed up to patrol and protect the citizens... they have no place monitoring my speed.



Inflatable, you're exactly right. If laws worked to stop people from breaking the law, then states with death penalties would have no murders.

Whatever happened to punishment fitting the crime? Most of all punishment these days is monetary. Speeding tickets are a cash cow for the state. They make loads of money, and they also give their officers a quota so they can ensure they make that same revenue amount each year.

You feel you're a safe driver, and you also feel you should be able to drive 70 or 75 in the 60 MPH zone, but the Statists around you think you're too dangerous and irresponsible to do so and there must be a law against you doing so - and men with guns should pull you over to cite you.

The State sends these men with guns out to force you to obey their belief system which also generates income for them. How is this not racketeering? How is this not akin to paying protection money to the mob? And if you disagree with their monetized dogma, the men with guns throw you in a cage.

>> ^blankfist: Wouldn't that be "the people's" property and therefore the people's roads?

Yes, but not any single persons roads. Buying 100 shares in Walmart does not mean you can walk into their retail space and take whatever you want. Your claim on the property of the state is no different.

You seem to sound like a Stalinist when you write like that.

Actually this argument is in Lib-speak, I'm simply making the observation that the state is just another corporation, in which we all happen to hold shares.

And given your continued reference to "State property" and that they haven't given someone "permission" is, to me, the most dangerous, unreasonable and tyrannical way of thinking.

So I don't need "permission" to take product out of Walmart ?

To me, public property should be open to all free citizens without infringement and inspection from the State. "Can I see your papers, Komrad!"

So you want no state, no police, no courts? Look that's a fine argument to make, but the state is the company which offers you the services of property and currency. If you want those things you are going to have to deal with the state, and its legitimate control, including licensed use, if its own property.

I'm asking what right the "state" has to restrict a free person's movement (in whatever vehicle he or she chooses to purchase or pay to move)?

The state owns the roads, and, just like any other property owner, has the right to determine the manner in which they may be used. The fact that the state chooses to allow a level of use in order to meet a right, which the state itself defined, does not, in anyway, undermine the right of the state to control its own property.

A license is a restriction of free movement because it says you can only freely move via car if you have their permission to do so.

No, it says you may only OPERATE a car ON THEIR ROADS if you agree to the standards and practices which they set for the use of their roads. People can, and do, move on state roads in vehicles operated by others without themselves acquiring licenses.

If you choose to drive a perfectly safe automobile, why does the State have to restrict that?

Because if you are not driving subject to the contract you are stealing.

I think you've shown only a biased Stalinist perspective to government holding all the rights over man, and that is dangerous in my opinion.

If the state did not own them somebody else would, asphalt does not grow on trees. You seem to feel perfectly fine with stealing from a company called the state, do you feel the same about all business and claims to property? If not on what basis do you claim to have the right to decide that the property claims of The USA inc. are invalid ?

Just out of curiosity, how do you feel about being ticketed for speeding on the turnpike (non-gov property toll road)?

"Buying 100 shares in Walmart does not mean you can walk into their retail space and take whatever you want. Your claim on the property of the state is no different."
"So I don't need "permission" to take product out of Walmart ?"

Who's talking about stealing? We were talking about using public streets without a license and you somehow equated that to stealing from Walmart.

"The state owns the roads, and, just like any other property owner, has the right to determine the manner in which they may be used."

There you go again with the "state owns the road" stuff. That sounds a lot more like a Stalinist speak than liberal speak. In fact, those sorts of comments are antithetical to liberalism. Maybe you meant "Left-speak" instead of "Lib-speak"?

The government shouldn't "own" anything. The government is supposed to be in service of the people, and therefore the people "own" the property. Therefore, the people should have absolute freedom to use the property without damaging it or hurting others.

"Because if you are not driving subject to the contract you are stealing."

Please explain further. That comment seems so terribly wrong on so many levels. Here again it seems you're implying if the almighty State "owns" a property (because it is truly the richest of us all), then it can force us all to sign a contract of use with that property by whatever arbitrary dictation it sees fit, and if we determine the contract to be wrong in nature, then we're stealing? This is ridiculous. It's "PUBLIC PROPERTY"! It shouldn't be seen as "PRIVATE STATE PROPERTY"!

"Just out of curiosity, how do you feel about being ticketed for speeding on the turnpike (non-gov property toll road)?"

Aren't most toll roads built privately and eventually they use tolls to pay for them and hand them over to the State? I don't know exactly how all of that works out, so it would be difficult for me to render an opinion. If it's truly "private property" and not "public property" then I'd imagine the cops shouldn't have jurisdiction.

That's also a whole other conversation, because when the U.S. Constitution was ratified in 1787 there wasn't a such thing as a professional policeman let alone a professional police force. There was an Office of Sheriffs and Constables, and mostly all of them were appointed or elected positions. Most of their duties involved civil executions (e.g., the execution of writs, warrants and orders) rather than criminal law enforcement. The people were the police. This brings up a different ideological circumstance when thinking of the role of the State and its responsibilities to create and enforce contracts on public land, such as the driver's permit.

As an aside, the Supreme Court has routinely rejected the notion that the police have any obligation to protect you. They're in the sole position of service, not obligation, and this service is to the people with power given to them by the people. And that power given to the police was never meant to exceed the power of the people.

>> ^blankfist:We were talking about using public streets without a license and you somehow equated that to stealing from Walmart.

Right, not your private streets (which you can still use however you like), but streets held by the organization which represents the interests of the public as a whole, not your personal interests/preferences. You seem to think that you, and random video asshat, somehow, have veto power over the the property claims of organizations which you are a stakeholder in, but you have not explained why you should have such power.

There you go again with the "state owns the road" stuff.

Okay, I am apparently talking right past you on this. Consider, just for the sake of discussion, how your argument changes if you replace "the state" with "john's toll road network". Why should john have to let you do whatever the hell you want on his roads? he charges very little to use them, he just has a whole bunch of penalty clauses in the toll contract if you don't use them as agreed, and he never forced you to use them, how is he in the wrong here?

In fact, those sorts of comments are antithetical to liberalism.

Lib-speak, which I acknowledge is vaguely termed, was intended to be short for Libertarian-Speak.

None the less, it is only antithetical to either of these ideologies if you accept the fairytale notion that the state is not a corporation(an organization of individuals with property held wholly in common), which owns property and provides services, just like any other.

The government is supposed to be in service of the people, and therefore the people "own" the property.

Just as the shareholders of Walmart "own" the inventory, and the retail space, the same rights apply.

Therefore, the people should have absolute freedom to use the property without damaging it or hurting others.

Why should that sentence apply to the holdings of the state, and not the holdings of Walmart?

...if we determine the contract to be wrong in nature, then we're stealing?

Thats pretty much the definition, if I feel that Walmart's "you have to pay for that" policy is wrong in nature, and I decide to disregard it, then I am stealing.

This is ridiculous. It's "PUBLIC PROPERTY"! It shouldn't be seen as "PRIVATE STATE PROPERTY"!

Property is the right to use, abuse and deny access to an object or space. "PUBLIC PROPERTY" as you seem to mean it, is more like the public domain, which anybody may use for any purpose, such as the mythical English commons. Roads and building, and similar made and maintained things are, of necessity, owned by somebody. Sometimes that owner is the state, sometimes it's Walmart, in both cases you need the owners permission to use them.

I don't know exactly how all of that works out, so it would be difficult for me to render an opinion. If it's truly "private property" and not "public property" then I'd imagine the cops shouldn't have jurisdiction.

The turnpike police work for the turnpike, they hand out tickets which you agree to pay when you get on the turnpike (read the back of the toll pass), just like the gov roads, only it's run by a private entity. Would you object equally to this arrangement?

Let him rail against the system. Its about time some one stood up for what they think is right.

Do these radars keep a log? Timestamps and stuff like that?

If not the systems cannot be trusted, due to human error.

Would you rather this guy go and shoot a place up? Cause an insurrection? Conspire to incite a uprising? Or rather non violently present his 1st amendment right in the court of law.

Let me be the first to say, fuck you if you think he should hang. I care not whether he was guilty or not guilty. I care the tactic he used for making his statement known.

His statement will live forever in public record, of the court system, however swamped by the myriad of other court records. The system is set up to feed on the people. It feeds on the peoples toil, and exhaustive efforts to make something for themselves. Face it, the system is designed to fuck the people and take all of their hard earned rights. Know what makes it so godamned ironic? The people created the system!

As for speed limits, I object to a group of non peer reviewed opinions on what is safe and what is not. Until I can see peer reviewed scientific data to back up the speed limit. Then they are inherently corrupt. I would suspect, this is my opinion, that some one could make a case for the government trying to make revenue with the changing of the speeds.

Also, you should not have to stand if you do not. Simply say, I am exercising my 1st amendment right, which is freedom of expression, to not stand.

"Right, not your private streets (which you can still use however you like), but streets held by the organization which represents the interests of the public as a whole"

When you say things like "represents the interests of the public as a whole" I gather that you believe in civic virtue over liberalism, is that correct? To me, it seems like you believe the "State" represents a civic collective that restricts us to benefit the greater good. I would argue the people own the land and therefore have the right to move and speak freely on all land owned collectively by them without restriction as long as they don't damage the property or hurt others.

One is individual freedom and one is collective restriction.


"Okay, I am apparently talking right past you on this. Consider, just for the sake of discussion, how your argument changes if you replace "the state" with "john's toll road network"."

I completely understand that. But, I'm trying to illustrate how insanely upsetting it is that you are comparing the "State" with an individual's rights. This is as scary and dangerous as saying Corporations should have the same rights as individuals. It's asinine.

If I've said this once, then I've said it a thousand times on here already: The State is representative of the people, therefore the land belongs to the people, and by restricting their movement in any way, then the State is consequentially becoming an authority of the people. Does that make sense? In classic liberalism, which is what I'm arguing in favor of here, the individual has authority over the State (people own the roads). In your example, the State has authority over the individual (State owns the roads).

It's antithetical to the principles of liberty and freedom, and therefore immoral and wrong.

*quality

Awarding blankfist with one star point for this contribution to VideoSift - declared quality by NordlichReiter.

If usernames were blacked out on this page and I had to guess who the nutcase with the pink background calling everyone childish names was, I'd either go with imstellar or that halfwit Texas secessionist from the recent TYT clip.

Seriously, blankfist, Statist? Stalinist? Are you sure you don't want to go straight to Fascist Highway Nazi?

But to the topic at hand... I think traffic control laws and procedures need an overhaul. I doubt being a dick in traffic court is going to bring about much change, though.

The Privileges and Immunities Clause has absolutely nothing to do with this. That protects people visiting another state from discrimination based on their guest status. It also protects people who move to another state from being discriminated against as an outsider or newcomer. They can't stop you at the Nevada border and tell you "Californians aren't allowed here!" Neither can they hold you in Nevada when you attempt to leave based on your Californian citizenship. They can, of course, hold you for breaking a law or something of that sort. It doesn't matter if you're driving a car, a motorcycle, a tank; walking; riding a bike, a bus, a pogo stick, a Segway or a unicycle.

>> ^blankfist:
The State is representative of the people, therefore the land belongs to the people, and by restricting their movement in any way, then the State is consequentially becoming an authority of the people. Does that make sense? In classic liberalism, which is what I'm arguing in favor of here, the individual has authority over the State (people own the roads). In your example, the State has authority over the individual (State owns the roads).
It's antithetical to the principles of liberty and freedom, and therefore immoral and wrong.


Why would this be any different than if John's Toll Road Network owned the road leading to my house?

Does John have the right, as the exclusive provider of roads in my development, to enforce a 25 mph speed limit on those roads?

Does he have the right to deny me the right to use his roads if I don't pay his service fees, or refuse to obey the limits he puts on my use of his roads, when his roads are the only ones that connect to my driveway?

If the people own the roads, even when they're built with tax money by the state, shouldn't I get to put speed bumps and toll booths on it wherever I please? Better yet, if I don't want them putting stop signs or lights at certain intersections, surely I should be allowed to individually choose to remove them or ignore them, right?

>> ^blankfist: I gather that you believe in civic virtue over liberalism, is that correct?

I am making no assertion of the moral correctness of the states arbitrary decision, I am ONLY claiming that they have, as a consequence of their property rights, the legitimate authority to make that decision.

But, I'm trying to illustrate how insanely upsetting it is that you are comparing the "State" with an individual's rights.

I've put Walmart, another large semi-monopoly, in comparison. You still have not clearly stated if or why you think Walmart vs shareholder is different from state vs citizen.

Do Walmart shareholders have a "right" to live in the store, if not how does this jive with using their collective property any non-destructive way they want?

The State is representative of the people, therefore the land belongs to the people, and by restricting their movement in any way, then the State is consequentially becoming an authority of the people. Does that make sense?

No, it's a fairy story, the State is an organization, which provides services: property, currency, dispute resolution, military defense etc. The State, in order to provide these services, since these services by their very nature limit freedom, MUST limit freedom as its primary function.

It's fine if you want to be an anarchist, and dispense with property right, currency and all the other trappings of capitalism. That's a generally coherent position, but you don't want that. You want all the anti-freedom services that state provides, and then you want to pretend that the state's job is to facilitate your personal concept of freedom.

It's antithetical to the principles of liberty and freedom, and therefore immoral and wrong.

That a reasonably anti-property anarchist moral position, I somehow doubt you are interested in taking it to its natural conclusion.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Constitution-gives-us-the-right-to-travel