As a privilege, the state can demand that we give up any and all rights to use a motor vehicle. It can demand anything.
I understand that quite well. I fail to see how that requires it to be a privilege with all the negatives that are being attached to having it. As a granted privilege, the government is given an effective end run around our consbreastutional protections. The federal government has just used this end run to force us to have a national ID card. Can the danger be any clearer?
There are many things we can do that can be unsafe for others that we have a right to do, own, whatever under the 9th admendment. Some do require licensing, etc and so forth, but we don't call them privileges in able to do it.
I am talking about avoiding the if-you-want-to-travel-this-way you have to submit to searches-stops-tracking-whathave you rules that always follow when something is called a privilege. I don't like the concept of having to sign away my basic rights as a person to be able to drive or fly commerically.
I haven't argued against licensing nor have I argued freedom of travel is threatened. I've been arguing that calling driving a privilege allows the government to attach various requirements to it that involve signing away our rights to have said privilege.
If you do not grasp this in your next post, and continue buttigning the arguement you want me to make to me instead of debating, I will simply kill file you.
I don't support felons having firearms, but that doesn't stop you. Again, if you want to play dirty, and it seems you do with this constant anarchy bullpoo, I can play dirty.
