sean

Members
  • Content count

    64
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by sean


  1. This was his responses, "But you didn't make your books. Some books you inherited, but most were created for you by the ingenuity and hard work of others. You used to pay a fair price for your books, but you soon realized that you could get far more books than your... friends by paying less for them and eventually getting your books from other places. And even more books by cheating the system whenever possible. And to insure that you would have more books than everyone else, more books than you could possibly ever use; you convinced some of the people that hardly had any books that it was in their best interests to let you get as many books as possible by any means. You did let them have one book that let you justify your every action and keep them in fear and ignorance.

    I've never been in a library that had torn and tattered books, normal people understand the concept that it is better for everyone to have access to some books and that sharing is good."

    To tell the truth, I don't even think he knows what he's talking about.


  2. So, a thief brakes into your house and steals all your books. You turn to the police because it appears it's the only way you can get your stuff back legally. He tracks down your property and returns your books to you. The thief has a trail and goes to jail. Then a month latter the cop returns with a gun pointed at your head. He says "sorry, but all the thieves got together and voted that you have more books then you'll ever need or use and that all your books must now be kept at the public library". You get NO trail and your books are hauled away. But the story's not over....You miss your books and complain but it appears that the only way you can view and make use of your property legally is to go down to the library when it's open. You go in to find many of your beloved books torn, ripped, dirty or just plain missing. On your way out you bump into one of the thieves/voters and he calls you a hypocrite for using a public library. You have just had a little lesson in democracy. ;)


  3. That sucks, sean.

    Thanks for the sympathy. I'm just venting. It just sucks to have to take a day off of work to go to court and after you think you won your case, they just slap you with a fine. No much, just 140 bucks. It's just the principle of the thing.


  4. I was just found innocent of driving without registration and insurance, now their trying to get me with constable and court fees. I can't win! :D

    This just goes to show that the State does not give a crap about your safety. They are only after your hard earned cash and once you swim into their net they will try anything to shake what they can out of you.


  5. "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

    --Benjamin Franklin

    "Those who would sacrifice cheese fries for temporary physical attractiveness deserve neither cheese fries nor physical attractiveness."

    --Aretha Franklin

    Sorry, but that's as clever as I get. :D


  6. Well, the punk rock thing back in the early to mid 80's kind of started off as a do what you wanna do, don't give a crap about anything, be an individual kind of thing...

    Being an "individual" by rebelling against everything else is a false and shallow individualism, because you are still defining yourself by everyone else, you are still second-handed. This is a trap that you see many young people fall into, as evidenced by the "goth" and "punk" crazes in high schools.

    There's no denying the punk movement was second-handed and it did help foster a lot of the left wing thinking that goes on in today's music scene, but on the other hand it did open me up to a lot of other ideas I might not have been exposed to had I just hung out with the "normal" kids. It also encouraged me to never take things laying down and to always question authority and that's always been a good thing in my book.


  7. "Was it really objections to actual racism or much more? The left has long accused anyone who opposes their policies of being "racist", to the point of obsession within the movement."

    Well, the punk rock thing back in the early to mid 80's kind of started off as a do what you wanna do, don't give a crap about anything, be an individual kind of thing, but as time went on it got more and more left. I can't say there was not a lot of witch hunting going on. "You don't agree with me so you must be a racist" crap, but there was defiantly a lot of Nazi type skinheads that would show up when punk bands played and they did start a lot of trouble. Was it really objections to actual racism? Well, to me it just seemed to be more of a gang fight thing then trying to win anyone over to one ideology or another. I mean it was mostly white on white kids beating the tar out of each other. The 80's were a pretty crazy time for that kind of stuff.


  8. Yeah, you do have a good point there. I know that people are a lot deeper then the political philosophy they subscribe too and that seeing how I live in one of the most liberal cities in the U.S. (Pittsburgh) it would become pretty lonely real fast if I went and limited my friend count to only people with views close to mine. It's just that when it comes to people who try and pass off racism as an intellectual philosophical pursuit, most people would not pull up a chair and listen with an open mind and that has been a good thing when it comes to lessening the power that that philosophy might other wise have.


  9. Having grown up in the 80's punk rock-n-roll scene I remember one for the strictest principles behind the "movement" was that not only was racism looked down upon, but if you weren't racist but had friends that were it was more or less over for you. People would be chased out of clubs and had bones broken over this stuff! Although I'm older now and in no way condone the use of force to get my point across to people I disagree with, I still to this day will not be a friend to anyone who would judge another person on the basis of his/her race. I also have given up all hope of talking sense into anyone with such views for the most part. That said, I still run in circles heavy populated with other types of authoritarians. In fact a lot of my friends can range from liberal to full on Marxist and yet I'll still call on them to go out and argue over a beer or two or go motorcycle riding with . Is this wrong? I'm I just a big hypocrite by tolerating being around one form of fascism/authoritism over the other? Why is it considered normal for one to reject someone with racist totalitarian views over someone with social/economical totalitarian views even when history has proven the latter to be far more of a constant threat to mankind's freedom?


  10. This fringe libertarian cause insisting on a legal right to drive without a license is just as wacky as those who claim there is no legal mandate to pay taxes. Regardless of what an ideal society should be in different respects, interpreting "the constitution" as a basis to nullify the legal system we in fact have and which is enforced is pure subjectivism and rationalism. Don't do it in the name of, of all things, Ayn Rand's philosophy.

    Every thing I do is in the name of freedom and Liberty. If the part of Ayn Rand's philosophy that covers "property rights" fails to recognizes this then oh well. I do not live my life for the sake of Ayn Rand's philosophy, but use it to better understand how to live for my own sake.

    Philosophy does not start with politics, including "freedom and liberty" as ends in themselves for "everything you do". Raising the question of drivers' licenses and freedom of travel is perfectly valid, but the Forum is for serious admirers of Ayn Rand's philosophy, not its exploitation to promote crusades for fringe libertarian causes like rationalizing and advocating driving without a license. You can do better than that.

    If I'm lead to believe that the opposing views I have gotten so far are to be the consensus of thought here on this forum, then fine. I'll respectably let the issue die.

    It's not a matter of 'consensus'. Such crusading for odd causes like driving without a license is not what the Forum is for. There is plenty of room for discussion of issues like freedom of travel and what might happen to it, justification for driver's licenses and how the requirements can be abused, poor government policy on roads, requirements for driving and diversion of funds ostensibly collected for roads, etc.

    I am looking for a forum in which to talk about this issue. If you refer back to the first comment I posted on this thread, that is what I said I was looking for. It doesn't have to be THIS forum. I was curious to know if there are any like minded (or at least respectful) people here who want to talk about this.

    I started this thread under the "cultural activism" tab because it is an issue I am seriously interested in, and I believe it is important for promoting individual freedom. Obviously, you don't agree. Yes, it is an extreme position, but where does Ayn Rand denigrate extremism in advocating for human freedom? I am sorry you think it is merely an "insane" and "fringe libertarian" position or an "odd cause", but I have real questions about whether individual persons' actions can ever be justifiably regulated in the absence of them initiating any harm or force toward an other.

    According to my research so far, all the laws we have regarding the regulation of travel have been written under the guise of commerce. This is not a coincidence: the way the constitution is written, there would be no other way to legally regulate the movement of individual persons. I think that's really interesting and curious--especially in light of Ayn Rand's delineation of personal property rights as deriving from individual rights.


  11. In the past couple of weeks, I have had one supervisor and one co-worker tell me when I dropped a soda can into a normal wastebasket: "No--drop it in the recycle bin!!" (or words to that effect), as if they were telling me I was a careless individual who didn't give a single thought to caring for the environment.

    I complied with their request, but felt rather insulted. I honestly don't know how to respond to demands like that; I'm not a scientist, but it just seems to me there is a single false premise at the root of my supervisor's and my co-worker's behavior. I shouldn't have to lecture them on biology/ecology. Any recommendations on what I should say or do next time I "screw up" by dropping a Coke can into a regular wastebasket?

    Bring in your own wastebasket next time.


  12. This fringe libertarian cause insisting on a legal right to drive without a license is just as wacky as those who claim there is no legal mandate to pay taxes. Regardless of what an ideal society should be in different respects, interpreting "the constitution" as a basis to nullify the legal system we in fact have and which is enforced is pure subjectivism and rationalism. Don't do it in the name of, of all things, Ayn Rand's philosophy.

    Every thing I do is in the name of freedom and Liberty. If the part of Ayn Rand's philosophy that covers "property rights" fails to recognizes this then oh well. I do not live my life for the sake of Ayn Rand's philosophy, but use it to better understand how to live for my own sake.

    Philosophy does not start with politics, including "freedom and liberty" as ends in themselves for "everything you do". Raising the question of drivers' licenses and freedom of travel is perfectly valid, but the Forum is for serious admirers of Ayn Rand's philosophy, not its exploitation to promote crusades for fringe libertarian causes like rationalizing and advocating driving without a license. You can do better than that.

    If I'm lead to believe that the opposing views I have gotten so far are to be the consensus of thought here on this forum, then fine. I'll respectably let the issue die.


  13. It's also an objective understanding of the law that a license is a permit, granted by an appropriate governmental body, generally for consideration, to a person, firm, or a corporation, to pursue some occupation or to carry on some business which is subject to regulation under the police power. Why would a private individual need a license if he's not engaging in business? A business is an entity and an entity can be regulated under commerce law. A person is an individual and no law can violate the rights of people as individuals. Why would the "people" be required to ask their servant's for permission to use their property to go to the store to buy food or to their place of worship or to the doctor or to the movies?


  14. Driving on any road controlled by anyone without rules protecting us from the threat of literal brute force of someone crashing into us, likely with deadly consequences, would be insane. Someone must set the limitations and since government currently owns most roads that is who does it.

    A whim to not want to properly learn how to properly operate a motor vehicle or the rules of the road is not a "constitutional right". That is not the "right to travel". Anyone knowledgeable in the law beyond looking up words in a law dictionary knows that. And anyone can figure out that qualifying for a license does not guarantee that there will be no accidents, carelessness or stupidity, none of which are an argument for not learning how to properly drive.

    This fringe libertarian cause insisting on a legal right to drive without a license is just as wacky as those who claim there is no legal mandate to pay taxes. Regardless of what an ideal society should be in different respects, interpreting "the constitution" as a basis to nullify the legal system we in fact have and which is enforced is pure subjectivism and rationalism. Don't do it in the name of, of all things, Ayn Rand's philosophy.

    No one whims or wills their way into learning to operate a motor vehicle, but I can still be handed a license by the State just so long as I have shown them that I can answer a few questions then go around the block once, park and work the turn singles. For real, that was my "driving test". My brother is the one who actuality taught me to drive. There will always be accidents, carelessness and stupidity no matter if your paid up with the State and have a license in your pocket or not. This seems to be nothing more then a tax on what most people are lead to believe is their property. Every thing I do is in the name of freedom and Liberty. If the part of Ayn Rand's philosophy that covers "property rights" fails to recognizes this then oh well. I do not live my life for the sake of Ayn Rand's philosophy, but use it to better understand how to live for my own sake.


  15. one has a Constitutional right to travel under the fifth amendment, by foot, horse, or any conveyance

    Bit harder to kill somebody with a horse... nor do you need a license to "drive" one.

    Why don't you purchase an aircraft and try out your "right to travel" over Manhattan airspace? I suggest you also purchase a radio so as to inform the F-16s which will rapidly accompany you of the reason for the trip.

    Forget about the F-16s, the police and the Government. If you feel so strongly about people having inspection or tags on their property, how about the next time you run across someone without a plate on their car, YOU try to pull them over and make the arrest.


  16. "I am glad to have been forced to go through 20+ hours of mandatory training." Wow, and I was under the impression that force and mind are opposites. Who knew you could forced someone to become a better driver? The fact in my case is that I been driving without a motorcycle license for 12 years now (I do have a car license) and never have had a ticket or been in an accident. My wife on the other hand gets a motorcycle license and the next day she runs off and dumps it into a corn field. So much for the argument that a license makes you a better driver. :)

    My case on the matter is simple, it's my life, my property, and I have the right to travel on any public road. I also just looked up the legal definition of "travel" in the Ballentine's Law Dictionary and it states that one has a Constitutional right to travel under the fifth amendment, by foot, horse, or any conveyance. To pass over a public way for the purpose of business, convenience, or pleasure. Also, this guy in the video is not the first to go to trail and win this case over the matter.

    I've done a fair amount of research, and believe me. PLENTY of research is needed before I will feel comfortable sending my license back to the State and throwing my plate into the trash , but it is lawful to travel W/O a D/L. You do have a common law right to travel in an automobile. With all the research have done so far, it's looking to be an objectionable truth that one does have the right to travel.


  17. Does anyone know of any forums strictly dedicated to the subject of our common law right to travel? It would be nice to have a place on the web where people can get together, discuses and share info on this subject? Maybe also even start a defense fund.

    What does a right to travel mean? I have a right to trade products with willing traders but I do not have a right to the products of others who may be involved in the production of planes, trains and automobiles.

    Just like any right, the right to travel is the right to action not to the products and conveyances of travel. The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects this inalienable right. Traveling is not driving. "Driving" is a "commercial " activity of taxi drivers and big trucks. The State regulates traffic under commerce law . You LEGALLY do NOT need a "drivers" license,

    if you "TRAVEL on the Public roads in your traveling machine" if your not being paid to do so.


  18. Does anyone know of any forums strictly dedicated to the subject of our common law right to travel? It would be nice to have a place on the web where people can get together, discuses and share info on this subject? Maybe also even start a defense fund.