sean

Right to Travel.

20 posts in this topic

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

You "legally" need a driver's license to drive because state laws in every state require it for driving on state and municipal roads. The Fifth Amendment says nothing about that.

The utube video said nothing about what this protester was stopped for or what the police failed to prove about what actions. The court rejected his claim that it had no jurisdiction. It was also a local court that made no Constitutional ruling and would be quickly subject to a higher court review if it did.

Whatever arguments you try to make based on your interpretation of "the Fifth Amedment", if you drive without a license or license plates, when caught you will quickly be stopped, fined and possibly imprisoned if you persist. The legal authorities will not care one wit about your interpretations and there will be no legal defense possible to waste a "defense fund" on.

Forget about the fringe libertarian causes and stick with something important in your efforts to defend the rights of the individual. That might include attempts by some government entity to actually prevent freedom of travel, which sooner or later, it will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

The purpose of a driver's license is not so much to force you to adopt the whims of a statist government, but to create a standard on common grounds that allows for a reduction in the infringement of property rights, namely, your life.

By forcing the entire population to learn to drive a car, you force them to not kill you legally and you make a much simpler framework for justice to operate in cases of rights infringements.

You could argue that it goes a bit overboard (e.g. should you really get fined if you're going 250mph on a desert, flat, empty highway in the middle of Nevada?).

I see it as an extension of the set of laws and ways to enforce it when dealing with large collections of individuals in small spaces.

I am glad to have been forced to go through 20+ hours of mandatory training. The reflexes I acquired during that training - reflexes which never came naturally whilst driving on the roads, and which were targeted at the unnatural dangers that tend to occur due to the way the French system is built - have saved my life, or at least body, more than a few times from raging idiots on common roads. Just last week some guy almost cut me in half, and I braked only because of the very peculiar way the French auto-ecole taught me to look at my blind spot, timing, etc.

Having driven in India I can say that it is frustrating to have to deal with regulations when you're back in Europe. But I've been in a few accidents (always due to external causes) and am glad they do not happen more often. I am also glad for the orderly roads in France. Driving is no longer a cause of stress as it was in India, where you mannically stare at anything that moves just in case it might beeline for you. Or not having to worry about cars doing 100mph (how?!) lights off at night slaloming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
---------------

Forget about the fringe libertarian causes and stick with something important in your efforts to defend the rights of the individual. That might include attempts by some government entity to actually prevent freedom of travel, which sooner or later, it will.

It already does prevent freedom of travel. A teacher at my wife's school was informed a few months ago that her VISA will not be extended beyond this term after she's lived here for 9 years. Neither she nor the school want her to leave. She's out of luck and has to go back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is part of what ownership means that the owner can set restrictions and conditions on who and how people may use his property. For instance, if you want to drive the Dodge'em cars at the local amusement park, you must be at least a certain age and height or be accompanied by a parent. Likewise, if you want to park in some parking lots, you must purchase a permit to do so and attach it to your car.

In an ideal capitalist society, all property is privately owned including streets and highways. To maintain safety on their property, the owners may require drivers on their roads to be certified as able to drive by a private testing agency and their vehicles certified as safe and/or insured for liability. To prove this, they may require the driver to carry proof on his person or put stickers or tags on his vehicle or else they would not let him drive on their roads. Isn't this reasonable and perfectly in accordance with property rights?

The fact is that currently most streets and highways are owned by the government and, as owners, it is not unreasonable for them to license drivers and vehicles. What's wrong is that government owns the roads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The fact is that currently most streets and highways are owned by the government and, as owners, it is not unreasonable for them to license drivers and vehicles. What's wrong is that government owns the roads.

Which is a relatively minor issue in the context of all the problems and threats from government today. One does not fight that by going to jail for driving without a license in a 'cause' that makes no sense and which no one will sympathize with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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", ...

Ayn Rand did not advocate or excuse being "extreme" for its own sake or regardless of any other considerations -- such as objectivity. And she did not start with a free-floating notion of "liberty" or any other political concept: Politics presupposes ethics, which presupposes epistemology, which presupposes metaphysics, all of which is lost on a-philosophical libertarians.

These bizarre libertarian causes, such as driving without a license in the name of "liberty" that you are promoting and seeking supporters for here, are not just "extreme", they are dead wrong rationalizations based on whim, incorrect concepts of liberty and false legal interpretations. They cannot be excused by saying its ok to be "extreme".

...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.

Government restrictions are not justified to prevent "harm". There are all kinds of ways you might be "harmed" in not getting or keeping what you want that do not involve a violation of your rights, which can only be done by force or indirect forms of it such as threats or fraud. In particular, restrictions are justified to ban a threat of force. That is the case with driving, including not knowing the rules of the road, excessive speed, erratic changes, driving with your head down while "texting", etc. But anyone owning a road would need and have a right to enforce restrictions on how his road is sensibly used. That is not a violation of the rights of those using it.

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.

State regulatory powers do not come from the commerce clause of the US Constitution. Each state has its own constitution and presumed powers, not necessarily proper. Driving restrictions and requirements are on use of state-owned roads, not "commerce".

Nor is regulation of commerce the only means to limit movement under the appropriate circumstances. Unruly threatening mobs in need of dispersion, criminal activity leading to apprehension, treason during wartime, quarantines of those threatening spread of deadly germs, etc. are not "commerce".

If general travel becomes controlled, it will be by the same means we commonly see in other areas, i.e., through all kinds of indirect constitutional excuses on behalf of presumed government interests, valid or not, as it takes over more and more activities requiring more and more social controls. Appeals to the constitution by private citizens does not stop such a government run amock. Government interpretations of constitutional authority are whatever it says they are and are enforced accordingly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
---------------

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.

----------------------

When you say 'regulated' are you only referring to government regulation? Clearly there is much private regulation of behavior from self-regulation to parental regulation of children's behavior, to private regulation of one's own property when others enter or use one's property, as well as much of voluntary associations. There is appropriate governmental regulation of certain behavior before force is initiated: objectively imminent threats such as walking down 5th avenue carrying a suitcase full of explosives, people with infectious diseases, driving while intoxicated or drunk, letting criminals enter into the country, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites