🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sun, 15 Dec 2002 19:46:27 -0400, Mr Ed <Ed@w3source.net> wrote:

>
>
>Paul Morgan wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 15 Dec 2002 11:06:12 -0400, Mr Ed <Ed@w3source.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >Popeye wrote:
>> >
>> >> Keep in mind, driving is a privilege, not a right. If you want to avoid the
>> >> roadblocks, walk.
>> >
>> >That is socialistic clap-trap. In the absence of any viable public transportion
>> >province wide, and when it is *your* tax dollars that build and maintain those
>> >highways, it IS a right, however like all rights, it comes with
>> >responsibilities. Those responsibilities however, do not mean that your civil
>> >liberties should be surrendered to an authoritarian government, be it federal,
>> >provincial or local.
>>
>> If it is your right to drive on the roads, do it without a license,
>> registration and insurance.
>> Your arguement is stupid.
>
>Not at all. My argument is based upon the fact that if a government is going to
>collect taxpayer dollars for the purpose of building highways, building the
>infrastructure of licensing, driver permits, and the required insurance that must be
>obtained, that it becomes a RIGHT by virtue of the fact that each taxpayer has the
>right to avail themselves of the services and products that their tax dollars are
>allocated for.  I am not advocating the lawless operation of motor vehicles, your
>counter argument is a straw man and I think that should be readily apparent to most
>people.

The fact that you draw a logical conclusion from the payment of taxes,
does not mean the government draws that same conclusion. The fallicy
in your argument is the "it becomes a right" statement. Just because
maybe it SHOULD become a right, does not mean it actually does become
a right. 1) the law is an ass, 2) the government is a big huge ass.
--------------------------------

>
>This thread began with a comment directed against the questionable legality of mass
>roadblocks, 'checkpoints' and the like without probable cause and without any sort
>of warrant. The argument of 'safety enforcement' is blatantly false upon it's face.
>When police use their powers to perform mass detentions on a public highway (and
>that is in fact what it is, a mass detention of citizens for NO cause, and for no
>justifiable purpose), we inch that much closer to a police state and further away
>from what a free society should be.
>
>Mr. Ed
>
>"The FAMOUS Mr. Ed"