If we give it that power, and if it poses a risk to the general welfare of the people.

I will most certainly not be giving it that power, and those cars pose no risk to the general welfare of the public. So, the government does not have that right.

__________________
http://comp.uark.edu/~dmgill/signature.jpg

Bill Clinton. Flame suit ON!

He is (or was) a female who was poor, downtrodden, disadvantaged person of race or a jobless white male (or single mother) in a family with kids to feed? Yeah, right.

__________________
http://comp.uark.edu/~dmgill/signature.jpg

Don't go gettin all sarcastic on me Mikey. Your post said "represent" not "was". I truly believe that Mr. Clinton both understood and empathized with the DNC's core constituency, just like Georgie boy understands and empathize's with his core constituency-land raping, poor people hating, corporate greedy multi millionaire white guys.

You can't have it both ways. If the gov already has the right to decide who can drive on a public roadway then it already has the right to decide what can drive on a public roadway.

If the argument is, as you stated that " the state government tells me that these are the things I can do on public property" then you have already given up your right to object.

BTW, The government will not be asking for your permission.

Good use of words: You have the liberty, not the freedom, to travel.

If it was freedom then you could go anywhere without regard to anything or anybody.

Freedom is not license. That is, just because you're free to do this or that does not mean that exersize of taht freedom comes without cost. As a free-willed being you may choose to slap a complete stranger in the face. BUt he may slap you back. You exersized your freedom but it came at cost. If freedom were licensee you could slap the guy and he could do nothing. This is what sadists look for, license. That's what that German cannibal claimed he had when he ate his buddies, .... member.

Under liberty, with freedom comes acknowledged responsibility. So you may go many places on foot or whatever, but no matter the method of conveyance, once off your property you are subject to the rules of other property owners or the rules regarding the commons.

B

But Koop, you are forgetting the essential part about the government's authority: We, the public, decide exactly how much power they have. We may give them the power to penalize people for operating a vehicle in an unsafe manner, but we do not give them power to penalize the public for driving something that is mechanically sound but is too big or uses too much fuel (which is entirely arbitrary. Too much to whom?). The only person that the "too much fuel" part affects and the only person who decides how much is "too much" is the person who is paying for the fuel.


And when government starts acting beyond the consent of the governed and impunes upon enough liberties to get the populus riled, watch out.

Unfortunately, all those sedate blissninnies couldn't care less. The Founding Fathers must be doing about 12,000 RPM about now.

__________________
http://comp.uark.edu/~dmgill/signature.jpg

That's what I thought too, Snib! My paradigmatic conservative fatcat is a I-got-mine, coupon-clipping, self-centered SOB.

That's why this unfolding discussion of imposition of regressive taxation is so surprising. The flat tax is a conservative idea but libs justify it for gasoline but not income. WTF?

Liberals promoting a tax that differentially and excessively burdens the poor but is basically no impact on the rich is now a good idea.

Help me out here.

B

You don't have money, son. That's not the same as being poor. You call the bank or Mom 'n' Dad or your uncle and flash, you got cash.

Poor folks don't have that. They are staring at poor no matter which way they turn their heads.

B

and rights have rules. You have a right to own property, but you have to pay taxes on it and if your city requires, cut your grass, conform with zoning, and generally upkeep the property.

Because I have to maintain my property doesn't mean that the government has given me the privledge of property ownership. It means we can impose restrictions or regulations on that right.

Just as you have a right to marry, as long as you get a licence you have a right to drive, as long as you get a licence. Can you imagine the reaction if we started deeming it a privledge to marry?

You've never raised birds or visited a roost of wild birds, have you? That's where the metaphor, "foul their own nests" comes from. Fowl foul their own nests as a matter of course. So do many den-living mammals. I think humans have a choice while animals appear to be instinctual in that regard.

Be that as it may, I do agree with you that your supposition was probably her intended question. But it was an ambiguous question that sent my mind down both avenues of thought. And they are not exclusive interpretations, are they? There are probably trashy rich folks and neat poor folks. I don't care, really. The thing that is important to me are the questions of choice and volition.

If you'd like to explore the other fork in the road, I'm willing.

Botnst

that was the predominant theory of Southern states right up to The sizure of a state's assets by federal agents in S. Carolina. It was reinforced in Brown V Board of Ed. We found out filmy wishes and good intentions were a better argument than written law.

Bot

Yes, you have to pay property taxes. And personally, I do look at that like paying rent for life. But, you are also within the borders of the nation, and your property taxes go to help train those who protect it. So it kinda pays off in the end, especially if someone attacks the US.

Well, I think that government imposed regulations on how your property looks are wrong. Covenants, on the other hand, are lawful because you are agreeing to the contents of a legally-binding contract. There is no contract to buy property in the city.

We already have. Haven't you heard of Marriage licenses? They were originally instituted as a means of recieving revenue for states. Now its a crime to marry without one.

__________________
http://comp.uark.edu/~dmgill/signature.jpg

Nicely done!

your missing the point dude, its not whether property taxes or marriage licences are right or wrong, its that we have rights but those rights come with limitaitions but that doesn't make them privledges