Nope.

Call it a "right" if it makes you feel better, but you were not born with a driver's license in-hand! It was GRANTED to you, AFTER you were trained in the required driving skills, and passed a test demonstrating that you had at least a minimum grasp of those skills. Only THEN were you granted the priviledge to drive.

Since you EARNED this priviledge, then it cannot be taken away from you for no reason...The state must prove that you have violated the rules of driving in a manner sufficient to warrant the suspension, restriction, or revocation of your driving priviledge.

Mike

__________________
_____
1979 300 SD
350,000 miles
_____
1982 300D-gone---sold to a buddy
_____
1985 300TD
270,000 miles
_____
1994 E320
not my favorite, but the wife wanted it

www.myspace.com/mikemover
www.myspace.com/openskystudio
www.myspace.com/speedxband
www.myspace.com/openskyseparators
www.myspace.com/doubledrivemusic

So your saying the amendment to the constitution passed in 1913 is somehow invalid? I looked at, and didn't see a lot of maybes in it. And your also saying the income tax only applies to armies?

The only difference between income taxes collected before 1942 and after was the change from a totally voluntary system to a one of mandatory withholding. Under the volunatary system the government was routinely ripped off by tax chislers. It was a necessary change. Since 1942 there has been Congress's of all nature, from the most liberal to the most conservative, and none have found it prudent to change this.

Fuel consumption does not threaten our national security.

Radical Islamic terrorists do.

Actually, we only get a portion of our oil from the Middle East. Last time I checked, it was about 17%. We could easily produce almost that much from our own sources, if environmentalist nutjobs and others weren't standing in the way.

Anyway....Must I quote Ben Franklin again?....

Mike

__________________
_____
1979 300 SD
350,000 miles
_____
1982 300D-gone---sold to a buddy
_____
1985 300TD
270,000 miles
_____
1994 E320
not my favorite, but the wife wanted it

www.myspace.com/mikemover
www.myspace.com/openskystudio
www.myspace.com/speedxband
www.myspace.com/openskyseparators
www.myspace.com/doubledrivemusic

In other words, the Constitution requires the state to provide due process before prohibiting me from driving. That makes it a right.

Can you cite any part of the Constitution that requires the state to give due process before taking away a privilege?

That's not an argument, it's a conclusion, and a questionable one at that. You expressed frustration the other day that lefties are preventing us from drilling for oil in Alaska. One of the main reasons people cite for drilling in Alaska is to reduce our dependence on the Middle East thereby enhancing our national security. Well, if drilling in Alaska will improve our security, then so will conservation.

The argument that we should drill in Alaska in the interest of national security is exactly backwords in the long run. Before using up our own reserves, we should first reduce our dependence of foreign oil by reducing consumption.

I have to disagree with you on this one, Bot....

Many, if not most, of these "poor" people live the way they do as a direct result of choices they have made...Or have neglected to make.

They continue to make the same poor choices, and wonder why they continue to get the same poor results (Pun intended).

Mike

__________________
_____
1979 300 SD
350,000 miles
_____
1982 300D-gone---sold to a buddy
_____
1985 300TD
270,000 miles
_____
1994 E320
not my favorite, but the wife wanted it

www.myspace.com/mikemover
www.myspace.com/openskystudio
www.myspace.com/speedxband
www.myspace.com/openskyseparators
www.myspace.com/doubledrivemusic

You can skip Ben and try to stick with the facts. I asked two specific questions, I got back a questionable opinion and of course, the red meat enviro wacko stuff that has nothing to do with anything. Two questions:

If fuel consumption has gotten to the point where we have become so dependent on foreign oil it now threatens our national security, are you saying that Congress has no right to make any law to protect our national security by taking steps to lower our dependence on foreign oil, especially in regard to your personal property ?

Are you saying your property rights outway Congress's constitutional mandate to provide for the national defense?

By the way, the first question contains an if. Instead of denying the premise, i.e. denying fuel consumption is a threat to national security, please answer the question on whether congress has a right to levy taxes if this were the case.


Also, we import 61%, and rising of our total energy needs:

"This plot indicates a disturbing, long-term trend for the U.S., towards an increasing dependence on imported oil to meet our current consumption levels of over 20 million barrels per day (or about 830 million gallons)--more than it's ever been. Put another way, we currently consume about two decent-sized, domestic oil fields per day!!

While consumption (purple graph) has been steadily increasing, since a low in the early 80's, domestic production (red graph) has been declining since the mid 80's. Since then, we have been importing an increasing amount of crude oil, as evidenced by the diverging trends. Currently, over 61% of our total domestic consumption, is from foreign sources. "-Houston Geological Survey


Next, please review this legens and graph, and see if you change your mind over whether our over consumption is a national security problem:
"Ranking the oil reserves of the top 25 countries illustrates the vast difference between first-ranked Saudi Arabia and eleventh-ranked U.S.--we have slightly less than 9% of Saudi Arabia's total reserves (we do a little better in the category of natural gas reserves however, ranking 6th in the world). Another sobering statistic derived from this data, is that five of the top six ranked countries (OPEC members Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, Iran and the United Arab Emirates) currently control about 54% of the world's oil reserves (the entire group of OPEC countries control over 68%!!). These top five OPEC countries are all within a few hundred miles of each other--the four largest, share common borders. Iraq and Iran, which are potentially the most unstable of the middle-eastern OPEC countries, control almost one-fifth of the world's oil reserves!!"
-Houston Geological Survey

Not nearly as surprising as Libretarians arguing that our rights are given to us by the government.

You have a right to vote, your born with it but can't exercise it until you are 18 and earn it when you register. Is voting a privledge also.

This graph illustrates our dependence on one particular country, Saudi Arabia. Buy th way, this graph is dated 1999:

"This graph dramatically illustrates the relationship between Saudi Exports (black line, black squares) and US Imports (grey line, triangles).They are of course the major Middle East producers. Their share of the world oil market will probably exceed 30% in 1999. The last time this happened, in 1973, it allowed them to trigger a world oil crisis. In contrast with 1973, the changes in 1999 will be permanent, as they will be based on resource constraints as opposed to politics. "
-Campbell, Energy & Exploration Corp study


Saudi Exports and US Imports

To see the entire geological study:
http://www.hubbertpeak.com

These are the concluding statements of that study, once again dated 1999:
"The only long term solution is to reduce our dependence on cheap oil from the middle-East. This is an entirely feasible thing to do, however it will require serious concerted action on the part of government, industry, and the financial sector…"

Note how both line graphs above, show a major drop in US crude consumption in the late 70's and early 80s, when the gas hogs were driven off the roads by the gas guzzler tax and oil import tax at that time. Note the rise in imported fuel consumption begins with the removal of the oil import tax in 1985, and them takes an astronomical jump in 1993, about the time the wide usage of SUVs began.

Perhaps your opinion is based on a serious underestimation of the problem at hand.

Imagine my surprise that I'm arguing with Libretarians that our rights aren't given to us by the government and that there even exist anything called a privledge.

Mike, you are not born with a voters registration card in hand either. You had to wait till the age of majority and register. At various time in our countries history you had to pass a test also. Women didn't have the right to vote, nor blacks, nor people who didn't own property.

Is voting a privledge that the government has given to women and blacks? Is it a privledge becuase we were not born doing it?

Please review the preceding posts and accompanying graphs, and tell me who has the "fantasy" again.

I've answered this several different ways, most of which come to this: The war in which we are involved is a new and difefrent sort of war from any preceding. Reacting to it as though it were the same is a misapplication of a response, placing an undue burden on taxpayers.

Oil is fungible. It doesn't matter where it comes from, once it's in a ship or pipleline it can be bought and sold anywhere. Puting an extra burden on oil sourced from some place just means that particular oil will go somewhere else and be replaced by some other source and sent to us. Thus, you don't hurt the source country one bit.

If you're interested in developing sources to give us independence for foreign sources, why not encourage exploration and production from known sources like oh...Alaska (ANWR), CA, FL and coastal New England? Or new foreign sources like Siberia and Antarctica? How about encouraging a shift from petroleum to coal, for which the USA has huge reserves? Or how about encouraging more nuke plants and get away from nat. gas turbines?

B

That's a good question. I have no idea what a doctrinaire libertarian would say about voting. I believe its a right of citizenship that can be removed as punishment. I guess when you reach your majority that the right is no longer witheld. I'd guess the arbitrary designation of an age of majority is probably a source of ceaseless hairspliting by libertarians. I can't seem to get worked-up about it except for this: I think its stupid to believe an 18 year old can make decisiosn about governance but isn't smart enough to drink a beer.

Bot