You will note that the ruling states “travel” and “transport his property”, not “drive”.
Paging Max Rocketansky… Max, there’s a guy standing in the middle of the road saying we don’t need no steenkin’ rules.
I do not know of any other way to travel in an automobile…
And where to you get the idea that you have a human right to travel without restriction? Your earlier quote said that people have the right to travel on public roads in automobiles. It doesn’t say there are no restrictions on such travel.
You don’t know of any other way of travelling in an automobile, than being the operator of it?
Sorry - no sale. Despite what the Supremes may think or sing out, human rights are those provided all humans in theory. To some degree life, liberty, freedom from torture and oppression - although some folks would argue the list and debate just what qualifies as oppression. Cars? Not even close.
Are you suggesting he might have some sort of acquaintance that is positively disposed towards him that might allow him to ride in a motor vehicle that they are operating?
Traffic violations are not crimes under Common Law, which is where the human right to travel is contained, as referenced in the SC decision.
Hell, I ask complete strangers to do it!
I live on the edge!
So?
Where does it say that the means of travel cannot be restricted?
Odd thing – trains and planes. Don’t seem to be in the same category, do they? Whats up with that?
Johnny, you and I may disagree a lot. But please do not confuse “Libertarian” with “motorhead”. Some day link me to the thread that birthed this baby.
How else, outside of traffic laws, would the right to travel be restricted on public roads?
Please show me in the decision you quoted, or find another reputable citation, where it says there cannot be restrictions on the means of travel. What you posted says that people have the right to travel on public roads. It does not say that there cannot be restrictions on such travel. Restriction does not equal prohibition.
What traffic laws are you talking about?
I’m reminded of my friend who lives in Northern Virginia. After the last election, campaign signs were removed from medians and other public spaces. Well, except for signs for one candidate.
Want to guess which party he belonged to? Hint: the party that thinks people would generally act responsibly but for all that state coercion that is going on all over the place.
I’ve always looked at Libertarianism as passive-aggressive nonsense. On the surface, everything that conservatives and liberals hate about government, libertarians do even more. It’s easy to fall for this kind of rhetoric.
Where they fail, is that they offer no functional alternative of their own.
…to the point where their sole contribution is to say, “No, that’s not right” when someone tries to bring their airy hand-waving down to a concrete example.
I can think up fifty socio-political systems that will work perfectly in general terms, especially if I’m allowed to just posit that every single individual within it will play by the rules. It’s those damned details and cranky humans that screw it all up.
Do we? If we do, you must not be very disagreeable. I hope I am not to disagreeable to you.
There is no one link that prompted this thread. It’s the general ‘Taxes are Theft’ meme that I see everywhere, and that ‘Socialism is Bad’.
Libertarians, in particular, whinge on about how bad ‘socialism’ is. And yet, they take advantage of it at every opportunity. ‘Hey, as long as it’s there, I’d be a fool not to take advantage of it!’ Roads need to be paid for, but many believe that they shouldn’t have to pay for them. Same with other government services. If they don’t use it, it’s socialism and the first step down the road to becoming North Korea. A lot of farmers think that paying taxes that pay for one thing is bad; but don’t dare cut their subsidies! Some people rail against environmental regulations. If there were no regulations, then what’s to stop someone from using property adjacent to theirs as a dumping ground for toxic waste? And so on, and so on, and so on…
The post linked in the OP finally pushed me to starting a thread, but it’s not the ‘one thing’ that prompted it; it’s a building up of many things.
Ah, these Ronulans, they are always so amusing. Like looking at the world through novelty glasses that turn everything upside down and backwards.
It seems as though your making a lot of wild generalizations. I’ve never heard any Libertarians say any of the stuff you posted above.
And how are income taxes NOT theft? It implies that the government owns ~1/3 of your labor. You are entitled to the fruits of your labor. The government has no business taking hard-earned money from you. I would like to see a single good argument in favor of income taxes.