The Right to Drive

This is from the desk of Tona Monroe, a patriotic and like-minded friend of liberty. She is a strong advocate of the right to drive without a driver's license, and she is absolutely right in her assertions. This is her exchange with Tennessee representative John Hagan.

Communist State Representative John Ragan say we the people have no right to drive in our private automobiles Today I emailed Tennessee State legislators about the right to travel (“drive”) in our private automobiles. John Ragan’s response show’s how far we’ve sunk into tyranny in this country. My original email is below his response.

——————————————————————-

Legislators, There is a growing movement in Saudi Arabia of women saying they have the right to drive. Hillary Clinton, has spoken of their right to mobility and freedom to drive. http://dailycaller.com/2011/06/21/clinton-responds-to-saudi-women-fighting-for-rights/ A privilege is not the same a right. No one has to obtain permission from the government to exercise a right. This raises a fundamental question in this society. If it’s the right of these women, and ultimately all people, to travel by personal automobile, then why is is regulated as a privilege here in Tennessee in the land of the “free” and home of the brave? Do we Americans have less bravery and guts than the oppressed Saudi women? It’s time to repeal the 6th plank communist manifesto drivers license. It’s wrong for you all to pass legislation attaching unrelated fines to the drivers license. You the legislature are guilty of extortion, telling people that can’t freely travel upon the public “right”-of-ways and roads that they pay for through the gas tax. http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2011/jun/12/bill-would-punish-those-owing-criminal-court-fine/ Restore the people’s fundamental right to travel. Repeal the communist drivers license. http://www1.legis.ga.gov/legis/2011_12/fulltext/hb7.htm Let freedom ring throughout this land once again.

—————————————————————

Dear Ms. Monroe, There is no “Right to Drive.” However, there is a right to travel freely within the US to any location you choose (excluding military bases or other classified sites). However, the mode of travel can be walking, horseback, train, bus, buggy, taxi, or any number of other transport means that do not require a license. It does not have to be “driving” an automobile. “Driving” necessarily puts the public at risk from a vehicle operator’s potential lack of skill or knowledge. Consequently, it is well within the state’s delegated authority from its citizens to demand certain safeguards of vehicle operators. One such safeguard is a requirement to pass an operator’s skill and knowlege test. Additionally, it is, likewise, perfectly within the state’s public safety and order maintence duties to require proof of an operator’s having accomplished this essential safety precaution in the form of a driver’s license. Laws already in existence prohibit US and state government agencies from illegally discriminating against citizens on the basis of race, religious creed, ethnicity, or sex. These laws apply to the privelege of obtaining a driver’s license. The issuance of a driver’s license has nothing to do with the type, or form, of government. Therefore, your allegation that driver’s licenses are “communist” is ludicrous. I suggest you expand your knowlege of political systems and, in particular, the US government, through a good high school civics text. Regards, John D. Ragan State Representative

——————————————————————

My “gentle” response to Mr. Ragan. Seriously, I’d like to know where I delegated any authority to regulate my right to travel by giving it a new name called driving? The State constitution was written in 1870 and I wouldn’t have been able to vote on it. My vote, had I believe alive and enfranchised, would have been not to ratify it for numerous reasons. Mr. Ragan, I suggest that you follow your own advice and take a class in civic, but that could actually be the problem. The 10th plank of the communist manifesto is free education for kids. Public schools dumb kids down to the point that they don’t even know they have rights or that people ever use to enjoy such rights. Do they ever bother to teach school kids that the 10th plank of the communist manifesto is “free” education at the expense of others, including those that don’t have kids? Public school education is so poor that I graduated an honor student and didn’t even know that I had adrenal glands or anything about their functions. Furthermore, any time you want to have a one-on-one debate in a public forum to compare our knowledge of history of this country, and the concept of liberty, I’ll take you on. I have read extensively on the right to travel and have provided you with a law review article on the matter (see below). Quite frankly based on your response, I doubt you can even define the differences between rights and privileges. You implied that it was a matter of discrimination against women. The words being used are rights and freedom, not government regulated/controlled privileges. You speak of modes of travel. The private automobile is a mode of travel, as any other mode including those that you mentioned. Per mile traveled it’s much safer than horseback. Why don’t we have to obtain a license to operate a horse? A horse can go crazy and kill people at anytime. If you’d like a list of examples, I’ll provide them to you. Furthermore, if I took my horse on the public roads, can they crap everywhere on the paved roads? Where are the horse trails that use to exist, where horse crap would not have been a problem? They were morphed into paved roads for automobiles. Have you tried getting on a plane or bus lately? Unless you prove you’re not a terrorist you can’t board them. If it is a right to travel on a bus or plane, then one would NOT have to prove they’re not a terrorist to board these modes of transportation. Per mile traveled, the private automobile is the safest form of travel available to the masses of people. Planes are safer, but unaffordable to most. Horses are much more dangerous, yet no operators license is required and they are far more dangerous per mile traveled. Flippant answers like yours are why this country has gone to hell in a hand basket. Stupid or ignorant legislators like you thrust draconian laws on the people and then tell them they have no right and that you can lord over them in the name of public safety. Show me where I ever consented for any state legislator to make laws over me? You’re a communist and simply too stupid to even know it. Since you speak of a civics lesson, read the 6th and 10th planks of the communist manifesto since you strongly identify with Marxist ideology. 6th plank Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State. 10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production. http://www.libertyzone.com/Communist-Manifesto-Planks.html Congrats Mr. Ragan, we officially have a communist in the state legislature encouraging people to be indoctrinated in 10th plank public school so that they are so dumbed down that they don’t know that they have rights because the state tells them it’s a privilege. Perhaps we can get the Communist party to give you the Marxist of the year award. If you want a civics lesson, read this law review article on the drivers license. http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/orphaned_right.pdf Again, anytime you wish to compare wits in public, I’ll take you on and expose you for being the communist fool that you are.

Social Responsibility

There is a strong movement in America today that those with money have a social duty to "spread the wealth." Even among conservatives so-called, this idea is very strong. Now, I, like any other red-blooded human being, love it when I get money without having to work for it. However, just because some person, somewhere has money does not mean that I am entitled to a portion of his wealth. I am responsible for me and my actions. I am responsible for taking care of myself and laying up for my family. Indeed it is wrong for me to expect someone to give his money --- money he legally earned from the fruits of his intellectual and physical labor --- to me or anyone else less blessed than he. The man who earns what he gets is the sole rightful reasoning force determining how that money is spent. Now, there are many arguments claiming that those with wealth have a duty to help feed the poor, the elderly, the sick. But that is a fallacious argument. As a man, it is not my responsibility to help anyone except my family. Yes, the Apostle James says "15If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, 16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be [ye] warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what [doth it] profit?" (James 2:15-16). And similar sentiments are echoed in Proverbs. And I am not discrediting that. Lest I be misunderstood, the giving of money by anyone should be voluntary and not expected. What James is saying is that the giving by an individual is between him and God, and if one gives because federal, public or private expectations demand he give X amount, then it is no longer charity, but rather coerced giving. To conclude this, no man is entitled to any thing. Not insurance. Not healthcare. Not even food. No man is entitled to it. It is the responsibility of every man to wisely and prudently oversee his finances to adequately meet his needs. And if perchance a man falls on hard times and cannot support himself, the answer is not turning to the Church. The answer is to ask family. A close-knit, tightly bound family unit will watch out for each other and, insofar as each and all are able, not allow one to fail. This is the system God designed and ordained, but this system has been perverted nearly universally, and condemned as too harsh. But if God ordained and established it, who is man to say it is anything but good?