On Sep 7, 12:47 pm, proffsl > wrote:
> Harry K > wrote:
> > proffsl > wrote:
> > > "¥ UltraMan ¥" > wrote:
> > > > "proffsl" > wrote in message
> > > > > Larry > wrote:
> > > > >> proffsl > wrote:
>
> > <snip>
>
> > > > > No, nobody can have an Inherent Right to anything that would obligate
> > > > > any othes to provide for them.
>
> > > > You mean like roadways, streets, highways, design, contruxtion and
> > > > maintence of same?
>
> > > Can you point out where I made any claim we have an Inherent Right to
> > > roadways, streets, highways, or their design, construction and
> > > maintenance? I doubt it, cause I never did.
>
> > > That is an Acquired Right which we acquire when paying highway usage
> > > taxes.
>
> > <snip>
>
> > Weird. You agree that the government has the right to charge for the
> > use of the highways but not to regulate your driving on them.
>
> > Logic thy name is not 'proffs'
>
> To the contrary. Our public highways are built on our public Right of
> Ways. We all have the Right to use our public Right of Ways for
> personal locomotion, which is to travel at our own inclination (not be
> Transported at the inclination of another). Nobody can rightfully just
> come along and cover our public Right of Ways with highways then claim
> to have covered up, or done away, with our Right to use the public
> Right of Ways.
>
> Highways were not really needed until the use of automobiles became
> prolific. At the advent of automobiles, their drivers had every Right
> to use the unimproved public Right of Ways to travel upon as did the
> horse and buggy or any other means of travel at that time.
>
> Then, of course, the use of automobiles became quite prolific, and
> this brought about the need to build highways on our public Right of
> Ways. But, nobody has a Right to anything which obligates others to do
> or provide something. Therefore, somebody had to pay for those
> highways, and in all fairness, as it was the automobiles that brought
> about their need, it was the automobile drivers who demanded them, so
> it was the automobile drivers that should pay for them. And, this was
> accomplished through highway usage taxes being applied to automobile
> gasoline.
>
> But, just because the automobile drivers had special needs which they
> were willing to pay for in no way rightfully opens any door to convert
> their Right to use public Right of Ways into a permission by way of
> Driver Licensing.
>
> Our public highways were built on our public Rights of ways with our
> money for the purpose of enhancing and increasing the exercise of our
> Right of Locomotion. But, in these screwed up times, the more our
> public highways are made unuseable by anything but the automobile, the
> more this LIE that driving is a privilege makes us all prisoners of
> permission behind the very thing which was intended to enhance and
> incrase the exercise of our Right of Locomotion, prisoners of
> permission behind bars of blacktop.
>
> No, Mr. Harry K, it is not my logic which is failing, but instead if
> you believe building highways on public Right of Ways somehow covers
> up our Right of Locomotion in the ordinary way, then it is your logic
> which is failing.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

A whole bunch of blather about "public right of ways" that never
existed in most of the US. Out here, they want a new highway, they
have to purchase the land to build it on.

It has been pointed out to you before that no-one and no agency
prohibits you from using the highways. If you want to 'drive a car'
on them, then you are regulated as is required for the public good.
After all, with no regulations, there would be chaos out there. One
of the needed regulations is ensuring that anyone driving, is
competent to do so (they to a **** poor job of that though) which is
done by requiring a license. That license requires on to be of a
certain age and has a minimum (very) knowledge of the rules and laws
governing movement.

Of course I realise that talking to you is like talking to a stone
wall although if done enough, the stone wall just might, one day, show
a penetration.

Harry K