Following CPTs lead and a point that Kentucky Mountain Rangers made, I wanted to point out some inconsistencies that I have seen in the argument for and against seatbelt laws. In one statement, an individual argued that we have laws to protect people; like seatbelt laws, we also need murder laws. This made me chuckle a bit, as murder is the actual destruction of anothers property, and seatbelt laws only have their basis in the states authority. When you murder someone, you are depriving them of their natural right to life, liberty, and property. It is law not to kill, rape, steal, because it is a crime against natural rights of property. Seat belt laws, however, have their basis in the idea that you submit to the authority of agents of the state who can decide whether your behavior is conducive to your health and safety. Seat belt laws are legal, but not necessarily lawful, because a state got together and decided to regulate the individuals right to travel. I want to point out that there are differences between the terms lawful and legal. When some thing is lawful, a person is acting in a way that is natural and free; they dont have to ask permission, they do not submit applications, they are exercising their natural rights or going about their business. When something is legal, it entails that government/state has decided on a behavior or action to legislate for or against. The term legal entails that there is a statute, a regulation on the county and state books. While something may be lawful, it is not always legal. Seat belt laws are an example of this. If you own your body, and you own your automobile, then you are the human that has dominion over that property and can use it however you want, so long as you do not infringe on others rights or harm their property. However, if youre registered and licensed, you have to ask permission to use the STATES property, and you have to adhere to their laws and regulations. Dont believe me? Hand a drivers license to a cop and then argue that you have a right to travel. Youve already submitted your rights for application to the state. I want to reiterate, because many people have no legal education since our public school system only breeds subjects and not free-persons: there is a difference between freedom and application, there is a difference between TRAVELING and DRIVING, there is a difference between LAWFUL and LEGAL, there is a difference between property rights and state control of property. Do you know the definition of the term DRIVER under the Motor Vehicles Act? Have you ever read any part of the Motor Vehicles Act? How do you know you need a drivers license? Do you understand that a driver status entails a commercial status where you are making money at the time of operating a motor vehicle? This would include CAB DRIVERS, TRUCK DRIVERS, AMBULANCE WORKERS, CONSTRUCTION WORKERS, etc. To be a driver entails that you are acting in a commercial capacity. I would wager that 90% of the individuals on the road do not actually legally require a drivers license. This is because they are not acting in a commercial capacity when they travel in/with their property. Let me summarize and break that down again. Drivers licensing is legal, drivers licensing was created by a state to assert authority over travelers in the realm of automobile ownership and commercial operation of automobiles, which then are called motor vehicles. Through this submission of rights, the state regulates the behaviors of its drivers through seat belt and speed regulation. Traveling is lawful, traveling freely does not require a license and does not draw its authority through statute, regulation, law, because humans have a natural and free right to travel where ever they choose so long as they do not infringe on others rights. Automobiles are NOT ALWAYS motor vehicles, and motor vehicles are ALWAYS automobiles, if that makes sense. These posts are to help our readers to understand that there is a difference between our natural-born lives and rights, and the culture and (sometimes unlawful) legislation that our society/state foist upon us. Seat belt laws may sound like an issue that is not very important in the grand scheme of things, however, I challenge you to assert your right to travel freely, and you will quickly see that the state is strong-arming you into extortion and subjection. You cannot be a driver and travel freely. You cannot be a free individual and be a driver. You cannot be a commercial worker and not be a driver. Having a legal status of a driver is dependent on you willingly submitting your natural rights to the state and agreeing to be a subject or fiduciary of the states authority. CPL
Posted on: Sun, 19 Oct 2014 15:20:10 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015