Author	Topic:   traffice laws
Scott	posted 3/14/07 12:27 AM       I disagree that the people in general (the majority) didn't want to regulate themselves with most of the traffic laws. I've asked many people the question over the years and the general consensus believe we should have traffic laws. This is probably true because most people only care about themselves in this day and age. While i personally may disagree with the majority, wouldn't you call that consent at least on this issue?
william duff (Moderator)	posted 3/14/07 5:09 PM       sure..... it is a form of consent... but it is consnet that taps their selfish fear of their neighbor and gives them a solution: "lets get government to tackle the neighbor when you does something we don't like..... " " and listen.... if that works well we can make most of our neighbors decisions for them... that way we will safe from his obvious incompetents" "oh, and listen, the laws we support are going to be ones that we wont' typically fall victim to anyway...... its a win win for us... hell lets do it!" That is what you have been hearing from the people you are talking to. Not in those words.. but the intent is exactly the same. Here is the problem with that kind of thinking...... in order for them to restrain their neighbor.... they must harm him (intentionally)...... that by itself is a breach of the social compact and a crime in that they, in supporting a restraint upon their neighbor when he has not harmed them they diminish if rightful dominion over his private domain...... that is a harm. When it is done on the scale that occurs here in America today... it is a viscious dictatorship that feeds on the fear of its subjects. it is every bit as contemptible as the Sadam regime is...... it is called the dictatorship of the majority...... watch the philosophy of liberty linked on my website...... you will understand more fully what i am telling you...... Now that i have gone completely off the subject you began. (but for good cause) here is the answer.... it certainly appears to be consent.. but consent can't be acquired with any kind of coersion.... .... what regulation isn't presented with coersion? My poiont is.... the consent has to be on the individual level.... it has to be totally voluntary...... a representative can not give your consent for you..... are you getting the idea? thanks for the question. wdd http://www.williamduff.com DOMINION
geoffrey finn	posted 8/23/08 10:00 PM       Hello folks, I once had a wise man tell me that a traffic light pole is a regulation which is lawful but license and a prohibition if quite different. In law they are quite different. Example is that the Comerse Clause allows regulation between the states of the union but Congressional power to prohibite is subject to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution. I.e., Congress only has the power to prohibite in the District of Criminals but if you dont raise the issue then goodbye its off to prison you go. What do you Mr. Duff? Geoffrey Finn http://clarencedarrowlaw.com Not finished by no means.

Post New Topic