as my last post shows.
i cannot believe that BD after just listening to 5 minutes of his 192 jessica no plate 10 years story.. actually thought the podcast still had merit.
i cannot believe after the first 40 minutes BD still believed the podcast was about freedom to travel using a vehicle on a public highway, contained any substance of lawful or legal evidence of such
he really needs to take off his freeman religious cloak off and put a critical, independant thinking cap on.
Topic: Car and Driver licensing - page 8. (Read 1607 times)
ok lets atleast rips some more holes in BD's scripts.. oops i mean his sources. but more like sauces
Episode 192 - Jessica Love's experiences on Traveling without License, Tags or Plates for 10 years
jessica driving without tags, plates for 10 years?
wait... her introduction to the call was that she had montana plates which she was using on a vehicle and then a Subaru AFTER 2011
...... so the 10year no plate stuff... that is busted in just the first 5 minutes of the podcast
should i even bother to go on... and listen to the rest
ok, i cant help myself.. lets rip more holes
so she thought she was getting case dismissed due to freedom to travel. but got first case dismissed because she wasnt on the public highway, she was on a private carpark
second car stop. she got ticketed even after her huff and puff. she also spend a few days in jail for it.
third car stop for broken tail light. she got handcuffed.. her tactic this time was to try playing the sympathy card about how her life is crappy and not worth being punished for a $5 lightbulb
she took a deal where she was not a 3rd time traffic charge offender, by agreeing to a minor charge for the resisting arrest..
this was about playing the sympathy card not about free travel using a vehicle on a highway
so the first 28 minutes of the podcast have no proof of freedom to travel in a vehicle on a highway
should i bother to continue
ok lets try a bit more.. by minute 31 a guy is advising what to say.. but then says he has never tried it himself, and jessica also agrees she hasnt tried either but they both say it should work... (facepalm)
dang. im still hooked on picking holes
so by minut 39. the guy talking to jessica starts to then talk about right to consciousness and religion and then says that its that law that got jessica to be able to walk out of court....
um no. jessica already said she got fined. so it wasnt a victory of no punishment freedom
dang are people really this dumb to forget something said just 15 minutes prior in the exact same podcast, purely because the latter thing they hear sounds like something positive.
the funny part is the guy nor jessica ven used a right to conscious argument in courts. but were just talking about it weeks later in a phonecall.. thus had no bearing on the case(s) themselves
its like i could be in court. arrested put in jail for a few days, made to pay a fine.. and then i get set free... 2 weeks later i have a phoncall and say 'yay i walked out 2 weeks ago as a free person'.. and people just hear the 'yay i walked out 2 weeks ago as a free person' part
Episode 192 - Jessica Love's experiences on Traveling without License, Tags or Plates for 10 years
jessica driving without tags, plates for 10 years?
wait... her introduction to the call was that she had montana plates which she was using on a vehicle and then a Subaru AFTER 2011
...... so the 10year no plate stuff... that is busted in just the first 5 minutes of the podcast
should i even bother to go on... and listen to the rest
ok, i cant help myself.. lets rip more holes
so she thought she was getting case dismissed due to freedom to travel. but got first case dismissed because she wasnt on the public highway, she was on a private carpark
second car stop. she got ticketed even after her huff and puff. she also spend a few days in jail for it.
third car stop for broken tail light. she got handcuffed.. her tactic this time was to try playing the sympathy card about how her life is crappy and not worth being punished for a $5 lightbulb
she took a deal where she was not a 3rd time traffic charge offender, by agreeing to a minor charge for the resisting arrest..
this was about playing the sympathy card not about free travel using a vehicle on a highway
so the first 28 minutes of the podcast have no proof of freedom to travel in a vehicle on a highway
should i bother to continue
ok lets try a bit more.. by minute 31 a guy is advising what to say.. but then says he has never tried it himself, and jessica also agrees she hasnt tried either but they both say it should work... (facepalm)
dang. im still hooked on picking holes
so by minut 39. the guy talking to jessica starts to then talk about right to consciousness and religion and then says that its that law that got jessica to be able to walk out of court....
um no. jessica already said she got fined. so it wasnt a victory of no punishment freedom
dang are people really this dumb to forget something said just 15 minutes prior in the exact same podcast, purely because the latter thing they hear sounds like something positive.
the funny part is the guy nor jessica ven used a right to conscious argument in courts. but were just talking about it weeks later in a phonecall.. thus had no bearing on the case(s) themselves
its like i could be in court. arrested put in jail for a few days, made to pay a fine.. and then i get set free... 2 weeks later i have a phoncall and say 'yay i walked out 2 weeks ago as a free person'.. and people just hear the 'yay i walked out 2 weeks ago as a free person' part
I see you citing US code 241. What are you gonna do with that? Are you filing a criminal complaint in federal court? Using the same law book you think you can circumvent?
What AUSA is going to approve your complaint ?
Furthermore, that' code isn't even being used in the right context. Here's its intention and proper place for use https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3239&context=dlj
You can't just pick a code/section that you think applies to a circumstance and say "see, there it is...that's law."
There's so much more to it. Other conflicting sections, criminal definitions, case law, rules of criminal procedure.
I can show you a state and federal law making it an offense to burn a flag. But, it cannot be charged or enforced. just because it's printed in black and white in a law book doesn't mean there aren't other factors at play.
What AUSA is going to approve your complaint ?
Furthermore, that' code isn't even being used in the right context. Here's its intention and proper place for use https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3239&context=dlj
You can't just pick a code/section that you think applies to a circumstance and say "see, there it is...that's law."
There's so much more to it. Other conflicting sections, criminal definitions, case law, rules of criminal procedure.
I can show you a state and federal law making it an offense to burn a flag. But, it cannot be charged or enforced. just because it's printed in black and white in a law book doesn't mean there aren't other factors at play.
If safe driving depended on licensing, then there wouldn't be any accidents.
Think about this for a minute and then try again.
This is a brief statement to make a point. What was your point?
What does safe driving mean to you?
If safe driving depended on licensing, then there wouldn't be any accidents.
Think about this for a minute and then try again.
This is a brief statement to make a point. What was your point?
I don't really know what you mean. I already answered this question, although, if you read the answer, the answer wasn't a straight yes or no answer. So, I'll answer directly >>> No.
Do YOU have any examples of judges being sued successfully by a defendant in America? Please show the sites if you do.
One other question. Why do you ask this question in the first place? Almost 100 percent of the time a defendant isn't in a position to sue a judge. Defendants defend against suits. It's plaintiffs that sue.
To sue a man who has a job as a judge some of the time, one sues just like he sues any other man. A defendant doesn't sue. Only a plaintiff sues.
I asked because you suggested that if you were arrested for driving without a license, after demanding payment from the cop and being sentenced by a judge, you should sue the judge.
Pretty sure anyone that tried this would be laughed at by the cop and have their lawsuit dismissed and all they'd get for their trouble was whatever the sentence was.
Almost 100% of the judges are smart enough to obey the law. And it is your duty to give them fair warning when they are not. But if they are messing with your rights... U.S. Code § 241. Conspiracy against rights:
Quote from: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/241
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
So, the judge is careful to dismiss the case when you present him with the law that protects your rights. It's also why the court system tries to get you to be represented by an attorney, or at least yourself. If you are represented, you signed away your rights.
Doing the thing with the cop, if done the right way, is one of your rights being exercised.
If you are really interested, try these two audios on Gus Breton's talkshoe - https://www.talkshoe.com/rss-common-law-word-nerdz.xml:
Episode 190 - David Myrland re the Death Penalty defense against Government Prosecution - https://fci-recordings.s3.amazonaws.com/production/conference_6074645_307617.mp3?response-content-disposition=inline&response-content-type=audio%2Fmpeg&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIAJH74ISJPD4R4YDTQ%2F20191105%2Fus-east-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20191105T035512Z&X-Amz-Expires=604800&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=bd98974fea329535af798c5b3f0210b9069e1ac68ef941c57a985ab8acfeaf48
Episode 192 - Jessica Love's experiences on Traveling without License, Tags or Plates for 10 years - https://fci-recordings.s3.amazonaws.com/production/conference_6106898_308621.mp3?response-content-disposition=inline&response-content-type=audio%2Fmpeg&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIAJH74ISJPD4R4YDTQ%2F20191105%2Fus-east-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20191105T035516Z&X-Amz-Expires=604800&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=fcafce7b8fd547aa52aca8873ab35e41415ce3d4c306dc1178e919a4166b6e7c
If safe driving depended on licensing, then there wouldn't be any accidents.
Think about this for a minute and then try again.
You have the right to travel on the public rights of way. You have the right to take your property with you as you travel on the public rights of way. If you take your car property with you as you travel on the public rights of way, you have that right without licensing, because it is a right.
If you don't agree with them that you were driving, but rather, say that you were going from point A to point B with your property, you aren't using any of their legal styled words. You aren't doing what they say you are doing.
If you haven't injured someone, there is no cause for them attacking you to take you to court or make you pay a fine. But... you have to take it to court when they attack you, unrepresented, requiring your accuser to show his injury that you did. This is standard law.
But nobody who does it this way insistently maintains his innocence of injuring anyone. Rather, he is talked into accepting what Judge Judy says in whatever she says it. Or he is represented by an attorney, which makes him a ward of the court without the ability to officially say anything in court unless the judge lets him.
Such a refreshing topic that I read from the first post to the last one.
Where I disagree with you BD is that someone freedom stops where someone else's starts.
And in society is generally accepted that rules are needed and that they must be respected.
Back to your example :
A : "I have the right to travel on the public right of way with my property"
B: "cars are properties"
A+B = C " I can drive freely on any public right of way"
I will add the point D : "we were allowed to walk anywhere before the constitution and the government, so I shall retain this right"
Now instead of a Car let's use a Flame thrower, a TNT vest and a fully loaded assault weapon (military one, not just a "gun")... all 3 together at the same time, on the same person.
All of them are "properties" hence because A, B and C (above), I should be able to walk on any public right of way, in any US states carrying them, without any issues. And because my ancestor, the cavemen use to carry spears (or any type of weapons available at that time) then I shall retain my right to do carry any weapons that is now available (Tnt vest, flame thrower and automatic weapons...).
Basic logic says that if one counter example exists, then the argument is wrong.
Question to DB :
In the great US of A, can you freely walk on any public right of way carrying ANY property (including the one stated above + deadly vaporized gas + nuclear waste) without any conditions (license, authorization, specific containment .... ?).
If your answer is yes, then you can drive without a license.
If you answer is not, then why do you fight the fact you need a license ?
Also, let's say you answered "yes" and don't require a licence.
What is the goal of a driving licence :
To proves that you know how to drive and that you implicitly agree to respect the driving code.
Without one, how do you know how to drive ? Self taught ?
If you don't have a license and you refuse to follow the rule of the driving code, why would you drive on the right of the road ? why not in the middle ? what about the left side ?
Why respecting the traffic lights? Because you are a free man, in a free country, using his property on a public right of way, who said that a red light could make you stop your property ?
should the red light pay you to stop your property ? Technically the right light is making you work, the red light is your boss. No ?
Come on DB
guys i told you BD has no clue he has no personal experience..
he is just a armchair activist watching youtube videos thinking he is changing the world but has no clue how the world actually works.
he cant even tell the difference between a human biological ability and a human right
he cant even tell the difference between a human human right and a civil right
i mean its not that hard.
all he has to do is look at his arm moving freely when not doing a crime vs arm shackld up in cuffs if doing a crime.
all he has to do is look at things like slavery vs citizens.
he has no clue about the constitution and stuff.. like how it was formed to declare america as a separate thing from other countries such as the british centuries ago. thus by being separat and being amrican differnt rules apply to different groups of humans
he dont even know about things like womans right to vot where the civil laws can change more often then he thinks
he doesnt know what jurisdictions are their boundaries or what they cover, who gets what, who's excluded from what.
all he can do is repeat script and words other people have said because its all he knows. he is like 5-10 years behind in any form of research on the matter as many people who first heard about the freeman stuff he is fond of soon learned all the flaws in it too.. BD has yet to come to that tipping point where he sees the flaws and then starts to think independantly and realise what he has been saying is flawed
just let him take a breather and sit back and give him time.. one day he will see the light at the end of the tunnel he dug
he is just a armchair activist watching youtube videos thinking he is changing the world but has no clue how the world actually works.
he cant even tell the difference between a human biological ability and a human right
he cant even tell the difference between a human human right and a civil right
i mean its not that hard.
all he has to do is look at his arm moving freely when not doing a crime vs arm shackld up in cuffs if doing a crime.
all he has to do is look at things like slavery vs citizens.
he has no clue about the constitution and stuff.. like how it was formed to declare america as a separate thing from other countries such as the british centuries ago. thus by being separat and being amrican differnt rules apply to different groups of humans
he dont even know about things like womans right to vot where the civil laws can change more often then he thinks
he doesnt know what jurisdictions are their boundaries or what they cover, who gets what, who's excluded from what.
all he can do is repeat script and words other people have said because its all he knows. he is like 5-10 years behind in any form of research on the matter as many people who first heard about the freeman stuff he is fond of soon learned all the flaws in it too.. BD has yet to come to that tipping point where he sees the flaws and then starts to think independantly and realise what he has been saying is flawed
just let him take a breather and sit back and give him time.. one day he will see the light at the end of the tunnel he dug
Can't rule out the possibility that he's the only sane one here and everyone else is crazy though.
Damn Twitchy. You caught us, you've finally made the world that he lives in a reality.
EVERYONE AROUND HIM IS WRONG. EVERYONE AROUND HIM IS WRONG. EVERYONE AROUND HIM DOESN'T KNOW THE SUPER SECRET CODES TO BEAT THE LAW, BEAT THE JUDGES, THE COPS, ETC.
HEHEHEHEHEH HE IS SO MART.
/s
guys i told you BD has no clue he has no personal experience..
he is just a armchair activist watching youtube videos thinking he is changing the world but has no clue how the world actually works.
he cant even tell the difference between a human biological ability and a human right
he cant even tell the difference between a human human right and a civil right
i mean its not that hard.
all he has to do is look at his arm moving freely when not doing a crime vs arm shackld up in cuffs if doing a crime.
all he has to do is look at things like slavery vs citizens.
he has no clue about the constitution and stuff.. like how it was formed to declare america as a separate thing from other countries such as the british centuries ago. thus by being separat and being amrican differnt rules apply to different groups of humans
he dont even know about things like womans right to vot where the civil laws can change more often then he thinks
he doesnt know what jurisdictions are their boundaries or what they cover, who gets what, who's excluded from what.
all he can do is repeat script and words other people have said because its all he knows. he is like 5-10 years behind in any form of research on the matter as many people who first heard about the freeman stuff he is fond of soon learned all the flaws in it too.. BD has yet to come to that tipping point where he sees the flaws and then starts to think independantly and realise what he has been saying is flawed
just let him take a breather and sit back and give him time.. one day he will see the light at the end of the tunnel he dug
he is just a armchair activist watching youtube videos thinking he is changing the world but has no clue how the world actually works.
he cant even tell the difference between a human biological ability and a human right
he cant even tell the difference between a human human right and a civil right
i mean its not that hard.
all he has to do is look at his arm moving freely when not doing a crime vs arm shackld up in cuffs if doing a crime.
all he has to do is look at things like slavery vs citizens.
he has no clue about the constitution and stuff.. like how it was formed to declare america as a separate thing from other countries such as the british centuries ago. thus by being separat and being amrican differnt rules apply to different groups of humans
he dont even know about things like womans right to vot where the civil laws can change more often then he thinks
he doesnt know what jurisdictions are their boundaries or what they cover, who gets what, who's excluded from what.
all he can do is repeat script and words other people have said because its all he knows. he is like 5-10 years behind in any form of research on the matter as many people who first heard about the freeman stuff he is fond of soon learned all the flaws in it too.. BD has yet to come to that tipping point where he sees the flaws and then starts to think independantly and realise what he has been saying is flawed
just let him take a breather and sit back and give him time.. one day he will see the light at the end of the tunnel he dug
Can't rule out the possibility that he's the only sane one here and everyone else is crazy though.
guys i told you BD has no clue he has no personal experience..
he is just a armchair activist watching youtube videos thinking he is changing the world but has no clue how the world actually works.
he cant even tell the difference between a human biological ability and a human right
he cant even tell the difference between a human human right and a civil right
i mean its not that hard.
all he has to do is look at his arm moving freely when not doing a crime vs arm shackld up in cuffs if doing a crime.
all he has to do is look at things like slavery vs citizens.
he has no clue about the constitution and stuff.. like how it was formed to declare america as a separate thing from other countries such as the british centuries ago. thus by being separat and being amrican differnt rules apply to different groups of humans
he dont even know about things like womans right to vot where the civil laws can change more often then he thinks
he doesnt know what jurisdictions are their boundaries or what they cover, who gets what, who's excluded from what.
all he can do is repeat script and words other people have said because its all he knows. he is like 5-10 years behind in any form of research on the matter as many people who first heard about the freeman stuff he is fond of soon learned all the flaws in it too.. BD has yet to come to that tipping point where he sees the flaws and then starts to think independantly and realise what he has been saying is flawed
just let him take a breather and sit back and give him time.. one day he will see the light at the end of the tunnel he dug
he is just a armchair activist watching youtube videos thinking he is changing the world but has no clue how the world actually works.
he cant even tell the difference between a human biological ability and a human right
he cant even tell the difference between a human human right and a civil right
i mean its not that hard.
all he has to do is look at his arm moving freely when not doing a crime vs arm shackld up in cuffs if doing a crime.
all he has to do is look at things like slavery vs citizens.
he has no clue about the constitution and stuff.. like how it was formed to declare america as a separate thing from other countries such as the british centuries ago. thus by being separat and being amrican differnt rules apply to different groups of humans
he dont even know about things like womans right to vot where the civil laws can change more often then he thinks
he doesnt know what jurisdictions are their boundaries or what they cover, who gets what, who's excluded from what.
all he can do is repeat script and words other people have said because its all he knows. he is like 5-10 years behind in any form of research on the matter as many people who first heard about the freeman stuff he is fond of soon learned all the flaws in it too.. BD has yet to come to that tipping point where he sees the flaws and then starts to think independantly and realise what he has been saying is flawed
just let him take a breather and sit back and give him time.. one day he will see the light at the end of the tunnel he dug
The next step if a judge acts wrongly, is to sue the judge in his private capacity. People are usually so disheveled, when they lose a case, that they can't do much of anything.
Do you have any examples of judges being sued successfully by a defendant in America? (and the result somehow changing the outcome of the judges ruling)?
Any evidence at all?
A defendant in a case only wins if the judge, out of the kindness or wisdom of his heart, lets him win. A defendant has no ability to sue a judge if the judge doesn't let him.
Do you have any examples of judges being sued successfully by a defendant in America? (and the result somehow changing the outcome of the judges ruling)?
Any evidence at all?
I don't really know what you mean. I already answered this question, although, if you read the answer, the answer wasn't a straight yes or no answer. So, I'll answer directly >>> No.
Do YOU have any examples of judges being sued successfully by a defendant in America? Please show the sites if you do.
One other question. Why do you ask this question in the first place? Almost 100 percent of the time a defendant isn't in a position to sue a judge. Defendants defend against suits. It's plaintiffs that sue.
To sue a man who has a job as a judge some of the time, one sues just like he sues any other man. A defendant doesn't sue. Only a plaintiff sues.
I asked because you suggested that if you were arrested for driving without a license, after demanding payment from the cop and being sentenced by a judge, you should sue the judge.
Pretty sure anyone that tried this would be laughed at by the cop and have their lawsuit dismissed and all they'd get for their trouble was whatever the sentence was.
The next step if a judge acts wrongly, is to sue the judge in his private capacity. People are usually so disheveled, when they lose a case, that they can't do much of anything.
Do you have any examples of judges being sued successfully by a defendant in America? (and the result somehow changing the outcome of the judges ruling)?
Any evidence at all?
A defendant in a case only wins if the judge, out of the kindness or wisdom of his heart, lets him win. A defendant has no ability to sue a judge if the judge doesn't let him.
Do you have any examples of judges being sued successfully by a defendant in America? (and the result somehow changing the outcome of the judges ruling)?
Any evidence at all?
I don't really know what you mean. I already answered this question, although, if you read the answer, the answer wasn't a straight yes or no answer. So, I'll answer directly >>> No.
Do YOU have any examples of judges being sued successfully by a defendant in America? Please show the sites if you do.
One other question. Why do you ask this question in the first place? Almost 100 percent of the time a defendant isn't in a position to sue a judge. Defendants defend against suits. It's plaintiffs that sue.
To sue a man who has a job as a judge some of the time, one sues just like he sues any other man. A defendant doesn't sue. Only a plaintiff sues.
The next step if a judge acts wrongly, is to sue the judge in his private capacity. People are usually so disheveled, when they lose a case, that they can't do much of anything.
Do you have any examples of judges being sued successfully by a defendant in America? (and the result somehow changing the outcome of the judges ruling)?
Any evidence at all?
A defendant in a case only wins if the judge, out of the kindness or wisdom of his heart, lets him win. A defendant has no ability to sue a judge if the judge doesn't let him.
Do you have any examples of judges being sued successfully by a defendant in America? (and the result somehow changing the outcome of the judges ruling)?
Any evidence at all?
Good thing I'm not in Nuremberg.
And when I give you a lawful order as a police officer, I'm doing it as an agent of the state. Your "as a man" theory doesn't work. It may work just fine theoretically in your internet cult of secret legal words, but in real world legal practice, it does not.
And when I give you a lawful order as a police officer, I'm doing it as an agent of the state. Your "as a man" theory doesn't work. It may work just fine theoretically in your internet cult of secret legal words, but in real world legal practice, it does not.
Okay. I can easily accept that it hasn't happened to you, yet. There are very few people who even attempt it.
EDIT: But you are wrong. A police officer never gives an order without a man/woman doing the giving of the order.
The next step if a judge acts wrongly, is to sue the judge in his private capacity. People are usually so disheveled, when they lose a case, that they can't do much of anything.
Do you have any examples of judges being sued successfully by a defendant in America? (and the result somehow changing the outcome of the judges ruling)?
Any evidence at all?
A defendant in a case only wins if the judge, out of the kindness or wisdom of his heart, lets him win. A defendant has no ability to sue a judge if the judge doesn't let him.
The next step if a judge acts wrongly, is to sue the judge in his private capacity. People are usually so disheveled, when they lose a case, that they can't do much of anything.
Do you have any examples of judges being sued successfully by a defendant in America? (and the result somehow changing the outcome of the judges ruling)?
Any evidence at all?
Good thing I'm not in Nuremberg.
And when I give you a lawful order as a police officer, I'm doing it as an agent of the state. Your "as a man" theory doesn't work. It may work just fine theoretically in your internet cult of secret legal words, but in real world legal practice, it does not.
And when I give you a lawful order as a police officer, I'm doing it as an agent of the state. Your "as a man" theory doesn't work. It may work just fine theoretically in your internet cult of secret legal words, but in real world legal practice, it does not.
Is not your car your property? And are you not a free man/woman in a free country? I think Government should pay us to get licensed and to have our vehicle licensed.
What do you think?
What do you think?
I don't think that your thinking is true.
In every action that anyone does and can affect other people's lives, you need to get a license. Your car is your property but driving is an action that people might be in danger and this way it should be controlled with licensing policies.
Getting a license doesn't control anyone. If it did, there wouldn't be any car accidents, and certainly no car-accident deaths.
But that wasn't the point. If anybody orders you to do something, he should pay you to do it. If he orders you to get a license, he certainly shouldn't charge you to get what he orders, but really, he should pay you.
Jump to: