This is not correct. Anyone can purchase a vehicle and use it to their heart's content without any insurance at all. On private property. Insurance, licensing and registration only becomes necessary when you seek to use a public road.

Likewise, when you speak on your own private property, say what you want. But once you're speaking in public, aren't you liable for the harm of your words? It's not your space, it's everyone's space.

The thing is, you don't have a RIGHT to operate a motor vehicle. This is a correct and true statement. We have the liberty to do so on our own property, but if the government finds you drunk and asleep behind the wheel on your private property, they may very well take your vehicle from you and you will not have a civil rights claim against the government for their having done so. But if you get drunk on your property and you tell a cop to "get the fuck off your property motherfucker," there is nothing he can do about it.

I am on my private property right now, and yet my words reach you out there in public. If I were to sit here and exclaim "there's a fire right now in your house, you need to get out now," and there is no fire, am I responsible for your reaction to my words?

This post was edited by Santara on Feb 2 2021 04:28pm

You have the right to own and operate a motor vehicle. It's a simple prospect here. Again, if you have 1000 acres to maintain, you can purchase a farm truck, not register or insure it, and drive it every day, just not on public roads. Indeed, standard requirements such as age aren't even applicable. 12 year olds can drive farm trucks on their family's property all day. Indeed, your assertion that drunk driving on your own private property can get your vehicle impounded only applies in a few states. In many states, DUI laws only apply to public spaces. And many of the states where you can receive a DUI even on your own private property, they do not allow vehicles to be impounded from that private property without probable cause that would required an in-depth search of the vehicle. Effectively you're just talking out your ass here.

What you do NOT have the right to do is utilize public roads without registration, licensing, and insurance. If your claim is that the use of a motor vehicle is not a CONSTITUTIONAL right, that is correct, only the right to travel is a Constitutional right. One should note, however, that walking (travel) is not legal on most highways and freeways. How's that work if you have the Constitutionally guaranteed right to travel? o.O

However, you have the RIGHT to own and carry firearms. Yet we heavily control firearm ownership and how and where you can carry them, and many proposals are currently in process to require liability insurance for firearms. Why? Public safety.

So, your speech can make other people feel bad, shouldn't you have insurance so that when they need psychological assistance for their harmed feelings that you caused, your liability for their medical needs is covered?

This post was edited by InsaneBobb on Feb 2 2021 04:53pm

Rights exist in more than the Constitution. You can have rights based on federal law, state law, state constitutions, local ordinances, and legal decisions. Rights are the codification of actions that are specifically allowed for in the common law. Liberties are all the things you may do even though they are not codified. You have the liberty to buy and own a car, not a right.

I don't think you gave that Supreme Court citation I used its due attention. In order to place a legal financial barrier on the right to bear arms or free speech, you have to make them no longer rights.

This makes me want to leave society...

LOL. It's just a thought experiment. A "how far will progressives support stupid shit?" style question.

Nobody ever thought you could be taxed for simply existing, until the ACA implemented exactly that with the individual mandate.

Nobody ever thought any form of "need insurance to own a firearm" scam would be taken seriously. Now it's being taken very seriously in many areas of the nation.

Nobody ever thought speech could be taxed or limited unless it's criminal in nature. So, I'm just jumping on the topic before it happens.

They take a good thing, push it too far ( they never know when to stop ) and make it a bad thing. Then realize the bad things make them money so they do it more. The bad being for the people, but the rich see it as good. Then blindfold the people and tell them it looks good, AND THEY AGREE!? wtf

We need to bring back bullying.