Do bicyclists ever get arrested for drunk biking??

skipfromla wrote:
On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 22:52:48 -0600, Speeders & Drunk Drivers are
MURDERERS wrote:


I never heard of it, but they ought to be. They're on the road too and
if drunk, pose a menace to others though not as big as if driving an SUV.


In California the DUI sections of the Vehicle Code refer to, "driving
a vehicle." A vehicle in California is anything that is not on rails
(trains, etc.) and not directly human powered, such as bicycles
because of the pedal, chain, gear arrangement.



Cool! So I can get drunk and drive a train legally (provided I don't
have to steal the train).

Brent P wrote:

In article , Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:

It defines the government and restricts the people by taking away their
inherent anarchy, their unlimited rights. Of course it also tries to
limit government and protect the rights of the People that are retained
by the People.

How about this, you quote the portions where you think it controls the
people as opposed to defining what power government has and does not
have. Just go ahead and do that.... you're going to have a hard time of
it because it's not there.

By defining the government, it takes away the default of anarchy power
for the People.




non responsive blather deleted

Government has always been a tool by which some
people seek to enslave or otherwise control others.

Not before government existed. The natural state is anarchy. It emanates
from the essence of One Man. The problem comes when he meets others.

Man never lived alone.

The individuality of Man is his first essence. The Natural Rights (and
other Rights) of the Bill of Rights are recognized ultimately on an
individual basis.




That is true for the
length of known human history. What is different is that the USA was
founded with an effort to put an end to that. If you think the states
prior to the civil war were able to still enslave the population, steal
from it, whatever makes no difference, my statement is still true,
government is often used to those aims.

This again?: "You think the Constitution limits the powers of the
*people*?" But it *does* limit the power of the people. What do you
think laws do?

You must have some bizzare definition of 'the people' that nobody else
uses. So what are you calling 'the people'? The US constitution defines
how government is to operate and what it can do and not do. What a person
may or may not do is not limited by the US constitution.

A person may not act (legally) as the sovereign government. He gives up
his sovereignty to the state. There are people who disagree with that
notion but they tend to get arrested.



And it's clear you missed the meaning of what I wrote. Go read the
article I refered you to. The later kind of 'anarchy' is the absence of
government, not the absence of law.

I don't see how you can have law without any means to enforce it or even
decide who is right and who should be shamed.

*sigh* not everything need stem from force.

You didn't respond to the second part: "or even decide who is right and
who should be shamed."


--
"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."

+-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"

In article , Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:

By defining the government, it takes away the default of anarchy power
for the People.

So you see people as animals that need external control.

The individuality of Man is his first essence. The Natural Rights (and
other Rights) of the Bill of Rights are recognized ultimately on an
individual basis.

But they require *nothing* from others.

You must have some bizzare definition of 'the people' that nobody else
uses. So what are you calling 'the people'? The US constitution defines
how government is to operate and what it can do and not do. What a person
may or may not do is not limited by the US constitution.

A person may not act (legally) as the sovereign government. He gives up
his sovereignty to the state. There are people who disagree with that
notion but they tend to get arrested.

Could you quote that section of the US constitution?

I don't see how you can have law without any means to enforce it or even
decide who is right and who should be shamed.

*sigh* not everything need stem from force.

You didn't respond to the second part: "or even decide who is right and
who should be shamed."

We are free not to associate with (shame) whomever we please. I
considered that a given.

On Aug 27, 5:52 am, Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
wrote:
I never heard of it, but they ought to be. They're on the road too and
if drunk, pose a menace to others though not as big as if driving an SUV.

It really isn't the same thing. DUI is saying you are enaging in
behavior that is so risky and life threatening to those around you
that it's a crime even though you haven't harmed anyone. It's a lot
harder to get to that point on bicycle. Sure you can serve into
traffic or bowl over a pedestrian but I think it's a bit less
dangerous than driving one ton car when loaded.

Brent P wrote:

In article , Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:

By defining the government, it takes away the default of anarchy power
for the People.

So you see people as animals that need external control.

Control by non-People? No. I think that the People can form Government
to ameliorate excesses that will otherwise occur as groups of people are
interacting with individuals and other groups of people. Nevertheless,
what I said is correct, by defining Government, the US Constitution
takes away from the People as individuals their right to sovereignty.




The individuality of Man is his first essence. The Natural Rights (and
other Rights) of the Bill of Rights are recognized ultimately on an
individual basis.

But they require *nothing* from others.

What requires "nothing" from others?



You must have some bizzare definition of 'the people' that nobody else
uses. So what are you calling 'the people'? The US constitution defines
how government is to operate and what it can do and not do. What a person
may or may not do is not limited by the US constitution.

A person may not act (legally) as the sovereign government. He gives up
his sovereignty to the state. There are people who disagree with that
notion but they tend to get arrested.

Could you quote that section of the US constitution?

I'm not sure what you mean. The Constitution is the document that
confers the sovereignty of the People as individuals on a united thing,
the Government. In the US, there is a bifurcated sovereignty in that the
various States retain some measure and some measure is invested in the
federation.



I don't see how you can have law without any means to enforce it or even
decide who is right and who should be shamed.

*sigh* not everything need stem from force.

You didn't respond to the second part: "or even decide who is right and
who should be shamed."

We are free not to associate with (shame) whomever we please. I
considered that a given.

But who judges who is right and who is wrong? Without government, what
thing is there to make that decision?


--
"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."

+-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"

In article , Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:


Brent P wrote:

In article , Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:

By defining the government, it takes away the default of anarchy power
for the People.

So you see people as animals that need external control.

Control by non-People? No. I think that the People can form Government
to ameliorate excesses that will otherwise occur as groups of people are
interacting with individuals and other groups of people. Nevertheless,
what I said is correct, by defining Government, the US Constitution
takes away from the People as individuals their right to sovereignty.

No it doesn't. Only if you view government as an external control over
the people. The government the founders attempted to create was to be a
servant of the people.

I note you have ignored requests to quote the relevant sections of the
USC to support your point.

The individuality of Man is his first essence. The Natural Rights (and
other Rights) of the Bill of Rights are recognized ultimately on an
individual basis.

But they require *nothing* from others.

What requires "nothing" from others?

One's rights from the creator.

You must have some bizzare definition of 'the people' that nobody else
uses. So what are you calling 'the people'? The US constitution defines
how government is to operate and what it can do and not do. What a person
may or may not do is not limited by the US constitution.

A person may not act (legally) as the sovereign government. He gives up
his sovereignty to the state. There are people who disagree with that
notion but they tend to get arrested.

Could you quote that section of the US constitution?

I'm not sure what you mean. The Constitution is the document that
confers the sovereignty of the People as individuals on a united thing,
the Government. In the US, there is a bifurcated sovereignty in that the
various States retain some measure and some measure is invested in the
federation.

In other words you can't and you're going to do a word dance.

I don't see how you can have law without any means to enforce it or even
decide who is right and who should be shamed.

*sigh* not everything need stem from force.

You didn't respond to the second part: "or even decide who is right and
who should be shamed."

We are free not to associate with (shame) whomever we please. I
considered that a given.

But who judges who is right and who is wrong? Without government, what
thing is there to make that decision?

You need a government to tell you right from wrong, to judge it for you?

I suggest you read the article I refered you to again. There is followup
on lewrockwell.com today, might be good to read that too.

Brent P wrote:

In article , Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:


Brent P wrote:

In article , Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:

By defining the government, it takes away the default of anarchy power
for the People.

So you see people as animals that need external control.

Control by non-People? No. I think that the People can form Government
to ameliorate excesses that will otherwise occur as groups of people are
interacting with individuals and other groups of people. Nevertheless,
what I said is correct, by defining Government, the US Constitution
takes away from the People as individuals their right to sovereignty.

No it doesn't. Only if you view government as an external control over
the people. The government the founders attempted to create was to be a
servant of the people.

It should be a servant of the People but it still takes away rights. It
has to or it would have no power at all.



I note you have ignored requests to quote the relevant sections of the
USC to support your point.

I'm not ignoring anything. My claim is general and based on the fact
that any constitution removes rights from the pre-existing anarchy of
individual sovereign power.



The individuality of Man is his first essence. The Natural Rights (and
other Rights) of the Bill of Rights are recognized ultimately on an
individual basis.

But they require *nothing* from others.

What requires "nothing" from others?

One's rights from the creator.

Natural Rights simply exist. A step beyond that is that all rights
exist. That means that no government can create or destroy rights. The
only thing that a government (or anyone or anything) can do is take or
give back rights.



You must have some bizzare definition of 'the people' that nobody else
uses. So what are you calling 'the people'? The US constitution defines
how government is to operate and what it can do and not do. What a person
may or may not do is not limited by the US constitution.

A person may not act (legally) as the sovereign government. He gives up
his sovereignty to the state. There are people who disagree with that
notion but they tend to get arrested.

Could you quote that section of the US constitution?

I'm not sure what you mean. The Constitution is the document that
confers the sovereignty of the People as individuals on a united thing,
the Government. In the US, there is a bifurcated sovereignty in that the
various States retain some measure and some measure is invested in the
federation.

In other words you can't and you're going to do a word dance.

The US federal government and the government of the state the Individual
is resident of are his Sovereign. I don't know that that's stated like
that in the US Constitution.



I don't see how you can have law without any means to enforce it or even
decide who is right and who should be shamed.

*sigh* not everything need stem from force.

You didn't respond to the second part: "or even decide who is right and
who should be shamed."

We are free not to associate with (shame) whomever we please. I
considered that a given.

But who judges who is right and who is wrong? Without government, what
thing is there to make that decision?

You need a government to tell you right from wrong, to judge it for you?

I can envision a need for judges even for persons who try their utmost
to be perfectly law-abiding.



I suggest you read the article I refered you to again. There is followup
on lewrockwell.com today, might be good to read that too.

Is this a Libertarian thing?




--
"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."

+-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"

In article , Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:

No it doesn't. Only if you view government as an external control over
the people. The government the founders attempted to create was to be a
servant of the people.

It should be a servant of the People but it still takes away rights. It
has to or it would have no power at all.

It doesn't take away any real rights. The thing is you're trying to say
that it is a right to beat up your neighbor and take his property
apparently. That such 'rights' are taken away. I contend they are not
rights, never were. That is if we are civilized beings. If we are animals
then the whole thing is a sham.

The articles I refered you to explain the difference. But apparently
you'd rather not read them. So I am done here.

Brent P wrote:

In article , Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:

No it doesn't. Only if you view government as an external control over
the people. The government the founders attempted to create was to be a
servant of the people.

It should be a servant of the People but it still takes away rights. It
has to or it would have no power at all.

It doesn't take away any real rights. The thing is you're trying to say
that it is a right to beat up your neighbor and take his property
apparently. That such 'rights' are taken away. I contend they are not
rights, never were.

I don't think we have a good definition of what "rights" means.


That is if we are civilized beings. If we are animals
then the whole thing is a sham.

The articles I refered you to explain the difference. But apparently
you'd rather not read them. So I am done here.

I'm not particularly interested in searching for materials to read if
you can't bother to post whatever it is you are saying here.


--
"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."

+-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"

In article , Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:


Brent P wrote:

In article , Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:

No it doesn't. Only if you view government as an external control over
the people. The government the founders attempted to create was to be a
servant of the people.

It should be a servant of the People but it still takes away rights. It
has to or it would have no power at all.

It doesn't take away any real rights. The thing is you're trying to say
that it is a right to beat up your neighbor and take his property
apparently. That such 'rights' are taken away. I contend they are not
rights, never were.

I don't think we have a good definition of what "rights" means.

I do, you don't.


That is if we are civilized beings. If we are animals
then the whole thing is a sham.

The articles I refered you to explain the difference. But apparently
you'd rather not read them. So I am done here.

I'm not particularly interested in searching for materials to read if
you can't bother to post whatever it is you are saying here.

I gave you the direct link. And I did state what what I am saying. Bye.