There are two things a person comes into this world with that they can claim as being intrinsically their own - the goods they have to trade with the world around them for every thing else they want or need to sustain their life. The two things are Time and Ability. Any entity - whether a person or an organization (such as a government) that seeks to deprive a person of either their time or their ability, without just cause, is attempting to commit a crime against that person.

The speed limit laws enforced in this country directly deprive motorists of both their time and their ability, then further demand the "offender" pay fines and increased insurance rates, and potentially subject them to other, more destructive burdens - including the possibility of incarceration - simply because they tried to make the best use of their time that they could.

It is NOT a valid argument to say that these actions are necessary to prevent accidents: Such an action is prior restraint, which the Supreme Court has ruled unconstitutional. It is also unjustifiable: Why should a person be punished for the possibility they might commit a crime? If that is going to be done, we should outlaw the use of silverware - because a diner might pick up a fork and stab their neighbor. Further, we should also outlaw chairs, because someone might pick one up and club another person with one. For that matter, we should just outlaw civilization and get it done with, because without social intercourse, there would be no danger of human interaction - which is the only time crimes are committed by one person against another.

Another argument that has been used to justify the speed enforcement is statistical observation has shown speeding drivers are more likely to have accidents than ones traveling at more sedate paces. This is FRAUD. Statistics is useful for observing the past behavior of large groups; it is totally useless for predicting the future behavior of an individual - which is exactly what is being done in this case.

If motorists are being subjected to speed enforcement because of statistical observations, they are being punished for crimes committed by other drivers - not their own. This is a perversion of justice, and cannot be allowed to stand.

In the Old West, marshals were given badges and empowered to bring highwaymen to justice. Now the highwaymen have badges, and the population is robbed at the will of bureaucrats who never have to answer to the public they are supposed to be serving.

If a motorist is charged with speeding, they are not being charged with a crime: They are being charged with a violation of the law. As a result of the law, they are deprived of their time, ability, and monetary wealth, without just cause. This action is commonly known as "robbery." Since the crime is perpetrated on the public roads, it is known as "highway robbery." The crime is systematically carried out by an organized group of armed individuals, acting in concert, with a previously planned pattern of attack and method of selecting their targets. This is a "conspiracy to commit armed highway robbery." How many Federal offenses are identified in that one phrase? Would anyone like to help me fight this battle in the court system? If so, please email me immediately about your concern. I am investigating setting up a legal defense fund and a political action committee, and will proceed along those lines as time and budgets permit.

What is a drivers' license but a contract with the state wherein you give up your inherent rights, and get nothing in return? By what philosophical system or moral code can the government require you to have and carry a drivers' license when without one you have the right to travel on the public roads, using the mode of transportation common for the day? Public property is just that - property owned by the public, not the government. The government is charged with maintaining the public roads, not restricting the public's use thereof.

What is the fundamental purpose of a traffic light? The only justifiable answer is that they help to insure everyone on the road has an opportunity to take their turn. What has happened instead is that we have become slaves to the machines that are supposed to be our servants - and we must sit waiting at red lights for empty roads to allow the traffic that's not on them the chance to pass - or the highwaymen will come and rob us for trying to make good use of our time.

---

Supporting Opinions
Dissenting Opinions

---

Supporting Opinions

Fred Koschara writes:
I typically drive at speeds that are 50 - 100% (or more) faster than the posted limits. I'm not doing it to show off, scare, or impress anyone around me: I do it because there aren't enough hours in the day, and time spent driving is time I can't be doing something else. I drive a car that is capable of going (and stopping) safely at the speeds I drive, and I maintain it so it stays that way. I slow down when conditions - weather, traffic, children playing in the street, how long it's been since I slept - indicate it's appropriate. I make it a habit to not drive farther than I can stop: If I can't see around the bend or through the fog, there may be something in the road I couldn't avoid. When I sit down behind the steering wheel, I'm assuming the responsibility for the safety of everyone and everything in front of me. Where does the government get any right to tell me that I'm not allowed to assume that responsibility?

I recently had a hearing about my drivers' license and driving history. In the hearing, the examiner gave me a copy of my driving record so we could discuss it. It goes on for several pages, and there are many speeding convictions listed on it - enough so that, by law, the examiner decided he had grounds for suspending my license. (Note that I was further deprived of my rights, not by a jury of my peers, but simply through administrative action by a public employee against whom there is no recourse.) Why does the law give him the "right" to suspend my license? Allegedly it's in the interest of the public safety. If I'm an unsafe driver, where are the bodies? Nowhere on the driving record this examiner used as justification for suspending my license are there any accidents: There are no victims and there is no property damage to substantiate the claim that I'm an unsafe driver. What objective means has been used to determine that I cannot drive safely?

How is the public's safety protected by depriving the public of their rights?

How am I supposed to find respect for laws that do nothing but deprive me of my rights, without just cause?

---

No other opinions expressed yet...

---

Return to the top of this page

---

Dissenting Opinions

No opinions expressed yet...

---

Return to the top of this page

---

Please use the following form to request priority for this page. None of the fields are required (unless you wish to be notified when this page is updated), but we would like to know who you are, to help us have a better understanding of our community. We would therefore appreciate it if you fill this form in as completely as you are comfortable with. Any information you submit on this form will be held in the strictest confidence.