The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived.

That's from Thompson v. Smith, a 1930 Virginia Supreme Court case: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3467100988685921366&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

Look right underneath the part you quoted:

The exercise of such a common right the city may, under its police power, regulate in the interest of the public safety and welfare; but it may not arbitrarily or unreasonably prohibit or restrict it, nor may it permit one to exercise it and refuse to permit another of like qualifications, under like conditions and circumstances, to exercise it.

The regulation of the exercise of the right to drive a private automobile on the streets of the city may be accomplished in part by the city by granting, refusing, and revoking, under rules of general application, permits to drive an automobile on its streets; but such permits may not be arbitrarily refused or revoked, or permitted to be held by some and refused to other of like qualifications, under like circumstances and conditions.

Oh, well since "legal trifles" were your entire post I figured that's what you wanted to focus on... I mean, if the legal arguments don't matter to you then why are you quoting them or linking to a page that's full of them?

As for unalienable rights... You have the right to travel freely on public land, just not in a car. There the states have said that you need a license. Driving a car on public land is not one of our most basic human rights. If you want to travel on public land without a license, get a bicycle or walk.

...but such permits may not be arbitrarily refused or revoked...

Like $ay putting an arbitrary date that's only significance is that it is on that same day years later, and revoke the license on the premise that it must be revoked because there is a special date stamped on it which means that you are not you anymore, not til you poney up some dough.

You're not reading the sentence properly. You can't just cut out a part and ignore the rest.

but such permits may not be arbitrarily refused or revoked, or permitted to be held by some and refused to other of like qualifications, under like circumstances and conditions.

They used commas there, not periods. So that should be read like this:

but such permits may not be arbitrarily refused or revoked under like circumstances and conditions.

Basically it's saying that you have to treat people equally. You can't arbitrarily give one person a permit for life and make someone else pay $100/year to renew it.

You're not reading the sentence properly. You can't just cut out a part and ignore the rest.

You say I can't pull an excerpt. But it's okay for you to combine parts of a sentence while leaving out entire words, like "or".

but such permits may not be arbitrarily refused or revoked, or permitted to be held by some and refused to other of like qualifications, under like circumstances and conditions.

That should not be read any other way than the way it was written. You're hearing what you want to hear. Don't tell me I have to omit words too in order for things to fit a world view that does not ever add up. Blatant semantic slide.

What law are you citing?

Typical libertarian tactic: use the laws you like and ignore the ones you don't like.

Thank you for showing why op's argument is baloney. Unfortunately your efforts sender to waste but hopefully other people reading will see just how wrong he is. Anyway as George Carlin said we have never had any rights only privileges.

Dude, you need to try to think for yourself rather than let someone else explain to you what government exists for. It's all a product of human imagination and completely arbitrary. Who the hell can tell anybody else what government exists for. It's not as if God came down one day and said 'hey, governments only exist to secure your freedom.' No, somebody one day made an argument that the only reason government should exist is to secure our freedom. And he convinced a bunch of other people that his idea made sense. Not everyone agreed with him, and they still don't. So how can you come and tell me that's what government exists for. Who said so? Why did they say so? How could that even work? Do you know the difference between the meaning of freedom and the meaning of liberty? You should look into some of the classical thinkers on the subject of government, like Locke and Rousseau. Take an on-line course in political theory. Educate yourself in order to think for yourself about what government should be. And then realize that if that's how you think government should be, you are going to need to struggle to change government to look like that. You can't just go around telling people that 'government exists to secure our freedom' like it's some kind of fact handed down from on high. You've got to convince people that this is what government should be.

I agree people don't want to think for themselves. But it's also important that when they do start thinking for themselves that they don't simply follow simplistic slogans. To think for yourself doesn't just mean embracing someone else's ideas (which yuou may have heard from someone else at a seminar or on a blog or facebook page).

It's important to think deeper than slogans like as 'government exists to secure our freedom.' Well, as you pointed out in your reply to me, that statement is basically a truism -- what else would government exist for. But it's too simplistic. What does Freedom mean in the first place? And who gets to decide what it means? The slogan doesn't distinguish between "freedom to" and "freedom from." Also, what happens when people's freedom's conflict with each other? If the government is there to secure my freedom to own weapons, what about people who say it exists to secure their freedom to live their life without fear of random gun violence? Does your freedom to own private property also mean that you have the freedom to pollute on said private property, even if the pollution seeps into the groundwater and poisons the water that I should have the freedom to safely drink?

TL;DR: Life is complicated, and real problems can't be solved with simplistic slogans. Thinking for yourself is hard.

Thank you for showing why op's argument is baloney. Unfortunately your efforts sender to waste but hopefully other people reading will see just how wrong he is. Anyway as George Carlin said we have never had any rights only privileges.

Good luck explaining this to a cop. Or a judge.

Yeah, problem is retards don't understand you can't argue with a cop. Take the goddamn ticket, hire a lawyer, and argue it in court. Or you could just argue with the cop until you're blue in the face and they're pissed off, then you get dragged out of your car and arrested.

Most of the videos you see of folks arguing with cops about this shit involved some kind of traffic violation. The line, "Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion -- to go where and when one pleases -- only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens" states with relative clarity that if you're in violation of laws designed to ensure the safety of people on the road, you're beyond the extents of your "personal liberty."

Head on over to /r/amibeingdetained to see how that works out most of the time.

Because this has obviously worked well countless times before. Why is it, then, that no one ever posts "Sovereign Citizen Success" videos? Because cops don't believe it. Cops aren't lawyers or judges, they really don't know dick about the law except the basic shit that they can cite or arrest you for.

The only time it works is when the cops don't feel like dealing with it and let them go. I've seen a few videos where that has happened, and it's always presented as a success. I guess it is a success since they avoided the ticket, but it's more because they were being belligerent assholes and not because they were right.

IMO, it's kind of like income tax; illegal as hell, but what are you going to do about it. They possess the guns to prevent you from doing it, an administrative tribunal they use to extort you for having tried, and a propaganda machine to make it look right that they did.

So driving is a right not a privilege?

So if I build my own automobile I'm free?

Are you aware of the difference between:

A person driving their car

And

A man travelling in their automobile

And if you can articulate to your local magistrate the difference appropriately, then you are good to go.

Just FYI, don't listen to these other guys unless you want a ticket or want to go to jail. Get a license and show it to an officer when they ask for it.

If you want to pay fines and spend nights in jail to fight for some right that doesn't even exist, go ahead. My problem is when you guys try to spread these lies to people who don't know any better, and get them in all kinds of trouble.

Educate yourself. Know your rights. Don't take anyone else's word for it. Don't want to educate yourself? Fine.

This is coming from a guy who posted an out of context quote from some random judicial decision without bothering to read or understand the actual decision?

I am guessing that you were supplied that quote from some sovereign citizen website or YouTube video and just assumed that they weren't feeding you bullshit... So who is the real non-thinking peon?

I have to use the roads everyday. I want everyone else on the road with me to drive within the speed limit, obey traffic lights and signs, not be drunk or high, be insured, be of legal age to drive, and have taken at least a basic driving competency test.

I know that those rules restrict "my basic right" to drive backwards through residential neighborhoods at 80mph while drunk and high. But you see, I am not an asshole that wants to do that kind of thing so it does not bother me in the slightest.

I think so.

That sounds good, but the reality is none of it is true on the state level.

So where in the Constitution does it say that you can drive around on public land in a car without a license?

You want to ask the government for permission for the right to drive YOUR car? It's an absurd notion to even ask. It's YOUR car! YOUR property! And the roads you drive on are PUBLIC roads.

Right, the roads are PUBLIC. That means they are for everyone, not just you.

And everyone (collectively) has decided, through their local and state governments, that it's better for all drivers to be licensed, all cars to be registered, and for all drivers to be insured.

If you don't like that, you're free to drive your car around on your own private property without those things.

Your reasoning is all backwards. The people of the united states don't ask permission from the government to exercise their unalienable rights.

Driving a car on public roads is not inalienable right.

Did OP forget to take his Haloperidol again?