Why do we need permits?

[Justin D]

What does "inalienable right" and the 2nd amendment mean if we need a permit to own and posess firearms? Does the government grant us the right to own property (including firearms), or are we naturally free people who can own and posess property at free will. Does the right exist because we pay permit fees?

I know these are rhetorical questions, but the more I think about it, the more I realize how absurd it is that we let the government dictate who can own property when we are individual beings. What is even more corrupt is that we need to pay fees for permits just so the government promises to leave us alone. People actually put up with it. We need permission from the government to own property or transfer property between private parties. Reminds me of the mafia and facsist governments.

Have any other people on this forum ever had this revelation regarding property rights? I think about this almost all the time, but never really care to talk about it or bring it up; these ideas normally just tend to stay in my head.

 

[torchbearer]

You don't need a permit if its a right.
You are correct.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Government grants "permits" for actions that are the exercising of rights.

Usually they start small with little or no "fees".

It sets the precedent and turns a right into privilege, that can revoked or restricted at will.

Much like government has been able to convince too many people that the right to drive is a "privilege".

 

[Justin D]

Government grants "permits" for actions that are the exercising of rights.

Usually they start small with little or no "fees".

It sets the precedent and turns a right into privilege, that can revoked or restricted at will.

Much like government has been able to convince too many people that the right to drive is a "privilege".

I totally agree! That's how it is and it's just not right.

About the driving, I've read about how it used to be a right to use the vehicle of your choice, without needing permission from any authority. Around the early twentieth century, however, governments realized the potential to bring in extra revenue by issuing permits for motorized vehicles. And, here we are today with the DMV.

 

[Anti Federalist]

I totally agree! That's how it is and it's just not right.

About the driving, I've read about how it used to be a right to use the vehicle of your choice, without needing permission from any authority. Around the early twentieth century, however, governments realized the potential to bring in extra revenue by issuing permits for motorized vehicles. And, here we are today with the DMV.

No, it's not right at all. That's why rights need to be exercised vigorously.

Pretty good breakdown of driving as a right:

http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics and History/DrivingRight.html

 

[Pericles]

No, it's not right at all. That's why rights need to be exercised vigorously.

Pretty good breakdown of driving as a right:

[url]http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics%20and%20History/DrivingRight.html[/URL]

It sure is a right in Switzerland. When I got my Swiss driver's license, it had no expiry date. So I asked one of my Swiss friends about it - "I could be 105 years old, and this piece of paper is still good?" It is.

At a minimum, the agency is missing an additional revenue opportunity.

 

[Matt Collins]

The best explanation of this I have ever seen is in Michael Badnarik's Constitution Class ... if you search you can find videos of it out there... start with http://video.google.com

Or you can read it from his book for free here:
http://www.constitutionpreservation.org/assets/chapter2.pdf

 

[senatorpjt]

Black's Law Dictionary defines "license" as, "The permission by competent authority to do an act which without such permission, would be illegal."

It basically changes the act from a "right" to a "privilege."

As for driving, I think it might be fair if people became exempt from taxes used towards road construction and maintenance if they did not have a license. (or, taxes weren't used at all, and the roads were funded by fees on the license itself).

 

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

It sure is a right in Switzerland. When I got my Swiss driver's license, it had no expiry date. So I asked one of my Swiss friends about it - "I could be 105 years old, and this piece of paper is still good?" It is.

In america, it's a police tracking tool. If you change your address, you're required to get a new driver's license for it to be valid. It's as if changing your domicile affects your driving ability.

 

[ryanduff]

One word answer: Control

 

[Objectivist]

Permits cost money, as do the background investigations they conduct at your expense. Just like the idiocy of marriage licenses, it gives them information they should not need or have and money that is not rightfully theirs.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

You don't need a permit if its a right.
You are correct.

+a zillion

 

[satchelmcqueen]

Government grants "permits" for actions that are the exercising of rights.

Usually they start small with little or no "fees".

It sets the precedent and turns a right into privilege, that can revoked or restricted at will.

Much like government has been able to convince too many people that the right to drive is a "privilege".

agreed!

 

[Matt Collins]

Permits cost money, as do the background investigations they conduct at your expense. Just like the idiocy of marriage licenses, it gives them information they should not need or have and money that is not rightfully theirs.

If I ever get married, we won't get a license from the State.

 

[Justin D]

We all do think the same way!

Wow, thanks for all the replys! I thought this thread would have fizzled out by now; having some people criticizing me for starting a "stupid" or "pointless" thread. Guess not. Just goes to show how the questioning spirit of the renaissance combined with Classical Liberal philosophy still lives on. This is the kind of behavior that all Americans should express. It's healthy, in my opinion.

Great to see people here think exactly the way I do.

 

[Matt Collins]

having some people criticizing me for starting a "stupid" or "pointless" thread

You must be new here

 

[Richard A Hamblen]

Once you ask permission to exercise a right you are acknowledging the authority for the same right to be taken away from you.

 

[LibertyRevolution]

Justin, here is a condensed version of Michael Badnarik talking about Rights, Privileges, and Property that i made.
YouTube - Michael Badnarik Rights, Privileges, and Property

 

[akihabro]

This thread poses a question that is the basis for our beliefs!
The conundrum is when you try to exercise your supposed constitutional right and then get ticketed, fined and go through court. Far cry from the republic that was founded in 1787.

I'll be spend my time thinking how many true freedoms we have. If and when I get married I sure don't want a certificate. It doesn't represent what marriage is about. Its a stupid legal document that makes 2 people into 1.

We must do what is agreed upon by the majority for their benefit=Collectivism democracy=USA.

 

[Conza88]

Natural law -> Natural rights -> Natural justice

http://libertariannation.org/a/f42l1.html#4.3

Distinctions need to be made.

First, we can distinguish between "rights" in the normative sense and "rights" in the descriptive sense. Normative facts are facts about what people ought to do; descriptive facts are facts about what people actually do.

In turn, we can distinguish two subvarieties of descriptive rights: legal rights and de facto rights.

This gives us a three-way distinction:
• Normative rights: the claims that ought to be respected and protected.

• Legal rights: the claims that a given legal institution officially announces it will respect and protect.

• De facto rights: the claims that actually receive respect and protection in a given society.