This post goes with my post explaining why the government cannot make end-around runs against your Natural Rights. Hopefully, these two posts, along with all the rest of the posts in this series, will help you understand just how much of your liberty you have allowed the government to take from you. So, we start with a story about an issue many ‘law-and-order’ types have accepted as ‘reasonable’ when – in truth – it is open tyranny:
So, what should we make of the government’s claim that traffic stops are ‘constitutional?’ Well, first, let’s look at their arguments. First, they claim that they own public property and, therefore, they control it. According to this line of reasoning, you ‘willingly’ surrender your rights when you willingly use the public roads they claim to own and control. Next, the government claims that driving is a ‘privilege,’ not a right. And because it is a privilege granted by government, you not only need a license, you must also submit to whatever demands the government makes in relation to your driving ‘privilege.’ Finally, in direct connection to traffic stops, the Supreme Court has actually ruled that the government can ‘legally’ infringe on your rights so long as it doesn’t present an ‘inconvenience.’ The Supreme Court’s reasoning was that, since traffic stops do not take much time, you don’t really suffer any appreciable loss of your rights when you are forced to submit to one.
Read the rest — especially if you think “law-and-order” is a ‘good’ thing.