CM>     You drive , because you have already told me so in our past
  >     correspondance ... So here is my little point argue this if
  >     you are able . Throw away your D.L. and take off the tag to
  >     your car, then let's see how far you get to drive your legally
  >     owned auto ! You are not free, driving your car without a tag
  >     harms no one, but when stoped if you refuse to pay the ticket
  >     you'll go to jail . Now tell me when you voted (had a voice)
  >     to making the law that said you must buy a tag (in other words
First of all, the US has never been a direct democracy.  The original
government wasn't even close to being a true representative republic,
which is what we claim to be, since the only people who could vote,
according to the original constitution, where free white males over the
age of 21 who owned property.  We have gradually, over the years, and
with several constitutional amendments, become very close to a
representative republic. In a representative republic, people elect the
officials who make the laws. They do not make the laws directly.  The
people who passed the laws concerning drivers' licenses were elected by
the people. They were not elected by me because those laws were already
in place when I was born. But they were freely elected by the people who
were of the right voting age and race at the time the laws were passed.
Regretfully, because of innumerable laws on the books at the time, those
people were probably elected by white males over the age of 21, and
therefore were not truly representative of the people at large.  At
least in Jersey, driver's licenses were the law *before* the amendment
that granted women the right to vote was passed, and *before* Indians
were granted U.S. citizenship.
I believe it would be awfully cumbersome to have every individual law
come up before a general election of the entire population.  I am
content to let freely elected representatives create many of the laws of
the land.  I do believe laws should be periodically reviewed to see if
they still meet the needs for which they were originally passed.  But I
also believe that, with the exception of laws that are clearly unjust
and immoral, we should obey the law of the land.  That includes having a
driver's license.  If I insist on following *only* those laws I voted
on, I will eliminate almost every law in existence, including freedom of
speech (that came with the bill of rights)  and the right to sufferance
(The only ones of the original criteria for voting I meet is ownership
of property and age).  Even the original cry of "taxation without
representation" does not apply to us.  I don't like many of our current
tax laws.  But the reality is: those tax laws are created by our elected
representatives in the varying city, county, state, and national
legislatures.  If we don't like the laws, we should express that in
writing, by phone calls, by signing petitions, etc.  If we don't like
most of the laws we see being passed, we should vote out of office the
people who are passing those laws.
There are exceptions to this, however.  Many "laws" are now being
enacted, not by legislatures, but by beauracracies.  These "laws" are
not brought about by our freely elected representatives, but by people
hired under laws they created.  In some cases I am comfortable with
this.  In other cases I am not.
As an Indian, I am particularly uncomfortable with the idea of people
following only those laws they have voted on since that policy would
effectively eliminate every single treaty with every single native
nation in the U.S..  I *don't* want that to happen.
  >     pay a yearly ownership tax on your car) or what crime you commit
  >     driving with out a tag . Define crime ? Now when you paid your
Crime is the breaking of a law.  Therefore, driving a car without a
license would be a crime.  It would be a crime even if I believed the
law was immoral, and I felt obligated to refuse to follow it.  The civil
rights folks in Selma, Alabama, who refused to sit in the back of the
bus any more were, in fact, committing a crime.  They were right to
commit the crime.  The laws on the book were wrong, and needed to be
changed.  But it was a crime, nonetheless.
The Indians involved in most of the various fish-ins, however, were not
committing crimes.  They were following laws dictated by treaties.  They
went to jail for following the specific laws that applied to them.
  >     property taxes and paided for gar etc. you already paied the
  >     tax for the streets and roads,(also when buying food and clothing)
  >     I say prove me wrong with out a socialistic view point, because
  >     you will not be able . Fail to pay your property tax and your
  >     home/land will be taken away from you fail to buy a tag for you
  >     car and in some cities it will also be taken away from you...
  >     where are your right ? Answer: you don't have any . Do you pay
  >     IRS taxes ? Stop paying as see how long you are still "free"
  >     you are a victim of a socialist system and can't see socialism!
Again, we are dealing with laws created by our freely elected
representatives.  I don't like some of those laws.  I have worked to
change laws; I have worked to prevent laws from being passed.  But,
unless I truly believe that an individual law is unjust and immoral, I
will follow that law, even while working to change it.
                         Sondra
-*-
 þ SLMR 2.1a þ A faerie leapt upon my knee -- Blake
--- Opus-CBCS 1.7x via O_QWKer 1.1
---------------