
Quoting
larbec
Prove me wrong
This might appear to be semantics or splitting hairs, but it’s not. The whole issue of how to drive without a license boils down to this. In everyday common English, to travel by means of a car, and to drive, are identical. However, one of the biggest cons of the Law Society is the fact that they have their own language (legalese) which appears to be English but which has different definitions for some key terms. In this case, as defined by legalese, “to drive” is to go on the roads by a motorized conveyance doing business or being engaged in commerce, and it is a privilege. “To travel”, on the other hand, is a right, and no legislation can be passed to strip you of your fundamental, inherent rights.
To state you are “driving” is to unwittingly place yourself in admiralty or commercial jurisdiction.
As a sovereign being, you never need surrender your rights and exchange them for privileges. This is the way societies descend into tyranny. To exchange a right for a privilege is to ask permission for something (in the form of a governmental permit or license) that you are free to do anyway.
Is Driving a Right or a Privilege?
Driving is a privilege; traveling is a right. A privilege is granted by some authority, and equally it can be taken away by some authority. A right can never be abrogated. Our right to travel can never be stripped from us; it is as fundamental to our existence as our right to breathe.