On 2 Nov, 09:51, Derek Geldard  wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 23:23:48 -0800 (PST), Doug 
> wrote:
>
> >> > How can they stand on their rights when their rights have been
> >> > removed?
>
> >> That's your view. Think then of what your responsibilities are then if
> >> you think you have no rights.
>
> >Responsibilities are supposed to go with rights.
>
> You can have responsibilities (obligations, rather) without rights.
>
Example?
>
> >How can they if the rights have been removed?
>
> Ditto. That, in a nutshell is "it".
>
> If you have rights often there are responsibilities, (but not always).
> Babies, for instance have rights but no responsibilities.
>
> Generally your responsibilities exist to ensure that you exercising
> your rights doesn't interfere with rights someone else's has.
>
Which works both ways. Those who have removed my rights have
interfered with them. So, by preventing or deterring me from using a
public road, ostensibly for my own safety, they have at the same time
improved the rights of those who seriously threaten my safety, namely
their right to drive as fast as possible.

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 22:27:37 -0800 (PST), Doug 
wrote:


>Pavements are cluttered with street furniture which should obstruct
>pavement driving. Nevertheless motorists frequently park and drive on
>pavements.

Greens and cyclists frequently beat their wives and anarchists shit in
the street.

HTH

Derek