[Ron Jeremy]

It has nothing to do with that. You posted that driving was a privilege and not a right. You are correct, from a legal standpoint, and everyone knows you are a smart guy and a valuable freeper. We are asserting, however, that the standard which you point out exists should NOT be the standard.

That the government should not be allowed to stop you for no reason at all, and detain you without letting you call a lawyer.

But I guess that is an alternate-universe passing logic.

[Seven plus One]

But I guess that is an alternate-universe passing logic.

Nah. Just what every American expects when he wakes up in the morning. Tell him otherwise, and he'll ask you why. Give him a snotty answer, and watch out.

[muawiyah]

If the government is unable to manage public rightofway and meet its responsibilities as a trustee for the people, then it should be up to adjoining property owners (who probably owned the rightofway outright when this all started) to set their own standards.

I'd take that 70MPH zone and turn it into a 10MPH zone, and 100% of the folks running across my land in a motor vehicle would be subject to random stops including body cavity searches, drunk or not.

Folks who have no idea where those roads came from should probably study up on that body of knowledge before mouthing off about what "rights" they have to use them.