CoolChick wrote:It wasn't written as an insult so I am sorry you took it as such.
It's pretty hard to believe that calling someone an ignoramus is not an insult but if that's not how you intended it, we'll leave it at that.
My statement about leaving was something that people do every day - they don't like the laws of a nation or province, don't agree with them and can't change them, so they leave. Case and point: Quebec with the language laws brought in under the PQ. If they remain there, they're subject to the laws, unless they can challenge them as unconstitutional or otherwise get them changed. Common law's main principle is stare decisis,
not so much personal freedom to decide which ones they will or will not follow. Personally I've seen a lot of different attempts to use these sorts of strategies in court, and I read enough and have a small background in law - this is where I get an understanding of it from. The only ones that I've seen successfully challenge laws are where they are unconstitutional (violate Charter of Rights and Freedoms), or where the law/act/whatever was ultra vires.
(Now time for long philosophical
Your signature is a form of identification. In many cases, yes you are "consenting" to the terms and conditions imposed by government - that's a fair statement, BUT there's a big catch. Using the "corporation" analogy, your consent is a trade. Corporations don't give out freebies, neither does the government. Due to the nature of things like driving, which are inherently hazardous, society must be protected by ensuring at least a minimum standard of capability in the people who are permitted to do so. Same thing with flying airplanes (by the way thanks for using that analogy Squishy).
Some people cannot drive safely and allowing people who would otherwise put society at risk would infringe the rights and freedoms of other people. ("Right to safety and security of the person.") This is why individuals cannot simply decide "I'm not registering my vehicle, I'm not getting a license, but I'm going to drive on a public road anyway." It negatively impacts your fellow citizens. Your fellow citizens, through the government, have collectively demanded that standard.
Government does serve the people - ALL of them. It is there not only to serve everyone but protect them. Your signature on your driver license is consent - I will agree there - however it is your agreement that you will abide by its terms and conditions, so that you may join your fellow citizens (who have made the same agreement) in driving a motor vehicle on a public road. (Hence, driving is a privilege.) Ditto signing your health card - you're agreeing that it is you, you will use it appropriately, so then you get "free" health care (taxes notwithstanding). You give your consent that you will follow the terms and conditions imposed by the government on behalf of the rest of society, so that we will all be protected against dangerous and incompetent drivers, health care fraud, etc. Then, when you agree to follow the terms and conditions, you are given the privileges. In some cases, the terms for acquiring the privileges is very low (e.g. health care card), in other cases very high (e.g. pilot's license). In some cases, governments enact laws that directly oppose other laws or are blatantly unconstitutional (example: s. 172). In those cases, the law can be struck down by the courts, but we have vested the authority to do so in the judicial system, not in us as individuals. The Judiciary provides a legitimate venue for the disputes, where we can go and get these things addressed. It's there for our use. Providing the venue, as opposed to allowing anarchy, is to maintain peace, order and public safety.
The legitimacy of it comes from the fact that governments are elected. It is a collective statement that "this is what we want as a society." That is legal precedent dating back to ancient Greece and the birth of democracy, or, as you put it "pre-government law." Since all of these acts and laws were enacted by democratic bodies, that binds all of us - we asked for it. Allowing people to run amok and do what they want is not democracy, it's anarchy, and infringes upon the rights and freedoms that everyone has.
You don't have to consent to the terms and conditions that the government imposes for driving, but that means that, because collectively we elected the people who put that in place, it also means that you can't drive on a public road. Hence, "if you drive on our roads, you will meet our conditions," and the government imposed that on behalf of us. The fees we pay for licensing also pay for road maintenance, repair, traffic signals. Your consent to the laws is the only way to achieve the privilege of driving. You can drive your unregistered vehicle without a driver's license on private property only.
Your rights are guaranteed to you. But because the Constitution is not only the bedrock of Canadian law but also its highest authority, the rights we have are given are spelled out in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Canada also is not solely common law, but also Napoleonic code, because of Quebec and the French law traditions they have. In other words, if it's not in the Constitution, it's not an iron-clad right.
(End of long philosphical stuff.)
That is too much for 7:00 in the morning, I have got to stop doing those lengthy Ottawa/Halifax pairings...
As for your successes, perhaps you could share a few. You've hinted that you've wanted us to ask, now I'm asking.