My mistake, I assumed a bit of common sense on your part.
I have not at any time insulted you. Let's keep that mutual, please.
I partially paid for the road. If I had completely paid for it, it would be my property and no one else's. I would have it all to myself, and would be the only car on the road at any given time.
Of course, but you didn't pay for it. What you're essentially telling me is that the few dollars you've paid into the trillions upon trillions that have been put into the road system over its existence entitles you to complete, unhindered use whenever and however you like it. That just isn't logical. It's analagous to you paying 1 cent a month of a $1000 rent bill, and then insisting you don't have to pick up your dirty dishes.
However, let me explain it a little bit clearer for you:
My 'ownership' of my part of the public road system would allow me to use it, similar to now, without the license. If you'll recall, my original point was that we should have the right to drive on public roads without a license. That is my belief based upon two things:
1. I, as an American Citizen, have the right to travel without identifying myself to any government agent.
2. Driving an automobile is the most common and convenient form of transportation.
Which of these do you disagree with? Or is there something you believe I am overlooking.
That's just it though, you don't "own" in the traditional sense ANY part of the road system. A tiny part of your taxes goes towards its maintenance. For your second two points, you as an American Citizen have the right to travel at your whim, yes. You do not have permission to use the interstate road system (or local road system in the case of state, county, or municipal roadways) without abiding by the terms of use that the builders of that road system have set up. Driving an automobile is the most common and convenient form of transportation for many applications, yes. This does not give you the unhindered right to drive said automobile wherever and however you want, or you'd be infringing on OTHER people's rights.
This part does not specifically address the checkpoints, I'm addressing what I perceive to be an underlying flaw in the logic of your basis to opposition of them.
Oh, and seeing as you like to make smart ass answers, let's also assume I am committing no crime, and have not committed any crime in the past that would necessitate me identifying myself
My answer was not intended to be smart-ass. I was trying to get across the point that your taxes specifically have contributed an almost imperceptible amount to the actual roadway maintenance fund. Hence the rent analogy above. Thus, to say that you should have unlimited, unrestricted use of something that isn't yours is folly.