=BobKincaid;568407]I'm only going to address myself to a couple of these, since MistressNomad has already done a more thorough job than I have the inclination to do.

1. "My right to be judged by my peers-mandatory minimum laws." Wrong. You STILL have the Constitutional right to be judged by your peers. A person charged with a federal crime has not lost the right to trial by jury (unless he's a Muslim). The jury is the Finder of Fact. That means they decide whether or not you're guilty. Mandatory minimum laws have NOTHING to do with a finding of guilt. They have to do with the imposition of sentence, and I do indeed, disagree with them, but they do not support your proposition.
You got me there, with one caveat, the muslims, you bring up, are charged with war crimes not federal crimes.

2. Your right to travel unimpeded does not depend on a driver's license, unless you wish to assert the right to an automobile, which would be a rather socialist thing to assert. A driver's license is, under the law of the STATES (not the federal government) a privilege and NOT a right.
A drivers license is a priviledge, but traveling is a right. If you dont get a drivers license you can still drive, you just cant break the law, which is the priviledge we get when we sign up for a DL(we get so many infractions). You are right that the states control drivers licensing, the problem is the supreme court has ruled a few times, that traveling is a right, unless it is for commercial purposes, then it becomes a priviledge, becasue it falls under the purveiw of the commerce clause.

3. Your FDA complaints. Frankly, these are non-sensical. The FDA in no wise infringes upon your right to put all manner of things into your body. Think not? Drop by a holy roller church some night and watch 'em swiggin' strychnine, rollin' on the floor and playin' Pass The Pit Viper. You appear to be complaining, actually, that the government of We The People has made a democratic choice to oversee the introduction of toxins into the stream of commerce. You'll also need to have a look at the Constutution's Commerce Clause for this one.
Speaking of non-sensical, Holy roller church, what? Why cant I choose heroin over oxycontin, weed over valium? Why is it I can only use what the FDA approves? Are they 100% safe or even 90% when they have passed the FDA's muster? Do they have side effects? I doubt someone quiting heroin would die, might feel like they are, but I have seen ads for a couple "safe" drugs that warn not to stop taking, or death can occur. Talk about a dependency starting drug. They all have list as long as your arm of side effects, why is it the FDA gets to choose that those side effects are better than natural drug side effects? Once I read that the FDA had banned a natural substance because a pharmacuetical company spent billions of dollars in research only to find it was already an available natural substance, I lost my confidence. In their ruling they state it is not fair to a company to spend that much money and get stuck because the substance already exists. So they banned the natural, so the synthetic could make them money(sounds alot like the illicit drug argument to me). Does it sound like a policing force, or an appeasing force? Would you be willing to allow lawsuits against the FDA instead of the company, after all the company is only offering a product proven to be safe by the FDA? When we the taxpayer had to pay for the FDA's mistakes, would we still have as much faith in them? I dont understand how pharmacuetical companies get be-rated and the FDA lionized. Every death blamed on the evil drug companies, should also atleast count against the FDA, unless it can be shown that the drug company was covertly misleading/lying.

4. Your complaint about self-incrimination viz. DUI laws. Again, you're confusing a "right" with a "privilege." As a matter of law, when you applied for the right from your state (not the federal government) you gave IMPLIED CONSENT to have your breath/blood/urine tested in the event there was probable cause under the 4th Amendment to believe you had operated a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol. If there was a right involved, you waived it. No one else did that for you.
Where is the probable cause to stop me in a dui checkpoint? Could they see I was drunk, or are they just playing the numbers game? As far as waiving rights, what does inalienable mean? According to the def. I can find, they cant be taken, or given, ie you cant by alienated from your rights period. The whole implied consent farce is why I have not signed my name to a drivers license in about 10 yrs, I will try my best to keep all my rights, thank you, even if it does harm me a little. Since I dont have a DL, I lose about 400 a week in truck pay(subsistence), but I routinely drive 30000 plus miles a year, from sea to shining sea.

5. Your due process argument displays an utter lack of comprehension of (a) due process and (b) the Constutution's ban on ex post facto laws or Bills of Attainder. You're describing a Bill of Attainder, and they don't happen.
Dont tell me they dont happen, I have had this happen to me personally. My truck was impounded for a month and I had to pay private tow yard storage fees(almost 2000$ in fees and storage), without ever going to court on a driving on a suspended license charge. Even though the time limit of the suspension was over. Basically it is getting punished without getting convicted. When I asked, they explained that if the congress votes on it, it is considered due-process. I lost the right to my property without due-process. Granted this was a states doing, but it still qualifies as losing freedom per the OP, imo.