View Single Post
  #2  
Old May 13th 05, 09:17 PM
Brent P
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >, C.H. wrote:
> On Fri, 13 May 2005 13:55:20 -0500, Brent P wrote:
>
>> In article >, C.H. wrote:

>
>>> In many places it already is.


>> Then we have no rights at all and everything is based on privilege granted
>> by the state and all other discussion is moot.


> You have the right to life and personal freedom. You have the right to
> walk the streets. You can even bicycle without a license.


Under your logic, the fact I could decide to kill someone or steal
something means that it is a privilege allowed by the state.

> If you want to move a few thousand pounds of steel at high speeds you need
> to show that you are capable of doing though.


Does not have to be a privilege to do so. I've been over this already
more than once.

> You wouldnt let someone
> drive hazmat trucks without a license or let people run nuclear
> powerplants without proper training, would you?


I wouldn't want people bicycling in my backward. I don't want people
walking through my living room. One's rights end where the rights of
others begin. That's where some basic, simple laws and regulations come
into play. Licensing, proof of competence may be one of those
regulations where harm is possible in the excerize of rights.

However, once you change something to a privilege under your logic,
everything becomes a privilege. There is no longer a right to have a
firearm, no longer a right to free speach, etc and so forth. The 9th
admendment is there for a reason. To stop this idiotic idea that
everything not spelled out in the bill of rights becomes a privilege
granted by the government.

>>>> Then we no longer have a 2nd admendment.
>>> I see a firearms safety course as just as necessary as driver training.


>> That's the point. We have regulation regarding rights because of one's
>> rights ending where another's begin.


> I have the right not to be run over by some 12-year-old who thought he
> could drive. You have the right not to be shot down by some assclown who
> though the gun wasnt loaded. Same thing. That's why we have an (admittedly
> inadequate) licensing process.


You don't seem to understand the concept. Let me put it this way. To
prevent an incompetent 12 year old year old from driving, you make
driving a privilege. As a privilege the government decides that in order
to have that privilege they get to monitior everywhere you go, they get
to search you any time they like, they even decide you have to let them
search your home at any time. They can do it because it's a privilege.
You don't have to drive. If you want to retain your rights you can walk.

If you take public transportation, you have to agree to the state's
rules, which will be similiar to driving. Eventually using the sidewalks
will be a privilege too.

>>> So you think druggies and drunkards should be allowed to drive? Try
>>> Poland or Russia for an example, where the rate of alcohol deaths is
>>> several times the rate of alcohol deaths over here just because they
>>> don't enforce sobriety behind the wheel.


>> If you are going to go by that logic then a viewscreen in every home is
>> the only answer. The only answer is 100% continous monitoring by the
>> state. That way nobody would ever get out of line.


> You seem to be a person who only sees black and white. There is a
> difference between monitoring every last bit of someone's life on one hand
> and not letting him do very dangerous things like driving drunk or driving
> without proper training on the other.


You presented your arguement as a defense of the checkpoints on the road.
Stopping everyone or random people to see if they have done something
wrong. Monitoring and sampling in the name of safety and because it's a
privilege and to have the privilege of driving we have to give up basic
rights. At that point, to keep people from murdering each other, keep
them from stealing from each other, cheating on their spouses, abusing
their kids, ingesting substances that are bad for them, etc and so forth,
all the things where they might do something wrong, might endanger
another person, we have to have viewscreens. I am simply using the same
logic in other areas of life.


>>> And I guarantee you that the first time you lose a family member to some
>>> assclown drunkard, who 'only had a few' your attitude towards alcohol
>>> and driving will change.


>> Without liberty, I am dead. Simple as that. Life without liberty is not
>> life at all.


> I'm not going to stop you from killing yourself.
> But there is a difference between freedom and anarchy too.


Who's arguing anarchy? How many times have I mentioned that regulation
and law doesn't mean making things privileges granted by the state?

> I will readily admit that all countries I know are overregulated but your
> idea of a totally unregulated society are just as preposterous as some
> politicians' fantasies of total control.


I haven't posted anything of the kind. Nice attempt at a strawman, but
it's clear you aren't reading my posts or simply being dishonest.

>>> That indeed is wrong. Has nothing to do with minimum requiremente or
>>> drunk driving though.


>> It has to do with the point of having privilege granted by the state.
>> The state can connect anything it wants to it. The state becomes a
>> parent. Remeber when you were a child? You had to do your chores before
>> going out to play or things like that?


> What would you suggest instead? Being given the run of the house? I knew a
> few kids who grew up like that and all of them were totally useless brats.


*sigh* I've been over this and over this and over this. If you are going
to continue to insist that I am promoting anarchy then there is no point
in further discussion.

You want privileges instead of rights. That means we have nothing but
what the state grants us. We become children of the state. No liberty. We
don't even own ourselves. We can have rights and appriopiate regulation
where the rights of different people overlap (IE. driving competence and
rules of the road) however we cannot make using the road a priviledge
because as such, the government can now use that as a way to control us
in any way it desires. A right is something we have, something we may
loose if we infringe on the rights of others. A privilege is granted by
someone or some thing.

> There are people in the population, who would be responsible enough to
> live in a state without rules. Unfortunately they are a very small
> minority, which is the reason why we have rules.


Read the above. Read my posts over and over and over again until you
figure it out.

> If everyone was responsible enough only a handful of laws would exist,
> because almost all laws are a response of the state to a perceived
> problem. If no one would cause accidents driving drunk we would not have
> drunk-driving-laws. In reality drunk driving is one of the biggest
> causes of traffic deaths, which is why it was recognized as dangerous and
> outlawed.


You just don't get it and never will it seems. Yes, people have to be
responsible. And if we aren't there are consquences. But the problem is
that privileges are -granted-.

If driving is a right, the state can regulate where it overlaps on
others, including competence and skill in the task. But that is where
their power ends with a right. I have a right to free speech but there is
regulation/law preventing shouting 'fire' in crowded theater.

If driving is a privilege, the state then can tie anything it wants to
driving as the grantor of the privilege. If speech were a privilege the
government could require one to always speak in favor of the government
to have the privilege instead of simply being able to outlaw using speech
to cause others physical harm. (yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater)

It's a fine, but very important line. Rights are something you have,
privileges are granted.


Ads