right or priviledge ... at what point do you assert?

On Fri, 13 May 2005 03:00:31 -0400, "Magnulus"
> wrote:

> Driving is most definitely a privelege and not a right... otherwise the
>blind could successfully sue the government and obtain drivers licenses, or
>we would let 9 year olds behind the wheel. Remember, a right is something
>that should apply to everybody... do you honestly think everybody should
>have the right to drive?
>

Everyone does have the right to drive. Just because there are some
REASONABLE restrictions placed on rights does not mean they don't
exist. The classic example is free speech, you still can't yell fire
in a crowded theater without suffering a penalty. The constitution
doesn't say that children don't have the same rights as adults but
effectively they do not since they can't just walk out when they are 6
years old and not be hauled back against their will. If you want to
argue from a position of perfection, then there's no point in
discussing it, there are almost no "rights" that are 100% total
absolutely always going to be exercisable because there are almost
always conflicts between the various rights. The right to drive is
pretty clear yet we all also expect the right to not be exposed to
unreasonable and unnecessary hazards, hence the licensing of drivers.
Unless you can make a compelling argument that it hard to get a
drivers licence, I don't think you can make the argument that it's a
privilege. Sure, you have to get a license, but a moron with an IQ of
seventy can pass the test so it's hardly a hurdle. It's just an
indication of how we must balance conflicting rights.


> Maybe you are just ****ed you got busted for a DUI, to which I say, well,
>driving is a privilege and not a right.
>

--
New service to compete with paypal
Get $25 pre-registration bonus by
following this link
www.greenzap.com/25smackers4u

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.

Brent P wrote:

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

Brent, you guys have been beating this to death. I don't feel like
rewriting all I have on the subject over the years. If you can search
some of the old messages and reread them ... it comes down to this:

*Traveling* is a right. No question about it.

It is the *mode* of travel that determines what rights or privileges
you have in using it. Most of those revolve around who actually *owns*
the mode you're using. If you're on a train, it's Amtrak's rules. On
a plane, FAA and airline company rules (not to mention the Homeland
Security crapola). In the case of publicly-owned streets and highways,
you have to obey the rules of the government that owns them to retain
your *privilege* to use them. AFAIK, there are no statutes that would
prohibit you from walking on public sidewalks, even if you disobeyed
some rules like spitting or littering or even riding a bike there.
They'll fine you but they won't take away your privilege of use.

When it comes to driving motor vehicles, the initial grant *is* a
privilege, however, you then acquire *property rights* in it.
Therefore, you must be accorded due process to deprive you of it if you
violate the rules. Simple, ain't it? That's why some of us spent
years in law school.
--
C.R. Krieger
(Been there; done that)

>> Unfortunately, the "privilege" side has won this debate unless/until we
>> get a court that will enforce the 9th Amendment.

> I understand that freedom of travel is important. But if you make driving
> a right instead of a privilege, how do you make sure only people, who have
> the necessary skills and possess the necessary responsibility utilize this
> right?

The same way we prevent idiots from killing people with knives, power
tools, and all the poisonous products found in your garden shed -- we
wait until somebody is harmed, and then hold the culprit accountable.

> Would you like 12-year-old punks to play GTA-San Andreas in real life?
> Dead drunk assholes playing bumper cars at 80mph on the freeway?
> Streetracers battling out their pride with total disregard of other
> people's lives?

These things already happen, and the police already go after the people
who do them. But you would practically need mind-reading technology to
be able to stop those people BEFORE they hurt someone -- and if the
government had that and were allowed to use it, you can be sure they
would misuse it in ways that are worse than the wrecks it would avoid.

The bottom line is, the government doesn't own you and me, WE own IT.
And until someone is actually harmed, or at least deprived of a right,
the only proper attitude for govt. to have is "no harm, no foul."

On Fri, 13 May 2005 15:52:51 -0700, John David Galt wrote:

>>> Unfortunately, the "privilege" side has won this debate unless/until we
>>> get a court that will enforce the 9th Amendment.
>
>> I understand that freedom of travel is important. But if you make
>> driving a right instead of a privilege, how do you make sure only
>> people, who have the necessary skills and possess the necessary
>> responsibility utilize this right?
>
> The same way we prevent idiots from killing people with knives, power
> tools, and all the poisonous products found in your garden shed -- we wait
> until somebody is harmed, and then hold the culprit accountable.

The risk of people killing someone else with a power tool accidentally
(i.e. because of lack of skill) is nearly zero. The risk of the same think
happening with a car is rather high.

>> Would you like 12-year-old punks to play GTA-San Andreas in real life?
>> Dead drunk assholes playing bumper cars at 80mph on the freeway?
>> Streetracers battling out their pride with total disregard of other
>> people's lives?
>
> These things already happen, and the police already go after the people
> who do them.

Not many 12 year olds play San Andreas in traffic because they know they
will be toast when caught. If you let everyone drive the risk of fatal
injury in traffic will drastically increase.

> But you would practically need mind-reading technology to be
> able to stop those people BEFORE they hurt someone -- and if the
> government had that and were allowed to use it, you can be sure they would
> misuse it in ways that are worse than the wrecks it would avoid.

We are not talking about intentional actions, which are comparatively
rare, but about unintentional actions (i.e. lack of driving skills). The
licensing system is not there to prevent intentional actions, it can't,
but it can and does reduce the large risk of totally untrained drivers in
traffic killing others.

> The bottom line is, the government doesn't own you and me, WE own IT.
> And until someone is actually harmed, or at least deprived of a right,
> the only proper attitude for govt. to have is "no harm, no foul."

You really want everyone and his brother drive around drunk or with total
lack of skill? and only be arrested when they manage to kill someone?
There are going to be a lot of traffic deaths before even the few bad
offenders are out.

People like you intentionally try to mix up intentional actions (punished
when caught) with actions caused by lack of skill and responsibility, many
of which can be prevented by licensing and proper licensing enforcement.

Chris

On Fri, 13 May 2005 14:26:43 -0500, Matthew Russotto wrote:

> In article >, C.H.
> > wrote:

>>> Same way you do now. Which is to say, you don't.
>>
>>You mean you would let everyone drive, 12-year-olds, chronic drunkards,
>>drug abusers, maniacs, people, who want to play bumper car in RL?
>
> I mean that situation would be difficult to distinguish from the current
> one. You don't really think a driver's license prevents _irresponsible_
> people from driving, do you?

I think driver's license prevent most kids from attempting to drive. And
it requires at least a few basic skills, which apparently are not present
in e.g. the unlicensed illegal immigrants around here.

Of course the tests should be much stricter than they are, but that's a
different topic.

Chris

On Fri, 13 May 2005 15:17:09 -0500, Brent P wrote:

[a long piece about 'rights' and privileges]

Commenting the repetitious stuff you have been posting and that doesn't
become any more true by you repeating it again and again is pointless.

Andy society is a middle ground betweeen anarchy (as promoted by you) and
repression (as promoted by those you are paranoid about).

In our society you have the right to travel whereever you want (and last
time I looked the right was intact). This right doesn't include you just
jumping into whatever jalopy you deem fit and take off. You wouldn't want
Joe Bozo to climb into the cockpit of a jet airliner and just take off -
which is why pilots need to be licensed. And if you think long enough and
hard enough you will realize that you also don't want Joe Bozo to climb
into a car and drive any way he sees fit until he manages to hurt or kill
someone.

There are parts of this country where a significant amount of Joe Bozos
do just that (Texans and Floridians will agree with me here). They drive
unlicensed in unregistered and uninsurec and not roadworthy heaps of junk.
They kill or maim many people a year.

I want to see where your wish for an unlicensed society goes when you have
the misfortune of being t-boned by a red-light-running unlicensed
landscaper in his decrepit and uninsured 1974 Ford F150, your car wrecked,
your bones smashed, your intestines ruptured and then wake up from a coma
to find that the unlicensed asshole has sued _you_.

And I bet you that after the accident your views will be totally different
from your current ones. I just am smart enough not to wait until I get
into that situation before finding moderate regulation sensible.

Oh, btw, I am sure you are all for gang hoodlums bearing arms until they
actually nail someone - until you are the someone...

Chris

In article .com>, Motorhead Lawyer wrote:

> *Traveling* is a right. No question about it.

> It is the *mode* of travel that determines what rights or privileges
> you have in using it. Most of those revolve around who actually *owns*
> the mode you're using. If you're on a train, it's Amtrak's rules. On
> a plane, FAA and airline company rules (not to mention the Homeland
> Security crapola). In the case of publicly-owned streets and highways,
> you have to obey the rules of the government that owns them to retain
> your *privilege* to use them.

I am not denying it is that way if you read what I wrote. I stated it is
not in our long term interest to allow this concept of privilege to
continue. We will be worse off for it. We will be forced to give up many
liberties simply to function in a 21st century society.

You describe the very method of putting in place all the things that the
constitution prohibits. It's done by going around the constitution with
loopholes such as these. If you want to get from A to B by any means than
on foot, you'll have to give up other rights. And walking, I am sure that
there are various trespassing, vagrancy, etc laws that can be used if
need be.

> When it comes to driving motor vehicles, the initial grant *is* a
> privilege, however, you then acquire *property rights* in it.
> Therefore, you must be accorded due process to deprive you of it if you
> violate therules. Simple, ain't it? That's why some of us spent
> years in law school.

And there are due process rights to take away one's ability to own a
firearm. But by defining driving as a privilege, the state can make you
make monkey noises or anything else it wants you to do in granting that
privilege. It can also change the rules and requirements later. Don't
want sumbit say to having a transponder in your license sometime in the
future? well, sorry, you can't drive anymore. It's a privilege, not a
right.

In article >, C.H. wrote:
> On Fri, 13 May 2005 15:17:09 -0500, Brent P wrote:
>
> [a long piece about 'rights' and privileges]
>
> Commenting the repetitious stuff you have been posting and that doesn't
> become any more true by you repeating it again and again is pointless.

As if you're reposting of strawmen about anarchy does.

> Andy society is a middle ground betweeen anarchy (as promoted by you) and
> repression (as promoted by those you are paranoid about).

Here you go again.

> In our society you have the right to travel whereever you want (and last
> time I looked the right was intact).

Great, if I start walking to LA now, I might make it there by christmas
if I am not arrested on some vagrancy law or something. When something is
a privilege, it's GRANTED. Do you not understand the fundamental
difference?

> This right doesn't include you just
> jumping into whatever jalopy you deem fit and take off. You wouldn't want
> Joe Bozo to climb into the cockpit of a jet airliner and just take off -
> which is why pilots need to be licensed. And if you think long enough and
> hard enough you will realize that you also don't want Joe Bozo to climb
> into a car and drive any way he sees fit until he manages to hurt or kill
> someone.

See my previous post. I already delt with this. Your repeating it doesn't
change things.

<more of the same anarchy strawman snipped>

> I want to see where your wish for an unlicensed society

Not what I've argued. <more repeat strawman crap deleted>

> Oh, btw, I am sure you are all for gang hoodlums bearing arms until they
> actually nail someone - until you are the someone...

Oh, and I am sure you support raping any woman you choose until it's your
mother. You really want to play dirty like this?

On Fri, 13 May 2005 21:34:18 -0500, Brent P wrote:

> In article >, C.H. wrote:

[... strawman ... whine ...]

>> In our society you have the right to travel whereever you want (and
>> last time I looked the right was intact).
>
> Great, if I start walking to LA now, I might make it there by christmas
> if I am not arrested on some vagrancy law or something. When something
> is a privilege, it's GRANTED. Do you not understand the fundamental
> difference?

I understand the difference, which is why I know that driving is (and has
been for many years) and should be a privilege.

What you fail to understand is that the average citizen is incapable of
handling a motor vehicle with reasonable safety without being properly
educated and tested before he can drive on the streets.

The activities that are and should be fundamental rights are activities
that the average person doesn't need special education to do with
reasonable safety.

And as for you having to walk to LA: If you deem yourself incapable of
obtaining a motor vehicle license or reject the idea because of ideology,
there are many ways to get to LA without having to drive yourself, ranging
from hitch hiking to taking a taxicab and include flying commercially,
riding the bus or the train etc.

Your freedom of travel is in no way threatened by needing a license to
drive.

[... strawman ... whine ...]

>> Oh, btw, I am sure you are all for gang hoodlums bearing arms until
>> they actually nail someone - until you are the someone...
>
> Oh, and I am sure you support raping any woman you choose until it's
> your mother. You really want to play dirty like this?

I don't support raping anyone, which is why I am for a civilized and
moderately regulated society instead of for anarchy like you are. The only
one, who is playing dirty here, is you.

Chris