Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ratbastid
I know you were in full-on defensive mode when you responded with that non sequitur, so I want to ask again.
|
Thank you for both your acknowledgement of emotional positions and your willingness to understand and let it go at that.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ratbastid
I'm not trying to score a point with that question (my snarkiness at the beginning of it notwithstanding). I'm actually interested in how you picture it would WORK, if we were to treat driving as a right. Would anyone who could lay hands on a car be free to drive it? Would they be free to drive at any speed, in any direction, in any lane? I'm actually asking here, so please answer. Where, if anywhere, do you draw the line between the free exercise of rights, and a system that makes things work all people?
|
In MY mind, people seem to forget, or at least not think that it's important, that there is a part of the 5th amendment that says 'nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law'. Now, knowing that 'prior restraint' is SUPPOSED to be unconstitutional, a person should be able to conclude that you have the right to do anything you need to do in order to further your own pursuit of happiness so long as it doesn't infring on others rights, HOWEVER, if you abuse those rights, then that due process of law must be used in order to ensure you either don't do it again, or are never given a chance to do it again. Should we consider age in to this factor? I don't think the government should, but we as parents should. If I don't feel my child is responsible enough to handle something, I simply don't let that child do it. This is exercising your right to parent your children as you see fit. Holding people responsible for their irresponsibility is something we dearly need to get back in to. It's what has caused us to be in the area of wierdness we are in right now.