Quote:
|
Originally Posted by shakran
Number one, "prior restraint" is a first amendment, not a fifth amendment issue. Prior restraint is when governmental action prevents materials from being published. Look up Near v. Minnesota.
|
I'll look it up when i'm less tired. I work a midnite shift and would most likely confuse the decision.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by shakran
but as long as we're defining "whatever we want" as a right, then I have the right to walk down the street without worrying that some idiot with a gun will mess up and accidentally shoot me. Door swings both ways - if you're going to argue that position here in the driving thread, be prepared for it to bite you in the butt in your gun threads.
|
Something i've tried to explain for a long time is that with all rights come responsibility. If someone accidentally shoots you, they should be made to pay. The pure simple fact that someone MAY mess up should not be a reason to start restricting rights, else we'll all be asking for bathroom licenses because we might stop up the toilet and cause an environmental disaster. yes, that is somewhat tongue in cheek.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by shakran
So. . .what's the problem with license revocation again?
|
I never broached license revocation. My premise of the argument started out as what the initial right is and I stayed with that. revoking the right to drive would be completely within the limits of the 5th amendment, provided some crime had been committed first.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by shakran
No question - you're absolutely correct about that. Which is why driving is a privilege, not a right. Anyone can drive if he passes the test, but if he screws up badly behind the wheel, that privilege can be taken away.
|
and I guess we'll agree to disgree one more time. A right can be taken away through due process, a privilege can be denied just because.
The distinction between right and privilege is pretty important. You have a first amendment right to freedom of speech no matter what your age. If you make it to 100, you'll still be able to say whatever you want.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by shakran
Now, I ask you, should the average 100 year old be driving, or should we consider driving to be a privilege only available to those who are capable of controlling the car safely? In other words, if, at 100, you can prove that your vision, reaction time, etc, is all still good enough to drive the car, then you get the privilege. If we treat driving as a right (which is what the AARP would have us do), then elderly drivers who are nearly blind from cataracts and who's reaction time has slowed to roughly that of a turtle, are still driving. That creates a significant safety hazard. Ask any farmers market  |
That is completey unfair to farmers markets. It's not their fault.
seriously, I do understand where you are coming from, I just don't agree that people only have certain rights within certain age brackets.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ubertuber
dksuddeth, can I get a clarification here?
Is your issue with the fact that a license must be issued (meaning you have to pass a test) to drive legally, or is it with the fact that your license/right can be revoked later?
|
As I stated above, only because of post timing, I have issue that a license must be issued to drive legally. I have no issue with revocations because of irresponsibility.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ratbastid
It's a crazy example, but hear me out--right now there are adults who have their children drive them places when they're intoxicated. Not a common practice, for sure, but we hear about it happening on the news. Do we need to wait for that child to kill someone or damage property before somebody (government/society) steps in and prevents that?
|
This would be the example where the parent HAS to pay a consequence. They are practically forcing a child to drive them, because they know they aren't capable. This isn't the childs fault, if he's of young enough age, and the child should not be held responsible if anything happened. The sole responsibility lies upon the intoxicated parent(s) and that parent should be made to pay the consequence.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ratbastid
In fact, this approach HAS to cost lives. If there's no driver's test, then the only way we know someone shouldn't be driving is after they've demonstrated that behind the wheel. Seems like an awful steep price to pay for one fairly minor "right". I know, slippery slope. Still, I think I'm willing to slide down it a couple inches to save who knows how many roadway deaths every year.
|
The founding fathers knew that there would be a few downsides to freedom, accidental or purposeful deaths being a couple of them. The price of freedom can be high. Benjamin Franklin knew this when he said 'those that would sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither'.