Thank you for both your acknowledgement of emotional positions and your willingness to understand and let it go at that.

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.

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.

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.

So. . .what's the problem with license revocation again?

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.

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.

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 ;)

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?

Absolutely. We're all friends here.

Okay, but put it on the street for me. How does it play out? And what advantages do you see to this aside from the ideal of preserving people's rights? Because I can think of lots of examples where this approach needlessly costs lives.

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?

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.

I'll look it up when i'm less tired. I work a midnite shift and would most likely confuse the decision.

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.

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.

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.

That is completey unfair to farmers markets. It's not their fault. :lol:
seriously, I do understand where you are coming from, I just don't agree that people only have certain rights within certain age brackets.

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.

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.

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'.

the libertarian Michael Badnarik doesn't have a driver's license not because he disagrees with the "right" to drive but because of the method of requiring a SS number. I still think I'd rather be happy than right, pay the registrations and all and move on with my day and life.

I don't really think Franklin envisioned turning the general public whizzing around in half-ton death machines.

Maybe that's why I'm not willing to think of driving as a right. Freedom of speech, press, assembly and religion? Absolutely there are costs I'm willing to bear for those things. The freedom to drive? Not so much. When the alternative is to have driving be regulated and managed by the state government so that basically everyone who can be reasonably thought to be safe to drive can do so? That's a trade-off that seems like a complete no-brainer to me. I sort of can't fathom being idealistic enough about "the guv'mnt keeping its hands off'n ma freedoms" to choose otherwise.

Bingo.

Ben Franklin didn't say that, he published a book that someone else wrote that said it. At any rate you altered the quote in a way that distorts the point. What was really said was this:

"They who would give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

So, even the original author and Franklin qualified that statement. The words essential and temporary clearly imply that there may be an appropriate cost in terms of liberties for an appropriate type and amount of security.

Nice work uber, and since I like to understand things within context I searched to find that the quote is still distorted slightly.

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Below is the full text of the letter.

...except for that shifty Willravel character... he's up to no good!
A drivers license represents proper training. Without proper, regulated training we would all be in much deeper trouble on the roads, don't you think? If you cannot meet certain standards, you cannot have a license. If you can meet those standards, you can.
Would you also say, to paraphrase, "You have a right to freedom of driving no matter what your age. If you make it to 100, you'll still be able to drive."
Somehow, they seem a bit different. I have always considered free speech to be a right. I've never really thought of driving as a 'right'.

I agree completely. But if I'm dead, they can pay all they want and it doesn't help me any. I'm still dead, and I have the right not to be worried about that happening, don't I?

;) But you see, stopping up the toilet is annoying, but not life threatening (um, no juvenile comments here everyone ;) ) Screwing up with a gun is life threatening. Screwing up with a car is life threatening. At the very least they should both be licensed, and in order to get a license you should have to prove a very high level of competence in their use. As it is, neither guns nor cars are licensed well enough. Guns is for another thread, but cars -- there are far too many drivers out there who are absolutely horrible behind the wheel. That's the kind of thing that a good license and testing program should largely weed out.

But to make driving a RIGHT implies that 1) anyone can drive whether they've learned how to do it properly or not, and 2) that everyone must be given a license until they demonstrate through some screw up behind the wheel that they shouldn't have one. After all, blind people have the right to free speech. If driving were a right we'd have to give blind people licenses until they hit someone. If it were a right, you could legally drive around without insurance - it's my RIGHT to drive, therefore I shouldn't have to do anything special to drive.

By calling driving a universal PRIVILEGE, we eliminate these problems. Sure, everyone can drive provided they meet the licensing requirements. And if they at some point commit a violation heinous enough, they lose that privilege.

Given. the farmers markets are the victims of a right-to-drive mentality ;)


So should my 8 year old be allowed to drive? Your 95 year old grandma who'd nearly blind and completely deaf?

So describe to us the driving system you would like to see -- so far it seems that you're advocating letting people, including children, drive with no training and no insurance, and we'll sit back and see what happens. And if they hit something, THEN we issue them some sort of credential that says they're not allowed to drive, and meanwhile whoever they hit is hurt, possibly dead, and has lost his car. Does that really seem fair?

That is referring to freedom from governmental tyranny, not plunking 200 million or so untrained people at the controls of 2 ton weapons that can top 100mph. At what point must we say that we must willingly give up some liberties in order to insure the safety of ourselves and others? After all, if we were to be completely and utterly free to do whatever we wanted to do, then murder would be legal. I WANT to kill you, I should therefore be ALLOWED to kill you. Seem silly? Well, perhaps, but then if you give cars to a bunch of people who don't know how to drive, you're essentially enacting government-authorized slaughter.

Yeah, what a jackass ;)


Not in this country it doesn't. It represents that you managed to parallel park without hitting the cones.. . much. I'm frankly for stricter requirements to earn the privilege of driving.

DK - I don't see how you can argue that the practice of a learned skill is a right. You can't argue that driving is actually a skill and an active one at that. Owning a gun is just like owning a car - both are objects. Given that driving skills are practiced much more frequently than shooting skills, isn't there a point where demonstrating that you have acquired the necessary skill and knowledge to operate your vehicle on the public way an necessity?

Oh, you have no idea... I think my wife is sleeping with him!!
I said 'represents' instead of 'means' on purpose. The *idea* is that if you have a drivers license, then you're a safe driver. I think that drivers tests should be more common and a lot more difficult. I could have passed the stupid thing drunk and blindfolded when I was 16, but that didn't mean I was a safe driver. We would do well modeling our system after a place like Germany. They have their act together.

You ought to make sure of that!

:thumbsup:

/couldn't help it

Shakran's still got it :thumbsup:


If one is unable to safely drive on a road with other people, then it is perfectly reasonable to revoke, or limit, their ability to do so. This is because, as has been said many times, a vehicle can become a deadly weapon if used improperly. Because of this, I would like to draw a similarity between the laws surrounding gun use and ownership, with the terms and requirements of vehicle ownership, dk.

If you lack the ability to safely operate a car, then you should not be allowed to for the sake of others. I'm sure you wouldn't want some guy who honestly couldn't handle a gun shooting every which way on a firing range. There must be some limitations when others' safety is at risk.

Does having a drivers license ensure that everyone licensed to drive is never going to cause or be in an accident? No, in fact i'd venture to say that there are more licensed drivers involved in accidents, or worse, crimes with cars than there are unlicensed drivers. So, if a license doesn't ensure everyones safety, why is it there? what really is its usefulness?

that same logic can be applied to all types of registration and licensing.

would you want to go to a doctor that wasn't licensed? what about a dentist?

I know that I check all my doctors, especially when I've been hospitalized, for certifications and registrations.

The presumption is that those are licensed are more safe on the road then those who don't because they had to pass several tests to get their license. It hardly makes them perfect, but I'd venture to say that more licensed people have read the driver's handbook and are more familiar with the law. I'd imagine it's not dissimilar from a comparison between people who are self taught with a gun and those who have taken lessons. Sure, licenses would be more useful if the tests were harder or more frequent, but I suspect that they still have use.

Its impossible to enforce the law in every instance that it is broken. The driver's license is an attempt to ensure safety just as drug bans are an attempt to ban drugs.

Thousands of people get away with breaking the law everyday. Does that mean those laws shouldn't be in place?

setting aside the WoD at this point, you have to look at whats being done to ensure safety on the road. we have government funded and endorsed driving safety classes, but who is causing the accidents? it's people.

I know that the things I learned from my family are the best lessons I've ever learned, but nothing the government has taught me, aside from being an air traffic controller, has ever been better than what my parents taught me.

let us not use arguments of extreme opposites. it doesn't work. Do we need laws? yes, we do. But laws SHOULD be, and used to be at one point in history, to simply define what would happen if you caused harm to another. Nowadays, we have laws that ban conduct, even if that conduct causes no harm to anyone....just that it MIGHT cause harm to someone. Do we really need to be babysat by the government now?

I like how conveniently you keep skipping my questions to you. I guess because you can't argue against them you turn a deaf ear and blind eye.

so you'd be happy with a doctor that was taught by his parents????

perhaps then you find this okay? I mean it's his parents teaching him... would it be okay if he was operating on YOU, again, it's for his pursuit of happiness since they want him to be the youngest surgeon in the GBOWR.

All we have left on this subject is a difference of opinions about styles of government. In my opinion, it's preferable to have the government actively managing for safety on the roads.

I'm interested to see how you'd feel about that after having a loved one killed by a perfectly legal 8-year-old driver.

It's the typical retroactive libertarian bs.

Nice try, but either you failed statistics or you're deliberately trying to deceive. Which is it? The ratio of licensed to unlicensed drivers in the US is extremely high, so of course there will be more wrecks involving licensed drivers. That doesn't mean licensing doesn't do anything. I really shouldn't have to explain this to someone who lives in reality.

I will say that the time my license was suspended was when I drove the most obediently and carefully. However, your point is correct of course. Now if someone can show some data to indicate that there is a greater rate of accidents amongst licensed drivers, I would be interested to see that...although admittedly very surprised.

If recent Bush admin (DHS) proposed regulations to implement the Real ID Act (passed by the Repub Congress and signed by Bush in 2005) are not overturned, get ready for a federal ID to replace your state drivers license in the next 5 years:

Enacted as part of an emergency Iraq war spending bill (in 2006), the Real ID Act compels state governments to issue driver's licenses that follow national ID standards to be set by Homeland Security. Eventually, Americans without the federalized ID (with barcodes and possibly RFID tags) will not be able to use their state-issued ID to do things like open a bank account, enter federal buildings, or fly on a commercial airline.
http://news.com.com/Congress+rethink...tag=st.ref.goo

Some states have expressed their opposition by enacting specific state legislative opposing the Real ID Act with language not to comply ...

... but is it too little, too late, with the federal law already on the books (with the unwavering backing of Bush and many Repubs in Congress) and final regulations nearly complete?

DC - what in the world does a national ID card have to do with driving priviledges? I know that the drivers license is the default ID for the vast majority of the population, but that doesn't mean that the Federal government is getting into the licensing business.

The Federal ID would never replace the drivers license's primary fuction - licensing you to drive a car. Even if your state cooperates, you would still have to have a drivers license.

In other words, this doesn't mean squat to the questions at hand.

Jazz....the Real ID Act absolutely gets the Federal government in the licensing business.

Read the draft regs. It sets minimum standards and issuing requirements for drivers licenses (altough it does include alternative options for states that so choose), and "other purposes".

Sorry if its too far off topic.

DC - no it doesn't. At all. What it does do is make the states conform to a common template that provides a specific set of information in a particular format (bar code). The sole purpose of this legislation, in this context, is information.

It does not allow the federal government to test your driving ability nor does it allow them to forbid you from driving. They are leaving that up the states.