Driving...a right or privilege? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

dksuddeth · 06-18-2007, 09:49 PM

curious as to what people think regarding the ability to drive. Is it a right or a privilege?

I, myself, consider it a right, especially considering the fact that these days, it takes a vehicle of some type to be able to do anything like work, or taking family to a doctor or hospital, buy groceries and transport them home, etc.

Also, please try to explain any rationale for deciding one way or the other as it would help me in my article i'm writing. thanks

Willravel · 06-18-2007, 10:47 PM

In what way are we using the word 'reasonable'? I don't think people who have been found driving drunk should be able to drive. I don't think that people who cannot pass a simple test should be able to drive. I don't think people younger than maybe 16 or 17 should be able to drive, and they should be on probation until at least 18. I think there should be tests every 2 years, and not passing once means you cannot drive until you retake the test in 3-4 weeks. I don't think people who can't use their damn turn signals should get a ticket.

I don't know if I'd use the word 'right' about something that can be reasonably taken away when abused. People who abuse driving should not drive or should be punished. Things like speech cannot be taken away, or at least they shouldn't be. Maybe there are different levels of 'right', where speech is higher than driving.

Deltona Couple · 06-19-2007, 04:08 AM

I feel the closest that I can come up with on your 3 options is a right, but limited in structure depending on how you CONDUCT yourself while driving. If you cannot be safe, or prove yourself a law-abiding citizen, then that right should be able to be removed. (I see it as 'freedom' is a right, as long as you don't kill someone, then that 'right' can be taken away, i.e. jail time)

ratbastid · 06-19-2007, 04:14 AM

Life, Liberty, the Pursuit of Happiness... and Driving?

I don't think so.

dksuddeth · 06-19-2007, 04:24 AM

Alot of people seem to think that driving is a privilege without giving reason(s) and it makes me wonder if it is solely because that is what you've all been taught. Here is some food for thought, then tell me what you think.

Quote:

“No state government entity has the power to allow or deny passage on the highways, byways, nor waterways... transporting his vehicles and personal property for either recreation or business, but by being subject only to local regulation, i.e., safety, caution, traffic lights, speed limits, etc. Travel is not a privilege requiring licensing, vehicle registration, or forced insurance.” Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 169 N.E. 22.

“Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with public interest and convenience.” ibid at 206.

“The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived.” ibid at 221.

Quote:

“The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.

Shauk · 06-19-2007, 04:40 AM

driving is a privilege.

I'm not sure how old those quotes are, and one of them looks to be local only to chicago, but on a federal level. It just scares me of people who have had thier license revoked for reckless endgangerment/street racing/drunk driving habitually/medical reasons being on the road.

I think this is the line that sticks out

"though this right may be regulated in accordance with public interest and convenience."

it may start out as a right, but hey, they say the same thing about firearms. Look at the permits, the fees, the background checks. Some of these things may have all started out on a good note with the assumption that society was responsible and mature enough to deal with it, but it's just fairly evident that a lot of people still need babysitting.

I'm not really aware of anything in the actual bill of rights that says "lol haev sum keys and run em overz!"

The_Jazz · 06-19-2007, 05:08 AM

It seems to me to be an absolute priviledge. The people have an interest in keeping certain people from driving because those individuals are just not good at it. It is for the public good that some people need to have their licenses and cars taken from them because they could hurt people.

I don't see how you can really argue that it's a right. dk, the cases you quoted seem to be limited to TRANSPORTATION, not driving. Transportation (and free movement) are indeed rights, but the priviledge of piloting the vehicle yourself can be revoked. Having someone else do it for you, either by hire or as a favor cannot be infringed upon.

Shauk · 06-19-2007, 05:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

dk, the cases you quoted seem to be limited to TRANSPORTATION, not driving. Transportation (and free movement) are indeed rights, but the priviledge of piloting the vehicle yourself can be revoked. Having someone else do it for you, either by hire or as a favor cannot be infringed upon.

nice catch, I knew something wasn't sitting right with me there.

Bill O'Rights · 06-19-2007, 05:23 AM

It's a priviledge. Period.

dksuddeth · 06-19-2007, 05:28 AM

for those that deem it a privilege, please show me what part of the constitution, state or federal, gives that branch of government the power and authority over who drives and who doesn't.

The_Jazz · 06-19-2007, 05:36 AM

Which state constitution do you want? I don't feel like wading through 50 state constitutions looking for the needle you seem to have dropped in this haystack.

Obviously, it's not something controlled by the Federal government currently in any real way. And in the normal course of things, you'd be among the first to point out that any right not specifically assigned to the Federal government in the Constitution automatically belongs to the states.

ratbastid · 06-19-2007, 05:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

for those that deem it a privilege, please show me what part of the constitution, state or federal, gives that branch of government the power and authority over who drives and who doesn't.

Right here:

Quote:

Originally Posted by United States Constitution

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

The right to regulate the use of motor vehicles is not delegated tot he United States, nor prohibited by it to the states. It's therefore reserved to the states respectively, or the people.

This amendment allows individual states to regulate driving (and many other things) as they see fit. It's a crucial aspect of the governmental doctrine of Federalism. I find it downright weird that I have to point this out to you, of all people.

(Jazz: simultaneously-posting great minds think alike!)

dksuddeth · 06-19-2007, 05:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

Which state constitution do you want? I don't feel like wading through 50 state constitutions looking for the needle you seem to have dropped in this haystack.

Obviously, it's not something controlled by the Federal government currently in any real way. And in the normal course of things, you'd be among the first to point out that any right not specifically assigned to the Federal government in the Constitution automatically belongs to the states.

I would think that applies to state constitutions as well and I admit that I have not studied all of the 50 state constitutions to determine this, but I've found no authority in the Texas constitution as it pertains to driving, riding, or just plain traveling. How about Illinois?

Cynthetiq · 06-19-2007, 05:54 AM

driving is a privilege.

if you need to transport yourself from point A to point B and you live in Pennsylfucktuckana it isn't easy. It wasn't easy in the 1700's and it isn't any easier to flat foot it in the 21st century.

I know plenty of people who have never driven a vehicle, and some that got their license to drive at age 36. I own a car here in Manhattan, I pay a premium to store it, in some cities it is the rent of a 1 bedroom apartment but I pay for the priviledge car ownership and of driving.

As a resident of NYC I can pay $2 and get from the furthest reaches of the Bronx and get all the way to Coney Island, Brooklyn, all without need of a car. It may take me about 1.5 - 2 hours to do so each way, but I can get there.

As far as living outside of NYC, the transportation is also pretty decent if you work and play in NYC. People commute without need of a car as far as Pennsylvania, Conneticut and the furthest ends of Long Island.

A person who doesn't own a vehicle pays the least amount of taxes to fund roads and highways. I don't use the school system but I pay taxes to fund it. A person using the school system doesn't necessarily pay more to use that system. A person using the roads does via fuel taxes, car registration fees, and tolls.

You choose where you live. If you can't compete where you live, then you move. People moved across oceans because they had better opporunities in another country.

shakran · 06-19-2007, 06:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

Alot of people seem to think that driving is a privilege without giving reason(s) and it makes me wonder if it is solely because that is what you've all been taught. Here is some food for thought, then tell me what you think.

Read those quotes carefully and then consider what happens when they yank your license. They're not saying you can't travel the roads. They're not saying you can't travel them in a car. They're only saying you can't CONTROL the vehicle you're traveling in.

And there's nothing wrong with that. A car is a dangerous and deadly weapon. If you can't control it properly, you shouldn't be allowed to wield it.

The_Jazz · 06-19-2007, 06:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

I would think that applies to state constitutions as well and I admit that I have not studied all of the 50 state constitutions to determine this, but I've found no authority in the Texas constitution as it pertains to driving, riding, or just plain traveling. How about Illinois?

There's nothing specific but Article II Section 2 seems to take care of the issue pretty nicely.

http://www.ilga.gov/commission/lrb/con2.htm

Quote:

SECTION 2. POWERS OF GOVERNMENT
The enumeration in this Constitution of specified powers
and functions shall not be construed as a limitation of
powers of state government.
(Source: Illinois Constitution.)

filtherton · 06-19-2007, 06:31 AM

I'm curious about the differing definitions of what a right is that are often employed on these boards.

A right is either: Something specifically mentioned as a right in the constitution.
As in the right to bear arms.

Or: Something that is important in a particular belief system.
As in the right to smoke in hooters or drive an suv.

I feel like these two definitions aren't really consistent. Using the first, of course driving isn't a right. Bicycles weren't even invented in 1787, much less automobiles.

Using the second definition, everything is a right and the word becomes meaningless. Using this definition, the desire to define driving as a right is just as valid as the desire to define crapping in the street as a right. This definition is the result of confusing actual rights with rights that lay strictly in the realm of wishful thinking.

The real question of the op should be "Do you think driving should be a right?" because under any kind of meaningful definition it isn't.

dksuddeth · 06-19-2007, 06:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

I'm curious about the differing definitions of what a right is that are often employed on these boards.

A right is either: Something specifically mentioned as a right in the constitution.
As in the right to bear arms.

well now you're falling in to the same logical trap that has been laid for decades....that it isn't a right unless it's in the constitution but nothing could be further from the truth. The constitution, even any state constitution, is a prescribed set of specific and enumerated powers that the people have given to the government. Anything outside of those powers specifically enumerated is not a power of the government, but a right or power specifically belonging to the people.

QuasiMondo · 06-19-2007, 06:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

driving is a privilege.

if you need to transport yourself from point A to point B and you live in Pennsylfucktuckana it isn't easy. It wasn't easy in the 1700's and it isn't any easier to flat foot it in the 21st century.

I know plenty of people who have never driven a vehicle, and some that got their license to drive at age 36. I own a car here in Manhattan, I pay a premium to store it, in some cities it is the rent of a 1 bedroom apartment but I pay for the priviledge car ownership and of driving.

As a resident of NYC I can pay $2 and get from the furthest reaches of the Bronx and get all the way to Coney Island, Brooklyn, all without need of a car. It may take me about 1.5 - 2 hours to do so each way, but I can get there.

As far as living outside of NYC, the transportation is also pretty decent if you work and play in NYC. People commute without need of a car as far as Pennsylvania, Conneticut and the furthest ends of Long Island.

A person who doesn't own a vehicle pays the least amount of taxes to fund roads and highways. I don't use the school system but I pay taxes to fund it. A person using the school system doesn't necessarily pay more to use that system. A person using the roads does via fuel taxes, car registration fees, and tolls.

You choose where you live. If you can't compete where you live, then you move. People moved across oceans because they had better opporunities in another country.

Even Pennsylfucktuckanians had horse-and-buggy carriages, which, given the available technology back then provided the same level of transportation freedom an automobile would have today.

Living in NYC gives puts you in a unique position of having a public transportation system that is unmatched by any other city in this nation. This public transit system is the only one that can give you the equivalent freedom to get from point A to B on a whim as you could with a car. Given the heavy traffic and lack of available parking that a driver in NYC faces, often times, it's to their advantage to use public transportation instead of their own cars.

Outside of NYC, it's a different story. Buses arrive on the half hour, and on less uses routes, on the hour. The lack of routes means the bus would have to take circuitous routes to get from here to there. When I lived in Florida, a 20 minute ride by car to my job was a two hour ride by bus which meant taking a trip from Kissimmee into the terminal in downtown Orlando, then another bus from there to my job at Universal Studios. Making the ride even more unpleasant was the abundance of homeless folks occasionally made the bus their home, drunk or otherwise. But enough about my sob story.

Driving may be viewed as a privilege, but given the local geography, lack of public transportation, and significant changes to a person's life when the ability to use a car is lost (to include their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness), it would be a mistake to label it a privilege like this is a trivial posession.

ratbastid · 06-19-2007, 07:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by QuasiMondo

Driving may be viewed as a privilege, but given the local geography, lack of public transportation, and significant changes to a person's life when the ability to use a car is lost (to include their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness), it would be a mistake to label it a privilege like this is a trivial posession.

The need for something, or the level of inconvenience involved in doing without it, doesn't make having it a right. Even if I need to steal food to feed myself, I have no right to do so.

I agree with you about how difficult it is for most Americans to live without their own driving privileges, though. That encourages people to behave in a way that's consistent with keeping that privilege.

The_Jazz · 06-19-2007, 07:22 AM

Quasimondo, I don't think anyone has tried to trivialize the importance of driving. We all know that in the majority of the country, it's a major inconvenience to be without a car at one's disposal. That said, it's still not a right to be able to operate one.

I've taken public transportation in ever city I've ever lived in (Knoxville, TN, Atlanta, LA and Chicago) and the quality varies. Ever major city does have some sort of public transportation system available. Rural areas, obviously, often do not, but that doesn't mean that rural drivers are any better or worse than their citified brethren. If a rural driver causes accidents, drives drunk too often, etc., then his license should be taken. They then need to depend on the kindness of family, friends or their own feet lest they endanger the rest of us.

ratbastid - we seem to be on the same wavelength today. Perhaps I should break out my tinfoil hat.

dksuddeth · 06-19-2007, 07:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

I agree with you about how difficult it is for most Americans to live without their own driving privileges, though. That encourages people to behave in a way that's consistent with keeping that privilege.

so you'd better conform to societies demands, peasant, or we'll make feeding your family impossible. how's that idea of freedom working out for you?

The_Jazz · 06-19-2007, 07:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

so you'd better conform to societies demands, peasant, or we'll make feeding your family impossible. how's that idea of freedom working out for you?

In other words, we should put toddlers behind the wheel.

Good thinking there, dk.

Yes, society does actually have the right to demand that bad drivers not be able to put the rest of us in danger. Just like we also have the right to demand that when you drive you do so in a safe manner.

telekinetic · 06-19-2007, 07:31 AM

My right to safety on the road trumps your 'right' to drive...if you can show that you can drive safely, you should be allowed the privilege. If you demonstrate that you are not capable of that, then you lose that right.

shakran · 06-19-2007, 07:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

so you'd better conform to societies demands, peasant, or we'll make feeding your family impossible. how's that idea of freedom working out for you?

Well let's empty out the jails then. Sure is hard to feed your family when you're doing 10-20 for armed robbery isn't it. And hey, all that armed robber REALLY did was to fail to conform to society's demands.

See how silly that argument sounds yet?

Bill O'Rights · 06-19-2007, 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by twistedmosaic

If you demonstrate that you are not capable of that, then you lose that right.

Then you lose that...privilege. Right?

dksuddeth · 06-19-2007, 07:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

In other words, we should put toddlers behind the wheel.

Good thinking there, dk.

not worth a response.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

Yes, society does actually have the right to demand that bad drivers not be able to put the rest of us in danger. Just like we also have the right to demand that when you drive you do so in a safe manner.

one would expect that an individual would automatically drive in a safe manner to protect ones own life, however, todays liberal 'freedom from responsibility' atmosphere has certainly changed that, has it not?

Quote:

Originally Posted by twistedmosaic

My right to safety on the road trumps your 'right' to drive...

not one single RIGHT of yours trumps any single RIGHT of mine. It's that bullshit thinking that's made a mess of this country.

ratbastid · 06-19-2007, 07:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

so you'd better conform to societies demands, peasant, or we'll make feeding your family impossible. how's that idea of freedom working out for you?

Excellent strawman, though.

dksuddeth · 06-19-2007, 07:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

Well let's empty out the jails then. Sure is hard to feed your family when you're doing 10-20 for armed robbery isn't it. And hey, all that armed robber REALLY did was to fail to conform to society's demands.

See how silly that argument sounds yet?

I see how silly your 'since all laws don't work, lets just scrap laws' argument is. When you abuse a right, yes, you lose it. That is what the 5th Amendment was all about. due process much?

The_Jazz · 06-19-2007, 07:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

one would expect that an individual would automatically drive in a safe manner to protect ones own life, however, todays liberal 'freedom from responsibility' atmosphere has certainly changed that, has it not?

not one single RIGHT of yours trumps any single RIGHT of mine. It's that bullshit thinking that's made a mess of this country.

Hey, I can use strawmen too. Especially in response to one.

One would expect a lot of things about people. You would expect that they would know that driving while drunk is an incredibly bad idea. Obviously not. I don't see what liberal or conservative politics has to do with that fact. Drunk driving is by far the leading reason for revocation of driving priviledges. What you're saying is that the state has no mandate to provide safe roads by controlling who is and is not allowed to drive on them. What logically follows from that is the removal of speed limits as well as all other street and road laws. That makes it ok to drive on the sidewalk when it's convenient for you. As long as I get out of the way in time, everything's fine.

Bullshit.

Where has anyone taken a right away from anyone here? If you cannot demonstrate the ability to safely pilot a vehicle consistently, then you are a public menace. Perhaps we should repeal the laws against murder as well.

Jinn · 06-19-2007, 07:50 AM

DK, how old are you?

I know it seems like a silly question, but every thread you start seems to relate directly to your struggle against authority in some way or another. Typically this dissolves (at least partially) with age and maturity. While I agree with you most times on gun control and the over controlling government, this one has taken it a bit too far.

Quote:

My right to safety on the road trumps your 'right' to drive

Quote:

not one single RIGHT of yours trumps any single RIGHT of mine. It's that bullshit thinking that's made a mess of this country.

You seriously don't think that someone's right to live is more important than your so-called "right" to drive?

And as for "making a mess of this country," this is a precedent set long before my time (and long before yours):

Ever heard "the right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins" ?

ratbastid · 06-19-2007, 07:55 AM

(Okay, Jazz, you actually beat me to that one by a minute or two. This is getting spooky.)

There's AMPLE precedent for the curtailing of actual, legitimately construed rights in service of the public good. You've heard the example of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, perhaps?

Are you actually telling me that this so-called "right to drive" is inviolable, and that even the safety and welfare of others isn't enough to curtail it?

Bill O'Rights · 06-19-2007, 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

not one single RIGHT of yours trumps any single RIGHT of mine.

Which is exactly why driving is a privilege, and not a "right".

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

Excellent strawman, though.

In accordance with the powers reserved for the State of Nebraska, by the United States Constitution, the language used, when drafting the manual used to study for the examination required to obtain a valid driver's license, refers to driving as a privilege. For what it's worth.

ratbastid · 06-19-2007, 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights

dksuddeth · 06-19-2007, 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

Drunk driving is by far the leading reason for revocation of driving priviledges. What you're saying is that the state has no mandate to provide safe roads by controlling who is and is not allowed to drive on them.

I guess JAIL would be too damned conservative of a tactic or punishment to use, right?

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

Where has anyone taken a right away from anyone here? If you cannot demonstrate the ability to safely pilot a vehicle consistently, then you are a public menace. Perhaps we should repeal the laws against murder as well.

It's called prior restraint. perhaps you've heard of it? it's the ideal of not having your rights removed or restricted until you've proven that you can't handle that responsibility. Something that USED to be upheld in the courts, until the new deal socialist crap.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JinnKai

DK, how old are you?

not that it would matter, but i'm 40 years old. Does that change anything for you?

Quote:

You seriously don't think that someone's right to live is more important than your so-called "right" to drive?

not a single one of your rights is any more important than any single right of mine. It's the very same ideal that the founding fathers fought for during the revolution....that every persons rights were just as important as everyone elses.

Quote:

And as for "making a mess of this country," this is a precedent set long before my time (and long before yours):

ever thought about fixing that issue?

Quote:

Ever heard "the right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins" ?

many times, it's something I live by every day.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

(Okay, Jazz, you actually beat me to that one by a minute or two. This is getting spooky.)

There's AMPLE precedent for the curtailing of actual, legitimately construed rights in service of the public good. You've heard the example of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, perhaps?

Are you actually telling me that this so-called "right to drive" is inviolable, and that even the safety and welfare of others isn't enough to curtail it?

it's only been the last 80 years that the 'good of society' has been upheld over the rights of the individual. Until that time, individual rights were upheld.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights

In accordance with the powers reserved for the State of Nebraska, by the United States Constitution, the language used, when drafting the manual used to study for the examination required to obtain a valid driver's license, refers to driving as a privilege. For what it's worth.

great, if that is what works for nebraska. What would happen if the state government of nebraska felt it was necessary to suspend all driving privileges? Also, what is the article and section of nebraskas constitution for that statement?

The_Jazz · 06-19-2007, 08:17 AM

DK - you've neglected to offer any proof that driving is a right and not a priviledge. We all agree that it's a state and not federal matter. Great. We're obviously not going to disect 50 state constitutions, but I've given you my interpretation of the Illinois one.

Perhaps we should start by why you think it's a right and why you think jail time is appropriate for minor traffic violations. That seems to be much more of an infringment of freedom than the revocation of state licensing.

I suppose that you'll tell next that state licensing for anything, including doctors, architects or pilots, is infringement on personal freedom too.

RATBASTID GET OUT OF MY HEAD!!!

If Nebraska (or Texas or Illinois) decides to rescind all driving priviledges, then there are going to be a lot of pissed off Nebraskans (or Illinoisans or Texans). I imagine that they'd have to have a pretty damn good reason to do that along with the idea that the people would consent to it. Perhaps it would be a response to Godzilla confusing Omaha with Tokyo.

Bill O'Rights · 06-19-2007, 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

What would happen if the state government of nebraska felt it was necessary to suspend all driving privileges?

My guess. They'd go broke outside of two days. Much revenue is garnered from Driver's licenses, vehicle registration, so on and so forth. Which brings up a point. Does one "pay" for a right? Certainly one can be expected to pay for a privilege...but not a right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

Also, what is the article and section of nebraskas constitution for that statement?

How would I know? I was quoting the Nebraska Driver's License Manual. And that is on page 2.

ratbastid · 06-19-2007, 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights

How would I know? I was quoting the Nebraska Driver's License Manual. And that is on page 2.

Yeah... Everywhere I've seen this question discussed in any official capacity, it's FIRMLY asserted that driving is a privilege, not a right. In those very words, no less.

I know! dksuddeth: next time your driver's license (if you have one!) comes up for renewal, don't bother. But keep driving around like you always do. It's your right, after all! For that matter, it's your right to drive as fast as you want, how dare they tell you how fast to drive your car! So let 'er rip! Then when you get pulled over for speeding and get ticketed for driving without a license, just ignore it--they're infringing on your rights. When you eventually get hauled before a judge, lay this whole "it's my right" business on him. Then let us know how that goes. Hell, take it to the Supreme Court! Let's see you actually USE the system, rather than just standing outside it bitching!

My point, before you cry "strawman", is that you live in a SOCIETY. For things to work in a society, you have to play, to some extent, by society's rules. You get a lot of benefit from the state you live in--those fancy roads where you exercise your "right" to drive, for instance. In exchange for that, you submit to the infrastructure of authority that has those things be workable for EVERYONE. Google "Social Contract" for more on this.

This is my WHOLE problem with extreme libertarianism. There's zero interest in society or community working, in a world that works for everyone. It's a fundamentally selfish ethos.

flstf · 06-19-2007, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Driving...a right or privilege?

I would like to say it is a basic fundamental right but just cannot justify going that far. There are some people who have shown that they should not be permitted to drive and throwing them in jail seems too harsh. When someone has shown that they will most likely kill or harm if they continue to drive then we should not have to wait for the carnage before we protect ourselves from them.

I think that the privilege should only be taken away as a last resort especially those who live in the country.

dksuddeth · 06-19-2007, 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights

My guess. They'd go broke outside of two days. Much revenue is garnered from Driver's licenses, vehicle registration, so on and so forth. Which brings up a point. Does one "pay" for a right? Certainly one can be expected to pay for a privilege...but not a right.

see Murdock v. commonwealth of PA

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights

How would I know? I was quoting the Nebraska Driver's License Manual. And that is on page 2.

and that isn't exactly the Nebraska State constitution, right? So where does that authority or power come from again? Remember, the only power a government has comes from a constitution.

View Poll Results: driving, right or privilege
A basic fundamental right	1	2.27%
pure privilege when the government allows	17	38.64%
A right subject to reasonable restrictions or regulations	26	59.09%
Voters: 44. You may not vote on this poll

06-18-2007, 09:49 PM	#1 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	Driving...a right or privilege? curious as to what people think regarding the ability to drive. Is it a right or a privilege? I, myself, consider it a right, especially considering the fact that these days, it takes a vehicle of some type to be able to do anything like work, or taking family to a doctor or hospital, buy groceries and transport them home, etc. Also, please try to explain any rationale for deciding one way or the other as it would help me in my article i'm writing. thanks __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him." Last edited by dksuddeth; 06-18-2007 at 09:51 PM..

06-19-2007, 04:08 AM	#3 (permalink)
Deltona Couple Addict Location: Spring, Texas	I feel the closest that I can come up with on your 3 options is a right, but limited in structure depending on how you CONDUCT yourself while driving. If you cannot be safe, or prove yourself a law-abiding citizen, then that right should be able to be removed. (I see it as 'freedom' is a right, as long as you don't kill someone, then that 'right' can be taken away, i.e. jail time) __________________ "It is not that I have failed, but that I have found 10,000 ways that it DOESN'T work!" --Thomas Edison

06-19-2007, 05:08 AM	#7 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	It seems to me to be an absolute priviledge. The people have an interest in keeping certain people from driving because those individuals are just not good at it. It is for the public good that some people need to have their licenses and cars taken from them because they could hurt people. I don't see how you can really argue that it's a right. dk, the cases you quoted seem to be limited to TRANSPORTATION, not driving. Transportation (and free movement) are indeed rights, but the priviledge of piloting the vehicle yourself can be revoked. Having someone else do it for you, either by hire or as a favor cannot be infringed upon. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

06-19-2007, 05:23 AM	#9 (permalink)
Bill O'Rights will always be an Alyson Hanniganite Location: In the dust of the archives	It's a priviledge. Period. __________________ "I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony "Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

06-18-2007, 10:47 PM	#2 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	In what way are we using the word 'reasonable'? I don't think people who have been found driving drunk should be able to drive. I don't think that people who cannot pass a simple test should be able to drive. I don't think people younger than maybe 16 or 17 should be able to drive, and they should be on probation until at least 18. I think there should be tests every 2 years, and not passing once means you cannot drive until you retake the test in 3-4 weeks. I don't think people who can't use their damn turn signals should get a ticket. I don't know if I'd use the word 'right' about something that can be reasonably taken away when abused. People who abuse driving should not drive or should be punished. Things like speech cannot be taken away, or at least they shouldn't be. Maybe there are different levels of 'right', where speech is higher than driving.

06-19-2007, 04:14 AM	#4 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	Life, Liberty, the Pursuit of Happiness... and Driving? I don't think so.

06-19-2007, 04:40 AM	#6 (permalink)
Shauk Confused Adult Location: Spokane, WA	driving is a privilege. I'm not sure how old those quotes are, and one of them looks to be local only to chicago, but on a federal level. It just scares me of people who have had thier license revoked for reckless endgangerment/street racing/drunk driving habitually/medical reasons being on the road. I think this is the line that sticks out "though this right may be regulated in accordance with public interest and convenience." it may start out as a right, but hey, they say the same thing about firearms. Look at the permits, the fees, the background checks. Some of these things may have all started out on a good note with the assumption that society was responsible and mature enough to deal with it, but it's just fairly evident that a lot of people still need babysitting. I'm not really aware of anything in the actual bill of rights that says "lol haev sum keys and run em overz!"

06-19-2007, 05:28 AM	#10 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	for those that deem it a privilege, please show me what part of the constitution, state or federal, gives that branch of government the power and authority over who drives and who doesn't. __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

06-19-2007, 05:36 AM	#11 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	Which state constitution do you want? I don't feel like wading through 50 state constitutions looking for the needle you seem to have dropped in this haystack. Obviously, it's not something controlled by the Federal government currently in any real way. And in the normal course of things, you'd be among the first to point out that any right not specifically assigned to the Federal government in the Constitution automatically belongs to the states. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

06-19-2007, 05:54 AM	#14 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	driving is a privilege. if you need to transport yourself from point A to point B and you live in Pennsylfucktuckana it isn't easy. It wasn't easy in the 1700's and it isn't any easier to flat foot it in the 21st century. I know plenty of people who have never driven a vehicle, and some that got their license to drive at age 36. I own a car here in Manhattan, I pay a premium to store it, in some cities it is the rent of a 1 bedroom apartment but I pay for the priviledge car ownership and of driving. As a resident of NYC I can pay $2 and get from the furthest reaches of the Bronx and get all the way to Coney Island, Brooklyn, all without need of a car. It may take me about 1.5 - 2 hours to do so each way, but I can get there. As far as living outside of NYC, the transportation is also pretty decent if you work and play in NYC. People commute without need of a car as far as Pennsylvania, Conneticut and the furthest ends of Long Island. A person who doesn't own a vehicle pays the least amount of taxes to fund roads and highways. I don't use the school system but I pay taxes to fund it. A person using the school system doesn't necessarily pay more to use that system. A person using the roads does via fuel taxes, car registration fees, and tolls. You choose where you live. If you can't compete where you live, then you move. People moved across oceans because they had better opporunities in another country. __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

06-19-2007, 06:31 AM	#17 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	I'm curious about the differing definitions of what a right is that are often employed on these boards. A right is either: Something specifically mentioned as a right in the constitution. As in the right to bear arms. Or: Something that is important in a particular belief system. As in the right to smoke in hooters or drive an suv. I feel like these two definitions aren't really consistent. Using the first, of course driving isn't a right. Bicycles weren't even invented in 1787, much less automobiles. Using the second definition, everything is a right and the word becomes meaningless. Using this definition, the desire to define driving as a right is just as valid as the desire to define crapping in the street as a right. This definition is the result of confusing actual rights with rights that lay strictly in the realm of wishful thinking. The real question of the op should be "Do you think driving should be a right?" because under any kind of meaningful definition it isn't.

06-19-2007, 07:22 AM	#21 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	Quasimondo, I don't think anyone has tried to trivialize the importance of driving. We all know that in the majority of the country, it's a major inconvenience to be without a car at one's disposal. That said, it's still not a right to be able to operate one. I've taken public transportation in ever city I've ever lived in (Knoxville, TN, Atlanta, LA and Chicago) and the quality varies. Ever major city does have some sort of public transportation system available. Rural areas, obviously, often do not, but that doesn't mean that rural drivers are any better or worse than their citified brethren. If a rural driver causes accidents, drives drunk too often, etc., then his license should be taken. They then need to depend on the kindness of family, friends or their own feet lest they endanger the rest of us. ratbastid - we seem to be on the same wavelength today. Perhaps I should break out my tinfoil hat. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

06-19-2007, 07:31 AM	#24 (permalink)
telekinetic zomgomgomgomgomgomg Location: Fauxenix, Azerona	My right to safety on the road trumps your 'right' to drive...if you can show that you can drive safely, you should be allowed the privilege. If you demonstrate that you are not capable of that, then you lose that right. __________________ twisted no more

06-19-2007, 07:55 AM	#32 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	(Okay, Jazz, you actually beat me to that one by a minute or two. This is getting spooky.) There's AMPLE precedent for the curtailing of actual, legitimately construed rights in service of the public good. You've heard the example of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, perhaps? Are you actually telling me that this so-called "right to drive" is inviolable, and that even the safety and welfare of others isn't enough to curtail it? Last edited by ratbastid; 06-19-2007 at 07:58 AM..

06-19-2007, 08:17 AM	#36 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	DK - you've neglected to offer any proof that driving is a right and not a priviledge. We all agree that it's a state and not federal matter. Great. We're obviously not going to disect 50 state constitutions, but I've given you my interpretation of the Illinois one. Perhaps we should start by why you think it's a right and why you think jail time is appropriate for minor traffic violations. That seems to be much more of an infringment of freedom than the revocation of state licensing. I suppose that you'll tell next that state licensing for anything, including doctors, architects or pilots, is infringement on personal freedom too. RATBASTID GET OUT OF MY HEAD!!! If Nebraska (or Texas or Illinois) decides to rescind all driving priviledges, then there are going to be a lot of pissed off Nebraskans (or Illinoisans or Texans). I imagine that they'd have to have a pretty damn good reason to do that along with the idea that the people would consent to it. Perhaps it would be a response to Godzilla confusing Omaha with Tokyo. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo Last edited by The_Jazz; 06-19-2007 at 08:20 AM..