Bill O'Rights

Ummmmm...yeah...probably.

But not about this.

Stop it! Stop it! Yer killin' me!

__________________
"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.

ratbastid

No, you're absolutely right. It's clearly an issue the states have rights to legislate. For it to remain a dksuddeth boogieman, though, he has to keep painting it as overreaching on the part of a massive, corrupt, liberal federal government. But you're right, that's been thoroughly debunked on this thread.

dksuddeth

America is truly gone I see. Sad, she didn't go out with a bang or a whisper. She surrendered willingly.

__________________
"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."

Cynthetiq

So wait... you ask where it on the state constitution, and I show it to you. that's it. You roll over? I don't get it. You asked you got your answer.

You don't like the answer?

So now that it's granted by the state constitution of those states that specifically state it... what now?

__________________
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.

Willravel

Translation: I've run out of good arguments, so I'll try to make what I see is a great, dramatic appeal to patriotism. Everyone look at me, I'm a wonderful American and I'm desperately fighting for America by telling people I love guns and cars are a right on some online forum.

I'm sure you know that an appeal to patriotism is a logical fallacy. If you have an argument, make it. This other stuff is meaningless.

Besides, I love American way more then you. /sarcasm

dksuddeth

all you showed me in the state constitution was the authority to tax. You didn't show where it had the authority to regulate private travel. Only taxing vehicles as property.

oh jesus H christ, get over yourself. I didn't run out of good arguments, I just see that I can't fix the stupid on this board. Every single one of you either rolled right over and accepted the 'public good' bullshit for the government to regulate nearly every damn aspect of your lives. I say again, the founders would throw up in disgust at most of you.

as far as your 'translation' goes, you can't interpret plain words on a piece of paper (the constitution) how the hell do you think you can interpret my words?

__________________
"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."

Cynthetiq

really? you missed ALL of the CALIFORNIA and NEVADA items?

California Constitution
Nevada Constitution
The states are responsible for the public roads. You are free to privately travel. You are not being witheld from travel because you are not allowed to operate a motor vehicle.

Because of this thread I relistened to Michael Badnarik, Class on the Constitution because he specifically talks about not registering his vehicle and not having a driver's license in the state of Texas.

He details a situation where he is pulled over and what it entailed.

I don't disagree with you fundamentally on where the rights originate from for them to be able to regulate this or regulate that. But, I'm a practical man. I'd rather be happy than right. It's easier for me to pay the fees and get the registration, than sit on the side of the road every so often for an hour or so being questioned etc.

A possible weekend ruined because you had to be stopped by the police. Recently it SCOTUS decided that the rights of the passenger were also seized during a stop. So being pulled over with a car full of your friends or family infringes upon them. Hey, great. If that happened time and time again when we hung out. I'd have to stop hanging out with you since it's just annoying. Again, I'd rather be happy than right. Makes me stupid? Maybe in your book.

__________________
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.

Willravel

This coming from the guy who wrote this:
It's clear you've given in to the holier than thou attitude. It's preachy, and it's not noble.
So now we're stupid because we disagree with you.
And I say again, you aren't a founder. I'v never rolled over for anything in my life, and the idea that you can sit there at your computer and judge all the brilliant people on TFP is silly. I recognize that many people on TFP are smarter than me in many ways. I wish you'd do the same. Thinking you're the smartest person in the room often leads to you becoming the least listened to. That's happening right now, right here. If you cut the condescension and patriotic mumbo jumbo, people would be more likely to listen to you. If you stopped pretending like you're Captain America and we're all good germans, people might listen to you. Look at Longbough. He and I have fundamentally opposed views of guns and the second amendment. Does he condescend to me? Absolutely not. We have had several respectful dialogues about the subject and, while we didn't leave in agreement, we left with mutual respect.
This coming from someone who interprets the 9th amendment as covering the right to drive your Buick? Give me a break. My opinion, that I wouldn't dare force on anyone, about guns vs. your "we have the inalienable freedom to drive, and anyone who disagrees with me is stupid"?

shakran

The hell it does. Where did you get that idea. It's starting to look like you just make stuff up and then believe it. Nowhere in the constitution does it say anything about authorized journalist. The freedom of the press is a right that belongs to everyone. If you want to publish a newspaper tomorrow, you can, and you don't have to get authorization for it first.

This is actually true. You have yet to have one good argument, therefore you cannot yet have run out of them.

It is in my best interest to let the government regulate certain aspects of my life. I can't be on hand at the meat packing plant to make sure they don't contaminate my beef, and even if I could I probably wouldn't know what to look for. It's best to let the government do that. I don't have time to build a road to everywhere I want to go. It's best to let the government do that.

Speaking of being unable to fix stupid, you really need to stop shooting off your mouth over things you know nothing about. The founders were not exactly 100% champions of personal liberty. Thomas Jefferson had slaves. John Adams as president had a man arrested and charged with sedition for insulting him. There are plenty more examples that the founders werent' any better than any of us- nor should they be thought to be. They weren't demi-gods. They were men. No more, no less. They'd be throwing up in disgust, alright, because voter apathy has allowed a moron to seize control of the country and turn us into a nation of aggression. But they wouldn't have a problem with only letting responsible people control objects that weigh 2 tons and can go 100+mph.

ratbastid

Okay, then. Since you're so smart and we're all so stupid, and since you understand the founders so much better than anyone else (regardless of how completely irrelevant that is), then I have a question for you.

How should it be?

I don't think you can deny that the way driving is treated is as a privilege that is regulated by the several states. Let's say I stipulate that that's a violation of my God Given Right to Drive (we'll fiat an 11th Commandment: Thou Shalt Drive). How would you like it to be? How would you manage it? Who should get to drive? At what age? Should there be any case where they should be removed from their car?

dksuddeth

One would think that YOU being a journalist would have heard of some of the shit that happens to 'bloggers' trying to participate in press conferences, then getting ignored or ejected because they don't have press cards or actual journalist credentials. Perhaps you've heard of the slippery slope and that maybe it's only a matter of time that you have to have a license to practice journalism. Google 'authorized journalists' sometime.

what fuckin ever. but I forgot, you're so bloody fucking brilliant.

I did forget that you think the government runs things better than anyone.

and maybe you should STFU also.

why do you keep insisting that the only fucking rights anyone has are what is listed in the bill of rights? did you ever take a real history class?

__________________
"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."

Cynthetiq

Why limit it to 2D space? Why can't I fly a plane? Why do I have to deal with all that security at the airports when I could just buy a plane and fly myself? That same idea should apply to planes as well, since the constitutions I pointed out use roads and highways, so there is a basis of property to attach some sort of privilige or rights to. Airborne traffic has no "highways" in the same sense.

Dk, I've still provided you HOW they are able to regulate and restrict who drives. So now that I've pointed it out. You still ignore the WHAT is your point about it. It's been shown that it EXISTS in a state constitution. So now what?

__________________
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.

Willravel

Maybe it's time to cool down, here.

dksuddeth

Again, you've shown me how the states have authority to regulate just about everything BUT the person on the road. They can regulate the operations, the vehicles, the safety limits, etc. but I see no direct and specific wording that says the state has the authority to regulate the who. The why's, the how's, the wherefores, yes, but not the who. Before the civil war, Most of the courts decisions lay along the very specific wording of whatever law they were arguing about and if it wasn't there, or it exceeded authority, they ruled against it or declared it unconstitutional. Not so much anymore because nowadays it's all about 'government interest'. Legislatures purposefully create ambiguous laws because they know that the courts will generally side with 'government interests'.

This is where the problem lies. The courts have made very ambiguous decisions to allow the government to incorporate just about anything in to their fold of power, leaving the courts to decide, at their sole discretion, whether the government oversteps its authority or not. Take a look at the differences between US v. Lopez and Gonzalez v. Raich just as a single example. State courts aren't very much different, with the exception of a few states that i've read about.

For the second time in my existence on this board, I think i'll take your advice.

__________________
"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."

Willravel

The who: people who've shown that they aren't responsible for themselves behind the wheel. If you drink and drive, or if you have a medical or psychological condition of some kind that can effect your driving, you can't really drive. That's where the who comes in. That's how I see it.

ubertuber

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

Cynthetiq

Please define the OPERATIONS because in the current world now, the vehicles do not operate by themselves. On the ROAD means just that, on the road. Again, you want to OPERATE your vehicle on your PRIVATE property then you are free to do so WITHOUT any kind of registration or licensing.

But on public roads paid for with public monies it is quite clear. You're going to have to do better than "show me" because I have, over and over. And you just say, "That's not good enough" Please EXPLAIN why it isn't good enough because as far as I understand law, it is.

__________________
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.

shakran

1) the bloggers can still write about anything they feel like.
2) Bush planted a fake journalist in his press room, so obviously you don't need to be a legitimate journo to get in one.
3) there isn't physically enough time or room to get every blogger that wants to show up into a press briefing. In fact, real journalists often set up a pool situation in which those who can't get into the briefing get material from those who can. If the bloggers are interested, they can get in on the pool.
4) it's freedom of the PRESS, not "freedom to get into any meeting I feel like because I claim I'm going to be writing a story about it." The object of a press briefing is (supposedly) to get information out to the people. Some jackhole from The Onion is much less likely to do that than the guy from the Washington Post.



And actual journalists would fight the hell out of that.

I did. Another pro gun lunatic ranting about more stuff he doesnt' understand.

BTW, if you google Chupacabra you get all sorts of information on that. Does that mean it's real? No.

So you're saying that you would prefer to inspect the meat plants yourself? You would prefer to build all the roads yourself? Or were you just blindly lashing out with, yet again, no logical basis for it?



I don't think you got what I was saying. In the first place, if you're going to run around repeatedly saying "you can't fix stupid," then you'd better damn well make sure that everything you say is pretty damn smart. Otherwise, you're quite likely to have it tossed back at you. Second, you love to hold up the founders and framers as pillars of freedom loving men. I pointed out, quite accurately, two of many examples of how that legend is not true. I'm sorry that facts upset you, but "STFU" is neither an intelligent, mature, nor appropriate way to respond to that debate.

Willravel

... and you call yourself a journalist...

ratbastid

I know you were in full-on defensive mode when you responded with that non sequitur, so I want to ask again.

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?

dksuddeth

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.

__________________
"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."

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.

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

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?

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

ratbastid

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.

dksuddeth

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.
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'.

__________________
"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."

Cynthetiq

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 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.

ratbastid

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.

ubertuber

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.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

Cynthetiq

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.

__________________
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.

Willravel

...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'.

shakran

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.

The_Jazz

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?

__________________
"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

Willravel

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.

ubertuber

You ought to make sure of that!



/couldn't help it

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

Ch'i

Shakran's still got it


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.

dksuddeth

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?

__________________
"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."

Cynthetiq

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.

__________________
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.

Willravel

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.

Ch'i

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?

dksuddeth

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?

__________________
"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."