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

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.

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)

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

I don't think so.

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.

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!"

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.

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

It's a priviledge. Period.

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.

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.

Right here:

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!)

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Then you lose that...privilege. Right?

not worth a response.

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.

Excellent strawman, though.

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?

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.

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.

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" ?

(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?

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


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/10...sp_rofl0ne.gif

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. :rolleyes:

:thumbsup:

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

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.

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

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.

ever thought about fixing that issue?

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

see Murdock v. commonwealth of PA


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.

Actually only the wealthy had horses, and the wealthiest had horse and buggy. Everyone has feet.

I have lived in Singapore, they also have good public transit systems.

Outside of the cities, I grew up in Los Angeles, and did need a car. A car improved my range which in turn improved my ability to make higher wages.

I did not need a car living in Northern New Jersey. I lived in Englewood and Hoboken. Neither required me to own or operate a vehicle. In fact when the state of NJ decided I needed to have an insurance surcharge of $1,000 I said, "Here is my driver's license. I don't need to pay you that money for the privelige of driving."

I also lived in Hicksville, Long Island. I also did not require a vehicle in order to get my groceries, doctor, get to work. I could easily walk to shopping centers and transport to the railroad to get to NYC.

Outside of the US, people I know who live in Iceland don't own cars and don't live in the major metropolitan areas. They walk to work in the ice, snow, and rain.

Walking is an option that many do not take.

No, i'm not. What i'm saying is that some people seem to have a problem seeing the difference between rights guaranteed by various constitutions and rights that are only rights in that they haven't been legislated away. In the former, the government isn't supposed to take them away, in the latter the government has every right to, and in fact is supposed to, take them away as it sees fit.

They are different things, and to treat them as though they are the same is disingenuous. Pretty much every law ever enacted has taken away rights, so to claim somehow that this method of taking away rights is unjust is to claim that every law is unjust, and while you might think that way, i would imagine you'd be in the minority there.

The right to drive isn't in the constitution, therefore the responsibility to deal with driving goes to the states and the fact that laws exist regulating the activity of driving means that driving is not a right. It's that simple. Until you can find some way to show that state governments aren't regulating the activity of driving your initial question is taken care of. Driving isn't a right. Boom. Pow. Tah-dah.

:confused: Does this not support my original assertation?

The California Driver's Handbook, back in the day when I was learning how to drive, is was very specific to state on the first page, first paragraph, that driving was a privilige and not a right.

You can see evidence of that throughout the handbook. No where does it say that anyone has the right to drive on the PUBLIC ROADS.

Now, private property, you can drive however you see fit. You can be underage, drive drunk, speed etc. on your own property.

I believe that's one of the reasons that Ted Turner owns a swath of land from the north border to the south border, he can drive as he sees fit from border to border. (Honestly he does it so he can ride his horses from border to border.)

But the MOST important part of that is WHERE in teh california constitution does it give the government the power to regulate that?

um, no. your original assertation was that it's a privilege and nothing to do with commerce. how is personal driving commerce to be regulated?

No where. Can you imagine if there was a list of every privilege in the Cal Constitution? It would be millions of pages long. The BOR secures our federal rights, and the states have declarations of rights. The California list is here:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/wa...ction=retrieve
That should clear it up.

since you asked, I looked it up:
From Article 19 of the California Constitution

This bit of yours: is bullshit, plain and simple.

As far as taking someone to to the hospital, ever heard of a thing called an ambulance? It's this wonderous contraption with all kinds of medicine and machines inside which can help to keep people alive whilst on the way to the hospital.

And as far as needing a car to get groceires, that's bullshit as well.

Plenty of people where I live walk to and from the two local grocery stores and they don't have any problems, and even more people use bicycles.

Your entire premise is flawed beyond recognition, but thanks for playing and giving me some laughs.

I like to think of driving as a right, but it really is probably more of a privledge. The question relies as much on a person's perception of what is a right or a privledge as it does on a person's perception of driving.

I suppose it boils down to whether you feel it is more important to facilitate more people being able to drive, or is it more important for driving to fit within the scheme of other priorities, such as safety, cost, or other aspects of life.

I'm not sure where I come down on it because it depends on the issue.

I don't support toll roads, car taxes, hefty administrative fees for licenses, registrations, etc. so that would make me a bit on the 'it's a right' side of things, but I do want to see greater driver education/performance demonstration requirements, as well as supporting environmental regulations on emissions, so that is more in the 'it's a privledge' camp.

Here is a test question... I'm interested to know what people think of this situation, and how it pertains to the right v. privilege discussion:

In Texas, if you are convicted of any of a number of violations, including DUI (the headliner for getting the law passed), but also driving without insurance or while suspended, in addition to any sentence or fine imposed by the court, additional surcharges are assessed annually for three years by the DPS (DMV in other states) on pain of license suspension. For example, the statute puts the maximum fine for driving while suspended at $1,000. After paying this sum, and satisfying whatever caused the original suspension, the driver will have to pay about $100 in reinstatement and relicensing costs to get their license back. Then they will have to pay $250/yr for three years or be suspended again. By the way, you can't just go without a license for three years to avoid this surcharge! Now if your license is suspended, its probable you don't have insurance either, so add another $1000 fine and another $250/yr.

The question is... if the statute states specifically that the maximum fine for a violation is $1,000, then forcing you to pay far in excess of that through administrative rules seems to me an end run around the statutory limit on punishment for a particular crime. If the $1,000 is deemd insufficient, then shouldn't the limit be raised, instead of an underhanded tactic like the surcharges?

Josh

Oh SNAP!

My original assetation was...
I think that...
...very much supports my point.

Well...let's see...I am carrying a CDL (Commercial Driver's License) which costs more than a conventional driver's license. This allows me to drive larger vehicles. And I carry a HazMat endorsement, which costs me even more money. This allows me to transport hazardous materials. Ask any truck driver how well his CDL is regulated.

I don't even think you need a specific mention in the State Constitution. The State Constitution relegates the power and authority to make laws to the legislature. You can bet your ass they made laws about driving. Those laws are enforceable and will stand until you can get to court and show that they (the laws or the enforcement) are unconstitutional.

Your inconsistency is exceeded only by your lack of logic. In the first place, you're inconsistent because earlier in this thread you railed against restricting privileges/rights just because someone fails to "conform to societal norms," and then you tell us to throw them in jail instead.

And you're illogical because throwing them in jail IS taking their driving ability away. Instead of imprisoning them right away, why not just take their driving ability away?



I don't think anyone's suggesting we should yank people's driver licenses just for fun. Only when they do something that makes them deserve having it yanked, like DWI.

The hell they were. Or did you forget about those little incidents of slavery and segregation?

That government would be voted out, most likely recalled, and the next government would want to reinstate them - -but they wouldn't be able to because the courts would already have reinstated them.

I still think it is funny that after all the disagreement on this thread, the poll speaks the loudest. only one person thinks it is a basic, fundamental right.

the way I see things now, nobody has any rights. everything should be considered either a privilege, or a restricted right that has to be government licensed before you may exercise it. everyone is too stupid and irresponsible to have rights anymore.

Don't be such a baby. The fact that you can complain about the government means you still have freedom of speech. The fact that you still probably have an armory worth of guns means that you still have the supposed right to bear arms. The fact that there are stories written about how Alberto Gonzales is a fucktard means we still have freedom of press. The word 'car' appears nowhere in the Bill of Rights. Just because you think something should be a right doesn't make it so. I would like to make the right not to live on the streets, ending homelessness, but that doesn't make it so.

If it is ok to take away someones right to vote (for being a felon, mentally disabled, not old enough, or in more recent years being black or homeless), a right that is specifically granted in the constitution, then shouldn't it be ago for the government to take away someones right to drive? Or are you against taking away voting privileges also?

Actually, I think felons, the homeless, and kids should be able to vote.

will, DK is consistently right about this - rights don't have to be enumerated in the Bill of Rights to be considered "rights".


DK, I guess I don't see what your point is. There is no right which is not regulated by the government in some way. And whether that regulation is "reasonable" is determined by law - made by legislators who are elected by the public, and subject to revision by later versions of those legislators.

Name a right that exists absolutely and without restriction.

Here is a border state to California that also has vehicles mentioned specifically in the state constitution.

State of Nevada Constitution

Oh, absolutely, that's why I linked the my state's rights, though now the link is dead.

Since both Texas and Illinois were questioned in the earlier part of the thread...

Constitution of Texas

State of Illinois Constitution has nothing pertaining to vehicles, revenues like TX, NV, or CA. I also looked up New York State Constitution and the don't have anything pertaining to vehicles as well in their constitution.

like habeus corpus isn't a right, because it isn't specifically called a right. freedom of the press only belongs to 'authorized journalists'. right to privacy only exists if you live in a safe room.

the idiotic ideas nowadays of what is and isn't a right would make the founders of this country throw up in disgust.

After all, the dead in chicago get to vote, why don't all the others?

Habeus Corpus, under US law, is a writ. Article 1, Section 9:
It's not a right, but it's constitutionally protected.

I've read the rest of the Constitution, but I still see nothing about driving. I am aware that freedom to travel within our borders is protected, but that does not translate to the mode of transportation. Again, driving is not a right. Just because you think it should be a right doesn't make it a right.
I agree. They probably wouldn't throw up at you saying driving is a right, but they might laugh a bit. Because there is no right to ride a horse in the Constitution, you can bet they didn't intend a right to drive.

ALL rights are supposed to be absolute and without restriction.
'congress shall make no law'
'shall not be infringed'
'no soldier shall'
'shall not be violated'-'no warrant shall issue'
'no person shall be held to answer'-'nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy'
'the accused shall enjoy'
'the right of trial by jury shall be preserved'
'excessive bail shall not be required'
'shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people'


In the first 9 amendments they are extremely specific that these rights are absolute and SHALL NOT be restricted EXCEPT for VERY SPECIFIC criteria that the government MUST show exist.
the 10th amendment is VERY SPECIFIC that only those powers specifically enumerated to the federal government are all that they have and that all else resides to the states or the people.

The very fact that we accept that rights can be regulated by the government has already turned them in to privileges. There is only so much we can say or so much we can print. There are very few things anymore that we can be redressed from grievances caused by the government. There are certain weapons we cannot possess and only certain people can possess them. There are only a few things that are private anymore and limits on the expectations of those privacies. We can only possess property so long as a majority of our fellows in our community don't decide that they can increase the tax base of the city by seizing it and turning it over to private developers. We can be put in detention centers simply be being declared a national security threat, even though we've committed no crime. We can be denied a trial for years, denied right to counsel, and not be allowed to examine evidence or question witnesses against us in 'highly classified' instances. We can be levied tens of thousands of dollars in fines and penalties without a trial and be denied the use of proper defenses at trial because of the simple term 'stare decisis'. We can be held for millions of dollars of bail and worst of all, we can be told that this or that isn't a right because it isn't specifically designated a right even though the 9th amendment clearly states even though a right isn't mentioned as a right, it shall not be construed that the right does not exist.

We've allowed this tyrannical crap to exist because some people think that because they feel something is dangerous, that it should be taxed, regulated, and licensed....sometimes out of existence.

I repeat, the founding fathers would be thoroughly disgusted with what their bold idea has become.

do you really think that because there is no right specifically written in to the constitution that you can ride a horse, that they didn't believe you had the right to ride a horse? They would laugh at you for merely suggesting that they didn't.

That's not how it works. You, dksuddeth, don't get to decide for the rest of us what the fundamental rights are. Nowhere in US law is the right to drive ever called a right. Never. Yes, the 9th can be used to protect right not enumerated, but this isn't going to be one of them. There is no legal or moral entitlement to get in a chevy.

But YOU get to decide that I don't have a right to keep and bear arms? double standard much?
and again, [B]I[/] didn't decide what rights you have. The framers gave you ALL of your rights, not just the ones that are considered 'safe'.

again, YOU get to decide that it's not? There isn't a legal or moral entitlement to have a house to live in either, yet YOU want to make one!?!?

What you're really trying to say, will, is that YOU know whats best for everyone and the right to drive isn't one of them. Am I right?

Everything I have looked at for Georgia clearly states driving in this state is a privilege and that driving privilege's may be suspended.

these are in many places, this is just one link I read it on

http://www.ga-drunkdrivinglawyer.com...suspension.htm

Thomas Jefferson set up most of this infrastructure. As a private man he somehow didn't find it odd to list all your stuff and bring it to the "officals in charge." Apparently if your father died, and your older brother was a dick, you didn't have a right to walk off with the horse or cattle.

what you've cited is state law, if i'm not mistaken, but by what constitutional authority do they have to restrict who can drive and who can't?

starting right here...

State of Georgia Constitution

I thought we already went over how this was a state thing and not a federal.....am I confused?

cyn, the only thing I see in that clause is that the state can tax a vehicle because it's property. Am I missing something?

I should have been more specific, what part of the STATE constitution gives the state gov that authority?

The Constitution says nothing about me not being able to rape goats; therefore raping goats is my god-given right.

:shakehead:
do you REALLY want to use THAT as your basis of argument?

It's the counter-ridiculous to the ridiculous argument you're making.

"Oh my god so now the government can legislate away any right I have, just like they can with my right to drive!?!?!?"

Okay, so first: pot calling the kettle a strawman.

Second: that only holds if driving is a priori a right and not a privilege. Which everyone but you agrees it's not.

The constitution (as well as other formative documents) establish certain rights that cannot be legislated away, and other things are up to the states. Note that the framers DID intend the Constitution to be interpreted consistent with the times, via the amendment process. It really doesn't matter what they intended as a right or what they intended as a privilege. They bequeathed us a living document, intended to be wisely modified as time passed. Going back to framer's intent is one of the main fallacies of the Libertarian point of view. The framers intended us to think about how WE want our nation to work, not to think about how THEY wanted our nation to work.

Dk, EVERY state constitution has a provision allowing the legislature to pass laws for the public good and to protect the people.

Let's leave the Federal Constitution out of it because it is absolutely irrelevant since it cedes the right of local law to the states AND the federal government doesn't restrict driving anyway.

State legislatures have a duty to protect the citizens from harm. Please show me where in a state constitution building codes are specifically mentioned. I use this example because even libertarians can't object to those since they present no threat to the individual. The same theory that allows those codes also allows for the proper licensing of drivers. If you want to allow 7 year olds, the intoxicated, Alzheimers sufferers or those habitual violators of the rules of the road behind the wheel, then I never want to visit.

Yes you are missing the rest of the OTHER constitutions that within the constitution that they spell out specifically what the taxes are to be spent on and how.

Again why I stated it STARTS there. From there it is simply asking the questions, where does that money go? How does it get spent? What does it get spent on? There are laws I'm sure that outline and detail this information.

So far, I've shown you MANY states that enumerate these rights within their constitution, yet, again, you choose to ignore those and fight along lines where they don't exist.

You have yet once stopped to say, "Oh, you know what, they have stated it in their constitution, my bad."

If it were just me, that'd be hypocritical. I'm arguing this because there is absolutely no legal precedence for driving to be a right, and the law makes it pretty clear that it's not a right. That's what you're arguing against. You're arguing against judges. You're arguing against laws. Not only that' but you're arguing against the vast majority of people, not just on TFP but in general. Besides 16 year olds, I doubt you'll find many people who think driving should be a right. You're all alone on this one. And, as you said, I don't get to decide. Neither do you.

As for the double standard: I'm arguing against things that aren't rights. That's consistency. :thumbsup: Either way, I'm doing everything I can to 1) keep people reasonably safe by ensuring that there is less danger (think Virginia Tech for gun control, and Paris Hilton for DUI) and 2) do my best to interpret the law.
Nope, I'm echoing everyone else. You're sitting alone saying that you know what's best for everyone. I'm sitting with everyone and agreeing that we're deciding what's best for everyone. That makes my stand democratic, and yours anarchist.


Also, I hope you see the irony in your presuming we've taken opposite arguments between this and gun control. If, by your deduction, I am being hypocritical by switching arguments with you, then you also are being hypocritical. Ironic.

Wow, that is a great way to put it.

Ummmmm...yeah...probably.

But not about this. ;)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/10...sp_rofl0ne.gif Stop it! Stop it! Yer killin' me!

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.

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

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?

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

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?

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.

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"?

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.

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?

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?

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?

Maybe it's time to cool down, here.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?