Click it or ticket

townhall ^ | 5/24/06 | Walter WIlliams

[Protagoras]

You do not have the right to drive, it is a privilege, and to keep that privilege there are rules to follow.

"Sucking up and actually believing the government BS" award of the day.

[chrispycsuf]

were there horses instead of engines?

[JoeSixPack1]

The most basic law?? Are you insane or just been locked up for a few years?

[Atlas Sneezed]

You absolutely do have the right to drive.

So even if you are blind? Fail a driver's exam?

---

Nice diversion, but it is understood that the right is for those who are demonstrably capable of exercising it. If someone can get adequate private insurance without having taken a driving exam, I am fine with that. Exams and certification should be in the hands of insurance companies, not the government.

The only government restriction I see needed for the right to drive is to prominently post proof of prepaid liability insurance of an amount adequate to compensate others (not the BS minimums that most states have), maybe $250k, or maybe $1m.

[from occupied ga]

ads boldly, specifically and emphatically stated that if Florida voters approved this new law, no one would ever be "stopped" for non-use of seat belts.

yes - same lie told here - was made from secondary to primary law in two years.

[BluH2o]

Where mandated seat belt wear is concerned it's my observation (as someone who goes back before seat belts) that incrementalism rules. When seat belts first came about it was recommended that you wear them when operating a vehicle. Time went by and some states began mandating that you wear them ... to the extent that if stopped for some other reason (speeding for instance) and not wearing your seat belt an additional fine (add on) could be levied. This quickly spread to most other states. Recently laws have been passed that not wearing a seat belt is a stand alone offense ... if observed not wearing one while operating a vehicle you can be pulled over and cited. The nanny state prevails ...

[elkfersupper]

So even if you are blind? Fail a driver's exam?

Of course.

It's probably inadvisable if you're blind, though.

Driving is a Right - Not a Privilege

[RobRoy]

>>That's a good pro-drug-use argument. <<

No, it's a good drug legalization argument. And even then, only if it does not harm others for whom you are not responsible. You know, like they do with drunk driving laws.

And I am completely for drug legalization, even though I think drug use is incredibly stupid.

But you see, in a FREE society, that is not my call to make. Nor is it yours.

[Sir Gawain]

so is it alright to smoke medical marijuana, crack cocaine, crystal meth...it doesnt harm others if i do it in my home

Now you're starting to get it. Too bad a freedom endorsing thought like that will scare you and you will back away from it.

[JoeSixPack1]

Bait and switch is alive and well.

[chrispycsuf]

i hope "uncommon sense" was meant as sarcasm because i have read "commom sense" as well as mill's "on liberty" as well as works by plato, aristotle and others...even marx...its good to look at other government ideas and draw from that....and not just yell about socialism bringing down the man

[Protagoras]

Let's compare the societal costs imposed by seatbeltless driving, and, say...illegal immigration,

Why?

"Societal costs" are not the yardstick by which a free people decide if rights are to be suspended.

[from occupied ga]

That's a good pro-drug-use argument

As long as you don't tie socialized medicine to it it is. Take your drugs, but if you OD and can't pay for the emergency care then please don't die where your corpse will smell up anything.

[conservative physics]

Nothing about the government makes me madder on a daily basis than seat belt laws.

[RunningWolf]

Way back in 1985 they were having one of these campaigns out in California (now I wear the belt, I just don't always 'get it clicked immediately).

So I come around this turn to enter Rt 280 going north at the Crystal Springs Rd entry, and there is highway patrol sitting there facing me in the median. As soon as I pass by him but before he can see movement in my mirror, I reach over with smooth motion and engage shoulder harness. Now I look in the rear view mirror, and the cop has his car light up like Dale Earnhardt doing a triple-donut burnout coming out after me, he gets up to 100 mph coming up on me. The cop comes right up on me then he shoots forward, then on each side etc, he is all over the place around me, but I am playing fat dumb and stupid going along.

The guy stayed on me all the way to Daly City. He let the macho ego take over and what he did was far more reckless than my neglect to engage that harness ever was. If it was not a cop I would have though he was trying to run me off the road, maybe he was.

Wolf

[unixfox]

Nail meet head.

You can apply the same thing to smoking laws, gun laws, private property laws, et al.

The frog is boiling.

[gcruse]

"Each of us owns himself,"

What a radical notion. It'd never fly around here, though.

[Glenn]

You do not have the right to drive, it is a privilege, and to keep that privilege there are rules to follow.

I see the indoctrination really took with you. Congratulations, comrade.

[from occupied ga]

I've noticed that as well. It is curious.

They come out of the woodwork on topics like this. I think they spend the rest of their time gushing at the day in the life of GWB thread.

[RobRoy]

"thats complete stupidity"

Why? And most of the cars I logged the miles in didn't even have seat belts (I'm old).

>>If this argument were held true, then assisted suicide should be allowed, but i think only oregon is stupid enough to allow that.<<

This is twice now you have used analogies of things that ALWAYS end in death - one evem intentional - to make your point about a thing that virtually NEVER ends in death. You need to leave analogies to the pros. ;)