Posted on 08/18/2013 6:19:11 AM PDT by Deadeye Division
BFL
He does get one part entirely wrong: licensing of the 2nd A effectively DOES makes it a privilege.
He’s exactly correct here. It became a privilege with the advent of 30-40’s cars? IIRC, they originally were little more than ID cards, no testing involved. Even today the license does NOTHING to showcase the skills needed when on the road (15min ‘test’ in the DMV parking lot...WHOOPEE!)
But, as usual, give gov’t one inch and it soon creates the leviathan itself; with the Citizens losing sight of what was once lost....the Right of free travel upon roads bought/paid by the public.
I’m not sure what this guy is arguing about. Sure, in the broadest sense of the term related to the constitution, everybody has a “right” to travel/drive. But all “rights” have restrictions. If he is saying there should be no restrictions established by the state however the quality of the driver, then he is incorrect. Just as you are not allowed to shout “fire” in a crowded area when there is no fire, you are not automatically allowed to drive if you’ve proven to be a menace.
Can you ride a horse after getting a DUI on a horse?
Ask the new castratti.
We have the right to free speech but when we choose to use the public airways and broadcast that speech the FCC gets involved. A case could be made for no such restrictions but then it would be easy to deny your speech by using the same frequency and jamming your message. Persistent drunks do not have the right to endanger the rest if us on the roads. If you accept that premise the rest of the government role gets at least a basis for debate.
I fall on the rights side of the debate. More from praccticalities sake than anything. I saw something very interesting last year that was instructive: a pickup driver in MO who had a tag indicating a refusal to register the vehicle. Driving along the freeway just like the rest of us. It reminded me of us. Sure. The police could stop him, but to what end? He was driving under the speed limit, scrupulously observing traffic laws, and generally going about his business.
What a lot of laws fundamentally boil down to is..whaddaya gonna do to enforce them? So let’s say the police pull this guy over. He refuses to provide ID, and indeed refuses to even speak to police. So they arrest him. He goes to jail. And then promptly goes on hunger strike. Thus raising the ante. In most jurisdictions, he’s going to go free. The county isn’t going to hold someone and force feed them over a low level misdameanor.
The article simply points out that driving is a right, not a privilege.
Nowhere in the article does the author say that this right can not be restricted or regulated.
In fact, he clearly states that it can be.
But, as the author points out,
placing restrictions on a right does not change that right into a privilege.
Placing restrictions or regulations on the clearly enumerated rights of free speech,
a free press, freedom of religion, or the right to keep and bear arms,
does not change any of those things from a right into a privilege.
Any thing else that you read into the article comes from your imagination.
The state has no vested interest in denying the privilege to those who had not warranted such prohibition. To single out a group of law-abiding, tax-paying citizens and arbitrarily deny them the ability to engage in commerce which generates tax revenue is a benefit to the state in what way?
A person who gets drunk and talks crazy does not lose his right to speak his mind because he is not a threat to public safety. Put that person behind the wheel and he becomes exactly that. That is why driving is a privilege to be revoked when it is used in an irresponsible manner.
Sadly, when I actually DO miss the point, I just have to admit it. Don’t like to, but admit it.
In reality, I’ve heard people who have lost their driving license proclaim that they have a “RIGHT” to drive, and they do, no license notwithstanding.
My erroneous reaction was caused by having read way too often of a driver being charged with his 5th or 7th drunk driving offense. Still walking around and on the road.
I think the states come into the equation at some point.
I have said this myself. Driving is a right. Unless someone proves that they are not capable of driving responsibly; it is a right.
Government exists only as a privilege that we the citizens grant to them.
I agree with much of what you have written here. Here you reveal your thinking is upside down.
It is a right that can be abridged for cause.
It is never a privilege.
Think of all the things you do, that the state or federal government enters into it.
Is working a privilege?
Is owning your home a privilege?
Is owning a car a privilege?
If driving is a privilege, then just about your entire existence is a privilege, graced to you by the state.
You don't believe that. Neither do I.
All this talk about rights reminds me of the Priest’s confronting a topless woman in the church. She said, “I have a divine right”. He said “you have a divine left too, but you will have to cover them both”.
It is a right to drive. If you drive my car, I am giving you the privilege to do so.
All this talk about rights reminds me of the Priest’s confronting a topless woman in the church. She said, “I have a divine right”. He said “you have a divine left too, but you will have to cover them both”.
It is a right to drive. If you drive my car, I am giving you the privilege to do so.
sfl
Bingo.
Commercial transportation is "driving."
Private transportation is "travelling."
You don't need a "travelling" license.
Wow, someone else gets it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.