Your Right to Drive
in [Drive]
|
From: Chas on 4 Mar 2007 00:17 <k_flynn(a)lycos.com> wrote >....You said the "law" declares driving to be a "privilege." I > have not ever seen any law that made such a declaration and asked you > to refer me to the law where you might have seen this. - you know, the > evidence that might mean you made a true statement. In return you > refer me to a dictionary. Do you see how obtuse your answer is? the conversion from right to 'privilege' is in finding a compelling State's Interest in regulating free travel and instituting requirements in order to exercise it. The intrusion has been used to institute a de facto adult i.d. card, compel compliance to civil orders, justify search and seizure, compel insurance from a private, for profit, purveyor- and a host of other infringements. > No, it doesn't "imply" anything, and the only dishonesty here is your > fumbling around the clear and plain request for a cite to this law you > have claimed exists. No, I said the 'Law', not the 'law'. > Neither. You misunderstand privilege. If the state issues licendses > based on the applicant's demonstrated qualification, then it is not a > privilege. Yes it is- regulating it is the very definition of 'privilege'. > Privilege implies the state may deny a qualified apoplicant > the license because, say, it doesn't like his name or his hair olor or > for some willy nilly reason like the clerk just doesn't feel like it. And they have just such a power, should they care to exercise it. They certainly will withdraw your privilege to drive, regardless of your ability, if you default on certain civil judgments like child-support. Nothing to do with your road-worthiness. They will withdraw your privilege to drive if you don't carry insurance, from a private profit-taking corporate enterprise- nothing to do with your ability to drive. >> > Hardly. To lean on the only authorities who are charged with making >> > the "decisises" is hardly a selective process. Due process has been >> > applied in this issue and it is very consistent over the decades. >> Neither of those statements is true- and 'consistency' isn't necessarily >> a >> virtue. > Both statements are true. You've offered nothing to clear up why you > think they're not. Courts are charged with the task of making these > decisions. Relying on them is in fact the only way to proceed. The primary methodology for change, in this case a return to our contractual freedoms, by agitating for change through legislation- or bringing a compelling case before an appropriate court. Both methodologies bypass any previous court decisions, often to right a wrong sanctioned by the Law as 'justifiable'. 'Civil Rights' offers multiple examples. > Society hasn't restricted the freedom of any others by requiring > licensing. Sure it has- and it's particularly evident in the demand for current updates, or a 'fixed' address. > It may restrict the freedom of licensed drivers to drive > when they violate the rules we've established for safety and general > welfare. Moreso the financial requirements for insurance coverage, and the waiving of due process rights whilst exercising the privilege of driving- things like that. > Please let me know this time whether you really meant that there is a > law that declares driving to be a privilege, or whether you were > merely being rhetorical, so that you don't have to continue avoiding > the question and refer me instead to a dictionary that doesn't address > it. Yet a third reason- I referred to the Law as the operative body, not quoting a particular statute. And you, I believe, cited the need for a compelling State's interest- the basic demonstration needed for the State to intrude at all. Driving is a de facto 'privilege', extended or withdrawn at the whim of the State, unlike a 'Right'. Chas
From: Chas on 4 Mar 2007 00:19 <k_flynn(a)lycos.com> wrote >> That would be the 'compelling State's interest' in authorizing something >> otherwise unConstitutional, neh? > Not at all. The mechanism for doing so actually is *in* the > Constitution. Yes; for dealing with actions the State wants to take that would, otherwise, be outside their authority granted under the Constitution- hence, unConstitutional. Chas
From: Larry on 4 Mar 2007 00:20 In article <1172985378.064144.319480(a)i80g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, "Bob Gorski" <ericdbryant(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Mar 3, 9:57 pm, Larry <x...(a)y.com> wrote: > > This is a complete non-sequitur. You have the right to walk on public > > rights of way, and generally, the right to travel. That does not > > translate into a right to operate a multi-ton machine. > > How about the right to create sock puppets? =) It sure does make a compelling argument to allow anyone to drive, but to require a license to get online!
From: Scott M. Kozel on 4 Mar 2007 00:24 "Bob Gorski" <ericdbryant(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > Larry <x...(a)y.com> wrote: > > > This is a complete non-sequitur. You have the right to walk on public > > rights of way, and generally, the right to travel. That does not > > translate into a right to operate a multi-ton machine. > > How about the right to create sock puppets? =) Proffsl excercises that "right" on a regular basis.
From: Chas on 4 Mar 2007 00:27
"Larry" <x(a)y.com> wrote >.....You have the right to walk on public > rights of way, and generally, the right to travel. That does not > translate into a right to operate a multi-ton machine. Always has in the past- you could operate anything you could get moving; wagons, carriages, ships of all sorts. And why not just one license- prove you're capable of operating the vehicle, that's it? The simple test of driving skills has morphed into a police-state tool for intruding into one's life and liberties. 'Yo'r paperz pleez' Chas |