Your Right to Drive
in [Drive]
|
From: Larry on 4 Mar 2007 00:50 In article <Vf2dnTqUQMUey3fYnZ2dnUVZ_revnZ2d(a)comcast.com>, "Chas" <chasclements(a)comcast.net> wrote: > <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. One need not participate in any of these things, by not getting a driver's license. I think that every state offers a non-driver's ID card that is just as valid for ID purposes as a driver's license.
From: Larry on 4 Mar 2007 00:54 In article <W_Odnawz_vpZxXfYnZ2dnUVZ_oytnZ2d(a)comcast.com>, "Chas" <chasclements(a)comcast.net> wrote: > "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. Yeah, you're right. I'm gonna head to the airport and fly a Boeing 747. Heck, I don't know how.... but there's such a slim chance I crash into *your* house, right? > And why not just one license- prove you're capable of operating the vehicle, > that's it? There is just one license to operate motor vehicles. Other licenses are required to undertake other acts, however. > The simple test of driving skills has morphed into a police-state tool for > intruding into one's life and liberties. So don't get a driver's license. No one is forcing you to. Many people don't have one. Virtually every state, if not every state, offers a non-driver's ID card that is just as valid for identification purposes. > 'Yo'r paperz pleez' Don't drive, and you don't have to worry about abiding by the rules of the road. Problem solved!
From: k_flynn on 4 Mar 2007 00:57 On Mar 3, 10:27 pm, "Chas" <chascleme...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > "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' That's a wee bit off the deep end, eh? Larry is correct. The right to freely travel doesn't necessarily mean one has the right to pilot a two-ton machine on the public ways.
From: Larry on 4 Mar 2007 01:00 In article <1172987829.151805.153470(a)h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, "k_flynn(a)lycos.com" <k_flynn(a)lycos.com> wrote: > On Mar 3, 10:27 pm, "Chas" <chascleme...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > "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' > > That's a wee bit off the deep end, eh? > > Larry is correct. The right to freely travel doesn't necessarily mean > one has the right to pilot a two-ton machine on the public ways. Isn't the "everyone does it" argument a hoot? I mean, that's like saying if everyone in the country bought a Segway, there would thus be created a "right" to use one. Or if private jets were more affordable, then all of a sudden pilot licensing would become unlawful.
From: k_flynn on 4 Mar 2007 01:20
On Mar 3, 10:17 pm, "Chas" <chascleme...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > <k_fl...(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 state does not regulate free travel. No right is converted into any privilege. Everyone who can drive safely will get a license. There is no fiat to it. The state doesn't say to you "We don't like your haircut so you don't get a license." Demonstate a minimal level of competency to pilot this two-ton machine in traffic with others, and you will get your license. It's up to you. Even if you fail, your right to travel isn't regulated. You can get on a bus, go with a friend, take a train, walk, bike, whatever. > 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. Oh, wah. Nope. You have it backward. Since the early days of the last century, the license and registration requirements gradually came into place for reasons related to driving. That late in the century it became handy to use it for other purposes is incidental. > > 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'. Wow, that's a big f'ing difference. So still, do you have the cite? Where does the Law make this declaration you say it makes, that driving is a "privilege?" > > 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'. No, it isn't. Really, regulating driving is not the definition of privilege. > > Privilege implies the state may deny a qualified applicant > > the license because, say, it doesn't like his name or his hair color 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. No, they do not. OK, you think so, cite me any state's MV code that grants the power to DMV to deny a license to a qualified applicant because they do not like his name or hair color or for any willy nilly reason. I can't wait for this. > They certainly will withdraw your privilege to drive, regardless of your > ability, if you default on certain civil judgments like child-support. Irrelevant to the issue. > 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. It has to do with your ability to make me whole should you collide with me in your two-ton vehicle. > >> > 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. None of that either clarifies your point or refutes mine. > > 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. Wrong. That doesn't restrict your freedom. > > 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. You'd better be financially able to handle the issues that stem from driving. If you aren't prepared for that, again, don't drive. > > 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. That's been demonstrated amply over the last century. Now, where's the citation to anything in the body of law that "declares" that driving is a privilege? From where things stand now, it just sounds like your politically based opinion more than anything based on actually what the body of law says. > Driving is a de facto 'privilege', extended or withdrawn at the whim of the > State, unlike a 'Right'. Completely and totally untrue, as I demonstrated. No whim involved. You qualify, you get it. |