Your Right to Drive
in [Drive]
|
From: Alan Baker on 6 Mar 2007 17:58 In article <1173217046.544307.212450(a)p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>, k_flynn(a)lycos.com wrote: > Alan Baker wrote: > > In article <x-6E37ED.14230504032007(a)news.west.earthlink.net>, > > Larry <x(a)y.com> wrote: > > > > > In article <-8CdnVv5L5Jad3fYnZ2dnUVZ_oytnZ2d(a)comcast.com>, > > > "Chas" <chasclements(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > > > "Larry" <x(a)y.com> wrote > > > > > One need not participate in any of these things, by not getting a > > > > > driver's license. > > > > > > > > Yes; you don't have to exercise the privilege- and you can't exercise > > > > your > > > > Right without waiving your due process rights. > > > > Good point. > > > > > > Do you think you sound like you're making a valid point by using terms > > > like "due process" out of context? > > > > > > Someone does not need to exercise his privilege to drive. Yet the > > > person still has the right to travel, with or without a driver's > > > license. There is no due process involved, nor a waiver of due process > > > rights. > > > > Assume that driving is a privilege... > > Getting a DL is not a government granted privilege in the sense people > here have been using it. It's a due process in which qualified > applicants get the license. The state doesn't arbitarily say "Alan can > have a license because we like his haircut, but Proffy cannot because > he's s doper." Except that, if it's a privilege, they can arbitrarily decide not to grant it to *anyone*. Moving on... > > > ... and explain how one can exercise > > one's right to travel without depending on the state for the grant of > > that privelege... > > > > We're waiting... > > Walk, bike, Okay. Next... > taxi, bus, plane, ridealong with your mom.... All require the government to have granted this "privilege" and thus they can disappear whenever the government wants, so all those are out. > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > Yes; another option for an adult i.d. card- > > > > 'yo'r paperz pleez' > > > > > > Someone doesn't have to obtain a non-driver's ID card any more than you > > > need a driver's license. But its foolish to think that you will be > > > granted access to do what you want and go where you please without > > > identifying yourself to appropriate personnel (public AND private) from > > > time to time. > > > > It used to be that you could go where you wanted without the need to > > carry *any* ID. You had that right. > > And all of these subsequent uses -- or abuses -- of DLs speaks nothing > to the issue of whether driver licensing is/should be utilized for its > primary purpose. Strip all of those "papers please" ancillary uses > away from the DL, it still remains as a license to drive a vehicle. But I have the *right* to travel. Liberty isn't much without the right to move around, now is it? -- "The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" -- "I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone and how he missed the demo of the iPhone speakerphone.
From: k_flynn on 6 Mar 2007 18:25 Alan Baker wrote: > In article <1173217046.544307.212450(a)p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>, > k_flynn(a)lycos.com wrote: > > > Alan Baker wrote: > > > In article <x-6E37ED.14230504032007(a)news.west.earthlink.net>, > > > Larry <x(a)y.com> wrote: > > > > > > > In article <-8CdnVv5L5Jad3fYnZ2dnUVZ_oytnZ2d(a)comcast.com>, > > > > "Chas" <chasclements(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > "Larry" <x(a)y.com> wrote > > > > > > One need not participate in any of these things, by not getting a > > > > > > driver's license. > > > > > > > > > > Yes; you don't have to exercise the privilege- and you can't exercise > > > > > your > > > > > Right without waiving your due process rights. > > > > > Good point. > > > > > > > > Do you think you sound like you're making a valid point by using terms > > > > like "due process" out of context? > > > > > > > > Someone does not need to exercise his privilege to drive. Yet the > > > > person still has the right to travel, with or without a driver's > > > > license. There is no due process involved, nor a waiver of due process > > > > rights. > > > > > > Assume that driving is a privilege... > > > > Getting a DL is not a government granted privilege in the sense people > > here have been using it. It's a due process in which qualified > > applicants get the license. The state doesn't arbitrarily say "Alan can > > have a license because we like his haircut, but Proffy cannot because > > he's s doper." > > Except that, if it's a privilege, they can arbitrarily decide not to > grant it to *anyone*. No, they can't. That's precisely the point. It is not an arbitrary process at all. In fact, it's almost too easy. "They" can't just decide not to grant DLs. > > > > > ... and explain how one can exercise > > > one's right to travel without depending on the state for the grant of > > > that privelege... > > > > > > We're waiting... > > > > Walk, bike, > > > Okay. Next... > > > taxi, bus, plane, ridealong with your mom.... > > All require the government to have granted this "privilege" and thus > they can disappear whenever the government wants, so all those are out. No, they cannot just disappear at the whim of "they." First of all, taxi, bus and plane are commercial enterprises which are duly regulated separately. But for the greater part, these are not granted or withheld by any arbitrary process either, but are result of proper due process which carries no arbitrariness. Second, your mom's DL is not given to her as a privilege by the state either. She gets it by passing a standard test that ensures a minimal level of knowledge and skill. IOW, it's up to her, not the state. She passes, she gets it even if the DMV clerk doesn't like her hair color. > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > Yes; another option for an adult i.d. card- > > > > > 'yo'r paperz pleez' > > > > > > > > Someone doesn't have to obtain a non-driver's ID card any more than you > > > > need a driver's license. But its foolish to think that you will be > > > > granted access to do what you want and go where you please without > > > > identifying yourself to appropriate personnel (public AND private) from > > > > time to time. > > > > > > It used to be that you could go where you wanted without the need to > > > carry *any* ID. You had that right. > > > > And all of these subsequent uses -- or abuses -- of DLs speaks nothing > > to the issue of whether driver licensing is/should be utilized for its > > primary purpose. Strip all of those "papers please" ancillary uses > > away from the DL, it still remains as a license to drive a vehicle. > > But I have the *right* to travel. Liberty isn't much without the right > to move around, now is it? Of course, and again, none of this has anything to do with whether DLs are constitutional. You're talking about ancillary unrelated abuses to the fact of *having* a DL. Again, do away with all those abuses like revoking for nonpayment of child support, for instance, and you still have a justifiable system of licensing and registration.
From: Alan Baker on 6 Mar 2007 19:36 In article <1173223550.991140.103700(a)q40g2000cwq.googlegroups.com>, k_flynn(a)lycos.com wrote: > Alan Baker wrote: > > In article <1173217046.544307.212450(a)p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>, > > k_flynn(a)lycos.com wrote: > > > > > Alan Baker wrote: > > > > In article <x-6E37ED.14230504032007(a)news.west.earthlink.net>, > > > > Larry <x(a)y.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > In article <-8CdnVv5L5Jad3fYnZ2dnUVZ_oytnZ2d(a)comcast.com>, > > > > > "Chas" <chasclements(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > "Larry" <x(a)y.com> wrote > > > > > > > One need not participate in any of these things, by not getting a > > > > > > > driver's license. > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes; you don't have to exercise the privilege- and you can't > > > > > > exercise > > > > > > your > > > > > > Right without waiving your due process rights. > > > > > > Good point. > > > > > > > > > > Do you think you sound like you're making a valid point by using > > > > > terms > > > > > like "due process" out of context? > > > > > > > > > > Someone does not need to exercise his privilege to drive. Yet the > > > > > person still has the right to travel, with or without a driver's > > > > > license. There is no due process involved, nor a waiver of due > > > > > process > > > > > rights. > > > > > > > > Assume that driving is a privilege... > > > > > > Getting a DL is not a government granted privilege in the sense people > > > here have been using it. It's a due process in which qualified > > > applicants get the license. The state doesn't arbitrarily say "Alan can > > > have a license because we like his haircut, but Proffy cannot because > > > he's s doper." > > > > Except that, if it's a privilege, they can arbitrarily decide not to > > grant it to *anyone*. > > No, they can't. That's precisely the point. It is not an arbitrary > process at all. In fact, it's almost too easy. "They" can't just > decide not to grant DLs. Yes, they can. With the wave of a legislator's pen. That's what "privilege" means. > > > > > > > > ... and explain how one can exercise > > > > one's right to travel without depending on the state for the grant of > > > > that privelege... > > > > > > > > We're waiting... > > > > > > Walk, bike, > > > > > > Okay. Next... > > > > > taxi, bus, plane, ridealong with your mom.... > > > > All require the government to have granted this "privilege" and thus > > they can disappear whenever the government wants, so all those are out. > > No, they cannot just disappear at the whim of "they." First of all, > taxi, bus and plane are commercial enterprises which are duly > regulated separately. But for the greater part, these are not granted > or withheld by any arbitrary process either, but are result of proper > due process which carries no arbitrariness. So by your logic, the government should be allowed to pass a law requiring you to have a license to have... ....a printing press. > > Second, your mom's DL is not given to her as a privilege by the state > either. She gets it by passing a standard test that ensures a minimal > level of knowledge and skill. IOW, it's up to her, not the state. She > passes, she gets it even if the DMV clerk doesn't like her hair color. Until they decide that citizens should be licensed *at all*. Until they make you give up other rights (such as the right against being arbitrarily stopped while going about your busines) by claiming that you have to waive those rights when you agree to 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes; another option for an adult i.d. card- > > > > > > 'yo'r paperz pleez' > > > > > > > > > > Someone doesn't have to obtain a non-driver's ID card any more than > > > > > you > > > > > need a driver's license. But its foolish to think that you will be > > > > > granted access to do what you want and go where you please without > > > > > identifying yourself to appropriate personnel (public AND private) > > > > > from > > > > > time to time. > > > > > > > > It used to be that you could go where you wanted without the need to > > > > carry *any* ID. You had that right. > > > > > > And all of these subsequent uses -- or abuses -- of DLs speaks nothing > > > to the issue of whether driver licensing is/should be utilized for its > > > primary purpose. Strip all of those "papers please" ancillary uses > > > away from the DL, it still remains as a license to drive a vehicle. > > > > But I have the *right* to travel. Liberty isn't much without the right > > to move around, now is it? > > Of course, and again, none of this has anything to do with whether DLs > are constitutional. You're talking about ancillary unrelated abuses to > the fact of *having* a DL. Again, do away with all those abuses like > revoking for nonpayment of child support, for instance, and you still > have a justifiable system of licensing and registration. No. The system *itself* infringes on my rights. -- "The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" -- "I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone and how he missed the demo of the iPhone speakerphone.
From: Arif Khokar on 6 Mar 2007 20:48 k_flynn(a)lycos.com wrote: > Alan Baker wrote: >> All require the government to have granted this "privilege" and thus >> they can disappear whenever the government wants, so all those are out. > No, they cannot just disappear at the whim of "they." First of all, > taxi, bus and plane are commercial enterprises which are duly > regulated separately. But for the greater part, these are not granted > or withheld by any arbitrary process either, but are result of proper > due process which carries no arbitrariness. The "no fly" list is completely arbitrary. It's conceivable that the government can institute a "no ride" list for buses, trains, ferries, and possibly taxis. IIRC, there was a ruling by the California supreme court that allowed police to search passengers in stopped vehicles, but I'm unable to find the post that mentioned it.
From: Larry on 6 Mar 2007 21:35
In article <alangbaker-C99B2B.13075006032007(a)news.telus.net>, Alan Baker <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote: > In article <x-6E37ED.14230504032007(a)news.west.earthlink.net>, > Larry <x(a)y.com> wrote: > > > In article <-8CdnVv5L5Jad3fYnZ2dnUVZ_oytnZ2d(a)comcast.com>, > > "Chas" <chasclements(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > "Larry" <x(a)y.com> wrote > > > > One need not participate in any of these things, by not getting a > > > > driver's license. > > > > > > Yes; you don't have to exercise the privilege- and you can't exercise > > > your > > > Right without waiving your due process rights. > > > Good point. > > > > Do you think you sound like you're making a valid point by using terms > > like "due process" out of context? > > > > Someone does not need to exercise his privilege to drive. Yet the > > person still has the right to travel, with or without a driver's > > license. There is no due process involved, nor a waiver of due process > > rights. > > Assume that driving is a privilege and explain how one can exercise > one's right to travel without depending on the state for the grant of > that privelege... > > We're waiting... You don't have to wait for long. There are plenty of ways to travel without driving: biking, walking, taking a bus, taking a train, being a passenger in a car, and flying, just to name a few. > > > > 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. > > > > > > Yes; another option for an adult i.d. card- > > > 'yo'r paperz pleez' > > > > Someone doesn't have to obtain a non-driver's ID card any more than you > > need a driver's license. But its foolish to think that you will be > > granted access to do what you want and go where you please without > > identifying yourself to appropriate personnel (public AND private) from > > time to time. > > It used to be that you could go where you wanted without the need to > carry *any* ID. You had that right. |