right or priviledge ... at what point do you assert?

In article >,
C.H. > wrote:
>On Tue, 17 May 2005 14:35:21 -0500, Matthew Russotto wrote:
>
>> In article >, C.H.
>> > wrote:
>>>On Tue, 17 May 2005 13:20:33 -0500, Matthew Russotto wrote:
>>>
>>>> The idea you describe as "preposterous" is what was formerly known as
>>>> "freedom".
>>>
>>>No. Freedom is not the license to do as you please. That's anarchy.
>>
>> Anarchy is the absense of government, not the license to do as you please.
>
>The only form of state that allows people to do as they please is anarchy.

Anarchy is the absence of a state in the first place.

>In every other form of society some type of restrictions are in place.

This is a really great argument. "A society without restrictions is
anarchy. Therefore opposing any given restriction is supporting anarchy".

>>>Freedom is the right to do as you please within the limits set by the
>>>rights of others.
>>
>> OK, accepting that for the sake of argument, what right of yours is an
>> unlicensed driver violating?
>
>The right to travel on the streets with a reasonable risk.

Reasonable risk? What are you, an insurance company lobbyist? In any
case, since the acquisition (or loss) of a driver's license in no way
changes the risk that a driver prevents, the unlicensed driver isn't
even violating THAT nonexistent right.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

On Wed, 18 May 2005 12:10:18 -0500, Matthew Russotto wrote:

> In article >, C.H.
> > wrote:
>>On Tue, 17 May 2005 14:35:21 -0500, Matthew Russotto wrote:
>>
>>> Anarchy is the absense of government, not the license to do as you
>>> please.
>>
>>The only form of state that allows people to do as they please is
>>anarchy.
>
> Anarchy is the absence of a state in the first place.

The absence of a government, you mean.

>>In every other form of society some type of restrictions are in place.
>
> This is a really great argument. "A society without restrictions is
> anarchy. Therefore opposing any given restriction is supporting anarchy".

Where did I say anything about 'supporting' anarchy?

I said that in any non-anarchic state there will be certain restrictions,
that have nothing to do with your assertion that having any kind of
restrictions means you have no freedom. And that's the simple truth.

>>> OK, accepting that for the sake of argument, what right of yours is an
>>> unlicensed driver violating?
>>
>>The right to travel on the streets with a reasonable risk.
>
> Reasonable risk? What are you, an insurance company lobbyist?

No, just a driver and rider, who doesn't want to get killed by total
idiots just because it suits people like you to wait until a moron kills
someone instead of finding out beforehand, whether he has a minimum of
skill.

> In any case, since the acquisition (or loss) of a driver's license in
> no way changes the risk that a driver prevents,

You mean 'presents', I assume. And of course the necessity of learning at
least enough of the rules to pass the licensing test does significantly
lower the risk of someone not knowing that 'red' means 'stop' and that one
drives on the right side of the road. And the risk of the license being
taken away makes most people at least mostly stick to the rules, so the
risk is very significantly reduced.

> the unlicensed driver isn't even violating THAT nonexistent right.

The unlicensed driver presents an unnecessary risk.

And if you are unable to either acquire a license or failed to keep it you
should not be driving anyway.

Chris

In article >,
C.H. > wrote:
>On Wed, 18 May 2005 12:10:18 -0500, Matthew Russotto wrote:

>
>>>In every other form of society some type of restrictions are in place.
>>
>> This is a really great argument. "A society without restrictions is
>> anarchy. Therefore opposing any given restriction is supporting anarchy".
>
>Where did I say anything about 'supporting' anarchy?
>
>I said that in any non-anarchic state there will be certain restrictions,
>that have nothing to do with your assertion that having any kind of
>restrictions means you have no freedom. And that's the simple truth.

Strawman. I never said "having any kind of restrictions means you
have no freedom", or anything equivalent to it.

--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

On Wed, 18 May 2005 14:55:03 -0500, Matthew Russotto wrote:

> In article >, C.H.
> > wrote:
>>I said that in any non-anarchic state there will be certain restrictions,
>>that have nothing to do with your assertion that having any kind of
>>restrictions means you have no freedom. And that's the simple truth.
>
> Strawman. I never said "having any kind of restrictions means you have no
> freedom", or anything equivalent to it.

Then why are you whining about me supporting a few very necessary
restrictions?

Chris

In article >, C.H. wrote:

> Then why are you whining about me supporting a few very necessary
> restrictions?

You aren't. You making driving (and apartently a number of other things)
a privilege, something that is granted, and thus subject to heavy,
arbitary, and nonsensical restrictions.

In article >,
C.H. > wrote:
>On Wed, 18 May 2005 14:55:03 -0500, Matthew Russotto wrote:
>
>> In article >, C.H.
>> > wrote:
>>>I said that in any non-anarchic state there will be certain restrictions,
>>>that have nothing to do with your assertion that having any kind of
>>>restrictions means you have no freedom. And that's the simple truth.
>>
>> Strawman. I never said "having any kind of restrictions means you have no
>> freedom", or anything equivalent to it.
>
>Then why are you whining about me supporting a few very necessary
>restrictions?

You're begging the question.


--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.