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

"C.H." > sez:

<snip>
> I understand that freedom of travel is important. But if you make driving
> a right instead of a privilege, how do you make sure only people, who have
> the necessary skills and possess the necessary responsibility utilize this
> right?

I see that as an impossibility that isn't even feasible given today's
regulated "privileged" environment. People still drive drunk, exhibit
sloppy skills, haven't figured out the near ESP like advantages of using a
turn signal to communicate their future intentions, etc. while all in
possession of a current driver's license. If/When one commits these
transgressions, they bear full responsibility for the outcome.

> Would you like 12-year-old punks to play GTA-San Andreas in real life?
> Dead drunk assholes playing bumper cars at 80mph on the freeway?
> Streetracers battling out their pride with total disregard of other
> people's lives?

You appear to espouse the political view of the world known as "prior
restraint" ... that individuals must be regulated on what they may do or
could be capable of. This is an anathema to a free society where people are
responsible for their actions after having exercised their own judgment and
taken those actions of their own free will.

> And don't tell me you are such a good driver that you can escape any
> dangerous situation.

Not all, but given that I've been riding a motorcycle for over 40 years and
am still alive to talk about it, I've had a lot of practice to date ... :-/

Good ridin' to ya,
VLJ
--
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims
may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons
than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may
sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who
torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with
the approval of their own conscience.

-- C. S. Lewis

In article >, C.H. wrote:

> IIRC the difference between a right and a privilege is that one
> automatically exists unless you lose it, whereas the other must be earned.
> Thus if you have any licensing in place driving is a privilege.

Then owning a firearm is now a privilege and the republic is finished.


>> That's all we need for licensing and a right to drive to co-exist.

> According to my dictionary and the definitions of right and privilege a
> licensing scheme and a right to drive cannot coexist.

Then we no longer have a 2nd admendment.

>> For instance, we don't tell people that walking through a shopping
>> district is a privledge in order to stop shoplifters. You still have the
>> right to walk along the street, it's the shoplifters one goes after and
>> restricts.

> So you would let everyone drive without a license and only punish the ones
> who crash? That would be a nice bloodbath.

Try reading the _whole_ post.

>> When it's called a privledge, the state can then make you do all sorts
>> of things that have nothing to do with driving. It becomes an end run
>> around all our constitutional protections.

> What things specifically are you talking about?

I am not here to play catch up for you. Start with the war on drugs, end
with checkpoints. Also see laws where people loose their DL for not
paying child support and the recent federal DL requirements.

>> And one can cause a lot of damage with horse drawn vehicles too...
>
> Sure one can, but the number of actual horse drawn carriages in traffic is
> so low that introducing legislation for them is kinda pointless.

It wasn't in 1850.

In article >, Brent P wrote:
> Try reading the _whole_ post.

Actually both posts, sorry, my mistake

In article >,
C.H. > wrote:

>I understand that freedom of travel is important. But if you make driving
>a right instead of a privilege, how do you make sure only people, who have
>the necessary skills and possess the necessary responsibility utilize this
>right?

Same way you do now. Which is to say, you don't.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

On Fri, 13 May 2005 12:26:19 -0500, Matthew Russotto wrote:

> In article >, C.H.
> > wrote:
>
>>I understand that freedom of travel is important. But if you make driving
>>a right instead of a privilege, how do you make sure only people, who
>>have the necessary skills and possess the necessary responsibility
>>utilize this right?
>
> Same way you do now. Which is to say, you don't.

You mean you would let everyone drive, 12-year-olds, chronic drunkards,
drug abusers, maniacs, people, who want to play bumper car in RL?

Chris

On Fri, 13 May 2005 06:42:32 -0600, vlj wrote:

> "C.H." > sez:
>
> <snip>
>> I understand that freedom of travel is important. But if you make
>> driving a right instead of a privilege, how do you make sure only
>> people, who have the necessary skills and possess the necessary
>> responsibility utilize this right?
>
> I see that as an impossibility that isn't even feasible given today's
> regulated "privileged" environment. People still drive drunk, exhibit
> sloppy skills, haven't figured out the near ESP like advantages of using a
> turn signal to communicate their future intentions, etc. while all in
> possession of a current driver's license. If/When one commits these
> transgressions, they bear full responsibility for the outcome.

I agree with you that today's license requirements are not nearly strict
enough, but things will get worse when you let everyone drive. If you come
to California, you will see the impact of a whole large population group
being more or less allowed to drive without licenses (illegal immigrants).

>> Would you like 12-year-old punks to play GTA-San Andreas in real life?
>> Dead drunk assholes playing bumper cars at 80mph on the freeway?
>> Streetracers battling out their pride with total disregard of other
>> people's lives?
>
> You appear to espouse the political view of the world known as "prior
> restraint" ... that individuals must be regulated on what they may do or
> could be capable of.

No, I 'espouse the political view of some things requiring an unusual
amount of skill and responsibility, which needs to be verified before
letting people attempt such things in an environment, where their attempt
can kill others.

Are you in favor of letting people fly sport aircraft without instruction?

> This is an anathema to a free society where people are responsible for
> their actions after having exercised their own judgment and taken those
> actions of their own free will.

There is no such thing as a free society (unfortunately). I wish all
people had at least reasonable judgement, morals and responsibility, but
in reality they don't. Of course restrictions should be kept to a
necessary minimum, but licensing is necessary. Give the average kid a car
without any instruction and you will with very high likelyhood have a dead
kid and dead innocent others on your hands.

>> And don't tell me you are such a good driver that you can escape any
>> dangerous situation.
>
> Not all, but given that I've been riding a motorcycle for over 40 years
> and am still alive to talk about it, I've had a lot of practice to date
> ... :-/

From what you write it is quite obvious that you live in an environment
with comparatively little traffic. I can imagine that in Bear Lake, ID it
would be possible to let kids learn by themselves on backroads.

Around here letting someone drive without a minimum in instruction and a
test verifying that they know at least the basics amounts to murder.

Chris

On Fri, 13 May 2005 10:45:49 -0500, Brent P wrote:

> In article >, C.H. wrote:
>
>> IIRC the difference between a right and a privilege is that one
>> automatically exists unless you lose it, whereas the other must be
>> earned. Thus if you have any licensing in place driving is a privilege.
>
> Then owning a firearm is now a privilege and the republic is finished.

In many places it already is.

>>> That's all we need for licensing and a right to drive to co-exist.
>
>> According to my dictionary and the definitions of right and privilege a
>> licensing scheme and a right to drive cannot coexist.
>
> Then we no longer have a 2nd admendment.

I see a firearms safety course as just as necessary as driver training.

>>> For instance, we don't tell people that walking through a shopping
>>> district is a privledge in order to stop shoplifters. You still have
>>> the right to walk along the street, it's the shoplifters one goes after
>>> and restricts.
>
>> So you would let everyone drive without a license and only punish the
>> ones who crash? That would be a nice bloodbath.
>
> Try reading the _whole_ post.

I did.

>>> When it's called a privledge, the state can then make you do all sorts
>>> of things that have nothing to do with driving. It becomes an end run
>>> around all our constitutional protections.
>
>> What things specifically are you talking about?
>
> I am not here to play catch up for you. Start with the war on drugs, end
> with checkpoints.

So you think druggies and drunkards should be allowed to drive? Try Poland
or Russia for an example, where the rate of alcohol deaths is several
times the rate of alcohol deaths over here just because they don't enforce
sobriety behind the wheel.

And I guarantee you that the first time you lose a family member to some
assclown drunkard, who 'only had a few' your attitude towards alcohol and
driving will change.

> Also see laws where people loose their DL for not paying child support
> and the recent federal DL requirements.

That indeed is wrong. Has nothing to do with minimum requiremente or drunk
driving though.

>>> And one can cause a lot of damage with horse drawn vehicles too...
>>
>> Sure one can, but the number of actual horse drawn carriages in traffic
>> is so low that introducing legislation for them is kinda pointless.
>
> It wasn't in 1850.

In 1850 the total number of vehicles on the road was a tiny fraction of
the number of vehicles on the road in 2005. And still a lot of people were
killed by unskilled riders and carriage drivers.

Chris

In article >, C.H. wrote:
> On Fri, 13 May 2005 10:45:49 -0500, Brent P wrote:
>
>> In article >, C.H. wrote:
>>
>>> IIRC the difference between a right and a privilege is that one
>>> automatically exists unless you lose it, whereas the other must be
>>> earned. Thus if you have any licensing in place driving is a privilege.
>>
>> Then owning a firearm is now a privilege and the republic is finished.
>
> In many places it already is.

Then we have no rights at all and everything is based on privilege
granted by the state and all other discussion is moot.

>> Then we no longer have a 2nd admendment.
> I see a firearms safety course as just as necessary as driver training.

That's the point. We have regulation regarding rights because of one's
rights ending where another's begin.

>>> What things specifically are you talking about?
>>
>> I am not here to play catch up for you. Start with the war on drugs, end
>> with checkpoints.

> So you think druggies and drunkards should be allowed to drive? Try Poland
> or Russia for an example, where the rate of alcohol deaths is several
> times the rate of alcohol deaths over here just because they don't enforce
> sobriety behind the wheel.

If you are going to go by that logic then a viewscreen in every home is
the only answer. The only answer is 100% continous monitoring by the
state. That way nobody would ever get out of line.

> And I guarantee you that the first time you lose a family member to some
> assclown drunkard, who 'only had a few' your attitude towards alcohol and
> driving will change.

Without liberty, I am dead. Simple as that. Life without liberty is not
life at all.

>> Also see laws where people loose their DL for not paying child support
>> and the recent federal DL requirements.

> That indeed is wrong. Has nothing to do with minimum requiremente or drunk
> driving though.

It has to do with the point of having privilege granted by the state. The
state can connect anything it wants to it. The state becomes a parent.
Remeber when you were a child? You had to do your chores before going out
to play or things like that? There didn't have to be any relationship
between things, parents decided what you had to do be allowed certain
privileges. If anything is a privilege, then anything can be tied to it.

>>>> And one can cause a lot of damage with horse drawn vehicles too...
>>>
>>> Sure one can, but the number of actual horse drawn carriages in traffic
>>> is so low that introducing legislation for them is kinda pointless.

>> It wasn't in 1850.

> In 1850 the total number of vehicles on the road was a tiny fraction of
> the number of vehicles on the road in 2005. And still a lot of people were
> killed by unskilled riders and carriage drivers.

Vehicle motor vehicle driver licensing dates back to much lower traffic
volumes as well.

In article >,
C.H. > wrote:
>On Fri, 13 May 2005 12:26:19 -0500, Matthew Russotto wrote:
>
>> In article >, C.H.
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>I understand that freedom of travel is important. But if you make driving
>>>a right instead of a privilege, how do you make sure only people, who
>>>have the necessary skills and possess the necessary responsibility
>>>utilize this right?
>>
>> Same way you do now. Which is to say, you don't.
>
>You mean you would let everyone drive, 12-year-olds, chronic drunkards,
>drug abusers, maniacs, people, who want to play bumper car in RL?

I mean that situation would be difficult to distinguish from the
current one. You don't really think a driver's license prevents
_irresponsible_ people from driving, do you?
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

On Fri, 13 May 2005 13:55:20 -0500, Brent P wrote:

> In article >, C.H. wrote:

>> In many places it already is.
>
> Then we have no rights at all and everything is based on privilege granted
> by the state and all other discussion is moot.

You have the right to life and personal freedom. You have the right to
walk the streets. You can even bicycle without a license.

If you want to move a few thousand pounds of steel at high speeds you need
to show that you are capable of doing though. You wouldnt let someone
drive hazmat trucks without a license or let people run nuclear
powerplants without proper training, would you?

>>> Then we no longer have a 2nd admendment.
>> I see a firearms safety course as just as necessary as driver training.
>
> That's the point. We have regulation regarding rights because of one's
> rights ending where another's begin.

I have the right not to be run over by some 12-year-old who thought he
could drive. You have the right not to be shot down by some assclown who
though the gun wasnt loaded. Same thing. That's why we have an (admittedly
inadequate) licensing process.

>> So you think druggies and drunkards should be allowed to drive? Try
>> Poland or Russia for an example, where the rate of alcohol deaths is
>> several times the rate of alcohol deaths over here just because they
>> don't enforce sobriety behind the wheel.
>
> If you are going to go by that logic then a viewscreen in every home is
> the only answer. The only answer is 100% continous monitoring by the
> state. That way nobody would ever get out of line.

You seem to be a person who only sees black and white. There is a
difference between monitoring every last bit of someone's life on one hand
and not letting him do very dangerous things like driving drunk or driving
without proper training on the other.

>> And I guarantee you that the first time you lose a family member to some
>> assclown drunkard, who 'only had a few' your attitude towards alcohol
>> and driving will change.
>
> Without liberty, I am dead. Simple as that. Life without liberty is not
> life at all.

I'm not going to stop you from killing yourself.

But there is a difference between freedom and anarchy too.

I will readily admit that all countries I know are overregulated but your
idea of a totally unregulated society are just as preposterous as some
politicians' fantasies of total control.

>> That indeed is wrong. Has nothing to do with minimum requiremente or
>> drunk driving though.
>
> It has to do with the point of having privilege granted by the state.
> The state can connect anything it wants to it. The state becomes a
> parent. Remeber when you were a child? You had to do your chores before
> going out to play or things like that?

What would you suggest instead? Being given the run of the house? I knew a
few kids who grew up like that and all of them were totally useless brats.

There are people in the population, who would be responsible enough to
live in a state without rules. Unfortunately they are a very small
minority, which is the reason why we have rules.

If everyone was responsible enough only a handful of laws would exist,
because almost all laws are a response of the state to a perceived
problem. If no one would cause accidents driving drunk we would not have
drunk-driving-laws. In reality drunk driving is one of the biggest
causes of traffic deaths, which is why it was recognized as dangerous and
outlawed.

>>> It wasn't in 1850.
>
>> In 1850 the total number of vehicles on the road was a tiny fraction of
>> the number of vehicles on the road in 2005. And still a lot of people
>> were killed by unskilled riders and carriage drivers.
>
> Vehicle motor vehicle driver licensing dates back to much lower traffic
> volumes as well.

And your point is?

Chris