Which is more important -- my rights, or your safety?

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

My thinking is the right to travel freely must be one of the lynchpins of a free society, in the modern world cars are the primary means of transport, therefore driving (as you say, subject to reasonable licencing) should be viewed as a right.

I can agree with that...except where you imply that cars are necessary for travel. A convenience? Yes. Necessary? No.

And, yep, pardner. You'd be doin' a whole heap o' walking' in Texas.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[popsjumper 2]

Trade ya' 10 Chicago thugs for one Texan. That's an even trade.

If it's Masterigger, I'll throw in two more thugs.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[lawrocket 3]

http://news.yahoo.com/vegas-officer-wife-son-dead-murder-suicide-012809659.html

Time to disarm the police now. Just look at what police do with guns.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[skypuppy 1]

Quote

Quote

My thinking is the right to travel freely must be one of the lynchpins of a free society, in the modern world cars are the primary means of transport, therefore driving (as you say, subject to reasonable licencing) should be viewed as a right.

I can agree with that...except where you imply that cars are necessary for travel. A convenience? Yes. Necessary? No.

And, yep, pardner. You'd be doin' a whole heap o' walking' in Texas.

Well, I don't know about you, but I live in the country where a vehicle pretty much is necessary to travel if you want to hold a job. One of the reasons I've never agreed that driving is a privelege. It's a necessity here for most people. Take away someone;s driving licence and their pretty likely to lose their jobs, their homes and their marriages...

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

My thinking is the right to travel freely must be one of the lynchpins of a free society, in the modern world cars are the primary means of transport, therefore driving (as you say, subject to reasonable licencing) should be viewed as a right.

I can agree with that...except where you imply that cars are necessary for travel. A convenience? Yes. Necessary? No.

And, yep, pardner. You'd be doin' a whole heap o' walking' in Texas.

Well, I don't know about you, but I live in the country where a vehicle pretty much is necessary to travel if you want to hold a job. One of the reasons I've never agreed that driving is a privelege. It's a necessity here for most people. Take away someone;s driving licence and their pretty likely to lose their jobs, their homes and their marriages...

Regardless

It is not a right

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

Well, I don't know about you, but I live in the country where a vehicle pretty much is necessary to travel if you want to hold a job.

Nope.

You could move to a more urban area close to jobs that you could walk to, bike to, or reach via public transportation. I've never lived anywhere over the last 22 years where I wouldn't want to bike to work.

Doing so might require downsizing, perhaps as far as a studio apartment (shared with one or more unrelated people if your industry does not pay high enough wages). When I lived in Boulder, CO I had a town house instead of a house and yard out in the boonies from which I'd need to drive. In Seattle, WA I shared a studio apartment with my wife and cat.

Quote

One of the reasons I've never agreed that driving is a privelege. It's a necessity here for most people. Take away someone;s driving licence and their pretty likely to lose their jobs,

They can get a different job.

Quote

their homes

We don't have a right to 3 bedroom, two bath ranch houses.

Quote

and their marriages...

A good spouse sticks it out.

[regulator 0]

Quote

Quote

Well, I don't know about you, but I live in the country where a vehicle pretty much is necessary to travel if you want to hold a job.

Nope.

You could move to a more urban area close to jobs that you could walk to, bike to, or reach via public transportation. I've never lived anywhere over the last 22 years where I wouldn't want to bike to work.

Doing so might require downsizing, perhaps as far as a studio apartment (shared with one or more unrelated people if your industry does not pay high enough wages). When I lived in Boulder, CO I had a town house instead of a house and yard out in the boonies from which I'd need to drive. In Seattle, WA I shared a studio apartment with my wife and cat.

Quote

One of the reasons I've never agreed that driving is a privelege. It's a necessity here for most people. Take away someone;s driving licence and their pretty likely to lose their jobs,

They can get a different job.

Quote

their homes

We don't have a right to 3 bedroom, two bath ranch houses.

Quote

and their marriages...

A good spouse sticks it out.

A good spouse allows you to stick it in!

[lawrocket 3]

I’ve really been thinking a lot about this question, and I think I’ve gotten it down to this:
History is riddled with governments/leadership that, in the name of safety/security/order limit rights. These are ALWAYS done for the stated benefit of the people. They always have a benefit for those in charge. And they inevitably result in abuses.
We’ve done it here. Take a look at how many Indians we killed in the US in the name of safety and security. And let’s look at the vital national security interest and safety of the American public that was accomplished by rounding up all the Japanese during WWII. Wrote Supreme Court Justice Tom Clark,

Quote

The truth is—as this deplorable experience proves—that constitutions and laws are not sufficient of themselves...Despite the unequivocal language of the Constitution of the United States that the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, and despite the Fifth Amendment's command that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, both of these constitutional safeguards were denied by military action under Executive Order 9066.

The President is attacking the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments with his proposals. In the name of safety and security, FDR attacked the Japanese, Germans and Italians. In the name of security and safety the government is attacking the mentally ill. Actually, the government is attacking the rights of everybody in order to find people with a history of diagnosed mental illness. Like the Japanese people, the mentally ill being targeted are those who have committed no crimes. They broke no laws. But – in the interest of safety and the knowledge that a Jap just can’t be trusted and the rights of a nutter, er, I mean a Jap or a WOP or a Kraut (note that labels are always attached to dehumanize the target) – Constitution be damned.

No doubt that the internment of the Japanese was politically popular. No doubt that the public opinion and frenzy led people to forego thought of such things as Constitutional limitations because we’re at war. We, as a nation, went on to regret what we did and for damned good reason.

Problem is, that we keep doing it over and over again. We have short memories. We had the Sedition Act of 1918.

Take a look at some of the titles of the Patriot Act:
• Title I: Enhancing Domestic Security against Terrorism (Yep. It’s for our safety)
• Title II: Surveillance procedures (established: "sneak and peek" warrants; roving wiretaps; and the ability of the FBI to gain access to documents that reveal the patterns of U.S. citizens – we heard something similar in the 23 Proposals)
• Title V: Removing obstacles to investigating terrorism (Removing obstacles to investigating terrorism? Didn’t the President just propose “removing unnecessary legal barriers” particularly parts of HIPAA? From Wikipedia: “One of the most controversial aspects of the USA PATRIOT Act is in title V, and relates to National Security Letters (NSLs). An NSL is a form of administrative subpoena used by the FBI, and reportedly by other U.S. government agencies including the CIA and the Department of Defense (DoD). It is a demand letter issued to a particular entity or organization to turn over various records and data pertaining to individuals.” The President is using the Patriot Act as a guide)
• Title VII: Increased information sharing for critical infrastructure protection (The president’s third proposal was “Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.” Again, straight out of the Patriot Act.

The Patriot Act has been big with Constitutional issues. The infringement of individual liberties in the name of safety and security. I’m seeing too many similarities in the 23 Executive Orders. No, my security and safety is not worth suspension of rights.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rushmc 18]

No, my security and safety is not worth suspension of rights.

[jakee 1,255]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Interesting side-story on that very point. A few years ago I represented someone who was appealing the state govt's denial of her request to be exempt from having her photograph on her driver's license on religious grounds. We ultimately lost; but in the course of doing all the legal research for the appellate briefs - and I did a pretty exhaustive, nation-wide search for applicable cases - I did find that there is a small, but growing, minority of judges who find that view to be obsolete, feeling that driving a car in modern American society is such a necessity that in certain instances - subject to reasonable licensing, safety, etc. - it should be accorded nearly as much deference as a right. As I said, it's a minority view, but it is out there, embodied in some rather respectably-written modern court opinions.

As a non-American that was something I have been wondering about - my question being is that not what the 9th Amendment is for?

My thinking is the right to travel freely must be one of the lynchpins of a free society, in the modern world cars are the primary means of transport, therefore driving (as you say, subject to reasonable licencing) should be viewed as a right.

You should come to texas. If you dont have a car here you'll be walking for quite some time.

Exactly my point.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,255]

Quote

Quote

My thinking is the right to travel freely must be one of the lynchpins of a free society, in the modern world cars are the primary means of transport, therefore driving (as you say, subject to reasonable licencing) should be viewed as a right.

I can agree with that...except where you imply that cars are necessary for travel. A convenience? Yes. Necessary? No.

Only a convenience providing you've got a decent system of public transport. But if driving isn't a right and you can be banned from it for arbitrary reasons then the same could be done with buses and taxis. And then where are you?

Quote

And, yep, pardner. You'd be doin' a whole heap o' walking' in Texas.

Which (unless you're a desperate mexican border hopper) ain't exactly feasible.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[billvon 2,400]

>Only a convenience providing you've got a decent system of public transport.

Or legs, or a bike.

>But if driving isn't a right and you can be banned from it for arbitrary reasons
>then the same could be done with buses and taxis. And then where are you?

On a road bike?

[jakee 1,255]

Quote

Or legs, or a bike.

Quote

Would you be happy to be limited to travelling only as far as you can go on a bike in a day?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

• Quote

Share this post

---

Link to post

Share on other sites

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

Quote

Or legs, or a bike.

Would you be happy to be limited to travelling only as far as you can go on a bike in a day?

You don't have a constitutional right to happiness.

[jakee 1,255]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Or legs, or a bike.

Would you be happy to be limited to travelling only as far as you can go on a bike in a day?

You don't have a constitutional right to happiness.

Land of the free

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[billvon 2,400]

>Would you be happy to be limited to travelling only as far as you can go on a bike in a day?

Relatively happy, yes. I could still work, shop, get to the dentist, doctor etc. Even skydive now that Oceanside is open.

Fortunately I can afford a car when I want to go farther, which is nice.

[wmw999 2,123]

Quote

You should come to texas. If you dont have a car here you'll be walking for quite some time.

There are a ton of people in Texas without cars. We call them poor people, and with increasing social stratification, we interact with them less and less.

They're the guys riding bikes to their busboy or car wash jobs. They're the ladies riding the bus to their janitor jobs. They're the guys riding 6 in a trailer or truck bed to the yard care jobs.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[jakee 1,255]

Quote

Relatively happy, yes. I could still work, shop, get to the dentist, doctor etc. Even skydive now that Oceanside is open.

Fortunately I can afford a car when I want to go farther, which is nice.

Let's play a game: I'll clarify my point so you wont have to use the context of the thread to know what I meant, and then you address the point that I'm making. Deal?

Would you accept government action that arbitrarily bans some or all people from using cars or public transport to, in effect, limit people from moving further than they can walk or ride a bike in a day? Would that be a) legitimate, b) constitutional?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[billvon 2,400]

>Would you accept government action that arbitrarily bans some or all people from
>using cars or public transport to, in effect, limit people from moving further than they
>can walk or ride a bike in a day?

That banned people from moving further than they could walk or bike in a day for no reason? No. That would be neither constitutional nor legitimate IMO.

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Only a convenience providing you've got a decent system of public transport.

Sorry, Jakee. Nobody owes you anything. No we don't owe you a transportation system.

Quote

But if driving isn't a right and you can be banned from it for arbitrary reasons then the same could be done with buses and taxis. And then where are you?

Walking. Riding a bike, a horse, hitch-hiking, sittin' back snoozin' while the chauffeur tools through town.

Quote

Which (unless you're a desperate mexican border hopper) ain't exactly feasible.

Completely feasible. Just depends on how lazy you are and how coddled you feel you need to be.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

You don't have a constitutional right to happiness.

True dat. We pursue, yet so few ever get there.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[davjohns 1]

...they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. Among these are...the pursuit of happiness. (from memory)

Plain English seems to indicate nobody needs to interfere with the reasonable pursuit of happiness by the individual. Moreover, governments are instituted among men to protect these rights. So, the government needs to protect rather than inhibit.

I have to side with the minority of judges that are viewing driving as a right. In the time the US Constitution was formed, I'm sure they would not have considered riding a horse or walking as a 'privilege'. I think driving is analogous.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

Quote

You should come to texas. If you dont have a car here you'll be walking for quite some time.

There are a ton of people in Texas without cars. We call them poor people, and with increasing social stratification, we interact with them less and less.

They're the guys riding bikes to their busboy or car wash jobs. They're the ladies riding the bus to their janitor jobs. They're the guys riding 6 in a trailer or truck bed to the yard care jobs.

Wendy P.

Maybe the government should issue us cars then.

Or maybe we should have to pay a penalty tax if we don't purchase a car.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

...they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. Among these are...the pursuit of happiness. (from memory)

Plain English seems to indicate nobody needs to interfere with the reasonable pursuit of happiness by the individual. Moreover, governments are instituted among men to protect these rights. So, the government needs to protect rather than inhibit.

I have to side with the minority of judges that are viewing driving as a right. In the time the US Constitution was formed, I'm sure they would not have considered riding a horse or walking as a 'privilege'. I think driving is analogous.

Then why wasn't a horse issued to every citizen if it was their right?
Why did people have to buy a horse, or not, if they couldn't afford it?

Legs, I understand, are issued at birth. Usually.

Even then they can be lost or stolen. In that case a set of wheels is issued.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[wmw999 2,123]

If guns are a right, are they issued to all citizens? How about people who choose not to pursue happiness?

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)