Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
HomeAnnouncements
Discussion Groups
By Brand
BMWChevroletDodgeFordGMHondaLexusMercedes-BenzNissanPeugeotToyotaVolkswagenOther Brands
By Topic
4x4 CarsRVsDrivingMaintenance & RepairCar AudioCollectible Cars
Country Specific
Australian ForumsUK Forums
ArticlesAuto InsuranceBuyingCars & TechnologyMaintenanceMiscellaneousSafety
DMV Resources
Related Topics
MotorcyclesBoatsMore Topics ...

Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / June 2006

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

The Right to Drive

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
proffsl - 21 Mar 2006 21:06 GMT
Driver Licensing presumes to give revocable authority or permission to
one presumed to have no Right to Drive an Automobile on our Public
Highways that would otherwise be unlawful.

Our States for close to a hundred years has told us that "Driving is a
Privilege".  Our States and local Courts have maintained this position
all along.  Citizens have suffered under its permissions and
impositions for so long that they have accepted it as the gospel, such
that many will outright ignore any arguments or evidence to the
contrary, and others will resort to attacking anyone who would deliver
those arguments and evidence to the contrary.  They have become so
accustomed to the shackles imposed by Driver Licensing that they feel
naked without them and will actually strike out at those who would
attempt to loosen their shackles.

Long ago, it was recognized that we have the Right of Transit
ORDINARILY used for Personal Travel on our Public Highways, as
evidenced in the following US Supreme Court ruling:

"Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one
place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal
liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the
territory of any state is a right secured by the 14th Amendment and by
other provisions of the Constitution." - Williams v. Fears, 179 U.S.
270 (1900) - http://laws.findlaw.com/us/179/270.html#274

Almost as long ago, it was recognized that we have the Right to use our
Public Highways for Personal Travel in the ORDINARY way, as evidenced
in the following US Supreme Court ruling:

"The streets belong to the public and are primarily for the use of the
public in the ordinary way." -- Packard v. Banton, 264 U.S. 140 (1924)
- http://laws.findlaw.com/us/264/140.html#144

What is the Transit ORDINARILY used for Personal Travel on our Public
Highways today?  It is of course, Driving the Automobile.  What is the
ORDINARY way we use our Public Highways for Personal Travel today?
Again, it is Driving the Automobile.

In both cases above, the courts used the word ORDINARY.  This means
that we have the Right to what ever Transit may, at that time, be the
Transit ORDINARILY used for Personal Travel.  A hundred years ago, the
Transit Ordinarily used was probably the horse and buggy.  And, nobody
would have denied at that time that we have the Right to Travel on our
Public Highways Driving the Horse and Buggy.  Today, the Transit
Ordinarily used is the Automobile.  Yet, people have been convinced
that we don't have the Right to Travel on our Public Highways Driving
the Automobile.

Our Public Highways are intended to enhance our Right of Liberty.  Yet,
the more our Taxes are used to make our Public Highways unusable by
anything but the Automobile, the more this Lie that Driving the
Automobile is a Privilege makes us Prisoners of Privilege, behind Bars
of Blacktop.  Walking, riding bicycles and driving horse and buggies on
our Public Highways have become almost impossible, and in fact are
often outright prohibited because they obstruct with the Transit
Ordinarily used, because they obstruct those Driving Automobiles.  This
creates an unreasonable burden or restriction of movement upon those
who aren't deemed worthy of permission to drive automobiles.

"This Court long ago recognized that the nature of our Federal Union
and our constitutional concepts of personal liberty unite to require
that all citizens be free to Travel throughout the length and breadth
of our land uninhibited by statutes, rules, or regulations which
unreasonably burden or restrict this movement." -- Shapiro v. Thompson,
394 U.S. 618 (1969) - http://laws.findlaw.com/us/394/618.html#629

There are those who will argue that we owe it to the public to prove we
can drive safely before being allowed to Drive an Automobile on our
Public Highways.  But, again, the US Supreme Court differs in the
following ruling:

"[The Individual] owes nothing to the public so long as he does not
trespass upon their rights." -- Hale vs. Hinkel, 201 US 43, 74-75 -
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/201/43.html#74

Driver Licensing can only determine if one CAN drive safely.  But, fact
is, virtually every consenting adult CAN drive safely.  That isn't the
problem with highway safety.  The problem with highway safety is if one
WILL drive safely.  And, Driver Licensing cannot even pretend to
determine if one WILL drive safely.  The bulk of Highway Accidents are
caused, not by lack of Ability (if one CAN drive safely), but because
of Willful acts (if one WILL drive safely).

According to Online Lawyer Source (
http://www.onlinelawyersource.com/personal_injury/auto/causes.html ),
the primary cause of Highway Accidents is WILLFUL acts of Negligence,
Maliciousness or Aggressive Driving.

Driver Licensing offers nothing to enhance Highway Safety that Reckless
Endangerment Laws didn't already provide.  If one is driving in a safe
manner, there is no need or reason to stop them to find out if they
have a Drivers License.  If one is driving in a dangerous manner, there
is already every reason to stop them, regardless if they have a Driver
License or not.  Consider the following scenarios that run through the
permutations of combinations of a Respect for Rights, a Lack of Respect
for Rights, a Respect for, or fear of, the Law, a Lack of Respect, or
fear of, the Law, the exhibition of Safe Driving, and the exhibition of
Unsafe Driving.

A:  People who have a respect for the Rights of others, a Respect for
the Law, and exhibit Safe Driving:
Are not problems on our highways, and should not be prevented from
driving safely simply due to a lack of License.

B:  People who have a respect for the Rights of others, a Respect for
the Law, and exhibit Unsafe Driving:
Will not drive due to their respect for the Rights of others,
regardless if they have a License or not.  Otherwise, they have no
respect for the Rights of others (see F below).

C:  People who have a respect for the Rights of others, no Respect for
the Law, and exhibit Safe Driving:
Are not problems on our Highways, despite their lack of respect for the
law, and should not be prevented from driving safely simply due to a
lack of License.  Otherwise, they exhibit Unsafe Driving (see D below).

D:  People who have a respect for the Rights of others, no Respect for
the Law, and exhibit Unsafe Driving:
Will not drive due to their respect for the Rights of others, despite
their lack of respect for the law, regardless if they have a License or
not.  Otherwise, they have no respect for the Rights of others (see H
below).

E:  People who have no respect for the Rights of others, a Respect for
the Law, and exhibit Safe Driving:
Are not problems on our Highways, and despite their lack of respect for
the Rights of others, should not be prevented from driving safely
simply due to a lack of License.  Otherwise, they exhibit Unsafe
Driving (see F below).

F:  People who have no respect for the Rights of others, a Respect for
the Law, and exhibit Unsafe Driving:
Will not drive due to their respect for, or fear of, the Law
prosecuting and possibly imprisoning them under Reckless Endangerment
Laws for exhibiting Unsafe Driving, regardless if they have a License
or not.  Otherwise, they have no respect for, or fear of, the Law (see
H below).

G:  People who have no respect for the Rights of others, no Respect for
the Law, and exhibit Safe Driving:
Are not problems on our Highways, and despite their lack of respect for
the Rights of others or for the Law, should not be prevented from
driving safely simply due to a lack of License.  Otherwise, they
exhibit Unsafe Driving (see H below).

H:  People who have no respect for the Rights of others, no Respect for
the Law, and exhibit Unsafe Driving:
Will drive anyway, due to their lack of respect for the Rights of
others and for the Law, regardless if they have a License or not, and
despite any Licensing, can only be stopped by the witnessing of their
exhibition of Unsafe Driving, the application of Laws against Reckless
Endangerment, and their subsequent imprisonment.  Otherwise, they have
a Respect for the Rights of others (see C above), or they have a
Respect for, or fear of, the Law (see F above), a Respect for the
Rights of others and for the Law (see B above), or they exhibit Safe
Driving (see G above).

We have the Right of Transit Ordinarily used for Personal Travel on our
Public Highways.  The Transit Ordinarily used for Personal Travel on
our Public Highways today is Driving the Automobile.  Nobody owes it to
the public to prove they can drive safely before being allowed to
exercise their Right to Drive an Automobile on our Public Highways for
the purpose of Personal Travel.  Driver Licensing serves no purpose for
Highway Safety that our Laws against Reckless Endangerment didn't
already serve.

Our States are LYING to us.
Driving IS NOT a Privilege.
Driving IS a Right.
SheBlewHimDidYouBlowHim - 22 Mar 2006 00:28 GMT
> Driver Licensing presumes to give revocable authority or permission to
> one presumed to have no Right to Drive an Automobile on our Public
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Privilege".  Our States and local Courts have maintained this position
> all along.

driving is a RIGHT, not a privilege.

do you consider traffic jams, overcrowded roads, poorly maintained roads,
potholes, etc., etc. a PRIVILEGE? Of course f.cking not.
Laura Bush murdered her boy friend - 22 Mar 2006 02:59 GMT
What happened this time? Another DUI force the state to take your DL?
You're lucky you're not in prison.
proffsl - 22 Mar 2006 12:08 GMT
> What happened this time? Another DUI force the state to take
> your DL?  You're lucky you're not in prison.

This person is responding with an Ad Hominem attack against myself
instead of addressing the issue.

This type of person will claim the only reason I would make these
arguments is because I have lost my Driver Licenses.  If I told this
type of person I have a valid Driver License, they would call me a
liar, because they already believe the only reason I would make these
arguments is because I have lost my Driver Licenses.

There is no use addressing these types of people.
J. Hollenbeck - 22 Mar 2006 03:13 GMT
I agree with you to a point, in fact, refused to get a license until I was
25 because I saw it as a revenue generation scheme. (I finally gave in
because I needed a license for a position I had applied for) Some of the
worst drivers I've seen have been licensed and vice versa. Licensing does
not automatically guarantee that a given individual will use common sense
and courtesy while driving. Any morning or evening commute will amply supply
examples.

However, I have a problem with habitual drunk drivers. I agree that pulling
their license doesn't stop them from choosing to drive--drunk or sober, BUT
having the threat of losing their freedom because of their choice to drive
drunk does tend to stop all but the worst offenders. Face it, they ARE a
menace and have the capability of harming or killing other people who have
no choice in the matter. If they were only taking a chance with their own
lives, it would be Darwin in action, but they aren't. I fear I'm exposing my
ignorance here, but what is the Libertarian viewpoint on this matter?

Joyce
Arif Khokar - 22 Mar 2006 03:21 GMT
[m.t.r removed]

> I agree with you to a point

Agree with whom?
J. Hollenbeck - 22 Mar 2006 03:33 GMT
The original poster, proffsl.
why?

> [m.t.r removed]
>
>> I agree with you to a point
>
> Agree with whom?
Arif Khokar - 22 Mar 2006 03:39 GMT
>>>I agree with you to a point

Arif Khokar wrote:
>>Agree with whom?

> The original poster, proffsl.
> why?

Because there was no reference in the post that made it obvious to what
you were referring to.  That's why I asked.

Also, please post your reply below the text you're responding to (that's
standard usenet newsgroups convention).
John Graeme - 22 Mar 2006 08:39 GMT
>  >>>I agree with you to a point
>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> Also, please post your reply below the text you're responding to (that's
> standard usenet newsgroups convention).

For very long posts, it's common and often better to toppost.  But a
person's posting style is their own business; we don't need more
self-appointed net cops dictating it, correcting spelling/grammar, or
anything else.
gpsman - 22 Mar 2006 09:00 GMT
> >  >>>I agree with you to a point
> >
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> self-appointed net cops dictating it, correcting spelling/grammar, or
> anything else.
-----
He's not trying to police Usenet.  He merely pointed out that bottom
posting is traditional or customary... or conventional... and sensible.
It places the material relevant to the reply first, where the reader
might quickly skim it first, to note the relevance of the reply.

Do you like to read the answer first... then scroll down to the
question?  Do you read books first... then discover the titles or read
the preface?

"It is recommended that you reply below the topics. Just as with
questions from readers in a magazine, the journalists respond below the
question to follow the natural reading order."

"In this way people won't have to read down and later on go back to the
top of the message. Remember that most people on Usenet read many
messages every day. And the responses mostly appear much later, so they
cannot always remember the exact message. It is also much easier for
the next person who wants to respond to your answer."

http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanb/documents/quotingguide.html
-----

- gpsman
Arif Khokar - 22 Mar 2006 12:00 GMT
>> Also, please post your reply below the text you're responding to (that's
>> standard usenet newsgroups convention).

> For very long posts, it's common and often better to toppost.

No, it is not.  If the post is very long, trim it down to the pertinent
points you're responding to.  Notice how I deleted the quoted text that
I wasn't responding to?  See how much shorter this post is as compared
to the one you made based on line count?
proffsl - 22 Mar 2006 13:16 GMT
> If the post is very long, trim it down to the pertinent points you're
> responding to.  Notice how I deleted the quoted text that wasn't
> responding to?  See how much shorter this post is as compared
> to the one you made based on line count?

Arif, please take your usenet posting class to a thread of your own.
The purpose of this thread is to debate our Right to Drive.

You're Welcome.
Motorhead Lawyer - 27 Mar 2006 23:53 GMT
> > If the post is very long, trim it down to the pertinent points you're
> > responding to.  Notice how I deleted the quoted text that wasn't
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Arif, please take your usenet posting class to a thread of your own.
> The purpose of this thread is to debate our Right to Drive.

Not any more it isn't.  Consider yourself HIJACKED!

Mwahahahahahahahaha!
--
C.R. Krieger
proffsl - 28 Mar 2006 00:41 GMT
Hugo S. Cunningham - 22 Mar 2006 17:20 GMT
>>> Also, please post your reply below the text you're responding to (that's
>>> standard usenet newsgroups convention).
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>I wasn't responding to?  See how much shorter this post is as compared
>to the one you made based on line count?

Mr. Graeme's original post, that you started complaining about,  was
only 21 lines, and entirely original material.

It was obvious what he was responding to -- the central claim of
proffsl's original post, that getting drunk drivers off the road is an
unacceptable infringement on liberty.

Having done occasional net-kopping myself, I will not make a generic
denunciation of the practice.  But you are completely off base here.

--Hugo S. Cunningham
Arif Khokar - 22 Mar 2006 17:56 GMT
> Mr. Graeme's original post, that you started complaining about,  was
> only 21 lines, and entirely original material.
>
> It was obvious what he was responding to

No, it wasn't.  I have proffsl killfiled, so I had no original text to
refer to.
proffsl - 22 Mar 2006 18:06 GMT
> > Mr. Graeme's original post, that you started complaining about,
> > was only 21 lines, and entirely original material.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> No, it wasn't.  I have proffsl killfiled, so I had no original text to
> refer to.

Hahahahahahaha!!!  It's obvious to those with eyes.  We can't help it,
or be expected to know, if someone chooses to wear blinders.
Motorhead Lawyer - 27 Mar 2006 23:54 GMT
> We can't help it,
> or be expected to know, if someone chooses to wear blinders.

Leave the Amish horses out of it.
--
C.R. Krieger
(Been there; drove that)
proffsl - 22 Mar 2006 18:02 GMT
> > No, it is not.  If the post is very long, trim it down to the pertinent
> > points you're responding to.  Notice how I deleted the quoted text
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> proffsl's original post, that getting drunk drivers off the road is an
> unacceptable infringement on liberty.

Where did you come up with this Strawman?  That IS NOT the central
claim of my original post.

The central claim of my original post is that Driving is a Right, and
that if that Right is abused, just as with any other Right, it can be
suspended or denied, but only by Due Process of Law.

Even without a Liberty License, if we abuse our Right of Liberty by
trespassing, our Right of Liberty can be suspended or denied, but only
by Due Process of Law.  And, even without a Driver License, if we abuse
our Right to Drive by Reckless Endangerment, our Right to Drive can be
suspended or denied, but again only by Due Process of Law.

> Having done occasional net-kopping myself, I will not make a
> generic denunciation of the practice.  But you are completely
> off base here.

And, your Strawman fabrication above was completely off base.
Floyd Rogers - 22 Mar 2006 18:03 GMT
"Hugo S. Cunningham" <checkwebsite@cyberussr.com> wrote
> It was obvious what he was responding to -- the central claim of
> proffsl's original post, that getting drunk drivers off the road is an
> unacceptable infringement on liberty.

No, he (and I agree) that this is not.  For one thing, many of us have
proffsl blocked, and never saw the OP.  For another, this is heavily
x-posted, and editing the NG list/follow-ups can easily prevent people
on other NG's from seeing the OP.

FloydR (from rec.autos.driving, with idiot proffsl blocked.)
proffsl - 22 Mar 2006 19:39 GMT
> No, he (and I agree) that this is not.  For one thing, many of us
> have proffsl blocked, and never saw the OP.

This person can really only speak for themself.  But, once again,
someone choose to wear blinders, and expects everyone else to know it.
Motorhead Lawyer - 27 Mar 2006 23:51 GMT
C.R. Krieger signed the following:

For very long posts, it's actually better to trim out the excess
excrement.

> For very long posts, it's common and often better to toppost.

So you won't mind my interleaving my replies using your preferred
convention of writing my response before you read what it is I'm
responding to.

>  But a
> person's posting style is their own business;

Nor do we need any more top-posting morons like you.

>  we don't need more
> self-appointed net cops dictating it, correcting spelling/grammar, or
> anything else.
Sherman L. Cahal - 22 Mar 2006 08:25 GMT
> I agree with you to a point, in fact, refused to get a license until I was
> 25 because I saw it as a revenue generation scheme. (I finally gave in
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
> Joyce

Unsure of the Libertarian viewpoint on this, but as a very liberal
person, I am agreeing with your viewpoints. As I stated in another
thread, driving is a privilege, not a right, and we take it for granted.

My proposal: It would cost $500 for an exam (discounts for the needy,
etc.), but you would be required to complete a very difficult written
test that would ask you about many different types of driving situations
and perform a road course.

I continue on with --

"I'm sorry that the vast majority of America cannot fathom a nation
where we are all safe drivers, or at least the majority. We live in a
nation that is ruled by the aging-'hippie' generation, that for any
conceivable reason, will do anything to thwart any attempt to remove
their freedom to drive, even at the expense of other people's lives.
It's clearly shown with statistics that the most dangerous drivers are:
1) Teenage drivers, and 2) Elderly drivers. For obvious reasons on both,
they need limits, but why stop there? Bad drivers exist at any
age-group, and this is clearly evident in how much training you receive
behind the wheel.

When I could pass my drivers exam with a 98% after taking a simple sight
exam ("Can you see the stop sign?") and a 5-question written exam, and a
short around-the-block "can you use your turn signal" driving test, I am
confident that this nation can do much better.

I learned my *real* driving skills on the track, in SCCA meets. I have
received far more training there, and while taking defense-driving
courses, than I ever learned while at the DMV.

So how much are you paying in maintenance and fuel? I owned a 2001 model
and paid very little maintenance over it's life, and the problems that
did arise stemmed from the dealership's fault (for which they paid for
all repairs). I also drive a fuel-efficient vehicle (2006 Toyota RAV4-L)
- are you driving some gas-guzzling vehicle? With my commute and driving
habits, I fill up every 5 days, putting my cost per week around $38.00.
If you are hurting so much by these prices, then complain to the oil
companies or better yet - your government.

$500 is not a lot of money for the average worker. As I noted, price
breaks can be given to those who cannot afford it, such as the elderly
or those without a job. This pays for the labour hours put in by highly
trained and skilled driver licensing officials that can teach *real*
world driving skills."

Signature

Sherman Cahal
Author of American Byways | http://www.americanbyways.com
Author of Abandoned | http://www.abandonedonline.com

Map Members - Put yourself on the map today! |
http://www.americanbyways.com/index.php?s=mapmem

Donate to preserve bandwidth on American Byways and Abandoned today!

John Graeme - 22 Mar 2006 08:47 GMT
Considering what passes for "liberal" nowadays, a "liberal" may
well take such a position infringing on individual rights.  To anyone
with respect for individual rights, it is repugnant for the state to
label a common and necessary activity a "privilege" that the government
grants us--especially when it is our tax dollars (extorted by the
state) that pay for roads.
proffsl - 22 Mar 2006 13:12 GMT
> Considering what passes for "liberal" nowadays, a "liberal" may
> well take such a position infringing on individual rights.  To anyone
> with respect for individual rights, it is repugnant for the state to
> label a common and necessary activity a "privilege" that the
> government grants us--especially when it is our tax dollars
> (extorted by the state) that pay for roads.

Exactly!

Our Public Highways are intended to enhance our Right of Liberty.  But,
the more our Public Highways are made unuseable by anything but the
Automobile, with this LIE that Driving the Automobile is a State
granted permission, the more they become Prisons of Permission with
Bars of Blacktop.
Motorhead Lawyer - 27 Mar 2006 23:56 GMT
> Our Public Highways are intended to enhance our Right of Liberty.  But,
> the more our Public Highways are made unuseable by anything but the
> Automobile, with this LIE that Driving the Automobile is a State
> granted permission, the more they become Prisons of Permission with
> Bars of Blacktop.

Somebody obviously got arrested riding his lawnmower on the Interstate
...
--
C.R. Krieger
(Been there; drove that)
proffsl - 22 Mar 2006 13:04 GMT
> Unsure of the Libertarian viewpoint on this, but as a very liberal
> person, I am agreeing with your viewpoints. As I stated in another
> thread, driving is a privilege, not a right, and we take it for granted.

Apparently, you did not bother to read any of my arguments and evidence
showing that Driving is a Right, as you clearly did not bother to
respond to any of them.  And, I'm not here to entertain even further
impositions on and abridgments of our Right to Drive.

And, by the way, a "privilege" IS a Right.  In the Constitution of the
United States, in the 14th Amendment, it states:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall
any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the
equal protection of the laws." -- 14th Amendment of the US Constitution

There reference to "privileges or immunities" is a reference to Rights.

Also, in Merriam-Websters, "privileges" is defined as: "a right or
immunity granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor :
PREROGATIVE; especially : such a right or immunity attached
specifically to a position or an office" --
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/privileges

As the 14th Amendment states: "privileges or immunities of citizens of
the United States", it is in saying: "Rights granted as a peculiar
benefit of citizens of the United States".

And, as an asside, concerning the word "granted", it does not mean
"given", but instead it means "to consent to carry out for a person :
allow fulfillment of <grant a request> b : to permit as a right,
privilege, or favor" --
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=granted

So, If Driving is a Privilege, then Driving is a Right.  That is what
they say, isn't it?

On the other hand, where it is assumed Driver Licenses must first be
obtained from the State, then Driving is a State granted Permission.
Driver Licensing is the act of giving revocable permission to one
having no possessory Rights to Drive an Automobile on Public Highways
which would otherwise be unlawful.

But, they don't say Driving is a State granted permission.  They say
it's a Privilege.  And, we have been fooled into believe a "Privilege"
is a "Permission", instead of a "Right"

> My proposal: It would cost $500 for an exam (discounts for the needy,
> etc.), but you would be required to complete a very difficult written
> test that would ask you about many different types of driving situations
> and perform a road course.

Driver Licensing tests can only determine if one CAN drive safely.
But, virtually every consenting adult CAN drive safely.  The primary
problem with highway safety is not if a person CAN drive safely, but
instead if the person WILL drive safely.  And, no Driver Licensing test
can even pretend to determine if a person WILL drive safely.

According to Online Lawyer Source (
http://www.onlinelawyersource.com/personal_injury/auto/causes.html ),
most Automobile accidents are caused due to WILLFUL Negligence,
Maliciousness, Recklessness, Drunkardness or Aggressive Driving.

> $500 is not a lot of money for the average worker.

One Cent is too much to pay for a useless test which only presumes to
convert a Right into a State granted Permission.
Sherman L. Cahal - 22 Mar 2006 14:06 GMT
>> Unsure of the Libertarian viewpoint on this, but as a very liberal
>> person, I am agreeing with your viewpoints. As I stated in another
[quoted text clipped - 65 lines]
> One Cent is too much to pay for a useless test which only presumes to
> convert a Right into a State granted Permission.

So what would your professed solution be to this? Without proper
training, you are going to send more and more untrained and unskilled
drivers onto the roadways.

You want to decrease deaths on the highway and sharpen the skills of the
existing drivers? Increase training, decrease the amount of poorly
skilled drivers, and redo your licensing system. Works in Germany, can
work here.

Signature

Sherman Cahal
Author of American Byways | http://www.americanbyways.com
Author of Abandoned | http://www.abandonedonline.com

Map Members - Put yourself on the map today! |
http://www.americanbyways.com/index.php?s=mapmem

Donate to preserve bandwidth on American Byways and Abandoned today!

proffsl - 22 Mar 2006 14:45 GMT
> So what would your professed solution be to this?

To what?

> Without proper training, you are going to send more and more
> untrained and unskilled drivers onto the roadways.

Apparently you didn't read where I state, and provide evidence, that
the primary problem with highway safety isn't if a person CAN drive
safely, but rather if a person WILL drive safely.  Driver Licensing
tests can only determine if one CAN drive safely. But, virtually every
consenting adult CAN drive safely.  The primary problem with highway
safety is not if a person CAN drive safely, but instead if the person
WILL drive safely.  And, no Driver Licensing test can even pretend to
determine if a person WILL drive safely.

According to Online Lawyer Source (
http://www.onlinelawyersource.com/personal_injury/auto/causes.html ),
most Automobile accidents are caused due to WILLFUL Negligence,
Maliciousness, Recklessness, Drunkardness or Aggressive Driving.

> You want to decrease deaths on the highway and sharpen the skills of the existing drivers?

Is this a rhetorical question?  You decrease deaths on the highways be
decreasing reckless driving.  You decrease reckless driving by
prosecuting reckless driving.  If someone doesn't drive recklessly,
then their not the problem, and no measures should be taken against
them.

> Increase training, decrease the amount of poorly skilled drivers, and redo your licensing system.  Works in Germany, can work here.

Then, move to Germany.  This is America, where we have Rights.
Sherman L. Cahal - 22 Mar 2006 14:11 GMT
>> Unsure of the Libertarian viewpoint on this, but as a very liberal
>> person, I am agreeing with your viewpoints. As I stated in another
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> And, by the way, a "privilege" IS a Right.  In the Constitution of the
> United States, in the 14th Amendment, it states:

Privilege: "A special advantage or immunity or benefit not enjoyed by all"

Right: "Something that somebody gives you. It cannot be taken away."

With those definitions, radicals would propose that licensing could
*never* be taken away from, say, a drunk driver because it is a *right*
and not a *privilege*. These are two wholly different words that should
not be interchanged.

Signature

Sherman Cahal
Author of American Byways | http://www.americanbyways.com
Author of Abandoned | http://www.abandonedonline.com

Map Members - Put yourself on the map today! |
http://www.americanbyways.com/index.php?s=mapmem

Donate to preserve bandwidth on American Byways and Abandoned today!

Brent P - 22 Mar 2006 15:19 GMT
> Right: "Something that somebody gives you. It cannot be taken away."

Rights are not given, we have rights period.

> With those definitions, radicals would propose that licensing could
> *never* be taken away from, say, a drunk driver because it is a *right*
> and not a *privilege*. These are two wholly different words that should
> not be interchanged.

Those are not the only two choices. Using a motor vehicle isn't a right.
But it certainly isn't a priviledge either. Calling it a priviledge has
severely weakened the defense of our actual rights.

The 'right' here is the use of the road system, to travel. I am unsure where
driving falls, but it fundamentally cannot be a priviledge because that
allows the government far too much power. It allows the government to make
people agree to various conditions for the 'priviledge'. It's not a right
because it's not something we fundamentally have. It's a means of travel.

As I think about it, driving is something government can regulate, but
not put conditions upon. In other words there are the rules to driving,
insure basic knowledge, and punish those who break them. That punishment can
be no longer being allowed to operate a motor vehicle on the roads or
whatever. (those rules should make sense, regulations should be technically sound, etc but
that's another subject)

Our rights do not come from government and the government should not
become a grantor of priviledge. We need to work within that construct
regardless.
proffsl - 22 Mar 2006 16:25 GMT
> > Right: "Something that somebody gives you. It cannot be taken away."
>
> Rights are not given, we have rights period.

True.  We INHERENTLY have Rights.

> > With those definitions, radicals would propose that licensing could
> > *never* be taken away from, say, a drunk driver because it is a
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Those are not the only two choices. Using a motor vehicle isn't a
> right.

I contend that using an Automobile for Personal Travel on our Public
Highways IS a Right, or Privilege, of all US Citizens.

> But it certainly isn't a priviledge either. Calling it a priviledge
> has severely weakened the defense of our actual rights.

A "privilege" is nothing more than a "Right" granted by position.

immunity granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor :
PREROGATIVE; especially : such a right or immunity attached
specifically to a position or an office" --
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/privileges

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall
any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the
equal protection of the laws." -- 14th Amendment of the US Constitution

The phrase "privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"
means "Rights granted as a peculiar benefit or advantage of citizens of
the United States".  Or, in other words:  Some Rights are enjoyed ONLY
by US Citizens.

The phrase "any person of life, liberty, or property" means "any
person's Right of life, liberty, or property". Or, in other words:
Some Rights are enjoyed by EVERYONE, US Citizens and Non-US Citizens.

The words "Rights" and "Privileges" are virtually the same words in
their meanings, as I pointed out above from Merriam-Websters.  The only
difference might be that "Rights" are Inherent by mere existence, and
"Privileges" are Inherent by position.  The "Right" to Life is Inherent
by one's mere existence.  The "Privilege" of Travel on our Public
Highways is Inherent by the position of Citizenship.

Although, Even the "Right" to Life is also the "Privilege" of Life
Inherent by the position of being a Human Being.

> The 'right' here is the use of the road system, to travel. I am unsure
> where driving falls, but it fundamentally cannot be a priviledge because
> that allows the government far too much power.

Actually, Driver Licensing assumes Driving the Automobile on our Public
Highways is a PERMISSION given by the State.  There is a considerable
difference between a "Privilege" and a "Permission".  As I have already
shown, "Rights" and "Privileges" are virtually the same things.  Rights
are Inherent to everyone.  Privileges are Rights Inherent by position.
The Right to Life is Inherent to everyone, US Citizen and Non-US
Citizens.  The Privilege to use Public Facliities are Rights Inherent
ONLY to US Citizens.

When they say "Driving is a Privilege", they are actually saying
"Driving is a Right of US Citizens".  And, as for where Driving falls:

"The streets belong to the public and are primarily for the use of the
public in the ordinary way." -- Packard v. Banton, 264 U.S. 140 (1924)
- http://laws.findlaw.com/us/264/140.html#144

In other words:  US Citizens have the Right to use our Public Highways
for Personal Travel in the Ordinary Way.

What is the Ordinary Way we use our Public Highways for Personal Travel
today?  It is, of course, by Driving the Automobile.

> It allows the government to make people agree to various conditions
> for the 'priviledge'. It's not a right because it's not something we
> fundamentally have. It's a means of travel.

Oh but it is something we fundimentally have.  If we have Legs, we
fundamentally have the Power to Walk, which is a means of Travel.  If
we have a Bicycle, we fundamentally have the Power to Bike, which is a
means of Travel.  If we have an Automobile, we fundimentally have the
Power to Drive, which is a means of Travel.

But, on our Public Highways, we only have the Right of Transit
ORDINARILY used.  Extraordinary Transit, such as Walking, Biking, or
Horses, can obstruct with the Transit Ordinarily used (today the
Automobile), and as such can, and often is, prohibited.  After all, the
Public Highways are "primarily for the use of the public in the
ordinary way".  When Extraordinary ways begin to obstruct with the
ordinary way, they can rightfully prohibited.

> As I think about it, driving is something government can regulate,
> but not put conditions upon. In other words there are the rules to
> driving, insure basic knowledge, and punish those who break them.

Yes, just as there are rules to Liberty.  We punish those who break
those rules, such as trespassing.  But, all without needing to first
issue a Liberty License.  Without the need for a Liberty License, one
who abuses their Right of Liberty can be denied of their Right of
Liberty, but only by Due Process of Law.  And, Licensing IS NOT Due
Process of Law.

> That punishment can be no longer being allowed to operate a motor
> vehicle on the roads or whatever. (those rules should make sense,
> regulations should be technically sound, etc but that's another
> subject)

Exactly.  Without the need for a Driver License, when one abuses their
Right to Drive they can be denied of their Right to Drive, but only by
Due Process of Law.  And, again, Licensing IS NOT Due Process of Law.

> Our rights do not come from government and the government should
> not become a grantor of priviledge. We need to work within that
> construct regardless.

Correct.  Rights are not given by Government.  BUT, Rights CAN be Taken
by Government, but only by Due Process of Law.

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall
any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the
equal protection of the laws." -- 14th Amendment of the US Constitution
proffsl - 22 Mar 2006 17:14 GMT
> immunity granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor :
> PREROGATIVE; especially : such a right or immunity attached
> specifically to a position or an office" --
> http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/privileges

Typo!  That should have read:

"priviledge" - right or immunity granted as a peculiar benefit,
advantage, or favor : PREROGATIVE; especially : such a right or
immunity attached specifically to a position or an office" --
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/privileges
Clark Morris - 22 Mar 2006 21:55 GMT
>> > Right: "Something that somebody gives you. It cannot be taken away."
>>
[quoted text clipped - 73 lines]
>What is the Ordinary Way we use our Public Highways for Personal Travel
>today?  It is, of course, by Driving the Automobile.

Actually, I could make a good case that the government should provide
for pedestrian and wheelchair usage on ALL highways and roads. Driving
of any vehicles including horse and buggy, bicycle or automobile would
be a privilege since this requires greater care and the user of such
tools can cause greater harm to others.

>> rest read but snipped.
proffsl - 22 Mar 2006 22:17 GMT
> > > The 'right' here is the use of the road system, to travel. I am
> > > unsure where driving falls, but it fundamentally cannot be a
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
> provide for pedestrian and wheelchair usage on ALL highways and
> roads.

This isn't the issue, and it is also quite absurdly impossible.  The
highway department has enough expenses simply trying to maintain our
public highways designed for the frequent use of automobiles.  Much
less the added cost of building and maintaining sidewalks suitable for
the very infrequent use by pedestrian and wheelchair travel on all
highways and roads.

> Driving of any vehicles including horse and buggy, bicycle or
> automobile would be a privilege since this requires greater care
> and the user of such tools can cause greater harm to others.

I suppose this is my fault for not breaking this discussion up into
quick little sound bytes that this generation has become so accustomed
to.

Let me ask you this one question.  Do you agree that:

"The streets belong to the public and are primarily for the use of the
public in the ordinary way." -- Packard v. Banton, 264 U.S. 140 (1924)
- http://laws.findlaw.com/us/264/140.html#144

means:  We have the Right to use our Public Highways for Personal
Travel in the Ordinary Way?
Bama Brian - 23 Mar 2006 19:31 GMT
>>>> The 'right' here is the use of the road system, to travel. I am
>>>> unsure where driving falls, but it fundamentally cannot be a
[quoted text clipped - 31 lines]
> the very infrequent use by pedestrian and wheelchair travel on all
> highways and roads.

Strange.  Cities used to be able to put decent sidewalks in the
neighborhoods without complaining too much.  Now, if there's a sidewalk
at all in a new neighborhood, it's only wide enough for one walking
person.  Not to mention the fact that the new neighborhood is likely out
in what used to be farmland, with no pedestrian access whatsoever to
schools, churches, shopping, or medical care.

While putting in a ten-foot wide path WOULD be expensive, it could be
done more simply and cheaply by using the median and pedestrian/bicycle
under/overpaths for access to it, where traffic lights don't exist.  And
if new highways, streets, and roads had these slow-traffic paths built
in at the beginning, they'd be a lot less expensive than trying to
retrofit the roads.

BTW, such slow-traffic paths don't have to be built on the interstates;
just on the roads that serve population centers.

Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian
proffsl - 23 Mar 2006 22:21 GMT
> > > > "The streets belong to the public and are primarily for the
> > > > use of the public in the ordinary way." -- Packard v. Banton,
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> Strange.  Cities used to be able to put decent sidewalks in the
> neighborhoods without complaining too much.

Even today's cities don't have sidewalks on all their highways or
roads, much less trying to consider the same for rural roads as well!
And, this isn't the issue.  The US Supreme Court has ruled that:

"The streets belong to the public and are primarily for the use of the
public in the ordinary way." -- Packard v. Banton, 264 U.S. 140 (1924)
- http://laws.findlaw.com/us/264/140.html#144

Do you agree that this means that we have the Right to use our Public
Highways for Personal Travel in the Ordinary Way?
proffsl - 22 Mar 2006 15:25 GMT
> > > Unsure of the Libertarian viewpoint on this, but as a very liberal
> > > person, I am agreeing with your viewpoints. As I stated in another
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> Privilege: "A special advantage or immunity or benefit not enjoyed
> by all"

>From Merriam-Websters:  "privileges" is defined as: "a right or
immunity granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor :
PREROGATIVE; especially : such a right or immunity attached
specifically to a position or an office" --
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/privileges

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall
any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the
equal protection of the laws." -- 14th Amendment of the US Constitution

The phrase "privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"
means "Rights granted as a peculiar benefit or advantage of citizens of
the United States".  Or, in other words:  Some Rights are enjoyed ONLY
by US Citizens.

The phrase "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge
the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" means
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the Rights
granted as a peculiar benefit or advantage of citizens of the United
States".  Or, in other words:  Of the Rights enjoyed ONLY by US
Citizens, no State shall make any Law abriding them.

In the 14th Amendment above, the phrase: "any person of life, liberty,
or property" means "any person's Right of life, liberty, or property".
Or, in other words:  Some Rights are enjoyed by EVERYONE, US Citizens
and Non-US Citizens.

In the 14th Amendment above, the phrase: "nor shall any State deprive
any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"
means "Nor shall any State deprive any person of their Individual Right
of Life, Liberty, or Property, without due process of law".  Or, in
other words:  Of the Rights enjoyed by EVERYONE, no State shall deprive
any person of them.

> Right: "Something that somebody gives you. It cannot be taken
> away."
>
> With those definitions, radicals would propose that licensing could
> *never* be taken away from,

But, according to the 14th Amendment, "No State shall make or enforce
any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of
the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law".  Meaning, Rights CAN
be denied by Due Process of Law.

But, Licensing IS NOT Due Process of Law.  Without the need for a
Liberty License, your Right to Liberty may still be denied by Due
Process of Law.

> say, a drunk driver because it is a *right* and not a *privilege*.

A Right is a Privilege and a Privilege is a Right.  Some Rights, or
Privileges, belong only to US Citizens.  Some Rights, or Privileges,
belong to EVERYONE.  And, US Citizens, or Non-US Citizens, may be
denied of any of their Rights, but only by Due Process of Law.
Therefore, even though Driving is a Right, drunk drivers can be denied
of their Right to Drive by Due Process of Law.

> These are two wholly different words that should not be interchanged.

The words "Rights" and "Privileges" are virtually the same words in
their meanings, as I pointed out above from Merriam-Websters.  The only
difference might be that "Rights" are Inherent by mere existence, and
"Privileges" are Inherent by position.  The "Right" to Life is Inherent
by one's mere existence.  The "Privilege" of Travel on our Public
Highways is Inherent by the position of Citizenship.

Although, Even the "Right" to Life is also the "Privilege" of Life
Inherent by the position of being a Human Being.
Matthew Russotto - 23 Mar 2006 04:39 GMT
>With those definitions, radicals would propose that licensing could
>*never* be taken away from, say, a drunk driver because it is a *right*
>and not a *privilege*. These are two wholly different words that should
>not be interchanged.

A real radical would propose that driving not be licensed.
Signature

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

proffsl - 23 Mar 2006 15:04 GMT
> > With those definitions, radicals would propose that licensing could
> > *never* be taken away from, say, a drunk driver because it is a
> > *right* and not a *privilege*. These are two wholly different words
> > that should not be interchanged.
>
> A real radical would propose that driving not be licensed.

A real fascist would propose that we don't have a Right to use our
Public Highways for Personal Travel in the Ordinary Way.

"The streets belong to the public and are primarily for the use of the
public in the ordinary way." -- Packard v. Banton, 264 U.S. 140 (1924)
- http://laws.findlaw.com/us/264/140.html#144
Motorhead Lawyer - 27 Mar 2006 23:58 GMT
> And, by the way, a "privilege" IS a Right.

Then why in the hell have you spent countless hours trying to argue
that driving is *either* one or the other when both are *the same*?
Who's the moron now?
--
C.R. Krieger
(Been there; drove that)
Brent P - 22 Mar 2006 14:53 GMT
> thread, driving is a privilege, not a right, and we take it for granted.

Fundamentally wrong given our system of government. It makes government a
grantor or privilege and thusly it can create all sorts of rules as the
grantor. Because of this, the Bill of Rights is effectively null and
void. It's this concept that has lead to the checkpoints that now exist.
It will only get worse in the future.
Scott M. Kozel - 22 Mar 2006 15:00 GMT
> > thread, driving is a privilege, not a right, and we take it for granted.
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> void. It's this concept that has lead to the checkpoints that now exist.
> It will only get worse in the future.

So would you argue that someone who practices drunk driving has a
"right" to keep driving?  How about driving while doped up?

How about someone who is so inept that they have caused multiple serious
crashes and multiple fatal crashes?  Does that person have a "right" to
keep driving?

Signature

Scott M. Kozel    Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley   http://www.pennways.com

Brent P - 22 Mar 2006 15:22 GMT
>> > thread, driving is a privilege, not a right, and we take it for granted.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> So would you argue that someone who practices drunk driving has a
> "right" to keep driving?  How about driving while doped up?

This is not an either or binary.

> How about someone who is so inept that they have caused multiple serious
> crashes and multiple fatal crashes?  Does that person have a "right" to
> keep driving?

Again, this is not an either or binary.

Making government a grantor of priviledge is fundamentally wrong and
problematic. With the concept that driving is a priviledge government can
make us sign away our real rights for the priviledge. This is dangerous
and government is going down that road. (not to mention we are losing our
rights outside of driving because people have been conditioned to it)
Scott M. Kozel - 22 Mar 2006 15:52 GMT
> > So would you argue that someone who practices drunk driving has a
> > "right" to keep driving?  How about driving while doped up?
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> and government is going down that road. (not to mention we are losing our
> rights outside of driving because people have been conditioned to it)

IOW, you would not disagree that someone who practices drunk driving has
a "right" to keep driving, or that someone who has a problem with
causing multiple serious crashes and multiple fatal crashes, should not
have a "right" to keep driving.

The folks who elect the government, would on the vast majority disagree
with those notions.

Signature

Scott M. Kozel    Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley   http://www.pennways.com

proffsl - 22 Mar 2006 16:33 GMT
> > Making government a grantor of priviledge is fundamentally wrong
> > and problematic. With the concept that driving is a priviledge
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> causing multiple serious crashes and multiple fatal crashes, should not
> have a "right" to keep driving.

Without the need for a Liberty License, one who abuses their Right of
Liberty by trespassing can be denied of their Right of Liberty, but
only by Due Process of Law.  Without the need for a Driver License, one
who abuses their Right to Drive by reckless endangerment can be denied
of their Right to Drive, but only by Due Process of Law.  Licensing IS
NOT Due Process of Law.

> The folks who elect the government, would on the vast majority
> disagree with those notions.

I wish you would address my posts as I began this thread.
Motorhead Lawyer - 28 Mar 2006 00:01 GMT
> I wish you would address my posts as I began this thread.

Take your wishes to Jiminy Cricket, moron.
--
C.R. Krieger
(Been there; drove that)
Brent P - 22 Mar 2006 16:37 GMT
> IOW, you would not disagree that someone who practices drunk driving has
> a "right" to keep driving, or that someone who has a problem with
> causing multiple serious crashes and multiple fatal crashes, should not
> have a "right" to keep driving.

> The folks who elect the government, would on the vast majority disagree
> with those notions.

I suggest you go have an arguement with yourself on that binary concept
of driving needing to be a right or priviledge and nothing else. Anyone
with any degree of reading skills could grasp that I am not arguing
driving is a right.


proffsl - 22 Mar 2006 16:51 GMT
> > IOW, you would not disagree that someone who practices drunk driving
> > has a "right" to keep driving, or that someone who has a problem with
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> with any degree of reading skills could grasp that I am not arguing
> driving is a right.

Okay, now I understand what you meant by saying: "This is not an either
or binary."

There are Rights, Priviledges and Permissions.

Rights are Inherent to everyone, US Citizens and Non-US Citizens.  Life
is a Right Inherent to everyone, US Citizens and Non-US Citizens.

Privileges are Rights Inherent ONLY to US Citizens.  Driving on our
Public Highways is a Right Inherent ONLY to US Citizens.

Permissions are Rights ONLY to those they are given.  Permission to
enter my home is a Right ONLY to those I give it to.
Scott M. Kozel - 22 Mar 2006 19:02 GMT
> > IOW, you would not disagree that someone who practices drunk driving has
> > a "right" to keep driving, or that someone who has a problem with
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> with any degree of reading skills could grasp that I am not arguing
> driving is a right.

Your post where I first replied, essentially said that driving is a
"right"; where one poster said, "driving is a privilege, not a right",
and you replied, "Fundamentally wrong given our system of government".

There is no "right to drive an automobile", explicit or implicit, in the
U.S. Constitution.  There is a right to travel, but that can be done by
other means (including walking and public transport) than oneself
driving a high-speed machine that weights 2,000 pounds or more.  

Signature

Scott M. Kozel    Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley   http://www.pennways.com

Brent P - 22 Mar 2006 19:26 GMT
>> > IOW, you would not disagree that someone who practices drunk driving has
>> > a "right" to keep driving, or that someone who has a problem with
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> "right"; where one poster said, "driving is a privilege, not a right",
> and you replied, "Fundamentally wrong given our system of government".

Driving is not a priviledge. (that doesn't make it a right)

Read my posts in this thread and the other similiar ones. I don't give a
full review with every post.

> There is no "right to drive an automobile", explicit or implicit, in the
> U.S. Constitution.  There is a right to travel, but that can be done by
> other means (including walking and public transport) than oneself
> driving a high-speed machine that weights 2,000 pounds or more.  

Not a priviledge != right.
Scott M. Kozel - 22 Mar 2006 19:44 GMT
> >> I suggest you go have an arguement with yourself on that binary concept
> >> of driving needing to be a right or priviledge and nothing else. Anyone
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> Read my posts in this thread and the other similiar ones. I don't give a
> full review with every post.

I just did... apparently you don't think that driving is a 'right' or a
'privilege', but it's not all that clear what you think that it is.

Signature

Scott M. Kozel    Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley   http://www.pennways.com

Brent P - 22 Mar 2006 19:49 GMT
> I just did... apparently you don't think that driving is a 'right' or a
> 'privilege', but it's not all that clear what you think that it is.

I believe I wrote words to that effect. I also attempted to describe where I
believe it falls.  

Government is making more and more play of the 'priviledge' concept of
driving. You do know about the back-door national ID card right?
Scott M. Kozel - 22 Mar 2006 20:01 GMT
> > I just did... apparently you don't think that driving is a 'right' or a
> > 'privilege', but it's not all that clear what you think that it is.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> Government is making more and more play of the 'priviledge' concept of
> driving.

Not really.  That concept was commonly taught back on the 1960s when I
first started driving.  It has been around a lot longer than that.
Mainly tied to the number of people that are killed and injured in auto
crashes each year.

Signature

Scott M. Kozel    Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley   http://www.pennways.com

Brent P - 22 Mar 2006 20:13 GMT
>> > I just did... apparently you don't think that driving is a 'right' or a
>> > 'privilege', but it's not all that clear what you think that it is.
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> Not really.  That concept was commonly taught back on the 1960s when I
> first started driving.  It has been around a lot longer than that.

I didn't say the concept had not been around for decades. It's being used
more and more as a way around our rights.

> Mainly tied to the number of people that are killed and injured in auto
> crashes each year.

If it only saves one child.....
Scott M. Kozel - 22 Mar 2006 20:28 GMT
> >> > I just did... apparently you don't think that driving is a 'right' or a
> >> > 'privilege', but it's not all that clear what you think that it is.
> >>
> >> I believe I wrote words to that effect. I also attempted to describe where I
> >> believe it falls.

I honestly didn't see it...

> >> Government is making more and more play of the 'priviledge' concept of
> >> driving.
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> If it only saves one child.....

It's not one child -- per year in the U.S., road crashes account for
over 40,000 deaths, over 1 million injuries, and over $100 billion in
property damage.  That is why it is highly regulated, because there is
high citizen support for that.

Signature

Scott M. Kozel    Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley   http://www.pennways.com

Brent P - 22 Mar 2006 22:20 GMT
>> >> > I just did... apparently you don't think that driving is a 'right' or a
>> >> > 'privilege', but it's not all that clear what you think that it is.
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
> property damage.  That is why it is highly regulated, because there is
> high citizen support for that.

So instead of actually addressing the issue, lets empower the concept of
government granted priviledge. That way we'll have checkpoints, tracking
devices, searches, and anything else the government wants plus no less
than the 40,000+ deaths and million + injuries and $100,000,000,000+ in
property damage every year.

Like I posted previously, _proper_ regulation of driving is not a
problem. The concept of government granted priviledge is. Because
suddenly, the people have to surrender the entire bill of rights and then
some to be granted the priviledge of driving.
Scott M. Kozel - 22 Mar 2006 22:37 GMT
> >> If it only saves one child.....
> >
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> than the 40,000+ deaths and million + injuries and $100,000,000,000+ in
> property damage every year.

Logical fallacy --  reductio ad absurdum

> Like I posted previously, _proper_ regulation of driving is not a
> problem. The concept of government granted priviledge is. Because
> suddenly, the people have to surrender the entire bill of rights and then
> some to be granted the priviledge of driving.

Puh-leeze.  Nobody is surrendering any inalienable rights by having
motor vehicle use regulated as it is today.  The 'government' is the
creation of the citizenry, who in this case want such strong regulation.

Signature

Scott M. Kozel    Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley   http://www.pennways.com

Alan Baker - 22 Mar 2006 22:44 GMT
> > >> If it only saves one child.....
> > >
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> motor vehicle use regulated as it is today.  The 'government' is the
> creation of the citizenry, who in this case want such strong regulation.

So if the citizenry want to -- say -- limit the rights of women in the
same manner as the limits imposed by certain Muslim societies; that's OK?

Free speech, rights of assembly, etc.: all can be stripped if enough of
the citizenry say it's alright?

Signature

Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

Scott M. Kozel - 22 Mar 2006 22:53 GMT
> > > So instead of actually addressing the issue, lets empower the concept of
> > > government granted priviledge. That way we'll have checkpoints, tracking
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> So if the citizenry want to -- say -- limit the rights of women in the
> same manner as the limits imposed by certain Muslim societies; that's OK?

Logical fallacy --  reductio ad absurdum

The U.S. Constitution is quite clear about that issue.

> Free speech, rights of assembly, etc.: all can be stripped if enough of
> the citizenry say it's alright?

Logical fallacy --  reductio ad absurdum

The U.S. Constitution is quite clear about that issue.

Signature

Scott M. Kozel    Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley   http://www.pennways.com

Alan Baker - 22 Mar 2006 22:57 GMT
> > > > So instead of actually addressing the issue, lets empower the concept
> > > > of
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
>
> The U.S. Constitution is quite clear about that issue.

The U.S. Constitution is not the issue. You said that government is a
creation of the citizenry and that it is there to give the citizenry
what it wants; no limits mentioned. Well:

A. The U.S. Constitution is not the whole world.

and B. It too is a creation of the citizenry.

> > Free speech, rights of assembly, etc.: all can be stripped if enough of
> > the citizenry say it's alright?
>
> Logical fallacy --  reductio ad absurdum
>
> The U.S. Constitution is quite clear about that issue.

Signature

Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

Scott M. Kozel - 22 Mar 2006 23:07 GMT
> > > > Nobody is surrendering any inalienable rights by having
> > > > motor vehicle use regulated as it is today.  The 'government' is the
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
> and B. It too is a creation of the citizenry.

The U.S. Constitution can be amended, although the amendment process was
intentionally made difficult by requiring super-majority votes.

> --
> Alan Baker
> Vancouver, British Columbia

I am posting from the U.S., and I really can't speak to what other
countries do.  In many countries, private motor vehicle use is rare due
to economics, so it is a relatively moot point there.

Signature

Scott M. Kozel    Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley   http://www.pennways.com

Alan Baker - 22 Mar 2006 23:32 GMT
> > > > > Nobody is surrendering any inalienable rights by having
> > > > > motor vehicle use regulated as it is today.  The 'government' is the
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> The U.S. Constitution can be amended, although the amendment process was
> intentionally made difficult by requiring super-majority votes.

Which makes my original questions valid, right?

> > --
> > Alan Baker
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> countries do.  In many countries, private motor vehicle use is rare due
> to economics, so it is a relatively moot point there.

Signature

Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

Scott M. Kozel - 23 Mar 2006 00:03 GMT
> > > > > > Nobody is surrendering any inalienable rights by having
> > > > > > motor vehicle use regulated as it is today.  The 'government' is the
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>
> Which makes my original questions valid, right?

No.  Those are fundamental human rights.

Nobody is surrendering any fundamental rights by having
motor vehicle use regulated as it is today.

Signature

Scott M. Kozel    Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley   http://www.pennways.com

Alan Baker - 23 Mar 2006 00:04 GMT
> > > > > > > Nobody is surrendering any inalienable rights by having
> > > > > > > motor vehicle use regulated as it is today.  The 'government' is
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
> Nobody is surrendering any fundamental rights by having
> motor vehicle use regulated as it is today.

Of course they are.

Answer this question, we have the fundamental right to travel from place
to place, right?

OK: What means does that encompass?

Signature

Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

Scott M. Kozel - 23 Mar 2006 00:35 GMT
> > > Which makes my original questions valid, right?
> >
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Of course they are.

Nonsense.  Personal motor vehicle use isn't even available for most of
the world's population.  Motor vehicle use is an outgrowth of a
technology that has only existed for about 100 years.

> Answer this question, we have the fundamental right to travel from place
> to place, right?
>
> OK: What means does that encompass?

That means that we can travel from place to place.  You can do that
without driving a motor vehicle, just like has been done for millennia.

Signature

Scott M. Kozel    Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley   http://www.pennways.com

Alan Baker - 23 Mar 2006 01:13 GMT
> > > > Which makes my original questions valid, right?
> > >
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> That means that we can travel from place to place.  You can do that
> without driving a motor vehicle, just like has been done for millennia.

OK.

Then you have the right to free speech. But the state can make using a
printing press or any means other than your voice illegal, right?

Signature

Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

Scott M. Kozel - 23 Mar 2006 01:19 GMT
> > > Answer this question, we have the fundamental right to travel from place
> > > to place, right?
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> Then you have the right to free speech. But the state can make using a
> printing press or any means other than your voice illegal, right?

They do regulate radio transmission.  I can't see any reason why they
would want to ban the printing press.

Signature

Scott M. Kozel    Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley   http://www.pennways.com

Alan Baker - 23 Mar 2006 01:39 GMT
> > > > Answer this question, we have the fundamental right to travel from place
> > > > to place, right?
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> They do regulate radio transmission.  I can't see any reason why they
> would want to ban the printing press.

What does reason have to do with it? Your thesis is that our rights
don't entitle us to use technology to exercise them.

Signature

Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

Scott M. Kozel - 23 Mar 2006 05:23 GMT
> > > > > Answer this question, we have the fundamental right to travel from place
> > > > > to place, right?
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> What does reason have to do with it? Your thesis is that our rights
> don't entitle us to use technology to exercise them.

You just keep posting those strawman and red herring arguments, I see.

Signature

Scott M. Kozel    Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley   http://www.pennways.com

Alan Baker - 23 Mar 2006 05:35 GMT
> > > > > > Answer this question, we have the fundamental right to travel from
> > > > > > place
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>
> You just keep posting those strawman and red herring arguments, I see.

OK.

What's your thesis then?

Before you answer, let's examine a paragraph of yours:

"Nonsense.  Personal motor vehicle use isn't even available for most of
the world's population.  Motor vehicle use is an outgrowth of a
technology that has only existed for about 100 years."

So what are you trying to say?

Signature

Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."