Subject:
|
Re: Should we be concerned?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 3 Jun 2003 20:29:31 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
446 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd wrote:
| |
...since a driver’s license is not a right
|
Hmmm, I find this a sticking point.
I believe the right to travel by common conveyance is a right. If it were
otherwise I’d be stuck at home unless I were willing to obtain whatever license
is necessary to travel -- and then my right to travel would be being regulated
unfairly. And I shouldn’t be relegated to mere walking alone, that’s less than
is necessary in the modern world -- and I have a right to work, to buy
groceries, and do all the needed things to survive.
I am not a driver or chauffer of any kind -- no cargo, no paying passengers --
just me and or my family and our personal goods. I am not engaged in some
extraordinary, privileged activity in using a car. To the contrary, if I were
to drive a car I would be engaged in one of the most mundane and ordinary
activities possible in the U.S. in the year 2003.
BUT, I understand the public may have an interest in testing my proficiency for
an activity like driving -- and as such, I think some kind of “operator’s
certificate” would suffice. Basically, an eye exam with a test showing that I
can drive a possibly lethal weapon without causing loss of property or harm to
my neighbors. Maybe test me once every 10-20 years. No attendant, quasi-ponzi,
insurance scheme, thank you very much. I can be responsible for me and mine.
In my view, the reason they want to license you is tie you into a quasi-contract
via the vehicle code -- basically, to regulate the heck out of you. And with
such regulation comes a whole host of regulatory intrusions and hassles that
attempt to prevent that which is unavoidable -- that people will violate the
regulations (often and without aforethought). And I strongly disagree with both
the motivation and the results that are currently part of our life.
On the subject of the veil, I think a person may have a religious right to
refuse intrusive identification techniques. We are heading too quickly towards
a national I.D. and all manner of other tools of control.
-- Hop-Frog (a “fruit-at-the-bottom” guy, in a “pre-stirred” world)
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Should we be concerned?
|
| (...) Allow me to correct myself: a driver's license is specifically enumerated as not a right in California. Other states may be different, though I don't specically know of any that vary from that. The right to travel is in no way prohibited. You (...) (21 years ago, 3-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | Re: Should we be concerned?
|
| (...) Please cite in the Constitution this "right". (...) Bus, train, taxi, airplane, unicycle, bicycle, tricycle, Segway; take your pick. (...) How about theft? (...) Yet another conspiracy? (...) Are you kidding me??? You are asking the state to (...) (21 years ago, 4-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Should we be concerned?
|
| (...) I'm very glad the ACLU is there to take the case. I must say, I hope they lose, and I presume they will since a driver's license is not a right, but it doesn't bother me in the slightest that they took the case. Without the ACLU, all we would (...) (21 years ago, 2-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
36 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
