Subject:
|
Re: Should we be concerned?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 3 Jun 2003 22:52:26 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
374 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti wrote:
| |
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.
|
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 can use the bus, train, light rail, taxi, plane, etc. But
driving a car is restricted to licensed drivers, and you must submit to the
state regulations to get one. The only question is it a reasonable request:
accurate identification would seem to be a reasonable request so that the driver
can be accurately assessed as to whether they match the issued license or not.
The “I have a right to work” excuse is specifically addressed and dismissed in
California (see alternate modes of transport listed above - what you are
attempting to argue is that a driver’s license could never, ever be suspended).
| |
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.
|
But is it you in the car driving it?
| |
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.
|
What can I say? I disagree with your view.
| |
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.
|
Depends on the situation - if she wants to drive a vehicle on public roads,
she’s outta luck.
-->Bruce<--
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Should we be concerned?
|
| (...) 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 (...) (21 years ago, 3-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
|
|
|
|
