Subject:
|
Re: Should we be concerned?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 4 Jun 2003 01:58:45 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
470 times
|
| |
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti wrote:
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd wrote:
|
...since a drivers license is not a right
|
Hmmm, I find this a sticking point.
I believe the right to travel by common conveyance is a right.
|
Please cite in the Constitution this right.
|
If it were
otherwise Id 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 shouldnt be relegated to mere walking alone,
|
Bus, train, taxi, airplane, unicycle, bicycle, tricycle, Segway; take your pick.
|
thats 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.
|
How about theft?
|
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 operators
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.
|
Yet another conspiracy?
|
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.
|
Are you kidding me??? You are asking the state to make exceptions based upon
religion! Hypocrite!
|
We are heading too quickly
towards a national I.D. and all manner of other tools of control.
|
Invoking a national I.D. argument is specious; a drivers license is completely
voluntary.
Again, the amazing part to me is that this is even an issue of contention.
JOHN
|
|
Message has 2 Replies: | | Re: Should we be concerned?
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote: <snip> (...) Totally on the same page with John--driving's a priviledge, not a right, and getting a drivers license, as it stands today in many areas, is getting your picture taken such that when and if (...) (21 years ago, 4-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | Re: Should we be concerned?
|
| (...) Article 9 and 10 of the Bill of Rights. Would they license a horse? Don't they license motorcycles and bikes? Aren't the roads called "rights of way." We all have the right to travel -- this was recognized as early as Magna Carta in the common (...) (21 years ago, 4-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|