It's About Liberty: A Conservative Forum
Topics => General Board => Topic started by: Pandora on August 25, 2012, 07:37:59 AM
-
This is too good not to share.
Driving is not a right. You can have your privilege taken away by the state at any time for violations. If it was a right you could not like voting. If it is a right would not fees and taxes against the law? It is not in the constitution as a right and if you had no money the government does not give you a car or pay your insurance or tags for you. Legally if it was a right they would.
You have the right to freedom to travel and move about but it does not say a car is it. You are free to come and go on your feet or a bicycle or public transport.
Have at it.
-
What the hell is this?
-
It's one voter's opinion, from the intarwebs, aka my local forum.
What's wrong, IDP?
-
This is too good not to share.
Driving is not a right. You can have your privilege taken away by the state at any time for violations. If it was a right you could not like voting. If it is a right would not fees and taxes against the law? It is not in the constitution as a right and if you had no money the government does not give you a car or pay your insurance or tags for you. Legally if it was a right they would.
You have the right to freedom to travel and move about but it does not say a car is it. You are free to come and go on your feet or a bicycle or public transport.
Have at it.
Don't know Pan, this doesn't quite rise to blithering idiot quality for me. Just run of the mill, post American, public school educated nonsense .
The invocation of the Constitution is absurd
Amendment IX :The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X:The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
A "right" does not need to be enumerated in the Constitution to be a "right".
As to his point, I think it would be more accurate to say that I don't have a right to drive a car on public roads. I have a right to own and drive a car all I want on my own property - without a license or plates. A "Right" does not preclude reasonable bounds either - you rights end where another's begin. Your right to yell "Fire" ends when its endangers or harms others. Likewise, your "right" to drive a car ends when you endanger others. A License is the common way of trying to ensure that a person behind the wheel is responsible enough to be there and not cause damage.
-
As to his point, I think it would be more accurate to say that I don't have a right to drive a car on public roads. I have a right to own and drive a car all I want on my own property - without a license or plates. A "Right" does not preclude reasonable bounds either - you rights end where another's begin. Your right to yell "Fire" ends when its endangers or harms others. Likewise, your "right" to drive a car ends when you endanger others. A License is the common way of trying to ensure that a person behind the wheel is responsible enough to be there and not cause damage.
Driving is a right, not a privilege and I'm not gonna leave it to the government to decide what rights I have and I don't. We are taxed in too many innumerable ways for the damn roads to buy into the government's little myth. You may just as well apply your licensing rationale to the Second Amendment, if that was the case, for no other reason than "A "right" does not need to be enumerated in the Constitution to be a "right", as you wrote.
-
Of course we didn't have cars back when the constitution was written, and they spelled out our 'rights', so, I wonder, I suppose that the citizens had a 'right' to own and ride a horse. Did the government require a riders license, horse registration, horse inspection, and liability insurance back then?
-
Of course we didn't have cars back when the constitution was written, and they spelled out our 'rights', so, I wonder, I suppose that the citizens had a 'right' to own and ride a horse. Did the government require a riders license, horse registration, horse inspection, and liability insurance back then?
No, there was none of that required for horses and buckboards, but I figure you wrote that tongue-in-cheek anyway.
As for the Constitution, it did not spell out our rights, radioman; it set up the Federal government, authorized 18 duties and responsibilities, and included the Bill of Rights as an added and emphasized "DO NOT TOUCH" with an Amendment that said "and this is not an inclusive list".
The Constitution is not a list of what we may do; it's a list of what the Feds must and cannot.
-
Don't know Pan, this doesn't quite rise to blithering idiot quality for me. Just run of the mill, post American, public school educated nonsense .
Same brain-dead blithering idiot that swore I made up the word "fungible" and poohed-poohed my dictionary source.
-
Driving is a right, not a privilege and I'm not gonna leave it to the government to decide what rights I have and I don't. We are taxed in too many innumerable ways for the damn roads to buy into the government's little myth. You may just as well apply your licensing rationale to the Second Amendment, if that was the case, for no other reason than "A "right" does not need to be enumerated in the Constitution to be a "right", as you wrote.
There are two definitions of a "Right" - the liberal one, in which a commodity is provided to everyone at the expense of others, and the conservative one, which is usually a cost-free declaration that you may pursue a particular course of action without interference and at your own expense.
The typical conservative/libertarian view is that govt can only prohibit and punish actions that harm others -a concept known as "negative law" . The opposite end of the spectrum is "Positive law", in which the govt laws mandate certain behavior - things you <must> do to produce desired "beneficial" societal outcomes- Robert's decision handed that power to the liberals in spades.
In the conservative view You don't have the right to use your liberty in such a way that it endangers the "Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness" of others. You have a right to own a gun. You don't have a right to use one recklessly, and we (in theory) deprive people of that right when they show they will abuse it (say a felon) , or if we feel that they are (more) likely to abuse it (insane).
Libertarians tend to prefer laws that punish only real, identifiable harm. Hence they fell drug use should be legal - even if it increases the possibility that an addicted drug user will commit crimes to feed their habit. They feel we must wait till there is an identifiable victim before the govt can step in. However, that means someone may have died during a drug related robbery attempt, so most conservatives favor a "middle ground" further over on the spectrum toward "positive law" - where the probability of bad results is in included in the calculations of if an activity is considered illegal. Its an attempt to regulate behavior deemed likely to result in harm to others - "legal endangerment" is the embodiment of this concept . Consequently, your freedom of speech doesn't include a right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater, your 2nd amendment right doesn't allow you to fire your gun in the air in a crowded city ( or at all in some places) , and your right to "free movement" doesn't allow a blind person to get behind the wheel of a car.
The potential for abuse is there because you are relying on someone's vision and determination of what is "likely" to cause harm- just as positive law relies on someone's view of "what is best for society" A driver's license is a way to determine who is "likely" to cause harm - the blind, known drunks with DUIs, etc. Likewise, the requirement for liability insurance is to protect others in the case that a person who WAS issued a license has a bad day - a second order protection of the rights of others.
Just because something is a "Right", doesn't mean it can't be restricted to protect the rights of others (especially at the State or local level) , and that is all the licensing system is supposed to be doing. Of course, as Radioman pointed out, at other times we (being our govt and system for determining such things) decided the potential harm did not warrant a licensing system - partly because Horse drawn speeds were more limited, roads were poor and traffic was less.
This difference is really the main dispute between conservatism and libertarianism - and why I typically identify as Conservative and not libertarian. I do believe that the govt should engage in restricting behavior likely to cause harm, and accept the tradeoff that in certain circumstances a right may be restricted unfairly and for no reason.
-
Don't know Pan, this doesn't quite rise to blithering idiot quality for me. Just run of the mill, post American, public school educated nonsense .
Same brain-dead blithering idiot that swore I made up the word "fungible" and poohed-poohed my dictionary source.
Well you didn't mention that. Yes, that is blithering idiot quality.
-
With blitering idiots being turned out by state run indoctrination camps it is no wonder the constitution has been so perverted. If people do not care to truly educate themselves on our Founding and the men who led it, the meaning of the Declaration of Independence, the meaning of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the principles of real Federalism...it is because they were taught the meaning of words is fungible so it is no wonder their interpretation of original intent is made fungible! The state education camps cater to the lowest common denominator, we are merely witnessing the bitter fruits of that harvest. Time for reaping.
-
The only fix for this species of moron is to find out what her particular ox is, and then gore it. It's a trait that goes hand in hand with being an Oblivion, the inability to conceptualize things unless they can be directly felt and experienced by oneself.
The anti-smoking crusaders of the early 90s probably never thought the same mentality (and most importantly, the same sledgehammer they had just entrusted the government with) would ever be used in new crusades against such things as table salt, fatty foods, and 32 ounce soft drinks.
Morons like this will never get it, until it's some aspect of their own lives being declared officially unacceptable.
-
“The unexamined life is not worth living”
I especially appreciate the certainty with which she relinquishes her rights. I remember her type from the long ago time of my school years. Always eager to demonstrate how well she could conform to the rules; always apprehensive about pleasing her superiors. Not enough to merely be a sheeple - she is the type who scolds others for their alleged improprieties.
"Mary was a little lamb..."
-
Driving is a right, not a privilege and I'm not gonna leave it to the government to decide what rights I have and I don't. We are taxed in too many innumerable ways for the damn roads to buy into the government's little myth. You may just as well apply your licensing rationale to the Second Amendment, if that was the case, for no other reason than "A "right" does not need to be enumerated in the Constitution to be a "right", as you wrote.
There are two definitions of a "Right" - the liberal one, in which a commodity is provided to everyone at the expense of others, and the conservative one, which is usually a cost-free declaration that you may pursue a particular course of action without interference and at your own expense.
The typical conservative/libertarian view is that govt can only prohibit and punish actions that harm others -a concept known as "negative law" . The opposite end of the spectrum is "Positive law", in which the govt laws mandate certain behavior - things you <must> do to produce desired "beneficial" societal outcomes- Robert's decision handed that power to the liberals in spades.
In the conservative view You don't have the right to use your liberty in such a way that it endangers the "Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness" of others. You have a right to own a gun. You don't have a right to use one recklessly, and we (in theory) deprive people of that right when they show they will abuse it (say a felon) , or if we feel that they are (more) likely to abuse it (insane).
Libertarians tend to prefer laws that punish only real, identifiable harm. Hence they fell drug use should be legal - even if it increases the possibility that an addicted drug user will commit crimes to feed their habit. They feel we must wait till there is an identifiable victim before the govt can step in. However, that means someone may have died during a drug related robbery attempt, so most conservatives favor a "middle ground" further over on the spectrum toward "positive law" - where the probability of bad results is in included in the calculations of if an activity is considered illegal. Its an attempt to regulate behavior deemed likely to result in harm to others - "legal endangerment" is the embodiment of this concept . Consequently, your freedom of speech doesn't include a right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater, your 2nd amendment right doesn't allow you to fire your gun in the air in a crowded city ( or at all in some places) , and your right to "free movement" doesn't allow a blind person to get behind the wheel of a car.
The potential for abuse is there because you are relying on someone's vision and determination of what is "likely" to cause harm- just as positive law relies on someone's view of "what is best for society" A driver's license is a way to determine who is "likely" to cause harm - the blind, known drunks with DUIs, etc. Likewise, the requirement for liability insurance is to protect others in the case that a person who WAS issued a license has a bad day - a second order protection of the rights of others.
Just because something is a "Right", doesn't mean it can't be restricted to protect the rights of others (especially at the State or local level) , and that is all the licensing system is supposed to be doing. Of course, as Radioman pointed out, at other times we (being our govt and system for determining such things) decided the potential harm did not warrant a licensing system - partly because Horse drawn speeds were more limited, roads were poor and traffic was less.
This difference is really the main dispute between conservatism and libertarianism - and why I typically identify as Conservative and not libertarian. I do believe that the govt should engage in restricting behavior likely to cause harm, and accept the tradeoff that in certain circumstances a right may be restricted unfairly and for no reason.
Well, we're going to have to agree to disagree about this then. If you're going to be leaving it to the government to decide what possible way my exercise of my rights *might* infringe on the rights of others because some is "likely to cause harm", you go right on as they restrict your rights "for the common good"; I passed that point some time ago.
-
A License is the common way of trying to ensure that a person behind the wheel is responsible enough to be there and not cause damage.
A license is tax, a fee, a means of enriching the bureaucratic coffers
ensuring their perpetuation. What kind of test does is one required
to pass in order to receive a license? A written test, that has no
practical application what so ever. The driving test, well, it does
confirm that one knows the pedals and mirror.
-
Well, we're going to have to agree to disagree about this then. If you're going to be leaving it to the government to decide what possible way my exercise of my rights *might* infringe on the rights of others because some is "likely to cause harm", you go right on as they restrict your rights "for the common good"; I passed that point some time ago.
Idealism is fine, but Pragmatism ( and we both despise the term as used by liberals) is sometimes required. A blind person should have the same rights as everyone else, but I think we can all agree it would be dangerous to put that person behind the wheel of a car (at least with current tech) Are you saying we should let legally blind people drive until they kill themselves or others and then punish them? Who are we to say what a blind person can and can't reasonably do? Do we have the right to determine a "safe speed" on roads? To prosecute someone for drinking and driving, even though they have caused no injuries or death? At what point can the community over-ride the bad judgement of others for their own safety and self-defense?
The Founders intended local governments ( and not the Fed) to make such decisions, and hoped that reasonable people representing a reasonable constituency would value freedom enough to not take this process too far. And if they did, that you could pick up and move to a "more sane" community elsewhere. Obviously the Kindergarten Left want to subordinate all individuality to make "people safe" and to make them "do the right thing." Quite frankly, I think there should be places they let them do that- and they are welcome to them. Problem is, they are unwilling to leave us any places where sane people can live without their childish crap.
Child Labor laws, OSHA standards/laws regarding factory safety, etc have saved lives, but doing so of course comes at a cost- both in freedom and in regulatory compliance. We we look long enough I am sure we will find similar laws which you don't want gone, because it would allow dangerous behavior. If such things were decided at a community , or even state level, individuals would all have at least 50 choices, each with its own trade-offs. - Incubators and labs where different things could be tried.
Ultimately it always comes down to "If Men were Angels, we would need no government." The Founders attempted to create governments and a culture that would do only the minimum required ( the minimum being determined by our elected assemblies) to create reasonable ( reasonable again being determined by the assemblies) provisions to protect everyone's rights. To CO's point, there is no saying that the process we create actually helps, vs hinders. the TSA certainly isn't stopping any terrorists. Taking away an elderly person's license because they can't pass an eye exam might very well save lives - especially since that person is using property we all have in common - the public roads.
I think a happy medium exists, but it exists at different points for different people. Certain behaviors are "too risky" , and others are not, but "public safety" requires that line to be drawn somewhere. The problem is the Liberals insist on using their line everywhere- and that line is pegged at the far end of the totalitarian Positive Law scale.
-
It's one voter's opinion, from the intarwebs, aka my local forum.
What's wrong, IDP?
Nothing wrong with your post Pan. It was just such blathering idiocy that I was curious as to the origin, sans a link.
-
It's one voter's opinion, from the intarwebs, aka my local forum.
What's wrong, IDP?
Which idiot said that?
-
It's one voter's opinion, from the intarwebs, aka my local forum.
What's wrong, IDP?
Which idiot said that?
Mary Mary, quite contrary.
-
I see this as an interesting discussion. In truth, I have no issue with the blind man driving. If he can drive without hurting someone as well as I can, why not? The issue we have is the prejudgment. The assumption that he will hurt someone. Let us assume a technological device is invented that allows him by sound or other mechanism to "see" as well as I do. Should our laws preemptively deny him the right to drive? Bear in mind that my right to travel, which is not enumerated, but I believe is contained under the 9th amendment, allows me freedom of assembly, freedom of worship, the second amendment, the first amendment, etc. If I cannot travel, I cannot worship, buy a gun, assemble with other political junkies, speak my mind at a public function, etc.
So how much POWER are we willing to give up to government to say what if such and such happens? Therefore we pass all sorts of laws which limit our freedom and often protect no one. Is this a good thing, to me as a conservative? No, I do not think so. I know an entire society that functioned on about 613 laws. Why must we have more than any single man could even READ in a lifetime, much less memorize and obey?
-
More laws create more confusion and more opportunites by the lawless (especially progressive pol's) to game them until in the end you have serfs and elities. There is always a middle ground as Weisshaupt states, but the middle way is rendered inoperable by the elites, the pendulum demands movement, it does not want to rest in place. But I like your emphasis, less law and more clarity to what is codified would be nice. Perhaps in our not too distant future it will be thus, but will it be wise or tyrannical?
-
The media said it was extremist Muslim groups. It is like poking a bee hive and then complaining you get stung. The idiot who made the film said in an interview "All Muslims are a cancer" . He is Jewish and says he hates Muslims. Cannot blame them for getting po'ed.
Their version of po'ed is arson and murder. Ours is a damn YouTube. Do you not get the difference?
Our 1st Amendment guarantees us the right to poke bee-hives in our country, and this is where it was done.
There is no more "our" country. With us in other countries and a global financial set and world trading it is one world now. Everything all do is known around the world. If we are going to police the world we have a bigger responsibility. With instant media people should be more responsible. If we have diplomats in war torn and conflicted countries that is the chance they take just like war reporters who get killed. We were in THEIR world.
-
"If she didn't want to get raped, she shouldn't have worn that outfit"
-
Today, I can't take it.
-
...
...
There is no more "our" country. With us in other countries and a global financial set and world trading it is one world now. Everything all do is known around the world. If we are going to police the world we have a bigger responsibility. With instant media people should be more responsible. If we have diplomats in war torn and conflicted countries that is the chance they take just like war reporters who get killed. We were in THEIR world.
I'm cool with that, only one teensy exception, it's not "our" country it's our world
and if they harm a diplomat or a reporter or any American they will face retribution
not a court of law. We own the world it's time to express that knowledge.
-
Today, I can't take it.
With every otheter ting going on in my life today all I need is that idiot and her opinions. A good slap is what she needs to maybe jar her brain into action.
-
Today, I can't take it.
me either...
-
Today, I can't take it.
I realize that I hamstrung myself by ignoring yip but I calculate that it will pay off in the end. Pi and PC have noticed and play on it from time to time. I don't think that caddy has even noticed (how could she being so consumed with the constant feeding of that enormous ego of hers?!).
Mary is a loose cannon - you never know WTH she's gonna say next.
I know how vexing it can be at times but for the most part their chains are remarkably easy to yank ;D
-
Today, I can't take it.
I realize that I hamstrung myself by ignoring yip but I calculate that it will pay off in the end. Pi and PC have noticed and play on it from time to time. I don't think that caddy has even noticed (how could she being so consumed with the constant feeding of that enormous ego of hers?!).
Mary is a loose cannon - you never know WTH she's gonna say next.
I know how vexing it can be at times but for the most part their chains are remarkably easy to yank ;D
It's everything, Soup. That such a .... a .... a BRAIN-DEAD, BLITHERING IDIOT VOTES?! After what happened yesterday -- as though remembering 9/11/01 wasn't enough -- the attack on our Embassy, the burning of our Consulate and the murder of our Ambassador there and the Marines, that piece of sht sitting in my White House, the .. the ... I don't even know *what* to call-- the Cairo Embassy's sedition, that other piece of sht heading our State Department, and the "media" all over Romney about his "unwarranted and poorly timed criticism" -- it's everything.
-
Yes, everything.
Handbasket, meet Hell.
-
Then you have "serious" liberal pundits on TV agreeing with each other that Pastor Jones and the guy creating this film should be arrested as accessories to murder. They reveal all you need to know about lurks in their rotten minds.
-
Then you have "serious" liberal pundits on TV agreeing with each other that Pastor Jones and the guy creating this film should be arrested as accessories to murder. They reveal all you need to know about lurks in their rotten minds.
Perhaps Pastor Jones should kill these people and drag their bodies through the streets, seems the approved way of handling such situations.
-
Then you have "serious" liberal pundits on TV agreeing with each other that Pastor Jones and the guy creating this film should be arrested as accessories to murder. They reveal all you need to know about lurks in their rotten minds.
Perhaps Pastor Jones should kill these people and drag their bodies through the streets, seems the approved way of handling such situations.
Perhaps the Coptic Christian (alleged) who made the film should help.
-
Then you have "serious" liberal pundits on TV agreeing with each other that Pastor Jones and the guy creating this film should be arrested as accessories to murder. They reveal all you need to know about lurks in their rotten minds.
Perhaps Pastor Jones should kill these people and drag their bodies through the streets, seems the approved way of handling such situations.
Perhaps the Coptic Christian (alleged) who made the film should help.
Perhaps. Imitation is the highest and most sincere form of flattery after all.
-
Go for it, John.
-
Let's just keep them limited to these stinging verbal slaps! A good swift thought right across the cheek.....so to speak.
-
Let's just keep them limited to these stinging verbal slaps! A good swift thought right across the cheek.....so to speak.
I was (just a little bit) disappointed that few of the others took them on in the "Informal poll question" thread a week or so ago. There is an obvious incongruity there between what all the polls and studies reveal (Americans ((both left and right)) are measurably worse off than four years ago) and what the left there claims (they're all better off than four years ago). We should have hammered them on their lies.
No matter, there are plenty more battles to wage ::thumbsup::
-
Go for it, John.
Numbnuts goes around spiking the ball about OBL and a nobody in Florida needs to be arrested?? ::foilhathelicopter::