Rights vs. Privileges

[oldfb]

Instead of threadjacking I decided to quote the below post and pose this question for discussion.

Why exactly does the average citizen buy into the driving is a privilege not a right concept? Driving. A motorized vehicle is no more than a means of personal locomotion _ transportation which should be no less or more regulated than walking, riding a horse or a bicycle. The fact that we accept the notion that our mode of transportation is or should be regulated by anything beyond our personal impact to your "property" is what perpetuates this lack of freedom.

What stops me from walking across my state or country?

When settlers came to our continent they chose a path and went forward. When people went west they took paths based on ease of travel regarding their modes of travel be it by foot, horseback or wagon. Eventually routes were formed and privileges granted for regular routes being established for stagecoach and eventually trains. But until landowners began fencing in their property limiting access except in designated areas this wasn't a problem.

Why is this no less an infringement of my right to travel than the landowner who dammed a river that passes through his property?

I believe that this initial infringement is what perpetuated the need for public access ie.roadways thereby allowing anyone to regulate how we are able to travel and where.

So why do we allow this. Is it because we are so quick to regulate our fellow man and his travel at our own safety or convenience or is it fear?
HENRY FORD had some crazy ideas but his goal was to make the auto affordable as a mode of transportation for everyone. Yet the average auto know has been regulated to the point that it is a luxury item beyond a years salary.

Add in mandatory insurance, license, registration and fuel taxes we are forced to need papers to travel across country(money instead of government permission slip).

The chains we wear and tolerate in the guise of progress, safety and regulations are just another liberty lost and slowly erodes our abilities to think and act responsibly with our lives.

Any other thoughts?

You guys have given me a lot to respond to. I feel like I’ve already hijacked the thread, so will see if I can make it concise.

That "heat" (with wink) was meant as tongue in cheek. Everyone has been very civil toward my comments. To clear the air, I realize it isn't training, but government mandated training that’s at issue.

OK, I agree. There is no provision in 2A regarding training. It's a good idea, but government cannot legislate common sense any more than they can fill the roles of parents. I would however argue that we’re already on that slippery slope. States are allowed to mandate training before issuing handgun permits. The Supreme Court recently struck down Chicago’s ban, but now Chicago is putting up all kinds of obstacles such as training and special insurance. Truth is, there should be no permits issued by any state. Why should one have to apply to take advantage of an existing right?


As I mentioned, my father taught me to shoot. I taught my son. Like the friend that first took you hunting, I had the experience to teach others as a rifle range Boy Scout camp counselor for two summers. I am completely in agreement that you have every RKBA, regardless of parental or any other influence. I also freely admit that having grown up around and carried guns for virtually my entire life, I’ve not been exposed to some of the issues raised here.


Article 1 of Indiana’s Constitution, government is “…instituted for their peace, safety, and well-being.” There are countless laws enacted to keep people safe. The very right to keep and bear arms is based upon people’s safety.

You’ll get no argument from me on that statement. I therefore see the rub regarding LEOSA.

We could liken this to driving. I expect other drivers to abide by the same rules so we are all kept safe. Without traffic regulations, there would be chaos on the streets. Driving is a privilege, not a right. So, the example is not apples to apples, but the results are similar. If we’re all going to be carrying firearms, we should have some expectation of having it done safely. Perhaps the answer then is to have firearms training in high school. Works for the Israelis. But then, would that be too much government interference with an existing right?

Not easy answers people. I'll keep an eye on these discussions. I'm sure I've got more to learn. Thanks.

 

[dukeboy_318]

I tend to agree with you on all counts

 

[Jay]

One obvious comment would be that "driving" is not enumerated in the Constitution.

Try this.... we all have the right to breathe, just like we all have the right to walk. But if circumstances require a special formula of breathable air, (medical oxygen) we have to pay for it. Walk freely, but if you want to ride/drive, pay for it.

 

[Duncan]

In Indiana , as with all states ... it is against the law to operate a motor vehicle on the public road system .
Think about that for a moment.
In Indiana , as with all states ... it is against the law to operate a motor vehicle on the public road system .

Unless you get an exemption .
That exemption is called a Drivers License .
( same with carrying a hand gun in public )

The reason is claimed as safety ... it is not . It is about power control and money .

Can a person operate their equipment , a car , obey all the traffic laws from point A to point B . ? Yes . Can they do that with out the certification of the state I.E. a license ?Yes .
12 13 15 16 year olds use to handle gain trucks at harvest time in the field and on county roads to help on the family farm ... were their accidents ?
I am sure there were .
Did they complete their mission of transporting grain ? Yes more so than not or the fathers would not let them do it year after year .

The reason we have a licensing procedures that are allowed to continue at all levels of freedom and commerce is because of one reason .. well two .
Because the State legislature wants it that way . ( and we condone it . )

The american people are and ignorant and stupid bunch in varying degrees .
The state and federal legislature and bureaucrats know this .
That is why we get what we get .

We as a people no longer understand what freedom is ... therefor we don't want what we can't perceive or understand .

As a side note .
People will say things to the effect of .. "well I don't think the police or military would do that .. " What ever " that " might be .
Gun confiscation , Martial law .. what ever it may be ..

Well I think they will do most what ever they are told ... why ?
They are part of they public ... and they are just as dumb and ignorant as the bulk of the populace .

If you don't have a Driver's License or License plates on your equipment .. you get a ticket or towed in .
In this instance are they bad people .. no . At least they think that they are not and are doing the right thing , in their mind .

Are they doing bad things .. yes . Why ? To keep their job . Mostly . For ? Paycheck and pension .. yes .

There is only one thing a license proves . ( and this goes for any license - gun - medical - beautician - vet - electrician - law - police )
That you performed with the minimum of skill necessary to pass that test at that time in history and that is all it proves .
It speaks nothing to your character ... you future ability , your proficiency to adapt to adverse conditions beyond that given in the license testing ,
your passion for the craft nothing else just that you passed that test .

Gross example .. did you know that if the Wright Brothers tried to create and fly their first air plane today ( or if you try to reenact it ) it could not be done
legally ?
Licenses and permits .

Side note 2 :
Did you know that you can build your a house for yourself to live in .. not for sale but to dwell in WITH OUT a building permit ?
Yes you can in the state of Indiana.
In Monroe county in 98 ( ? ) a guy tried it .. the county shut him down .. he took it to court .. the court found in his favor .. and the Licensed Prosecutor of the county appealed and the county lost again in the Indian State appellate court .

Am I pointing a finger at you and saying na , na-na , na na .. no .
Hell I'm just lucky to know it .. But I bet most of you did not .. are you stupid .. no most of you are ignorant of this fact .
This is why we are not free .. ignorance and lack a duty to change things .


Their are many examples of people that know more , do better than their counterparts in a particular field that are accredited or licensed .


Thanks
Duncan

 

[Duncan]

One obvious comment would be that "driving" is not enumerated in the Constitution.

Try this.... we all have the right to breathe, just like we all have the right to walk. But if circumstances require a special formula of breathable air, (medical oxygen) we have to pay for it. Walk freely, but if you want to ride/drive, pay for it.

Agreed :
Amendment 9
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The 9th Amendment

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I think perhaps the issue goes much farther back into history than the founding of our country. Our laws are founded on Judeo-Christian concepts and based in English Common Law (feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken, I'm taking a WAG here). Thus, at the time of our founding, we were already a people of laws, used to regulating our communities within an already-understood framework of societal obligations and restrictions. The Founding Fathers, understanding human nature and past history, attempted to make a philosophical break with tradition and, to an extent, succeeded as long as we were primarily an agrarian society, with a relative few manufacturing centers. This started to change radically after (I think) WWI, and really took off after WWII because we had mobilized our society for war and afterwards had to find something to do with all our excess productivity. In the meantime, humans still indulged in their habits of gathering personal and collective power and, because of the two World Wars and the threats of the Cold War, power became concentrated in the federal government bureaucracy instead of at the state level. The freedoms and restrictions we gave up as "reasonable and proper" due to living in closer proximity to one another, or because of the "needs of the war effort", just increased the rate at which we were, as a society, allowing those freedoms to erode. But the fact is, wherever we have gathered into towns and cities, we've, as a society, felt comfortable with restricting ourselves and others in our community. The only reason we weren't having these freedoms eroded earlier in our history is because the government either: had no power, had no communications with us (or very limited communications), had no way to reach out and touch us individually, as they do today. Unfortunately, we just never made the complete philosophical break with the past that the Founders envisioned.

 

[Indy_Guy_77]

We are on a slippery slope indeed when it comes to rights vs. privileges.

As has already been alluded to, rights are enumerated in our BoR / Constitution.

However, most certainly not ALL of our rights are enumerated. There are only a handful that are specifically enumerated so that they can be set aside and held in higher regard as being the very types of rights that an overbearing and overreaching government would try to hinder.

What about the RIGHT to privacy? You'll find that no where in the Constitution.

Yet we have that right, do we not? (or supposed to?)

So, being in the Constitution, or not as the case may be, is certainly not the line to be drawn between a right and a privilege.

Where that line is, I'm not sure.

-J-

 

[Jay]

Several "Right to Privacy" clauses are contained in the Bill of Rights.

The Right of Privacy: Is it Protected by the Constitution?

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Instead of threadjacking I decided to quote the below post and pose this question for discussion.

Why exactly does the average citizen buy into the driving is a privilege not a right concept? Driving. A motorized vehicle is no more than a means of personal locomotion _ transportation which should be no less or more regulated than walking, riding a horse or a bicycle. The fact that we accept the notion that our mode of transportation is or should be regulated by anything beyond our personal impact to your "property" is what perpetuates this lack of freedom.

What stops me from walking across my state or country?

When settlers came to our continent they chose a path and went forward. When people went west they took paths based on ease of travel regarding their modes of travel be it by foot, horseback or wagon. Eventually routes were formed and privileges granted for regular routes being established for stagecoach and eventually trains. But until landowners began fencing in their property limiting access except in designated areas this wasn't a problem.

Why is this no less an infringement of my right to travel than the landowner who dammed a river that passes through his property?

I believe that this initial infringement is what perpetuated the need for public access ie.roadways thereby allowing anyone to regulate how we are able to travel and where.

So why do we allow this. Is it because we are so quick to regulate our fellow man and his travel at our own safety or convenience or is it fear?
HENRY FORD had some crazy ideas but his goal was to make the auto affordable as a mode of transportation for everyone. Yet the average auto know has been regulated to the point that it is a luxury item beyond a years salary.

Add in mandatory insurance, license, registration and fuel taxes we are forced to need papers to travel across country(money instead of government permission slip).

The chains we wear and tolerate in the guise of progress, safety and regulations are just another liberty lost and slowly erodes our abilities to think and act responsibly with our lives.

Any other thoughts?

Generally I agree with your premise but you picked a really bad example to make your point. I'm fixated on the free driving thing.

You have no right to use anything that someone has spent money to create without compensation, whether that someone is an individual, a company, or the government. You do not own the roads. I do not own the roads. They are collective property, and we as individuals are shareholders. You cannot go stake out part of the road system and claim it as yours unless you own the property it sits on and have paid for the road yourself.

You aren't required to purchase a driver's license. You aren't required to purchase license plates. You aren't required to purchase insurance. None of these things are required. You may travel on the public roads if you wish without paying either of these fees. However, there are requirements that must be met and fees that must be paid if you want to operate a motor vehicle on the public road system.

The license (whether driver's license or license plates) is a use fee. You are paying a fee to use the roads that have to be designed, built and maintained. To pay for traffic lights. Stop signs. Railroad crossings. The people who monitor them. Land that must be purchase to house them. Road crews to fix potholes or plow snow. Police to patrol the roads and assist in the event of an emergency. It seems reasonable to pay for something you use, doesn't it? If not you than who should pay for them - people that don't use them?

There are rules to follow if you intend on operating a motor vehicle on the public roads. I don't necessarily like them, but I necessarily follow them as a condition of continued use of the road.

A right is innate. A privilige is not. There is no right to drive. You can travel the roads without paying fees. Walking, riding a bike. It's just not the way you want to travel.

In this specific case it's not about controlling you. It's about you paying for the services you are consuming. I am fine with paying for the use of the road system that increases my personal economy. The cost I pay in fees to have and use roads is pretty cheap for all the benefits I derive from them.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Rights exist in the absense of government. Can I drive a car in the absense of government? yes.

Privileges are granted by an authority. It is a privilege that I am employed. Without my employer, I would not have the privilege of employment.

When the constitution was originally penned it was obvious to the founders that RIGHTS would not need to be enumerated. However, it became readily apparent to them, that certain people were too obtuse to grasp this concept, which is why we have the first 10 amendments. These 10 amendments guarantee us a minimum of Liberty that can be used to obtain full freedom and liberty.

The constitution was never intended to enumerate a specific number of rights and that all other rights would be subject to government confiscation. It was understood, at the time, that no one had authority to deprive a person of ANY right, enumerated or otherwise.

That is the plain meaning of the words in our Constitution, and our Declaration of Independance. To twist the plain meaning of words to gain power and influence smacks of greed, corruption, and contempt for our fellow man.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Generally I agree with your premise but you picked a really bad example to make your point. I'm fixated on the free driving thing.

You have no right to use anything that someone has spent money to create without compensation, whether that someone is an individual, a company, or the government. You do not own the roads. I do not own the roads. They are collective property, and we as individuals are shareholders. You cannot go stake out part of the road system and claim it as yours unless you own the property it sits on and have paid for the road yourself.

You aren't required to purchase a driver's license. You aren't required to purchase license plates. You aren't required to purchase insurance. None of these things are required. You may travel on the public roads if you wish without paying either of these fees. However, there are requirements that must be met and fees that must be paid if you want to operate a motor vehicle on the public road system.

The license (whether driver's license or license plates) is a use fee. You are paying a fee to use the roads that have to be designed, built and maintained. To pay for traffic lights. Stop signs. Railroad crossings. The people who monitor them. Land that must be purchase to house them. Road crews to fix potholes or plow snow. Police to patrol the roads and assist in the event of an emergency. It seems reasonable to pay for something you use, doesn't it? If not you than who should pay for them - people that don't use them?

There are rules to follow if you intend on operating a motor vehicle on the public roads. I don't necessarily like them, but I necessarily follow them as a condition of continued use of the road.

A right is innate. A privilige is not. There is no right to drive. You can travel the roads without paying fees. Walking, riding a bike. It's just not the way you want to travel.

In this specific case it's not about controlling you. It's about you paying for the services you are consuming. I am fine with paying for the use of the road system that increases my personal economy. The cost I pay in fees to have and use roads is pretty cheap for all the benefits I derive from them.

Once again, we agree in principle, but disagree in scope. Why is it legal to walk the roadway, or ride a bicycle (or sufficiently small motor vehicle) on the roadway without license, but to do so in a vehicle with an engine over a certain size is not?

Someone still paid to create that roadway. Shouldn't we charge a fee regardless of how you choose to travel?

Also, haven't we already paid for the roadway as a society through our taxes? Why should we pay an additional fee for something that we already fund through sales tax, income tax, property tax, and fuel tax?

Why does Indiana choose to charge different rates for the same access to our roads that we have already bought and paid for?

Roadway licensing is a scam and just another means of revenue generation, conveniently operating under the guise of a privilege of usage or public safety.

I don't buy it.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Once again, we agree in principle, but disagree in scope. Why is it legal to walk the roadway, or ride a bicycle (or sufficiently small motor vehicle) on the roadway without license, but to do so in a vehicle with an engine over a certain size is not?

Simple. The road is provided at no charge to those that walk on it, use a bicycle, or small powered vehicle. It is provided to those classes of users as an included part of the taxes we pay. A vehicle with a larger engine infers a larger payload and higher speeds which cause more damage to the road and the potential for more massive accidents and therefore have a higher cost to design, build and maintain.

Someone still paid to create that roadway. Shouldn't we charge a fee regardless of how you choose to travel?

The fee is in the form of general fund taxes. The incremental cost to walk or ride a bike is a rounding error.

Also, haven't we already paid for the roadway as a society through our taxes? Why should we pay an additional fee for something that we already fund through sales tax, income tax, property tax, and fuel tax?

Taxes are one source of revenue to pay for roads. User fees are another.

Why does Indiana choose to charge different rates for the same access to our roads that we have already bought and paid for?

I am assuming you mean weight class. Simple physics. A heavier object exerts more force than a lighter object. Weight destroys roads. They need to be maintained.

Roadway licensing is a scam and just another means of revenue generation, conveniently operating under the guise of a privilege of usage or public safety.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion. The number one advantage the Romans and that made them great was their system of roads. I have no problem paying to have ours. While there's a lot of waste, fraud and corruption in transportation budgets, it's one of the few government services I don't mind paying for.

I don't buy it.

Not selling it, just sayin it.

 

[ATOMonkey]

I have no problem with roads either, just the unfair practice of licensing.

Indiana charges excise based on both weight and worth, without regard to usage. So, while the vechicle weight excise does make sense, it's a smoke screen, because it doesn't effectively address the issue or account for usage.

 

[Eddie]

I'm just starting to wrap my mind around this but I see two different concepts/arguments:

#1 The idea that you need a special license just to operate a vehicle. Anyone can operate a vehicle, why do we need license/plates/registration? Is this an infringement on our right to travel?

#2 Can a person do something that would justify the state in denying them the ability to operate a vehicle. I think the best example would be if I wanted to drive a big, heavy tracked vehicle down a road built with tax dollars; crushing it and making it so that others can't use it.

 

[Pocketman]

We need a drivers license so we can buy beer at the grocery store.

There are a ton of court rulings upholding the rights of people to freely travel and use public roads. At issue here, I think is the licensing of motor vehicle operators?

 

[ATOMonkey]

I'm just starting to wrap my mind around this but I see two different concepts/arguments:

#1 The idea that you need a special license just to operate a vehicle. Anyone can operate a vehicle, why do we need license/plates/registration? Is this an infringement on our right to travel?

#2 Can a person do something that would justify the state in denying them the ability to operate a vehicle. I think the best example would be if I wanted to drive a big, heavy tracked vehicle down a road built with tax dollars; crushing it and making it so that others can't use it.

I don't believe the willful destruction of public property is ever acceptable, be it roads or statues or parks or buildings.

 

[Eddie]

I don't believe the willful destruction of public property is ever acceptable, be it roads or statues or parks or buildings.

Where should the line be drawn between those two ideas? On the one hand there is the idea that anyone can drive anything with no licenses, registrations or plates required. On the other hand there is the idea that if everyone does whatever they want that someone might drive somthing that destroys the road.

 

[cosermann]

I think the crux of the idea is this; that rights necessarily include the means to exercise those rights. If one is denied the means to exercise a right, then the right is useless.

Examples:

If you have the right to move about freely, you should have a right to the means to do so, i.e. feet, bicycle, horse, car, airplane, spaceship, etc.

If you have a right to free speech, you should have a right to the means to do so, i.e. tongue, pen, press, cellphone, Internet, telepathic interface, etc.

If you have the right to defend your self, you should have a right to the means to do so, i.e. teeth, fists, edged weapons, pole weapons, firearms, phasers, etc.

Not accepting this premise leads to all sorts of restrictions of every kind on all sorts of various means for sundry reasons and good (and not so good) intentions. Suppose the next new thing in weaponry is a handy, man portable, "ray gun", a phaser. Would the American citizen be "allowed" to make use of this new means or would the ATF classify it as some sort of "device" not allowed to private citizens?

If you don't accept the premise, your locking in the allowed means to exercise your rights to those available in the late 1700s to early 1800's. Eventually, those rights will be come irrelevant and meaningless.

As seen in the recent thread on fully supporting the 2nd Amendment, many people don't accept the premise.

 

[christman]

I gotta agree that driving in today's terms is a right, not a privledge. As society has molded itself around it. It would be nearly impossible today to walk coast to coast without breaking some law or ordinance along the way. Land of the free...Hardly. It would be a different story in my opinion if one could ride his horse, mule, bike, on the easiest path possible coast to coast without being busted many times along the way. Society/technology has made driving more or less a right by nature.

 

[88GT]

A right is innate. A privilige is not. There is no right to drive. You can travel the roads without paying fees. Walking, riding a bike. It's just not the way you want to travel.

Actually, you can't. Most interstates have restrictions/prohibitions on non-motorized travel. So much for options, huh?

But I think that your analogy is comparing the wrong thing. Driving isn't the issue. Free movement is. Do we or do we not have the right to free movement? If the answer is yes, then the issue becomes a discussion of at what point does the government have the right to limit it in any way?

Be careful how you answer that. The method one chooses to exercise a right does not change it to a privilege. Or would you agree that my method of carrying a firearm or where I choose to carry it are a privilege and my right to keep and bear arms is only absolute on my own property?

Having options is not enough. Not if you believe in true liberty. Having the full range of options unfettered by the state (up until the point that said usage violates another's rights, notwithstanding) is the only acceptable answer.


I agree user fees are in order. The proper and acceptable user fees for public good items like roads are taxes. Nothing more, nothing less. But restrictions on the use--excepting safety regulations along the lines of driving lanes, right of way, etc. for uniformity in driving standards--is still an infringement on the right.

Saying I have to get permission to drive a motor vehicle is like asking for permission to carry a firearm off my property. If you support the one, you cannot rationally disagree with the other.


Edit: and apparently I took took too long to answer since somebody beat me to it.