• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Need a licence to drive?

VW_Factor

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2010
Messages
1,092
Location
Leesburg, GA
So... A little off topic, however I saw this and I had to re-read it. Are our lawmakers saying that driving a motor vehicle is a basic human right? Why in the hell do we licence drivers then? etc, etc...

“The prohibition on women driving motor vehicles, even in cases of emergency, makes it impossible for citizens to exercise a basic human right,” wrote Senator Barbara Boxer of California


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...-call-on-saudi-arabia-to-let-women-drive.html

Carry on.
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
No, it's only a "basic human right" in countries that are not the USA and where folks that are not US citizens are bring "repressed"* by regiems we are otherwise friendly with because we keep telling everybody we don't need their oil.

stay safe.

*Bonus points to te first person who DOES NOT put up the link to that quote.
 

ManInBlack

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
1,551
Location
SW Idaho
And in other news, the lackey/quisling government of Iraq, installed by the fed gov, is far more respectful of its citizens' exercising their innate right to armed self-defense with the weapons of their choosing than any state in this "Union" (although to be fair, they do require those weapons to be registered).

To my mind, the government is guilty of treason against its own citizens (you know, those of us who actually pay for this insane adventurism in foreign countries).
 

okboomer

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
1,164
Location
Oklahoma, USA
That's just Barbara Boxer spreading agitprop in the supposed 'friendly' nation in the Arab world ... can you say 'formenting rebellion'?

The question is whether the Occupant sent her over there with that agenda, or is it her very own?
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Driving is not a human right. Travel is a natural right.

Denying a segment of the population the privilege of driving on the public byways based on their sex, while extending that privilege to the remaining population makes the exercise of the right of travel unjustifiably more difficult for that segment. Were no one allowed to drive or were the same licensing requirements applied to all, the right to travel would not be violated for anyone.
 

stainless1911

Banned
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
8,855
Location
Davisburg, Michigan, United States
The ONLY reason that driving isnt a constitutional right, is because they didnt have cars and the necessity to travel in order to function at the time the constitution was written.

Try having a successful life without a car, good luck.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Says who?

Let me reply to that as though it were the more mature, "Based on what do you make that assertion?" as opposed to the elementary-school retort, "Says who?"

Natural rights are, by definition, rights which we have by the nature of being persons. They preexist governments and they preexist technology. Since travel has, since the beginning of time, been accomplished without technology and continues to be accomplished today without technology by those who choose to do so, it conforms to the preextant facet of the definition. Driving, on the other hand, requires technology and is, therefore, not a natural right.
____________

BTW, if you are going to quote my posts in other than their entirety, honesty demands that you indicate that you edited my words. You left out a material part of my post without using elipses or snip tags or any other device for honest editing. While I contended that driving is not a natural right, I did specify why denying the privilege of driving to women constitutes a violation of rights.
 

ManInBlack

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
1,551
Location
SW Idaho
Let me reply to that as though it were the more mature, "Based on what do you make that assertion?" as opposed to the elementary-school retort, "Says who?"

That's cute.

Natural rights are, by definition, rights which we have by the nature of being persons. They preexist governments and they preexist technology. Since travel has, since the beginning of time, been accomplished without technology and continues to be accomplished today without technology by those who choose to do so, it conforms to the preextant facet of the definition. Driving, on the other hand, requires technology and is, therefore, not a natural right.

Well, then, by your argument, we only have the natural right to armed self defense with our hands and feet. You need a reality check, or you need to find a karate forum on which to post.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
That's cute.

Ah, another juvenile retort. Let me try one more time to have an adult conversation.

Well, then, by your argument, we only have the natural right to armed self defense with our hands and feet. You need a reality check, or you need to find a karate forum on which to post.

And, as I have stated many times before, you have a natural right to self-defense. You do not have a natural right to any technology in that defense. In the US, we have an enumerated right to keep and bear arms to facilitate the exercise of the right of defense. The founders wisely believed that such might be necessary, in order to allow the people to remain in charge of the government--even if it went rogue and tried to oppress the populace using its armed resources.

As long as the regulation of the use of any technology (even technology that is used in the exercise of natural rights) is based on a compelling governmental interest and does not unduly impede the exercise of a natural right, that regulation is reasonable and violates no right.

In the US, requiring training and proof of competency before someone is licensed to operate a motor vehicle on public byways is reasonable because the government has a compelling interest in increasing the safety of those who use the byways and because anyone with anywhere near normal capabilities can obtain a license. The regulation in other countries that prohibits women from driving is unreasonable (and, therefore, a violation of the natural right to travel) because it is not based on a compelling interest.

That being said, I don't care. It is up to the people of those nations to take back their rights. If they won't, then they are tacitly accepting the status quo--which is their right (a natural one).
 

ManInBlack

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
1,551
Location
SW Idaho
And, as I have stated many times before, you have a natural right to self-defense. You do not have a natural right to any technology in that defense. In the US, we have an enumerated right to keep and bear arms to facilitate the exercise of the right of defense. The founders wisely believed that such might be necessary, in order to allow the people to remain in charge of the government--even if it went rogue and tried to oppress the populace using its armed resources.

As long as the regulation of the use of any technology (even technology that is used in the exercise of natural rights) is based on a compelling governmental interest and does not unduly impede the exercise of a natural right, that regulation is reasonable and violates no right.

In the US, requiring training and proof of competency before someone is licensed to operate a motor vehicle on public byways is reasonable because the government has a compelling interest in increasing the safety of those who use the byways and because anyone with anywhere near normal capabilities can obtain a license. The regulation in other countries that prohibits women from driving is unreasonable (and, therefore, a violation of the natural right to travel) because it is not based on a compelling interest.

That being said, I don't care. It is up to the people of those nations to take back their rights. If they won't, then they are tacitly accepting the status quo--which is their right (a natural one).

OK Hobbes; take your naked statism elsewhere. I really don't know why you post on this forum. It appears that you would be perfectly happy for the government to regulate every aspect of your life right down to the color of socks on your feet, because, after all, you don't have a natural right to dress the way you choose because clothing wasn't around when we came out of the trees. Insane.

Newsflash: the only legitimate purpose of government is the protection of individual rights to life, liberty, and property. The only legitimate crimes, in a natural state, are those acts which unjustly damage life, liberty and property. Any government attempt to criminalize behavior that doesn't fall within that category is unjustifiable.
 
Last edited:

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
OK Hobbes; take your naked statism elsewhere.

As rational discussion with you has once again proved impossible, I shall return you to the ignore list.

I will be happy to discuss what I wrote with anyone who wants to do so on a rational level, but I am done with you. You ain't worth the time and effort.

John Jay in Federalist #2 said:
Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers.

Good government is limited--strictly. However, it is not government at all if is has not, by the consent of the people, vested with some power. I think our Founders created the perfect mix of highly limited governmental authority and near-unlimited rights of the people. Unfortunately we have strayed from that model, endowing the government with more power than the Founders intended. Driver's licenses aren't such an overstep. In fact they are a wonderful example of reasonable power with which to endow government. They are a near perfect example of the necessity of government!

But, licenses must be made available to all adults who can prove competency at operation of a motor vehicle or the government is being unreasonable and overstepping.
 

ManInBlack

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
1,551
Location
SW Idaho
As rational discussion with you has once again proved impossible, I shall return you to the ignore list.

Aw, shucks...it's tough when someone calls you out on the carpet, huh?

Driver's licenses aren't such an overstep. In fact they are a wonderful example of reasonable power with which to endow government. They are a near perfect example of the necessity of government!

BWAHAHAHAHA

It would be entertaining if it weren't so sad. You are definitely the enemy within. Enjoy your chains, slave.
 
Last edited:

VW_Factor

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2010
Messages
1,092
Location
Leesburg, GA
Since travel has, since the beginning of time, been accomplished without technology and continues to be accomplished today without technology by those who choose to do so, it conforms to the preextant facet of the definition. Driving, on the other hand, requires technology and is, therefore, not a natural right.
.

I like you and all, but I think you forget that people build their own motor vehicles.. Of course not everyone does this, but how would the government have a hand in that?

At any rate, beyond the simple, does our government have the power to give us "permits" to drive..

I was hoping to see discussion of.. How can someone in our own government attempt to push something as a right in a foreign land, when our own land doesn't recognize it as a right in itself. The hypocritical statements and attitudes astound me, especially coming from someone who tramples the rights of their own people.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
I like you and all, but I think you forget that people build their own motor vehicles.. Of course not everyone does this, but how would the government have a hand in that?

At any rate, beyond the simple, does our government have the power to give us "permits" to drive..

I was hoping to see discussion of.. How can someone in our own government attempt to push something as a right in a foreign land, when our own land doesn't recognize it as a right in itself. The hypocritical statements and attitudes astound me, especially coming from someone who tramples the rights of their own people.

You can build and drive all the motor vehicles you want on your property and drive them around on your property. The instant you take one onto a public byway with the millions of other cars, many being operated at high speeds, the government has a compelling interest in regulating that activity.

Years ago, there would have been no compelling interest. There clearly is today.

However, there was an ad from an insurance company some years ago that stated, "In 190x, there were two cars in the entire state of Ohio. They collided."
 

VW_Factor

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2010
Messages
1,092
Location
Leesburg, GA
However, there was an ad from an insurance company some years ago that stated, "In 190x, there were two cars in the entire state of Ohio. They collided."


You know when the first car race ensued? When the second ever automobile rolled out of the factory.
 

okboomer

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
1,164
Location
Oklahoma, USA
And, actually it is the State that regulates drivers licensing, not the Feds.

Since it is the pervue of the State, then it is excluded from the Feds ...
 
Top