Rights vs. Privileges

[rambone]

The King has decreed that all of these activities are granted to you only at the pleasure of His Majesty; they are not rights. You will pay the King an annual duty to retain these privileges.

exchange your labor for money;

fishing;

hunting;

driving a motor vehicle;

ride a motorcycle;

fly an airplane;

take your boat out;

transport passengers for money;

transport commercial goods;

running a business;

marry your spouse;

providing health care services;

practicing law;

manufacturing;

engaging in retail and wholesale commerce;

operating a private business,

trade, or technical school;

have a yard sale on your property;

build a shed on your property;

construct a fence on your property;

remodel your home;

have an campfire on your own property;

providing commercial services such as travel agencies;

providing public services such as food and environmental inspection;

operating public pinball machines;

own a firearm;

carry a weapon in public;

serve alcohol;

clean people's teeth;

own a racehorse;

own dogs (in certain states);

train dogs;

offer gambling;

teach in a school;

run a daycare;

run a car dealership;

leave the country;

operate a ham radio;

cut hair for a living;

braid hair;

give manicures;

hold a protest;

ET CETERA... ET CETERA



Free country my ass.
​

 

[Expat]

I think I agree with SemperFi. Actually you can drive your car around on your property or someone else's with permission all you want without a driver's license or plates/registration. You only run into a problem when you want to drive it upon the public roads. Then you need to have the documents re You can not walk or ride a bike on those roads unless it is roads that you are permitted to do so. Don't believe me, read the signs at the on ramp on to the interstate. Try walking on the other public roads in a way that impedes traffic.

 

[dross]

Roads and driving are one of the areas I believe make perfect sense for the government to be involved.

If I buy a piece of land completely surrounded by private property owned by others, do I automatically have the right to cross other's property to reach it? You pure libertarians or anarchists would have to say no to be consistent.

Let's say all us propery owners get together and make a road we own collectively that crosses our properties. Must we allow anyone to use it? Can we not make our own rules as to who may use it under what rules?

If you start out saying I have a "right" to travel freely, you've already conceded the idea of collective ownership. Now we're just negotiating terms.

 

[Pocketman]

Transportation regulation started back in the 1800's with railroads. The commerce clause of the Constitution gives the federal government the authority to regulate commerce between states. While there's no question this has been abused, it is the grounds for regulating highways and motor vehicles. Therefore interstate highways are built to certain standards which are consistent from state to state. Same thing holds for basic traffic regulations, such as triangular yield signs; red stop; green go; etc.. Imagine if Illinois (I use Illinois intentionally) decided to make red mean go?

IMHO, RKBA is a specific right under 2A. I do not see any provision in the Constitution granting the right to operate a motor vehicle. 10th Amendment provides states the authority to regulate what's not delegated to the United States.

My educated guess (operative word "guess") is that states could open up their own roads to be driven upon without a license. Any federal highway, or one that was built with federal money, could require a license that met certain standards. Having some universal standards provides reciprocity between states. A state that went it's own way would likely not receive any federal highway funds. Another example of Congress buying power.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Ok, fine, it's a privilege to drive, because the government provides the roads and without government, we'd have no roads. I still don't agree with requiring a license or yearly fees.

 

[ocsdor]

Rights are those which free men must fight for everyday in order to exercise them.

Privileges are those which the slaves ask their masters whether or not they can borrow from time to time.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Society/technology has made driving more or less a right by nature.

The paradox is that while society/technology has made driving more-or-less a "right" by nature; our society (in law) has ruled that "driving is a privelege".

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Ok, fine, it's a privilege to drive, because the government provides the roads and without government, we'd have no roads. I still don't agree with requiring a license or yearly fees.

Actually, we could have roads without government; we'd just have to have some mechanism (read: entrepeneurs and bankers) to finance the building of one. Once built, you have a toll road, and you pay to use it.

As to having to pay a yearly fee or have a license, would you rather pay a fee-per-use rate to use common streets and highways?

 

[ATOMonkey]

Actually, we could have roads without government; we'd just have to have some mechanism (read: entrepeneurs and bankers) to finance the building of one. Once built, you have a toll road, and you pay to use it.

As to having to pay a yearly fee or have a license, would you rather pay a fee-per-use rate to use common streets and highways?

I already pay that at the gas pump, every time I pay my mortgage, every time I buy something, every other week when I get paid, etc etc etc...

If the excuse is revenue generation, it's a flimsy one, because there are numerous other ways to collect revenue.

Licensing is all about control, and more than anything a way to get votes based on perceived safety. Just like this new bill that would limit the driving age to 18. It does nothing to improve safety, driver skill, or lower fatalities, but it will be hot button issue that generates votes.

 

[dross]

Actually, we could have roads without government; we'd just have to have some mechanism (read: entrepeneurs and bankers) to finance the building of one. Once built, you have a toll road, and you pay to use it.

As to having to pay a yearly fee or have a license, would you rather pay a fee-per-use rate to use common streets and highways?

And again, if we had private roads it seems to me we could be even MORE restrictive as to how they are used - licenses, fees, etc...

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I already pay that at the gas pump, every time I pay my mortgage, every time I buy something, every other week when I get paid, etc etc etc...

If the excuse is revenue generation, it's a flimsy one, because there are numerous other ways to collect revenue.

Licensing is all about control, and more than anything a way to get votes based on perceived safety. Just like this new bill that would limit the driving age to 18. It does nothing to improve safety, driver skill, or lower fatalities, but it will be hot button issue that generates votes.

Sorry, but you're confusing "government taxes" with true non-government "road use fees".

I expect if the driving age is raised to 18 there will be a substantial decrease in traffic accidents for the under-25 age group. Anecdotally, I got my driver's license at 16 and had three accidents in my first year of driving. In fact, none of my friends who drove regularly were accident free by age 18. My son didn't get his driver's license until he was almost 19 and starting college. He didn't have an accident until he moved to Chicago 6 years later.

 

[ATOMonkey]

And again, if we had private roads it seems to me we could be even MORE restrictive as to how they are used - licenses, fees, etc...

Indeed. Although, the point of a buying land in order to build a road would be to increase profits and revenue.

It would seem that the impetus behind such an endeavor would be to encourage travel upon the road.

So, restrictions of such severity, would run counter to the initial economic incentive to build the road in the first place.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

And again, if we had private roads it seems to me we could be even MORE restrictive as to how they are used - licenses, fees, etc...

Unfortunately, in California, a fee-for-use tax (in addition to all their other taxes) was proposed for their residents. It was to be based on mileage driven.

 

[dross]

Indeed. Although, the point of a buying land in order to build a road would be to increase profits and revenue.

It would seem that the impetus behind such an endeavor would be to encourage travel upon the road.

So, restrictions of such severity, would run counter to the initial economic incentive to build the road in the first place.

Yes, you wouldn't want to restrict your road so no one used it. However, would I travel that road if farm equipment were allowed to use all lanes on that road? Would I travel that road if it were too dangerous because of other drivers? Would I travel that road if my vehicle insurance were too costly?

I've heard many people who avoid certain indoor ranges in town because safety practices go unenforced there.

I'm a libertarian, but that's not the same as believing in no regulations imposed by government. That's what makes libertarians differnt than anarchists.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Sorry, but you're confusing "government taxes" with true non-government "road use fees".

I expect if the driving age is raised to 18 there will be a substantial decrease in traffic accidents for the under-25 age group. Anecdotally, I got my driver's license at 16 and had three accidents in my first year of driving. In fact, none of my friends who drove regularly were accident free by age 18. My son didn't get his driver's license until he was almost 19 and starting college. He didn't have an accident until he moved to Chicago 6 years later.

Well, at any rate, I still don't like licenses.

I don't think it will lower any numbers. It'll just shift them to a higher age bracket.

I'd have to see a lot more evidence of the contrary to convince me otherwise.

Common sense says that driving skill is the result of driving, not age.

 

[dross]

Common sense says that driving skill is the result of driving, not age.

Perhaps. Yet the correlation between certain age groups and the percentage of accidents is statistically overwhelming.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Well, at any rate, I still don't like licenses.

I don't think it will lower any numbers. It'll just shift them to a higher age bracket.

I'd have to see a lot more evidence of the contrary to convince me otherwise.

Common sense says that driving skill is the result of driving, not age.

I'd say that driving skill is equal parts experience and maturity. Your average 16 yo has the attention span of a squirrel behind the wheel and the emotional conviction that he/she is immortal. Even a couple more years helps some to get past the former.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Yes, you wouldn't want to restrict your road so no one used it. However, would I travel that road if farm equipment were allowed to use all lanes on that road? Would I travel that road if it were too dangerous because of other drivers? Would I travel that road if my vehicle insurance were too costly?

I've heard many people who avoid certain indoor ranges in town because safety practices go unenforced there.

I'm a libertarian, but that's not the same as believing in no regulations imposed by government. That's what makes libertarians differnt than anarchists.

You'd have to weigh the opportunity cost of adding restrictions and the cost of enforcing those restrictions.

It may be just as economically tennable to allow anarchy on the road as it would be to pay a police force to enforce the rules of the road.

 

[Bunnykid68]

I think it is a little simpler than that. I have a right to work and earn money and/or goods for that work but if I am not riding a horse or a bike or walking I do not have a right to get to and from work.

Others stated the money thing clearly with all the taxes the King collects for the building and maintaining of the roads.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Perhaps. Yet the correlation between certain age groups and the percentage of accidents is statistically overwhelming.

To me, that's because we have a standard starting age of 16.

It's just as statistically accurate to say that most accidents happen within the first 11 years of driving.