gt@hplvle.UUCP (gt) (07/21/84)
Various hot issues in net.auto sooner or later get around to this
whole notion of driving a car being a privilege rather than a right.
The thing I really don't understand is why so many people are so
determined to give away as many rights as they possibly can. It
seems like an incantation to soothe the soul of spineless followers
when they meekly say, "but that's a privilege not a right." Then I
guess we are all suppossed to respond, "Oh, my, I forgot, I'm sorry,
please don't get mad or tell on me. I'll be good and do everything
exactly as I'm told."
It gets nauseating after awhile.
What exactly are our rights? Do I have the right to live? Do I have
the right to support myself? Do I have the right to try and function
in society? Do I have a right to be happy? Do I have a right to do
as I please without harming or endangering others? Who knows?
But let's talk about cars (and the like) for a moment. When the
automobile first went into production it was considered a luxury item.
It was obviously a privilege of wealth. When H. Ford came along and
increased availability the automobile became a privilege of having a
decent paying steady job. Somewhere in the late forties and the
early fifties the automobile became much more than a luxury and a
privilige... it became a necessity, at least out west.
For better of for worse, America is inextricably bound up with the
automobile. The point is so obvious that I feel foolish even trying
to state it, much less justify it. Unless you live in a large, compact
Eastern city I think you would find it very difficult to live a "normal"
life without some type of motorized transportation. Granted, there are
a few dedicated folks who go everywhere and do everything on their
bicycle or skateboard and damn us lazy infidels who foul the air they
are gasping for.
How can anybody seriously believe that operating a motor vehicle is
a privilege rather than a right? Granted, some lesser legal body
may have decided to say that it is thus and so but that does not
make it binding, nor does it make it constitutional. The RIGHT
of driving should be taken away from people who abuse it to
the detriment of others just as the right of walking around free
in society is taken away from those who abuse it. This DOES NOT
MEAN THAT DRIVING IS A PRIVILEGE ANY MORE THAN IT MEANS THAT WALKING
THE STREETS IS A PRIVILEGE.
If our full speed rush to increase restrictive regulations and to
throw away any and all rights continues than we shall receive a
harsh indictment from our children whom we sought to protect and
instead turned over to a totalitarian government.
George Tatge
HP Loveland Instrument Div.
ihnp4!hpfcla!hplvla!gt
p.s. flame away, I'm off to Siggraph anyway.wetcw@pyuxa.UUCP (T C Wheeler) (07/23/84)
line Consider this. If driving an automobile were a right, as you say, then how do we get drunks, speeders, or just plain stupid drivers off the road? If driving is a right, a court cannot take away a drivers right to operate their vehicle. Thus, we end up with a bunch of killers on our roads. Anything not covered by the Constitution is a privlege. Rights are covered in the Constitution. The states have the Right to govern everything else because that's what the Constitution says they they can do. The states decided that, in the interest of safety and the common good, they would call driving a privlege which can be given and taken away. In Texas, the state says that the ownership of a means of transportation cannot be abridged. Thus, if you go bankrupt in that state, they can't take your car or horse. This goes back to the days before the auto and applies to this day. They can however take away your privlge to drive that car or horse. BTW, riding a bicycle in New Jersey while drunk can lose you your drivers license. Figure that one out. In conclusion, driving has to be a privlege or we could never get the drunks,et. al., off the roads. They would have the right to drive, no matter their condition. T. C. Wheeler
rcb@fortune.UUCP (Robert Binstock) (07/25/84)
---------- >> Anything not covered by the Constitution is >> a privlege. Rights are covered in the Constitution. The states >> have the Right to govern everything else because that's what the >> Constitution says they they can do. >>T. C. Wheeler >What kind of drugs have you been taking lately? >Leo Franchi Why do people get so confused about the distinction between the laws of this nation and their own moral/philosophical/ethical views on what is "right" and "wrong," a "right" or a "privilege"? You may not like the laws but they're still laws, and in case you haven't noticed, you can get into a lot of trouble if you don't respect them. In regard to the LAWS of the U.S.A. and of its member states, Wheeler's statement is absolutely 100% accurate. He is just pointing out that short of unlawful activity or an amendment to the Constitution, this whole question of "driving - right or privilege" has been settled for all practical and functional purposes. I applaud his firm grasp of reality. If you want to talk philosophy, fantasy, or wishful thinking, that's something else altogether. R. C. Binstock (new signature format adopted in support of T. C. Wheeler)
seifert@ihuxl.UUCP (D.A. Seifert) (07/26/84)
| >> Anything not covered by the Constitution is | >> a privlege. Rights are covered in the Constitution. The states | >> have the Right to govern everything else because that's what the | >> Constitution says they they can do. | >>T. C. Wheeler | | >What kind of drugs have you been taking lately? | >Leo Franchi | <various nonsense> | R. C. Binstock (new signature format adopted in support | of T. C. Wheeler) If you're paying so much attention to signatures, why don't you pay attention to the difference between a signature and the credit line for a quote? I rather doubt that Leo would take kindly to your putting *my* words in *his* mouth. I'm supposed to take your word for how something as complex as the government works, and you can't even tell the difference between a signature and a quote credit? I rest my case! -- _____ /_____\ "Get out there and keep moving forward!" /_______\ - Leo Franchi |___| Snoopy ____|___|_____ ihnp4!ihuxl!seifert
wetcw@pyuxa.UUCP (T C Wheeler) (07/26/84)
See how things can get off track. This is a classic example. Seifert has chosen to attack the signature line instead of the article. I guess when you know you are wrong, anything else is fair game, huh Seifert? I can see the next response. "You are all a bunch of fascist loonies". Your move Seifert. T. C. Wheeler
rcb@fortune.UUCP (Robert Binstock) (07/27/84)
------------- >>If you're paying so much attention to signatures, why don't >>you pay attention to the difference between a signature and >>the credit line for a quote? I rather doubt that Leo would >>take kindly to your putting *my* words in *his* mouth. I'm >>supposed to take your word for how something as complex as >>the government works, and you can't even tell the difference >>between a signature and a quote credit? I rest my case! >> Snoopy My profuse apologies. Pretty dumb of me, huh? Guess my network cruise control has a problem. Should have stuck to the 55 neuron- firings/second Mental Speed Limit. Sorry, Leo. Sorry, Snoopy. FYI, I can indeed tell the difference between a signature and a quote credit. It's just hard to care. "Um ... uh ... wait ... uh ... I don't quite ... " - Zippy the Pinhead R.C. "Charlie Brown" Leo Tolstoy Binstock (new signature format adopted in support of everyone who reads and contributes to the net, and even those who don't but WOULD if they COULD, the poor devils.)