Driving: Privilege or Right?

[fitzov]

Rights can't be legitimately taken away, but it's fairly easy to justify taking away someone's ability to drive (e.g. DUI, vehicular homicide, etc).

 

[Poulsonator]

Originally posted by: fitzov
Rights can't be legitimately taken away, but it's fairly easy to justify taking away someone's ability to drive (e.g. DUI, vehicular homicide, etc).

Commit a felony and see if your right to vote or own a gun is legitimately taken away.

Driving is a privilege.

 

[Lumathix]

Grow up. it's a privilege.

 

[Linux23]

Those privileges should be taken away from asian drivers and old blind grannies on the road.

 

[Zenmervolt]

The ability to own a car is a right. The ability to drive that car on public roads is a privilege.

If you bought a huge piece of land, and built your own race track, you could drive on that race track legally without a license. Being permitted to use public roads, however, is most definitely not a right.

ZV

 

[DurocShark]

Interesting responses. Aside from the childish insults that is.

Bateluer actually thought about the question, instead of spewing the first thing that came to mind. Congrats!

The comments about public roads are good. They're used for more than personal transportation.

But as I mentioned, it's easy to lose your rights if you break the law. Prison is loss of your right to freedom, or more accurately, the "Pursuit of happiness." So why isn't a drivers license the same way? Also, the comment that you can hurt yourself and others gives driving the "privilege" status is inacurrate. Guns?

Just more food for thought. I know I won't change anybody's mind, but I just want everybody to actually THINK about why they believe the way they do.

:thumbsup:

 

[fitzov]

By definition, a right is not something that can be taken away. Lookup "Natural Law". Of course, this depends on whether rights are objective. The framers thought so. The idea that rights are objective means that it is a fact, for example, that "One ought to be afforded liberty." It doesn't entail that someone cannot deny you liberty, just that you have a right to it.

 

[Throwmeabone]

Did someone mention massive poles?

 

[RedBeard]

Originally posted by: Throwmeabone
Did someone mention massive poles?

Yeah but all I can find is a poll ///

 

[xanis]

Privelage for sure... I've seem some people who shouldn't even be allowed to own a bicycle...

 

[TitanDiddly]

So if it's a right, the government should back up your 'right' by giving you free car insurance and a car if you can't afford it, right?

No.

 

[DurocShark]

Originally posted by: TitanDiddly
So if it's a right, the government should back up your 'right' by giving you free car insurance and a car if you can't afford it, right?

No.

That's a specious argument.

The government doesn't give you guns, or happiness. The law just says you can have it if you can get it.

 

[TBone48]

Originally posted by: Mrvile
It's a privilege. That's why people get their licenses taken away. If they can't make smart choices while driving, they shouldn't have the privilege to drive. It's that simple.

:thumbsup: 100%

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: TBone48

Originally posted by: Mrvile
It's a privilege. That's why people get their licenses taken away. If they can't make smart choices while driving, they shouldn't have the privilege to drive. It's that simple.

:thumbsup: 100%

:thumbsup: 50000%

 

[Bassyhead]

Privilege. There's other ways to travel than driving a car anyways.

 

[DurocShark]

Originally posted by: Bassyhead
Privilege. There's other ways to travel than driving a car anyways.

Like what? For me it's 9 miles to work. The city bus only goes 3 of those miles, and conveniently there is no sidewalk on the roads there are no busses. What do I do for the rest? Here in Denver, it snows. So in those conditions, walking or biking aren't options. Nobody at my work lives by me, but then again I'd be in a personal car.

There are times where driving a personal auto is the only solution.

So the argument of using other methods of transportation isn't complete unless you live in an area with excellent public transportation (like when I lived in Anaheim, CA: I took the bus out of choice about half of the time.)

 

[Bassyhead]

Originally posted by: DurocShark

Originally posted by: Bassyhead
Privilege. There's other ways to travel than driving a car anyways.

Like what? For me it's 9 miles to work. The city bus only goes 3 of those miles, and conveniently there is no sidewalk on the roads there are no busses. What do I do for the rest? Here in Denver, it snows. So in those conditions, walking or biking aren't options. Nobody at my work lives by me, but then again I'd be in a personal car.

There are times where driving a personal auto is the only solution.

So the argument of using other methods of transportation isn't complete unless you live in an area with excellent public transportation (like when I lived in Anaheim, CA: I took the bus out of choice about half of the time.)

If you had to walk to work daily you might have chosen a closer place to live to your workplace initially, not after the fact. It may be hard to comprehend, but people actually were able to get around before automobiles were commonplace.

 

[Trikat]

Too many people do not deserve their right to drive on our roads. Endangering others should revoke your stupid right to drive.
I hate all the idiots crusing at slow speeds in the "left/fast" lane while yapping away on their cell phones not paying attention to ANYONE.
It's not only me that gets pissed off, it is probably about 2 to X other cars that get pissed off.
Also some people just can fvcking stay in their lane (much less common than slow people). Why are they even on the road???
Most of the times roads are probably a lot safer with moderate speeders vs slow drivers.

 

[bersl2]

privilege