It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ga. Lawmaker Proposes Doing Away With Driver's Licenses

page: 14
35
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 02:31 AM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 
Well, I enjoy correctly used high-faltutin language as much as the next educated person, but if my argument were non-sequitur it would have nothing to do with the subject. Clearly the ability to drive safely & how that can best be ensured is entirely relevant. However, your bicycle/bare hands argument is reductio ad absurdam. Perhaps we'd best stick to plain english...

If we were talking pure logic, then, with no corollery argument, stating that 1 thing which can kill ought to be regulated surely equates to all things that can kill. However, irl, there are some things which do kill frequently & others which could but are so rare they're of no particular concern & indeed, considering the factors of cost etc, would be illogical to attempt to regulate. Bike riding is such. You'd be hard pressed to ride a bike on a flat road fast enough & in a manner that would make it difficult/impossible to swerve out of the way of an obstacle. Its a light machine that responds to steering easily. It just doesn't carry the momentum to get out of control except under very rare circumstances. Not so with cars.

This is why a cyclist killing somebody would be a news item, whereas a cyclist being killed by a motorist is a statistic. You see a car is heavy enough to lose control of even on a flat road. What better solution than a licence do you propose that ensures that those who wish to drive have at least the minimum skill required to do so?

As for bare-handed killing, how would you licence the right to have hands? I expect that, should we ever see a massive number of murders committed utilising martial arts, the ability to learn such will become the subject of some regulation... you know, like you cant legally own guns if you're a convicted felon.

Yes, I did take the piss with "constitootion", b/c those who wrote it had no idea that there'd be millions of dangerous lumps of metal hurtling about...




posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 04:59 AM
link   
reply to post by hotbakedtater
 



Technically, driving could fall under pursuit of happiness.


...and so could a whole lot of other things..



Do we have the right to travel as free citizens?


Of course we do. Hop on the bus, the plane, the train, and take off!

But this isn't about traveling...it's about driving.

This guy sounds like the group that call themselves 'Sovereigns'. Buncha sillies, imo.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 05:02 AM
link   
The classical debate: freedom vs responsibility.

The drivers license and mandatory insurance does nothing but encourages inqualified drivers to keep on driving, since if something happens, it is "an accident" and the insurance takes care of it.

How about giving people the FREEDOM to use a car/airplane/APC as they wish, but implant into their heads that by doing so you are required to take the responsibility following your actions, and if you happen to kill someone while driving, you will be "killed". If you destroy property, you get forced to repay the damage.

Then you could get a license which in turn could entitle you to obtain insurance, but this would be OPTIONAL and a benefit rather then requirement.

Simple, effective, FAIR.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 05:27 AM
link   
reply to post by above
 



The classical debate: freedom vs responsibility.

The drivers license and mandatory insurance does nothing but encourages inqualified drivers to keep on driving, since if something happens, it is "an accident" and the insurance takes care of it.


Really? So if a guy driving DUI cripples a kid for life, then no problemo, since he has insurance?

What about the kid's medical bills? They could easily total tens of thousands of $. Does every driver have that kind of cash laying around?


How about giving people the FREEDOM to use a car/airplane/APC as they wish, but implant into their heads that by doing so you are required to take the responsibility following your actions, and if you happen to kill someone while driving, you will be "killed". If you destroy property, you get forced to repay the damage.


The death penalty for an accident? Seems kind of heavy-handed, no?


Then you could get a license which in turn could entitle you to obtain insurance, but this would be OPTIONAL and a benefit rather then requirement.


Closing the door after the horse got out is your plan, eh?


Simple, effective, FAIR.


...but not well thought out.


Trust me - this is a case where the stick is more effective than the carrot.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 07:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
Technically, driving could fall under pursuit of happiness.

Do we have the right to travel as free citizens?


Please show where the words "pursuit of hapiness" appear in the U S Constitution. I think maybe you're a little historically confused.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 07:08 AM
link   
That video was definitely very interesting.... however didn't that take place in Canada? If so that's not proof it's technically legal in the US too, just in Canada. Different laws you know.

I honestly don't know what to think now after reading even more replies. It still just doesn't "feel" right to me, but some of the logic put fourth by some posters here seems solid. I like to reach my opinions via a logical route, not based on feeling, so I'll change my official view to "on the fence"



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 07:12 AM
link   
Why does this remind me of the Georgia Satellites' video on the back of the flatbed truck?
If he pulls this off, something tells me casualty adjusting in Georgia is going to get extremely lucrative.
I nominate this guy for a Darwin.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 07:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by 4nsicphd

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
Technically, driving could fall under pursuit of happiness.

Do we have the right to travel as free citizens?


Please show where the words "pursuit of hapiness" appear in the U S Constitution. I think maybe you're a little historically confused.


He is, as that phrase is in the Declaration of Independence. But I think the ideals put fourth in that document should also be seen as rights whether or not they are in the Constitution.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Bunken Drum
 


Bravo on your retort! I truly mean that. Although I am not sure why you need to make pointed commentary towards my choice of vocabulary.

It is the lack of understanding from not only my countryman, but also the rest of the world on exactly what the Constitution is and isn't that irks me.

To understand exactly the scope of the document, we go to the source of those that helped shape the debate during its creation. Alexander Hamilton, writing in the Federalist Paper No. 84 does such by saying "But a minute detail of particular rights is certainly far less applicable to a Constitution like that under consideration, which is merely intended to regulate the general political interests of the nation, than to a constitution which has the regulation of every species of personal and private concerns"

In context, this was an argument against a Bill of Rights and how there was no need for one because the Constitution does not pertain to the lives of private citizens nor their concerns, but rather as he stated "intended to regulate the general political interest of the nation..."

If we study the treatise which is The Federalist (Federalist Papers) and by extension the Anti-Federalist, the understanding that we did not set out to frame or shape the lives of the individual, but merely encase political power and reach into confinement and check.

I suspect that your digression is not far from my frustration upon the matter of the Constitution however. I believe we are viewing from different angles but arriving to the same conclusions; that persons without understanding of such a document and wielding it for the purposes unbeknown to their knowledge are just as dangerous as those who maintain that such a document dictates our human behavior.

As James Madison wrote "It may be a reflection on human nature that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature?"

Given that, the scope in which the Constitution pertains to this particular subject are but very limited. The Constitution does not grant rights, for the rights are held by the people and that the right to travel is protected. Beyond that we must defer to the State of Georgia and their Constitution to further the argument. We must also address the law at hand, which I have repeatedly stated is not unjust, rather unneeded in terms of licensing.

And until such law is changed, that the people of that state should follow the law and operate within. Otherwise let it be shown you do not believe in the rule of law. This lawmaker, even if you don't agree with his ideas, is tackling the issue correctly by presenting it to the people and to the state legislature. Where it goes from there is not up to me (I am not a resident of Georgia), nor I suspect up to you, but rather those that live within the state.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


Oh, what a GREAT idea. Give drunks and convicted felons the FREEDOM to drive anywhere in the state of GA.

What a bunch of morons.



People willing to trade freedom for security deserve neither



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by sabbathcrazy
 


This quote is misquoted, abused and used to justify crazy ideas so much its not even funny. Just FYI, correct citation:


They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither and will lose both.


Is liberty to drive without obtaining proper qualification "essential"?
Is safety from unqualified drivers on the public roads "little temporary" safety?

I think no.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 12:32 PM
link   
Do prisoners have the right to travel?

Why not?



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 

Although I am not sure why you need to make pointed commentary towards my choice of vocabulary.
2 reasons:
1) My post to which you replied was a well aimed piece of satire addressing the most important issue of the argument, namely driving kills people frequently. I dont appreciate that being labelled "non-sequitur".
2) In discussions of law, its often the case that verbosity, vague or incorrect language, or overly complex arguments are used to obscure the simple intent of the law. Indeed there are thousands of shysters whose job is nothing more than applying more weight to some areas of law than others in order to make it seem to say whatever their employers want it to. The US Constitution is frequent victim of this.

If the writers of the Constitution had had the foresight to imagine how things would turn out & intended it to mean what some here claim it does, then bearing Hamilton's input in mind, they probably wouldn't have addressed driving specifically, but rather said something like:

"No law shall be enacted which prevents, impedes, or otherwise hinders the unalienable rights of citizens to use heretofore inthinkable inventiouns negligently, recklessly, or foolishly."

But they didn't.

I fully realise that the Constitution is intended to limit what the govt can legislate on, but it rests on the notion that the people's rights exist independently, amongst them being "life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness". Georgia didn't pay for the Interstate Highways: the whole Union through the fedgov did that. In doing so, the scope of liberty to travel whilst also being affordable & less arduous thus more easily reconciled with the pursuit of happiness was extended for all Americans. However, this has to be balanced against the risk to life & both the liberty to travel & the pursuit of happiness affected by the fear of being mown down by an idiot.

Someone has to pay...



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by RestingInPieces
Do prisoners have the right to travel?

Why not?


They do not. Most prisoners who are incarcerated in my state are considered to be "in the custody of" the state Department of Corrections. Accordingly, many of the rights of being a "free man" are taken away from them as a consequence of their custodial status, which is a consequence of (usually) some sort of crime against persons and/or property.

The aspect of your question that interests me is: How should a man or woman who is charged with a crime that does not violate another man's / woman's rights as a free man interact with agents of the state when he/she is charged?

More specifically, when "charged" with simple possession of an object forbidden by the state (i.e., marijuana, a short-barrelled shotgun), how should the man/woman interact with the accusing agents of the state?

We have seen this more and more as human beings are deprived of their rights as free men and women because they have "broken" some statute or doctrine issued by another man or group of men.

As per my most recent post, after you "swallow the red pill" and you start to really consider this stuff, it gets to be overwhelming. Not overwhelming because it is particularly complicated, but because we have been conditioned by our parents, families, the media, our current society to apply a certain internal/cognitive schema to the way think about these issues.

Anyway...more grist for the mill.




posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by MMPI2

Originally posted by RestingInPieces
Do prisoners have the right to travel?

Why not?


They do not. Most prisoners who are incarcerated in my state are considered to be "in the custody of" the state Department of Corrections. Accordingly, many of the rights of being a "free man" are taken away from them as a consequence of their custodial status, which is a consequence of (usually) some sort of crime against persons and/or property.

The aspect of your question that interests me is: How should a man or woman who is charged with a crime that does not violate another man's / woman's rights as a free man interact with agents of the state when he/she is charged?

More specifically, when "charged" with simple possession of an object forbidden by the state (i.e., marijuana, a short-barrelled shotgun), how should the man/woman interact with the accusing agents of the state?

We have seen this more and more as human beings are deprived of their rights as free men and women because they have "broken" some statute or doctrine issued by another man or group of men.

As per my most recent post, after you "swallow the red pill" and you start to really consider this stuff, it gets to be overwhelming. Not overwhelming because it is particularly complicated, but because we have been conditioned by our parents, families, the media, our current society to apply a certain internal/cognitive schema to the way think about these issues.

Anyway...more grist for the mill.



So you agree that the State can take your rights away then.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by RestingInPieces
 


I would defer of course to someone who has had a longer time to "digest the red pill" than I have, and has had more experience with these concepts and ideas.

However, my belief (at least at this point in my "cognitive evolution") is that an actual violation of another man's or woman's freedom, liberty, etc. should be met with very significant consequences.

What I struggle with in particular is who is to determine how culpability is determined and decide on and impose the necessary consequences. It seems that our founding fathers had the foresight to develop the notion of the "jury of peers" in cases where there was a material violation of another man's or woman's rights. It seems to me that this system, and all of the components therein, was a very logical sequelae to the individual sovereign ideal.

What is odd to me is how the actual mechanism developed over time to carry out these functions has morphed into something outside of our founders' intent. The power of the imposition of justice has been taken out of the hands of an accused persons "peers" and has been kidnapped by cadres of others who readily violate the sovereign ideal.

What is very interesting to me is how extremely powerful a jury could actually be if they were somehow endowed with the knowledge of the power and authority they hold. This could be especially interesting when we consider the "federal grand jury". I believe this is the reason that IRS cases are NEVER heard in front of a jury...they (at least as far as I can tell) always heard by a judge or a panel of judges (although I am not certain of the specifics).

Anyhoo...that's where I am with this. Again, I will happily stand corrected for any errors I make in my reasoning.




posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Bunken Drum
 





If the writers of the Constitution had had the foresight to imagine how things would turn out & intended it to mean what some here claim it does, then bearing Hamilton's input in mind, they probably wouldn't have addressed driving specifically, but rather said something like:

"No law shall be enacted which prevents, impedes, or otherwise hinders the unalienable rights of citizens to use heretofore inthinkable inventiouns negligently, recklessly, or foolishly."


The Framers of the Constitution did have the foresight to imagine how things would turn out. In fact, there were a number of Founders dead set against the Bill of Rights precisely because they had the foresight to understand people like you would be heretofore using some inthinkable invention negligently, recklessly, and foolishly to assert that because the Founders did list certain rights, that only those rights exist, or are protected by Constitution, and worse, are rights that have been granted by Constitution. Thus, James Madison fashioned the Ninth Amendment, referenced in this thread often, yet which you still pretend has no meaning, as a preventative measure against the perception that if it "ain't listed, it ain't a right".

The language Madison submitted for the Ninth Amendment went virtually unchanged by the Constitutional Convention, and what they intended it to mean, is precisely what people in this thread have been saying it means.

More importantly, all State Constitutions echo the Ninth Amendment, and the State of Georgia, where Bobby Franklin is a Representative, is no different:


Paragraph XXVIII. Enumeration of rights not denial of others. The enumeration of rights herein contained as a part of this Constitution shall not be construed to deny to the people any inherent rights which they may have hitherto enjoyed.


In the matter of driving an automobile, this is a States Rights issue, and outside any commerce, is not a federal one. The point, as erroneous as it is, that there is no Clause in the Constitution for the United States that "gives" people the right to drive, is moot. What matters is what the State Constitution of Georgia say's on the matter, and of course, that Constitution doesn't "give" anyone the right to drive either, but it certainly does make clear that the enumeration of rights shall not be construed to deny other inherent rights. Of course, one could quibble with the language and point to the term "hitherto" and argue that people were not "hitherto" driving cars when this Constitution was written.

However, the current Georgia Constitution I linked is a Constitution "as amended through the November 1998 general elections" so what people were driving when the original Georgia Constitution was written is fairly moot. Further, when the original, and it should be noted that the State of Georgia has had ten different Constitutions written since it was declared a sovereign state, the first being drafted in 1777 and replaced The Rules and Regulations of the Colony of Georgia which was drafted a year before that. In 1777 people in all of the original 13 states were driving horse and buggy's. The type of conveyance is irrelevant, that people "hitherto" had the right to drive, and there was no such thing as a DHB, or Department of Horse and Buggy's.




I fully realise that the Constitution is intended to limit what the govt can legislate on, but it rests on the notion that the people's rights exist independently, amongst them being "life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness". Georgia didn't pay for the Interstate Highways:


The argument of Interstate Highways justifying state licensing and registration schemes is a convoluted one. The "Interstate Highways" were not even in existence prior to 1956. Prior to this there was, as there still is, The United States Highway System created in 1925 because of the mass consumption of automobiles. Automobiles and driving them preceded any highway system, not the other way around. The first drivers license in the State of Georgia was not even issued until 1937 from the Department of Motor Vehicle Safety which was a part of the newly formed Department of Public Safety, so while drivers licenses were preceded by the U.S. Highway System, they preceded the Interstate Highway's, but what is most importantly considered in this brief history lesson is that people in Georgia were "hitherto" enjoying their right to drive automobiles before that state legislature began their licensing and registration schemes.




However, this has to be balanced against the risk to life & both the liberty to travel & the pursuit of happiness affected by the fear of being mown down by an idiot.


The fear of being mowed down by an idiot driving a motor vehicle has not in anyway been assuaged by any license and registration schemes, and people run the risk of that today in each state, just as they did prior to the licensing and registration schemes.

The argument that rights have to be balanced with peoples fears is an irrational argument. Rights do not need to be balanced. Either people have the right, or they don't. There is no lawful method of balancing rights with fear. Of course, you have every right to be afraid, and even be very afraid, but you don't have the right to deny or disparage the rights of others in the name of that fear.

I believe that people went along with the licensing and registration schemes because people in general tend to be rather reasonable, and saw a reasonableness to such a scheme. What people failed to reasonably predict is that governments, and the ambitious officials who "cast a longing eye on offices" do not, in general, tend to be reasonable and will work towards an aggregation of power while in office to the point that what was once reasonable for people becomes less and less reasonable. The REAL ID Actis a good example, and while several states have flat out refused to comply with this Act, and it has been under much criticism from both sides of the political isle, it is a fine example of how unreasonable government can get and will deign to take advantage of the reasonableness of the people.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


So you're saying that if you can get behind the wheel of a car and can operate the controls, you should be allowed to drive?

There's so much that's wrong with that, I don't even know where to start.

Should these people be allowed to drive?

1) Drunk Drivers
2) Children
3) People with blindness/vision disabilities
4) People convicted of vehicular homicides

Those 4 alone should cause people to reverse their decision. Without a way to regulate drivers, you'll have anarchy on the roads. I couldn't find any civilized country that doesn't require a driver's license of some kind.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by grahag
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


So you're saying that if you can get behind the wheel of a car and can operate the controls, you should be allowed to drive?

There's so much that's wrong with that, I don't even know where to start.

Should these people be allowed to drive?

1) Drunk Drivers
2) Children
3) People with blindness/vision disabilities
4) People convicted of vehicular homicides

Those 4 alone should cause people to reverse their decision. Without a way to regulate drivers, you'll have anarchy on the roads. I couldn't find any civilized country that doesn't require a driver's license of some kind.


1) Drunk Drivers - licensed people drive drunk all the time.
2) Children - Any decent parent isn't going to allow their child to drive
3) People with blindness/vision disabilities -I have personally seen an elderly man fail the eye exam 3 times and the DMV worker gave him his license anyways
4) People convicted of vehicular homicides - Florida penalties Manslaughter, DUI Serious Bodily Injury, or Vehicular Homicide Convictions: (3 Year Revocation): May immediately apply for hardship reinstatement hearing. Must complete DUI school or advanced driver improvement course. 3 yrs and they're driving again.

A license doesn't stop A Dangerous person from driving anymore than a positive HIV test stops someone from having sex.



edit on 2-2-2011 by Adamanteus because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by grahag
 





So you're saying that if you can get behind the wheel of a car and can operate the controls, you should be allowed to drive?

There's so much that's wrong with that, I don't even know where to start.


Allowed? There is so much wrong with that way of thinking, but even so I most certainly know where to start. People do not live because they are "allowed" to live, nor do they enjoy their rights because they are "allowed" to do so. Quite the contrary, if governments are denying and disparaging the rights of the individual, they are doing so because we the people are allowing it.

Murder is not a crime because some legislative body has disallowed it, it is a crime because it has denied and disparaged the right of another person to live. Theft is not a crime because some legislative body disallowed it, it is a crime because it has denied and disparaged the right of person to keep their property. Rape is not a crime because it has been disallowed by some legislative body, it is a crime because it has denied and disparaged the right of an individual to hold sovereignty over their own person and decide for themselves when and where they will agree to sex.

Free people do not think in terms of what their government allows them to do, they think in terms of rights and what are not rights. The act of driving, in and of itself, does not cause harm. Reckless driving, whether that be because of drunkenness or some other reason, is not a right any more than recklessly firing a pistol in the middle of a crowd is a right, even though it has been well established that people do have the right to keep and bear arms, no one has the right to recklessly use those arms.

It is not a question of whether drunks, blind people, or children should be allowed to drive, unless of course, in the case of children, it is the parent allowing or disallowing, it is a question of whether they have the right to do so. "Drunk drivers" is a poorly defined term, and even as the states go in their definitions of driving while under the influence it is rather arbitrary. Each person has their own threshold with alcohol, and some will become impaired quicker than others, but - and this is an important but - people who have a drinking problem have impaired their nervous system, and reaction time, which is affected even when they are sober. Further, some people have slower reaction times than others, which has nothing at all to do with drinking alcohol. An athlete tends to have a finely tuned body and their reaction time tends to be better than those who are not athletes. Impairment is a subjective term.

Reckless driving, on the other hand, is less subjective than impairment. It is easy to spot a reckless driver, not always so easy to spot a person who has some form of impairment. In terms of blindness, (and why stop there, what about quadriplegics, or paraplegics? What about people with Down Syndrome?), it is fairly argued that blind people do not have a right to drive, any more than they have a right to walk along a busy street without some assistance, either human or technology that facilitates their blindness while walking along a busy street. There very well may come a time when technology will facilitate their blindness when it comes to driving. There has certainly been technologies invented to facilitate paraplegics and quadriplegics to drive.

This whole notion that we the people do only what we are allowed to do by government decree is a problematic notion that has nothing at all to do with freedom and unalienable rights. It does fall within the parameters of "civil rights" which are legal "rights" granted by government, and what can be granted can be taken away, but the whole history of driving automobiles shows that people claimed the right to drive before state governments endeavored to take those rights away. This is the issue.



new topics

top topics



 
35
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join