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: 17
35
<< 14  15  16   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by babybunnies
It's not a right to be able to drive.


By simply driving forward at a safe reasonable speed and progressing towards your destination without any paperwork... who is hurt?

If no one is hurt... where is the crime?

If there is no crime... why is it forbidden?

If it need not be forbidden... then why do we need permission?

If we shouldn't need permission... then why are we required to be licensed?

Sri Oracle




posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by comody88
reply to post by Human_Alien
 
Although I tend to agree with just about any law that gives us more freedom and less gov't restrictions I really don't see how driver licenses are unconstitutional



That is because they are not at all unconstitutional.

Even if one assumed that the right to drive was recognized as a fundamental right under the Constitution, that does not prohibit a state from legislating such a right. The law would need to survive a strict scrutiny analysis in which the state demonstrates a compelling state interest, and also shows that the statute in question is necessary to further that interest.

It seems impossible, in an age where even awful cars can cruise at 100 mph, that keeping pedestrians and motorists safe from the very young, the very blind, the habitual DWI offender is not a law that operates to protect a compelling state interest and which is necessary to further that interest.

Find it very hard to believe any of y'all would like to hit Atlanta traffic boxed in by two six year olds and a man half in the bag.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 01:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by RestingInPieces
 





Correct, all people can reserve rights for themselves. People can reserve rights that the State has not reserverd, and the State can reserve rights that the Federal Government has not reserved. See the nice structure there fella?


Both the State and Federal government cannot "reserve" any "rights", ... Show us where in the Constitution the Federal government has any right to "reserve" rights to that institution.


Fool. Have you backed up and looked at the Constitution as a whole lately? It's the reservation for an entire federal union.



Are you suggesting that rights exist in a collective sense only, and do not exist on an individual basis? Is it your argument that "each person" does not have the right to free speech, or to publish, or freedom to exercise their religion to the dictates of their own conscience?


Two different things entirely. The rights you mention are enumerated in the bill of rights. All unenumerated rights are left up to the people per democratic process.



Are you arguing that "each person" does not have an individual right to keep and bear arms, and that only collectives do?


The second amendment is certainly a blanket statement.


In the United States, either by the federal government, or by the state or local governments, it is unlawful to deny or disparage the rights of people, and this is not to say that people collectively cannot have their rights denied or disparaged - of which of course, they can ...
.

Exactly. It's why you don't have the right to drive past a stopped school bus.



The "people" cannot, on a federal level, demand that Congress legislate an act that denies individuals the right to free speech and expect this to be treated as lawful legislation.


I never said anything of the sorts regarding enumerated rights. The people do not have have the power to to vote on enumerated rights. It's why the bill of rights was presented in the first place - they were the top few rights that the founding fathers could imagine would stand the test of time.



That "Congress shall make no laws respecting..." is pretty damn clear, and it matters not if Congress has passed legislation that denies the collective, or an individual the right to worship religion freely, or speech, or of the press or to peaceably assemble or to petition the government for a redress of grievances, and it matters not if the majority of people who elected the members of Congress agree with this legislation, if it is unlawful then it cannot stand as law.


You are preaching to the choir. These are enumerated rights.




Section 1:

Source of Power

All political power is inherent in the people and government is instituted for their protection, security and benefit; and they have the right to alter, reform or abolish the same, in such manner as they may think proper.



... and they think proper that driving without a license is not the way to go.



All political power is inherent in the people, and it logically follows that every individual is a holder of that political power


Wrong. We don't have dictators in America.



It also logically follows that governments that do grant "rights" are not inclined to grant the right to alter, reform, or abolish that government in such a manner as they think proper.


... except for the Arkansas constitution that you just mentioned?



All men are created equally free and independent, and this is not an exclusionary Clause denying women that same equality and independence, and it logically follows that women are also created equally (under the law) free and independent,


Sure, as soon as suffrage was voted upon by the people. Historically, you are obviously wrong.

... Maybe I'll respond to the rest of your dribble if you are lucky (or unlucky). Right now, I'm in the process of decided if my continued interaction with you is even worth one iota of my time. I've done this with you before, and I'm about to do the same thing I've done before: let fools be fools.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 01:48 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 01:52 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 01:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sri Oracle
By simply driving forward at a safe reasonable speed and progressing towards your destination without any paperwork... who is hurt?

If no one is hurt... where is the crime?

If there is no crime... why is it forbidden?

If it need not be forbidden... then why do we need permission?

If we shouldn't need permission... then why are we required to be licensed?

Sri Oracle


Employing the methods of some,...

But what about drunk drivers! They will reign!
What about underage drivers; they will recklessly drive about the road!
How will we subjugate the average citizen to our rule?
How will we ensure our roads are safe from drivers that cannot perform the basic functions and follow the rules of the roads?

HOW?
/sarcasm

edit on 5-2-2011 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 01:59 AM
link   
Kinda hard to reserve one's rights when one does not understand one has NONE..

But Wait!!

And then,how your government is forbidden from infringing upon them.

Nevermind................



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 02:07 AM
link   
Driver's licenses are good for revenue. Plus, it keeps people under control. People are by no means restricted or prevented from traveling freely in the union or across the borders, not unless America wants more illegal ALIENS to drive behind the wheels without a license. Hmmm.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 02:43 AM
link   
reply to post by RestingInPieces
 





Fool. Have you backed up and looked at the Constitution as a whole lately? It's the reservation for an entire federal union.


When the fool begins calling others a fool, the discourse has gone way beyond any repair. It is you who are not looking at the Constitution as a whole, and even your cherry picking of that Constitution is nonsensical. The establishment of the federal union is about a delegation of power, you imbecile. There is no where in that Constitution where you can point to and show that rights have been given to the government itself, only delegated power. This is why you made the foolish statement I quoted above instead of actually showing the Clause you are referring to, because there is no clause to back up your assertion, and from the Preamble, down tot the Bill of Rights, all rights belong to the people, not the government.




Two different things entirely. The rights you mention are enumerated in the bill of rights. All unenumerated rights are left up to the people per democratic process.


Again, since you are the one who keeps insisting people show you in the Constitution where the right to drive has been enumerated, it is only fair to demand you show us where in that Constitution that it says all unenumerated rights are left up to the people per democratic process, particularly since each state has been guaranteed a republican form of government. Show us the language that supports your contention that all unenumerated rights are decided by the whimsy of a democratic process.




The second amendment is certainly a blanket statement.


Are you aware that in this context, the Second Amendment as a "blanket statement" would mean all people, as in "each person" has the right to keep and bear arms. Is that what you mean by asserting the Second Amendment is "certainly a blanket statement"?




I never said anything of the sorts regarding enumerated rights. The people do not have have the power to to vote on enumerated rights. It's why the bill of rights was presented in the first place - they were the top few rights that the founding fathers could imagine would stand the test of time.


The people do not have the right to, by democratic process, vote on unenumerated rights either. Are you ignorant of the fact that the right to privacy has been upheld by the Supreme Court as an undeniable unalienable right of individuals, and this is why the popular legislative acts prohibiting abortion have been struck down as unlawful? You know what? Obtuse is not a color that goes well with you.




... and they think proper that driving without a license is not the way to go.


Those that do are welcome to enter into a contract with the State of Arkansas and play by those rules, those who do not think it is proper do not have to, at any point, surrender their unalienable right just because other people think it proper to join an exclusive licensing club.




Wrong. We don't have dictators in America.


This coming from the person who began this post by calling me a fool. It is not wrong that every individual is a holder of the inherent political power, and you are not just calling me wrong, you are calling the State of Arkansas and every other state who has recognized that the people hold the inherent political power wrong. So, when I say that it logically follows that every individual holds the inherent political power, this has nothing to do with dictatorships. It is a foolish statement you've made, perhaps in haste, perhaps because you genuinely have a hard time grasping simple concepts, who knows? While declaring that we "don't have dictators in America" is correct, in respect to my statement that every individual is a holder of the inherent political power your declaration is a non sequitur.

Let me break this down as simply as possible. If we are to accept Lord Acton's assertion that "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" as true, then we have a foundation by which to better understand why the U.S. government is set up by Constitution acknowledging that the inherent political power belongs with the people. This is not to say that "the people" is to be taken in an aggregated sense, because it is aggregated power that is most corruptible. Thus, the inherent political power is spread out evenly among every individual so as to keep the aggregation of power kept at a minimum. When the people, as in individuals, understand this as a majority, local, state, and federal government has a difficult time of aggregating power. When the people, as in individuals such as you, collectively come to believe that they have "surrendered" their inherent political power to the government in order to have a government, then the aggregation of power becomes much easier for those who've cast a longing eye on political office and have dubious ambitions. The inherent political power is spread out equally among all people in an effort to limit the aggregation of power governments tend towards.




... except for the Arkansas constitution that you just mentioned?


Your only saving grace with this last sentence is that it ends with a question mark. In answer to your question, no the Arkansas Constitution is not granting any rights. They are acknowledging that rights preexist the government established by that Constitution, and while they have enumerated some rights, they made sure, with Section 29, of which I will post again, to clarify that unemurated rights also exist, and that any legislation denying or disparaging either enumerated, or unenumerated rights are void!


Section 29: Enumeration of Rights of People Not Exclusive of Other Rights - Protection Against Encroachment This enumeration of rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people; and to guard against any encroachments on the rights herein retained, or any transgression of any of the higher powers herein delegated, we declare that everything in this article is excepted out of the general powers of the government; and shall forever remain inviolate; and that all laws contrary thereto, or to the other provisions herein contained, shall be void.





Sure, as soon as suffrage was voted upon by the people. Historically, you are obviously wrong.


Voting is not an unalienable right. It is a legal right, a civil right, granted by government. The obvious nature of unalienable rights, that they preexist governments, demonstrates how voting cannot possibly be an unalienable right because it does not preexist government, and the establishment of a government is first required before the civil right of voting can be granted. Do you understand? There are unalienable natural rights, and there are legal civil rights. Both are not the same. Unalienable rights belong to all people, regardless of their citizenship, but civil rights belong only to those who have been granted the right by the government granting those rights. Consider that while you passionately argue against the reality of unalienable rights and keep insisting all rights are those civil rights granted to people by government.




... Maybe I'll respond to the rest of your dribble if you are lucky (or unlucky). Right now, I'm in the process of decided if my continued interaction with you is even worth one iota of my time. I've done this with you before, and I'm about to do the same thing I've done before: let fools be fools.


You are backed into a corner in this thread, and have very limited options. Your best and surest way out of this corner is to admit your errors, and begin talking sensibly. Your next best bet is to "let fools be fools" and leave this thread for the more reasonable minds and go be a fool somewhere else. Of course, fools rarely admit their mistakes and most of the time have no control over their emotions. It is fairly predictable that you will not be able to resist responding and pressing harder and harder into that corner you've backed into.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 03:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 




They "surely" come closer, do they? Prove it.


The number of drivers on public roads that did not receive proper qualification is lower AT LEAST of the amount that the police directly catches driving without license, compared to the situation without licenses. Probably more, because just the presence of a law and possibility of punishment acts as a deterrent for some.



There are "surely exceptions, but that's a moot point", is it? Why is it moot, and what exceptions are you talking about?


Exceptions are unqualified people who drive on public roads without license and police did not catch them. Exceptions to another side are people who received the license and still are not properly qualified.



The legitimacy and "morality" of a law has EVERYTHING to do with the ability to enforce it. Case in point, the 18th Amendment and the subsequent legislation prohibiting alcohol. Some would argue this was a "moral law", and in terms of legitimacy the Supreme Court certainly upheld the 18th Amendment as "legitimate", and even so, Congress was forced to repeal this Amendment 13 years later precisely because they could not enforce it, and because it created more problems than it attempted to fix.


You said it. Because in the end it created more problems than it attempted to fix, so the effect of a law was detrimental compared to situation without it. Not because it was not enforceable, if it was not enforceable but cost people and government almost nothing, I am sure it may still be here.



In terms of murder and theft, I keep making the same argument, ad nauseum at this point, that murder and theft are natural laws that cannot lawfully be "legalized". Murder and theft is an abrogation and derogation of rights, and no one has the right to abrogate and derogate the right of another. This is my argument. What is yours?


The same. Driving on a public road without proper qualifications is an abrogation and derogation of other peoples right to not be endangered, or threatened. You are trying to infringe upon my right to safety.
You have two rights:
1. right to drive on public roads
2. right to not be endangered on pubic roads

If these two rights are going to come into conflict, you must uphold only ONE. What is your justification for choosing number 1.?

My justification for two is that right to life is more important than right to liberty (life, liberty, property is the natural order). 1. is connected with the right to liberty, 2. is connected with the right to life (or right to not have health damaged). Thus right number 2. has priority over 1. if these two are going to come into conflict.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 04:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 





The number of drivers on public roads that did not receive proper qualification is lower AT LEAST of the amount that the police directly catches driving without license, compared to the situation without licenses. Probably more, because just the presence of a law and possibility of punishment acts as a deterrent for some.


If we are to accept your assumption as true, then the 6,420,000 automobile "accidents" in the year 2005 were largely caused by licensed drivers. Of the 42,636 people who were killed that year due to automobile collisions, or "accidents" were caused by and large by licensed drivers. The reported 115 people who die every day, (one every 13 minutes) are largely caused by licensed drivers...if we accept your assumption as true, and why shouldn't we?




Exceptions are unqualified people who drive on public roads without license and police did not catch them. Exceptions to another side are people who received the license and still are not properly qualified.


Ah! So, based upon your assumption, it is then fairly assumed that of the 6,420,000 automobile accidents that these would be largely caused by the exception, either being unlicensed drivers, (presumably less than the unqualified licensed driver), and unqualified licensed drivers. This total of nearly 6 and half million accidents for the year 2005, was only slightly less in the year 2003 at 6,328,000, and just a tad less for the year 2002, with 6,316,000 and in 2000 the number was 6,356,000. It would be unfair to assume that all of these accidents during these years reported were caused by unqualified drivers, licensed or not, and at least some were caused by qualified drivers, or if not caused by them, stuff happens, and the accidents were the consequence. Even so, if we are to accept your reasoning as valid, it is fairly presumed that most of these accidents were with licensed drivers, and a fair amount caused by unqualified drivers.




You said it. Because in the end it created more problems than it attempted to fix, so the effect of a law was detrimental compared to situation without it. Not because it was not enforceable, if it was not enforceable but cost people and government almost nothing, I am sure it may still be here.


Just how hard was it to enforce prohibition?


Just how hard was it to enforce Prohibition in the Trenton of the '20s? Pretty hard, considering that the police chief gave his personal protection to bootleggers and threatened to arrest a dry agent who came to town to disturb things.

Just how easy was it to have a drink in the Trenton of the '20s? As easy as walking into the darkened speakeasies that dotted Chambersburg and South Broad Street, and State Street. As easy as driving to the Jersey Shore, where cases of whiskey were being unloaded in open air markets at pre Prohibition prices.


....


In the fall of 1926, a ramrod-straight, teetotaling Army colonel named Ira Reeves showed up to take charge of the federal government's New Jerst y district for Prohibition, with headquarters in Newark.

Reeves thought or himself as a "Prohibition St. Patrick" chasing the snakes of demon rum out of New Jersey, and went to work with a vengeance, raiding several booze plants a day.

It took him less than a year to figure out that he was failing -- that he had, in fact, the most impossible job in the world. Keep Jersey sober? Might as well ask Jersey drivers to obey the speed limit.


A Prohibition "Fast Fact":


In Los Angeles, a jury that had heard a bootlegging case was itself put on trial after it drank the evidence. The jurors argued in their defense that they had simply been sampling the evidence to determine whether or not it contained alcohol, which they determined it did. However, because they consumed the evidence, the defendant charged with bootlegging had to be acquitted.


Prohibition failed to stop liquor flow in Utah:


Even before Utah finally enacted statewide prohibition in 1917 many small towns had already adopted their own anti-liquor laws. On October 21, 1911, St. George passed an ordinance prohibiting the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors. Yet, as St. George and other communities found, regulating people's drinking habits was no easy task. Less than two months after the bill's enactment several young men secured a five-gallon keg of wine and sneaked west of the city to indulge. After enjoying much of the illegal liquid one young man, for no apparent reason, shot and wounded one of his drinking buddies. News of the incident traveled fast, and soon the whole group was arrested and tried for drunkenness. One pled guilty and was fined $7. Four others were acquitted due to lack of evidence, and two more were found guilty and fined $10 each.



Not only was regulating drinking difficult, but, as Grand County officers discovered, stopping its illegal sale was also challenging. In 1911 Sheriff Bliss of Moab, acting on information that John Tescher was selling liquor from his home, searched the residence and seized about three quarts of whiskey and numerous empty kegs. Tescher pled guilty to owning and keeping whiskey for sale and was fined $250. In another Grand County case Warren J. Gardner was found guilty of selling a gallon of wine to five minors. His attorney tried to establish that the wine was actually unfermented pure grape juice, but two of the boys testified to the contrary. They told the court that they became intoxicated after drinking it. The jury believed the boys, and the judge sentenced Gardner to ninety days in the county jail.



These experiences were only precursors of what lay ahead. After the ratification of the Eighteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1919, which instituted nationwide prohibition, the illegal production and sale of liquor increased dramatically in Utah and across America. Large-scale regulation proved even more challenging than enforcing state and local ordinances. In 1923 Utah's attorney general claimed that drinking in the larger cities was just as bad as before prohibition. Huge profits from the manufacture and sale of liquor made it impossible to stop. In Milford, Beaver County, officials alleged that the chief bootlegger was the city marshal's sister. In Sanpete County one bootlegger loaded whiskey in the pack saddle of his trained horse and sent it home over twenty miles of mountainous road. He returned in his car, and when officers stopped him on suspicion of bootlegging they found no liquor in his vehicle. One Salt Lake City mother kept a still going in the basement of her house while her husband was serving an eighteen-month sentence for bootlegging. More shocking, raids on speakeasies in Utah often netted off-duty policemen among the criminal drinkers. Overall, from 1925 to 1932 federal agents in Utah seized over 400 distilleries, 25,000 gallons of spirits, 8,000 gallons of malt liquors, 13,000 gallons of wine, and 332,000 gallons of mash.




When Booze Was Banned...


After Prohibition took effect, Okrent shows, attempts to punish bootleggers with anything more than a slap on the wrist provoked public outrage and invited jury nullification.


Jury Nullification and the 18th Amendment:


During Prohibition, juries often nullified alcohol control laws,[7] possibly as often as 60% of the time due to disagreements with the justice of the law.[8] This resistance is considered to have contributed to the adoption of the Twenty-first amendment repealing the Eighteenth amendment which established Prohibition.





The same. Driving on a public road without proper qualifications is an abrogation and derogation of other peoples right to not be endangered, or threatened. You are trying to infringe upon my right to safety.


Do not confuse the reasonable expectation of safety with a right. You have the right to life, and if a driver through recklessness threatens your life, then this is an abrogation and derogation of your right to life. While the expectation of safety can be reasonable, it is at times an unreasonable expectation. Californians living in high risk areas where earthquakes are the norm do not have the right to safety from earthquakes. Driving on the Highway, even with a maximum of 55 mph, the expectation of safety has diminished from that of driving on a road at 25 mph. Safety, in and of itself is not a right, but can be, not always, but can be a reasonable expectation. You certainly have the right to reasonable expectations, as long as they are reasonable, and what would make them reasonable is that your desire to be safe does not become an excuse to deny or disparage other peoples rights. That would be reasonable. What is unreasonable is arguing that your belief that safety is a right and this right trumps other peoples rights. That would be very unreasonable.




If these two rights are going to come into conflict, you must uphold only ONE. What is your justification for choosing number 1.?


Rights do not ever come into conflict, even when it comes to the lawful right to self defense. If a person finds that they must defend their life, and the situation is kill or be killed, it is not as if two rights have come into conflict, there are two rights involved, that of the right to life, and the right to self defense, but the right to self defense does not trump your attempted killers right to life. Your attempted killer placed his own life in harms way by attempting to kill you and leaving you with no other option but to kill him. There was no conflict of rights, there was an attempted killer who showed no regard for your life, and it is fairly presumed you had not done anything to provoke this, which is a part of the self defense scenario. It is your right that is being denied and disparaged, and the right to life the attempted killer had was not forfeit because of a conflict of rights, it was forfeit because he gambled his life over yours.




My justification for two is that right to life is more important than right to liberty (life, liberty, property is the natural order). 1. is connected with the right to liberty, 2. is connected with the right to life (or right to not have health damaged). Thus right number 2. has priority over 1. if these two are going to come into conflict.


No right has a priority over any other rights. They are all equal under the law. There are countless freedom fighters who have placed their own lives on the line, many of them dying because of their fight for freedom, and your belief system does not trump their right to liberty. You are entitled to your belief system, but you have no legal authority to declare your fear based emotions as being more important than the liberty minded. You are entitled to your fear. You just don't have the right to use that fear as an excuse to abrogate and derogate the rights of others...unless it is in self defense, meaning you personally have the right to protect your own life, your loved ones lives, and even helpless strangers lives, even your property, and you have the right to use force if necessary, you just don't have the right to deny or disparaged other peoples right because of what your fear conjures up in your imagination.


edit on 5-2-2011 by Jean Paul Zodeaux because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-2-2011 by Jean Paul Zodeaux because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


I dont know where are you heading with those walls of text about accident statistics, but I see nothing there which contradicts my point.

Those articles about prohibition again prove my point - enforcing prohibition laws and unintended consequences of the laws were far more expensive than the slight benefit they caused.
Now if you prove that the cost of enforcing driver licenses is analogically greater than the benefit they cause and cost they save on traffic accidents, I might reconsider. But I doubt thats the case, since one prevented serious accident may pay for thousands of issued licenses, and we are not even speaking about the cost of human lifes saved.



While the expectation of safety can be reasonable, it is at times an unreasonable expectation.


What do you consider reasonable expectation of safety? What is the probability of danger caused by other peoples unresponsible behaviour which constitutes reasonable breach of others right to safety to act? Why aiming gun at other people is enough probability of danger to act, and driving without proper qualifications is not? Where is the cutoff and how do you justify it?



Californians living in high risk areas where earthquakes are the norm do not have the right to safety from earthquakes.


We cannot stop Earthquakes, and earthquakes are a natural phenomenon not caused by man. If we could stop or lower the incidence of earthquakes with laws, how we can stop unqualified drivers with licenses, we certainly would. Incorrect analogy.



Rights do not ever come into conflict, even when it comes to the lawful right to self defense. If a person finds that they must defend their life, and the situation is kill or be killed, it is not as if two rights have come into conflict, there are two rights involved, that of the right to life, and the right to self defense, but the right to self defense does not trump your attempted killers right to life. Your attempted killer placed his own life in harms way by attempting to kill you and leaving you with no other option but to kill him. There was no conflict of rights, there was an attempted killer who showed no regard for your life, and it is fairly presumed you had not done anything to provoke this, which is a part of the self defense scenario. It is your right that is being denied and disparaged, and the right to life the attempted killer had was not forfeit because of a conflict of rights, it was forfeit because he gambled his life over yours.


Thats just semantics, you are essentially saying the same thing. I can reword my statement using your vocabulary to show they are equivalent:

If a person finds that they must defend their life or health from danger, and the situation is infringe upon other persons liberty to drive or be endangered, it is not as if two rights have come into conflict, there are two rights involved, that of the right to drive on public roads, and the right to self defense, but the right to self defense does not trump your attempted killers right to drive. Your attempted killer placed his own liberty to drive in harms way by endangering you and leaving you with no other option but to stop him. There was no conflict of rights, there was an attempted killer who showed no regard for your life, and it is fairly presumed you had not done anything to provoke this, which is a part of the self defense scenario. It is your right that is being denied and disparaged, and the right to drive the attempted killer had was not forfeit because of a conflict of rights, it was forfeit because he gambled his liberty to drive over your life or health safety.

Altrough we can still simply say that right to life of one person by his agression came to the conflict with right to life of another person, and we choosed to uphold the right to life of the defender, according to natural laws. Thats the infamous "circles of liberties and rights" interpretation - your rights/liberties end where another persons rights/liberties begin.



No right has a priority over any other rights.


Even if we do not prioritize the rights this way and use only simple basic libertarian rule - the one who first infringed upon other persons right by exercising his rights/liberties looses the right in question (or right needed to correct the situation), we can still justify driving licenses, as I have demonstrated above.
But IMHO positive right prioritization should be done to some extent, we are no longer in 19th century. The classic example is welfare - right to life (health, safety..) of receivers can justify some infringement upon right to property (in effect, even liberty?) of the taxed rich people (but only to some limited extent) even if they did not breach the right to life of the receivers in any direct way. They simply refused to help them. Thats the difference between negative and positive liberty, and infingement upon those liberties. My argument uses only negative liberties, but the modern liberal concept of positive liberties can be used as supporting point.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Just how hard was it to enforce Prohibition in the Trenton of the '20s? Pretty hard, considering that the police chief gave his personal protection to bootleggers and threatened to arrest a dry agent who came to town to disturb things.

Just how easy was it to have a drink in the Trenton of the '20s? As easy as walking into the darkened speakeasies that dotted Chambersburg and South Broad Street, and State Street. As easy as driving to the Jersey Shore, where cases of whiskey were being unloaded in open air markets at pre Prohibition prices.


Odd... the same day you wrote this I was tearing up an old wood floor to install a new one and the under-layment for the old floor was newspaper from 1932; the last year of prohibition... many articles about wet states and the 18th amendment.

(off subject... sorry)

Sri Oracle



new topics

top topics



 
35
<< 14  15  16   >>

log in

join