Texas' Toll Roads: A Big Step Towards Open Markets For Transportation

Forbes ^ | June 30, 2017 | Scott Beyer

[TexasGunLover]

Are you too childlike to be able to grasp a state cannot deny a group of people the right to drive based on race, sex, or reasoned affiliation?

Ah, name calling, versus arguing the point. Again, try to drive without a grant of privilege from the state.

[DoughtyOne]

The SCOTUS ruled abortion on demand was a right.

Sorry, that (courts have ruled) argument only goes so far with me.

You have a right to own a gun. Is it absolute? No.

You have to abide by rules to purchase and own one. If you don’t act in accordance with the law, or exhibit questionable actions in public, your right to own one can be taken away.

Essentially, that’s what happens with your license, your ability to drive.

You have a right to obtain one (a license), complying with laws.

You have a right to drive, travel, meet with others in the circumference of an area you can travel in a given time period.

It is not reasoned to deny someone without cause, and limit their ability to meet or associate with others to a much much smaller area.

So I have to hold firm to my claim that driving is a right.

I also make the case that you cannot deny a group the right to drive based on sex, race, or reasoned affiliation. This is undeniably true.

If a state picks you personally out of the blue and says, “You cannot drive from this day forward”, without cause, you could take them to court and win.

It would be an infringement of your reasoned rights.

I’m not focusing this on you. I know a lot of folks share your take on this.

I’m not sure how those cases were approached, but as far as normal travel and association, I believe it’s a right.

If someone got in trouble and tried to claim their ability to drive should not be infringed, I could rule against them.

If it’s a case where someone was denied without cause, I don’t think a state would prevail.

[TexasGunLover]

That was just moronic.

I guess we know where you stand.

To anger a conservative, lie to him.

To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.

[DoughtyOne]

Believe me, I’ve been very reserved in name calling on this thread.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3593649/posts?page=82#82

[DoughtyOne]

You mean like you lying to me on this thread?

Conservatives should love tolls.

Yes, that was one of your more flagrant ones.

[TexasGunLover]

Tolls are a use tax. People paying for what they consume versus paying for what other’s use is a tenant of conservatism. If you believe you’re forced to drive on a toll road, and that you don’t make that choice of your own free will, I just don’t have anything else I can help you with.

[DoughtyOne]

So kind of you to try to “help” me.

Being double taxed, is not a Conservative goal, no matter how long you spit and sputter over it.

Telling the Conservative who doesn’t want to be double taxed, he can choose to drive on a secondary road is not a Conservative’s argument.

Please go “help” someone else.

[Deplorable American1776]

How can you shutter a highway? I mean, once it is built you can’t unbuild it? Am I mistaken?

[mom of young patriots]

“I pay about $3k in tolls a year here in Dallas, but generally like keeping the rift-raft off “

That doesn’t sound conservative to me. It sounds elitist. Believe it or not, $3k is a lot of money for some families and fixed income seniors. The taxes that they already pay are supposed to go for items like roads, bridges and police and military protection. I’d rather cut out some of the other goodies that our tax $ are being funneled into and provide the basics with the tax money as was the original intent. If you want to keep paying your $3K and driving “rift-raft” free, fine with me. Just don’t call it being conservative.

[TexasGunLover]

It sounds elitist

Working hard for money is the American way. It is not conservative to bash those that work hard, spend money that generates jobs.

Given driving on a toll road is a choice, and not a mandate, I don't see the problem will allowing people to pay more to get somewhere faster, especially since using gas tax money would mean the roads would not be built for decades.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

They didn’t actually shutter the road. The toll road company, SH-130 Concessions, filed for bankruptcy, and emerged from it in July under new ownership. Cintra and Zachry Construction owned it before the backruptcy. Louis Berger, the U.S. govnerment and a number of other debtors now effectively own the company. The road is still open, and the company is making about $60 million dollars in repairs to the road.

[Snickering Hound]

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2011/11/law_talk_who_says_driving_is_a.html

There is a right to travel, operating a motor vehicle has been ruled over and over to be a privilege.

[DoughtyOne]

Thank you for the follow-up.  I'm sure you could have found a lot more material, and posted it.  I'm glad you didn't.  It would be pointless to do so.  My thoughts on this are related to us acquiescing too readily in matters like this.  One could argue, If we don't claim rights. we have no business having them.  I do not believe you or any other citizen should be denied a right to drive on general principles or non-valid grounds.  If you have an acknowledged "right of travel", and this article stipulates that, then you have an unwritten right of being able to drive.  (once again, providing you have fulfilled your duty to become licensed and display you have the ability to do so safely, and have procured insurance to protect yourself and others)

In order to legally drive, the state requires people to be of age and have a valid operator’s permit.

I have no problem with this.  To purchase weapons there are also steps and requirements.  You can also lose your right to own weapons for cause.

To restrict or revoke a privilege sometimes requires some form of due process, but this is not as strictly required.

Which is one more reason why this should be seen as a right, and not a privilege.

“While the 'right of travel' is a fundamental right, the privilege to operate a motor vehicle can be conditionally granted based upon being licensed and following certain rules,” Lykins said. “If rules are broken or laws are violated, the State reserves the right to restrict or revoke a person’s privilege.”

Laws, infractions, reasoned restrictions, I think we all agree with these concepts affecting our ability to drive.  I will state here that I think states not only have a right to set up rules and regualtions, but I also believe they have a duty to enforce them.

Let's address some issues...

1. We could also state that gun rights are conditionally granted.  After all, those rights can be taken away for cause.  It still remains a right, not a privilege.

2. The excuse that driving rights can be taken away for cause, does not buttress the idea it is a privilege any more than the ability to revoke one person's right to own a weapon, instantly makes all gun owners mere benefatcors of a privilege.

3. Constitutional applications:

Here is the Ninth Amendment:

  The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Some folks make the argument that gun rights were enumerated, so gun ownership is a right.  Folks rights don't have to be enumerated.  Is it reasoned for you to be denied the right to drive if you have complied with laws and have done nothing wrong?  The answer is clearly NO.  It is not reasoned to deny you the right to drive, without cause.  What do you folks think we are, serfs, to be denied by our state government to drive if we are of age, and have complied with the rules?  It is a right!

Why would you refuse to retain your right to unfettered travel?  Non enumeration DOES NOT and IS NOT to be construed to deny or disparage other rights.  You have a right to travel in the latest modern convenience you have at your disposal, and nothing should infringe that RIGHT without cause.  Many things are not enumerated.  They are still rights.

Driving is one of them.

As for states having rights.  Can a state deny you a human right?  Can they deny you water?  Can they deny you food?  Can they deny you the ability to walk 100 miles if you want to?  Clearly, there are certain universal rights that intrinsically exist in every location within our nation's borders.

Driving is a right.

If a person violates the rules, then they can have their right taken away for cause.

Other than that, I get to, you get to, everyone gets to drive anywhere they like.  It is their right to.

Now, what I am really curious about, is why a Conservative would want to argue against something as important as driving, being a right.

I'd like folks to address that.  Why would you want driving to be a privilege, not a right?.

[snoringbear]

"Look at your phone bill. The list of taxes is absurd" No argument here. The phone bill taxes are who's referred to s excise taxes. We pay excise taxes in lots of things. It's an invisible tax that's paid up front by the retailer and passed on to the consumer embedded in the price of the product.. The list of Excise taxes is absurd. They are sometimes referred to as sin taxes especially those applied to liquor, beer, tobacco products. In the otherhand, sales taxes are paid in the backend of the sales transaction and are visible to the buyer. A good example of a excise/sin tx gone awry happened back in the 70's maybe 80's. Ole Teddy Kennedy wanting to stick it to the rich sponsored a hefty sin tax on luxury yacht sales. Well, after the law went into effect two things become evident to Teddy; lots of luxury yachts were built in Massachusetts and they're built by lots of working class craftsmen, electricians, plumbers, etc. So, Teddy had to eat some crow and sponser a bill rescinding the sin bill. Btw, don't ask me what my point is as I've lost track, lol 🙄 !

[DoughtyOne]

Yes, that phone bill is a real eye opener. Here in California they toss everything but the kitchen sink in there. I whispered hoping they don't hear this an get reminded to toss it in too.

That yacht thing was a hoot. It really hurt the industry for a while there.

Thanks for the nice response.

[PAR35]

I remember the Dallas toll roads 50 years ago. They must have been paid for ten times over - at the very least.

A year off. The first segment of the Dallas North Tollway opened in June, 1968.

[mom of young patriots]

You are wandering off topic, but whatever.