Replies

O1LineRebel wrote: "I really don’t feel like getting into it. Driving is a right, not a privilege. It’s only because gov. made it the reverse and ignored the natural rights, then drilled the reverse phraseology into our heads for decades that it’s become “true”. Just about all your list really don’t need gov. to allow people to do this or that; they can do it on their own and be regulated by the “market”, if you will. Licensing really doesn’t mean much, except to put the licensee on a database to track him down."

So you are a "hit and run" poster eh? Kind of like the "Drive by Media" eh? You make a comment and then when asked to clarify it you retreat and state "I really don't want to get into it"? If that's the case, why comment at all? Its meaningless unless you can successfully argue your point. The translation of that being: "I made a statement but now I really can't defend it or clarify it". Kinda weak, don'tcha think?

Which "list" are you referring to? The one that states:

Operate a motor vehicle? (license, registration and proof of insurance please...and in some states annual vehicle inspection sticker)

Ok, you are on record as being against licensing for motor vehicle operation and anyone should be able to operate one regardless since that is the "natural law" alternative.

Operate a commercial truck or a school bus?

So you feel the operation of these is a non-regulated “natural law right”?

Operate an aircraft?

So you should be able to buy a 747 and fly it around without a license in NYC or the White House just because you feel like it and its your "natural law right" and "the market will take care of it"? How about a crop duster? Think unlicensed people ought to own and operate those wherever they want whenever they want cause its their "natural law right"?

Has satisfied the requirements for a building permit?

You feel building a structure any way you want outside of established engineering principals should be done anywhere willy-nilly and it’s a “natural law right”? So building a day care center for kids over an old toxic waste site and not disclosing is a “natural law right”? How about building a hospital with shoddy construction over an earthquake fault zone? No regulation needed eh? "Natural law right"? No government regulation needed?

Operate a ferry boat or commercial vessel?

You feel the operation of any commercial vessels is a non-regulated “natural law right”?

Operate a freight train full of dangerous chemicals?

You feel the operation of trainloads of dangerous chemicals through the heart of populated areas is a non-regulated “natural law right”?

Practice as a doctor, Nurse, certified engineer, lawyer or veterinarian?

You want anyone of those practicing on you or for you without any regulation and they are “natural law rights”? To fraudulently hold yourself out to the public as brain surgeon or engineer just because you say you are one under your "natural law rights"?

Carry a concealed weapon?

In this case – I will agree that no law should be required. This is a battle we are not likely to win on this particular issue. However, the context of the original question was not even this. The context of the original question was “who is going to make the rules about how dangerous animals should be contained and the answer is simple. The same entity that makes all the rules in society – the government. However – owning Pit Bulls is not a right under the constitution. While I make that statement, it does not mean I am against owning PBT’s , I am merely making an observation.

Promote and host professional fights?

In this case society has determined that government regulations are required such as all fighters must be tested for communicable diseases, must be mentally sound so some retard isn’t taken advantage of and put up to fight, etc. (Mike Tyson is retired...budda-boom)(Ok, some "Mentally Disabled Person" but Obama says it ok to laugh at retards). Not a particularly big issue on my radar that I care about one way or the other.

Be certified and sworn as a police officer?

You feel that police officers do not need to be certified as competent and no criminal record and that being a LEO is a “natural law right”?

Be certified as a fire fighter?

Same as above

Work as a licensed Private Investigator? (varies from state to state.) Same concept as “professional fights”

Something tells me that you lost your motor vehicle operators license and they haven't issued you another one or you have had some other considerable trouble with licensing or motor vehicle operating privilege. The only people I have ever known who argue about how driving is a "natural law right" are people who have had their licenses revoked - usually for DUI. Just saying. Your case may be different, who knows. Good luck with that licensing issue by the way.

Funny, I didn't even bring up the subject of motor vehicle operation as a "right" - you did and it was nowhere in this thread until you suddenly decided to bring it up. Don't you think that's a bit odd?

Most people who don't have any problems with driving and licensing don't even give it a second thought and they operate their vehicles freely 24/7 free as a bird as long as they operate the vehicle within the prescribed bounds of the law. And these same people agree that the basic rules and regulations that provide some semblance of order on the roads in America and other advanced nations is prudent, professional, wise, and absolutely necessary as the alternative would be chaos and misery - much like that found in most 3rd world nations.

Driving on public roads is NOT a right its a privilege granted to those who demonstrate that they can operate a motor vehicle safely without endangering anyone else.

Even WITH the most basic of rules and regulations in place, nearly 50,000 people are killed on our roadways every year.

I think it would be safe to say that if driving was only governed by "natural law right", then hundreds of thousands more would be killed each year due to the increased number of non-driving-idiots from 3rd world nations driving on our roads (they are allowed, thanks to Liberalism, if they meet criteria, just as we are allowed to drive on their roads - not that I would want to), reckless and drunk/drugged drivers on the roads and people who are simply too old or whose health problems mean they have no business driving.

Hate to tell you but the list of your "rights" as an American citizen are enumerated in the constitution. If you have a problem with that, don't blame me - I didn't write it. Blame the constitution or blame America if you feel so inclined and feel that it is a flawed document. Obama, Wright and many Leftists also feel the Constitution is a flawed document BTW, but I digress.

Driving isn't one of the rights listed. And it doesn't fall under "pursuit of happiness" or anything else - go ahead and try arguing that one in court and see how far you get. Although it can certainly be a privilege and revocable certification granted as long as you follow the rules or qualify to drive.

Using your logic that driving is a "natural right", then the legally blind guy living next door to you who can only vaguely see rough shapes should be able to hop in his 18 wheeler tractor trailer and race up and down the street in front of your house while your kids are playing - any time he wants. Interesting concept there.

Something tells me you will find very few people that agree with your ideas about operation of motor vehicles is an undeniable "right". Rights are undeniable and cannot be infringed upon - except in the case of felons, traitors and those who renounce their citizenship. Which means there should not even be a Democrat party if we actually enforced those laws. Privileges can be revoked.

True, there are nations where there are no virtually no enforced rules and regulations for driving and they consider driving a "natural right". Somalia, Rwanda, Haiti, most third world $h*tholes for that matter. They also have the highest incidents of motor vehicle deaths, maiming, crashes and other misery per capita.

Just as a felon doesn't have the "right" to vote or carry weapons even though ACORN thinks otherwise. Driving is a privilege which can be revoked if you don't follow the basic rules - as it should be.

So according to your logic, habitual drunk drivers have the "right" to drive and put your life and the life of others in danger?

So you are what? An anarchist? Cause what you just stated is a basic tenant of the anarchist crowd.

Have you ever served in the military or in any paramilitary organization where others depend on you to be able to follow the rules, follow the regulations, submit to authority, follow a plan other than your "natural rights" so you don't end up killing them let alone yourself? If so, how did that work out for you? Just curious.

Drivers licensing privilege amounts to discipline. There has to be a way to enforce discipline on the roads. Since a "right" is non-revocable (except in the case of felons for certain rights) just how do you think discipline can be enforced on our roadways if driving is a "natural law right"? It starts with certification and licensing. And its enforced by revoking the privilege of those who are unable to follow the rules.

Your posts are so long-winded that I really don’t have the patience to read them.

I didn’t feel like chatting exactly because of your obvious penchant for huge posts, the long time it would take to cover everything I could think of, combined with the fact I am a housewife suffering from ulcerative colitis and caring for a baby. Since my gut was burning, I didn’t feel like writing much.

I’m still not reading your post, so suffice to say I’m very libertarian.

Caught your statement about “rights enumerated in the Constitution”. Sorry, but there are TONS of natural rights that could not possibly be reasonably enumerated. Your premise is wrong. Only some vital things were mentioned to ensure those vital things were RECOGNIZED (not “given” - they are always existant; it’s only a matter of the gov. recognizing that fact) when in history they commonly were NOT, as with the British Empire at the time.

And, excuse me, but I have NEVER had anything revoked, including a DL. I had 1 small accident the day after I got my DL at 16, and that is it. I don’t drink because I despise both the taste and drunkeness, so that possibility is out.

I am a model citizen, in point of fact. I am going on 40 now. Don’t challenge my morality, because you would be all wrong.

“Practice as a doctor, Nurse, certified engineer, lawyer or veterinarian”

Guess what? You’re wrong. I’m an engineer. We STILL don’t have to be licensed. The world hasn’t come to an end. I pray engineers at least never have to be. And I pray they revoke the nonsense on so much else. It stifles creativity and innovation. Was Thomas Edison licensed? Robert Fulton? How about Robert Stephenson? Or Orville Wright?

Really I’m not against many rules, especially at local levels. But if they wanted to leave things free, that’d be OK. I lean more to fewer rules.