[dfwgator]

You do not have the right to drive, it is a privilege, and to keep that privilege there are rules to follow.

[Atlas Sneezed]

You do not have the right to drive, it is a privilege, and to keep that privilege there are rules to follow.

---

You quote the big government socialists nicely.

I think that we have the right to transport ourselves freely at our own expense in our free nation. Subject to user fees for the shared expense of public roads, but if those who pay the fee have the right to use them.

"Privilege" is a cute word, but it is meaningless unless you tell us the principles under which the privilege can and can not be revoked. Once you do that, you have a "right", subject to responsibilities. Just like speech and bearing arms.

[elkfersupper]

You do not have the right to drive

Unfortunately, a rather common misconception.

You absolutely do have the right to drive.

[absolootezer0]

You do not have the right to drive, it is a privilege, and to keep that privilege there are rules to follow.

wow, that's a pretty socialist statement. i paid for my car, i own it, i have a right to use it. try inserting the word "shoot" (as in, shoot a gun) for drive and tell me where you stand. that's the equivalent. it's like saying, "you have a right to own a gun, but not shoot it."

[unixfox]

You do not have the right to drive, it is a privilege, and to keep that privilege there are rules to follow.

So...where do YOU draw the line? When they tell you what kind of car you HAVE to drive? That you can only drive from point A to point B? That only a certain class of people can drive?

What is is, mr lemming?

[DCPatriot]

You do not have the right to drive, it is a privilege, and to keep that privilege there are rules to follow.

Privilege my a$$! You're a sheeple and you're full of it.

[Wallace T.]

You do not have the right to drive, it is a privilege, and to keep that privilege there are rules to follow.

That statement is more appropriate to an absolute monarchy or a Communist dictatorship than to our form of government, at least in theory. Under monarchism or Communism, the sovereign or the state owns everything and anything you do is by the permission of that authority. It is impractical for a road system to be owned by anyone other than a state agency, although some libertarians believe that roads could be privatized.

If the state must own the roads in a free society, what regulations are posted on the roads should be the minimum necessary to maintain order. Too often government, motivated by nanny state ideology or unduly influenced by insurance company and other lobbyists, have used their power over the roads to impose oppressive controls. The notorious 55 MPH speed limit of the 1970s and 1980s (which Hillary Clinton has proposed to revive) was the most egregious of these controls.

A sound adage in these matters comes from an old Hank Williams, Sr., song, "If you mind your business, then you won't be mindin' mine."

[Sir Gawain]

You do not have the right to drive, it is a privilege

That tired old line is pure BS. If my taxes construct the roads, I sure as hell have a right to use them to go place to place.

[CORedneck]

Sounds like socialist drivel.

Where do we get this notion that driving is a privilege ?Privileges are subject to an arbitrary whim of some moron who has authority.

How did we as a country fall down so much that we need to have government special permission to transport ourselves with a motor vehicle ? We never needed a license to ride a horse or drive/ride a stagecoach. We didn't have to get government permission to ride a horse.

It seems we are going in the direction where the laws specify that you can do anything unless there is a specific law against the act. Under socialism, you cannot do anything unless permission is granted and that is the direction we are heading towards.

You do not have the right to drive, it is a privilege, and to keep that privilege there are rules to follow.

[Protagoras]

You do not have the right to drive, it is a privilege, and to keep that privilege there are rules to follow.

"Sucking up and actually believing the government BS" award of the day.

[Glenn]

You do not have the right to drive, it is a privilege, and to keep that privilege there are rules to follow.

I see the indoctrination really took with you. Congratulations, comrade.

[BlueStateDepression]

You do not have the right to drive, it is a privilege, and to keep that privilege there are rules to follow.

Personally I oppose seat belt laws for many of the same reasons other folks do and even reasons in the article posted. My main reason is the Insurance Lobby. That aside, I agree with this simple statement you made 100%.

I would offer that your statement ends much of the debate so I chose to talk about enforcment now.

In order to show this is a valid rule that is needed then let's remove the opposition that stems from padding political coffers with fines and lobbying surrounding its enforcment.

If the idea really was about having folks wear their seatbelts ( and not pay fines so you do not have to do so) then by all means force car manufacturers to install lockout devices that render the car undrivable if seatbelts are not in use.

We already see technology that requires the brake be pressed in order to put the car in gear so this isn't out of reason as far as capability.

I am not a big regulation kind of person but if regulation has to be in place like this then by all means lets do it in a way that removes all the drama.

[Renegade]

"You do not have the right to drive, it is a privilege, and to keep that privilege there are rules to follow."



Yeah, like illegal aliens care about rules to follow .Cut me a break . this is government power out of control ( along with gun laws and helmet laws ). Tom Jefferson is spinning in his grave .
The legislatures pass 10 laws a year . In ten years you have been restricted 100 more times . How many laws do thet abolish in that period of time ????

[Old Professer]

Bring back the livery system.

[mysterio]

You do not have the right to drive, it is a privilege, and to keep that privilege there are rules to follow.

Spare me the socialist talking points. If I am forced to pay taxes and those taxes go to build a damned road, then you bet I have a right to drive on it. If you want to revoke that right, then send me a refund.

[Cobra64]

You do not have the right to drive, it is a privilege, and to keep that privilege there are rules to follow.

Well I mandate that every car should have a roll bar and Simpson five-point safety racing harnesses like my car.

And all drivers and passengers must were Snell approved full face helmets, and chaps so they don't burn their legs on the side pipes.

And motorcycles should have training wheels.

For more information, e-mail: Info@NannyState.GOV

[rmh47]

You do not have the right to drive, it is a privilege, and to keep that privilege there are rules to follow.

I don't agree with this statement, but, for the sake of the argument, let us assume it to be true. Do you also forfeit the right to use the public highways, which you helped to pay for with your taxes, altogether?

Consider this scenario: You don't drive; you don't even have a driver's license. Perhaps you are blind, as you discussed in one of your previous posts. You own a car. (I'm assuming you would have no problem with someone who cannot drive merely owning a vehicle.) You hire a driver, or perhaps simply ask a friend or relative to drive you somewhere. Should you still be compelled by force, or threat of force, to wear your seatbelt? (Passengers are also required to wear seatbelts in most jurisditions that compel drivers to do so.)

Now the question of whether driving is a priviledge or a right is moot. The question becomes: Is the ability to travel freely on the public roads a right, or merely a priviledge? If you say it is still a priviledge, you have potentially restricted one's movements, unless they comply with the seatbelt law, as many places, including public and even government buildings where you may be compelled to go, are inaccessible without using the public thoroughfares. It may very well be impossible to walk where you need to go without traversing private property, permission for which may not be given, as many roads lack sidewalks, or even prohibit pedestrian traffic.

An interesting question, no?

[Nik Naym]

It didn't take long for the "driving is a privilege" faction to show up.