Posted on 09/08/2001 6:54:24 PM PDT by Prism
I think most interstates have signs posted that say "No Pedestrians"
Exactly The Point. To further that, several free market driving schools could compete for customers. Each having their own driving tests. The insurance companies would decide the level of competence of each school. Could even having different level of driving tests. A test for the average driver, a test for little old ladies, a test for highly skilled drivers. Insurance could be based on the grade an insurance customer got on a specific test. People that take no test would pay much higher premiums. That means every person has the freedom of choice.
You have the right to travel. Walking doesn't need a license. You may want to read what I posted a bit more carefully.
I think most interstates have signs posted that say "No Pedestrians"
Given what a deer carcass looks like after being hit by someone going 70 or so mph (to say nothing of what the car, driver and passengers look like), it may not be a smart thing to be walking along an interstate.
They do walk along their version of interstates in Mexico, and in Mexico, the speed limit is merely a suggestion. There are a lot of crosses put up along the limited access roads in Mexico.
Have a friend in NY who does basically just that. No DL, no license plate.............AND has letters from State officials saying precisely that he doesn't need either. Believe it or not. Leaves cops shaking their heads, but he's never been ticketed for either.
Let me repeat the phrase that bothers underachievers here on FR - losers without funds to afford insurance shouldn't drive....
Our insurance gets jacked up if we want uninsured driver coverage. It irks me that I have to pay more to make sure that most of my car repairs and hospital bills are paid because some idiot decides to drive without insurance or license and smacks into me.
Sigh.
Roscoe, for some reason, the link doesn't work.
Not. In New York, one of the most over-regulated states in the union? I'd like to see a copy of the letters from State officials that say he doesn't need a driver's license before I believe it.
The State that sets requirements for driving is not limiting your right to travel. You can always hitch a ride with a licensed driver or call a taxi. The State is setting rules on an activity where you can easily kill or maim other law abiding citizens such as myself, my wife and my two kids.
If you wish, you may buy a 90 foot sailboat and attempt to sail it around the Horn from New York to Alaska without any sailing training or license whatsoever. You will probably die but, as it is unlikely that you will ram and sink other people's boats and kill them as well, the State is willing to let you commit suicide if you so desire.
Automobiles are another matter. An untrained driver is very likely to kill or maim other citizens once he gets behind the wheel of an automobile that can travel at 85 MPH.
The same can be said about airplanes. When you plow your Piper Cub into a suburb because you do not now your alieron from a hole in the ground, you not only commit suicide but you are killing other innocent citizens.
The State will allow you to drive an automobile without a license on a private road on private property but will not allow you to drive on a public road without a license that is earned by demonstrating the skill to drive safely and will not allow you to drive on a public road when you are dead drunk no matter how expert a driver you are or how many State Driver's licenses you have earned.
In short, the State is lenient when you decide to kill yourself but draws the line once you have a good chance of killing others.
As a citizen, I have a right not to be run over and killed by you as I am walking down a sidewalk or driving down the street because you do not posses the driving skills required to obtain a driving license. My wife and children also have the right not to be killed in such a manner.
If you insist on absolute rights as a Sovereign individual, then here is one solution for balancing your "right to travel" by any means you desire and my "right to life" and my "right to self defense":
Drivers can voluntarilly take driving tests and prove their driving competency to the State or a private driver's education company. The State can then post the names of those drivers that prove driving competancy on a web page. If unlicensed drivers are recognized by other citizens and are seen to be driving on public roads, then other citizens shall be given the right to legally shoot them on sight in self defense.
Such a solution would balance your claimed absolute right to "travel" with my "right to life" and my "right to self defense". It would also be a great benefit to those citizens who can't get enough time off from work during deer season but still want to enjoy the thrill of the hunt.
They always come back with "THE PEOPLE DID NOT MAKE THOSE LAWS, SO THEY DON'T APPLY TO ME".
But, in reality the people did make the law.
By voting your legislator into office, you are entrusting him to make laws that are necessary for the well being of the Republic.
you may not have voted for a particular legislator, the majority did.
And if you don't vote, don't complain.
The problem now is special interest groups, and their money. I think every law should be put up for a vote, and let the people decide if they want that law, be it State or Federal. That will put an end to special interest groups.
You're right.........sorry
Please accept my apologies
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.