Ok. Forget the legal mumbo jumbo, Im going to repeat my last post:
Every activity that does not harm or unreasonably endanger others is a right. Any other definition of rights is arbritrary, inconsistant and unsupportable. Automobile operation is not an inherently dangerous activity (if it IS, then why do all these people get to endanger me as a pedestrian?? Because they took a 20 question test and drove around the block once?)
Spare me.
If driving is so dangerous, then why are people allowed to drink (0.08) and drive?
If driving is so dangerous, why are people allowed to drive after they DO get a DUI?
If driving is so dangerous, why am I allowed to keep my license my entire life without retesting?
If driving is so dangerous, why don't you have to piss in a cup when you get pulled over?
All these things are far more significant than me getting in a car and simply driving.
I am not saying the roads should be lawless, nor that driving rights cannot be taken from you.
I have objections to the (lawless) system as it is, it is all about money, not justice. It is about forfeiting your rights TO JUSTICE in order to function in a modern world.
In this state, because of the lobbying power of the Tavern League.
If driving is so dangerous, why are people allowed to drive after they DO get a DUI?
See my answer, above. But you may also want to review your DUI laws. MADD also has quite a bit of influence in the fines and penalties after a DUI, and all subsequent DUI's.
If driving is so dangerous, why am I allowed to keep my license my entire life without retesting?
Not exactly. Here, your eyes have to be tested every time you renew. If you have been unconscious, have a seizure disorder (like my brother-in-law and niece) and for other medical reasons, your license is lifted for months, or your driving is severely restricted. If you are uninsured and have an accident, they can lift your license. They can lift your license for failure to pay child support. I could go on & on, but the privilege to drive is not absolute.
If driving is so dangerous, why don't you have to piss in a cup when you get pulled over?
If they think you're under the influence, giving them probable cause (and the "I just had a couple beers" is reason enough) they won't make you piss in a cup or blow into a tube. They'll draw your blood, tying you down, if necessary (and if you refuse, it's another ticket, plus the state presumes you were drunk because of your refusal).
All these things are far more significant than me getting in a car and simply driving.
That's driving without a license, right?
I am not saying the roads should be lawless, nor that driving rights cannot be taken from you.
I'm curious, Prism: when you drive unlicensed, do you obey traffic laws? For example, do you go the speed limit? Do you drive with a BAC under .08%? Do you stop at stop signs and stop lights? If you are, you are tactically acknowledging that the state has the right to regulate and control public roads and those who drive on them.
Driving without a license is, in and of itself, lawless. I just want to know where you draw the line, or if laws a Chinese menu, allowing you to pick one from Column A and two from Column B, ignoring rest of the laws that you don't like.
That's the same as saying the roads should be lawless.
Speed, drive drunk, drive with burned out headlights. It's a right that can't be taken away from you!