quote:

---

In the car...the interpretation that driving is a privilege was a misinterpretation of the intent of this country from the get-go...it should have always been interpreted as a right.

---

I highly and totally disagree. Driving a motor vehicle has always been a privilage, and NOT a right. Show me in any State Constitution where is says "it is a right." You will not find it. It has never been a "right", nor will it ever be considered a right.

Why do I wear seat belts?

1. It is for the safety of others that could be hurt in event of an accident. What I mean by that is simple: If I am sideswiped or run off the road by someone crossing the center line, I would rather devote my time to try to safely stop or control my vehicle rather than to fight to stay in my seat and wrestle with the control of the vehicle at the same time. I don't want to run the risk of bouncing off the guard rail or out of a ditch, cross the center line and plow head on into an oncoming vehicle and kill or seriously injure a driver and/or his family.

2. While trying to bring my vehicle under control, I do not want the passengers flying about in the car or van and land in my lap.

3. It is a law I can live with.

4. I am too cheap to fork over an $86.00 fine. I have more important things to waste my money on.

I have never heard of professional drivers on a race track (such as Indy "500", Nascar, or stock car races) driving their vehickes without being "strapped in." This is for the safety of themselves, and safety of other drivers around them.

You do as you please, folks. If you ride with me, you wear a seat belt. If not, you have three options:

1. Hitchhike.
2. Ride with someone else.
3. Drive your own car.

If someone I ride with asks me to wear the seat belt, I WILL wear it, with no questions asked. As a matter of fact, I do it anyway so they won't have to ask.

Seat belt requirements I think, are required for the safety of others....not just the driver.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-23-2003, 05:50 PM:
 
Paul - Agreed on all counts.

I have a buddy who is an EMT/paramedic, and I've heard enough horror stories from him that I've come to believe that anyone who refuses to wear a belt because "I'll be safer if I get thrown from the car" is an idiot.
 

---

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 05-23-2003, 06:42 PM:
 
Thanks, Mike.
If one was truly concerned about the health, safety and welfare of that person sitting along side of you or in the back seat of the car, the driver would wear his/her seat belt and require his/her passenger(s) to do the same.

And, if that same driver has the same concern for the other person and his/her family in another vehicle in event of an accident, the option is obvious...wear the seatbelt.
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 05-23-2003, 07:08 PM:
 
Paul, you are totally mixing up two completely different issues.

I don't think anyone would disagree that seatbelts are safer. The issue Steve and I are pointing out is the government telling us what we should be doing and getting into our private lives and responsibilities.

I'm sure many of us have had some loved-one, friend, or know of someone horrendously injured or killed during an irresponsible act, but that is no reason that ALL citizens should be burdened with the costs...or the guilt. To me, that's a lame reason for justification that it's a "public safety" issue. It is a personal accountability issue.

I completely agree with Steve…and I do think driving is a right. So, by the same token, show me a State's constitution that says it's a "privilege"...

It's too bad you elected to start a separate thread for this subject as it breaks-up the continuity of the chain of posts in the other thread.

(All threads seem to wonder from their original topics…I like that)

>>> Phil
 

---

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 05-23-2003, 07:19 PM:
 
The government takes it upon themselves to do it for us because we won't take the responsibility on by ourselves. Just like the rating systems in our industry. It has been said by the government "If you don't, we will."

Obviously, it is a very fine line between rights and privileges. I have yet to find a hard core definition on the difference between rights and privileges.

So I would have to presume that if it is not guarenteed in writing, then it must be a privilege. And, yes...if the rights are not protected, we will lose them. A person convicted of a felony can lose some of his/her rights. Some of those rights include owning a fire arm, and not being able to own real estate. They can lose their right to vote as well, depending on how severe the felony is.

Just like labor laws...some states have it written in their constitutions that is a "right" to work, and in states, it is not written that way. As an example, (as far as I know,) there is nothing in Washington State's Constitution that guarentees a person a "right" to work.

Whatever you want to think, whether it be a right or privilage, if the people do not protect it, it can be vary easily lost. And protecting it involves obeying the law. Laws were written because someone screwed up. Laws are guide lines. Laws are devices that can be used to administer punishment for those who violate them. Laws are written to protect the citizens.
 

---

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 05-23-2003, 08:30 PM:
 
Some day I'm going to put a sticker on the dashboard of my car, right in front of the passenger:

Sit down, strap in, hang on and shut up!



Seriously, now, folks...

One of the benefits from my employer is a pre-paid life insurance policy. $10,000 AD & D. Double indemnity if it happens at work or to/from work. Add on another $5,000 if it happens in a car while wearing a seatbelt. (You can purchase more coverage if you want but this is the free part payed by the company.)

Frankly, I think the best way to increase seatbelt usage is to pass a law that says insurance companies don't have to pay if the driver of the car wasn't wearing a seatbelt.

Take the $15,000 free insurance money people could get if they had an accident and couple it with the LOSS of money people would incur if they weren't wearing a belt and you can easily guess whether or not people would wear their seatbelts all of the time!
 

---

Posted by Dave Macaulay (Member # 813) on 05-23-2003, 10:51 PM:
 
I wear seat belts because that's the law. Adult passengers in the car can do as they please within reason, minors have to wear them (it's my legal responsibility then).
Philosophically I'm undecided. The principle of dictating "safety" appalls me, and some studies have shown that drivers just drive crazier when surrounded by protective devices. Decent driver training plus diligent enforcement and truly deterrent penalties for unsafe driving makes more sense to me.
Having police waste time writing seatbelt tickets, while suicidal cowboys going 100mph+ weaving through highway traffic can be seen any day around here, seems entirely mental to me.
 

---

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 05-23-2003, 11:17 PM:
 
Dave said:

quote:

---

Having police waste time writing seat belt tickets, while suicidal cowboys going 100mph+ weaving through highway traffic can be seen any day around here, seems entirely mental to me.

---

Dave, I have to agree with that.

Anyway, the WSP was using that as a tool to find 'bigger and better" things. And, they usually do. As you know, the Interstate 5 Corrodore is a big drug run from Canada to Mexico which has to be stopped.

Some counties have reverted back to the old law when it was a secondary offense. The WSP will still enforce it, but as I have read, they will probably stop a person for other infractions such as weaving, defective equipment, etc.

It was not overturned because it was unconstitutional...it was overturned because the new law was poorly written as to where it created misunderstanding for the idiots. The WSP will still continue to enforce the law because the overturning has not yet been finalized in higher courts.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 05-23-2003, 11:20 PM:
 
Paul,

If you think the only rights you have are those that are written, then you don't understand the constitution of this country.

I wonder if there has been a Supreme court case on the right to drive.

As to the government deciding to step in in the case of seatbelts or movie ratings...the government has no rights...rights are reserved exclusively for the citizens...the government only has powers that the citizenship so grants to the government and it has never been the design of the USA system to have the government play "parents." It is the parent's job to play parent.

Generally speaking, whenever the government gets involved, what you get is a hugely inefficient entity that does a poor job at a high price at whatever it is trying to do. That being said, there are some areas that only the government can be effective. A cases in point...the military, police and courts and currancy. In money re-distribution, they are not so good in.

The government has absolutely no business inside your car or other property. In the case of seat belts...the concept of "prior restraint" has been tested by the supreme court and prior restraint is unconstitutional and I don't know how to better define prior restraint than with a seat belt.

Good intentions aside, seatbelt as with many laws...are about revenue enhancement and about control...the government insatiable desire for control.

Steve
 

---

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 05-23-2003, 11:30 PM:
 
I think it is more of a common sense issue, personally. I read the Constitution of several states as well as the United States, and I think they were well written. I have not detected we have lost any of our rights. Our rights from "The Law Of The Land" (Bill Of Rights) are irrevocable unless we really screw up. Priviliges can be "yanked" at any time with due cause.

As far as the "right to drive" issue is concerned, I would not want to be anywhere in the area of a driver if I knew the driver had some physical disability where the driver was basically a "vegetable" and had no control of his extremities. Would you?

Therefore, his/her driving privilege is revoked for the safety of others. What's wrong with that? That is done in every state of the union, and probable every country of the world.

I am sure you have said to yourself, "That person should not be driving. He/she is a menace to everything around them."

It's a privilege....and if a person cannot handle or abuse the the privilege, it will be revoked until such a time as where they can demonstrate they can have it reinstated. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

I stand firm.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 05-23-2003, 11:55 PM:
 
Paul,

It is like you never read what I have written...just as guns (a well publized 2nd admendment right) can be taken away from criminals...so too could cars from those that can not handle them. Due process is always the way society can impose on ones rights.

The difference is the position one comes from and the money the government can get out of it.

With the license treated as a priviledge, it can be leveraged against things that have nothing to do with driving or it can be used to pressure a citizen to give up their rights. Without it being rightfully seen as a right, one is not guaranteed due-process...one of those constitutional protections, ya know.

Steve
 

---

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 05-24-2003, 12:00 AM:
 
Steve, although I highly respect your opinion, I still stand firm. That's one of the many things this country of ours is all about.
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 05-24-2003, 09:57 AM:
 
If it is a right then there should be no road tests or exams as a right cannot be taken away because of a diability or an inepness.
Driving is a priviledge we live in a society that is too caught up in the concept of my rights and everyone else
 

---

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 05-24-2003, 11:45 AM:
 
This was probably posted somewhere in FT as a joke. The more I read it, the less of a joke it becomes. It is true.

The Bill of Common Sense Rights
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
We, the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid any more riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior and secure the blessings of debt-free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt-ridden delusional and other liberal, commie, pinko bedwetters.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that a whole lot of people were confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim that they require a Bill of No Rights.

ARTICLE I:
You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV or any other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything.

ARTICLE II:
You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone - not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc., but the World is full of idiots, and probably always will be.

ARTICLE III:
You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful, do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy.

ARTICLE IV:
You do not have the right to free food and housing. Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes.

ARTICLE V:
You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we're just not interested in health care.

ARTICLE VI:
You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim or kill someone, don't be surprised if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair.

ARTICLE VII:
You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don't be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won't have the right to a big-screen color TV or a life of leisure.

ARTICLE VII:
You don't have the right to demand that our children risk their lives in foreign wars to soothe your aching conscience. We hate oppressive governments and won't lift a finger to stop you from going to fight if you'd like. However, we do not enjoy parenting the entire world and do not want to spend so much of our time battling each and every little tyrant with a military uniform and a funny hat.

ARTICLE VIII:
You don't have the right to a job. All of us sure want all of you to have one, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful.

ARTICLE IX:
You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American means that you have the right to pursue happiness - which by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an overabundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights.
 

---

Posted by John Spooner (Member # 1565) on 05-24-2003, 11:57 AM:
 
Dear Gordon.
You sum it up exactly, especially your first sentence.
I can't comment on the US situation seeing I live in Australia, but here in South Australia our once respected Police have been turned into revenue raising parasites by inept and morally bankrupt greedy pollies.
In fact, the only section of the SA Police which receives adequate funding is speed detection! Other sections are underfunded or understaffed, facts regularly noted by the press.
When it is a regular thing to see 3 or more speed cameras hiding in the bushes in a 5 Km stretch of perfectly safe road and read reports in the press of Police taking 3 hours to attend a serious event or emergency because of depleted resources or personnel, you begin to query where the priorities of our elected pollies really lie.
John Spooner.
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 05-24-2003, 12:15 PM:
 
Rights are not absolute but have limitations so that one persons rights do not impinge on those of anothers
Steve said it was wrong the enforcement of seatbelts and seats in the upright position on an aircraft. We why should my safety be jeprodised by some one being thrown across the cabin because he (she ) chose not to belt in.
If rights were absolute then I should also be able to use my cell phone on an aircraft even though it endangers others around us by interfering with navigational equipment
Nothing irks me more than people who say my right my rights me me me me me
seatbelts in cares being manditory have reduced road fatalities and as such have benfited all by maintaining lower insurance premiums
And on the isnurance issue if it is a right to drive then how can one legislate the requirement to carry liability insurance.
 

---

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 05-24-2003, 12:35 PM:
 
Gordon, you are absolutely correct.

That was basically the message I was trying to get across, but I must have failed in doing so.

Thank you.

To add a little humor to this, here is Washington State's orginal text version Of Article 6:

Original text - Art. 6 Section 3 WHO DISQUALIFIED - All idiots, insane persons, and persons convicted of infamous crime unless restored to their civil rights are excluded from the elective franchise.

It now reads like this:

SECTION 3 WHO DISQUALIFIED. All persons convicted of infamous crime unless restored to their civil rights and all persons while they are judicially declared mentally incompetent are excluded from the elective franchise. [AMENDMENT 83, 1988 House Joint Resolution No. 4231, p 1553. Approved November 8, 1988.]

Actually, I liked the orginal text version better. We received out Statehood on 11 November 1889. I guess that is when the orginal text version was written.
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 05-24-2003, 12:53 PM:
 
I find this "discussion" hilarious!

We are all debating about nothing. The definition of a privilege is that it is a right!

OBTW: NO ONE said ya cannot have conditions on any "rights" or "privileges" or whatever you want to call it.

And Paul, I still can't figure out what you are trying to get across since your posts seem to be all over the map. The Bill Of Rights, the Constitutional Amendments, the State Troopers, drunk driving, seatbelts, etc…

>>> Phil
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-24-2003, 12:57 PM:
 
Why do I wear seatbelts? Because my brain looks better inside my skull than being bashed onto the outside of it. It is stupid for people to drive without their seatbelts clicked.

In some aspects I agree that the US Government should have no say in a lot of things. There is lots of senseless regulation and bureaucracy in the government. Many of those levels of red tape only exist to keep a great deal of people employed in useless jobs. It is a kind of white collar welfare.

OTOH, I firmly agree 100% with seatbelt laws and have no problem at all with the highway patrol drilling some motorist with a $80 to $120 ticket for not clicking it.

My Aunt Delores has been languishing in a coma (or chronic vegetative state) since Februrary of 1989, over 14 years, due to not wearing a seatbelt. The State of New Mexico has paid a fortune for her health care all through this time.

Seatbelt use and the lack of it impacts medical costs and health insurance rates. People who get in serious car accidents and suffer brain and torso injuries due to not wearing seatbelts often infringe on my rights. Since a great deal of people are uninsured, my tax dollars often pick up the cost for their medical care. If they do have insurance, the health insurance providers cover their "idiot cost" by passing the extra fees onto policy holders like me.

I always wear my selt belt and anyone who rides with me will do the same. It's that or walk.
 

---

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 05-24-2003, 01:02 PM:
 
Phil, it is simple. You or someone else brings up an certain sub-topic, I try to answer it, even if I have to drift off the orginal topic somewhat. That, in turn, brings up something else that is even further off the orginal topic. That's why it is all over the map as you say.

Besides, you have admitted several times (if I recall correctly) that you like to see it drift off a little.
 

---

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 05-24-2003, 04:44 PM:
 
I have been in a few crashes that because I wore my seatbelt, I was kept from slamming into the steering wheel, and as a result of not slamming into the steering wheel, I was able to maintain some control of my vehicle, keeping it from getting slammed into other vehicles as much as possible.

If you do not wear your seatbelt, and you are in an accident, chances are you will not be able to maintain control of your vehicle, putting others on the road at risk.

Therefore you are putting your rights to NOT wear your seat belt ahead of public safety and the safety of those around you on the road, all in the name of keeping "the government" from infringing into your life.

The roads are built with public monies, so the goverment has a responsibility to control behavior on these public roads, in the interest of public safety and the safety of those around you and even you.. YES YOU!!!

We are not living in Nazi Germany, Pre-colonial England, or even Iraq. "The Goverment" Is not out to get you!

Dave
 

---

Posted by Sean McKinnon (Member # 612) on 05-24-2003, 06:55 PM:
 
Operating a motor vehicle is in no way a right to a citizen of the united states, plain and simple. It is a privelidge for which you must pay and be liscensed for. Part of the "agreement" you enter into for this privelidge is to operate your vehicle in a safe manner and to follow the rules and laws of driving. If you do not want to wear your seatbelt then dont and pay the fine if you get caught. In my opinion I think that the people who claim that driving is a right are doing nothing more than undermining what our rights stand for. I would rather live in a country where I am not able to drive but am allowed to SAY, BELIEVE, and THINK what I want to than to live in a country where I can drive and am not allowed those rights.
 

---

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 05-25-2003, 12:47 AM:
 
Every passenger must fasten their seatbelt before my pickup moves. Safety reasons aside, it is also PA law. I have a Class-A Commercial Driver's License that I worked very hard to get, and I do NOTHING that could in any way, shape, matter, or form jeopardize it - including getting tickets.

On the other hand, I have a major problem with the government telling us we must use them. But I have to wonder where the feminists are on this. I thought their battle cry was keep your laws off my body? We haven't heard a peep from them.


The rhetoric would have you believe that the state is only concerned with our "safety", but how can this be? They're considering a repeal of the motorcycle helmet law!
 

---

Posted by Michael Cunningham (Member # 210) on 05-25-2003, 01:37 AM:
 
Couple of thoughts here. Isn't the theoretical "Right to Drive" based on some ammendment which states, in effect, that one's passage across state boundries shall not be restricted unless you have sacrificed your rights in some way (ie. felon, on parole, etc.)? Not that I'm saying we absolutely have a right to drive, but I seem to recall reading an argument something like this.

Second, whenever a discussion like this comes up, people talk about accident and medical costs being passed on to the American public. How does this work? When I incur expenses the government doesn't offer to pick them up. If I can't pay, I am refused all but the most vital of life preserving services. Those costs the hospital covers to keep me alive they garnish from MY wages, sieze from MY property and otherwise bleed the cash from ME and ME alone. If I wreck my car, MY premiums go up and I am out a vehicle. The other guy's costs are, once again, extracted from ME. I'm I just missing something here?

Thank you guys for the "keeping control of the vehicle" argument for legislating seatbelt use. I had never thought of that. It always seemed silly to me that the government should legislate behavior to protect myself when my decision whether or not to do so seemed to have no effect on others. I couldn't imagine a scenario in which my body would be flung from the car and kill some innocent bystander, heh. Not that I disagree with seatbelt use, I just think the government should stay out of all decisions by me that affect only me.

- Mike

*** edited for clarification ***
 

---

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 05-25-2003, 01:41 AM:
 
Seat belts on at all times when in my car. I have always worn seat belts since I started driving years ago. little over ten years ago I was in a car accident that struck a telephone poll. If I hadn't had my belt on I probably would not be typing this now. It is also the law in the state of Kentucky to buckle up.

As far as it being our right to drive a car no it's not. It is a privalege. It can be taken away by having our liscence suspended or revoked.
 

---

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 05-25-2003, 12:30 PM:
 
Michael, A couple of things that might help you understand:

quote:

---

Isn't the theoretical "Right to Drive" based on some ammendment which states, in effect, that one's passage across state boundries....

---

quote:

---

Second, whenever a discussion like this comes up, people talk about accident and medical costs being passed on to the American public. How does this work?

---

Higher medical insurance, higher liability insurance, and more money being spent on roads to make them "idiot proof." But you also have to keep in mind that laws are passed to protect the rights of others. In short, if you impinge on the rights of others, you can expect to get "nailed." By the same token, if someone else impinges on your rights, you would probably desire that they also get "nailed." Failure to wear a seat belt can endanger the rights of those around you.

As a slight spin-off, here is an example:

I smoke cigarettes. But you are fully within your rights to tell me to "put it out" because the second-hand smoke can be dangerous to your health. If you tell me to "put it out" and I refuse to do so, I am violating your rights. Being a responsible person who cares about the health, welfare, and safety of others, I will "put out that cigarette" with no questions asked.

As a personal note, I wish cigarettes were illegal. Maybe it would be a good aid in helping me to quit. As you know, cigarettes are very dangerous, and very addictive. It is your taxes that help pay for medical attention needed because of smoking. The more places that ban tobacco use - the better.

The Constitution of the United States is basically (in part) asking us to respect the rights of others. If we fail to exercise our responsibility in doing that, we can expect consequences that may seem, and probably will be unpleasent.

True..some laws might seem idiotic...nothing is perfect. But it is the best we have, so let's live with them to the best of our ability.
 

---

Posted by John Westlund (Member # 913) on 05-25-2003, 01:16 PM:
 
First of all, driving IS a privilege and NOT a right. Rights cannont be taken away from you by the government. So if driving was a right that would mean that if a person was convicted of DUI, the government couldn't take that persons license away because it would be taking away one of their rights. BUT if a person is convicted of DUI then their license will be taken away. The government definatly doesnt consider driving a motor vehicle a right.

As for myself, in the summertime when the weather is nice im usually driving around in my 56 ford pickup which doesnt have seat belts. However it is legal to not have them because it did not come with them from the factory. Whenever im in my toyota pickup however, I always wear my seat belt and usually my passengers always do the same. If I see one of them not I will usually just ask them to put it on.

The reason I wear my seat belt is because I have seen them save lives several times. Just last saturday on the night of my prom a good friend of mine rolled his car with 3 other people in it. The car was totalled but all 4 walked away from the crash only because they were wearing seat belts. If they had not the more then likely would have been killed.
 

---

Posted by Bob Maar (Member # 763) on 05-25-2003, 04:12 PM:
 
I hardly ever use my seat belt even though I received a ticket at a Police Set up in Central Park. First ticket was $60.00
dollars. Police trap on the 66th Street cross from West to East. Next ticket would be around 500.00 so I am told. I find them uncomforable and I do no like restraints. I have learned how to make it look like I am wearing one......but I'm not.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-25-2003, 04:49 PM:
 

quote:

---

When I incur expenses the government doesn't offer to pick them up. If I can't pay, I am refused all but the most vital of life preserving services. Those costs the hospital covers to keep me alive they garnish from MY wages, sieze from MY property and otherwise bleed the cash from ME and ME alone. If I wreck my car, MY premiums go up and I am out a vehicle. The other guy's costs are, once again, extracted from ME. I'm I just missing something here?

---

quote:

---

I have a major problem with the government telling us we must use them.

---

Seat belt laws would be inappropriate only in an absolute perfect world where everyone automatically did the right thing without being told to do so. Unfortunately, many in the general public are selfish morons. That's just a sad fact. The general public cannot ever be trusted to just do the right thing.

When it gets right down to it, I think our concept of "civilization" and "society" is all very illusory. As stupid and trashy as many people behave (just visit the theater auditorium after the show for the physical evidence of said behavoir), I think the only difference between us and animals is we wear clothes and are not able to lick our own asses!

With that somewhat disgusting point being made, our government's laws are not there to ruin the party and make things less fun or less cool or some other bullshit like that. They're there to attempt to protect us from the legions of idiots out there who somehow qualified themselves to drive a vehicle.

[ 05-25-2003, 08:19 PM: Message edited by: Bobby Henderson ]
 

---

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 05-25-2003, 04:57 PM:
 
Well said, Bobby!
 

---

Posted by Andy Muirhead (Member # 712) on 05-25-2003, 07:46 PM:
 
I wear a seatbelt because it saved my life once. If it wasn't law, maybe I wouldn't have been wearing it at the time being a fairly immortal 18 year old. Now I'm 29 and know I am not immortal!

If you are a passenger in my car, I am the boss and you better wear your belt, especially if you are in the rear, or your walking.

Bob Maar, I'm not sure if you ever get to do this, but hypothetically, If you had to change a Xenon bulb, would you shun all protective clothing etc?

Driving a car is a Privilege, not a Right (where I live anyway), and that Privilege is earned, respected and can be taken away at any moment on any serious charge. Reading some of the above posts makes me glad I am not sharing the road with some of you.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 05-25-2003, 08:04 PM:
 
Andy,

I wear a seatbelt because it made sense. I find it MUCH easier to drive with a seatbelt...no law was required. My driving-right and anti-seatbelt commentary is strictly directed towards the USA. A country that was founded on the principle that the government is to be restrained and controlled rather than gone to for "privileges."

So few of my country folk nowadays seem to have payed attention in their school when the founding of the country and the principles behind its constitution and laws.

Take, for instance, the rather uneducated statement about how if driving was a right, the governement couldn't take it away since rights can't be taken away...what an embarassingly silly statement.

Any and all rights may be taken away from the citizenship so long as the citizen has been given DUE PROCESS. That is, even the highest right (nope not free speech) the right to actually live can be taken away so long as you have been given due process. So, if you are convicted of a capitol offense, providing you have been given your due process in accordance with the law of the land (fair trial, and in the case of capitol punishment...an automatic appeal) you may be deprived of your life.

Steve
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-25-2003, 08:32 PM:
 

quote:

---

I wear a seatbelt because it made sense. I find it MUCH easier to drive with a seatbelt...no law was required

---

quote:

---

Any and all rights may be taken away from the citizenship so long as the citizen has been given DUE PROCESS. That is, even the highest right (nope not free speech) the right to actually live can be taken away so long as you have been given due process. So, if you are convicted of a capitol offense, providing you have been given your due process in accordance with the law of the land (fair trial, and in the case of capitol punishment...an automatic appeal) you may be deprived of your life.

---

Steve, you are absolutely correct.

"Due Process" strikes me as being the key word.
 

---

Posted by John Westlund (Member # 913) on 05-25-2003, 09:06 PM:
 
I re-read my post and its not exactly what I wanted to say. I wanted to do some research before I stuck my foot in my mouth again and this is what I came up with. Some of you may find this interesting

Driving: A Right or Privilage

After reading this im not sure what I think now. I guess that legally it is a RIGHT to drive an automobile just as Steve G. says.
 

---

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 05-25-2003, 10:40 PM:
 
We will probably have to wait for a ruling from the Supreme Court on this matter. This will definately be a hot topic everywhere in the country.

I am no legal expert by any means, but as I read this, one would not be required to demonstrate qualifications to obtain a driver's license, have insurance, or even get a license. This will also mean that a person with no arms or legs would be allowed to *attempt* to drive a motor vehicle.

If this proves to be true, we are in for one hell of a ride.

I have been told many years ago that no driver's license was required. That was changed because everyone was killing themselves and everybody else in the close proximity. Maybe that's where they got the term, "getting your driver's license out of a Cracker Jack box."

Before we jump to conclusions, I think we better wait for a Supreme Court ruling. I have a feeling a reversal of the statue its not going to happen. If it did, I think we will see an amendment to the US and/or State Constitutions in short order that would be ratified in the matter of minutes.

Jeeze...this could even include the commercial airline industry. WOW!...like I am going to fly in a 747 with an unqualified pilot at the controls???...

I looked at it again, it even does not have a date on it. It could be a hoax.

[ 05-25-2003, 11:55 PM: Message edited by: Paul G. Thompson ]
 

---

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 05-25-2003, 10:46 PM:
 
It is your absolute, unquestionable and inalienable right to buy, own and drive a car. You don't have to be 16 years old. You don't have to prove your driving ability... Hell! You can be stone blind and dead drunk! Nobody can stop you from driving a car!... Ever!

Just remember that the government owns the roads! If you want to drive your car on the government's roads you have to follow THEIR rules! The government paid millions and millions of dollars to build the roads and the government has the right to say who is allowed to drive on them and under what conditions one is allowed to drive on them. If you don't want to follow the government's rules then don't drive your car on the government's roads!

This means that the only places where you will be allowed to drive your car is on your own private property or on the private property of others who have given permission for you to drive your car on said property!

It is your right to drive a car. It is a privilege to drive a car on the government's roads.

So... YOUR tax money was used to build the government's road, you say? Yes it was but you must remember that all the tax money you have (probably) ever paid and all the tax money you (probably) ever WILL pay in your entire life would probably only build a few miles of road at best! The money to build the government's roads came from the millions of people in your country, state, province, county, town, district and/or parish who gave their share of money to the government in the form of taxes. The money was given with the implicit agreement that the government is to administer the money and to oversee the construction of roads and lay down rules for their use in the way that it sees fit.

If you don't like the way the government oversees the construction and use of the roads you don't have to use them. If enough people don't like the way the government does its business then the government must make changes in the way it does its business or risk losing its mandate and becoming invalid. At which time the custodians of the government must be removed from office or the entire government must be changed and reorganized.
The only other alternative is anarchy.

Because the majority of the people in the world have decided that they don't like anarchy they have all banded together and decided on the formation of governments. They have willingly sacrificed some of their less important rights to do as they please so that other, more important, rights will be protected. They also get the benefits of pooled tax monies and the economies of scale that come with the government's ability to spend large amounts of money on their behalf.

This is called the Social Contract. If you don't like it, you don't have to. If you don't want to participate you can go somewhere else. The only problem is that "somewhere else" probably includes most, if not all, of Planet Earth.
 

---

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 05-25-2003, 11:22 PM:
 
John, I question the authentically of that link.

That link reminds me of a time when I was aboard the USS Ranger in 1962. (Maybe it was the USS Coral Sea in 1964, I can't remember.)

Apparently there was a professional writer that drafted what appeared to be an authentic memorandum and posted it on every bulletin board he could find. The memo looked something like this:

From: Senior Medical Officer, USS <blah>, CVA-<blah>
To: All personnel
Subj: Self Abuse Chits, issuance of:

1. In view or our long lengthly at-sea period, it has come to my attention that many of our personnel on board ship are having difficulty maintaining their <ahem in medical terms>.
2. Therefore, it has been determined that <medical terms again> will assist our personnel with this difficulty.
3. Please feel free to visit our dispensary for issuance of written authorization to perform <ahem in medical terms>.

Russ T. Sringe
Senior Medical Officer
USS <blah>

Within an hour, a long line started forming outside the dispensary. A corpsman came out and asked what they are there for. One sailor piped up and said, we are here to pick up our <ahem> chits.

"Your WHAT????"

I am not making this up. This actually happened. I did, however substituted "self abuse" in place of the word that was actually written.
 

---

Posted by Robert E. Allen (Member # 1351) on 05-25-2003, 11:33 PM:
 
As a former police officer I have driven both on and off duty both before seatbelts were installed in cars and after. I discovered that I have better control of my vehicle when securely strapped in and statistics have proven seat belts save lives. I would wear a safety harness even if it wasn't the law in my state and I require every passenger to do the same.

As far as the government getting into our personal lives is concerned some of the really stupid things I've seen done, whether it be in the area of driving, booze, drugs, smoking or sex demand the government get involved in our personal lives to protect us from ourselves. You can drive all you want, with or without a seat belt, or even a license, as long as you do that driving on your own private property. But the instant you get on a public highway, owned by the government, that government (representing me and all responsible drivers) has every right to demand you adhere to certain standards and practices for the PRIVILEGE of operating a vehicle on that public roadway for my protection and yours.

It never ceases to amaze the the number of people in today's supposedly "enlightened" generations that don't want to play by the rules and seem to believe that the Constitution grants them certain "rights" that permit them to do or say just about anything they want regardless of the effect on other individuals or society in general. Is it any wonder that our nation is, as they say, "going to Hell in a handbasket"?
 

---

Posted by Gerard S. Cohen (Member # 994) on 05-26-2003, 10:10 AM:
 
Seems to me the website link JW posted is misleading. What appears to be a directive by a police chief is not. No PD, title or name is given, and the phrasing is that of a polemic, not a directive from a Chief of Police. The phrasing of the court decisions, including "...or carriage..." sounds ancient, and no dates are given, nor jurisdictions. And if you look at the links in the right-hand column, there are links to articles saying that the 16th Ammendment was ratified fraudulently, that no-one need pay income tax, etc.
There must be many websites like this one, but one must take them with a grain of salt.
Otherwise, when you find a letter in your mail, or an email or website, from a Nigerian prince, asking you to accept fifty million dollars from him, in return for your sending him only five thousand US dollars as security...
 

---