Maybe it's time we re-examined this "it's a priviledge, not a right" line. I
guess when horses were the prevalent mode of transportation, driving an auto
was a "priviledge" of the rich, who could afford them. Nowadays, how would
one survive without a car, at least in most parts of the U.S.? You'd get
killed trying to ride a bike to work in a lot of big cities, run over by
those "Priviledged" auto drivers. Driver's licenses are still just another
revenue generation tool, since obviously there are plenty of accidents by
all those "trained and approved" drivers.

It reminds me of those parents who get their kid something like a bike or
horse, just to have something to take away to punish them later.

"swatcop" wrote in message
news



"WaIIy" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 15:46:03 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

The seatbelts are the only thing that keep you behind the wheel in such
instances. If you're on the median at 50+ mph and you're still driving,
you've probably avoided hitting other cars. You have a much better
chance
of
finishing the episode alive if you're behind the wheel snugly so you
can
drive. Only an idiot would want to be bouncing around the car.

Doug, these laws that take away personal choice are just that. Although
I agree with you on the child protection issues, I strongly disagree
with seatbelt and helmet laws for adults.

No, I don't want to hear about how much it's costing us in medical
bills, blah, blah, blah.

It's erosion of personal freedom, plain and simple.

I disagree - it saves lives, plain and simple. Driving is a priveledge,
not
a constitutional right, therefore there are rules. Personal freedom
purtains
to freedom of religion, etc., not risking other people's lives or your
own.
--
-= swatcop =-

"If it wasn't for stupid people I'd be unemployed."

"Keith" wrote in message
...
Maybe it's time we re-examined this "it's a priviledge, not a right" line.
I
guess when horses were the prevalent mode of transportation, driving an
auto
was a "priviledge" of the rich, who could afford them. Nowadays, how would
one survive without a car, at least in most parts of the U.S.? You'd get
killed trying to ride a bike to work in a lot of big cities, run over by
those "Priviledged" auto drivers. Driver's licenses are still just another
revenue generation tool, since obviously there are plenty of accidents by
all those "trained and approved" drivers.


You have a right to travel anyplace you want in this country without some
goon asking to see "ze paperz, pleaze". How you travel is in no way
guaranteed, mentioned, suggested or alluded to in the bill of rights or the
constitution.

I'll tell ya what, though - if you'll do this, I'll forget the previous
paragraph and agree with you. Ready? Stand in a busy airport. Have yourself
chained to an immovable object. Distribute rotten fruit to the first 200
people who walk by. Distribute baseball size stones to perhaps 50 of those
people, and loaded pistols to perhaps a dozen people. Using a bullhorn,
announce that training and testing for airline pilots is a violation of some
imaginary rights and should be ended immediately. Continue making this
announcement until you lose consciousness.

Let me know which airport.

I already made an argument a few weeks back on the same thing. The State
defining the SOP mode of transportation as a "priviledge" opens the door to
a whole lot of infringements to personal liberty. It probably looked
innocuous then, with very few cars being mostly a pain in the ass to horse
traffic. The true "slippery slope" effect again. hehe

That said, highway revenues need to be generated, preferably by those that
use the roads. I could easily see requiring cars to bear an annual "tax
paid" sticker, with the fine for the lack of said sticker being double the
tax.

Past that, there's nothing going on on the roads that the criminal code and
tort law was never equiped to handle. IMHO

-W

"Keith" wrote in message
...
Maybe it's time we re-examined this "it's a priviledge, not a right" line.
I
guess when horses were the prevalent mode of transportation, driving an
auto
was a "priviledge" of the rich, who could afford them. Nowadays, how would
one survive without a car, at least in most parts of the U.S.? You'd get
killed trying to ride a bike to work in a lot of big cities, run over by
those "Priviledged" auto drivers. Driver's licenses are still just another
revenue generation tool, since obviously there are plenty of accidents by
all those "trained and approved" drivers.

It reminds me of those parents who get their kid something like a bike or
horse, just to have something to take away to punish them later.

Already have that in Texas. You pay a tax on the licence plates, and another
"fee" for the safety inspection. Oh, yea. Major taxes on fuel for things
that drive on the highway. They could just increase the license plate fee a
few $$ a year and be revenue neutral by discontinuing driver's license fees.
We could always replace that with a national ID card... oops, more
infringement. They really DO want to be able to stop you and say... "ze
paperz, pleaze".

Remember when they came up with that idea to permanently affix your SS
number on a permanent tooth when you get one? They keep coming up with the
ideas... good thing we have resisted such Hitler nonsense so far.

"Clams Canino" wrote in message
news:wr%Db.581659$Fm2.540702@attbi_s04...
I already made an argument a few weeks back on the same thing. The State
defining the SOP mode of transportation as a "priviledge" opens the door
to
a whole lot of infringements to personal liberty. It probably looked
innocuous then, with very few cars being mostly a pain in the ass to horse
traffic. The true "slippery slope" effect again. hehe

That said, highway revenues need to be generated, preferably by those that
use the roads. I could easily see requiring cars to bear an annual "tax
paid" sticker, with the fine for the lack of said sticker being double the
tax.

Past that, there's nothing going on on the roads that the criminal code
and
tort law was never equiped to handle. IMHO

-W

"Keith" wrote in message
...
Maybe it's time we re-examined this "it's a priviledge, not a right"
line.
I
guess when horses were the prevalent mode of transportation, driving an
auto
was a "priviledge" of the rich, who could afford them. Nowadays, how
would
one survive without a car, at least in most parts of the U.S.? You'd get
killed trying to ride a bike to work in a lot of big cities, run over by
those "Priviledged" auto drivers. Driver's licenses are still just
another
revenue generation tool, since obviously there are plenty of accidents
by
all those "trained and approved" drivers.

It reminds me of those parents who get their kid something like a bike
or
horse, just to have something to take away to punish them later.

"Keith" wrote in message
...
Maybe it's time we re-examined this "it's a priviledge, not a right" line.
I
guess when horses were the prevalent mode of transportation, driving an
auto
was a "priviledge" of the rich, who could afford them. Nowadays, how would
one survive without a car, at least in most parts of the U.S.? You'd get
killed trying to ride a bike to work in a lot of big cities, run over by
those "Priviledged" auto drivers. Driver's licenses are still just another
revenue generation tool, since obviously there are plenty of accidents by
all those "trained and approved" drivers.

It reminds me of those parents who get their kid something like a bike or
horse, just to have something to take away to punish them later.

There are still statutes on file that pertain to how you ride your horse.
That's a privilege, too. I don't disagree with you about the
"money-making-machine" that has taken over the system, though.
--
-= swatcop =-

"If it wasn't for stupid people I'd be unemployed."

Um, let me re-word that - I do not agree with the wheelbarrows full of cash
that we hand the government every year for the privilege of being allowed to
operate a vehicle.

--
-= swatcop =-

"If it wasn't for stupid people I'd be unemployed."

"swatcop" wrote in message
m...



"Keith" wrote in message
...
Maybe it's time we re-examined this "it's a priviledge, not a right"
line.
I
guess when horses were the prevalent mode of transportation, driving an
auto
was a "priviledge" of the rich, who could afford them. Nowadays, how
would
one survive without a car, at least in most parts of the U.S.? You'd get
killed trying to ride a bike to work in a lot of big cities, run over by
those "Priviledged" auto drivers. Driver's licenses are still just
another
revenue generation tool, since obviously there are plenty of accidents
by
all those "trained and approved" drivers.

It reminds me of those parents who get their kid something like a bike
or
horse, just to have something to take away to punish them later.

There are still statutes on file that pertain to how you ride your horse.
That's a privilege, too. I don't disagree with you about the
"money-making-machine" that has taken over the system, though.
--
-= swatcop =-

"If it wasn't for stupid people I'd be unemployed."