turtlespeed 220 #76 January 12, 2016 Coreeece*** Driving isn't and shouldn't be a right. Just curious - you never really answered the question - why shouldn't driving be a right? It would seem that on the surface, driving has more of a direct impact on our daily lives than any other rights - hell, most enumerated rights are only exercised if you just happen to find yourself in some really shitty situation. As for the others, well: - Today, free speech is overrated and primarily used as an excuse to be a total douche bag. - My Dad always told me, "You go to work, you keep your mouth shut, and do your fucking job." - No free speech needed, but I still had to drive. - I don't need to go to church to express my faith, nor do I have to do it publicly - but if I did, I'd prefer to drive. - If I ever feel compelled to actually petition anyone, it might as well be for the right to drive - maybe even cite the 9th. - If you look at motor vehicles and driving in the same light as firearms and concealed carry/hunting, then again, why shouldn't driving be a right? Simplest answer is that it driving is just a convenience, not a necessity. You can make any argument you want to, but the basic fact is that driving is not something that is needed. Sure, it makes things a hell of a lot easier, and convenient. It saves lives if used in the right way, and causes death if used wrongly. Saying that driving is a RIGHT is like saying that the Internet is a right. Rights are not liscensed. They are not tested for use. They just are. Anything else is a privilege and/or a convenience.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,490 #77 January 12, 2016 QuoteSimplest answer is that it driving is just a convenience, not a necessity. You can make any argument you want to, but the basic fact is that driving is not something that is needed. So the government should be able to arbitrarily clamp down on the ability to do anything that isn't essential? QuoteSaying that driving is a RIGHT is like saying that the Internet is a right. Well d'uh. The internet is a right.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreeece 2 #78 January 13, 2016 turtlespeed Simplest answer is that it driving is just a convenience, not a necessity. You can make any argument you want to, but the basic fact is that driving is not something that is needed. In today's competitive, overpopulated society with limited opportunity for nontrepreneurs, driving is more of a necessity in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, than is a gun. turtlespeeddriving is not something that is needed. Sure, it makes things a hell of a lot easier, and convenient. It saves lives if used in the right way, and causes death if used wrongly. Why do you need Free Speech? Just keep your mouth shut and mind your own business - keep your beliefs to yourself. Why do you need a gun? You can defend yourself with a good cctv system, armor, a shield and an escape plan with booby traps and off-road motor vehicles. Why do we need the 3rd amendment. . . Why do you need to be protected against searches - what are you hiding! Why do you need to plead the fifth - stand up like a man and answer for yourself. Why do you need a speedy trial when you'll most likely be coerced into a plea bargain anyway? Why do you need to be judged by a bunch of biased morons rather than by a selection of judges that have demonstrated years of impartiality? The eight amendment - violated everyday, so what's the point? So on and so forth... So see - the majority of the above aren't really needed, nor is it inherently obvious that they should be a right, which is why they had to be explicitly enumerated to begin with - and apparently driving needs to be added to the list.Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,490 #79 January 13, 2016 That's a very good answer. Turtle's problem with 'necessities' is first to explain what those rights are necessities for, and why that goal is fundamentally central to society. My argument would be that maximising of freedom and fairness for the most people is the goal, and so anything is a right unless there's a damn good reason to take it away. So, for instance, there is a damn good reason for depriving a blind person of their right to drive, but there isn't a damn good reason for depriving a felon of their right to vote, a non-violent felon of their right to own a gun, or someone convicted of a few petty thefts or drug offenses of their right to freedom for as long as they live.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 220 #80 January 13, 2016 jakeeQuoteSimplest answer is that it driving is just a convenience, not a necessity. You can make any argument you want to, but the basic fact is that driving is not something that is needed. So the government should be able to arbitrarily clamp down on the ability to do anything that isn't essential? QuoteSaying that driving is a RIGHT is like saying that the Internet is a right. Well d'uh. The internet is a right. No. It is another convenience.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 220 #81 January 13, 2016 jakeeThat's a very good answer. Turtle's problem with 'necessities' is first to explain what those rights are necessities for, and why that goal is fundamentally central to society. My argument would be that maximising of freedom and fairness for the most people is the goal, and so anything is a right unless there's a damn good reason to take it away. So, for instance, there is a damn good reason for depriving a blind person of their right to drive, but there isn't a damn good reason for depriving a felon of their right to vote, a non-violent felon of their right to own a gun, or someone convicted of a few petty thefts or drug offenses of their right to freedom for as long as they live. A right is a right. Behavior can get some of those rights revoked. You have a choice. Personal reaponsibility is key here.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,490 #82 January 13, 2016 turtlespeed***That's a very good answer. Turtle's problem with 'necessities' is first to explain what those rights are necessities for, and why that goal is fundamentally central to society. My argument would be that maximising of freedom and fairness for the most people is the goal, and so anything is a right unless there's a damn good reason to take it away. So, for instance, there is a damn good reason for depriving a blind person of their right to drive, but there isn't a damn good reason for depriving a felon of their right to vote, a non-violent felon of their right to own a gun, or someone convicted of a few petty thefts or drug offenses of their right to freedom for as long as they live. A right is a right. Behavior can get some of those rights revoked. You have a choice. Personal reaponsibility is key here. If the government can decide that some arbitrary, unrelated form of 'unacceptable' behaviour can lead to the revocation of a right then that right is no longer guaranteed. Whether or not there is due process is irrelevant. Think about it, you're saying that the government can coerce you into certain modes of behaviour by threatening to cut off your access to unrelated rights, and that you're ok with it. I didn't have you pegged as a pro-social engineering kinda guy.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,490 #83 January 13, 2016 QuoteNo. It is another convenience. OK, go ahead and arbitrarily limit access to internet connection and content. I'm sure China, Iran and North Korea would love some more company.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 220 #84 January 13, 2016 jakeeQuoteNo. It is another convenience. OK, go ahead and arbitrarily limit access to internet connection and content. I'm sure China, Iran and North Korea would love some more company. Free speech is free speech, you don't have to have means and wealth of any kind to use it.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,490 #85 January 13, 2016 turtlespeed***QuoteNo. It is another convenience. OK, go ahead and arbitrarily limit access to internet connection and content. I'm sure China, Iran and North Korea would love some more company. Free speech is free speech, you don't have to have means and wealth of any kind to use it. So? Who said you did?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 801 #86 January 13, 2016 Given the influx of billions of government dollars to provide HSI to the poorest and most remote areas of the country, I must disagree. In today's competitive and highly technical world, it's nothing less of a requirement. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 220 #87 January 14, 2016 jakee******QuoteNo. It is another convenience. OK, go ahead and arbitrarily limit access to internet connection and content. I'm sure China, Iran and North Korea would love some more company. Free speech is free speech, you don't have to have means and wealth of any kind to use it. So? Who said you did? Does one not need money to purchase an Internet capable device? What about subscribing to an Internet provider? Oh wait, I remember now . . . ObamaphonesI'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,490 #88 January 14, 2016 turtlespeed*********QuoteNo. It is another convenience. OK, go ahead and arbitrarily limit access to internet connection and content. I'm sure China, Iran and North Korea would love some more company. Free speech is free speech, you don't have to have means and wealth of any kind to use it. So? Who said you did? Does one not need money to purchase an Internet capable device? What about subscribing to an Internet provider? Yeah. So? Guns and ammo cost money too, don't they? Lawyers cost money.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 220 #89 January 14, 2016 jakee************QuoteNo. It is another convenience. OK, go ahead and arbitrarily limit access to internet connection and content. I'm sure China, Iran and North Korea would love some more company. Free speech is free speech, you don't have to have means and wealth of any kind to use it. So? Who said you did? Does one not need money to purchase an Internet capable device? What about subscribing to an Internet provider? Yeah. So? Guns and ammo cost money too, don't they? Lawyers cost money. Public defender. You can make your own weapon if you wish.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,490 #90 January 14, 2016 QuotePublic defender. In a lot of states public defenders aren't free. QuoteYou can make your own weapon if you wish. You can make a functioning gun out of stuff you can find for free using tools you can make for free? Ok Stretch Armstrong.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
carmenc 0 #91 January 14, 2016 turtlespeed***QuoteSimplest answer is that it driving is just a convenience, not a necessity. You can make any argument you want to, but the basic fact is that driving is not something that is needed. So the government should be able to arbitrarily clamp down on the ability to do anything that isn't essential? QuoteSaying that driving is a RIGHT is like saying that the Internet is a right. Well d'uh. The internet is a right. No. It is another convenience. What about healthcare? Convenience? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #92 January 14, 2016 carmencWhat about healthcare? Convenience? Right - to independently pursue and contract healthcare services with providers on your own of each's own free will - just like the purchase and ownership of any product or service Not a right - force others to pay for your healthcare (i.e., enslave them, violate another's right to self determination of their labor, etc) - privilege, treat, charity, lucky situation, whatever else one might call it the founding fathers' definition of rights is VERY fundamentally different than FDR's twisted versions ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
