Quote:
Originally Posted by JARblue
I disagree completely. Driving is a privilege, NOT a right. This is not about personal freedom. Just like some people should not be able to own a gun, some people shouldn't be allowed to drive.
Getting to that point in a responsible manner is the tricky part. It cannot be about financial or social status. It needs to be purely about competency; just make the damn tests actually reflect skill. Of course, there's not really a good alternative if we take away DLs from a bunch of people since the public transportation in this country is piss poor. So we're kinda past the point of no return. Maybe covid will change that since so many people are now working from home - stay there!
|
Freedom of movement is an unenumerated right in our constitution. The POV is simply the latest tool, (replaced the horse, or walking), to achieve that. So, yes, driving one’s POV IS a right when viewed in this context.
HOWEVER, just like all personal rights, freedoms and liberties enshrined in our constitution and bill of rights, no one person’s rights trump another’s. Hence the need for common sense regulations that maximize individual freedoms while respecting others.
The problem with this techno centric heavy handed government approach is that it removes one’s freedom of choice. Only being able to choose one option, in this case, to drive exactly the speed limit, IS an infringement on our rights. If someone chooses to be irresponsible, there are already laws and regs to deal with and punish you, and it’s a sliding scale based on how badly you violate the law, makes sense and is fair. There is NO freedom when your only choice is to comply. But, that means accepting a certain level of risk, which is apparently getting harder and harder for people to do.
With regards to firearms, it’s the same basic idea. The thing is ANYONE, at any given time under the right, (or in this case), wrong circumstances, can snap and do something violent. The chronically mentally ill, or psychiatrically disabled committing mass shootings is pretty rare, most of the shootings in this country are done by either criminals committing a crime, or people with extremist views or anger management issues- non of that would qualify as mentally ill and non of that is going to create a medical red flag. The truth is that the vast majority of mentally ill are at something like 10 times more likely to be the victims of violence including gun violence, mostly at the hands of law enforcement due to the fact this country has no real handle on how to respect disabled people and nonviolently deescalate crises situations when they arise.
Should we then ban firearms or restrict them into oblivion? How could we possibly ever know when someone is getting “too extremist” in their views or angry that the government needs to PREEMPTIVELY step in. That’s the rub, we can always point to someone AFTER the fact and say, yeah, they became temporarily unstable due to xyorz, but getting it right beforehand without infringing on EVERYONE’s liberty is pretty tough.
Getting back to driving privileges…
When someone like spooler posts a vid of his car blasting down a deserted back road clearly meeting the legal definition of reckless driving, he has made a choice to violate the law, but in a “responsible” manner taking into account traffic , road conditions etc.
The problem is if you stop idiots doing street racing or stupidity where they are violating the law “irresponsibility” by way of govt overreach and control of one’s POV like in rusty’s posted vid, it also stops the spooler(s) as well. Remember, in the eyes of the law, what spooler is doing is no more legal or illegal than the irresponsible dudes on crowded streets.
If, god forbid, there was a freak accident in the deserted road scenario, do you think the law would care that you were being “responsible” in your law breaking?