9 ms·

As I've been reminded countless times, "driving is a privilege not a right". You can lose your license for all kinds of 'unfair' reasons that do not make sense,

As I've been reminded countless times, "driving is a privilege not a right". You can lose your license for all kinds of 'unfair' reasons that do not make sense, and I agree it's heavy handed to include student loan debt, but until it is Federally acknowledged that all citizens have a right to drive (after passing proper license tests), then this downward progression will continue. In California you can't even register your vehicle if you're behind on your child support payments. (I need my job to make payments. I can't get to my job without my car.)

lisper 8y ago
Sure, but none of that changes the fact that suspending someone's driving privilege as a punishment for failing to pay a debt is incredibly stupid and counterproductive.
- dopamean 8y ago
  The crazy reality of that situation is that people will continue to drive when the license is suspended (because they need to). I made this mistake living in Florida years ago and was literally arrested, booked, and spent a night in jail.
- headcanon 8y ago
  I was once sitting in a courtroom for something unrelated and saw a 19 year old kid go to jail for 3 months for not paying child support. Not sure how he's going to pay it back in there, but if all you have is a hammer...
  - Tomte 8y ago
    That's certainly not the first remedy that the court has taken. But say, if he hadn't been sent to prison, would he have paid child support then? We all don't know, but I strongly suspect no, and I strongly suspect the court has more than just my suspicions and calibrated its reaction accordingly.
    - coldtea 8y ago
      >But say, if he hadn't been sent to prison, would he have paid child support then? The amount could have been ordered to be taken from his bank account, or confiscated from his salary directly from his employer or payment system, or taken from his property. There's absolutely nothing that necessitates that he is sent to prison if he merely can't pay. Only if he has money and doesn't pay (and that after accounting for his food and rent expenses at a nominal minimal fee), or hides money that he could have used to pay.
      - kittiepryde 8y ago
        I think it would be an interesting choice, that if you're sent to jail for lack of payment towards child support ( or any other debt ), the government pays your debt up to the point you get out.
        cazum 8y ago
        This would have the unintended consequence of poor people voluntarily going to prison as a means of payment. The social implications of this would be devistating. class stratification is already a major issue in the country. The last thing we need is literal debtors prison. Market solutions and the Justice system rarely intersect, and this is certainly an area where they should not.
      - pixl97 8y ago
        Smith County Texas will eventually get sued for this for indefinite imprisonment. There have been a few cases there where they put people in jail for 'contempt of court' for not paying child support. They throw the person in jail, then as that date comes up they demand the person pay further due child support, and keep said person in jail, but since it's a new charge they can keep doing it again and again and again.
      - pseingatl 8y ago
        Child support can be based on imputed income. Where income is imputed, it does not exist, e.g., you do not have to pay tax on imputed dollars because they don't exist. So there are no bank accounts to seize because they cannot contain imputed dollars. If a person doesn't have a W-2 salary, there is nothing to garnish. In these cases, courts can and do order the debtor to prison.
  - jcadam 8y ago
    Debtors' prisons are technically illegal. But... yea.
  - nradov 8y ago
    Was he really sent to jail for not paying child support, or was it actually for contempt of court? People generally can't be jailed for debt. But if the subject of a child support order has money and refuses to may, or refuses to take reasonable steps to earn some income, then sometimes the judge has to administer an object lesson on the importance of fulfilling one's obligations. Judges usually don't take that step unless the defendant has demonstrated a long history of irresponsible behavior.
    - shadowbannedtoo 8y ago
      It needs to stop. There are guys committing suicide over Child Support payments. The way they figure Child Support payments is crazy. Catch a judge on a bad day, and you just might end in jail. I never thought America would turn into such a mess. Look up what Dave Foley (actor/comedian) has been through. If you're young, and slightly good looking, or have something they might want; get a vasectomy. I get hammered for this next statement, but why aren't guys allowed a say over whether a female has an abortion? Yes-----give it to me. I just think in some cases, like one night stands, a guy should have some say. If shouldn't have to be a mistake you have to carry forever, especially if you don't have a particularly bright employment future.
    - headcanon 8y ago
      It was awhile ago so I don't remember correctly, but you might be right. I just remember thinking this was rooted in the debt he had to pay, and removing his ability to pay the debt, while ostensibly serving to teach him a lesson, didn't seem constructive. Perhaps it was the correct thing to do, perhaps not, it just seemed sad.
- wwweston 8y ago
  That's if you're oriented on policy goals like getting the debt where it's owed by providing consequences that aren't crippling and keeping the individual who owes it in the best position to actually repay. There are people who think in very different terms, where the primary goal is protecting a moral norm they have in mind, and the focus (possibly even "obsession") is going to be doing that by exacting a punishment as a disincentive and example. Taking away a privilege is an obvious choice. Whether it's related is unimportant; what's important is whether it hurts. If the cascading effects are considered at all to someone who thinks like this (and I want to stress here that involves a level of analysis that may be second nature for you but is quite likely actually a stretch for many of the people I'm talking about here) then those cascading effects may well be considered good: the fact of making a debt less likely to be repaid is secondary to making it harder for the subject deserving of the punishment. The pain is the point. Now, you might respond "is there evidence that this kind of punitive approach actually leads to overall better outcomes?" And that's a very good question, but again, it's the kind of question someone who cautiously approaches the question of punishment with considerations of counterproductivity in mind would ask.
  - lisper 8y ago
    Yes, some people choose to cut off their nose to spite their face. I'm not one of those people. I think people who are willing to make life worse for everyone in service of some moral ideology are idiots, and they make me question the wisdom of democracy. But that's just me.
    - braythwayt 8y ago
      Democracy works elsewhere, don’t condemn it because it cannot magically make one country a better place.
    - wwweston 8y ago
      My values and yours probably overlap -- I'd agree that whatever penalties you might hand out to someone not making child support, taking away a DL is counterproductive. But I think it's probably a values/temperament issue, which isn't necessarily an intelligence issue, and might need different solutions.
- m-p-3 8y ago
  Agreed. Most of us rely on driving to reach the workplace. It's not only a mere inconvenience to lose your licence, it's basically severing your access to your main source of financial support and could send you spiralling down in debts for a long time. Sure, not meeting your responsibilities has to be dealt with and have consequences, but the consequences shouldn't have to be catastrophic and put you into an unrecoverable situation to act as a deterrent.
ordu 8y ago
> As I've been reminded countless times, "driving is a privilege not a right". In a country made for a car drivers it seems like a kind of an essential privilege.
- massivecali 8y ago
  That was my point. As someone who walks a lot, there are also large parts of the US that are wholly inaccessible by foot.
  - StudentStuff 8y ago
    The only viable non-car using way to access these areas is an eBike, and even then some areas have super aggressive drivers that are happy to run you over. Unsurprisingly, people aren't too keen on walking/scootering/biking in these conditions :c
    - jolmg 8y ago
      Can eBikes be taken long-distance to rural areas?
      - fooblitzky 8y ago
        Possibly? The Tern GSD has a quoted range of 140 miles with the 900Wh battery pack. Of course, it would take you about 7 hours to cover that distance.
      - StudentStuff 8y ago
        I hear that the battery I have can do 40 miles of range in flatter terrain. Here in hilly Seattle, I get 10 miles of range on it. Slower speeds also gets more range, I definitely am sacrificing range for speed when going 30mph :P
- checkyoursudo 8y ago
  As an unrelated aside, it's also a weird phrase (though absolutely common in usage!) as the privileges of the nobles and peers, for example, were way more difficult for the crown to abrogate than were the ordinary rights of mere commoners. Privileges were strong. Maybe being able to employ, and deploy, your own soldiers would have some effect on that. It would probably be better if the phrase were "a grant not a right" or "a license not a right", but I guess that's not as catchy.
pmart123 8y ago
Wow, that’s crazy. As long as you have auto insurance and a clean driving record, it doesn’t make logical sense to reprimand your license as it could cause a cash flow problem if you can’t commute to work, or have to take a worse job potentially.
Waterluvian 8y ago
It's a privilege sure. Except the US is really good at building dysfunctional cities that require a car to live.
- TulliusCicero 8y ago
  Sad that you're getting downvoted, but it's true. Almost all US cities are pretty terrible to get around in without a car. That's bad for people's budgets generally, but it's especially bad for the poor/working class where a car represents a substantial financial burden, and of course some other demographics like the handicapped, elderly, and college students. Plus it's more expensive for the government, causes more pollution, generates more danger, and hurts people's health. Not a lot of upside there.
  - noobermin 8y ago
    Upside for automobile makers and oil and gas companies, the ones who matter in America.
- wonderwonder 8y ago
  I had a friend that could not afford a car. So a 2 hour round trip drive to work everyday became a 5 hour round trip bus ride. Every. Day.
TulliusCicero 8y ago
Driving being a privilege, not a right, is only awkward in the US because of how absurdly car dominant it is. Being unable to drive in many other developed countries is barely an issue for most people.
- vonmoltke 8y ago
  > Being unable to drive in many other developed countries is barely an issue for most people. I don't think I agree with the "most" in that statement, at least in combination with "barely an issue".
  - TulliusCicero 8y ago
    To my knowledge, other developed countries where driving seems really necessary for most people are Canada and Australia, maybe NZ? Admittedly I'm far from an expert in this, but I live in Germany now, have visited a bunch of countries in Europe, plus Japan, and that's certainly the impression I get. Right now our family of 3 living in a sleepy part of Munich gets by fine without a car, and we've visited lots of little suburbs and towns in Germany that are still highly walkable/bikable, with decent transit connections. Not that having a car wouldn't be a big convenience bonus for us sometimes, but it doesn't feel critical at all.
    - coldtea 8y ago
      "8 % of the EU workforce commutes to work in a different region" (NUTS 2 defined region: different province, city, etc).
      - TulliusCicero 8y ago
        And this has what, exactly, to do with my comment?
        coldtea 8y ago
        Wasn't your comment all about how driving is not that needed in Europe? Try getting to a different province/city etc, easily 30-100km away or more on "public transit". Even where the connections are there (and not like a couple of buses each day), it's neither fast nor pleasant enough to make driving "unneeded".
thatoneuser 8y ago
Wow California making sexist laws that adversely affect men over women? Color me shocked.
deogeo 8y ago
According to this quora answer [1] that quotes a whole bunch of court cases, the whole 'privilege, not a right' thing is bullshit. Try taking it to the logical conclusion - what else is a privilege, and can therefore be arbitrarily denied? A bank account? Traveling by plane or train? Connecting your house to the power/water/sewage grid? Having a post address? Buying or renting a house? Sending your children to school? If you buy this logic, there's a whole bunch of 'privileges' that the state can deny you using some excuse, that would make living utterly impossible. That the state takes away this right doesn't mean you should call it a privilege, just as you wouldn't call freedom a privilege because an innocent man was jailed. [1] https://www.quora.com/Who-determined-that-driving-is-a-privilege-not-a-right-and-from-whom-does-that-privilege-originate# https://www.quora.com/Who-determined-that-driving-is-a-privi...
- vinnyglennon 8y ago
  A passport is a privilege not a right
- yourbandsucks 8y ago
  Not to mention, we've built our whole society around driving. If we were built like the Netherlands, it'd be one thing, but driving is a necessity in the USA. Take it away and people can't even function in most places.
  - deogeo 8y ago
    Yes, but be careful with the argument that it's bad because it forbids a necessity. It doesn't defend activities that are less 'necessary'. You don't need a soldering iron at home - the registered one at work is plenty. You don't need a decompiler, or a rooted smartphone, or to run unsigned kernels, or your own mail server. One by one, activities you're permitted to do can be chipped away, till all that's left is work and consuming sanitized entertainment.
- P_I_Staker 8y ago
  I don't agree that it's a right, but these things are definitely needs that the government should ensure access to. I think of rights as things like equality and free speech. Calling it a privilege and pretending it's something you can just do without is insane. Healthcare is a similar issue. I don't think it's a right, yet I'm shocked by the number of people out there that literally want others to die, so they don't have to pay money.
coldtea 8y ago
>As I've been reminded countless times, "driving is a privilege not a right". That's just a BS saying, not some rule of nature. Societies should define what is a privilege and what is a right. Do you think if there was a referendum on this specific matter (and not tied to 200 other policy questions, like general elections are), people would vote that "yeah, indeed driving is a privilege"?
- AcerbicZero 8y ago
  >Societies should define what is a privilege and what is a right. That's a hard no. I see where you're going with this, and we likely agree on 90% of this topic anyway, but the issue with society defining rights is that you end up letting the mob decide the "right" of green eyed people to live has just become a privilege. Rights stem from nature, and exist with, or without society. If a society wants to add to the list, they're more than welcome to do so. Those are usually called privileges and its up to the society to attach proper protections to them.
  - coldtea 8y ago
    >but the issue with society defining rights is that you end up letting the mob decide the "right" of green eyed people to live has just become a privilege. That's what those in power try to sell, who think they know better, and that the people are savage animals that need to be kept in place. In reality, the worse atrocities have been performed not by mobs, or at least not by mobs on their own, but by well educated, powerful people. All those gentlemen slave owners in the South, all those smooth talking Nazi higher ups (with support from Germanys financial elites), the higher echelons of USSR Party power, colonial gentlemen, and so on. Mobs have nothing on them. >Rights stem from nature, and exist with, or without society. There are no rights in nature -- something anyone who ventures outside of society (in a jungle, in the woods, etc) will very soon find out. Nobody in nature (outside of a human community) will ever protect their live to live, property, or anything else. Rights are a social contract, made because man is a conscious, social, animal. The problem is that the contract is more often than not, presented like Terms of Use, already written from those in power.
  - 8y ago
dgzl 8y ago
> but until it is Federally acknowledged that all citizens have a right to drive I guess we're not applying the tenth amendment here? As in, we have rights not explicitly enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
- jkaplowitz 8y ago
  I'm skeptical that the Supreme Court would agree that a right to drive is one of those rights. Not only did driving not exist when the tenth amendment was proposed or ratified, nowhere in the world (to the best of my knowledge) is driving treated as a right.
- int_19h 8y ago
  The Tenth says that the rights are "reserved to the states or to the people". A state suspending your driver license would simply claim that it is their right to do so.

lisper 8y ago

Sure, but none of that changes the fact that suspending someone's driving privilege as a punishment for failing to pay a debt is incredibly stupid and counterproductive.

dopamean 8y ago
The crazy reality of that situation is that people will continue to drive when the license is suspended (because they need to). I made this mistake living in Florida years ago and was literally arrested, booked, and spent a night in jail.
headcanon 8y ago
I was once sitting in a courtroom for something unrelated and saw a 19 year old kid go to jail for 3 months for not paying child support. Not sure how he's going to pay it back in there, but if all you have is a hammer...
- Tomte 8y ago
  That's certainly not the first remedy that the court has taken. But say, if he hadn't been sent to prison, would he have paid child support then? We all don't know, but I strongly suspect no, and I strongly suspect the court has more than just my suspicions and calibrated its reaction accordingly.
  - coldtea 8y ago
    >But say, if he hadn't been sent to prison, would he have paid child support then? The amount could have been ordered to be taken from his bank account, or confiscated from his salary directly from his employer or payment system, or taken from his property. There's absolutely nothing that necessitates that he is sent to prison if he merely can't pay. Only if he has money and doesn't pay (and that after accounting for his food and rent expenses at a nominal minimal fee), or hides money that he could have used to pay.
    - kittiepryde 8y ago
      I think it would be an interesting choice, that if you're sent to jail for lack of payment towards child support ( or any other debt ), the government pays your debt up to the point you get out.
      - cazum 8y ago
        This would have the unintended consequence of poor people voluntarily going to prison as a means of payment. The social implications of this would be devistating. class stratification is already a major issue in the country. The last thing we need is literal debtors prison. Market solutions and the Justice system rarely intersect, and this is certainly an area where they should not.
    - pixl97 8y ago
      Smith County Texas will eventually get sued for this for indefinite imprisonment. There have been a few cases there where they put people in jail for 'contempt of court' for not paying child support. They throw the person in jail, then as that date comes up they demand the person pay further due child support, and keep said person in jail, but since it's a new charge they can keep doing it again and again and again.
    - pseingatl 8y ago
      Child support can be based on imputed income. Where income is imputed, it does not exist, e.g., you do not have to pay tax on imputed dollars because they don't exist. So there are no bank accounts to seize because they cannot contain imputed dollars. If a person doesn't have a W-2 salary, there is nothing to garnish. In these cases, courts can and do order the debtor to prison.
- jcadam 8y ago
  Debtors' prisons are technically illegal. But... yea.
- nradov 8y ago
  Was he really sent to jail for not paying child support, or was it actually for contempt of court? People generally can't be jailed for debt. But if the subject of a child support order has money and refuses to may, or refuses to take reasonable steps to earn some income, then sometimes the judge has to administer an object lesson on the importance of fulfilling one's obligations. Judges usually don't take that step unless the defendant has demonstrated a long history of irresponsible behavior.
  - shadowbannedtoo 8y ago
    It needs to stop. There are guys committing suicide over Child Support payments. The way they figure Child Support payments is crazy. Catch a judge on a bad day, and you just might end in jail. I never thought America would turn into such a mess. Look up what Dave Foley (actor/comedian) has been through. If you're young, and slightly good looking, or have something they might want; get a vasectomy. I get hammered for this next statement, but why aren't guys allowed a say over whether a female has an abortion? Yes-----give it to me. I just think in some cases, like one night stands, a guy should have some say. If shouldn't have to be a mistake you have to carry forever, especially if you don't have a particularly bright employment future.
  - headcanon 8y ago
    It was awhile ago so I don't remember correctly, but you might be right. I just remember thinking this was rooted in the debt he had to pay, and removing his ability to pay the debt, while ostensibly serving to teach him a lesson, didn't seem constructive. Perhaps it was the correct thing to do, perhaps not, it just seemed sad.
wwweston 8y ago
That's if you're oriented on policy goals like getting the debt where it's owed by providing consequences that aren't crippling and keeping the individual who owes it in the best position to actually repay. There are people who think in very different terms, where the primary goal is protecting a moral norm they have in mind, and the focus (possibly even "obsession") is going to be doing that by exacting a punishment as a disincentive and example. Taking away a privilege is an obvious choice. Whether it's related is unimportant; what's important is whether it hurts. If the cascading effects are considered at all to someone who thinks like this (and I want to stress here that involves a level of analysis that may be second nature for you but is quite likely actually a stretch for many of the people I'm talking about here) then those cascading effects may well be considered good: the fact of making a debt less likely to be repaid is secondary to making it harder for the subject deserving of the punishment. The pain is the point. Now, you might respond "is there evidence that this kind of punitive approach actually leads to overall better outcomes?" And that's a very good question, but again, it's the kind of question someone who cautiously approaches the question of punishment with considerations of counterproductivity in mind would ask.
- lisper 8y ago
  Yes, some people choose to cut off their nose to spite their face. I'm not one of those people. I think people who are willing to make life worse for everyone in service of some moral ideology are idiots, and they make me question the wisdom of democracy. But that's just me.
  - braythwayt 8y ago
    Democracy works elsewhere, don’t condemn it because it cannot magically make one country a better place.
  - wwweston 8y ago
    My values and yours probably overlap -- I'd agree that whatever penalties you might hand out to someone not making child support, taking away a DL is counterproductive. But I think it's probably a values/temperament issue, which isn't necessarily an intelligence issue, and might need different solutions.
m-p-3 8y ago
Agreed. Most of us rely on driving to reach the workplace. It's not only a mere inconvenience to lose your licence, it's basically severing your access to your main source of financial support and could send you spiralling down in debts for a long time. Sure, not meeting your responsibilities has to be dealt with and have consequences, but the consequences shouldn't have to be catastrophic and put you into an unrecoverable situation to act as a deterrent.

ordu 8y ago

> As I've been reminded countless times, "driving is a privilege not a right". In a country made for a car drivers it seems like a kind of an essential privilege.

massivecali 8y ago
That was my point. As someone who walks a lot, there are also large parts of the US that are wholly inaccessible by foot.
- StudentStuff 8y ago
  The only viable non-car using way to access these areas is an eBike, and even then some areas have super aggressive drivers that are happy to run you over. Unsurprisingly, people aren't too keen on walking/scootering/biking in these conditions :c
  - jolmg 8y ago
    Can eBikes be taken long-distance to rural areas?
    - fooblitzky 8y ago
      Possibly? The Tern GSD has a quoted range of 140 miles with the 900Wh battery pack. Of course, it would take you about 7 hours to cover that distance.
    - StudentStuff 8y ago
      I hear that the battery I have can do 40 miles of range in flatter terrain. Here in hilly Seattle, I get 10 miles of range on it. Slower speeds also gets more range, I definitely am sacrificing range for speed when going 30mph :P
checkyoursudo 8y ago
As an unrelated aside, it's also a weird phrase (though absolutely common in usage!) as the privileges of the nobles and peers, for example, were way more difficult for the crown to abrogate than were the ordinary rights of mere commoners. Privileges were strong. Maybe being able to employ, and deploy, your own soldiers would have some effect on that. It would probably be better if the phrase were "a grant not a right" or "a license not a right", but I guess that's not as catchy.

pmart123 8y ago

Wow, that’s crazy. As long as you have auto insurance and a clean driving record, it doesn’t make logical sense to reprimand your license as it could cause a cash flow problem if you can’t commute to work, or have to take a worse job potentially.

Waterluvian 8y ago

It's a privilege sure. Except the US is really good at building dysfunctional cities that require a car to live.

TulliusCicero 8y ago
Sad that you're getting downvoted, but it's true. Almost all US cities are pretty terrible to get around in without a car. That's bad for people's budgets generally, but it's especially bad for the poor/working class where a car represents a substantial financial burden, and of course some other demographics like the handicapped, elderly, and college students. Plus it's more expensive for the government, causes more pollution, generates more danger, and hurts people's health. Not a lot of upside there.
- noobermin 8y ago
  Upside for automobile makers and oil and gas companies, the ones who matter in America.
wonderwonder 8y ago
I had a friend that could not afford a car. So a 2 hour round trip drive to work everyday became a 5 hour round trip bus ride. Every. Day.

TulliusCicero 8y ago

Driving being a privilege, not a right, is only awkward in the US because of how absurdly car dominant it is. Being unable to drive in many other developed countries is barely an issue for most people.

vonmoltke 8y ago
> Being unable to drive in many other developed countries is barely an issue for most people. I don't think I agree with the "most" in that statement, at least in combination with "barely an issue".
- TulliusCicero 8y ago
  To my knowledge, other developed countries where driving seems really necessary for most people are Canada and Australia, maybe NZ? Admittedly I'm far from an expert in this, but I live in Germany now, have visited a bunch of countries in Europe, plus Japan, and that's certainly the impression I get. Right now our family of 3 living in a sleepy part of Munich gets by fine without a car, and we've visited lots of little suburbs and towns in Germany that are still highly walkable/bikable, with decent transit connections. Not that having a car wouldn't be a big convenience bonus for us sometimes, but it doesn't feel critical at all.
  - coldtea 8y ago
    "8 % of the EU workforce commutes to work in a different region" (NUTS 2 defined region: different province, city, etc).
    - TulliusCicero 8y ago
      And this has what, exactly, to do with my comment?
      - coldtea 8y ago
        Wasn't your comment all about how driving is not that needed in Europe? Try getting to a different province/city etc, easily 30-100km away or more on "public transit". Even where the connections are there (and not like a couple of buses each day), it's neither fast nor pleasant enough to make driving "unneeded".

thatoneuser 8y ago

Wow California making sexist laws that adversely affect men over women? Color me shocked.

deogeo 8y ago

According to this quora answer [1] that quotes a whole bunch of court cases, the whole 'privilege, not a right' thing is bullshit. Try taking it to the logical conclusion - what else is a privilege, and can therefore be arbitrarily denied? A bank account? Traveling by plane or train? Connecting your house to the power/water/sewage grid? Having a post address? Buying or renting a house? Sending your children to school? If you buy this logic, there's a whole bunch of 'privileges' that the state can deny you using some excuse, that would make living utterly impossible. That the state takes away this right doesn't mean you should call it a privilege, just as you wouldn't call freedom a privilege because an innocent man was jailed. [1] https://www.quora.com/Who-determined-that-driving-is-a-privilege-not-a-right-and-from-whom-does-that-privilege-originate# https://www.quora.com/Who-determined-that-driving-is-a-privi...

vinnyglennon 8y ago
A passport is a privilege not a right
yourbandsucks 8y ago
Not to mention, we've built our whole society around driving. If we were built like the Netherlands, it'd be one thing, but driving is a necessity in the USA. Take it away and people can't even function in most places.
- deogeo 8y ago
  Yes, but be careful with the argument that it's bad because it forbids a necessity. It doesn't defend activities that are less 'necessary'. You don't need a soldering iron at home - the registered one at work is plenty. You don't need a decompiler, or a rooted smartphone, or to run unsigned kernels, or your own mail server. One by one, activities you're permitted to do can be chipped away, till all that's left is work and consuming sanitized entertainment.
P_I_Staker 8y ago
I don't agree that it's a right, but these things are definitely needs that the government should ensure access to. I think of rights as things like equality and free speech. Calling it a privilege and pretending it's something you can just do without is insane. Healthcare is a similar issue. I don't think it's a right, yet I'm shocked by the number of people out there that literally want others to die, so they don't have to pay money.

coldtea 8y ago

>As I've been reminded countless times, "driving is a privilege not a right". That's just a BS saying, not some rule of nature. Societies should define what is a privilege and what is a right. Do you think if there was a referendum on this specific matter (and not tied to 200 other policy questions, like general elections are), people would vote that "yeah, indeed driving is a privilege"?

AcerbicZero 8y ago
>Societies should define what is a privilege and what is a right. That's a hard no. I see where you're going with this, and we likely agree on 90% of this topic anyway, but the issue with society defining rights is that you end up letting the mob decide the "right" of green eyed people to live has just become a privilege. Rights stem from nature, and exist with, or without society. If a society wants to add to the list, they're more than welcome to do so. Those are usually called privileges and its up to the society to attach proper protections to them.
- coldtea 8y ago
  >but the issue with society defining rights is that you end up letting the mob decide the "right" of green eyed people to live has just become a privilege. That's what those in power try to sell, who think they know better, and that the people are savage animals that need to be kept in place. In reality, the worse atrocities have been performed not by mobs, or at least not by mobs on their own, but by well educated, powerful people. All those gentlemen slave owners in the South, all those smooth talking Nazi higher ups (with support from Germanys financial elites), the higher echelons of USSR Party power, colonial gentlemen, and so on. Mobs have nothing on them. >Rights stem from nature, and exist with, or without society. There are no rights in nature -- something anyone who ventures outside of society (in a jungle, in the woods, etc) will very soon find out. Nobody in nature (outside of a human community) will ever protect their live to live, property, or anything else. Rights are a social contract, made because man is a conscious, social, animal. The problem is that the contract is more often than not, presented like Terms of Use, already written from those in power.
- 8y ago

dgzl 8y ago

> but until it is Federally acknowledged that all citizens have a right to drive I guess we're not applying the tenth amendment here? As in, we have rights not explicitly enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

jkaplowitz 8y ago
I'm skeptical that the Supreme Court would agree that a right to drive is one of those rights. Not only did driving not exist when the tenth amendment was proposed or ratified, nowhere in the world (to the best of my knowledge) is driving treated as a right.
int_19h 8y ago
The Tenth says that the rights are "reserved to the states or to the people". A state suspending your driver license would simply claim that it is their right to do so.