6 ms·

You don't have any constitutional "right" to fly. Has that even been tested in court? If you live in Hawaii not being able to use airlines would be a massive r

You don't have any constitutional "right" to fly. Has that even been tested in court? If you live in Hawaii not being able to use airlines would be a massive restriction. The right to free movement has been written into most every constitution because the framers had actual experience with oppressive government that issued internal passports to silence revolutionaries.

atonse 6y ago
That's why I made the distinction. Nobody can prevent you from moving around as a human being. But people absolutely can prevent you from entering their car, van, bus, or their plane. That is their private property. The TSA made this weird (where government employees are enforcing things on "private" land like an airport for a "private" flight) but that's post 9/11 weirdness for you.
- gruez 6y ago
  How far can you extend this? * you don't have the right to drive (I think this widely affirmed in the courts) * you don't have the right to use public transport (after all, if they can ban planes, why not trains or buses?) * you don't have the right to bike (after all, if motor vehicles are regulated, why not all vehicles?) * you don't have the right to walk on interstates
  - pb7 6y ago
    * you don't have the right to drive Is it a "right" if it can be taken away? You can definitely be prohibited from driving for things like DUIs. >* you don't have the right to walk on interstates This is already the case.
    - Fargren 6y ago
      > Is it a "right" if it can be taken away? Of course. Every person that was ever murdered had a right to live, even when it was taken away. Would you say that they didn't? Rights exists regardless of whether they are respected, that's what makes them rights.
      - pb7 6y ago
        Taken away illegally, hence a "murder". It's not a right if it can be legally taken away by your government. Speech is a right. Driving is a privilege.
        Fargren 6y ago
        Rights are not granted by governments, they are recognized by governments. They exist as part of our culture.
        a1369209993 6y ago
        Rights are not granted by culture, they are recognized by culture. They exist regardless of whether they are violated.
  - atonse 6y ago
    You're leaving out an important distinction. You don't have a right to do those things _in harmful ways_. If you are an unsafe driver (whether it's excessive speeding, drunk driving, etc) you absolutely should be barred from the roads. I am actually very much a live and let live type person. Where I start having issues is when your lifestyle puts others in danger. Drink all you want... at home. Or in a bar. But get a taxi home. If you are going to be a belligerent drunk that's harassing others, you absolutely should be kicked out of even public transportation. I am totally against MANY of the policies of the TSA (mostly on grounds of what's effective, and also what's unnecessarily invasive from a privacy standpoint). But I am not against the existence of something like a TSA.
  - brewdad 6y ago
    Of those examples, bicycling is the only one I've never seen taken away. Drivers licenses are required to drive and they get taken away for violations all the time. Fare Evasion or gross misbehavior can have you "excluded" from my city's mass transit system. Walking on the interstate is generally forbidden except in emergency situations.
    - dripton 6y ago
      The right to bicycle in general is not licensed in the US. However, some roads allow bikes and some do not. This seems to mostly be done in a way to not overly restrict freedom of travel. For example, in densely populated places like the Northeastern US, it's not allowed to bike on Interstates, but that's deemed okay because there's usually a parallel smaller highway that allows bikes. While in sparsely populated parts of the Western US, it's sometimes allowed to bike on the shoulder of Interstates, because it's the only road. However, governments aren't perfect, so there are gaps in the logic, like some bridges that don't allow bikes even though they're the only way to cross a large body of water for miles and miles. I'd like to believe that a legal challenge to allow bikes on such bridges, or to require the government to ferry bicyclists over such bridges, would succeed.
      - swimfar 6y ago
        I got stuck on the non-downtown side of Shanghai once because I assumed that I'd be able to walk or bike across at least one of the bridges. But I couldn't find any way to get across. I had to wander around until the metro opened back up in the morning to get back across (and make it to flight in time).
        ehasbrouck 6y ago
        When i first visited Shanghai in 1989, there were no bridges or tunnels between the Bund sid eof the river and the Pudong side, only the ferries. (pudong was mostly farms.) The ferries are less used now, but there are still some in operation, incluidng some that run 24 hours a day: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Ferry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Ferry The ferries are especially useful if you want to take a bicycle across the river.
  - liability 6y ago
    Driving a car means operating a machine. Flying a plane is analogous to that. Being a passenger on an airplane is not analogous to driving a car. Do you not have a right to be a passenger in a car? Does the government have a right to prohibit you from accepting rides from your friends, or paying a licensed cab driver?
    - shard 6y ago
      I don't think it's about operating a machine per se, it's about the danger level of the machine. As others have pointed out, there's been no attempts to regulate operating a bicycle.
      - liability 6y ago
        A car requires a license because it's a particularly dangerous machine, obviously not all machines require licenses. A car passenger could cause a car accident (have you seen the video of a woman attacking a bus driver, causing the bus to fall off a bridge, killing 15 people?) Yet we only require the operators of such machines to be licensed.
  - ultrarunner 6y ago
    This is a very real concern in the desert West where I live. We have few highways exiting the city with large expanses in between. This weekend the three to the north (I17), north-east (SR87) and east (SR60) were all closed. The 87 and 60 are the only ways out that cross the Verde river, making that particularly problematic. The remaining interstate, the I10, regularly closes as well, and while somewhat unlikely it wouldn't be shocking to find that Phoenix residents are literally stuck where they live. Additionally, much of the land surrounding the city is closed for fire restrictions, or as the result of the Bush fire burn scar being ecologically fragile. Practically, this isn't more than an annoyance as people find they can't return home from weekend vacations up north. But ideologically being literally prohibited from legal travel is unbefitting of somewhere once called "the land of the free."
  - gnopgnip 6y ago
    Your "right to travel" is part of the 5th amendment, a right not to be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. Constitutional rights can still be restricted if they meet the relevant test, for due process it is generally rational basis. Requiring licensed drivers, registering cars, meets the rational basis test and is not unconstitutional. Restricting interstates/freeways to vehicles capable of 55+(when there are other roads available, there are some areas where bicycles or walking is allowed on freeways) also generally meets the rational basis test and is not unconstitutional. Traveling is not the same thing as driving. Being a passenger, vs driving. You could have your right to drive restricted because you were convicted of a crime and pose a danger to others, but that doesn't usually mean your right to travel is restricted. You generally do have a right to use public transit, unless you have been given due process and lost that right.
- HarryHirsch 6y ago
  When it comes to public transport the public-private distinction becomes artificial, public transport is national infrastructure. To the traveller it makes no difference if the bus belongs to the city council or if the city contracts bus company X for transportation.
  - ggrrhh_ta 6y ago
    Also, private transportation can be thought as operating under a license from the state on the use of the land/air space, or some parts thereof, which can include the passing of private property belonging to others, given that the ownership of real state itself is regulated (for example, on the use of vertical column of space). Therefore, private transportation can be forced to abide to restrictions imposed by that license to operate.

atonse 6y ago

That's why I made the distinction. Nobody can prevent you from moving around as a human being. But people absolutely can prevent you from entering their car, van, bus, or their plane. That is their private property. The TSA made this weird (where government employees are enforcing things on "private" land like an airport for a "private" flight) but that's post 9/11 weirdness for you.

gruez 6y ago
How far can you extend this? * you don't have the right to drive (I think this widely affirmed in the courts) * you don't have the right to use public transport (after all, if they can ban planes, why not trains or buses?) * you don't have the right to bike (after all, if motor vehicles are regulated, why not all vehicles?) * you don't have the right to walk on interstates
- pb7 6y ago
  * you don't have the right to drive Is it a "right" if it can be taken away? You can definitely be prohibited from driving for things like DUIs. >* you don't have the right to walk on interstates This is already the case.
  - Fargren 6y ago
    > Is it a "right" if it can be taken away? Of course. Every person that was ever murdered had a right to live, even when it was taken away. Would you say that they didn't? Rights exists regardless of whether they are respected, that's what makes them rights.
    - pb7 6y ago
      Taken away illegally, hence a "murder". It's not a right if it can be legally taken away by your government. Speech is a right. Driving is a privilege.
      - Fargren 6y ago
        Rights are not granted by governments, they are recognized by governments. They exist as part of our culture.
        a1369209993 6y ago
        Rights are not granted by culture, they are recognized by culture. They exist regardless of whether they are violated.
- atonse 6y ago
  You're leaving out an important distinction. You don't have a right to do those things _in harmful ways_. If you are an unsafe driver (whether it's excessive speeding, drunk driving, etc) you absolutely should be barred from the roads. I am actually very much a live and let live type person. Where I start having issues is when your lifestyle puts others in danger. Drink all you want... at home. Or in a bar. But get a taxi home. If you are going to be a belligerent drunk that's harassing others, you absolutely should be kicked out of even public transportation. I am totally against MANY of the policies of the TSA (mostly on grounds of what's effective, and also what's unnecessarily invasive from a privacy standpoint). But I am not against the existence of something like a TSA.
- brewdad 6y ago
  Of those examples, bicycling is the only one I've never seen taken away. Drivers licenses are required to drive and they get taken away for violations all the time. Fare Evasion or gross misbehavior can have you "excluded" from my city's mass transit system. Walking on the interstate is generally forbidden except in emergency situations.
  - dripton 6y ago
    The right to bicycle in general is not licensed in the US. However, some roads allow bikes and some do not. This seems to mostly be done in a way to not overly restrict freedom of travel. For example, in densely populated places like the Northeastern US, it's not allowed to bike on Interstates, but that's deemed okay because there's usually a parallel smaller highway that allows bikes. While in sparsely populated parts of the Western US, it's sometimes allowed to bike on the shoulder of Interstates, because it's the only road. However, governments aren't perfect, so there are gaps in the logic, like some bridges that don't allow bikes even though they're the only way to cross a large body of water for miles and miles. I'd like to believe that a legal challenge to allow bikes on such bridges, or to require the government to ferry bicyclists over such bridges, would succeed.
    - swimfar 6y ago
      I got stuck on the non-downtown side of Shanghai once because I assumed that I'd be able to walk or bike across at least one of the bridges. But I couldn't find any way to get across. I had to wander around until the metro opened back up in the morning to get back across (and make it to flight in time).
      - ehasbrouck 6y ago
        When i first visited Shanghai in 1989, there were no bridges or tunnels between the Bund sid eof the river and the Pudong side, only the ferries. (pudong was mostly farms.) The ferries are less used now, but there are still some in operation, incluidng some that run 24 hours a day: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Ferry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Ferry The ferries are especially useful if you want to take a bicycle across the river.
- liability 6y ago
  Driving a car means operating a machine. Flying a plane is analogous to that. Being a passenger on an airplane is not analogous to driving a car. Do you not have a right to be a passenger in a car? Does the government have a right to prohibit you from accepting rides from your friends, or paying a licensed cab driver?
  - shard 6y ago
    I don't think it's about operating a machine per se, it's about the danger level of the machine. As others have pointed out, there's been no attempts to regulate operating a bicycle.
    - liability 6y ago
      A car requires a license because it's a particularly dangerous machine, obviously not all machines require licenses. A car passenger could cause a car accident (have you seen the video of a woman attacking a bus driver, causing the bus to fall off a bridge, killing 15 people?) Yet we only require the operators of such machines to be licensed.
- ultrarunner 6y ago
  This is a very real concern in the desert West where I live. We have few highways exiting the city with large expanses in between. This weekend the three to the north (I17), north-east (SR87) and east (SR60) were all closed. The 87 and 60 are the only ways out that cross the Verde river, making that particularly problematic. The remaining interstate, the I10, regularly closes as well, and while somewhat unlikely it wouldn't be shocking to find that Phoenix residents are literally stuck where they live. Additionally, much of the land surrounding the city is closed for fire restrictions, or as the result of the Bush fire burn scar being ecologically fragile. Practically, this isn't more than an annoyance as people find they can't return home from weekend vacations up north. But ideologically being literally prohibited from legal travel is unbefitting of somewhere once called "the land of the free."
- gnopgnip 6y ago
  Your "right to travel" is part of the 5th amendment, a right not to be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. Constitutional rights can still be restricted if they meet the relevant test, for due process it is generally rational basis. Requiring licensed drivers, registering cars, meets the rational basis test and is not unconstitutional. Restricting interstates/freeways to vehicles capable of 55+(when there are other roads available, there are some areas where bicycles or walking is allowed on freeways) also generally meets the rational basis test and is not unconstitutional. Traveling is not the same thing as driving. Being a passenger, vs driving. You could have your right to drive restricted because you were convicted of a crime and pose a danger to others, but that doesn't usually mean your right to travel is restricted. You generally do have a right to use public transit, unless you have been given due process and lost that right.
HarryHirsch 6y ago
When it comes to public transport the public-private distinction becomes artificial, public transport is national infrastructure. To the traveller it makes no difference if the bus belongs to the city council or if the city contracts bus company X for transportation.
- ggrrhh_ta 6y ago
  Also, private transportation can be thought as operating under a license from the state on the use of the land/air space, or some parts thereof, which can include the passing of private property belonging to others, given that the ownership of real state itself is regulated (for example, on the use of vertical column of space). Therefore, private transportation can be forced to abide to restrictions imposed by that license to operate.