5 ms·

Driving is also easier and more convenient than walking but it would be absurd to suggest that everyone should have a car available for them to drive as a const

Driving is also easier and more convenient than walking but it would be absurd to suggest that everyone should have a car available for them to drive as a constitutional human rights. Another counter point is that cash is arguably easier and more convenient in some aspects for some people.

zdragnar 5y ago
Nit: owning property is a constitutional right. Compelling someone else to provide it for you with the force of law is not.
- DoreenMichele 5y ago
  Yeah, it's a driver's license that's a privilege not a right. Own all the cars you want. Create a car museum if that's your thing and you've got the funds. But behave if you want to actually legally drive any of them.
  - zdragnar 5y ago
    No license is required to operate a vehicle on private land... it is only on public roadways (which are public land) and public accomodations (privately owned parking lots that are publicly accessible) that a license is required.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
- bugbuddy 5y ago
  I thought it would be obvious what I meant. I should have anticipated the lawyers in the audience here.
temp8964 5y ago
Owning a car is a constitutional right as owning other stuff. It’s called property right.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
bally0241 5y ago
5th amendment: "...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..." Pretty sure freezing someone's bank account based on some suspicion alone, is depriving them of their property without due process, and not remotely equivalent to driving without a license (or a duly revoked license), so your comparison is really off base. Maybe you could possibly argue this way if upon freezing their accounts they called them up and said "Hey, your account is closed, come pick up your cash", but I'm pretty sure that is not the case here, and it is rather more like a civil-asset-forfeiture situation, where they'll likely need to go to court to regain access. Now, all that being said, this is Canada, so I don't honest know whether there is an equivalent to the 5th amendment in their charter of rights, or whether there is some legal weasel word (e.g. "reasonable") that somehow provides a loophole for all this.

zdragnar 5y ago

Nit: owning property is a constitutional right. Compelling someone else to provide it for you with the force of law is not.

DoreenMichele 5y ago
Yeah, it's a driver's license that's a privilege not a right. Own all the cars you want. Create a car museum if that's your thing and you've got the funds. But behave if you want to actually legally drive any of them.
- zdragnar 5y ago
  No license is required to operate a vehicle on private land... it is only on public roadways (which are public land) and public accomodations (privately owned parking lots that are publicly accessible) that a license is required.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
bugbuddy 5y ago
I thought it would be obvious what I meant. I should have anticipated the lawyers in the audience here.

temp8964 5y ago

Owning a car is a constitutional right as owning other stuff. It’s called property right.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

bally0241 5y ago

5th amendment: "...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..." Pretty sure freezing someone's bank account based on some suspicion alone, is depriving them of their property without due process, and not remotely equivalent to driving without a license (or a duly revoked license), so your comparison is really off base. Maybe you could possibly argue this way if upon freezing their accounts they called them up and said "Hey, your account is closed, come pick up your cash", but I'm pretty sure that is not the case here, and it is rather more like a civil-asset-forfeiture situation, where they'll likely need to go to court to regain access. Now, all that being said, this is Canada, so I don't honest know whether there is an equivalent to the 5th amendment in their charter of rights, or whether there is some legal weasel word (e.g. "reasonable") that somehow provides a loophole for all this.