5 ms·

I'm not sure this principle works in reality. It seems to entail that somebody who fails their driving exam must still be allowed to drive and that somebody wit

by chc 13y ago

I'm not sure this principle works in reality. It seems to entail that somebody who fails their driving exam must still be allowed to drive and that somebody with no training should be able to advertise himself as a surgeon. (Just in case anybody didn't follow the above: Failing an exam or lacking training are not crimes you can be charged with, so under the principle "Either you have enough evidence to charge them with something or you have no business restricting them from doing anything," we have no business restricting anyone from doing anything on those bases.)

HarryHirsch 13y ago
Most constitutions include a right to speedy trial. One would think that that is because the framers had experience with secret courts, detention for political reasons &c. This institutional memory has been lost.
- chc 13y ago
  I am not sure what this has to do with what I said. Did you mean to respond to somebody else?
shpxnvz 13y ago
> It seems to entail that somebody who fails their driving exam must still be allowed to drive and that somebody with no training should be able to advertise himself as a surgeon. Yes, it absolutely does. Life as a free person is dangerous, and being free necessarily means not being protected from potential harm caused by others. It means people are held responsible after the fact, but not restrained prior.
- chc 13y ago
  If that's what you think, you are welcome to your opinion, but I don't believe you'll find a lot of popular support for the idea that unlicensed drivers and fake surgeons are things we should embrace.
  - talmand 13y ago
    I don't see freedom requiring to embrace such things. Freedom doesn't mean you can do anything you feel like doing, that's anarchy. Freedom means you can do whatever you like that does not infringe upon the rights of the person next to you. You can't make other people slaves to your freedom. The difference I would say about your examples is that the actions of those people will potentially infringe directly upon the rights of others so there is probable cause for prior restraint. But even in those cases you can point out that the person wishes to perform a singular direct action without adequate training on another person that will most likely result in the harming of that person. You are at least accusing that person of wanting to do something that will likely be bad, with evidence to back it up, since performing surgery without training is a bad idea. I'm sure you can find examples of why it's a bad idea. I would see that as quite different than preventing a person from boarding an aircraft with absolutely no evidence or, in some cases, even an accusation of any wrongdoing.
    - chc 13y ago
      Why does a person on a public road infringe on rights but not a person on a plane in public airspace? In both cases, the idea seems to be "You can't use this public conduit if we believe you'd be an unreasonable danger to the other people around." Neither requires a trial.
      - talmand 13y ago
        Because they are two very different things. When driving a car you are the operator and need to show you can do so safely without harming others on the public road. You are not required to have a license to be a passenger in a car on a public road. When flying in an aircraft you are a passenger and therefore no license is required. But be assured that guy up front flying the airplane has his pilot's license that shows they are capable of doing so safely. When you are restricted from driving on a public road due to lack of a license that is society actively accusing you of being a danger to everyone else. The issue you are trying to compare this to are people being on a no-fly list that don't know why they are on this list and no one will tell them. That's the main difference, the accusation. If the police were confiscating driver's licenses from people and forcing them to walk instead of driving without explanation, then that would be the same thing. Now, if you have a history of attempting to bring down airplanes while in flight while you were on board, then they could rightfully restrict you from entering any other planes. At least in that case there's the accusation. But I don't understand your thought of being restricted without trial as a strange concept. It's done all the time. Try to enter a restricted government building or a military base without permission and see how far you get. Even better, enter a stranger's house and see what happens. There are numerous restrictions in a free society that in essence helps maintain that freedom. Assuming that these restrictions are placed equally on everyone then that person next to you is restricted from doing things to you that you won't like just as much as you are restricted from doing them to him. Of course, these restrictions can get oppressive and abusive if allowed to get out of hand.
kuusisto 13y ago
It may not be illegal to fail a driving exam, but it is illegal to drive without a license. You acquire said license by passing the exam.
- chc 13y ago
  Which means that we are restricting them from driving without having charged them with anything. Which is what we're talking about here.
  - shadowfox 13y ago
    It is a restriction from operating a particular piece of machinery on (essentially) public land, isnt it? You can still travel by the same mechanism as long as you are not the one operating it. That seems fairly different from restricting travel by air.
  - danbruc 13y ago
    Freedom does not mean you are allowed to do or refrain everything you want because you have to respect the freedom of everybody else. Therefore your freedom ends when it limits the freedom of somebody else. It is not hard to argue that you are (probably) limiting the freedom of other people to walk safely across streets when you are driving without license or after having a few drinks. Freedom and prohibitions are not mutual exclusive.
  - MaysonL 13y ago
    No, we're not. We're just saying that if they get caught driving without a license, they'll likely be prosecuted for that offense. They're perfectly free to try not getting caught. People on the no-fly list will be physically restrained from boarding a plane.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - talmand 13y ago
    Actually you can drive a vehicle all you want without a license as long as you don't do it on a public road. The license doesn't allow you to drive a vehicle; it allows you to use public roads that have certain rules, for safety mostly, associated with them. Your license proves that you understand said rules and will obey them while on the public road. A lack of a license shows you cannot be bothered to follow the rules and are a danger to everyone else on the road. Therefore, you must be removed from the road for the safety of the others. Preventing an unlicensed driver from using a public road is more about the other people on the road than the single driver. Your freedom doesn't allow you to be a danger to others. For instance, in many US states you are not required to have a license to operate farm equipment on a public road. There's likely many reasons for this but the rules of the road in those areas do not restrict you in those cases. If I had a large enough tract of land that a shortcut going through the middle was beneficial to people around the property I can put up a sign at the entrance that states if you wish to use my road on my land then you follow my rules. It's the same principle. Also, many a young teenager legally learned to drive a vehicle, cars or motorcycles, on private land even though it would be illegal for them to do so on a public road.
grey-area 13y ago
"Either you have enough evidence to charge them with something or you have no business restricting them from doing anything," we have no business restricting anyone from doing anything on those bases.) I imagine what the OP meant was that you have no business restricting them from doing anything otherwise lawful if they have not been charged with a crime (for example travelling or calling someone etc). Otherwise the statement is nonsensical and means they don't accept civil society and the rule of law (your interpretation). This is a founding principle of many legal systems - that laws and restrictions have to be clearly explained and open to challenge, and judgements have to be public - and yet it has been violated in the West for some time by no-fly lists and watch-lists which have no way of being challenged, no explanation as to why people end up on them, and often no way to get off.

by chc 13y ago

HarryHirsch 13y ago

Most constitutions include a right to speedy trial. One would think that that is because the framers had experience with secret courts, detention for political reasons &c. This institutional memory has been lost.

chc 13y ago
I am not sure what this has to do with what I said. Did you mean to respond to somebody else?

shpxnvz 13y ago

> It seems to entail that somebody who fails their driving exam must still be allowed to drive and that somebody with no training should be able to advertise himself as a surgeon. Yes, it absolutely does. Life as a free person is dangerous, and being free necessarily means not being protected from potential harm caused by others. It means people are held responsible after the fact, but not restrained prior.

chc 13y ago
If that's what you think, you are welcome to your opinion, but I don't believe you'll find a lot of popular support for the idea that unlicensed drivers and fake surgeons are things we should embrace.
- talmand 13y ago
  I don't see freedom requiring to embrace such things. Freedom doesn't mean you can do anything you feel like doing, that's anarchy. Freedom means you can do whatever you like that does not infringe upon the rights of the person next to you. You can't make other people slaves to your freedom. The difference I would say about your examples is that the actions of those people will potentially infringe directly upon the rights of others so there is probable cause for prior restraint. But even in those cases you can point out that the person wishes to perform a singular direct action without adequate training on another person that will most likely result in the harming of that person. You are at least accusing that person of wanting to do something that will likely be bad, with evidence to back it up, since performing surgery without training is a bad idea. I'm sure you can find examples of why it's a bad idea. I would see that as quite different than preventing a person from boarding an aircraft with absolutely no evidence or, in some cases, even an accusation of any wrongdoing.
  - chc 13y ago
    Why does a person on a public road infringe on rights but not a person on a plane in public airspace? In both cases, the idea seems to be "You can't use this public conduit if we believe you'd be an unreasonable danger to the other people around." Neither requires a trial.
    - talmand 13y ago
      Because they are two very different things. When driving a car you are the operator and need to show you can do so safely without harming others on the public road. You are not required to have a license to be a passenger in a car on a public road. When flying in an aircraft you are a passenger and therefore no license is required. But be assured that guy up front flying the airplane has his pilot's license that shows they are capable of doing so safely. When you are restricted from driving on a public road due to lack of a license that is society actively accusing you of being a danger to everyone else. The issue you are trying to compare this to are people being on a no-fly list that don't know why they are on this list and no one will tell them. That's the main difference, the accusation. If the police were confiscating driver's licenses from people and forcing them to walk instead of driving without explanation, then that would be the same thing. Now, if you have a history of attempting to bring down airplanes while in flight while you were on board, then they could rightfully restrict you from entering any other planes. At least in that case there's the accusation. But I don't understand your thought of being restricted without trial as a strange concept. It's done all the time. Try to enter a restricted government building or a military base without permission and see how far you get. Even better, enter a stranger's house and see what happens. There are numerous restrictions in a free society that in essence helps maintain that freedom. Assuming that these restrictions are placed equally on everyone then that person next to you is restricted from doing things to you that you won't like just as much as you are restricted from doing them to him. Of course, these restrictions can get oppressive and abusive if allowed to get out of hand.

kuusisto 13y ago

It may not be illegal to fail a driving exam, but it is illegal to drive without a license. You acquire said license by passing the exam.

chc 13y ago
Which means that we are restricting them from driving without having charged them with anything. Which is what we're talking about here.
- shadowfox 13y ago
  It is a restriction from operating a particular piece of machinery on (essentially) public land, isnt it? You can still travel by the same mechanism as long as you are not the one operating it. That seems fairly different from restricting travel by air.
- danbruc 13y ago
  Freedom does not mean you are allowed to do or refrain everything you want because you have to respect the freedom of everybody else. Therefore your freedom ends when it limits the freedom of somebody else. It is not hard to argue that you are (probably) limiting the freedom of other people to walk safely across streets when you are driving without license or after having a few drinks. Freedom and prohibitions are not mutual exclusive.
- MaysonL 13y ago
  No, we're not. We're just saying that if they get caught driving without a license, they'll likely be prosecuted for that offense. They're perfectly free to try not getting caught. People on the no-fly list will be physically restrained from boarding a plane.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- talmand 13y ago
  Actually you can drive a vehicle all you want without a license as long as you don't do it on a public road. The license doesn't allow you to drive a vehicle; it allows you to use public roads that have certain rules, for safety mostly, associated with them. Your license proves that you understand said rules and will obey them while on the public road. A lack of a license shows you cannot be bothered to follow the rules and are a danger to everyone else on the road. Therefore, you must be removed from the road for the safety of the others. Preventing an unlicensed driver from using a public road is more about the other people on the road than the single driver. Your freedom doesn't allow you to be a danger to others. For instance, in many US states you are not required to have a license to operate farm equipment on a public road. There's likely many reasons for this but the rules of the road in those areas do not restrict you in those cases. If I had a large enough tract of land that a shortcut going through the middle was beneficial to people around the property I can put up a sign at the entrance that states if you wish to use my road on my land then you follow my rules. It's the same principle. Also, many a young teenager legally learned to drive a vehicle, cars or motorcycles, on private land even though it would be illegal for them to do so on a public road.

grey-area 13y ago

"Either you have enough evidence to charge them with something or you have no business restricting them from doing anything," we have no business restricting anyone from doing anything on those bases.) I imagine what the OP meant was that you have no business restricting them from doing anything otherwise lawful if they have not been charged with a crime (for example travelling or calling someone etc). Otherwise the statement is nonsensical and means they don't accept civil society and the rule of law (your interpretation). This is a founding principle of many legal systems - that laws and restrictions have to be clearly explained and open to challenge, and judgements have to be public - and yet it has been violated in the West for some time by no-fly lists and watch-lists which have no way of being challenged, no explanation as to why people end up on them, and often no way to get off.