4 ms·

Driving actually is a privilege. Hence the reason it can be taken away from you due to misconduct. People in the US agree with this practice. Every driver in

by moheeb 13y ago

Driving actually is a privilege. Hence the reason it can be taken away from you due to misconduct. People in the US agree with this practice. Every driver in the US has to pass a driving test in order to be legally allowed on the road. Is air travel somehow different? Maybe all you folks should be boiling your blood over the fact that you have to prove to the government you're capable of driving!

ilyanep 13y ago
You're right, driving was a bad example. That being said, it's silly to continue adding modes of transport to things that are "privileges, not rights" until people really have no real and significant freedom of movement. Perhaps my example should have been "walking around outside your house".
- laureny 13y ago
  That's a slippery slope fallacy, let's stay away from these, please. Here is the deal: flying brings you conveniences and comes with inconveniences. It's entirely up to you which one outweighs the other, but whatever the choice you make, you can't claim that a right is being taken away from you if you are turned away from a flight. If you really think you have a case, call the ACLU and see them laugh at you.
  - ilyanep 13y ago
    Okay, but trains are legitimate ground, because the TSA has previously set up in the New York subway (http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/28/travel/tsa-vipr-passenger-train-searches http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/28/travel/tsa-vipr-passenger-trai...). To some extent, stop-and-frisk (as I linked to above) means that there are governments in the country who feel that they can search you while you're walking around, so my bringing them up isn't that silly. Again I ask, what modes of transport are privileges and how many of them can we take away (not because you are incompetent at controlling them, but because you refused to subject yourself to a search) without completely destroying freedom of movement?

by moheeb 13y ago

ilyanep 13y ago

You're right, driving was a bad example. That being said, it's silly to continue adding modes of transport to things that are "privileges, not rights" until people really have no real and significant freedom of movement. Perhaps my example should have been "walking around outside your house".

laureny 13y ago
That's a slippery slope fallacy, let's stay away from these, please. Here is the deal: flying brings you conveniences and comes with inconveniences. It's entirely up to you which one outweighs the other, but whatever the choice you make, you can't claim that a right is being taken away from you if you are turned away from a flight. If you really think you have a case, call the ACLU and see them laugh at you.
- ilyanep 13y ago
  Okay, but trains are legitimate ground, because the TSA has previously set up in the New York subway (http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/28/travel/tsa-vipr-passenger-train-searches http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/28/travel/tsa-vipr-passenger-trai...). To some extent, stop-and-frisk (as I linked to above) means that there are governments in the country who feel that they can search you while you're walking around, so my bringing them up isn't that silly. Again I ask, what modes of transport are privileges and how many of them can we take away (not because you are incompetent at controlling them, but because you refused to subject yourself to a search) without completely destroying freedom of movement?