If you've never had jury duty or been to court, people say some dumb shjt in court
@Not him again, no joke, going to a court filled with black simple is the most entertaining thing ever. Phones going off. People wearing hats and baggy stuff, and crazy ass stories of baby mommas fighting and going through windows and fights. Oh man, is it hilarious. Also makes me realize segregation is not such a bad idea.
@LeuitenantObvious, well of course segregation is a bad idea. My best friend at my old workplaces was black. Doesn't mean we didn't give each other shjt for being an opposite of color. Yeah we both joked sometimes, but who cares
@LeuitenantObvious, ...are you for real?
The judge tacitly admitted, however, that suspending someone’s license is a de facto deprivation of liberty.
Let the liberty run through you...
@EatMyAss, driving is not a right, it is a privilege. Privileges have to be earned, and can be forfeited
@occasionalmutant, Better strap in, son. It’s gonna be a rough ride...
Rights are pre-existent. They are inherent in one’s being, derived from the very core of consciousness. People (either individually or as a group effort) can attempt to name them and attempt to protect them, as well as violate and molest them. But they cannot be created by anyone.
The notion that certain activities are not rights because they aren’t enumerated in any State recognized document does not negate their existence.
In this case, we are discussing the right to locomote, to move.
@EatMyAss, It is not your right to drive a vehicle of potential choas on a publicly owned road. You are allowed to be locomotive. However you are not allowed to be locomotive in a vehicle you control without proper certifications that show you understand how to use those vehicles in a safe manner on a road with other people who could be killed by your actions.
And thus why its a privilege within multiple forms of possibilities to be locomotive. And not a right for this specific form of travel. Since you are still free to be locomotive. But need to understand the safety measures in place for all to travel safely.
Rights are typically something that is viewed as guaranteed by your peers and government. Privileges are things granted when there’s significant public safety concerns involved.
Glad you want to strap in.
First, we are not talking about the right to move (or locomote (sic)). We are talking about the state granted privilege to operate a motor vehicle. There are plenty of other ways to move (walk, bike, commute by cab, bus, train, uber). And certainly no one can claim that driving is inherent in one’s being, derived from the very core if consciousness. Before the invention of automobiles, there was no awareness nor consciousness of the concept.
From a legal perspective, in 1999, the 9th US Circuit Court ruled that there is no fundamental right to drive (Donald S Miller v California DMV). There is a fundamental right to travel, but not to drive.
Further, even when a right exists, it has limits. When one person’s right infringes on another person’s right, restrictions are often enacted. And if one person, exercising his/her right, becomes a danger to himself or others, his rights can be restricted (e.g. right to free speech, but you cannot
yell FIRE in a crowded theater: right to freedom, but you cannot assault people without provocation).
There are some inalienable rights (life, liberty), but most other rights have been defined over time, either by statute or legal ruling ( e.g. weapon ownership is not an innate right, a constitutional amendment was added to define it).
@occasionalmutant, Well, the Supreme Court’s never gotten anything wrong... (heavy, separate but equal sarcasm)
@EatMyAss, I categorically disagree with the statement that weapons ownership isn’t an intrinsic right. The implication that one conducts themselves upon the blessing of the masses is so utterly repugnant that I posit t as perhaps the most evil idea ever. That notion is the basis for every form of oppression and tyranny.
@EatMyAss, see, the ownership of weapons, in and of itself, is not an intrinsic right. However, being able to defend your rights is something that is necessary, and since those wanting to infringe on your rights often have guns, the people must necessarily have the ability to defend themselves in kind.
Regardless, the suspension of a license is an infringement of rights in the same way as arresting someone or putting them in prison. It is a punitive measure, one used when someone has broken the law. Now, unless you’re all for releasing all of the US’s prisoners because their rights are being infringed, you need to understand that not every issue can be solved by an extreme position either way.
@Ultimatum, I’d release the vast majority of prisoners, actually. The US model of criminal justice is an abomination. We have the balls to call ourselves the “land of the free” while we maintain the highest incarceration rate in the he world; higher than any country ever, actually.
As for owning arms, it is a natural right. I can go out, on my own, harvest iron ore and manipulate it into a firearm, all without the involvement of another person. It’s an extension of property rights, meaning the right to obtain and retain objects, the right to defend one’s own life, as well as the right to take game for food.
But most importantly, there’s concept of “intrinsic” rights and (by implication) “extrinsic” rights are an abstraction with no bearing on the validity of the specific activity in regards to whether it would be less a violation of one’s personhood to deny said right. They’re all just various human rights, which have been named and described over time.
@EatMyAss, in the case of those incarcerated for drug-related offenses(possession or sale), then I’d agree with you; smoking a joint doesn’t infringe on anyone’s rights. As for the rest, they’re in there for a reason. We have high incarceration rates because we have high crime rates, and that’s a whole other issue.
And your argument on the natural right could be extrapolated to nuclear weapons. Do you think that civilians should have access to nuclear weaponry?
@Ultimatum, I believe that criminalizing anything that doesn’t violate the rights of another or isn’t highly likely to do so (absent criminal intent) is wrong.
So, in the case of the tactical McNuke, it would rightfully be conditionally prohibited as any other intrinsically hazardous thing would be.
@EatMyAss, and I agree wholeheartedly, which is where we finally get into the nuance. The “highly likely to do so” is the main thing here. If a person is highly likely to infringe on another person’s rights with a vehicle (i.e. destroying someone’s property, harming people), or with a gun (prior violent crime, mental instability, etc.), then they should be limited.
@Ultimatum, Ah. Excellent. We’re onto my main point...
The LICENSE isn’t necessary. I have genuine esteem for traffic rules, which establish right-of-way and provide for an order where there is both need and a natural order doesn’t exist.
The license itself is, at this point, a mechanism for government to charge you money and establish documents to prove their personhood as an acceptable idea.
If it were truly about the public’s well-being, then there would be no charge to obtain and maintain a license and most importantly, it couldn’t be suspended or revoked for any reason than inability (or refusal) to operate vehicles appropriately.
DLs are usually suspended for non-motor vehicle infractions.
In short, licenses are about control of the people by the State, not ensuring highway safety.
@EatMyAss, I suppose? Licenses are revoked in cases of non-motor vehicle infractions as a way to prevent people from just skipping town to avoid the trial. It’s a lot less expensive for the government to temporarily take away your ability to drive than to incarcerate you or put you on house arrest, or to track you down and forcibly bring you to court, all of which are also a lot more limiting of one’s rights than not allowing them to drive.
I was once selected for jury duty, and in the that stupid meeting where the judge asks you if you have any preconceived notions about the case or individuals in question, I simply said, "no Judge, I don't. But if finding this guy guilty supports the state's case, I'm sure you'll find him guilty. So me being here is entirely irrelevant and a waste of my time." I was dismissed as a jurer.
Well i guess we know who the judge sided with
I'll allow it.
* obligatory Phoenix Wright Objection reference*
@eleven, *OBJECTION!* Fkn rude.
Part of me says fake, because Twitter likes are, for some reason, as valuable as facebook likes were 6 years ago. Not valuable but still desired for some reason. But then, I've been in court for a speeding ticket, and guy before me (also for ticket) came in wasted. So yeah, court is filled with whacky shjt.
Get you a man that can do both?