10 votes

Is driving an automobile really a privilege, or a right?

Since I can remember, I've been told by government employees, teachers, and even family (who I'm sure learned it from their schools) that driving a car is a privilege, not a right. Is driving a vehicle really just a privilege? Let's examine this for a moment.

If we believe in individual liberty and the free markets, then that alone is enough to disprove this theory. Before the automobile, people traveled by train, horse, or feet, and that was not considered a privilege, because to own a horse or ride on a train was your right to purchase, as it was the right for the person to sell you the horse or the ticket.

Freedom to travel, or freedom of movement, is a natural right. When the government states that driving is a privilege, and then requiring us to receive a license to operate a automobile, then they can take away that "privilege" if they feel the need, therefore they presume the right of being in charge of a form of travel. In this situation, they have come between us and a car dealership, negating a transaction between two free individuals within a so called "free market", which it no longer appears to be.

Finally, a driver license was not put in place until the 1900's, and in every state by 1918*, which means that before government assumed ownership of travel per automobile, it was a right, though short lived.

Thoughts?

* http://amhistory.si.edu/onthemove/exhibition/exhibition_8_2....



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

State v. Hackett, 72 Conn. App. 127

"At oral argument, he claimed that (1) he did not violate § 14-215 because a license is not required to operate a motor vehicle on private property without a posted speed limit, ... We conclude that one whose operator's license is under suspension violates § 14-215 whenever he operates a motor vehicle, regardless of whether it is operated on public or private property"

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1111830444961767...

In Connecticut, this case specifically overturned State v. Haight, 194 A.2nd 718 (1963) because the "plain language [of CGS § 14-215] is more convincing than the Haight analysis."

Tell me I am making crazy points. Do you think that is the only such case in any state? Yes, you are going off the deep end. Not only do you have zero response to the scholarly article I linked you will have no response to this citation. You have no response to a fundamental point the law makes liable not grant permission as if expressions positive obligations, positive rights, or negative rights have never been thought up or discussed. The plain language of the case cited could not prove you more factually incorrect.

Read the case a little closer. Defendent was not "unlicensed"

he had a "suspended license". There is a difference.

The law is cited in the case.

"Section 14-215 (a) provides in relevant part: "No person to whom an operator's license has been refused, or whose operator's license or right to operate a motor vehicle ... has been suspended or revoked, shall operate any motor vehicle during the period of such refusal, suspension or revocation...."

The defendant had a punitive action taken against him for previous violations. That punitive action included a state order that he not drive.

As mention before (despite your crazy accusation) I never said that the state has no police power on private property. Here it clearly had the power to enforce a law that says that one who has been refused a license or had it suspended may not drive. This was done as a punishment and is clearly enforceable.

This is completely different than a 12 year old who has never had a license, never applied for a license, never had it suspended, driving LICENSE FREE on his dad's farm.

lolol

Are you reading what you are writing?

"You are allowed to drive on your own property without special permission in the form of a license."

Let us consider your argument which has zero merit. It you are allowed to drive on private property without special permission the status of any license which you claim only grants permission to drive on public roads is irrelevant.

"The defendant had a punitive action taken against him for previous violations. That punitive action included a state order that he not drive."

If he was on private property ... how could it be said he was driving?

IT IS NO DIFFERENT THAN A 12 YEAR OLD BECAUSE IF ONE CAN DRIVE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY WITHOUT PERMISSION AS YOU CLAIM, THE EXISTENCE OR LACK OF EXISTENCE OF A LICENSE IS IRRELEVANT BECAUSE ... THE PLACE :) IS PRIVATE PROPERTY.

I can't tell you how ironic I find it that I precisely articulated the function of law ... to make liable ... contrary to your claim law grants permission but you come back with a reply arguing a punitive liability for permission to drive on public roads applies to private property.

Last tiny point.

"I can't tell you how ironic I find it that I precisely articulated the function of law ... to make liable"

I think you meant that "the function of A LICENSE... is to make liable.."

In that you have the tiniest of points. I am sure that you got it from someone else because you don't seem to understand it very well.

I have a real estate brokers license that allows me to conduct certain transactions, even by state statute, allows me to practice law ONLY within a very narrow scope of real estate transactions (I was surprised when I first learned that).

But because I am licensed I am also held to a higher order of competence than Joe Blow who is selling his own house would be. If Joe makes certain contractual errors he might get a small reprimand, whereas I could go to jail. I am expected to know better.

So in this case my license does make me liable. Likewise a driver's license does make you liable to having it suspended and losing ALL right to drive if you do what you should know better than to do.

I give you that small point. But I am sure someone else told you about it and you didn't come up with it on your own.

No ...

I meant precisely what I wrote ... the function of law is to make liable not grant permission.

I provided a crystal clear example because most people are somewhat familiar with the ten commandments irregardless of belief.

If the law says thou shall not kill the law does not grant permission to do anything but kill. It creates a liability for killing.

Because you are clueless on how the system actually works and everyone has a right to pursue happiness what the real estate license law does is make a liability to pursue a private gain or profit in a real estate occupation.

Money can not buy happiness and so pursuing private gain or profit is not a fundamental right, as far as present constitutions are concerned. It is the reason constitutions say the right to pursue happiness and be rewarded for industry. They do not say a right to pursue industry merely a right to be rewarded for the profits of a privileged pursuit.

Selling one's own house is not practicing the occupation of real estate but if one pursues a private gain or profit from the sale of a house there are other laws which establish a liability for that income because ... money can not buy happiness and any activity pursuing private gain or profit is a privilege, whether there is a legislated liability established or not, as far as the present constitutional systems are structured.

Now you arguments are just getting emotional and stupid. And

when some does that it shows that they have exhausted their intellectual ability to debate an issue, and are now depending exclusively on false beliefs and rage. Rational people step away from ranters at that point, as I am about to do with you. But before I do let me pick apart your most recent (and EASIEST to pick apart) post (rant).

"If he was on private property ... how could it be said he was driving?" Was he operating a motor vehicle? Yes? Then he was driving. The word "driving" is not dependent on who owns the ground you are on. (What else would you call driving a car on private property? Maybe "poaching an egg"?)

The defendant had a PUNITIVE action taken against him for past violations. That means he had certain rights suspended as part of the punishment. One of those rights was the right to drive. The statue cited in the case, and that I cited in my post, makes it very clear that he was NOT allowed to drive. And he was driving on private property. Its still called driving.

".... AS YOU CLAIM, THE EXISTENCE OR LACK OF EXISTENCE OF A LICENSE IS IRRELEVANT BECAUSE ... THE PLACE IS PRIVATE PROPERTY."

First: Anytime you exclusively use caps, you are screaming, and have shown you have lost rationality.

Second: It is not a matter here of the existence or lack of existence of a license, except that state statute clearly states that one who HAS a license, when that license is suspended, may not drive AT ALL (on public or private property). It is the court ordered punishment of NOT being allowed to drive that is the issue here, and not the existence or lack of existence of a license.

And with that I bid you Adieu. I have wasted enough time on this clear and obvious point where you are clearly wrong. You have gotten all the "free" time I am allowing and I would have to charge for anymore.

Unlike you, I have a life, and business to run. But carry on with your ridiculous rants. They are amusing and I will maybe read them later.

Save us from stupid ...

Stupid uses caps in his post and them complains about caps as if he has a stupid point.

Stupid claims driving around on private property does not require any kind of permission whatsover because it is a right not subject to any permission ....

Let's put stupid in perspective here ... if you get caught having public sex one can be prohibited from having sex in their own property. That is the stupid logic being presented.

What stupid is saying is that the law does not make liable ... it grants permission ... one of the dumbest things I have heard about law ... but nonetheless using that stupid statement, if one gets permission to drive on the public roads and the privilege to drive on public roads is suspended ... it somehow magically applies to private property. The stupid argument is that if X does not require permission but you do Y which is unrelated to X then you are not allowed to do X which is something you never had to ask permission to do in the first place. That is the stupid logic being presented here and it is so illogical it defies reason.

Does stupid respond to any of the mountain of cases or history cited in the scholarly link already provided? No. Yet stupid still claims the same stupid BS.

Charge? roflol. Send payment for your education the function of law is to make liable and not grant permission. Adieu.

Step away from the computer. Take your meds. And get some

sleep.

.

.

Not so

A driver's license is applicable only to commercial capacities. It has no lawful application to full liability men and women regardless of what road they are on. The government has no lawful authority to regulate people/me/women and has only has been granted the authority to regulate itself and commerce via legislation.

All their claims of applying code to full liability men and women is nothing but criminally fraudulent usurpations and have no basis in law.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

You are arguing a Constitutional point, which might very well be

valid. It is entirely possible that the government has no fundamental right to license people for nonoccupational reasons. Just like a variable tax on income is unconstitutional - I have no doubt that it is.

I am referring to the way that it is customarily applied and historically applied - not arguing whether or not it has always been Constitutionally wrong.

It has been done via consent

If you read the driver's license application it is a contract offer for code applicability and all specific items regarding dui searches etc. Who said this was ever necessary or applicable to the people? The code itself does not claim applicability to the people.

From the system's eyes, individuals go and contract for criminal liability and being liable for fines. They even explicitly ask in court and on the side of the road "Do you understand?".

If they are asking you explicitly do you stand under the claims of code applicability to your commercially regulated person and the regulation you applied for and you say yes, then all evidence one has presented to them is that you have voluntarily obliged yourself to their offer to contract. That is what they are doing and all we have to do is wake up and stop consenting/contracting to be regulated as a commercial entity. If they intentionally commit injury upon us for waking up to their fraud and extortion they are actively committing we then have every lawful right and duty to seek justice for their criminal injury upon us.

The thing is also that regulation applies to commercial capacities of which some other contractual obligations may come into play that one has contracted for which means for commercial purposes there may be a lawful need to be licensed but ONLY for that commercial capacity (a job or insurance purposes). However, those regulations of the actual commercial capacity have no application when someone is not under that capacity. This means depending on your legal status at the time of intersecting with law enforcement would be the facts that govern which regulations do or do not apply to you. Most people seemed to have failed to realize the difference between a legal fictional capacity and a full liability man or woman and where the bounds of that capacity begins and ends. People are literally confusing what is real and what is fiction and why law operates that way. The insanity is that now people think that real men ARE the legal fiction. This is true insanity- an inability to understand the difference between what is real and what is not.

So its not about them it is about us. Case law reinforces this point but it is the people who are confused because they have been ignoring the law which of course is no defense against the all out tyranny that will ensue from ignoring the protections of law.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

Not sure what you're

Not sure what you're saying.

A driver's license has everything to do with public roads. We are free to drive whatever we want, whenever we want on our own property regardless of passing a licensing test or being of age or being under the influence.

Not sure where you get the for "hire" business. Obviously, most people on the roads are not driving for hire. A license to drive on public roads is an attempt to make sure everyone knows the rules and has not repeatedly and egregiously violated them.

How about just getting familiar with some scholarly research

done on this topic. I will link it again:

http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/orphaned_right.pdf

I am not pimping constitution.org, I was looking for the work of Roger Roots titled, "The Orphaned Right: The Right to Travel by Automobile" and just happened to find it in .pdf form on their site.

Look up some of the citations in the appendix. Many are court cases. Read the opinions.

One path to challenging driver licensing on constitution grounds is that no branch of government possesses authority to be or act dishonest by fraudulently legislating or enforcing any registration, licensing, or taxation scheme lacking a full and honest disclosure.

The public roads are our property

your comment contradicts itself.

The confusion and self-enslavement by so many is truly unbelievable.

H.A.M. is right.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

"Nothing comes between a

"Nothing comes between a buyer and a car dealership. Some folks, who get financing through a dealership that acts as a go-between with buyer and a bank, will find licensing and proof of insurance requirements. But if you go with cash, you'll see that those bits aren't laws but financing hoops -- loan requirements."

That's incorrect.

A driver's license is required for a cash purchase for several reasons: a.)permission to drive said vehicle on public roads. B.)legal proof of id to title vehicle. C.)IRS policies. Insurance is required for a cash purchase as well, just liability.

8 years auto business experience.

Check your state statues.

Check your state statues. Your auto business experience is mostly likely company policy -- not state or federal law. I can buy a vehicle any day without showing any id whatsoever. Insurance and titling and registration requirements are for driving that vehicle on public roads and/or for financing said vehicle. There may be some outlier states that have encroached here, but as a general rule. Anyone can buy a vehicle without license, title, registration, insurance. Laws begin to apply when you drive that vehicle on public roads or finance that vehicle through publicly insured lending institutions.

Maybe buy here pay here lots

Maybe buy here pay here lots with cars under 5k.

What state do u live in?

this needed another thread?

this needed another thread?

IMO

Citizens have the limited right to drive on public roads, in part because they have been forced to pay for them.

In principle however and until aptitude is demonstrated where others' agency is not in danger of being violated (ex. blinded faculty of sight), I subsequently agree with civil standards/[licenses] that recognize individual prerogatives.

Correct, the roads are stolen property

Since the theft is continual and the property may not be practically repatriated, when you drive on public roads you are essentially homesteading the use of the road.

If freedom broke out eventually, some one, or group, would have to assume ownership to keep them drivable. My first thought would be a stock offering to the people who use the road to start a firm to maintain the road and collect fees. I do know this, it would be a lot cheaper for the road users and everyone else.

And obviously you have a right to drive, per se.

All property is stolen

All property is stolen property, protected by the law. Go back far enough and every property changed hands violently at one point. Much of public property is actually areas that lay between private holdings that was improved through non profitable projects that private firms had no incentive to undertake, where public taxing bodies had the interest to develop roads or other big undertakings.

Come on that's an excessively broad assertion even for you:)

Not all property is stolen. If you said all land is stolen you'd be closer but even then it's hardly a universal.

If no one has any incentive to undertake a project then it shouldn't be done, and certainly a project no one had any secular incentive to accomplish does not justify theft to do it.

Public taxing bodies always have incentive to tax and spend. It can either benefit no one else, or one party, like the land owner where the road or rail will go through, but it costs everyone and is a transfer of wealth to the parasitic class and their cronies.

Monopolies cannot do anything efficiently because the incentive of monopolies is to lower supply and drive up prices. Governments are the worst sort of monopoly since they can only claim more resources if they do a poor job or fail completely, and governments create all other monopolies.

It's not my assertion, just

It's not my assertion, just applying your own logic to property in general. If all public property is theft, then by the same reasoning all private property is theft. The only way you can argue that my capitol building is stolen is by saying someone 100 years ago collected taxes to pay for it. So using the same logic, there's nothing or almost nothing that wasn't stolen at some point if you go back far enough. Certainly anything produced on American soil or with resources from the Americas at some point changed hands in a way that wouldn't have occurred without violence or threat of violence or fraud. I don't consider it stolen, but by your logic it is.

As for the incentive problem for creating public goods, its well understood by real economists. There was no profit motive for private merchants to build an aqueduct or the Appian way... these were created by states to move goods for feeding armies and taxing merchant traffic. Same with the big undertakings that created the modern corp as a state chartered entity with a public purpose and temporary lifespan. Only they had the incentives and the ability to pay for the project and benefit from it.

Just history, even if it conflicts with your religion.

>

1) 'All property is stolen'

False: I purchased my used desktop computer on Craigslist from another person, and without duress.
If referring to public property, some has been legally endowed
http://archive.org/details/trueprinciplesl00kenngoog

2) 'Much of public property is actually areas that lay between private holdings that was improved through non profitable projects that private firms had no incentive to undertake,
where public taxing bodies had the interest to develop roads or other big undertakings'

While I do not endorse taxation, I'm curious how you define the difference between public and private domains?

Sorry, MG. I was thinking in

Sorry, MG. I was thinking in terms of land. I don't actually believe all property is stolen, I was just saying to Faithkills, if all public property is stolen, so is all private property. I don't believe all public property is stolen, nor all private property. Theft is a legal definition, and the law does not define these things as theft. But if theft just means "taken at some point in all of history," then even your computer is the product of a past theft. The land it was manufactured on, the raw materials that went into it's production, the public roads it traveled over. It's a pointless exercise.

As for the difference between public and private domains, I don't define it, the law does. The difference would be who is the legal owner of the property and able to dispose of it, sell it, legally protect it with force in general from violation, etc etc.

>

1) 'some one, or group, would have to assume ownership to keep them drivable. My first thought would be a stock offering to the people who use the road to start a firm to maintain the road and collect fees'

I make a different case for public Trusts over private ownership, in part because such amenities ideally are pledged to the public good while the public can ride for free, and because in principle individuals should be able to endow whichever chapter they prefer.

More here
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=361786257294768

2) 'obviously you have a right to drive'

Partial disagreement: I would not say that a blind person or children have the right to operate a motor vehicle on a public road due to obvious hazards. Proper faculty (sight etc) combined with conscionable conduct would be a just prerogative however and hence, civic licenses

I'm agnostic to how the firm is organized.

So long as no theft is involved.

I do think blind people have a right to drive. I have the right to do all sorts of things which might harm people, but I also have to take responsibility for the consequences.

If the road firm wants to disallow blind drivers, and I expect they would, that is also fine because it's their road. Of course we have cars that drive themselves so I don't think this will be an issue much longer.

>

1) 'I'm agnostic to how the firm is organized. So long as no theft is involved'

Naturally agreed about the ethical principle of theft.
If I may ask though, what in your view is the difference between public (~chapter) and private (~firm) domains?

2) 'I do think blind people have a right to drive'

Partial agreement: on their own private property, yes, since they assume liability for any damages incurred.
Public domain again though IMO is a different story

3) 'I have the right to do all sorts of things which might harm people, but I also have to take responsibility for the consequences'

False correlative: assuming that you are not blind, you possess the faculty to make good judgment amidst others operating potentially lethal vehicles; it is not the same condition however for blind persons behind moving cars

4) 'Of course we have cars that drive themselves so I don't think this will be an issue much longer'

IMO there is no substitute for the immediacy of human judgment.
Hence and why civilly speaking, I do not agree with exclusively automatic vehicles on public roadways

Fair enough, I just go you a step further

I do not agree with public roadways:)