Do You Have A "Right" To A Driver's License?

Great Debates
1

A thread in General Questions on eye examinations degenerated into a discussion as to whether a driver’s license was a right or a privildge.
Why prescriptions for glasses?
All too many people think/expect all too many things to be a “Right”.

Please confine any and all comments on the subject of right vs. priviledte.
If you want to discuss any other aspect of the following quote…
start another thread and have at it.

*“The idea that government doesn’t grant rights is offensive to those
who wish to control our lives. Therefore, to gain greater control,
the idea of natural rights, God-given rights and Christian values
must be suppressed. The idea that rights precede government was John
Locke’s natural law philosophy, which had a significant influence on
our nation’s founders, but they chose to refer to natural law as rights
endowed by the Creator. The attack on Christian ideas and Christian
public displays is part and parcel of the Leftist control agenda in
another way. Certain components of the Leftist agenda require that our
primary allegiance be with government. As such, there must be an attack
on allegiances to the teachings of the church and family. After all,
for example, if you want popular acceptance of homosexual marriages,
there must be a campaign against church teachings that condemn such
practices. Emboldened by their successes in the courts and intimidation
of public officials, Leftists will no doubt make other demands; there’s
no logical end point except complete Christian capitulation. There
are Christian symbols and exhibits in many Washington, DC, government
buildings that will come down, such as: Moses with the Ten Commandments
inside the U.S. Supreme Court, George Washington praying in the Capitol
Building, Abraham Lincoln’s speech mentioning God carved inside the
Lincoln Memorial. Religious programming on the radio and television will
come under attack. After all, there’s Federal Communications Commission
permission to use the ‘public airwaves.’ If Leftists say they have no
such intention to go after television, radio and other public expressions
of Christianity, what they really mean is that they haven’t softened us
up enough yet. I’m not quite sure of just how we should respond to the
ongoing attack on Christianity and American values, but we’d better do
something quickly.” --Walter Williams *

Now your cites to confirm your position. Driving is a right or priviledge…

2

Your quote is a thinly disguised rant, not fodder for a Great Debate.

Addressing your basic question, I was taught 40 years ago that driving is a privilege, not a right – one is entitled to apply for and receive a license without reference to any “privileged classification” – you cannot be denied a license simply because you’re female, or black, or Baptist, or something. But you drive based on the body politic’s consent to you the individual driving safely, and that privilege may be revoked if you fail to do so, or are in some way disabled in a manner that would make your driving hazardous to yourself or other motorists.

While this could very easily be understood in a Statist manner, it’s a question of the people taken corporately consenting to a privilege being extended to one of their number subject to the condition of its being exercised safely; a quite similar formulation could be applied in Libertaria.

The remainder of the “arguments” which Mr. Williams sets forth are, in the eyes of this mildly-libertarian Christian Leftist, suitable only for epithets best left for the Pit.

3

Almost every state court that has ruled on the issue of whether or not driving is a privilege or a right has consistently stated it is a privilege. If you wish, here are some cases:

R.T.M. v. Alabama, 677 So. 2d 801, 805 (Ala. Crim. App. 1995).

Francis v. Municipality of Anchorage, 641 P.2d 226, 227 (Alaska Ct. App. 1982).

Jessep v. Arkansas, No. CA CR 95-676, 1996 WL 242858, at *1 (Ark. Ct. App. May 8, 1996).
Everhart v. Tennessee, 563 S.W.2d 795, 797 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1978).

Gillaspie v. Department of Pub. Safety, 259 S.W.2d 177, 181 (Tex. 1953).

I can provide more if you wish.

Now, if you want to get more specific about the issue, there may exist a right to apply for a license, or there may be the right to your license once it is properly issued, but there is no right to drive.

And, on the issue of the quote, Polycarp is, once again, spot on.

4

Privilege. Cite.

5

I know a lot of libertarians who refuse to submit to the state’s requirment of obtaining a driver license, claiming that: a. there is no actual requirement in the traffic code for one to have such a thing in order to operate a non-commercial conveyance, e.g., an automobile; and b. The freedom to “travel” is a right, therefore the state is abridging this right by creating a law that forces any private citizen to acquire a license to do so.

6

If you build your own roads on your own land then your probably not required to get a license to drive on them. But if you want to use the federal or state built roads, then you follow their rules and get a license.

7

Actually, there is a small area in the Town of Webb, the northern point of Herkimer County, NY, where people do drive unregistered vehicles without necessarily having licenses, and it’s completely legal. It’s a summer-camp area to which access from the rest of the world is completely by boat; there are no public roads, but a number of cars have been ferried in to provide transportation. And because the roads are privately owned, not deeded to the Town, and no means of getting to and from them by land motor vehicle is possible, their use is not considered as violating the state regulations on motor vehicles and their operation.

8

My apologies if it was misplaced. It should have been edited down to the crux of the matter or omitted. :smack:

9

The ability to drive a motor vehicle on public roads is a privilege, not a right.

10

IIRC, the poster who sparked this thread is from California. He would best be advised to read up on his state’s DMV Code, which states in part:

Italics mine. The words “driving privilege” appear frequently throughout the code…but note that “driving right” or “right to drive” appear nowhere in the code.

11

The state is not abridging their freedom to travel. They can take a bus or have a friend drive or they can walk or ride a bike.

Public safety outweighs some nebulous “right to drive”. Everyone has the right to drive provided they can demonstrate the ability to safely operate a vehicle and they follow the rules of the road. Someone who fails to demonstrate that is infringing on the rights of others to expect a reasonible level of safety while traveling on public roads. By “reasonible” I mean an expectation that their fellow motorists will have a minimum level of competancy, follow traffic laws in a reasonible and predictible pattern and keep their vehicles maintained in proper condition.

12

Hope they like jail.

13

In middle school, I think it was, a teacher made a very good point. A right is something you have that doesn’t require anything from anybody else. For example, my right to free speach doesn’t require you to listen to me. So in that regard, a driver’s license isn’t a right since it would require the DMV to issue you one.

14

By that standard, voting isn’t a right either, since it requires someone else to count votes and certify winners. Neither is the right to a speedy trial.

15

I understand that laws and verdicts use the term “driving priviledge” and not “driving right”. The question is, what are the definitions of “priviledge” vs. “right”. Maybe somebody else can answer that question for the legal definitions (if there are any, which I am not sure about), but in the colloquial sense, this strict distinction does not make much sense to me, especially if applied to driving.
“Priviledge” is the language that the legal guys chose. That does not mean that driving is not a right in the colloquial sense: Nobody can deny you that right if you behave, as others have already stated. While the quote in the OP does seem like a bit of a rant to me, the reference to John Locke is valid. Not every right needs to be granted by the government explicitly.
By calling it a priviledge, it could be assumed that it can be revoked for no reason whatsoever, which is wrong. So call it a “priviledge” for legal use if you must, but leave alone the non-legal guys who use the word “right”.

16

I don’t think by any stretch of what’s “right” or any stretch of our legal and constitutional traditions provides a foundation for driving as a “right.”

Public roads, public certification required, if you don’t meet the criteria for that certification, you don’t get a license and cannot drive.

Seems simple and clear cut to me, certainly not a right.

17

If you don’t meet the criteria for voting (18 years of age, registered in time, not a felon in some states), you don’t get to vote. Is voting not a right?

18

I think you might realize how little sense your response made if you’d have quoted the entirety of my post. I didn’t make the certification comment in a void, and thus I won’t respond to your post which seems to assume I did.

19

It is, and here’s a better definition between “rights” and “privileges”:

“Rights” are endowed, “privileges” are earned. Yes, there might be restrictions on rights, such as (for voting) timely registration and age of majority. And, yes, rights can be “alienated” in some instances, as for the case of convicted felons in some jurisdictions. Nobody would argue that we don’t have the right to peaceable assembly, but few would argue those rights don’t extend to prisoners. Barring these exceptions, the only qualification that one needs to vote, or needs to have any other right (for a speedy and fair trial, for freedom of speech or religion, etc.) are being human.

“Privileges” are different, because you must qualify for them through a test of skill, knowledge, and aptitude. Driving is one such privilege: you have to pass a driving test to receive a driver’s license. To continue to have the license, you must continue to demonstrate skill, knowledge, and aptitude–namely, by not breaking the laws of the traffic code, and, in some states, by periodically re-passing certain tests.

Would you argue that anybody, regardless or skill or previous knowledge, has “the right” to fly commercial aircraft, box in Nevada, or perform brain surgery? In each of these instances, a license must be obtained from the appropriate authorities. The FAA licenses pilots, the Nevada Boxing Commission licenses boxers, and the American Medical Association licenses brain surgeons. If you try to do any of the above without a license, you are liable to be prosecuted. The above authorities grant the privilege of a license, just the same as the state Departments of Motor Vehicles grant the privilege of a driver’s license.

Want a final test of whether driving is a privilege or a right? Next time you get pulled over and the cop asks you for your driver’s license, tell him you don’t need one because “driving is a right.” Press your case vigorously. And when you get to the jail, make sure to call me so I can post the subsequent article on Fark under “hilarity ensues.”

20

In our state, the penalties for driving without a license, or with a license under suspension, are so minimal as to be essentially no deterrant whatsoever.