One thing that continues to amuse me is the complete lack of licensing and oversight for boats. Anyone over the age of 13 can pilot most small watercraft in most areas.
But I digress. Unless I missed something, there was never anything introduced into the Constitution or Bill of Rights that makes driving a right, any more than flying an airplane is a right.
(see how I worked in two opposite ends of the stick - small watercraft vs. private aircraft)
I used to think very strictly that driving was only a privilege. But it came to me how difficult it is to live in this country without a licence. You can’t get to work, you can’t do anything, pick up your kids, anything. I have reconsidered my position.
Driving is a necesity these days. I’m not sure where to go from here, though. If you punish someone by taking away their license and tell them they owe a fine, they’re going to drive anyway to get to work to make up the money for the fine. So we get stuck between a rock and a hard place.
You have a right to a state issued ID card. You don’t have a right a driver’s license.
What annoys me, is that ID cards are seen by many establishments as less valid than driver’s licenses, and that there is no legal equivalence. 65% of driver’s licenses are produced by one company, and the difference between an ID and a DL is one of printed text on the card. These cards are no more easily forged than a DL.
disclaimer: I work for Digimarc ID Systems
Believe it or not, I read all three lines of your post, including the one I didn’t quote, and my response was written after considering them all. Your point seems to be that the certification requirement makes driving a “privilege” while voting remains a “right” because… voting is mentioned in the Constitution? You didn’t strike me as the kind of person who would think the Constitution creates, rather than protects, rights.
As for stretching the definition of “right” - I don’t think it’s much of a stretch at all. Anyone who meets the qualifications will be granted a driver’s license, and it can’t be taken away except through well-defined legal processes. The word “privilege” implies that it can be revoked at any time by random whim, IMO, and I’m not the only one in this thread who goes by that definition.
But isn’t that the point of having a voting age - a roundabout way to test voters for knowledge and aptitude? The idea is that adults have something minors lack that makes them good voters, and since we can’t test that quality directly, we draw a line based on their age, which is easy to measure.
I’m not sure what this is supposed to prove. If you try to vote without having registered, and you say you don’t need to register because “voting is a right”, you won’t be any more successful. If you try to carry a concealed weapon without getting a permit (where applicable), and you say you don’t need one because “bearing arms is a right”… well, you get the picture. Doesn’t mean those things aren’t rights, only that there are restrictions on who is allowed to exercise those rights and how, and bureaucracy in place to let the government keep track of it all.
You made some good points in your post. But (and forgive me if I’ve taken this the wrong way) you weaken them with this comment, which seems to come across as snide.
Would it be fair to say that you have the right to be licensed to drive in the USA provided you meet the requirements? In this way it is almost just like voting. To vote, you have to fulfill certain requirements (be 18, not be a felon, for example). The difference being that to drive you have to prove a certain minimal proficiency and knowlege of driving. To vote you need not do such a thing (though sometimes I wish there was a civics test for voting).
Golly gee, on preview it seems others have already said the same thing more or less.
Well, count me in anyway.
No, you’re quite right. I was very much too snarky there, and I apologize to Mr2001 for that. It’s been a busy last couple days for me, and I promise to respond to his points later this evening.
It is a privilege.
In Texas: Operating a motor vehicle is a privilege. If this privilege is abused by violating Texas traffic laws it may result in driver’s license suspension or revocation.
When did the words “right” and “privilege” become mutually exclusive?
Mirriam Webster is pretty clear they’re not:
The saying “driving is a right, not a privilege” is the sort of thing that mothers tell their teenage kids, because it sounds good and conveys the true message that if you don’t drive well, you won’t be able to drive. Which is true and an important point.
But that doesn’t mean the statement itself is true, or even logical. And in fact it is neither.
In fact, let’s look in the Thesaurus:
What’s that? Right is a synonym for privilege, and privilege for right.
Driving is both a right and a privilege. To deny that it is a right is to not understand the meaning of the word.
You’re confusing non-legal meanings of the words with specific legal meanings. Which isn’t to say they have hard, fast, and mutually exclusive meanings, but the driving issue is one case which is very clear. My right to free speech, religion, and so on do not require permission or licenses of any kind. Driving DOES require permission or licenses, and his hence a privilege.
What’s a “priviledge,” by the way? Is that a little shelf in an outhouse?
And yet Mr2001 has rather cogently drawn the analogy between voting and driving. Most people seem to accept that voting is a right, yet it requires registration, law-abiding behavior, adherence to defined procedures, etc. much as driving does.