Fuck that. Explain how you find a job in rural Michigan by walking. Keep in mind it’s a search of several counties.
If your answer is the ever retarded “move”. Please elucidate, do you expect people to drag their belongs across several states by foot? How do you expect them to move without a job to finance moving? Do you expect them just to show up in a town as a hobbo? If so you’re effectively telling them they have no right to not be a criminal due vagrancy laws.
In short that position is unreasonable, short sighted, and fascist ( in a real sense, not hyperbole). It gives all the rights to the State, and effectively says you have none.
Just like the fact that you can go to jail for filing a false police report means there is no right to free speech.
Methinks some confusion exists in this thread between rights that exist, rights that don’t exist, and rights that are brought under the protection of the government. Not the same thing. The Ninth Amendment points this out.
Unenumerated rights may or may not exist, but the federal government has nothing to do with them, either to establish them or to deny them.
Ahhh, but since sharps sticks aren’t considered arms, and fireARMS are, and bearing same is a right affirmed by the Constitution, your point falls a bit flat. Nice try.
You seem to think that I care. Somehow, some way, people in rural Michigan or my home state of Iowa managed to survive for several decades prior to the invention of the car. Simply put, there is no right to owning a car.
And how is that any different than today? The DMV/DOT whatever determines who can or cannot drive by a set of fascist tests that they force upon their citizenry. Those bastards!
How you finance your move to find a job is your business. The last time I moved to find a job, driving with my belongings would have been impractical (you can’t get from Darwin to Singapore by road, and you can’t get from Russia to Alaska by road). If you don’t own a car, several possibilities exist:
(1) Sell all your goods at your old home, and buy some replacements at the new one.
(2) Hire a horse and cart for the journey.
(3) Pay someone else to take it in the back of their truck.
But the state doesn’t have to finance any of that: it just lets you choose the cheapest and most convenient option.
And if you show up in a town with no possessions, but with a job and with enough money to support yourself, you won’t be subject to vagrancy laws.
The Supreme Court has recognized a right to travel between states and has ruled that the Privileges and Immunities Clause gives state governments the power to protect freedom of movement.
Yeah. What do you think people did before the Eisenhower system was created? What do you think Route 66 was all about?
It doesn’t presume anything of the sort.
Once again, you carry the power to make music within your own physical body. Restricting the use of recorded music devices doesn’t interfere with that.
That’s nonsense. You have the right to walk on public roads, except for restricted access highways that prohibit pedestrians.
I saw no mention of using one’s feet. Even the third one requires transport from store. All those required something beyond feet. Do you actually agree with me that you do need something beyond your feet? The post I was responding said anything beyond your feet is a privilige.
Could you have walked Singapore, or from Russia to Alaska? If not your travel required something beyond your feet.
Would it have been against your rights to deny your use of anything but your feet and keep you in Russia?
Never said it did. Do you believe there isn’t a freedom of the press because the state doesn’t pay the costs of newspapers?
I think maybe we’re misunderstanding each other.
If you can’t get a job to make the money to show up with are you supposed to do? “that’s your problem” is a cowardly dodge. Are people just supposed to pull moey out of thin air?
Ahh they classic “they can fuck off and die”. Good to see your concern for other people. Do you an argument that isn’t sociopathic?
Really? People in Iowa only used their feet? They didn’t even use horses? People in Iowa must have been really stupid not to get horses before cars existed.
Did you even read your own assertion?
Your assertion is anything beyond your feet is a privilege. If the argument is the state doesn’t have to pay for a car and gas that’s fine. I can get behind that.
However saying that proves driving isn’t a right is saying free speech is privilege not a right, since the state won’t pay for you to be published. Do you assert people don’t have a right to free speech?
Do people not have a right to bare arms since there’s gun tests?
Yes it’s Fascist. People are using the “privilege” argument as a justification for revocation of 4th amendment rights of drivers. If they can revoke that right what else can they revoke? It’s insidious and taking a piss on the grave of every American who died believing they were fighting for freedom.
So walking is only right where they let me, otherwise it isn’t? Doesn’t sound like much of a right.
However I can see argument for safety rights over ruling pedastrian rights so I’ll agree it is a right.
Now answer me this. What’s the difference between foot power and car power? Why is one a privilege, that you waive 4th amendments rights to use, and the other right?
Show me where this says anything about a right to drive a car or where any competent court has found such a right. I believe that even the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the right to travel is a right guaranteed by states, not by the U.S. Constitution. The only right you have is that you can’t be barred from traveling from one state to another. That has nothing to do with whether you are allowed to drive a car.
You don’t need to drive a car to travel. Period. You can walk. You can hire someone else to drive you (bus, train, coach, taxi, limo, etc.). There are even some places where some organizations offer free transportation assistance.
Your being able to drive a car yourself is simply not a right recognized by any authority.
You and I are already on this subject in the other thread, and I think you’re being seriously overdramatic with the “house arrest” idea. No one is saying you can’t leave your home. Walk, ride a bicycle, ride a horse, get a ride from a friend, take a bus, take a taxi, rollerskate, ride a camel, climb into a shopping cart and push yourself along with a mop handle if you feel like it, and go where you please. “Not driving” doesn’t equal “housebound”.
As noted above, “driving” itself is not restricted. Build your own road, on your own property, and you can drive on it to your heart’s content. What the government does regulate, and what we are telling you is a privilege, is driving a motor vehicle on public roads. The reason for the regulation is that the public roads are for everyone, and the government has a compelling interest in keeping the citizens who travel upon the roads safe. To that end, people who drive on public roads are required, prior to driving, to meet certain requirements and accept certain responsibilities. If you do not accept that, you cannot drive upon the roads, but you may still travel upon them if you slide over and let someone who does accept those conditions do the driving.
A public roadway is not yours, and therefore you can be told what you can and cannot do on that roadway. It is valid, it is legal, it is morally just, it is socially responsible, and it makes perfect sense.
Now, on to your “waive your 4th amendment rights” claim: when you obtain a driver’s license, you are agreeing that the State may request a breath sample from you. They won’t turn your whole car over looking for marijuana seeds, they won’t even pat you down. You’re only asked to blow into a tube. Now, if you are pulled over, you are expected to give a breath sample. If you refuse, your license is suspended. That’s the only statutory consequence of the refusal. You have a privilege to drive on public roads, granted by the owner of those roads, on condition that you submit to a breath test; if you break the condition, you lose the privilege. Simple as that.
If you can explain what Constitutionally-compelling privacy interest you have in the alcohol content of your breath, I’d like to hear it. You have the right to be secure in your person, your papers, your effects, and your home, certainly, but not in the odors wafting from your pie-hole.
Okay I’m willing to accept that idea but this where we disagree I think.
So in order for a car to be driven someone must waive their 4th amendment rights?
Not just when those laws of the road require you to waive rights your society holds to be inalienable.
[quote[Now, on to your “waive your 4th amendment rights” claim: when you obtain a driver’s license, you are agreeing that the State may request a breath sample from you. [/quote]
No I’m fucking not. I never signed such a paper. I never made such an agreement. Could the state consider my license an assumed agreement not criticize the president and take it away?
Remember when the government felt “it embolden the terrorists” so there was a (retarded) safety argument against free speech.
Could the state decide they want me to waive other Guaranteed Rights as well? What’s to stop the state from saying you can’t drive if you want to a write a piece critical of the government?
That tube is an invasion of my rights. Blowing in it is taking a piss on the grave of anyone who died for liberty.
You say they’re not asking to search my car, but what’s to stop them from deciding to in the future? How many rights must I sacrifice for a license and how would I get by in modern society without one? inb4 “fuck you your problem, I don’t care”. Personal mobility is highly dependent on being able to drive in most of the country.
What’s the limiter? You never answered that question.
“if I don’t have anything to hide” eh? It’s my body. Isn’t that enough?
My mouth, and the air in my lungs, doesn’t count as part my person? Are you sure you actually read that?
Could the cops demand I vomit in a bag to keep my license too?
Interesting. So The states can put you under house arrest for whatever reason they wish? Even if you break no law?
Pretty fucked up.
We didn’t have any public transportation here till 2005. I suppose walk is an option but if you going to submit expecting someone to walk 20-30 miles a day is reasonable then you’re fucking retarded.
The idea that not being allowed to drive is the equivalent of house arrest will be laughed at by any court. There are plenty of people in this country who get by just fine without driving themselves.
Do you know people who have cars? Will anyone do you a favor? Is there anyone who will accept payment in exchange for driving you? Are there people willing to enter into a carpooling club? I know people who depended for years on a friend to drive them to work every day.
Such walking was quite routine a very short time ago. In any case, you have the option of living closer to the places you want to go. People make these kinds of choices every day.
You said travel, not driving. Travel includes walking.
I am the guy with a car in my group of friends. When it broke down last fall every body was screwed. I know two people with a car I’d be comfortable asking. 1 is usually busy, one would send me to the poor house for “gas money”. 10 miles for $15.
We do have public transportation here now, but it’s recent. It’s actually a refreshing change. The issue that concerns me is not everyone is so lucky, or has people they can depend on.
Times change quick too. It’s impossible to meet the obligations of a modern life when a quick trip into town takes half the day.
I understand people have the option of moving, but can’t you agree there’s situations where moving isn’t a practical option?
What are you talking about? You’re only under “arrest” if the state actually bars you from leaving a particular place. You have to show that you are actually unable leave your house because of state action before you have any kind of valid argument.
The Constitution doesn’t guarantee you a general right not to be screwed.
If you want to argue that we need to amend the Constitution to guarantee a right to drive, then go ahead.
But your argument under the law as is stands is a loser.
What are you talking about? You’re only under “arrest” if the state actually bars you from leaving a particular place. You have to show that you are actually unable leave your house because of state action before you have any kind of valid argument.
The logical extrapolation of that is the state could change it’s mind and put you under house arrest and there’s nothing you do, unless you wanted to go a different state I guess.
I love that quote, and I agree with it.
Is the Constitution the source of all rights though? You make your argument on legal authority, and by legal authority alone you are correct in that assertion.
However is the Constitution the sole final authority of inalienable rights? Are there ones beyond it? I’d like to think there’s a right to reasonably procure the necessities of life and happiness.
No it’s not. If you are genuinely under arrest then you have a right to challenge your confinement. If your theory is that “I’m saying that I’m under house arrest just because they won’t let me drive,” then you’re going to get kicked out of court as a crackpot.
How else do you expect to assert rights against the government except through the law? Any discussion regarding the limits of government power is by definition a discussion of law. The law is our societal mechanism for settling disputes, particularly with respect to government action.