Yes, “we” pay for the roads, etc. “You” don’t. So, ‘we’ have a right to use the roads, but ‘you,’ individually, do not, unless ‘you’ obey the rules that ‘we’ (through our elected representatives) set forth.
Sua
I should mention that there is (or at least was) a subset of the whole “Patriot”/“Sovereign Citizen” crowd that believed that the “Right to Travel” means that every citizen (or Citizen; the sovereignty crowd is picky about capitalizations) has a right, not merely a privilege, to drive on public roads, and that therefore drivers licenses and license plates are strictly optional.
Their batting average in front of a judge with such an argument has, thus far, been .000 . 
I don’t think that rights derive themselves from the US Constitution - they are inherent to the people. The US constitution merely recognizes these rights, and actively limits government infringement of them.
(This does not imply that courts can strike down laws on the basis of rights not enshrined in law or constitution. The role of the courts is to interpret the law, not dwell on abstract rights. The impact of natural rights is that the legislature should not make laws improperly abridging them, and if they do, a law abiding citizen might conscienscously object).
I’m not positive, but it appears that that particular section was repealed in 2002. See HERE. It seems bizarre to me that they would take away driving privileges for offenses entirely unrelated to driving. Thanks for the cite, though… have you found any other such references that have not been repealed?
I think you will find, however, that even where they have authority to “impound” or “confiscate” without any initial proof or due process, they are required to provide you with post-deprivation hearings where they do have to demonstrate some good reason for taking your private property away, usually because the vehicle is somehow related to another crime, such as drug trafficking. For example, when I followed your advice and ran a quick google search specifically using “Louisiana” as part of the search, I found this case which specifically provides that the impoundment did not violate constitutional rights because of adequate postdeprivation due process protections. I doubt you will find any authority for government to take away your vehicle without any sort of proof ever being required. I’ve been wrong before, but I’ll stand by this one until you show me something to the contrary.
Sure.
According to this site it happens in the 30 states that have the “possess a joint, loose your license” laws.
… thanks Debaser. That’s an interesting report. I’m in a state that has opted out and does not have a similar law, so at least I don’t feel so bad about having never heard of such a thing!
Ok, folks, as I see it, here’s the difference between a right and a privilege, at least in this context.
If doing X is a right, then that means that the government cannot unreasonably interfere with a person’s doing of X.
If doing Y is a privilege, then that means that the person that wants to do Y has to jump through whatever hoops the government wants the person to jump through to do Y.
So, living is a right, and killing someone convicted of killing someone else is a reasonable interference with that right.
Also, driving is a privilege, and getting a license, maintaining insurance, inspecting your car, etc., are all hoops the government can make you jump through to engage in the privilege.
Now don’t you feel all enlightened and stuff. 
Just lemme know if there’s anything else I can clear up for you. 
I’m not sure if it actually made it into the law, but there have been proposals to take away the licenses of parents who are behind in their child support paymnets.
Yeah, right, they’ll be so much more likely to pay once they lose their job because they can’t get to work…
IzzyR
Ah, this is closer to how I understand the term. I was misled by talk of “right to get a tow” and “right to eat a pretzel”. In that case, I simply disagree with you that human beings have a “right to do whatever I want”.
In particular, I disagree that human beings have a right to propel thousands of pounds of metal at high speed through a public area. As a society, we can grant that privelege to folks who demonstrate certain minimum capacities to exercise the privilege responsibly, but I cannot see any reason to consider it an inherent right.
Polycarp - I didn’t know you were a lawyer! “it is now thought that the right is so fundamental that the Framers may have thought it unnecessary to include it in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.” So in other words, it’s guesswork as to why the founders didn’t include it? I notice that it is explicitly stated in Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I would find it strange that the founding fathers would be unaware / unconcerned with the issue of freedom of travel. I’m not an expert on the subject, but in many historical novels there is talk of “obtaining a safe conduct” or “special letters of authorization” before embarking on a trip.
BTW, when searching on the subject I find this quote: «The Supreme Court has found that the ability to travel freely across the borders of the United States is a right protected by the First and Fifth Amendments of the Constitution. Former Supreme Court Justice William Douglas described freedom of movement as “the very essence of our free society, setting us apart… it often makes all other rights meaningful.”» So it would be a First, Fifth and Ninth Amendment right?
IzzyR - “I don’t think that rights derive themselves from the US Constitution - they are inherent to the people.” That is the correct phrasing, but unless the rights are mentioned in the US constitution, how do we know which ones are inherent to the people, absent a judicial pronouncement on the subject?
… of course the right to travel does not equate to the right to have a license and drive an automobile …
(not saying Arnold said it did or meant to imply such, just trying to clarify)
Sure Realhoops, but I would argue that the reverse is true: if it is a fundamental right to drive an automobile, then it would be based on the even more basic human right which would be the right to travel.
Perhaps, but since there is not a fundamental right to drive an automobile it doesn’t much matter where it “would” come from. It may be true, however, that the privilege to drive an automobile is also based, in part anyway, on the fundamental right to travel. Or perhaps it’s all based on the government’s desire to tax the sale of automobiles, gasoline, income, etc. under the umbrella of highway funding and other regulations.
quote:
Originally posted by X~Slayer(ALE)
May i hazard an opinion that voting is not a right but a privilege as well. It is a privilege granted to law abiding property owning citizens. If it were inalienable (such as our right to life, liberty and the persuit of loose women …er happiness) then anyone can vote, including aliens, illegal or otherwise.
Um, all three of those ‘inalienable rights’ can be taken away: Life by capital punishment, liberty by imprisonment, and pursuit of hapiness by, well, by capital punishment or imprisonment.
And voting most certainly is a constitutional right, not a privilege.
Sua
All the “inalienable rights” mentioned can be taken away, but only through due process of law and not by fiat. The “privilege” of using the public streets can be taken away summarily without due process by the state, acting through a police officer, when the citizen either fails a breathalyzer test or refuses to take the breath test.
Ahh, but in the case of public roads. Their entire existence is a ‘gift from the government’, so the right to drive on them would naturally be as well.
I would modify that to “do what I want to the extent that I am not infringing on the rights of others”.
Your image of “thousands of pounds of metal” etc. is presumably intended to suggest that the potential danger involved makes it a privilege and not a right. I would say that the potential danger gives the government the right to regulate, but to the extent that driving is still allowed, it is a right being left in place rather than a privilege being granted.
You think about it and decide. Possibly you even read the brilliant thoughts of others on message boards. Makes no difference how you decide. If the legislators and regulators share your attitudes they will enact laws and regulations that reflect them. Otherwise they won’t.
I wouldn’t say that’s true. Generally the government improves public spaces but does not create them.
Rights and privileges also apply to individuals irrespective of governments, and the law recognizes the differences when disputes about these rights and privileges erupt.
Let’s say I own a computer. I sell it to you, take your money, but then fail to deliver. You call the police, take me to court. The court will make me give you the computer, or else return your money. Basically, because of the contract you and I have made, you have a right to the computer in question.
Now, let’s say I let you use this computer, free of charge, whenever it’s convenient to me. Then, one fine day, I tell you to keep your hands off my computer. You get mad, call the police, and take me to court. The judge will look at you as if you are some kind of lunatic, and side with me. You do not get to continue to use my computer, because your use of that computer was a privilege I granted to you, and which I could (and did) withdraw at will.
Businesses often put up little signs that say “we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.” This means they look upon their offers of goods or services as privileges. Only once they’ve agreed to terms do they consider your claims upon them as rights.
Governments often get involved at every level of private rights and privileges. For instance, the notion of publicly offered goods and services as privileges has been undermined by various civil rights laws. In many cases, these days, your status as a customer is now a right. This was declared by fiat by our government(s).
Governments, of course, also offer services and goods to the public. Some of these are considered rights, some of these privileges.
Like any other entity, governments often prefer to offer goods and services on a “privilege basis,” rather than as rights. Better bargaining power, don’t you know… Whether the government is right or wrong in any given case is of course disputable. Alas, since the government is where you go to resolve disputes, it’s often hard to get the government to change. That’s why America’s Founders attempted a division of powers and an explicit Constitution: to let citizens gain some purchase on recalcitrant political and bureaucratic processes.
The experiment has been something less than a complete success. But it’s better than most other systems.
Now, as far as the roads go, I can’t say I’m much bothered by the current laws. (Which doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be reformed; but it does mean that there are more troublesome areas of government activity.)