You have the Right to Drive

On Mar 11, 9:26*am, (Brent P)
wrote:
> In article >, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> >On Mar 10, 4:16*pm, (Brent P)
> >wrote:
> >> In article >, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> >> >On Mar 10, 3:24*pm, (Brent P)
> >> >wrote:
> >> >> In article >, Ed Pirrero wrote:
>
> >> >> >Or, an exercise of it's legitimate authority.
>
> >> >> >If you look in the Preamble, I'm sure you'll find something about the
> >> >> >"general Welfare."
>
> >> >> You can do better than a lame overused catch all for anything and
> >> >> everything.
>
> >> >:shrug: *The USC is the basis for the Republic. *Somehow, I doubt you
> >> >could come up with "something better".
>
> >> The "general welfare" has been greatly mis-used over the years,
> >> especially in the last several decades to support many things that go
> >> against individual liberty. To do come up with something better I
> >> suggest you find a portion that isn't so vague and not used as an
> >> 'everything under the sun' excuse clause.
>
> >It is support for legitimate gov. function, and one more cite than you
> >have proving the law is due to some desire for additional control.
> >You have offered not a shred of evidence that it is for control
> >purposes.
>
> The restrictions for global warming are for the "general welfare" too.

Maybe they are. How can you tell?

> Just about all statist control is justified as being for the "general
> welfare".

And legit functions of government *are* for the general welfare.

Somehow, *you* claim to be able to tell the diference without being
able to prove it.

> And on the cite count, I provided several that show licensing
> is about control. It's a very mis-used catch-all.

The definition of license is not proof of anything. It is certainly
not proof of "control", or "competance" or skill. No more than a
diploma is a guarantee of knowledge.

Get back to me when you can actually prove your claim, much less
support your opinion.

E.P.

In article >, Ed Pirrero wrote:

>> The restrictions for global warming are for the "general welfare" too.
>
>Maybe they are. How can you tell?

But 'authority' can tell? Our parental government knows what's good for
us? That's a long way from individual liberty.

>> Just about all statist control is justified as being for the "general
>> welfare".

>And legit functions of government *are* for the general welfare.

Like taking one man's property and giving it to another man because it
will be for the general welfare, in the public interest. You have too
many cars Ed. In the cause of the general welfare you should have to
give some away to people who don't have cars. Sound good? Afterall,
government has declared activities of taking from some citizens to give
to others as a legit function for itself justified by providing for the
general welfare.

>Somehow, *you* claim to be able to tell the diference without being
>able to prove it.

Well if you don't believe in individual liberty, individual rights, then
there can never be any proof.

>> And on the cite count, I provided several that show licensing
>> is about control. It's a very mis-used catch-all.

>The definition of license is not proof of anything. It is certainly
>not proof of "control", or "competance" or skill. No more than a
>diploma is a guarantee of knowledge.

>Get back to me when you can actually prove your claim, much less
>support your opinion.

Why don't you read the restictions of graduated licensing? Nahh...
because then you'll find there is nothing there to insure driving skill.
Only controls on when, where, and with who teenagers can drive. This
under the guise they will get experience under better conditions. Yet
they can still go out and drive in traffic conditions and weather that
would be extremely challenging.

The result is restrictions that are removed if they don't crash and
don't get a ticket conviction on their record. How does that do anything
wrt driving skill? Doesn't do a thing. A teenager could go to europe for
an exchange program soon after turning 16 and getting his DL then
returns just before turning 18 not having driven a car except maybe a
couple of times in the whole two years and pass right through the
restricted licensing process with flying colors. No convictions, no
crashes.... no driving experience either. Same as a kid who got a
license but had no car to drive.

You can keep trimming and squaking 'no proof!' and saying you aren't
convinced all you want, but it doesn't change the nature of these laws.
They are controls. They act to limit driving which will result in fewer
crashes by the limited group just from limiting driving. They won't
bring about experience. Anyone who knows how to design an experiment
should see right through it. You certainly should. My guess is you're
just playing games here. You know better, your own words have given it
away.

On Mar 11, 9:50*am, Ed Pirrero > wrote:
> On Mar 10, 9:31*pm, proffsl > wrote:
> > On Mar 9, 3:31*pm, Ed Pirrero > wrote:
> > >
> > > Should 10-year-olds be driving?
> >
> > Can this 10 year old drive safely?
>
> I don't know.

Why don't you know? It's your scenario.


>*Maybe we should wait until they run someone over
> before we find out?

If their unable to drive safely, this will most likely show itself
long before someone is run over.


> Or, better yet, let's test them to see if they can drive safely.

So, are you suggesting we License 10 year olds? Are you moving the
line in the sand? What about 9 year olds, 8 year olds? This "one
size fits all" mentality just doesn't work in the real world.


> Oh, and let's make sure they can afford to responsibly own
> an automobile, which means carrying some form of insurance
> or bonding.

"[The Individual] owes nothing to the public so long as he does not
trespass upon their rights." -- Hale vs. Hinkel, 201 US 43, 74-75 -
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/201/43.html#74


> And after testing them, why don't we issue them some sort of
> certificate so we can tell which ten-year-old is actually safe,
> and which one isn't.
>
> Maybe they could laminate this certificate and keep it with them,
> so that, in the case there was a hassle, we could separate the
> tested ten-year-olds from the non-tested ones.

Instead, why don't we just stop those who exhibit unsafe driving
behaviors before they actually run over someone? Makes more sense than
stopping people who are driving safely just to see if they have a
laminated driver license certificate! Fact is, if we're spending less
time stopping people who are driving safely just to see if they have a
laminated driver license certificate, we could spend more time
stopping people who exhibit unsafe driving behaviors.


> Luckily, everyone except a small few boneheads understands that
> operating a motor vehicle is not something a child can do safely
> with reliability.

Now you contradict yourself. Above, you said you didn't know if the
10 year old could drive safely. Now, you say they can not.

proffsl wrote:
> On Mar 11, 9:50�am, Ed Pirrero > wrote:
> > On Mar 10, 9:31�pm, proffsl > wrote:
> > > On Mar 9, 3:31�pm, Ed Pirrero > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Should 10-year-olds be driving?
> > >
> > > Can this 10 year old drive safely?
> >
> > I don't know.
>
> Why don't you know? It's your scenario.

That doesn’t mean he can know the safe driving abilities of every 10
year old. Your solution is let them all drive, along with infants,
dogs and cats, unless and until they have an accident. After all, up
until they have an accident, they are likely driving safely.

You would also prevent us from setting up a system that would prohibit
10-year-old, or dogs, cats and toddlers, from driving because each
individual has the right to drive, according to you, and we cannot
judge the entire class of dogs or 10-year-old by the unsafe driving of
one Johnny, Fifi or Fido.

For you to admit that would be to open the door to legitimate
governmental authority to regulate others – perhaps blind people might
be prohibited from driving then.

> >�Maybe we should wait until they run someone over
> > before we find out?
>
> If their unable to drive safely, this will most likely show itself
> long before someone is run over.

Like when they hit my house, or a tree, or another car. But then,
under your system, we can only prohibit that particular 10-year-old,
or cat, or dog or infant, from driving, and not the whole class of
them.
>
>
> > Or, better yet, let's test them to see if they can drive safely.
>
> So, are you suggesting we License 10 year olds? Are you moving the
> line in the sand? What about 9 year olds, 8 year olds? This "one
> size fits all" mentality just doesn't work in the real world.

Correct. That’s one reason why we have licensing in the first place
and set ages and other restrictions. You’ve opened Pandora’s Box now
to legitimate government interest in safety and general welfare.
>
>
> > Oh, and let's make sure they can afford to responsibly own
> > an automobile, which means carrying some form of insurance
> > or bonding.
>
> "[The Individual] owes nothing to the public so long as he does not
> trespass upon their rights." -- Hale vs. Hinkel, 201 US 43, 74-75 -
> http://laws.findlaw.com/us/201/43.html#74

Hale was a habeas corpus case in which the word “license� never
appears. It is non-applicable. Heck, it was a **1906** case and MV
licensing hadn’t even yet occurred. It involved a tobacco company
executive who refused to testify and produce company documents to a
grand jury investigating Sherman Act violations. Incidentally he lost
the case.

This is where you went wrong in your last three losing arguments on
this issue. You cannot lift isolated dicta out of completely unrelated
court cases that had nothing to do with licensing and pretend to
cobble together your own Frankenstein monster of a case law argument.
It doesn’t work that way. Each case decides only the questions put
before the court. If you wish to take court dicta from one case and
use it to support another point, you actually must argue that before
another court in a relevant on-point case and try to apply it. Anti-
licensing people have tried that for decades and have lost every time.

> > And after testing them, why don't we issue them some sort of
> > certificate so we can tell which ten-year-old is actually safe,
> > and which one isn't.
> >
> > Maybe they could laminate this certificate and keep it with them,
> > so that, in the case there was a hassle, we could separate the
> > tested ten-year-olds from the non-tested ones.
>
> Instead, why don't we just stop those who exhibit unsafe driving
> behaviors before they actually run over someone?

Same with infants, dogs, cats and amoebae. I see where you’re going
with this!

> Makes more sense than
> stopping people who are driving safely just to see if they have a
> laminated driver license certificate!

That’s never happened to me, nor anyone I know.

> Fact is, if we're spending less
> time stopping people who are driving safely just to see if they have a
> laminated driver license certificate, we could spend more time
> stopping people who exhibit unsafe driving behaviors.

I’ve never seen police stop people driving merely to check to see if
they have a license.

> > Luckily, everyone except a small few boneheads understands that
> > operating a motor vehicle is not something a child can do safely
> > with reliability.
>
> Now you contradict yourself. Above, you said you didn't know if the
> 10 year old could drive safely. Now, you say they can not.

Let’s put my dog behind the wheel and let him take off too!!

On Mar 11, 9:59*am, (Brent P)
wrote:
> In article >, Ed Pirrero wrote:
>
> >Somehow, *you* claim to be able to tell the diference without being
> >able to prove it.
>
> Well if you don't believe in individual liberty, individual rights, then
> there can never be any proof.

I guess when it gets down to assigning someone else a position, that's
all the "proof" required, hmm?

E.P.

On Mar 11, 10:13*am, proffsl > wrote:
> On Mar 11, 9:50*am, Ed Pirrero > wrote:
>
> > Luckily, everyone except a small few boneheads understands that
> > operating a motor vehicle is not something a child can do safely
> > with reliability.
>
> Now you contradict yourself. *Above, you said you didn't know if the
> 10 year old could drive safely. *Now, you say they can not.

That's right, I did just contradict myself. Because I *know* that
there are approximately zero ten-year-olds that have the mental
accumen to drive safely, reliably, on public streets.

But, since your whole argument is absurd, expect other people to be
logically rigorous is hypocrisy on your part.

E.P.

In article >, Ed Pirrero wrote:
>On Mar 11, 9:59*am, (Brent P)
>wrote:
>> In article >, Ed Pirrero wrote:
>>
>> >Somehow, *you* claim to be able to tell the diference without being
>> >able to prove it.
>>
>> Well if you don't believe in individual liberty, individual rights, then
>> there can never be any proof.
>
>I guess when it gets down to assigning someone else a position, that's
>all the "proof" required, hmm?

Having trouble Ed? Looks like it. You assigned me the position of
being able to tell the difference between what is good for the general
welfare and what isn't, or is control. The fact is no one person, no
system of authority for that matter can know what is good for the
general welfare. However a system of authority can execute a system of
control, that's its business.

No one person, no system of authority can make a determination of what
is for the general welfare and what is not. What is good for the general
welfare comes from the aggregate of very many freely made individual
decisions. Determinations of what is good for the general welfare from
authority over-ride belief in individual liberty.

As to arguing that graduated licensing is control, well you snipped it
again. This time I'll just post the law:

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs...0050K6-107.htm

When you get to the meat of it, the actual graduations we have the
following:
(e) No graduated driver's license holder under the age of 18 years
shall operate any motor vehicle, except a motor driven cycle or
motorcycle, with more than one passenger in the front seat of the motor
vehicle and no more passengers in the back seats than the number of
available seat safety belts as set forth in Section 12.603 of this Code.
If a graduated driver's license holder over the age of 18 committed an
offense against traffic regulations governing the movement of vehicles
or any violation of this Section or Section 12.603.1 of this Code in the
6 months prior to the graduated driver's license holder's 18th birthday,
and was subsequently convicted of the violation, the provisions of this
paragraph shall continue to apply until such time as a period of 6
consecutive months has elapsed without an additional violation and
subsequent conviction of an offense against traffic regulations
governing the movement of vehicles or any violation of this Section or
Section 12.603.1 of this Code.
(f) No graduated driver's license holder under the age of 18 shall
operate a motor vehicle unless each driver and passenger under the age
of 19 is wearing a properly adjusted and fastened seat safety belt and
each child under the age of 8 is protected as required under the Child
Passenger Protection Act. If a graduated driver's license holder over
the age of 18 committed an offense against traffic regulations governing
the movement of vehicles or any violation of this Section or Section
12.603.1 of this Code in the 6 months prior to the graduated driver's
license holder's 18th birthday, and was subsequently convicted of the
violation, the provisions of this paragraph shall continue to apply
until such time as a period of 6 consecutive months has elapsed without
an additional violation and subsequent conviction of an offense against
traffic regulations governing the movement of vehicles or any violation
of this Section or Section 12.603.1 of this Code.
(g) If a graduated driver's license holder is under the age of 18
when he or she receives the license, for the first 12 months he or she
holds the license or until he or she reaches the age of 18, whichever
occurs sooner, the graduated license holder may not operate a motor
vehicle with more than one passenger in the vehicle who is under the age
of 20, unless any additional passenger or passengers are siblings,
step.siblings, children, or stepchildren of the driver. If a graduated
driver's license holder committed an offense against traffic regulations
governing the movement of vehicles or any violation of this Section or
Section 12.603.1 of this Code during the first 12 months the license is
held and subsequently is convicted of the violation, the provisions of
this paragraph shall remain in effect until such time as a period of 6
consecutive months has elapsed without an additional violation and
subsequent conviction of an offense against traffic regulations
governing the movement of vehicles or any violation of this Section or
Section 12.603.1 of this Code.
(h) It shall be an offense for a person that is age 15, but under
age 20, to be a passenger in a vehicle operated by a driver holding a
graduated driver's license during the first 12 months the driver holds
the license or until the driver reaches the age of 18, whichever occurs
sooner, if another passenger under the age of 20 is present, excluding a
sibling, step.sibling, child, or step.child of the driver.


Where is competence brought about through these graduations? I'm just
not seeing it. I see a bunch of legal controls but I see no actual
structure to build competence.

On Mar 11, 11:41*am, (Brent P)
wrote:
> In article >, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> >On Mar 11, 9:59*am, (Brent P)
> >wrote:
> >> In article >, Ed Pirrero wrote:
>
> >> >Somehow, *you* claim to be able to tell the diference without being
> >> >able to prove it.
>
> >> Well if you don't believe in individual liberty, individual rights, then
> >> there can never be any proof.
>
> >I guess when it gets down to assigning someone else a position, that's
> >all the "proof" required, hmm?
>
> You assigned me the position of
> being able to tell the difference between what is good for the general
> welfare and what isn't, or is control.

Actually, I didn't. I asked a question.

You can, if you wish, keep reasserting the same unproven claim. I am
not persuaded. Recast it in different terms and I'm still not
persuaded. Use logical fallacy to attempt to gain some upper hand?
Not persuaded.

The biggest indictment of your position is in your own words. You are
*for* a system like Germany uses.

Obviously, you are for "control" when it suits your own purposes. It
has always been thus - which is why your arguments to the contrary are
so easily dismissed. If it weren't *for your own words*, I might
actually think that you had a glimmer of a point hiding under all that
blustery rhetoric. But in the end, it's just a lot of wind.

But hey, what should one expect? You're from Chicago!

E.P.

In article >, Ed Pirrero wrote:
>On Mar 11, 11:41*am, (Brent P)
>wrote:
>> In article >, Ed Pirrero wrote:
>> >On Mar 11, 9:59*am, (Brent P)
>> >wrote:
>> >> In article >, Ed Pirrero wrote:
>>
>> >> >Somehow, *you* claim to be able to tell the diference without being
>> >> >able to prove it.
>>
>> >> Well if you don't believe in individual liberty, individual rights, then
>> >> there can never be any proof.
>>
>> >I guess when it gets down to assigning someone else a position, that's
>> >all the "proof" required, hmm?
>>
>> You assigned me the position of
>> being able to tell the difference between what is good for the general
>> welfare and what isn't, or is control.
>
>Actually, I didn't. I asked a question.

I made an if statement. You either play the technicalities or you don't
Ed.

>You can, if you wish, keep reasserting the same unproven claim. I am
>not persuaded.

You'll never be. You're like gpstroll in that respect.

> Recast it in different terms and I'm still not
>persuaded. Use logical fallacy to attempt to gain some upper hand?
>Not persuaded.

You're sounding more and more like gpstroll.

>The biggest indictment of your position is in your own words. You are
>*for* a system like Germany uses.

Out of context again. I spoke only of the competency requirements not
bull**** about only having one passenger or going to the super-duper
driving school. I strip the Germany's system of its controlling aspects
only leaving competency requirements. I have corrected you multiple
times now yet you insist on this, your dishonesty has returned.

>Obviously, you are for "control" when it suits your own purposes.

So you think competency equals control? Competency is not the same as
giving government's police forces the ability to stop and demand papers
of someone to check if it is legal for them to be driving with the
number of passengers they have.

> It
>has always been thus - which is why your arguments to the contrary are
>so easily dismissed. If it weren't *for your own words*,

Your usual dishonest twisting. I did not accept the German system as a
whole, I accepted one facet of it, competency. that's it. Not their
system of driving schools, not their speed cameras, not their high fees
and taxes, not their punitive system, just that drivers be competent.
That does not require government control in the least. It could be some
sort of free market certification. It is not my fault you have a statist
mentality, that is of course if you weren't just being dishonest. Given
my previous corrections I lean to towards the later.

> I might
>actually think that you had a glimmer of a point hiding under all that
>blustery rhetoric. But in the end, it's just a lot of wind.
>But hey, what should one expect? You're from Chicago!

And Ed washes up on the beach with an insult.

Show me where the IL graduated licensing law actually makes a competent
driver rather than just controlling things like the number of passegers
until a person turns 18?

On Mar 11, 12:21*pm, Ed Pirrero > wrote:
> On Mar 11, 10:13*am, proffsl > wrote:
> > On Mar 11, 9:50*am, Ed Pirrero > wrote:
>
> > > Luckily, everyone except a small few boneheads understands that
> > > operating a motor vehicle is not something a child can do safely
> > > with reliability.
>
> > Now you contradict yourself. *Above, you said you didn't know if the
> > 10 year old could drive safely. *Now, you say they can not.
>
> That's right, I did just contradict myself. *Because I *know* that
> there are approximately zero ten-year-olds that have the mental
> accumen to drive safely, reliably, on public streets.

If someone does drive safely, what problem could you have with their
doing so?


> But, since your whole argument is absurd, expect other people to be
> logically rigorous is hypocrisy on your part.

My argument is that we have the Right to Drive safely

Nobody has the Right to do anything dangerously.