Well then, maybe a definition of privilege and right would be in order:
A privilegeâ"etymologically "private law" or law relating to a specific individualâ"is a special entitlement or immunity granted by a government or other authority to a restricted group, either by birth or on a conditional basis. A privilege can be revoked in some cases. In modern democracies, a privilege is conditional and granted only after birth. By contrast, a right is an inherent, irrevocable entitlement held by all citizens or all human beings from birth.
Are you saying that you have a right to hunt? I would've thought that too is a privilege.
From the Wikipedia definition of privilege:
a privilege is conditional and granted only after birth. By contrast, a right is an inherent, irrevocable entitlement held by all citizens or all human beings from birth.
You get something in return for the money you pay in taxes. You get goods transported to whereever you feel like buying them.
I consider driving a privilege, because you have to gain this privilege. If it was a right, you'd inherently have it regardless.
You're of course correct in correcting me in the "society/individual", but I think you get my drift nevertheless. All the individuals pay for a common good that is being provided by the governing body. Since this is for the common good, rules have to be in place to prevent abuse and ensure the safety of all the other citizens.
I'm growing a bit weary of this discussion though. I've lost count of how many replies (and how much time I've spent!).
And your is equivalent of that of a one-year-old... Duh...
I consider driving a privilege because controlling a several-ton vehicle on a road poses a serious risk to others. At that point, I consider an action to be a privilege, not a right.
Can't opt out? Sure you can! If you let go of all you ties to society and live as a hermit in the woods, you can avoid paying any taxes. The thing is, you would probably not like that very much either. Partaking in a society both giveth and taketh away. Paying for infrastructure that makes sure that your groceries, furniture, etc., etc., comes close to your location is part of the road use. If you don't accept that, you should also not be allowed to purchase items transported to you by those means, should you?
I'm not going to start a discussion on whether or not the death sentence is Good (tm) or Bad (tm), because that's way off the mark for what we're discussing.
IMHO, the penalties for traffic offenses should be way harsher
No, I don't see an issue here. You're also paying for the White House, yet you are not allowed to enter (possibly except on tours). You have also contributed to the USAFs more than 5k manned aircraft, yet you are prohibited from using them (unless you fulfil certain requirements. It's way harder, but in essence the same as getting a licence plate for your car). That is an essential part of any society I know of.
I pay taxes as any other person, and I have serious issues with how they are being spent. But that is not the issue here.
A licence plate is by no means necessary to collect tax on any given vehicle. They could just as easily use the VIN (Vehicle identification number) for that purpose.
So if I'm barely capable of standing up due to drinking myself shit-faced, have a right to use the roads as I see fit? If I have lost my drivers licence?
There are in most cases an alterative. It may not be what you wish (ie, public transportation) or can afford (taxi, hiring a driver), but there are alternatives.
The taxpayers have also paid for the White House, correct? I presume that the taxpayers have also paid for the 5778 manned aircraft in use by the US Air Force? Do you feel that it is your right to use those as you see fit? You have paid for them as a taxpayer...
You have plenty of ways to travel, most of them are public transit.
Having a hard time keeping up with all the replies here;)
I wouldn't say that being forced to pay a fine is equal to being robbed of any freedom. We have strayed a fair bit from the original point now though. Imho, the "profit" from the bills should not go to the enforcing authority, but rather to other causes. Eg. to help cover societys costs in hospital bills related to traffic accidents.
Yes, the police break the rules here too. Unfortunately, we have noone that can properly "watch the watchers". The last few years there have been several deaths during the apprehension of criminals. "Shit happens", you may say and I'd like to agree. But if you view all the deaths, they all happen to be black (which is a very small minority in my town). The point is, the police cannot be trusted. But I can't see a better alternative to enforce the rules set up (If there was, I'd think we'd already see this somewhere...) In my opinion, a police officer caught breaking a law should be punished more severely than civilians. A repeat offender should be punished and subsequently fired.
No, we're not that lucky. Snow buildup on the plates are common. That is why the police officers also show common sense when stopping cars with obscured licence plates, but does not fine them.
Ok, to turn this around a bit. Can you tell me exactly which pieces of asphalt/concrete you have paid for? Those would be the places where you (by your own logic) could drive whatever and however you see fit. Now, as you might imagine, this really doesn't work in a society.
Here in Norway we also have a point system (dysfunctional in practice unfortunately). It does not remove the fines associated with violations. Infact, it was not designed to do this. It was designed to stop repeat offenders with fat wallets.
You say that punishment must come at a cost to society, not profit. While I can understand your sentiment, I don't feel it makes much sense. Why should society as a whole pay for the crimes of offenders? IMHO, the offenders deserve to pay, but that also requires that the definitions of an offence are sane (which in many cases they are not), and the enforcement likewise. In my opinion, that is where the problem lies, not in the "profit" gained. This imho an issue of "who watches the watchers".
In my home town, I'm repeatedly disappointed by the lack of police enforcing traffic rules even though they stand to rake in substancial amounts of money doing so.
You don't. You wipe off the plates before you enter the road. Being as stupid as what you're projecting should be illegal.
I'm familiar with conditions similar to what you describe in Anchorage, only with massive snowfall. The police regularly pull over drivers with licence plates obscured, and usually lets them off the hook unless there is visible negligence. When there are extreme conditions, the police are usually aware of this and accounts for it. (Not all officers have it, but there's something called "common sense" which should be applied in situations like those)
I live in Norway, and during winter it is common for the cars to be completely covered in snow. That does not excuse us from removing the snow/ice covering the plates, nor the windscreen and side windows.
Slashdot Mirror
Did you read the definition of a right? Why does one have to have a permit to hunt certain animals?
Well then, maybe a definition of privilege and right would be in order:
Are you saying that you have a right to hunt? I would've thought that too is a privilege.
From the Wikipedia definition of privilege:
You get something in return for the money you pay in taxes. You get goods transported to whereever you feel like buying them.
I consider driving a privilege, because you have to gain this privilege. If it was a right, you'd inherently have it regardless.
You're of course correct in correcting me in the "society/individual", but I think you get my drift nevertheless. All the individuals pay for a common good that is being provided by the governing body. Since this is for the common good, rules have to be in place to prevent abuse and ensure the safety of all the other citizens.
I'm growing a bit weary of this discussion though. I've lost count of how many replies (and how much time I've spent!).
Seriously... Do you want such a society?
A persons freedom is defined in basic human rights. Driving isn't.
And your is equivalent of that of a one-year-old... Duh...
I consider driving a privilege because controlling a several-ton vehicle on a road poses a serious risk to others. At that point, I consider an action to be a privilege, not a right.
You are still indirectly using the roads when you purchase almost anything.
Would you not say that the public also owns the White House? The Air Force (and its materials)?
I've answered a bunch of replies just like yours already.
Licence plates are not necessary for tax collection. A VIN would suffice.
The licence plate is not for your safety, but that of others around you.
Can't opt out? Sure you can! If you let go of all you ties to society and live as a hermit in the woods, you can avoid paying any taxes. The thing is, you would probably not like that very much either. Partaking in a society both giveth and taketh away. Paying for infrastructure that makes sure that your groceries, furniture, etc., etc., comes close to your location is part of the road use. If you don't accept that, you should also not be allowed to purchase items transported to you by those means, should you?
I'm not going to start a discussion on whether or not the death sentence is Good (tm) or Bad (tm), because that's way off the mark for what we're discussing.
IMHO, the penalties for traffic offenses should be way harsher
Times change. That is in most cases a Good Thing (TM). When the premises change, so should the rules.
No, I don't see an issue here. You're also paying for the White House, yet you are not allowed to enter (possibly except on tours). You have also contributed to the USAFs more than 5k manned aircraft, yet you are prohibited from using them (unless you fulfil certain requirements. It's way harder, but in essence the same as getting a licence plate for your car).
That is an essential part of any society I know of.
I pay taxes as any other person, and I have serious issues with how they are being spent. But that is not the issue here.
A licence plate is by no means necessary to collect tax on any given vehicle. They could just as easily use the VIN (Vehicle identification number) for that purpose.
Do you have a better suggestion than police?
So if I'm barely capable of standing up due to drinking myself shit-faced, have a right to use the roads as I see fit?
If I have lost my drivers licence?
There are in most cases an alterative. It may not be what you wish (ie, public transportation) or can afford (taxi, hiring a driver), but there are alternatives.
The taxpayers have also paid for the White House, correct?
I presume that the taxpayers have also paid for the 5778 manned aircraft in use by the US Air Force?
Do you feel that it is your right to use those as you see fit? You have paid for them as a taxpayer...
You have plenty of ways to travel, most of them are public transit.
I believe the tax payers have also paid for:
* The white house
* A huge amount of military fighter jets
* A bigger amount of tanks
Is it reasonable to assume that, since they are paid for by the taxpayers, they are free for the taxpayers use as they see fit?
Having a hard time keeping up with all the replies here ;)
I wouldn't say that being forced to pay a fine is equal to being robbed of any freedom. We have strayed a fair bit from the original point now though.
Imho, the "profit" from the bills should not go to the enforcing authority, but rather to other causes. Eg. to help cover societys costs in hospital bills related to traffic accidents.
Yes, the police break the rules here too. Unfortunately, we have noone that can properly "watch the watchers". The last few years there have been several deaths during the apprehension of criminals. "Shit happens", you may say and I'd like to agree. But if you view all the deaths, they all happen to be black (which is a very small minority in my town). The point is, the police cannot be trusted. But I can't see a better alternative to enforce the rules set up (If there was, I'd think we'd already see this somewhere...)
In my opinion, a police officer caught breaking a law should be punished more severely than civilians. A repeat offender should be punished and subsequently fired.
No, we're not that lucky. Snow buildup on the plates are common. That is why the police officers also show common sense when stopping cars with obscured licence plates, but does not fine them.
Society pays for the infrastructure for the good of the society, not for the good of the individual.
You are using it, even if you don't set foot/car on the pavement. The roads are used to transport goods vital for everyone in a society.
Consider this... Without a central authority, the roads would not be built.
Ok, to turn this around a bit. Can you tell me exactly which pieces of asphalt/concrete you have paid for? Those would be the places where you (by your own logic) could drive whatever and however you see fit.
Now, as you might imagine, this really doesn't work in a society.
Finally, a comprehensive and intelligent reply! :)
Here in Norway we also have a point system (dysfunctional in practice unfortunately). It does not remove the fines associated with violations. Infact, it was not designed to do this. It was designed to stop repeat offenders with fat wallets.
You say that punishment must come at a cost to society, not profit. While I can understand your sentiment, I don't feel it makes much sense. Why should society as a whole pay for the crimes of offenders? IMHO, the offenders deserve to pay, but that also requires that the definitions of an offence are sane (which in many cases they are not), and the enforcement likewise. In my opinion, that is where the problem lies, not in the "profit" gained.
This imho an issue of "who watches the watchers".
In my home town, I'm repeatedly disappointed by the lack of police enforcing traffic rules even though they stand to rake in substancial amounts of money doing so.
You don't. You wipe off the plates before you enter the road. Being as stupid as what you're projecting should be illegal.
I'm familiar with conditions similar to what you describe in Anchorage, only with massive snowfall. The police regularly pull over drivers with licence plates obscured, and usually lets them off the hook unless there is visible negligence. When there are extreme conditions, the police are usually aware of this and accounts for it. (Not all officers have it, but there's something called "common sense" which should be applied in situations like those)
I live in Norway, and during winter it is common for the cars to be completely covered in snow. That does not excuse us from removing the snow/ice covering the plates, nor the windscreen and side windows.