|
UncleNasty -> RE: Common-law Right to Travel (1/18/2010 7:07:38 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: thornhappy
quote:
ORIGINAL: UncleNasty
In times past things considered crimes, for which a violator or guilty party could be held accountable, were limited to only 2 circumstances:
1) When one harmed anothers person
2) When one harmed anothers property
Were I to travel, or operate a motor vehicle, or drive, on the public roads (which are paid for by the people, and belong to the people NOT the government) without having a license or vehicle registration sanctioned by the state, doing such in accordance with safe practices, arriving at my destination having harmed no one, and having harmed no one's property, where is the logic or reason in deeming such activity a crime, and me a criminal?
Referring to ownership of the roads...how do you figure the exact ownership? Roads may be a mix of local, state, and federal money. So if you live and pay taxes in Ohio, and drive to Indiana, or across the country for that matter, shouldn't you have to pay each municipality/county/state partial compensation, since your state and local taxes didn't pay for those specific roads? Same for maintenance. When I drive to my parents' house, I benefit by their township's road crews in the wintertime. But I don't compensate them.
This is where I think libertarian approaches break down. These structures, to me (and it's not a legal opinion), seem to be part and parcel of living in a society at large, not in your own private kingdom. The same way I pay taxes for schools, and make up for folks who get tax deductions for children, even though I have none.
Now as for licensing and such. You're out and about operating a dangerous piece of equipment; you may be a paragon of virtue, but what about the incompetent ones? I'd rather have a screening function than let everyone loose on the road. You can do some terrible driving without harming life or property; you'll just inspire sheer panic on the road instead.
quote:
ORIGINAL: UncleNasty
A sorta reversal of the argument saying that driving is not a right, but rather a privilege, goes something like this:
If a driver of a motor vehicle, who has been granted the privilege to do so by the state, and sanctioned as a safe driver by the state, is the cause of an accident that DOES harm another person, why cannot the harmed person sue also the state in order to be made whole?
The states issuance of licenses clearly does not protect any of us, as evidenced by the numbers of accidents, injuries and deaths that occur annually. Given that is true what then is the purpose of a license?
For the first question, the state was not operating the vehicle at the time. You could have a blowout and cause an accident, why would the state be responsible?
Regarding the number of accidents and such with licensing in place, the problem with this assumption is that you have no idea what the accident rate would be if the entire population was unlicensed.
Seems like the purpose of a license is to see if you've got enough skill with a car to not endanger people or property. Would you rent a car to someone without a license, and nothing but their own word as to whether they're a good driver? It's at least a starting point.
1) My understanding is that funding for roads comes from, well basically a usage tax placed on gasoline. There is a Federal tax and a State tax. I'm uncertain about a more localized tax. Chances are if you drive in or through a state you'll be purchasing gasoline in that same state, thereby paying for your use of the public roads.
2) You have no idea what that accident rate would be either.
You're making an assumption as well that without state issued licenses the roads would be completely chaotic, and that, in essence, the majority people are of such low character that they would routinely act in complete disregard for both their own, and others, safety.
The first reason I drive responsibly is to save my own skin. The second is to save the skin of everyone else sharing the road with me. The last reason is obeyance of the laws, or any fears of being ticketed. I think most people are concerned enough about their own skin that they won't blatantly endanger themselves. For the ones that are so wreckless... Well, they probably have licenses anyway, yet that doesn't seem to deter them. It didn't deter the licensed driver that caused the accident I was in two years ago. Pulling out into oncoming traffic seems like something they would teach you to avoid doing. Or maybe common sense would proscribe the action. Whatever the case the piece of laminated paper the state had issued him didn't protect me.
3) The purpose of licenses is obviously not to ensure safety. If that were the case then testing, either written, active driving, or both, would be required on a regular basis. Instead what we have is a system in which you simply hand over more money to the DMV every 4-6 years to renew with no testing whatsoever. But peoples abilities change over time (and some that managed to pass the test had scant to no abilities to begin with).
eyesight changes
reaction time changes
awareness changes
prescription drugs alter driving abilities
everything changes as we become elderly
Florida is filled with elderly drivers whose ability to safely operate a motor vehicle has become so compromised that they should not be on the roads at all. Yet taking away a license from an elderly person in Florida is very difficult to do.
I purchased a motorcycle from out of state a few years ago. Kentucky requires out of state vehicles being newly registered in state to be inspected. A fee of $4.00 is charged. So I went to comply with the law. The clerk was quite willing to take my money, but she was not willing to walk outside on a gorgeous day and physically inspect my bike. The law requires a physical inspection. I had to argue with her and actually MAKE her do her job. It was beyond ridiculous. And this from a governmental official whose duty it is enoforce the laws and protect the citizens.
Licenses (and most traffic laws) are about revenue. Go into any traffic court and watch and listen to the proceedings. It is a rare event for the ticketing officer to be present (which is required), or for the prosecutor to have taken all required steps in the prosecution of the case. Most cases are plea bargained in a pre-trial conference and are not even heard or fully adjudicated.
A two to three hour session in traffic court is likely to "process" 100 people, each of whom typically accepts the plea bargain and pays $100-150 in fines, and an equal amount in court costs, rendering the county and/or state $20,000-30,000 in revenue. In larger cities there will be several to many traffic courts, each running 3-5 sessions daily, 5 days a week, and sometimes on Saturdays.
5 courts, at 5 sessions, operating 5 days a week, produces $2,500,000.00 a week. Calculated for 100 people per session and $200.00 fines and costs.
10 courts, at 5 sessions, operating 6 days a week, produces $9,000,000.00 a week. Calculated for 100 people per session and $300.00 fines and costs.
Very noteworthy is that the majority of the "violations" do not involve any accident victims.
Draw your own conclusions.
Uncle Nasty
|
|
|
|
