Re: Why I oppose seatbelt and helmet laws


MZ wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jun 2006, john.vampatella@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
MZ wrote:
I was with you until this final paragraph. How do your two paragraphs
that precede it cause you to arrive at the conclusion that it's a
"privelege granted by the state"?

I'm not sure where the disconnect is for you. To me, it's a pretty
seamless train of thought. If the government has the "right" (haha) to
punish someone for doing something, then you may only safely (i.e.,
without fear of punishment) perform that act if the government grants
you permission. That's pretty self-evident reasoning.

I don't believe it to be a true statement, and that's probably where the
discrepancy lies. "If the government has the right to punish someone for
doing something..." You finished that statement with the government
granting you permission to do it. That's like saying they've given you
permission to take a crap because they don't punish you for it. No, I
believe there's punishment for things and then the absence of punishment
for things. Just because there's no punishment does not mean that it's a
privelege. In the movies you hear a bully say "You're lucky I don't knock
your teeth out." Has he thus given the person the "privelege" of keeping
his teeth?

Apples and oranges, in my view. A bully may say such a thing, but his
statement has no foundation (other than that he literally could beat
you up I guess). The state, on the other hand, is the government of
the people. It has the authority (unless contradicted by the
constitution...which is what such court cases are all about,
determining the scope of government authority) to grant such privileges
and punish those who violate them.

The government can either
infringe upon those rights or not infringe upon those rights. There's no
third option, unless you believe that government can bestow rights upon
people -- this attributes supernatural status to the government which I
remind you is merely a collection of people.

I don't think everything is automatically a "right" that the government
can infringe upon or not infringe upon. Do you have the "right" to
kill another person, and the government is simply infringing upon that
right?

I didn't say that everything is a right. I said that there are rights (if
you go for that sort of thing). What they are is, of course, a topic of
debate.

I agree we have rights. It's unclear to me what, exactly, they are.
But I suspect we have some.

But if they exist, it's not because of the grace of government.
They're either there, or they're not.

I agree.

In short, government does not grant
rights. They may recognize rights. They may protect rights. They may
even infringe upon rights. But they don't grant rights.

I agree. But the state can grant privileges. You seem to think (if I
understand you correctly, which I very well may not...in which case
please correct me) that we either have rights or don't have rights. I
think there's a third category: privileges. We see them all the time
in every day life. We're granted (or not granted) certain privileges
by appropriate authorities (our boss, government, parents, whatever).
I think operating a motor vehicle on a public road falls into this
third category.

By what authority does a collection of people have in order
to do something like that? Indeed, a society can "look the other way"
about certain things (ie. not punish an action), but that doesn't mean
you've suddenly sprouted that right.

I agree. But I don't think a "right" is the same thing as a
"privilege". Apparently you disagree. Ok.

I don't think it's the same thing either. In fact, I don't think the two
are necessarily related. I got the impression that you did, based on your
"it's not a right, it's a privelege" stance. It seems like you think that
all actions and behavior must be one or the other.

I'm a little confused by what you think I meant, so let me try again
(briefly). I think we have certain rights (not always sure what,
exactly, they are...that's up for debate). The government can either
infringe upon those rights (say, the right to life) or it can choose to
not infringe upon those rights.

I also think that the government has the right (yes, by the very same
meaning of the term) to grant certain privileges to its citizens.

People perform all kinds of actions in a given day. Sometimes an
action may simply be exercising a right. Sometimes it may not be
exercising a right, and I might get caught (i.e., murdering someone)
and punished. Sometimes it may not be exercising a right but I don't
get caught or punished. Sometimes an action may be the exercise of a
privilege granted by the state. Sometimes it may not be, and either I
could get caught (and punished) or not get caught.

I'm not sure what other options there are. If you know of any, let me
know.

I happen to believe that operating a motor vehicle falls into the
"privilege" category. I, by virtue of passing the state requirements
for a driver's license (thus I have my government-issued permission
slip) have been granted the privilege of operating the motor vehicle on
public roads. That is, so long as I don't do something to cause the
government to revoke that privilege (which in fact happens to many
people).

John

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Why I oppose seatbelt and helmet laws
    ... If the government has the "right" to ... "If the government has the right to punish someone for doing something..." ... Just because there's no punishment does not mean that it's a privelege. ... infringe upon those rights or not infringe upon those rights. ...
    (alt.sports.football.pro.ne-patriots)
  • Re: Karpal Singh is the seditious one
    ... Who else is doing all the government jobs. ... Also you must add to that, the high crime rate, the approving of millions of citizenship for Indonesian and philippinos thieves and robbers, massive corruption from A to Z in the civil services, paying 1500 for a set of screw driver that cost 15 ringgit, less than 10% efficiency in the civil services, antique administration, and of course judiciary for sell. ... Tell me idiot and the idiot price, what the use of rights and previledges when you are hungry. ... privileges granted to citizens. ...
    (soc.culture.malaysia)
  • Re: Nanny, May I ?
    ... These are rights, they are privileges, and wealth always generates more privileges than poverty. ... "Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. ...
    (alt.smokers.pipes)
  • Re: If Healthcare is a Right
    ... Under our system of government "rights" were deemed to have been granted ... And the men that decided those privileges were ... creator" and if you could read, you would have noticed the word "DEEMED" in ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Karpal Singh is the seditious one
    ... Who else is doing all the government jobs. ... the approving of millions of citizenship for Indonesian and ... Tell me idiot and the idiot price, what the use of rights and previledges ... privileges granted to citizens. ...
    (soc.culture.malaysia)