Absolute Rights Offshoot...

[Edward429451]

As an offshoot to Labgrades excellant Absolute rights thread...

OK so if rights are absolute, as we all seem to generally agree in the other thread, what do you all think about where that leaves us in regard to traffic tickets? Not reckless ops, not eluding or speeding in a school zone or anything that we could say "yeah, I shouldnt've been doing that, I actually could've put someones (rights) safety in danger" but fer instance about 10 days ago, I got a 4 point ticket for my wheels being in front of the line at a traffic light. This'll make my insurance go up and I victimized no one, infringed on no ones rights. I think thats bunk. I wont even be able to face my victim.

Personally, I think I was infringed upon. Of course I didn't give the cop any crap, who wants to die for a traffic ticket? But this is fundamentally wrong. I should've been able to tell the cop where to take his ticket. This is'nt meant to be a LEO bashing thread, but rather a critique of the system. I'll pay it just to keep em off my back and my license valid, but it goes against my teaching of don't pay the bully or he'll be back for more, smack him in the nose instead. Where do you draw the line in defining 'Absolute'?

The 'color of law' does'nt give LEO's the right to infringe on peoples rights when there is no victim, does it? Or does it?

 

[anchored]

In every state that I know of, driving a car is a privilege, not a right. You did something that you allowed your legislators to declare to be an offense, and so you have no right to complain because you got caught doing it.
In law, somehow, we've allowed two different classes of infractions to be punishable - those that are malum in se, and those that are malum prohibitum. The first category are those that are bad in their own right, the second are those that are bad because they're prohibited (like speeding). When you got your driver's license, you agreed to be punished for doing things drivers are prohibited from doing.

 

[Edward429451]

Aw, you missed the point and didn't answer the question.

I'm not complaining, I used my experiance as an example. I'm gonna pay it, but I dont think it was right for a victimless crime. Years ago, I got a J-Walking ticket, No traffic coming, still got the ticket. Do you think J walking tickets are constitutional? No driving involved, no victim.

'Driving is a Privilege'. I've heard that rumor for years. I dont think I agree with it being a privilege. What if the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness takes you to your friends house across town. Private vehicle, private lawful business. I once read a book that explained that drivers licenses were implemented 'for commercial purposes' and that citizens did not need them.

 

[NewShooter78]

IIRC, there haven't always been driver's licenses since the automobile was invented. And laws have more than likely been added to the books over the years that haven't always been there. But it is now considered a privilage by the state. Even if you don't own a car, or have a license to drive one, your taxes do go to fixing local roads. And not all municipalities offer public transportation, so in order to live a lot of people around this country must drive to go to work, go to the store, etc. So you do not have a choice. But I don't want to argue that. Yes some laws are stupid, but ignorance of the law is not a defense.

Do I think the right to drive is Absolute. No. All things not covered by the Constitution or the Fed Gov't USC is left up to the State. But its not a good debate subject in my opinion. You could always walk to your friend's place, or ride a bike. The State doesn't say you can't find another means of transportation, so they aren't infringing on the right to life or liberty, or the pursuit of happiness.

 

[MacPelto]

Well, on the one hand, you'd have a better argument if you didn't have a driver's license...but as it is, by accepting the government as the regulating body when you got the 'license', you have essentially entered into a social contract whereby you agree to follow their rules. When you break the contract, the specified penalties apply.

On the other hand, you must have some really hard-assed cops, to go giving out tickets for 'wheels over the line'.

 

[Zander]

In every state that I know of, driving a car is a privilege, not a right.

By whose definition? The only interest by a state is that you pay a fee for that "privilege".

It has nothing...NOTHING...to do with your right to move freely about the country by the mode of your choice.

And in my state, it has nothing to do with that citizen's right; Tennessee DLs are routinely issued to illegal aliens for "ID" purposes...no proof of "secure" ID, such as SSN, required.

Idiots!

 

[Blackhawk]

The 'color of law' does'nt give LEO's the right to infringe on peoples rights when there is no victim, does it? Or does it?

You made an agreement with the state to obey all traffic laws. One of them says keep your wheels in back of the stop line. You didn't do that. Are you now saying YOU didn't give the state the right to enforce the laws YOU agreed to abide by?

It doesn't have anything to do with rights, but it was a nice rant, and I hope you feel better for having made it.

 

[Zander]

You made an agreement with the state to obey all traffic laws. -- Blackhawk

If we're going to agree to such rules, those who enforce them must agree that they cannot use discretion in any shape, form or fashion.

Need I describe the reaction to such zero-tolerance enforcement of malum prohibitum laws?

Need I defend that reaction?

 

[Blackhawk]

You actually agree to the traffic rules when you get a driver's license, and you constructively agree to them every time you drive on a public street.

Those who enforce them had BETTER use discretion!

 

[Zander]

Those who enforce them had BETTER use discretion!

An entertaining thought, but I've never seen it published in a policy manual of any civilian police force...and I've reviewed a bunch of 'em.

Truth is, the "contract" is inherently one-sided; the non-LEO citizen, by your definition of the "privilege" to convey oneself on the "public" thoroughfares, must be held to the "letter" of a given law, even [especially?] if its primary purpose is to raise revenue for the local jurisdiction.

It's a scam, just as the majority of malum prohibitum laws are scams meant to:

1. Increase the power of the local constabulary; or...

2. Generate discretionary revenue for the employers of said constabulary; or...

3. Accomplish a combination of the above.

The sad fact is that "discretion" is frequently used...almost always to the detriment of the average citizen.

And I'm more than willing to condemn judges of all stripes who knowingly and willingly condone LEOs perjuring themselves in their courtrooms.

Please tell me that you agree...

 

[labgrade]

Gotta ask.

Who comes up with what speed limits are set, double lines/no passing zones - all the signs one sees while driving.

Some faceless thing, far as I know. Cops don't do it, but do enforce it.

Got a ticket once for parking in front of my own house = "right front tire more than 12" from the curb." Being a Calibration Engineer at the time, I measured it & sure 'nuff, tire was only 8+" off & that for the furthest part of the curb. Oops! I had parked in the opposite direction & was measuring from my left front tire.

Oh well & paid the $15, but who comes up with this stuff?

I'm all for haviing a basic set of rules, but folks, driving's pretty much like coloring - ya just stay within the lines .....

 

[Edward429451]

So let me see if I got this right. Theres a general consensus that rights are absolute, except when it comes to the State? Some fairly good reasoning behind it. I definitely see you alls point but delving deeper we wonder what is the cause for this effect?

Fear Factor? Yes fear is a factor, mp5sd's are real, waco was real, roadblocks, confiscation, traffic tickets , seperation from family (jail), Death.

As I stand here on United States avenue (which is supposed to turn into Liberty avenue just a few short blocks up), I squint fom the shadows up the avenue and I do see Liberty ave, just a block further up than the Absolute Rights Tollway. I always thought AR Tollway was supposed to be AR Highway, but now that you mention it, I can see a bunch of guys in black with machineguns. One of them told me that if I sign on the dotted line and pay a fee, that they'd allow me to stand and gaze in the direction of Liberty ave, even discuss it, but that if I took one step towards it I would be made to pay even more fees and maybe even be killed. I thought about putting this confused individual in his place but suddenly realized that I knew him. He is my neighbor. Lives just up the street, his kids play with my kids. He is merely a peon of others. Hes under orders and wants to do a good job for his boss and family. We all gotta make a living somehow. So instead of starting a fight I asked him to take me to his boss so I could ask why they are blocking access to Liberty ave. Come to find out, his boss isnt even the boss. I kept asking for the next superior in line and finally I got to the President. I asked him whats the meaning of the blockade? He looked at me like I was stupid and said "Dont you remember? You voted all this stuff into law, if you want it changed, its your job as a citizen to change it." Now I dont remember telling them to make it like that, but if he said it then it must be the truth, right? So I slunk back to the shadows of US ave to contemplate it some more and I noticed lots of other people in the shadows too. I wonder what would happen if we all rushed the tollgate at once? Whats that you say? You saw em kill a guy and you're scared they might kill you too? Yeah, maybe you're right...Besides, friends is on now and I dont want to miss it. I do still got my gun. Hope they dont come while Friends is on and tell me that I voted for me to give it to them...

It doesn't have anything to do with rights, but it was a nice rant, and I hope you feel better for having made it.

Yeah, a little, thanks. Is life so dear or peace so sweet, Oh look, Chandler and Monica are going to do it again, bwahaha.

 

[Chris Rhines]

The contract that Blackhawk mentions is a perfect example of a contract entered under duress, and as such it has no validity in a moral sense. Like all contracts with the government, it derives its legitimacy from brute force.

If the government did not have a monopoly on the roadway system (and most other forms of transportation) then it would be possible to enter a contract with a transportation company and thereby agree to abide by the company's rules.

Yet another argument for capitalism and private property.

- Chris