From: lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird P. Broadfield)
Subject: Re: Privileges and Rights. (was: Re: GORE...)
Date: 30 Sep 92 19:40:48 GMT

In <db+p#cq@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird P. Broadfield) writes:
>[Re: right vs priviledge to drive]

>>I'm not sure it's not still arguable, but that argument *is* pretty easy
>>to refute: a "Right to Travel" is not being restricted in the least, you're
>>welcome to travel wherever you wish.  On your feet.  It's the privilege
>>of operating a vehicle on public property (all eight words important to
>>the point) that is being governed.

[I've moved the order of John's paragraphs around a little, I don't 
think it hurts the sense, though.]

>As to the concept of "public property" affecting this right, I'm still
>searching in vain within the Constitution for the place where the 
>Government is granted to right to own anything.

I wanted to take care of this one first, because it's integral to
the rest.  First off, I utterly agree with you.  I'll admit to using
the term "public property" as it's generally understood, although
my own philosophy is that the property so described is actually
_owned_ by the citizens (citizen-shareholders, if you will) of the
state, and operated by the hired custodian (the government) subject to
rules agreed to by the owners (citizens.)

>If you believe the 9th and 10th amendments should still be held valid 
>until formally repealed (as opposed to being defacto repealed. I believe
>former Chief Fascist Burger called them "dog meat."), then you HAVE to 
>believe that the RIGHT to operate a vehicle, not having been delegated
>to the states or the US government, belongs to the people.  The basis
>of the Constitution is it grants the federal government certain, very 
>well defined powers and reserves ALL OTHERS INCLUDING those not yet
>thought of for the individual citizens.

Hmmm.  Okay, again, I'll agree with you.  Glad to do so, in fact.  
I would "defend to the death" your right to operate a vehicle on your
own, wholly owned property.  However (I'm not entirely comfortable
with this argument, but it follows) as an owner in joint tenancy
(with you, and every other citizen) I (and my fellow citizens) have
chosen to make rules about what you may do on *our* property.  I
would hope that we would make rules only about those things *likely*
to cause harm to a great number of us (your fellow owners) such as
operating a giant, powerful machine without training.

I would infinitely prefer to have virtually no rules about what you
may do, and intervene only when you *have* caused harm (i.e. a tort)
but apparently my co-owners don't feel that way.

Comments? 



>The country and form of government established by the Constitution is 
>much too good and powerful to be defeated by any outside enemy.  It is
>not strong enough, however, to withstand assault from within.  The question
>now is when is our collective greed, stupidity and neglect going to 
>destroy this wonderful creation?

Couldn't have put it better.

-- 
Laird P. Broadfield     lairdb@crash.cts.com    ...{ucsd, nosc}!crash!lairdb
Hi!  I'm a shareware signature!  Send $5 if you use me, send $10 for manual!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns