From: rhodesia@wixer.cactus.org (Felix S. Gallo)
Subject: Re: If you dump Bush, dump Congress too, (at least.)
Organization: Real/Time Communications
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 92 04:59:23 GMT

jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>mikey@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Strider) writes:
>
>>                               Driving a car is not a right, it is a
>>privilege.  To allow you to drive on federally-funded interstate highways,
>>the government in turn has a right to regulate your driving behavior on
>>those highways.  
>
>This is where you go awry.  If you can restrict how someone can travel
>(that is, "You can't drive in <X> manner", I don't have "Freedom to
>travel."

This is where you go awry.  For very sensible reasons, you are not allowed
to travel at 450 mph on a rocket sled in a school zone.  However, you have
"freedom to travel" still -- you can still use a bicycle, or a car, or
whatever.  The presence of rights does not deny the presence of
responsibilities to your government, your fellow citizens, and yourself.

>Imagine if the government didn't want us travelling from one large
>city to the next.  Well, they'd lower the speed limit on federally-funded
>Interstate Highways to, say, 3MPH.  Now where's you "Right to Travel?"

My anecdote is better than your anecdote.  The government attempts to
enforce "reasonable" guidelines of behavior in order to guarantee that
most citizens have a good shot at life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness.  If they made the speed limit on 2222 somewhere near 150 mph,
I guarantee that some idiot or other would try 150 and end up killing
a bunch of completely innocent people.

You never *need* to go 150 mph.  The risk entailed by theories such as
yours is usually far greater than the benefits it grants to society.

>>                 What the government CAN'T do is discriminate among people
>>in deciding on those requirements.
>
>Sure.  But that doesn't give it the "right" to arbitrarily set speed
>limits either.

You're unfortunately confused.  The government does not arbitrarily set
speed limits (or anything else).  It sets limits based on studies of
safety factors and other relevant subjects.  These limits are in the
best interests of its constituency.

For instance, the government (in the form of the FDA) currently puts
limits on the amount of Red Dye #2 that can appear in items consumed
by you.  Are you suggesting that the government has no right to do
this, and that this is a bad thing?  Does the fact that Red Dye #2
causes cancer in a significantly large percentage of mammals over time
affect your reasoning?

>Setting speed limits is not a power granted to the federal government.
>It is a right retained by the states or the people.  You find me the
>section of the Constitution that grants the federal government the power
>to set a "national speed limit" and I'll agree with you.

If the federal government were limited to only that which appeared
in the Constitution explicitly, we'd never get anything done.  In
fact, I never read anything in the Constitution about the creation
and maintenance of arpanet -- yet you continue to use Usenet.  Why
am I not surprised that your memory is selective?

>The Framers set up what they thought was a weak central government with
>the states holding considerable power.  Congress instead has voted itself
>powers it was NEVER meant to have.

So vote your congressman out.  If the people want it another way, they
will decide it that way.  Fortunately, the framers of the Constitution
didn't put in a "single whiner" amendment so that John F. Haugh II could
torpedo the democratic process by instituting his particular theories of
government.

>-- 
>John F. Haugh II                  [  TSAKC  ] !'s: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
>Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151           [ DoF #17 ]        @'s: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Felix Sebastian Gallo                              rhodesia@wixer.cactus.org
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: austin.talk