(06-10-12, 12:17 AM)Grahamm link Wrote: [quote author=grum_pe1@hotmail.com link=topic=4835.msg41977#msg41977 date=1349464768]
which part of having a driving license make it a privilege rather than a right to you Grahamm?
You do not have the right to drive a car, you must past a test to be allowed to do it.
You do not have to pass a test to have the right to freedom of expression, a fair trial, the right to go about your lawful business without let or hindrence etc etc etc.
[/quote]
ok you said above you dont have the right to drive a car - based on the fact you need to pass a test, ok. In turn making it a privilege, great. HOWEVER what l'm implying is - a driving test was introduced not that long ago so. so was driving it a privilege BEFORE the test was introduced or a right? For example, and a real analogy-
l own a knife. Its my right to have, own and use this knife. 5 years later, you now need to sit a competency test to gain a license to own and use a knife. Is it then now deemed a privilege because you now ned to sit a test? Even though before they enforced a license it wouldnt have been classed a privilege??
Does this make sense.
(07-10-12, 08:25 PM)grum_pe1@hotmail.com link Wrote: Does this make sense.
What makes sense is that you don't understand what a "Right" is.
Under English Common Law, everything that is not explicitly forbidden or controlled by law is permitted. That, however, does *NOT* make it a Right!
You never had the right to drive a car, but up until 1935 it was not controlled by law. It now is. If you pass the test you have the privilege under law of driving a car, not the right to do so.
Clear?
Cheers for that Grahamm. Where does your interest in Goverment legislation come from l'm just interested not many people take the time to educate them self in this subject and you seem to somewhat carry a strongly worded corner which seems to be *the* answer or is it just a strongly backed opinion?
(07-10-12, 12:35 PM)grum_pe1@hotmail.com link Wrote: The best i can come up with, no its what i came up with and you didnt answer my question.
A barking dog requires no response 
Yes yes Chillum, very good.
I disagree, I take it as a right to respond to barking dogs.
Smell ones mother. Yaas!
(08-10-12, 10:26 AM)grum_pe1@hotmail.com link Wrote: Cheers for that Grahamm.
You're welcome.
Quote: Where does your interest in Goverment legislation come from l'm just interested not many people take the time to educate them self in this subject and you seem to somewhat carry a strongly worded corner which seems to be *the* answer or is it just a strongly backed opinion?
I've been a supporter and defender of civil rights and liberties for a very long time, so I've done the arguments, seen the counter points, checked the facts, read the legislation etc etc over the years.
Consequently I've developed my positions and opinions based on that and have had a lot of practice in defending them against, for instance, people who think that the only Rights you should be permitted are the one that *they* agree with and most probably only if you're a person from a group which they approve of as well.
And when someone starts deliberately mis-reading or misrepresenting my position to make a ridiculous Straw Man argument, it tends to annoy me 
l'm in no way implying l have a belief in a "strawman" theory (call it what you wish) however i am more than willing to listen to other people's opinion based on experience and belief (as far fetched as the idea and opinion may sound). In fact what i have been doing is reading way too much Jean Jacques Rousseau.
Never mind the straw man, I'm hoping this turns into the wicker man
Smell ones mother. Yaas!
(08-10-12, 02:44 PM)grum_pe1@hotmail.com link Wrote: i am more than willing to listen to other people's opinion based on experience and belief
I have no doubt that some people won't believe this, but (as I've said before in the past) I am perfectly willing to change my views on a subject if someone can provide a logical, reasonable and factual argument for why my position is wrong.
However the point is simply that I've already *done* that over the course of 20 or more years of discussing subjects like this in forums, so a argument is going to have to be pretty damn convincing to achieve that.
i haven't read this thread but from the other one you had recently and the length of this one it seems that you like stirring it up a bit :lol
ok sorry we're talking about driver license retests right? So have you been fighting for driver retests for 20 years or just just been backing government legislation for 20 years?
:lol
Dug? meet burst baw. Burst baw? Meet Dug
Smell ones mother. Yaas!
(09-10-12, 02:29 PM)grum_pe1@hotmail.com link Wrote: ok sorry we're talking about driver license retests right? So have you been fighting for driver retests for 20 years or just just been backing government legislation for 20 years?
Err, neither.
|
