Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Off Topic - Anything Goes -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cogito who wrote (845)	3/14/2008 12:02:59 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 6846

Driving is not a protected right I like that term for this type of thing. It says nothing about whether or not some action or activity is a natural right or not, it just points out that it doesn't receive any constitutional protection. People usually say "driving is not a right", rather than "driving is not a protected right". I guess in a certain sense that's true as well, I wouldn't assert a specific natural right specifically for driving, it would rather fall under the general idea of liberty. If your going to assert everything that you should generally be free to do as a natural right, it tends to imply that everything should be a protected right. But as libertarian as I am I don't think you can have a functioning government with so many protected legal or constitutional rights, even assuming they don't conflict with each other and they certainly could in some situations. That's why I'd say that the best way to deal with claims of rights that are less important or fundamental would be to deal with them as part of a general concern for and support of liberty rather than having a list of 869,412 protected rights... As for Laz's question - "After all, isn't the the state interfering with people's rights by busting them before tey have had an accident or killed someone?". I again refer to the concept of reckless endangerment. For people who don't agree with such a concept as something that should potential result in legal punishment, well other than "I disagree", I'd argue that while liberty is very important, small infringements may be justified by large practical gains. That is a VERY slippery slope in my opinion, but the danger, even the likelihood, that it will be taken to far doesn't mean its an invalid concept, only one that you have to be careful about applying.