On Fri, 13 May 2005 13:55:20 -0500, Brent P
You have the right to life and personal freedom. You have the right to walk the streets. You can even bicycle without a license.
If you want to move a few thousand pounds of steel at high speeds you need to show that you are capable of doing though. You wouldnt let someone drive hazmat trucks without a license or let people run nuclear powerplants without proper training, would you?
I have the right not to be run over by some 12-year-old who thought he could drive. You have the right not to be shot down by some buttclown who though the gun wasnt loaded. Same thing. That's why we have an (admittedly inadequate) licensing process.
You seem to be a person who only sees black and white. There is a difference between monitoring every last bit of someone's life on one hand and not letting him do very dangerous things like driving drunk or driving without proper training on the other.
I'm not going to stop you from killing yourself.
But there is a difference between freedom and anarchy too.
I will readily admit that all countries I know are overregulated but your idea of a totally unregulated society are just as preposterous as some politicians' fantasies of total control.
What would you suggest instead? Being given the run of the house? I knew a few kids who grew up like that and all of them were totally useless brats.
There are people in the population, who would be responsible enough to live in a state without rules. Unfortunately they are a very small minority, which is the reason why we have rules.
If everyone was responsible enough only a handful of laws would exist, because almost all laws are a response of the state to a perceived problem. If no one would cause accidents driving drunk we would not have drunk-driving-laws. In reality drunk driving is one of the biggest causes of traffic rests, which is why it was recognized as dangerous and outlawed.
And your point is?
Chris
