Under your logic, the fact I could decide to kill someone or steal something means that it is a privilege allowed by the state.
Does not have to be a privilege to do so. I've been over this already more than once.
I wouldn't want people bicycling in my backward. I don't want people walking through my living room. One's rights end where the rights of others begin. That's where some basic, simple laws and regulations come into play. Licensing, proof of competence may be one of those regulations where harm is possible in the excerize of rights.
However, once you change something to a privilege under your logic, everything becomes a privilege. There is no longer a right to have a firearm, no longer a right to free speach, etc and so forth. The 9th admendment is there for a reason. To stop this idiotic idea that everything not spelled out in the bill of rights becomes a privilege granted by the government.
You don't seem to understand the concept. Let me put it this way. To prevent an incompetent 12 year old year old from driving, you make driving a privilege. As a privilege the government decides that in order to have that privilege they get to monitior everywhere you go, they get to search you any time they like, they even decide you have to let them search your home at any time. They can do it because it's a privilege. You don't have to drive. If you want to retain your rights you can walk.
If you take public transportation, you have to agree to the state's rules, which will be similiar to driving. Eventually using the sidewalks will be a privilege too.
You presented your arguement as a defense of the checkpoints on the road. Stopping everyone or random people to see if they have done something wrong. Monitoring and sampling in the name of safety and because it's a privilege and to have the privilege of driving we have to give up basic rights. At that point, to keep people from liquidateing each other, keep them from stealing from each other, cheating on their spouses, abusing their kids, ingesting substances that are bad for them, etc and so forth, all the things where they might do something wrong, might endanger another person, we have to have viewscreens. I am simply using the same logic in other areas of life.
Who's arguing anarchy? How many times have I mentioned that regulation and law doesn't mean making things privileges granted by the state?
I haven't posted anything of the kind. Nice attempt at a strawman, but it's clear you aren't reading my posts or simply being dishonest.
*sigh* I've been over this and over this and over this. If you are going to continue to insist that I am promoting anarchy then there is no point in further discussion.
You want privileges instead of rights. That means we have nothing but what the state grants us. We become children of the state. No liberty. We don't even own ourselves. We can have rights and appriopiate regulation where the rights of different people overlap (IE. driving competence and rules of the road) however we cannot make using the road a priviledge because as such, the government can now use that as a way to control us in any way it desires. A right is something we have, something we may loose if we infringe on the rights of others. A privilege is granted by someone or some thing.
Read the above. Read my posts over and over and over again until you figure it out.
You just don't get it and never will it seems. Yes, people have to be responsible. And if we aren't there are consquences. But the problem is that privileges are -granted-.
If driving is a right, the state can regulate where it overlaps on others, including competence and skill in the task. But that is where their power ends with a right. I have a right to free speech but there is regulation-law preventing shouting 'fire' in crowded theater.
If driving is a privilege, the state then can tie anything it wants to driving as the grantor of the privilege. If speech were a privilege the government could require one to always speak in favor of the government to have the privilege instead of simply being able to outlaw using speech to cause others physical harm. (yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater)
It's a fine, but very important line. Rights are something you have, privileges are granted.
