Originally Posted by
B. Carfree
Driving as a right? Since when? Even Scalia won't be able to shoe-horn that one into his "original intent" doctrine.
Driving is a state granted and state regulated activity. Privilege is the proper word for such a thing and it can be revoked for many reasons, including nonpayment of fees owed to the government or insurance companies. Now, travelling along the public right-of-way, that's a right (and doesn't require a license or a car).
For the record, driving was unregulated until about 1910, with various states going to licensing later than that. So, by your logic driving was a right, until the state decided to regulate it and require licenses. However you claim that traveling on a public road is a right (and I agree). So, if the state in three years decides to require a license of riding a bicycle, does our right suddenly disappear and become a privilege?.
This is a fine line, and I don't have an issue with regulating driving. My issue is treating it as some great favor that a state may grant or revoke at will (other as needed for regulatory purposes).
Rights don't last if we simply let ourselves be convinced that we never had them in the first place.
Since we've decided that the state can be a collection agent for student loans, why don't let them be collection agents for any and all other debts? You may disagree with where I draw the line, but you should consider where you'd draw the line while you still have the option.