Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site whuxlm.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!umcp-cs!gymble!lll-crg!dual!zehntel!tektronix!uw-beaver!cornell!vax135!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!mag
From: mag@whuxlm.UUCP (Gray Michael A)
Newsgroups: net.auto,net.flame,net.kids,net.singles
Subject: Re: Seat belts
Message-ID: <751@whuxlm.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 26-Apr-85 19:23:34 EDT
Article-I.D.: whuxlm.751
Posted: Fri Apr 26 19:23:34 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 29-Apr-85 06:12:00 EDT
References: <1299@drusd.UUCP> <3600@alice.UUCP> <1433@amdahl.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Whippany
Lines: 41
Xref: linus net.auto:5488 net.flame:8636 net.kids:1130 net.singles:5844

> > > If you want to drive without seatbelts, fine -- do it on your own piece
> > > of real estate.  If you come out on publicly funded roads, in traffic with
> > > other people, it is your obligation to do so in a responsible manner.
> > 
> > In other words, the government has the right to impose any restrictions
> > it pleases on people who use public roads.
> 
>   Since driving is a *privilege* granted by the government, and not a
>   *right* granted by the constitution, I would say so.
> -- 
> Frank Dibbell     (408-746-6493)                 {whatever}!amdahl!canopus
> [R.A. 6h 22m 30s  Dec. -52d 36m]                 [Generic disclaimer.....]

The US Constitution *limits* the powers of the US Government to those
powers explicitly granted by the Constitution.  All else is left to the
states and to the citizens.  States, in general, and the feds have not
gone along with this reading, preferring, for political reasons, to tell
people implicitly and explicitly, "We can do anything we want to to you,
unless the Constitution specifically forbids it."

It bothers me a bit to see someone refer to a specific everyday activity
like driving (or smoking or eating) as a "privilege" just because the
Constitution does not mention it.

Regarding the subject matter above,  I like to argue that the owner
of the roads should be allowed to make the rules for their use, no matter
how stupid those rules might be.  If the owner is the people, then those
rules will probably be very stupid, but that's OK, it's their property.

I think things would go much better if the roads were privately owned
or under state-level control.  For example, many Western highways would
probably raise their speed limits considerably if the feds weren't blackmailing
them with loss of highway funds if they do.  I think it is still 
Constitutionally possible to dictate whatever driving rules you want on your
own property (for example, you own a racetrack or a loooong driveway.)
Since the Jersey Turnpike is self-supporting via tolls, it might make a
good investment for private investors.  They could buy in, raise the
tolls slightly to cover their capital costs, and then return the value
to their customers via faster traveling times.

Mike Gray