> Rights aren't unconditional.
Conditions would make them privileges.
> Here's why driving requires you to make these types of promises
Not relevant, that it's dangerous doesn't change my opinion that it's absurd.
Conditions would make them privileges.
> Here's why driving requires you to make these types of promises
Not relevant, that it's dangerous doesn't change my opinion that it's absurd.
This is a common misunderstanding.
Rights are unconditional is the sense that they apply to everyone equally. But almost all are conditional in the sense that they don't give carte blanc permission without exception.
It might help to think of rights like axioms. (A & (A -> B)) -> B is true unconditionally. It is an axiom. But it is also conditional. It is universally true, and yet, B is not universally true.
Nearly all rights we have are unconditionally conditional in this way. They always apply to everyone (universally), but that doesn't mean there aren't conditions (that get applied universally).
For instance, being convicted of murder triggers conditions on most of the rights we have as citizens. Not all of them, but most.
Privileges are different from rights because they don't have to apply to each person equally in the way rights do. The two are separated by the fact that rights are extended universally and privileges aren't, not by the presence or absence of conditions.
Beyond that, you understand what I'm saying, so rather than try to redefine what I mean when I use a word, how about just understanding my point. We're not in court, I don't need a lesson on the legal meaning of the word right.
Obviously, I apparently did not.
Therefore:
> I'm disagreeing with it as a matter of principle.
Please don't do that. Redefining words for yourself and then using your secret meanings in discussions is both irritating (because it wastes other commenter's time) and comes off as arrogant (because it demonstrates a clear disregard for other's time and a willful unwillingness to communicate effectively).
If you know something is a Right in the conventional sense even though it has conditions attached, state that you disagree with those conditions. Don't call it "not a right" to make a point. Doing so derails the conversation and wastes other's time.
> licenses are just another way for the state to make money and restrict my right to travel via the common means of the day.
That's obviously not true. You really think your $20 license fee pays for... anything? It's probably not even offsetting the cost of the licensing regime.
And restricting your travel obviously is not the goal of a driver's license. Where did you even get that idea?
"The State" doesn't require licensing because it wants to screw you out of money or keep you down. We, the people, require licensing because driving is dangerous and we don't want idiots to kill us.
> Driving should not require a license and an annual fee to the state
Of course, assuming you live in a democracy, you're free to try to change that.
I think you'll find this an impossible reform because given the danger of driving, licensing is an extremely important first step toward making roads safer.
> It didn't require a license to ride a horse or drive a buggy
Yeah, right, because horses and buggies didn't kill millions of people a year.
As an aside, in almost every state you can still ride horses on most public roads without a license.
We used to live in a democracy, we now live in a plutocracy, the government hasn't represented the will of the governed in quite a long time, that's why voter turnout is abysmal.
We're done here, we obviously won't come to any agreement.
Horses were taxed. Carriages were taxed.
http://www.genguide.co.uk/source/taxes-miscellaneous/177/
Etc.