In California you can't even register your vehicle if you're behind on your child support payments. (I need my job to make payments. I can't get to my job without my car.)
In California you can't even register your vehicle if you're behind on your child support payments. (I need my job to make payments. I can't get to my job without my car.)
Try taking it to the logical conclusion - what else is a privilege, and can therefore be arbitrarily denied? A bank account? Traveling by plane or train? Connecting your house to the power/water/sewage grid? Having a post address? Buying or renting a house? Sending your children to school? If you buy this logic, there's a whole bunch of 'privileges' that the state can deny you using some excuse, that would make living utterly impossible.
That the state takes away this right doesn't mean you should call it a privilege, just as you wouldn't call freedom a privilege because an innocent man was jailed.
[1] https://www.quora.com/Who-determined-that-driving-is-a-privi...
There are people who think in very different terms, where the primary goal is protecting a moral norm they have in mind, and the focus (possibly even "obsession") is going to be doing that by exacting a punishment as a disincentive and example. Taking away a privilege is an obvious choice. Whether it's related is unimportant; what's important is whether it hurts. If the cascading effects are considered at all to someone who thinks like this (and I want to stress here that involves a level of analysis that may be second nature for you but is quite likely actually a stretch for many of the people I'm talking about here) then those cascading effects may well be considered good: the fact of making a debt less likely to be repaid is secondary to making it harder for the subject deserving of the punishment. The pain is the point.
Now, you might respond "is there evidence that this kind of punitive approach actually leads to overall better outcomes?" And that's a very good question, but again, it's the kind of question someone who cautiously approaches the question of punishment with considerations of counterproductivity in mind would ask.
But that's just me.
But I think it's probably a values/temperament issue, which isn't necessarily an intelligence issue, and might need different solutions.
In a country that values punishment over any empirical improved outcomes, I wouldn’t hold my breath for people to care that taking a driver’s license away for unpaid support will end up hurting the children involved, or society as a whole.
Sure, not meeting your responsibilities has to be dealt with and have consequences, but the consequences shouldn't have to be catastrophic and put you into an unrecoverable situation to act as a deterrent.
But say, if he hadn't been sent to prison, would he have paid child support then?
We all don't know, but I strongly suspect no, and I strongly suspect the court has more than just my suspicions and calibrated its reaction accordingly.
The amount could have been ordered to be taken from his bank account, or confiscated from his salary directly from his employer or payment system, or taken from his property.
There's absolutely nothing that necessitates that he is sent to prison if he merely can't pay.
Only if he has money and doesn't pay (and that after accounting for his food and rent expenses at a nominal minimal fee), or hides money that he could have used to pay.
Well, in these cases, courts shouldn't and mustn't do it. If the law says that, it's a bad law.
Market solutions and the Justice system rarely intersect, and this is certainly an area where they should not.
In a country made for a car drivers it seems like a kind of an essential privilege.
It would probably be better if the phrase were "a grant not a right" or "a license not a right", but I guess that's not as catchy.
Plus it's more expensive for the government, causes more pollution, generates more danger, and hurts people's health. Not a lot of upside there.
I don't think I agree with the "most" in that statement, at least in combination with "barely an issue".
Admittedly I'm far from an expert in this, but I live in Germany now, have visited a bunch of countries in Europe, plus Japan, and that's certainly the impression I get. Right now our family of 3 living in a sleepy part of Munich gets by fine without a car, and we've visited lots of little suburbs and towns in Germany that are still highly walkable/bikable, with decent transit connections.
Not that having a car wouldn't be a big convenience bonus for us sometimes, but it doesn't feel critical at all.
Commute wise they are all part of same region while legally they are different cities. I don't think that's extremely uncommon arrangement in some larger cities in Europe.
Try getting to a different province/city etc, easily 30-100km away or more on "public transit".
Even where the connections are there (and not like a couple of buses each day), it's neither fast nor pleasant enough to make driving "unneeded".
Unless your destination is in some rural village that is not reachable by train/bus, like closest bus stop is 5 km away you don't need a car, it is more convenient sure but not essential.
I have colleagues at work that are from small towns 100+km they rent a flat in the city here and go home on weekends, by train or car.
> Try getting to a different province/city etc, easily 30-100km away or more on "public transit".
I seriously considered commuting from Augsburg to Munich by train. Some of my co-workers do this. It's actually not that bad, train ride is about half an hour for 50km. Faster than driving, that's for sure.
Plus, who said people in the developed countries don't commute, or that even if they have public transport, having to and waste extra hour or hours in many cases (to wait at stops and to change buses or subway lines, etc), is small matter in the extra effort, free time, and health impact on the person doing it compared to being able to just drive there?
Not everybody in Europe lives in Amsterdam or some such city, nicely close to walking distance or a single public transit line to work.
Don't do the thing that gets your license revoked? And if it happens, get a different job?
> Plus, who said people in the developed countries don't commute, or that even if they have public transport, having to and waste extra hour or hours in many cases (to wait at stops and to change buses or subway lines, etc), is small matter in the extra effort, free time, and health impact on the person doing it compared to being able to just drive there?
Well, if it's just convenience, then that seems to fit the definition of privilege, no?
> Not everybody in Europe lives in Amsterdam or some such city, nicely close to walking distance or a single public transit line to work.
This is a ridiculous strawman. You don't need to live in a major world city to have effective non-driving commute options around.
There are some comments that make me think "I want to see all these things happen to that person, to see how casually they'll dismiss the problem then, and if they'll ever figure out what empathy means".
Really makes you wish those people losing their car and their job, because they fell behind on some student debt payment, and being unable to rise out of it. Add perhaps a few problems real people in those situations (which for them are dismissed as mere "personal failings) have, like spouses or parents or kids to take care of, some personal sickness, and so on. Maybe experiencing real life will help do with the smugness?
>Well, if it's just convenience, then that seems to fit the definition of privilege, no?
Being able to laugh away the pain of people in such situations (because you never were close to that, or have safety nets all around) fits the definition of privilege better.
That's just a BS saying, not some rule of nature.
Societies should define what is a privilege and what is a right.
Do you think if there was a referendum on this specific matter (and not tied to 200 other policy questions, like general elections are), people would vote that "yeah, indeed driving is a privilege"?
That's a hard no. I see where you're going with this, and we likely agree on 90% of this topic anyway, but the issue with society defining rights is that you end up letting the mob decide the "right" of green eyed people to live has just become a privilege.
Rights stem from nature, and exist with, or without society. If a society wants to add to the list, they're more than welcome to do so. Those are usually called privileges and its up to the society to attach proper protections to them.
That's what those in power try to sell, who think they know better, and that the people are savage animals that need to be kept in place.
In reality, the worse atrocities have been performed not by mobs, or at least not by mobs on their own, but by well educated, powerful people. All those gentlemen slave owners in the South, all those smooth talking Nazi higher ups (with support from Germanys financial elites), the higher echelons of USSR Party power, colonial gentlemen, and so on. Mobs have nothing on them.
>Rights stem from nature, and exist with, or without society.
There are no rights in nature -- something anyone who ventures outside of society (in a jungle, in the woods, etc) will very soon find out. Nobody in nature (outside of a human community) will ever protect their live to live, property, or anything else.
Rights are a social contract, made because man is a conscious, social, animal. The problem is that the contract is more often than not, presented like Terms of Use, already written from those in power.
I think it's more accurate to say that rights (in the original setting) are a list of things that the law cannot prohibit you.
Or explain what it would mean for rights to exist outside of a society?
It seems you're only considering legal rights, possibly because natural rights are difficult to justify from a secular perspective.
The thought experiment I'd run is, just like the one of science vs religion: start from scratch, look for the rights that every society has in common.
Property? Nope. Freedom of speech, association, whatever? Nope. The one I think might be universal would be the right to marry someone; I can't think of ever reading about a society where the right to marry and start a family was not a part of it. (Which we also don't really recognize as an explicit right anywhere in modern society, do we?)
There are societies (studied by ethnologists) that don't marry -- the children are raised by the community.
And maybe there isn't anything universal to societies that's considered as "right".
Sort of opposite -- things forbidden -- I've heard from some biologist that the only universally forbidden behavior (no society has ever generally permitted it) is incestuous relationships.
Everything else, you'd find some society somewhere that's okay with it.
That makes sense from a biological perspective, too, that we as a species would be hard-wired not to allow it. That might be as close as an "in nature" thing as you might find, something our brains are hard-wired to discourage.
That the concept is... not trivial to defend, in these our modern times, and further that it may not have much practical use beyond its value in propaganda (which is real and shouldn't be dismissed and, I suppose, is furthered by the sort of education above) isn't really covered.
The only thing keeping then "unalienated" is actual people, with guns and jails, etc, to prevent others from alienating them.
And even so, those people keep unalienated whatever they're ordered to keep by those who pay their salaries. In practice those rights have been alienated time and again, whenever those wanted it.
That isn't to say I don't think certain rights should be held as universal, or that some aren't worth dying for, I certainly do.
I just think there isn't a facet of human society that is not, in fact, ultimately a human invention (within the constraints of the pressures evolution has wired into our brains, like proscriptions on incest.)
And, frankly, we should all be proud of what we can build, as a species.
I guess we're not applying the tenth amendment here? As in, we have rights not explicitly enumerated in the Bill of Rights.