Wow, flying is a right? You're a citizen, not the king. That's one helluva high horse you're riding there. Yes, I am laughing while typing this. I just can't believe the audacity in such thoughts.
It's people who hold that similar thought about driving that are the worst drivers. This road is my RIGHT to drive because I paid taxes. No, poop you, it's not your road, its not your right, its a privilege and should be appreciated as such.
I don't remember reading anything about flying in the Bill of Rights, then again, there weren't enough pictures in it to keep my attention.
You don't HAVE to travel. You can find new employment that doesn't require travel. You chose your career.
I want to drive a Lamborghini Diablo SV. There are several professions I'm qualified for that I could satisfy that want. I chose to be a software programmer and father instead.
I'm not a fan of the U.S. Transportation Security Administration team and especially less a fan with it being funded from tax payers money. I think they should lighten up and be funded by each airline. Although, then flights would cost more. I think they provide a false sense of security to some degree.
There has to be some security measures taken prior to boarding a plane. We all absorb the cost via taxes or those of us who fly absorb higher flight costs.
"Zero2Cool" wrote:
Sigh.
You missed the point. Travel is the right. Given that travel ia a right, the burden of proof is on the king who would say a particular exercise of that right can be limited.
The problem with your analogy to rotten drivers is that said rotten drivers directly interfere with others being able to travel. The existence of "my" right" doesn't give me moral authority for interfering with another right that also exists.
Indeed, the most usual way of gaining moral authority for infringing on right A is by finding some other right B that trumps it.
So, for example, one might argue (I wouldn't, but clearly many others here would) that one person's "right to feel safe while travelling" trumps another person's "right to travel freely". But the argument must be made.
Were travel merely a privilege, however, there would be no need to find a reason for saying no to a particular kind of travel. All that is required is the grantor of the privilege ("the king" in your metaphor) saying no.
If using a road is a "privilege" only, who is the grantor of the privilege. If the answer is "the owner of the road (i.e. the "king" or "state" in most cases), then what is the basis for the owner's authority?
Another argument (which doesn't go to the rights/privilege question): If we stay with a auto-on-road analogy, the comparison is not who can operate a car on the road and when. It's who can ride as a passenger in a car on the road and when. Banning texting while driving (which Iowa just did) is different than banning texting while being a passenger. Isn't it?
I have no problem with lots of restrictions that have been placed on my rights. I don't mind people saying the right to use the roads doesn't extend to being able to drive at speeds of 150 or under the influence of a fifth of bourbon. I don't mind parking tickets, or street lights, or stop signs. (Though I do think an awful lot of four way stops in my neck of the woods ought to be replaced with street lights.)
But I am really bothered by the "it's a privilege" argument. I don't believe "kings" (or their modern successor, "elected officials" acting on the majority's will) have moral authority for granting privilege anywhere near as often as people seem willing to accept.
"You don't have to travel." That is exactly the argument used to justify serfdom. Its not about "having to"; its about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I may not have to travel. I don't have to speak. I don't have to worship God. I don't have to assemble. I don't have to have a gun. But I still have those rights.
And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)