Check your licence

[yungatart]

I agree with Ixion.
It is a right, and along with every right goes responsibility. In this case one of the responsibilities is ensuring your licence is current.
It would be nice if they sent reminders out in the post much like they do for your WOF or rego though.

[jrandom]

... the difference between murder and self defence is just a matter of semantics.

Eh?

Actions and intentions which differ vastly enough to become 'murder' instead of 'self defence' (or vice versa) are not a matter of semantics.



Whether a driver's licence is a 'right' or a 'privilege', as a vague and general principle, could obviously affect the thinking of rulemakers as they set down the details of the licencing system, but arguments relating to that topic are (in my humble opinion) more constructively addressed in concrete terms, one issue at a time.

For instance, the question of whether a ten-year licence renewal is appropriate or necessary.

The truth of the matter is that a driver's licence is not a 'right' in the order of habeas corpus and freedom of speech, but neither is it a 'privilege' in the order of an award in the Honours List.

When discussing the principles at hand, we must acknowledge the existence of a pragmatic grey zone.

[RnB Fan]

My wife got pulled over last year for speeding and the cop gave her the ticket for that but then very kindly pointed out that she wasn't insured currently as her licence had expired - a better way of going about things in my humble opinion!

[Ixion]

Eh?

Actions and intentions which differ vastly enough to become 'murder' instead of 'self defence' (or vice versa) are not a matter of semantics.



Whether a driver's licence is a 'right' or a 'privilege', as a vague and general principle, could obviously affect the thinking of rulemakers as they set down the details of the licencing system, but arguments relating to that topic are (in my humble opinion) more constructively addressed in concrete terms, one issue at a time.

For instance, the question of whether a ten-year licence renewal is appropriate or necessary.

The truth of the matter is that a driver's licence is not a 'right' in the order of habeas corpus and freedom of speech, but neither is it a 'privilege' in the order of an award in the Honours List.

When discussing the principles at hand, we must acknowledge the existence of a pragmatic grey zone.

The actions and intentions may be exactly the same. I bash you over the head with an axe. Same action. My intention is to smash in your head. Same intention (it being no defence in law to murder to say that I intended 'only' to smash in your head, not to kill you) . If you die, the distinction between murder and self defence will depend on whether I acted from malice (murder being 'slaying with malice prepense" as the law used to say); or from fear ("Being in justified fear of my life, and having no other means of escape"). The greater part of the barrister's art consists of semantics. In this case the meaning of 'malice' and 'fear' (and 'reasonable' I guess).

But, although definately a right, that has no bearing on the question of having to renew the licence every so often. That is just an example of a continuing qualification. In like manner, the right to vote depends on keeping your address up to date.

And even the most inarguable of rights, that to a fair trial when accused of a crime , is subject to a qualification. You must be competant to plead.

The issue of a writ of Habeas Corpus, BTW is not a right. It is a prerogative writ, which may be granted or refused by the judge at his discretion.

[Mully]

I see this as two issues. Not having a valid licence (and no insurance which goes along) and the cop being a prick.

With reard to the licence, I have no sympathy. Isn't there an eye test at each 10 year renewal? I vaguely recall that being one of the reasons for introducing the damn things.

In which case, the licence renewal is also verification that your eyesight is up to scratch to pilot a cage or bike. I'm more than happy that everyone has to pay ~$30 every 10 years to ensure their eyesight is up to it (although they still don't see bikes)

As for the cop not cutting your friend a break, my deepest sympathies.

[jrandom]

The actions and intentions may be exactly the same.

Semantics is the definition of words.

Nobody feels it necessary to define 'aggression', 'malice' or 'fear'. The discussion in a court over which one of the above actually motivated you to hit me in the head with an axe has nothing to do with semantics.

If I argue with someone over whether an object is red or blue, we are not arguing over the definition of 'red' and 'blue'; we are arguing a matter of fact. Likewise, if we argue over whether someone was motivated by malice or fear, we are once again arguing a matter of fact, even if it is one that is less easily and less objectively determinable.

The argument over whether driver licencing is a 'right' or a 'privilege', however, revolves around the definition of 'right' and 'privilege', and is therefore a matter of semantics.

That is just an example of a continuing qualification. In like manner, the right to vote depends on keeping your address up to date.

And even the most inarguable of rights, that to a fair trial when accused of a crime , is subject to a qualification. You must be competant to plead.

In other words, almost every 'right' that society grants to its members is subject to qualification, and exists in a grey zone of ifs and buts. Driver licencing is, of course, no exception.

The issue of a writ of Habeas Corpus, BTW is not a right. It is a prerogative writ, which may be granted or refused by the judge at his discretion.

Now you play with semantics.



I was talking about the right to petition an impartial authority for justification of detention. Don't split hairs.

[Ixion]

Semantics is the definition of words.

Nobody feels it necessary to define 'aggression', 'malice' or 'fear'.

Not so. many murder trials have indeed revolved around the definition of 'malice'. So much so that there is a considerable body of case law on the subject , and the definitioon is now fairly well established (which is why it is now less often necessary to argue about it. But in the Middle Ages, not so ) .

Indeed, I think it would be hard for you to post a definition of malice that I could not argue with (or with one of your defining terms). Admittedly, I am more argumentative than most.

[Morcs]

When I get all my tax money back for roads, acc etc... when they suspend my license, only then ill consider it a privaledge.

Until then I have paid to be on the road, and have every right to do so.

Only the Queen can tell me otherwise.

[jrandom]

Not so. many murder trials have indeed revolved around the definition of 'malice'.

I would be tempted to assert that the vast majority of arguments presented in such cases throughout history would have been disingenuous.

Indeed, I think it would be hard for you to post a definition of malice that I could not argue with (or with one of your defining terms).

It would be kinda fun to have a crack at it from first principles, wouldn't it?

[Ixion]

Only the Queen can tell me otherwise

There's quite a lot of queens hang around here , will they do ?

[Morcs]

Oh and Jrandom and Ixion - you guys get a room

Or speak Proppa english.

[SPman]

Semantics is the definition of words.

Nobody feels it necessary to define 'aggression', 'malice' or 'fear'. The discussion in a court over which one of the above actually motivated you to hit me in the head with an axe has nothing to do with semantics.

On the contrary,there are times it is very necessary to define these words
In any law or statute, one of the first sections, is a list of definitions of most of the critical words. Cock up the definitions and the lawyers can have a field day

If I argue with someone over whether an object is red or blue, we are not arguing over the definition of 'red' and 'blue'; we are arguing a matter of fact.

What if you are colour blind. You are only arguing over a matter of fact, if you are arguing over the wavelengths that produce these clours in the general population. Otherwise, you are arguing over perceptions of what is visible.

[karlosnz]

I class owning a firearm as a right yet society class it as a privilage,i have to sit test, have people interviewed as to my mental state etc, and have to have everythin in place as per current regulations. oOn top of that i have to get a permit to hunt crown land which as a taxpayer i pay to keep.Please dont bring up the weapon thing as motor vehicles kill more people per year than firearms.
My point here is the rules are the rule you all know them its your resposability to keep everything in order,
We all know what to expect if we break the rules so get over it,

[Ixion]

I would be tempted to assert that the vast majority of arguments presented in such cases throughout history would have been disingenuous.

Not so. To give an example of our own time and place (not murder, but the principle of malice is the same).

The chef dude who stuck a knife into the scroat who had been abusing and threatening him. Did he do so because he was believed himself under threat from the scroat. Or because he just wanted to hurt the scroat.That is, was the action malicious or not.

A prosecutor wold argue that the chef must have felt some anger and resentment toward Mr Scroat . Malicious, says he. No indeed says the defense. Certainly Mr Chef felt aggrieved, only natural. But that's not malice.

Of course nowdays such arguments are usually quickly resolved by the judge, they have all been argued before. But a few hundred years ago, arguments about what malice and aforethought meant waxed great.

[jrandom]

Very good, gentlemen, I concede that matters of semantics are often crucial in determining the outcome of court cases.

I maintain that the argument over whether driver licencing is a right or a privilege is also a matter of semantics, and that nothing hangs upon the outcome thereof.

Better, then, to ignore that question and focus instead on the concrete details of the system.