On 31/07/2014 16:01, Brian Morrison wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jul 2014 08:18:49 -0400
Jerry Stuckle wrote:

The fact is - it is the law in the United States, and the FCC
enforces it.

I was simply interested in why that is the case for one sort of
licence that is granted as a privilege and not for another (i.e. driving
licence) which is also not an inalienable right.


In Ohio they will take your drivers license away for drink driving.
However, you can request a restricted driver’s license and be permitted
to drive for essential trips e.g. work, medical appointments. You get a
special set of number plates AKA "Party Plates".


--
Mouse.
Where Morse meets House.

On Thu, 31 Jul 2014 12:52:54 +0100, Brian Morrison wrote:

Amateur radio is a privilege, keeping scum out of the hobby should be
an issue for anyone who cares about the hobby.

Driving is also a privilege, keeping scum off the roads should be an
issue for anyone who cares about transport.

The trouble is one man's scum is another man's froth!



--
M0WYM
Sales @ radiowymsey
http://stores.ebay.co.uk/Sales-At-Radio-Wymsey/

Wymsey wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jul 2014 12:52:54 +0100, Brian Morrison wrote:

Amateur radio is a privilege, keeping scum out of the hobby should be
an issue for anyone who cares about the hobby.

Driving is also a privilege, keeping scum off the roads should be an
issue for anyone who cares about transport.

The trouble is one man's scum is another man's froth!



Chaz, kindly cease your cross-posted trolling of ukra. You are discrediting
yourself, badly.

--
Stephen Thomas Cole // Sent from my iPhone

On 7/31/2014 11:01 AM, Brian Morrison wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jul 2014 08:18:49 -0400
Jerry Stuckle wrote:

The fact is - it is the law in the United States, and the FCC
enforces it.

I was simply interested in why that is the case for one sort of
licence that is granted as a privilege and not for another (i.e. driving
licence) which is also not an inalienable right.


The law does not need logic!

But the two are entirely different situations; the only commonality is
that both are privileges.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle

==================

Jerry Stuckle wrote in news:lre34j$ko6$1@dont-
email.me:

The law does not need logic!


Maybe it does... It just hasn't got much of it.

"A. non Eyemouse" wrote in message
...
In Ohio they will take your drivers license away for drink driving.
However, you can request a restricted driver’s license and be permitted
to drive for essential trips e.g. work, medical appointments. You get a
special set of number plates AKA "Party Plates".

or "****ed Plates"?
--
;-)
..
73 de Frank Turner-Smith G3VKI - mine's a pint.
..
http://turner-smith.co.uk

On 31/07/14 22:52, FranK Turner-Smith G3VKI wrote:
"A. non Eyemouse" wrote

In Ohio they will take your drivers license away for drink driving.
However, you can request a restricted driver’s license and be
permitted to drive for essential trips e.g. work, medical
appointments. You get a special set of number plates AKA "Party Plates".

or "****ed Plates"?

One of my neighbours has a vehicle that sports 'potato plates'.

--
Spike

On 8/1/2014 8:37 AM, Brian Morrison wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jul 2014 14:49:54 -0400
Jerry Stuckle wrote:

On 7/31/2014 11:01 AM, Brian Morrison wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jul 2014 08:18:49 -0400
Jerry Stuckle wrote:

The fact is - it is the law in the United States, and the FCC
enforces it.

I was simply interested in why that is the case for one sort of
licence that is granted as a privilege and not for another (i.e.
driving licence) which is also not an inalienable right.


The law does not need logic!

I would argue that logic is exactly what the law needs, as in "Why is
that illegal?" with a reasoned answer that demonstrates harm if it
exists and a clear benefit from preventing whatever it is.


We NEVER expect anything logical out of Congress! Or any of the state
legislatures, for that matter.


But the two are entirely different situations; the only commonality is
that both are privileges.


Yes, but don't you think that some sort of moral equivalence should
apply to those privileges?


Moral equivalence has nothing to do with it. The two are completely
unrelated (other than both are privileges).

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K

==================

In
Brian Reay wrote:

Amateur radio is a privilege

Only because the federal government chooses to make it so.

--
Bert Hyman W0RSB St. Paul, MN

On 8/1/2014 3:10 PM, Brian Morrison wrote:
On Fri, 01 Aug 2014 11:57:28 -0400
Jerry Stuckle wrote:


But the two are entirely different situations; the only
commonality is that both are privileges.


Yes, but don't you think that some sort of moral equivalence should
apply to those privileges?


Moral equivalence has nothing to do with it. The two are completely
unrelated (other than both are privileges).

So how do you tie together the concept of privilege and assign any
nuances to each grant of same? There has to be some sort of relative
comparison based upon its benefit to the grantee and the rest of the
electorate or the whole thing becomes a self-serving bureaucracy.


Who said anything about a relative comparison? Such a concept does not
exist in Congress!

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K

==================