| Jeff Higgins |
09-19-2007 05:35 AM |
From a purely Constituional perspective, it really is all or nothing with regards to any sort of restriction on travel. I don't see signs directing the flow of traffic as any kind of "restriction" whatsoever. There is clearly a need for cooporation among those using the roads, and signage provides a means by which to engender that cooporation.
Funny you should mention that, though. There was a thread right here on PPOT a few months back where some one mentioned a few smaller towns in Europe somewhere (Holland maybe?) that had eliminated all signage beyond street numbers and directions. They were experimenting (apparently with some success) with having a more communicative relationship between the various road users. Drivers, pedestrians, bicyclists, etc. were expected to make eye contact, signal their intentions to one another, and all of that. Might work in a very small town (and be kind of quaint at that) but the mayhem that would ensue in a town like Seattle can be well imagined. So clearly we need something.
And why are we still suffering under the law? Same reason we still suffer under various forms of local gun control, to use a very visible example. Our Constitution is very clear on that issue as well; we have the unconditional right to "keep and bear arms". Period. Yet states, counties, cities, etc. keep passing laws that impinge upon that right. Then the court battles start, and as soon as one is settled, several more pop up. All the while our Supreme Court manages to evade such an important Constitutional issue, rather than handing down a definitive ruling that would end the debate. There are political reasons why they don't (that may change soon, in an upcoming case).
The licensing of our right to travel falls in the same category. To do so legally would reguire a Constitutional Amendment and the onerous process of pushing one through. It would start a national debate that the powers that be would rather not start. It would clearly demonstrate to the apathetic public that their rights have been impinged; they may wake up and take exception to that. It has been far easier for our gubmint to quietly fly under that radar; most folks actually expect such matters to fall under governmental control and are quite surprised to find that they legally do not. So our legislators continue to pass unconstitutional law, knowing full well most folks expect to live in a nanny state that controls every aspect of their daily lives. And knowing full well the almost insurmountable court battles required to strike such law from the books. Our system is broken that way. It relies a great deal on the confused apathy of the sheep-like masses. We have seen examples of this confusion right here, on this very thread.
|
