Equal rights, just say no

Lemme make this clear from the start. There is a great divide between equal opportunity and equal result. I'm focusing tonight on equal opportunity.

Just say no.

A person much wiser than I said, Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

Lemme throw some ideas at you on this "equal opportunity" thing.

My home state, Georgia, is pretty f'danging easy when it comes to getting a state-approved permit to tool down the highway. Admittedly, it's been a while since I had to get mine done. But the only medical issue I can remember is about eyesight. "Canya see the little numbers and letters? Cool. Look here and don't blink and that'll be $35 please." I have a commercial driver's license with some add-on permits, so mine costs more.

So based on this and based on equal rights, can a person, call him Fred, who has several epileptic seizures a day get a driver's license for a private vehicle? Appears so. Of course, a court order can come down taking away Fred's right to hold a driver's license.

Well, f'dang. We're going to take away a right Fred has because of something he has zero control over.

"Baker, Fred is a danger to others on the road if he drives."

Hang on! We're talking about Fred. Don't be draggin' other people into this. Stick to Fred. No. Stick. To. Fred. We're looking at the rights of an individual.

"Well, Fred could have a wreck and kill himself."

So could you.

"But it's more likely Fred will do that."

So, Fred needs to be protected from himself by taking away one of his rights? Where are you gonna draw the line? How many other rights does Fred have to give up because his brain is literally wired a bit wrong in places?

Fred can't get a commercial license, cause there's a medical exam involved. If the sawbones says no, you don't get the license.

In a thread on my FB page, Rebel brought up the issue of his nephew and my son Jesse. He asked, point blank, if I felt Jesse should not have equal rights.

Yep.

Lemme make this clear - Jesse should not have equal rights, and by that I mean equal opportunity, the same as the rest of us.

Jesse might be able to pass the driver's license test. Someone would have to read the questions to him. This is allowed under Georgia law. Given some time and lots of time behind the wheel, he could probably pass the driver's part of the test.

He does not need to be behind the wheel.

Some other things? M'kay.

He doesn't need to serve on a jury.

He's got no business holding elected office (albeit he might do better than our current crop of elected reprehensibles at that).

He should not be allowed to use an arc or mig welder, an acetylene torch and so forth.

Jesse's cognitive ability is such that he should not be allowed to do a bunch of things, even if it is his right.

Let's put this on physical ability too. He should not be allowed to play contact sports. He has a medical condition with the vertebrae of his neck. Get hit hard enough, broken neck. He knows this, because we've told him often enough, but I wonder if he truly grasps the concept. I doubt it.

BUT! As my Libertarian and libertarian friends (and some liarberals and cantservatives are now stomping their feet in indignation) say, adults should be allowed to engage in risky behavior. Yep. I agree.

IF, and on that tiny word can hang a universe of possibilities, if they do so of their own volition. Even Jesse. Should he suddenly develop the urge to try out for the Semi-Pro football team one town south of here and it is 100 percent his own decision...

But we run right back to his cognitive abilities. Jesse doesn't process the same way people without his disability can. To 'splain, he can be too easily led to do things against his best interest and he won't realize it. Could he be convinced to try out for the football team? I think so. Is it illegal to try to convince him to try out for the football team?

Nope. What we have here is a serious case of gray in a world that demands black & white.

Lemme get hypothetical on you, or as Hawgin' says, "Great, He's fixin' to make something up." Jesse is charged with a criminal offense, the Constitution guarantees the right to trial by a jury of his peers. Yes, the Supreme Court has ruled that people to have to be mentally competent enough to stand trial. So much for equal rights!

Does a person need the ability to understand a right in order to exercise it? If you demand equal rights and equal opportunity, you may not vacillate. Yes or no. No maybes here, no fence sitting. Waffling is something done at the Wapple House (as we call it) out by the Interstate. If you demand absolutes, then absolutes you shall be served.

If the person is not competent, they can be confined, against their will anyway. Bye bye equal rights.

Going back to Jesse, I am as certain as I can be of anything that, given enough time, Jesse could be convinced to commit rather heinous deeds. He wouldn't understand the ramifications. Should he still be held accountable for this? Equality and equal rights says, if he does it, he pays the consequences. You can say that the mentally incompetent do not have to stand trial, but I remind you (again) they can still be effectively incarcerated without trial. I also remind you, this is not equal rights (equal opportunity) in the absolute sense of the word.

It can be argued that this actually protects the rights of such an individual.

Depriving a person of the ability to make his own choices protects his rights? Really? How novel a concept.

"Baker, we're not depriving him of that right."

Really? Could have fooled me. But hey, I have been wrong before and could be wrong here.

Certainly, there is something in this Saturday night post I'm missing. I feel it. Serious, missing something important. I can't figure out what it is and it is annoying me. Not sure if it will cement hat I'm saying here or wreck it. Help me out, please.