Nobody Should Need A Driver's License

[vraiblonde]

I want to see the fun when anyone who feels like it can jump in an 18-wheeler and just roll away in it.

Kiki Stinkertoes should be able to drive. She'd do as good a job as most of the durhards I see out there.

 

[TurboK9]

I want to see the fun when anyone who feels like it can jump in an 18-wheeler and just roll away in it.

Now you are being nonsensical.

An 18 wheeler is not exactly a passenger vehicle, nor is it in any way "non-commercial".

So your sarcasm is a wee moot.

 

[Gilligan]

Now you are being nonsensical.

An 18 wheeler is not exactly a passenger vehicle, nor is it in any way "non-commercial".

So your sarcasm is a wee moot.

I didn't see any differentiation in the tread...drivers license a drivers license and all that. Where was the the bar set that determined where the anarchism stopped and rational licensing requirements were still desired or OK?

 

[Larry Gude]

Well that may be what you believe was the original motivation, but the only people who get a license are those who want to drive... and everyone who wants to drive gets a license... so it doesn't really control the number of vehicles on the road does it?

So. Why do they do it??

Some people are denied a license. Why, in Maryland alone, after your 20th or 30th DWI you aren't allowed a license anymore.

And I didn't mean to control the number on the road but to KNOW the number on the road or, at least, the number of drivers thereby providing some data for infrastructure planning.

 

[awpitt]

The guy in Georgia is correct. I have multiple legal briefs in my possession
that stipulates you CANNOT take a fundamental right(right to travel) and turn it into a state(govt) granted privilege and license it. The Constitution is a restriction on the acts(power) of govt., NOT a source of our rights. Our rights are Creator given, not some bureaucrat given.
That is what makes out country unique from all others.
Drivers' licenses are now used to force child support, national ID card(papers please), debt collection , IRS tracking, etc,ad nauseum. Since they are all put into a national data base,it would make Hitler proud.



That was the lie given to implement the licensing scheme. For so called "safety qualifications" ,all you need is a Certificate of Competency" like CPR. Why is it I can get a certificate that says I am qualified to save a life but I need a LICENSE to use my private property on a public right of way payed for by our tax dollars. Those whose licenses are revoked or suspended are caught everyday on the roads so there is certainly no improved safety for me and my family, that is for sure. But it is an excellent revenue generator and control scheme for govt. bureaucrats.

By your logic, I should be able to show up at 2W6, hop in a plane and take off. No FAA lic needed. Right?

 

[TurboK9]

I didn't see any differentiation in the tread...drivers license a drivers license and all that. Where was the the bar set that determined where the anarchism stopped and rational licensing requirements were still desired or OK?

Nonsensical.

Gilligan you are better than this.

What is being argued is that requiring a drivers license is a violation of your rights... specifically in this case, the right to travel is cited...

I'd ask first what the POINT of licensing drivers is... Seriously.

To track who drives? So they can revoke your priviledge at will? Etc?

Is this one of those things we have gotten so accustomed to that we simply do not question it?

If tomorrow, the state decided that all current licenses were to be considered simply ID cards, and licenses would no longer be issued... you simply had to be old enough and physically / mentally capable of operating a passenger vehicle...

What's the worst thing that would happen? All the people driving now would suddenly be driving, plus a few folks who haven't paid parking tickets or child support?



Please. A drivers license is simply a way for the government to control the supposed 'priviledge' of driving... priviledge...

WE own the roads, not the government. Privilidge my left butt cheek.

 

[TurboK9]

Some people are denied a license. Why, in Maryland alone, after your 20th or 30th DWI you aren't allowed a license anymore.

And I didn't mean to control the number on the road but to KNOW the number on the road or, at least, the number of drivers thereby providing some data for infrastructure planning.

Riiiigggght. Rather than try to stop them from driving altogher, put one of those breathalyzer thingies in their car.

Revoking a drivers license does NOT keep a person from driving. There is a better way.... it just won't bring in as much $$.

 

[Gilligan]

Nonsensical.

Gilligan you are better than this..

If the exceptions to "no license required" arguments were indeed articulated somewhere in this thread..then I missed them apparently.

 

[TurboK9]

If the exceptions to "no license required" arguments were indeed articulated somewhere in this thread..then I missed them apparently.

RIGHT TO TRAVEL.
Our nation is one of roads and highways upon which we drive automobiles. Public transport, bussing, walking, is impractical at best in a large portion of our nation. So a car or motorcycle can be pretty much a requirement.

An hourplane, train, or commercial truck, not so much.

You were stretching and you know it.

 

[Gilligan]

RIGHT TO TRAVEL.
Our nation is one of roads and highways upon which we drive automobiles. Public transport, bussing, walking, is impractical at best in a large portion of our nation. So a car or motorcycle can be pretty much a requirement.

An hourplane, train, or commercial truck, not so much.

You were stretching and you know it.

No..I find the entire argument against licensing quite ludicrous from any practical and public safety standpoint, and legitimately wondered if there was any limit to how far proponents wanted to take that argument.

 

[Larry Gude]

Riiiigggght. Rather than try to stop them from driving altogher, put one of those breathalyzer thingies in their car.

Revoking a drivers license does NOT keep a person from driving. There is a better way.... it just won't bring in as much $$.

I wouldn't argue for even a second that there isn't a tax revenue component above and beyond the costs of the licensing program itself and I won't argue that there is no nanny state component either. However, people travel in the passenger seat all the time in cars. In the backseat. On buses. Walking. Bicycles. You are arguing the most literal and sinister position on the state requiring a drivers license and, it seems, ignoring any legitimate, non right trampling purposes.

Yes?

 

[itsbob]

And I didn't mean to control the number on the road but to KNOW the number on the road or, at least, the number of drivers thereby providing some data for infrastructure planning.

There is no validity in the connection between licenses and number of cars/drivers on the road.

At any given time what percentage of licensed and unlicensed drivers are on the road? Don't think there is any way of tracking that, that's why you see those little rubber hoses across the road now and then.

The state can get revenue, and project revenue by how many licenses are out there, and how many they expect to grow by each year, but other than that there's not much useful data to be gleaned from actually having licenses.

EXCEPT of course all the data you use to get a license, and is ON your license that would normally be considered private... they have access to ALL of that data.

 

[Larry Gude]

There is no validity in the connection between licenses and number of cars/drivers on the road.

There is no reference to the numbers of drivers licenses in a given state when considering road expansion, maintenance schedules, etc?

 

[itsbob]

There is no reference to the numbers of drivers licenses in a given state when considering road expansion, maintenance schedules, etc?

PennDOT used actual usage data, as there is no way to extrapolate actual usage from licensing data. How do you track how many drivers from Oregon are going to be using 235 over the nest 10 years? Again, why they have the little rubber hoses across the road. (that and a van outfitted with laser measuring devices front and back to measure the levelness, and smoothness of any given road surface)


PennDOT traffic counting was an ongoing, endless task. There was new data coming in every day, and traffic being being counted every day.

 

[Larry Gude]

PennDOT used actual usage data, as there is no way to extrapolate actual usage from licensing data. How do you track how many drivers from Oregon are going to be using 235 over the nest 10 years? Again, why they have the little rubber hoses across the road. (that and a van outfitted with laser measuring devices front and back to measure the levelness, and smoothness of any given road surface)


PennDOT traffic counting was an ongoing, endless task. There was new data coming in every day, and traffic being being counted every day.

OK, so, drivers licenses in a given state are not used for infrastructure planning on any meaningful level.

 

[TurboK9]

I wouldn't argue for even a second that there isn't a tax revenue component above and beyond the costs of the licensing program itself and I won't argue that there is no nanny state component either. However, people travel in the passenger seat all the time in cars. In the backseat. On buses. Walking. Bicycles. You are arguing the most literal and sinister position on the state requiring a drivers license and, it seems, ignoring any legitimate, non right trampling purposes.

Yes?

Legitimate? How? Of course I am ignoring it... it doesn't exist.

Revoking a license does not stop someone from driving. The state uses it as a means to motivate you to pay fines, etc. Pay taxes, etc.

Look at Maryland... let's toss licensing to the side and look at vehicle registration... If I park my car, and don't drive for 6 months, and forget to turn in my plates because I dropped my insurance, I have to pay the state +$1200 plus dollars before I can reactivate my now suspended registration... because I MAY have been driving without insurance. Um, what? What ever happened to 'innocent until proven guilty'? You can argue that one as well, but you are fined not because you violated a DMV ruling, you were fined because they created a ruling to circumvent the need to actually CATCH you breaking the law. And we let this happen.

DL's and the DMV itself are nothing but a way to end run around due process, and collect revenue while doing so. :shrug:

 

[TurboK9]

OK, so, drivers licenses in a given state are not used for infrastructure planning on any meaningful level.

Not accurately no. Hence the TJ bridge.

 

[Pushrod]

See, there is where the good gets lost in pursuit of the perfect.

You can sit there and argue that you thusly have the right to have a nuclear bomb in your basement if you so freely choose and we simply hold you responsible if something goes...awry. But, the potential damage you could cause is exponentially beyond your ability to be held responsible.

So, we pro 2A types lose those sympathetic to the right to keep and bear arms when they start thinking that we are a bunch of unreasonable absolutists. We lose the good in pursuit of the perfect.

There were speed limits in DC during the civil war to provide some sort of restraint on folks. This is not unreasonable.

Then we will have to agree to disagree. The whole camel's nose under the tent and all that. The founding fathers wanted no restrictions. That is what was meant by "shall not be infringed" I guess I am an absolutist like them.

 

[itsbob]

Do you need to have a licensing system to say "You can't drive till you are 16 and not if you are severly disabled"? Wouldn't a state ID serve to identify that basic qualification?

Why would you need a license??

That sounds like a law.. and why do you have to be 16?

Some states it's legal to drive a vehicle at the age of 12, if you are rural and have no access to other transportation to get you to places like school or church.

 

[TurboK9]

Why would you need a license??

That sounds like a law.. and why do you have to be 16?

Some states it's legal to drive a vehicle at the age of 12, if you are rural and have no access to other transportation to get you to places like school or church.

Preaching to the choir Bob....