Driver's License - Liberty.me

Driver's License

Tags: driver's license

Tor Valamo February 16, 2015 at 5:41 pm

Has anyone else thought about this from a libertarian perspective? Is it necessary? Is it even relevant?

I mean, licenses of any kind seem to me like an effort to top-down control people’s lives. But I know this subject may invoke a heated discussion with anyone. People take it so much for granted, that it’s an automatic part of life that you’re supposed to prove yourself to the government before you can do something completely irrelevant to them…

If you agree with me, how can I convince others who may be strongly in favor of road regulations (irrelevant of ownership)? If you disagree, tell me why?

Discuss.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Toni Sopocko February 16, 2015 at 7:04 pm

Well, if you live in a city and can rely on public transport, what’s the point?
But don’t you have to be realistic? Out in the wilds of the west, without a drivers’ license, you can’t purchase auto insurance, which is necessary to register a car. Can’t drive it more than a mile or two if it doesn’t have those plates that say you’re State approved. Can’t rent a car without that license, either. Personally, I HATE being immobilized. Best you can manage, in SOME states without a drivers’ license, is a 49cc scooter.
Standing up to the system is a great idea, but realistically, the way things are now, you’re only screwing yourself by not getting a drivers’ license. It’d be nice to figure out a way around it.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
  
  Tor Valamo February 17, 2015 at 8:00 am
  
  You’re slightly missing and proving my point. I’m not talking about a license for ME. I’m talking about driver’s licenses in general. As a concept.
  
  You’re proving my point that it is taken for granted and think I talked about getting one… (I already have one) 🙂
  
  You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
- - You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Mike Vroman February 16, 2015 at 9:20 pm

You are right, this can get to be an animated discussion.

Unfortunately, as long as a government is allowed to own a road, it has the justification, by default, to require a license. Not much different than anyone else who may own a road. The further problem is that drivers licenses, or other forms of state ID, are required for so many other things.

As to regulations on behavior while on the road, this is a necessity given the fact that so many people will behave recklessly if left to their own devices. Although I disagree with fines and imprisonment, based on my experience over 3 million miles on the highways, the owner of the road, be that owner public or private, should retain the right to prevent a person from using that road if they demonstrate a willingness to recklessly endanger the safety of another, until such a time as that person can demonstrate to the owner that they are willing to use at least the basic safety precautions.

Many disagree with my stance on having some means to regulate safety on the road, but after all the fatalties and injuries I have seen along the way, I can not argue otherwise.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
  
  Tor Valamo February 17, 2015 at 8:08 am
  
  But a driver’s license is an operator’s license. Not an owner’s license. Anyone can own a car and do with it as they want.
  
  Anything that is both a utility and toy can be abused. Doesn’t mean you should put operator’s licenses on a computer or guns. There are owners licenses for guns, but not for cars. So anyone can legally use a gun, but not own one.
  
  Get what I’m sayin’? Driving a car is something you learn. And then you know it. Behaving is something you’re going to do whether or not you have a license. And if you lose your license, that doesn’t stop you from driving a car. Or buying one.
  
  It just seems to me like it’s a constructed mental block that some people have, where a license is the only thing that keeps you able to move around, while in fact you can just get in a car without one and drive off.
  
  You mention fatalities, but if you plan on staying alive,people are going to tend towards driving “safely”. Just as how people who grew up around guns know how to handle guns safely, and those who didn’t tend to kill someone if they accidentally hold one.
  
  You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
  - You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
    
    Toni Sopocko February 17, 2015 at 8:17 am
    
    “But a driver’s license is an operator’s license. Not an owner’s license. Anyone can own a car and do with it as they want.”
    
    Technically, yes. But no, without the license you can’t ‘do with it as they want”. As stated in my last post, without the license, you can’t insure or register the car. And without that registration, you will not be able to use the car for its intended purpose, DRIVING. You WILL be pulled over by the highway pirates. And likely jailed.
    There are better ways to spend one’s energies, I think.
    As to driving other people’s cars without that license, that would be parasitic. And if you happened to get pulled over while driving without that State license, you would be responsible for someone else’s car being impounded and their likely being penalized heavily by both the state and their insurance company. Not a proper way to treat a friend or relative. Not at all.
    
    You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
    - Tor Valamo February 17, 2015 at 8:31 am
      
      “As stated in my last post, without the license, you can’t insure or register the car.”
      
      1. I can in my country.
      
      2. Why do I need insurance if I got the car for cheap?
      
      3. Register it? Like it’s some kind of gun?
      
      4. Uhm, I CAN drive it without a license, registration and insurance.
      
      You’re still missing the point by a mile, sir.
      
      You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
  - - - You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
    Mike Vroman February 17, 2015 at 7:18 pm
    
    True, you can own and operate a car without license and registration, but not on a government owned road. You must stay on private property of your own, or where you have the owner’s permission.
    
    You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
- - - You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Stephen Ayer February 17, 2015 at 2:47 pm

“2. Why do I need insurance if I got the car for cheap?” – you need insurance in case you accidentally damage someone else’s expensive car or injure them and can’t pay the damage out of pocket.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
  
  Tor Valamo February 17, 2015 at 3:23 pm
  
  What if I can pay for someone’s ferrari if I damaged it? Why do I need to be forced to have insurance?
  
  Also, the argument was that I needed a license to get insurance. Insurance is besides the point.
  
  You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
  - You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
    
    Mike Vroman February 17, 2015 at 7:21 pm
    
    There is (or at least was) a way to avoid insurance in a couple of the states I have lived in using a bond. I am not sure, but that may still be an option in some places.
    
    You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
- - - You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Sarah Meyer February 17, 2015 at 3:11 pm

I agree with you.

Here’s how I might frame an argument for our position: (Caution, I obviously went long on answering this…)

The general population makes the assumption that a government issued driver’s license is the only means to ensure folks behind the wheels of cars have had a proper amount of training in safety and operation – thereby increasing safety on the roads we all travel. This is obviously false, and here is why:

Here in the US, I believe the age at which a person can be licensed is 16. (There has been talk of increasing that age, but I don’t know if/when that will happen – I also believe requirements differ by state) This age is completely arbitrary. 16, 17, 18, 19, etc… kids tend to behave recklessly as they have not formed all of the necessary brain functioning to recognize serious consequences… giving them a license, or even training in “safe” operation of a vehicle doesn’t magically make kids’ brains fully developed.

“Scientists have identified a specific region of the brain called the amygdala which is responsible for instinctual reactions including fear and aggressive behavior. This region develops early. However, the frontal cortex, the area of the brain that controls reasoning and helps us think before we act, develops later. This part of the brain is still changing and maturing well into adulthood.” http://www.aacap.org/AACAP/Families_and_Youth/Facts_for_Families/Facts_for_Families_Pages/The_Teen_Brain_Behavior_Problem_Solving_and_Decision_Making_95.aspx

Furthermore, regardless of the age of the driver behind the wheel – reckless behavior is not reduced due to licensing procedure. Reckless behavior is reduced because a person, generally speaking, doesn’t wish to kill themselves. Most people are naturally and instinctively inclined to avoid actions which are likely to cause bodily injury. Did providing a license to that person make them value their life any more than their natural survival instinct? Uhh, no.

But doesn’t the state make you prove you’re a safe driver in order to give you a license?? Uhh… sort of, I guess. When you’re 15, you can sign up for a learning permit, drive around with mom and dad for a while, maybe even take a driver’s ed course, and then pass a test. They never test you again. Ever. I don’t know about you, but sometimes I have a hard time with my son’s 4th grade homework because I can’t remember what I learned all those years ago! Furthermore, reckless driver’s are also highly capable of driving safely when they have to – oh say, like during a 15 minute driving exam… it’s not exactly fool-proof.

Experience and maturity are what creates safe drivers. Licensing procedure does absolutely nothing to assist in the matter of safety.

So, now that we’ve come to the conclusion that government issued licenses to do not actually ensure safety at all – what is the reason for them? The reason is because driving is a necessity for most folks in life. If you live in a big city with robust mass-transit, you can likely get by without needing to drive ever, but the rest of us simply have to. What better way to extort the public than to require they pay for something they generally have to do? There’s a reason why (in my state) the Department of Motor Vehicles is a branch of the Department of Revenue. The simplest reason is most likely to be the most accurate. It’s a money maker.

Unfortunately I was unable to find any statistics on the $$ amount the state takes in from that particular branch, but I’m pretty sure it’s quite large. I’m also not surprised I couldn’t quickly find any data. The State Treasury site had a ridiculously vague bar graph on it’s page for “State Revenue” there’s a cartoon-like graph which was last updated in 2009. Nice transparency Colorado… Also, I “weeded” (haha) through 9 Google pages which were all primarily marijuana revenue articles and nothing was relevant to my search, so I give up…

I digress.

So, now that we’ve established that licensing does not increase driver safety, and the reason we have licenses is because the state wants our money – let’s go a step further and offer a solution.

Privatization.

I’m not even going to go into privatizing roads here (surprised?) because if you’re going into this debate with a statist… that’s just going to open up a whole can of worms. Ugh… circling arguments that veer in multiple directions are no fun.

Privatize driver’s education, and licensing… in conjunction with placing liability in the proper place: Parents, Individuals, Car Retailers, and Insurance Companies. First let’s talk about privatizing education. Detractors would say “nobody would get the education!” That’s where it has to be in conjunction with liability. An insurer would obviously offer a reduced rate to anybody who had their education certificate, and license from the educating agency. Detractors would say “nobody would get insurance!” or “nobody would care enough about a discount!” … Maybe, but I’m pretty sure the price of insurance would be way too high for anybody to choose to forego the education… anyways let’s really take a look at the necessary liability piece harder. Parents would be liable for the actions of their children. Individuals are personally liable for their own actions. Insurance companies only become liable when they are contracted to by the driver. So how do we ensure most people will insure? Currently, having insurance is state mandated, and there are STILL people who don’t do it – which is why we buy extra coverage called “uninsured motorist” coverage… we all know it. This would not be a new problem.

How about placing liability on individuals and dealers who sell cars? In my little utopian privatized world here, an individual who suffered losses in a car accident can sue the party which sold the car if they can prove the selling party did so without checking a person’s status of driver’s education and insurance. … and hey, I’m sure I’m not thinking about every avenue of feasibility here – but insurance companies, and financial institutions have figured out how to protect themselves from losses pretty darn efficiently.

I believe a privatized market would be quite a bit more efficient than government at increasing safety on the roads – IF they had any skin in the game, which they currently don’t… not really. Think about it, auto-insurance is a purchase mandated by law, they don’t have to think of new and innovative ways to get customers. You better believe they’ll figure it out right quick if that government assistance evaporated overnight.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Viewing 3 reply threads