What are some good arguments against drivers licences?
I don’t think the people at the DMV are smart enough or well-trained enough to determine whether someone is apt enough to drive on the roads.
They are too easy to obtain.
Whether I use the road or not I still have to pay for it with my taxes.
Most people don’t need them, because most people do not “drive”. They travel, and in commonwealth countries as well as the US, there is a common law right to travel freely on public roads.
LS, I remember you saying something about this in a previous thread. Clearly I understand the difference between the two words, but you can be driving and traveling at the same time. I don’t know what you’re saying the difference is.
What do licences have to do with your taxes?
Can’t think of any significant ones. If I owned a toll road (network), I could see how it would be desirable (profit maximizing) to request that any customer (driver) carried a certificate (issued by one of the hypothetically few major private driving academies) of his ability to operate a vehicle without putting my other customers in any unreasonable danger.
Z.
They are two different activities legally.
He’s saying it would be like the government taking your money in order to maintain a swimming pool and then saying you can’t swim well enough to swim in it.
Yeah, but you’re still driving even though you’re traveling in a car at the same time. Just like if you were to shoot someone in the head, you’re still shooting and killing someone at the same time. I don’t understand what you’re trying to say.
They are too easy to obtain.
In Spain it’s completely the opposite. The test is ridiculously hard, and it costs €1,000+. It fell prey to the true nature of the private-public complex. The cost is derived entirely from the price of taking driving classes. Driving classes are a necessary prerequisite, and the classes themselves are provided by the “private sector”. However, the industry is cartelized and like I said prices are ridiculous. The government recently adopted a price control, forcing providers to offer classes for €1 a day or something like that, but the companies have just extended the amount of classes necessary to take (and for some reason it’s more likely to fail the test once or twice before graduating, extending the amount of classes you need to take even more).
Nope, you don’t.
I also don’t understand why you can’t just try to give me a simple explanation or something without trying to be insulting…?
You can travel on the roads without driving, is the point (if I’m correct). Also, if we can travel freely on public roads it seems like double jeopardy. Taxes pay to build/maintain the roads which are for driving/traveling. Pay DMV to have a license to drive on said roads which you already pay for.
Exactly the same in many other European countries. I paid a little less than €2000 for my license, and I managed to pass both driving exams the first time (about 40% of people need a second try on one of those).
And, as is the case with public schooling, absolutely no non-cartelized alternative is allowed - you can’t just train with your parents and simply take the exam when you’re ready, you have to spend a ton of money for a licensed driving school.
The road in not the states to regulate. Otherwise, who knows whether private road owners would require some sort of certification? Criticizing drivers licences would be like criticizing Facebook.
You can travel without driving, but you can’t drive without traveling. Unless someone can come up with an example.
How was that insulting?
I tried to give you a simple explanation and you still don’t understand it. If you care enough to know, you will do some research.
I think (and I think that most people think) that public drivers licenses are necessary for as long there are public roads. So perhaps the best argument to be made against public drivers license is one against public roads first; it would follow that public drivers licenses are unnecessary then.
To make an analogy, most anti-public education people don’t first try to make the case that government issued diplomas are unnecessary in themselves. While it can be said that (after all, the ends of public education should be to educate the general public of publicly deemed necessary knowledge, not to track who went to high school or not for the purposes of discrimination), it feels much more concise (and easier) to reject public education first, then public diplomas as a consequence.
Edit: should use the spelling checker more often…
Drivers licenses suck for two reasons:
-
Driving a car, provided that you didn’t steal the car, is naturally a negative right.
-
If you kill someone in an accident, then you should be punished for killing someone. That’s enough of a deterrent–just like with drunk driving. It’s a natural right, and shouldn’t be punishable because there is no victim.