No2statism: Do you believe a football player who lays a hit on another player that results in the death of the player being hit, be punished for killing the person hit? How about a wild pitch from a pitcher that hits a batter in the face and ends up killing the batter?
All you said was:
and
And I just responded that you, while the definitions are different, you’d be participating in them simultaneously. It was insulting because you’re just trying to blow off my simple question. In the time you typed up your last answer, you probably could have just nicely answered my question.
- A Driver’s License does not ensure competence, nor does it guarantee compliance with traffic laws.
- Easily forged.
- Driving without a license is a victimless crime.
- Many people drive without licenses every day and cause no chaos/damage.
- Government cannot be trusted.
- Mission creep.
- Excuse for police to harass and fine the citizenry.
- Government is poor at protecting personal information.
- Coercive/unnatural monopoly leads to inferior organization and higher prices.
- Double taxation (as double jeoparody as another mentioned)
That’s the best I can come up with immediately with minimal effort. It is not one of the areas I have devoted much thought to. I’m sure there are more compelling arguments out there.
I once dated a norwegian girl. She and her sister didn’t have a driver license due to how expensive it was, something like 3k euros. Even if a person doesn’t have a car, having a driver license to drive the car of a relative or a friend is very covenient, or even for a job.
I didn’t blow off your question, I agreed with your statement. If you think about it, the answer will come to you. If you can’t be bothered to think about it, why should I be bothered to do your thinking for you?
Here is a hint. You’re making a fallacy of composition.
While you’re probably right (I haven’t really looked into it myself), I think most roads would be privately owned in a free-market society. The road owners would then reserve the right to refuse entry of any given vehicle or driver.
While I don’t think driver’s licenses would exist as we know them today, I think car insurance companies would want to make sure their clients can drive safely (according to some given standard of safety). I’m not sure whether owners of privately owned roads (or their agents) would want to see proof of that or not. If so, then we could call that proof a “driver’s license”.
Self-insurance seems more problematic here. I’m not sure how it would likely be handled.
“No2statism: Do you believe a football player who lays a hit on another player that results in the death of the player being hit, be punished for killing the person hit? How about a wild pitch from a pitcher that hits a batter in the face and ends up killing the batter?”
Yes, they should be punished.
What about the principle of mens rea?