Just stupid. I am so damned tired of this new breed of retardo-libertarianism. It reminds me of how some know it all coffee shop d-bag teenager would look at libertarianism.
First, Licensing for cars is quite clearly not a form of financial extortion by the government. The cost is REALLY negligible, and I honestly doubt that the income from it comes anywhere near covering the cost of delivering the service. The burden of proof for this is on the person stating the opposite as it defies Occam's Razor.
Second, and this is what bothers me more, this isn't even a realistic libertarian viewpoint. Most non-anarcho libertarians accept that government has 2 primary goals. Defence of life/property from extra-national threats (military), and defence of life/property from intra-nationa threats (police). Dangerous drivers fall into the latter category, and a simple licensing system is a very efficient preventative measure for limiting their exposure to society.
Of course, yeah if we wanted to be more on the anarcho-libertarian side then government licensing shouldn't exist, but OH WAIT NEITHER WILL GOVERNMENT BUILT ROADS. Some hardcore libertarians would argue that road building and maintenance should be privatized (which with the prevalence of toll-roads doesn't seem that crazy), which ironically would logically end up in a privatized licensing system, as any company wanting to maintain an appealing roadway would want to keep dangerous drivers off of it.
The whole argument, sadly, stems from massiver retardation and an inability to understand basic political concepts. I can excuse that in general populace, but in a politician? No. And this is different from a politician holding a viewpoint I disagree with. If someone promotes a keynsian economic model in a certain situation I may say "hey, I don't think that's appropriate". That's different from someone arguing that since they follow keynsian economics we should all start making money out of bread, because bread is cheap.
