Export thread

Clicky

Of course, this guy's a tea partier. Common sense is grounds for expulsion for the movement, it seems.

The interviewer never got around to the important questions, like keeping drunken drivers off the roads (how many DUIs does this guy have, hmm?).

If I was an insurer, the day this bill passed, every car policy in the state of Georgia would be revoked. Every other policy would have a new clause prohibiting travel through Georgia.

Well i think Georgia is a small price to pay to shut some of these people up already...

The comments on that article are made of some pretty serious fail.

In his bill, Franklin states, "Free people have a common law and constitutional right to travel on the roads and highways that are provided by their government for that purpose. Licensing of drivers cannot be required of free people, because taking on the restrictions of a license requires the surrender of an inalienable right."

Click to expand...

Did this guy not even pass driver's ed himself? The VERY FIRST thing they teach you "driving is a privileged, not a right."

David said:

Did this guy not even pass driver's ed himself? The VERY FIRST thing they teach you "driving is a privileged, not a right."

Click to expand...

People like Franklin, along with most Libertarians, see driving as a right. There's never any real logic given, just some incoherent ramblings about the "ebil gubbermint."

I think the libertarian view isn't that a some skill based assessment can't be required by local governments, but that the license/tax was instituted mainly as a source of revenue for states. Basically, they feel it's unjust to charge for the privilege to use an innate skill, especially when said skill is basically required if your going to be venturing outside of the cities. It also disrupts economic mobility by denying people without ID or papers a chance a basic service.

That being said, states set the bar so low for these things that you really need to be a fuck up if you can't get a license. They know people need to drive, but they want their piece of the pie first, so the test is easy but the cost is relatively high.

I remember the cost of getting my license being somewhere around 20 bucks. If you don't like it, you can get a horse.

Edit: Rather I should say, the cost of being licensed is still significantly less than owning a horse, which you can do without any government regulation whatsoever if the problem is the ebil gubbermint.

David said:

I remember the cost of getting my license being somewhere around 20 bucks. If you don't like it, you can get a horse.

Edit: Rather I should say, the cost of being licensed is still significantly less than owning a horse, which you can do without any government regulation whatsoever if the problem is the ebil gubbermint.

Click to expand...

It's more like 50+ here in Ohio and there actually ARE a lot of laws regarding owning a horse as well... or at least there are here in Ohio, where we still see them every once in awhile thanks to our Amish/Quaker/Mennonite population.

However, I do like how your argument was to basically say "Nuh uh!". I may not believe the Libertarian argument, but I certainly could debate it better.

Well, if it shouldn't be a source of revenue the obvious solution would be to make it free to take that evaluation, no eliminating it completely...

tegid said:

Well, if it shouldn't be a source of revenue the obvious solution would be to make it free to take that evaluation, no eliminating it completely...

Click to expand...

Then who pays for the cost of testing? Running the DMV? Updating the databases?

Either a fee is placed on acquiring the license or it is all taxpayer funded. We know how much libertarians would love that.

Krisken said:

Then who pays for the cost of testing? Running the DMV? Updating the databases?

Either a fee is placed on acquiring the license or it is all taxpayer funded. We know how much libertarians would love that.

Click to expand...

And therefore, if my only 2 choices are paying for a license or not having any license process at all, I choose to pay for it.

When you ban driver's licenses, only criminals will have driver's licenses!

Not only driving is a right, it's a right to do so in a sweet sweet car with leather seats and a nice stereo system.

AshburnerX said:

It's more like 50+ here in Ohio and there actually ARE a lot of laws regarding owning a horse as well... or at least there are here in Ohio, where we still see them every once in awhile thanks to our Amish/Quaker/Mennonite population.

However, I do like how your argument was to basically say "Nuh uh!". I may not believe the Libertarian argument, but I certainly could debate it better.

Click to expand...

I shall rebut with "you're a poopy-head."

If you can afford a car, maintenance, gas and insurance, then I don't see why you wouldn't also be able to afford a license.

figmentPez said:

If you can afford a car, maintenance, gas and insurance, then I don't see why you wouldn't also be able to afford a license.

Click to expand...

Except there is also a lot of talk about the legality of requiring insurance as well. I guarantee you that if the Supreme Court decides that the federal government can't require you to purchase a product or service (one of the main arguments against the new health care bill), they'll also have to get rid of the insurance requirement for vehicles.

AshburnerX said:

I guarantee you that if the Supreme Court decides that the federal government can't require you to purchase a product or service (one of the main arguments against the new health care bill), they'll also have to get rid of the insurance requirement for vehicles.

Click to expand...

Aside from the fact that car & driving insurance is state-mandated, not federal, you mean?

This guy's argument makes no sense. Travel may be a right (via the Articles of Confederation and judicial precedent, not the Constitution, btw), but travel using a car is not. The right to travel, as a concept, was intended to safeguard the ability of citizens to move freely around the country without being restrained by agents of the government (assuming you weren't a felon or declared enemy of the state), not to allow you travel wherever you like by whatever means you choose. If you own a plane, you're still not allowed to drive it down any city street just because you feel like it.

SpecialKO said:

Aside from the fact that car & driving insurance is state-mandated, not federal, you mean?

Click to expand...

I never realized it was a state thing, as virtually every state has that requirement. That being said, I'm pretty sure we'd still see some challenges. Federal Law is almost universally considered to supersede State Law, or at least it does in practice.

AshburnerX said:

I never realized it was a state thing, as virtually every state has that requirement. That being said, I'm pretty sure we'd still see some challenges. Federal Law is almost universally considered to supersede State Law, or at least it does in practice.

Click to expand...

Yes, but if the Supreme Court rules on the power of the federal government to make any law, that ruling doesn't necessarily automatically apply to the power of state governments to make a similar law; it depends on the nature of the ruling.

If the SC rules that Congress cannot make a law requiring everyone in the country to wear a particular brand of spats because it violates the right to free association and expression, then state governments can't make a similar law because doing so would also violate those rights. But if the SC rules that Congress can't make that law because it violates the 10th Amendment, then the SC is actually affirming the right of states to make that law if they choose.

True enough. It's going to be an interesting few months to say the least.

What even the point of the word libertarian if they're just gonna make arguments for pure anarchy 99% of the time... anarchist sounds better anyway.

Also, innate skill?! Yeah, because you just know how to drive without actually learning it...

From what I see, people have an innate skill to drive poorly.

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.

People are thinking about this the wrong way.

If this passed people in Georgia wouldn't be able to drive in the other 49 states.