http://www.cbsatlanta.com/news/26675368/detail.html

Quote :

"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.""

Guy seems a bit out there in some of what he says, but it is an interesting point. What does a s license actually do for us when you stop and think about it? How many times do we hear of guys on their 10th DUI conviction, driving without a license anyway. How many unlicensed drivers do we have driving around us every day? How many licensed drivers still suck at driving? How many drivers are from other states who's license requirements may be different from ours? Do driver's licenses actually solve any problems, or are they simply money sinks?

[Edited on February 2, 2011 at 11:29 PM. Reason : gsdf]

2/2/2011 11:28:46 PM

Think of all the DMV jobs that would be lost if we didn't have a licensing system in place. Do you really want that blood on your hands?

2/2/2011 11:34:16 PM

i think that WAAAAY more proficiency should be required before getting a license.

2/2/2011 11:39:53 PM

GA republicans are fighting licenses for driving, whereas the NC GOP is proposing needing government issued IDs for voting, essentially requiring voting licenses.

2/2/2011 11:53:32 PM

I will agree that our current driver's license system is a complete waste of time.

2/3/2011 12:30:26 AM

^ uhh… that’s overstating things quite a bit.

And how does this apply to illegal immigrants?

I can’t see how this proposal as it’s written, and the spirit of it, is not completely idiotic.

2/3/2011 12:35:04 AM

The guy wastes time trying to find a Constitutional basis for why all people should be able to drive cars. That's simply not the case.

There either needs to be more stringent requirements for getting a license or I actually agree that the whole license system is pretty pointless. If the guy would just come out and say that he wants to save money by removing the DMV I feel like it would go over better. The only thing that having a drivers' license really does is guarantee that you have insurance, which is a very good thing and that's not even a requirement for a license in all states.

If the current licensing and enforcement system actually worked though, I would prefer that. But that seems like too much work for DMV people to handle.

2/3/2011 1:15:30 AM

Quote :

"And how does this apply to illegal immigrants?"

Not sure how that matters to be honest.

Quote :

"The only thing that having a drivers' license really does is guarantee that you have insurance, which is a very good thing and that's not even a requirement for a license in all states."

Except it really doesn't. Yeah, you hand over proof of insurance when you get your license, and then after you've got it, what then? There's a reason un/under-insured insurance is becoming more popular.

2/3/2011 7:46:18 AM

Quote :

"i think that WAAAAY more proficiency should be required before getting a license. "

True but until the mass transit system of this country develops to rival something like they have in Western Europe; people will continue driving without a license.

Except in a major dense metro areas; our society is built on the premise of car mobility. Urban sprawl is to blame.

2/3/2011 8:55:36 AM

Quote :

" Not sure how that matters to be honest."

You don't even have to look outside your own post to answer that:

Quote :

"There's a reason un/under-insured insurance is becoming more popular."

[Edited on February 3, 2011 at 9:48 AM. Reason : .]

2/3/2011 9:47:35 AM

so it's only illegal immigrants that don't have insurance?

2/3/2011 9:55:20 AM

No one said it was only illegal immigrants.

They do make up a large portion of the unlicensed arrests and automobile impounds. They're the reason this problem is big enough to be in news.

2/3/2011 9:59:05 AM

Quote :

"You don't even have to look outside your own post to answer that: No one said it was only illegal immigrants. They do make up a large portion of the unlicensed arrests and automobile impounds. They're the reason this problem is big enough to be in news."

The question was how this [the proposal to do away with drivers licensing] applies to illegal immigrants.

The fact that they make up a larger portion of unlicensed arrests has no bearing on the relevance of illegal immigrants to the discussion. The proposal would apply to them the same way that our current licensing system applies to them, which is to say not at all.

2/3/2011 12:20:25 PM

Well I inferred from your post that the growing number of unlicensed drivers is one of the reasons this proposal is being made. Illegal immigration is the main cause of this growth, so that would make illegal immigrants relevant.

I read the article, but Franklin doesn't really provide any worthwhile supportive argument.

2/3/2011 12:28:14 PM

I think the argument that the license actually doesn't do or provide any benefit is a fairly worthwhile one.

2/3/2011 1:02:52 PM

As the legal owner of the roads, it is the state's responsibility to keep unsafe people off the roads. How it decides to do so is up to it. If we eliminate driver's licenses, then the state must still keep a readily accessible list of people that have been banned from driving.

2/3/2011 1:30:58 PM

The current standards for getting and keeping a driver's license are ridiculously stupid. And to say that they should stay this way until we have better and more widespread mass transit is a stupid statement to make. Last time I checked if you weren't good you could practice until you were. Billions of dollars a year could be saved in medical/insurance bills and vehicle safety development if instead the government put their focus on requiring a better driver.

Instead we continue to cater to the retard who has a hard time remembering what a stop sign means

2/3/2011 2:17:12 PM

Quote :

"I think the argument that the license actually doesn't do or provide any benefit is a fairly worthwhile one."

I generally respect your posts, but I can't see what exactly you're trying to say.

You really can't think of any benefit the current driver licensing system has?

At the very least, you must see why the current system is vastly superior to no system?

2/3/2011 2:24:45 PM

Quote :

"I think the argument that the license actually doesn't do or provide any benefit is a fairly worthwhile one."

His argument seemed to consist of the following dismissable points:

1. Driving cars on roads is a fundamental right of anyone who pays taxes, license or no
2. IDs are communist
3. We cant keep every unlicensed person off the roads

2/3/2011 2:36:46 PM

Quote :

"I generally respect your posts, but I can't see what exactly you're trying to say. You really can't think of any benefit the current driver licensing system has? At the very least, you must see why the current system is vastly superior to no system?"

Honestly, the longer I think about it, the less about the licensing system I find to be useful. My initial reactions was I assume the same as yours and most of the other people here, but as I thought about it some more, I just don't see what the driver's license actually does for us.

I'm not talking about eliminating the rules of the road, or anything like that, just the whole "read a book, go to DMV, demonstrate once that you are capable of driving a car slightly better than a trained chimp, pay money, get license, pay more money ever few years, never have to prove to anyone again that you are actually a competent driver, so long as you never get pulled for anything major"

So let's have a serious discussion here, no bullshit, no "IDs are communist" crap, no speculation about what our licensing system could be if only we threw some more money at it, just the benefits of the exact system we have now.

Our current licensing system, what does it actually do for us that is an actual function of the license?

2/3/2011 7:44:22 PM

I guess the most fundamental is that it's a standard of identification so that responsibility can be ascribed for traffic accidents and violations.

2/3/2011 8:49:01 PM

Of course, that doesn't require a driver's license, merely a state ID of some sort. There's also the argument to be made that police routinely manage to establish responsibility for other crimes when people don't have ID. After all it is a driver's license, and there is no law which states you need to carry ID with you during your day to day activities. The necessity or lack thereof of an "official" ID is for another discussion, so for now we'll leave it at the point that positive identification does not require a license to drive.

2/3/2011 9:53:02 PM

theDuke866 hardly represents the most rational school of thought on driving laws.

2/3/2011 10:06:11 PM

Quote :

"Think of all the DMV jobs that would be lost if we didn't have a licensing system in place. Do you really want that blood on your hands?"

DMV people are the most unpleasant people that I have ever had to deal with on a consistent basis. I say let 'em starve.

2/3/2011 11:18:30 PM

Quote :

"Yeah, you hand over proof of insurance when you get your license, and then after you've got it, what then?"

You should try it sometime, just go one month without having liability insurance, see if the DMV doesn't immediately get your ass. Your insurers are required by law to let the DMV know if you do not have insurance, and when you change insurers, you'll need to make sure that it is timed correctly, or you may face penalties.

Quote :

"never have to prove to anyone again that you are actually a competent driver, so long as you never get pulled for anything major"

Every time I've renewed, I've had to take the eye test, so it's at least making an effort to keep blind drivers off the road.

Your argument can be reduced to "the current system is not perfect, thus we should get rid of it".

2/3/2011 11:37:18 PM

Quote :

"Our current licensing system, what does it actually do for us that is an actual function of the license?"

It is physical proof to a law enforcement officer that you have not had your driving privileges revoked.

For the good of all drivers, some drivers have had their right to drive revoked. Patrol officers need a quick and easy way to differentiate such drivers from everyone else. Driver licenses are that proof. It is the same reason why states tend to require businesses post their business licenses where the public can see them.

Quote :

"just go one month without having liability insurance, see if the DMV doesn't immediately get your ass"

As seems usual, Kris is telling tales even he should know are completely false. As statistics show, there are many drivers on the road without insurance and being on the road without insurance is proof the DMV didn't immediately get their ass.

The problem, as usual, is that he is a communist and therefore incapable of believing the citizenry is capable of lying to its government (the car is off the road, I swear!) or that government bureaucrats are capable of being incompetent (my cousin hadn't had insurance for over a year, but was still issued new plates when his old plates were stolen, presumably by someone else driving without insurance).

2/4/2011 12:55:54 AM

Quote :

"s statistics show, there are many drivers on the road without insurance and being on the road without insurance is proof the DMV didn't immediately get their ass."

They don't come and lock you up, at least not until they catch you on the road, but you will get your plate revoked.
http://www.ncdot.org/dmv/vehicle_services/registrationtitling/insurancerequirements.html#Lapse of Coverage

2/4/2011 1:03:23 AM

Quote :

"You should try it sometime, just go one month without having liability insurance, see if the DMV doesn't immediately get your ass."

And yet we still have uninsured drivers. Clearly taking your license doesn't actually stop someone from getting in a car and driving it.

Quote :

"Every time I've renewed, I've had to take the eye test, so it's at least making an effort to keep blind drivers off the road. "

And I've never had to take the eye test for a renewal. The closest I came was when I renewed after accidentally letting my license expire for 6 months (which didn't do a thing to stop me from driving), they made me identify a few signs.

Quote :

"Your argument can be reduced to "the current system is not perfect, thus we should get rid of it". "

Actually, my argument really reduces to "the current system is redundant without providing additional benefits, thus we should get rid of it"

Case in point:

Quote :

"For the good of all drivers, some drivers have had their right to drive revoked. Patrol officers need a quick and easy way to differentiate such drivers from everyone else. Driver licenses are that proof."

But as we know, licenses can be forged, and people with valid licenses can forget them. When you get pulled, they run your plates, and do a check on you anyway for outstanding warrants and other issues. You revoked driving rights would show up in that check just as easily. And since unlike a business license, we don't require you to post your license at all times, either way it takes a cop actually stopping you to check these things in the first place.

Also note that just because you don't have your card, doesn't prevent you from getting in your car and driving. And baring you being a dumbass and repeating whatever got your license suspended in the first place ad pulled over again, no one would ever know you're not supposed to be on the road.

Case in point:

Quote :

"They don't come and lock you up, at least not until they catch you on the road, but you will get your plate revoked."

Excellent, so proof of insurance is therefore tied to the plates. So why the redundant license to drive?

2/4/2011 8:06:51 AM

Quote :

"And yet we still have uninsured drivers. Clearly taking your license doesn't actually stop someone from getting in a car and driving it."

I'm betting it would stop you, me, and most of the people in this thread. We have murder laws yet murder still happens, perhaps we should get rid of those as well?

Quote :

"And I've never had to take the eye test for a renewal. The closest I came was when I renewed after accidentally letting my license expire for 6 months (which didn't do a thing to stop me from driving), they made me identify a few signs."

That's the eye test, and you have to take it every time you get a renewal in NC.

Quote :

"the current system is redundant"

I don't see anywhere wjer have not argued redundancy.

Quote :

"Excellent, so proof of insurance is therefore tied to the plates. So why the redundant license to drive?"

I don't know if you've ever noticed but plates are for cars, licenses are for drivers. If you drive your buddy's car drunk, should they try to make no one drive your car, or should they try to make your buddy not drive?

You fail to explain how licenses are different from any other law, people break the law by driving without them, but people break every law, the fact that people break a law isn't neccesarily a reason to get rid of it.

2/4/2011 9:28:04 AM

if you drive your buddy's car drunk and you get caught you're going to jail regardless of if you were licensed or not. If you drive your buddy's car drunk and you get into an accident his insurance is liable.

2/4/2011 9:38:22 AM

It serves a double purpose. It is evidence of your right to drive when the computers are down, or if the local sheriff's department is too small to have a dispatch capable of checking, or if the state has screwed up the paperwork, all very likely scenarios we as drivers never get to hear of, because the police can do a visual check of the license as sufficient evidence in such cases.

Yes, licenses can be forged, so can computer systems. Just takes a friend at the DMV. Just because a system is not 100% does not mean you scrap it for nothing.

As for the plates: the plates follow the car, the license follows the driver. A car can be illegal by not having insurance, a driver can be illegal by having their license revoked. The two are not related to each other. An illegal driver can be in a car with insurance in someone else's name, and a legal driver can be in a car without insurance.

2/4/2011 9:40:44 AM

Here are the benefits of a Driver's License:

1. Proof that a person has taken an initial course in driving and passed a thorough exam
2. Proof that a person is medically fit to drive (granted, its a low and rarely tested threshold)
3. A national standard for driver records - necessary for insurance and law-enforcement
4. A national standard for driver id - one should never be driving a vehicle on public roads without photo ID
5. A national standard for general personal identification

I don't mean to imply that the current license system does these things well, but its far better that they be done poorly than not at all. If someone can present a system that better accomplishes all these things, that would be great.

Quote :

"But as we know, licenses can be forged, and people with valid licenses can forget them. When you get pulled, they run your plates, and do a check on you anyway for outstanding warrants and other issues. You revoked driving rights would show up in that check just as easily. And since unlike a business license, we don't require you to post your license at all times, either way it takes a cop actually stopping you to check these things in the first place"

It's possible to drive unlicensed so long as you are not caught. Are you trying to say that licenses are inadequate and should be replaced with a more enforceable system? Otherwise, simply removing the license requirement would make this problem far worse.

2/4/2011 11:44:44 AM

Quote :

"if you drive your buddy's car drunk and you get caught you're going to jail regardless of if you were licensed or not. If you drive your buddy's car drunk and you get into an accident his insurance is liable."

The point is that they should take your license away, not his car's plate.

2/4/2011 12:52:18 PM

Quote :

"I'm betting it would stop you, me, and most of the people in this thread. We have murder laws yet murder still happens, perhaps we should get rid of those as well?"

I have not argued for the removal of laws allowing the state to revoke someone's right to drive. You or I or most people in this thread would also not drive if we were given a legal court order telling us we couldn't, regardless of whether we have a plastic ID card.

Quote :

"That's the eye test, and you have to take it every time you get a renewal in NC. "

Hardly an eye test, they might as well ask how many fingers the DMV employee is holding up. I seriously question whether this is actually taking any dangerous drivers off the road.

Quote :

"You fail to explain how licenses are different from any other law, people break the law by driving without them, but people break every law, the fact that people break a law isn't neccesarily a reason to get rid of it."

Because the license isn't a law against an action. You get your license suspended for violating the rules of the road. I'm not arguing for the elimination of the rules of the road. I'm arguing that the actual licensing process is redundant, flawed and doesn't actually solve or prevent any problems.

Quote :

"It is evidence of your right to drive when the computers are down, or if the local sheriff's department is too small to have a dispatch capable of checking, or if the state has screwed up the paperwork, all very likely scenarios we as drivers never get to hear of, because the police can do a visual check of the license as sufficient evidence in such cases. "

The question is, should you be required to present evidence that you are not restricted from engaging in a legal activity? If you're walking down the street, and a cop stops you because you tossed your soda can on the ground, you aren't required to present evidence you have no outstanding warrants. You aren't required to present evidence you aren't an escaped convict. You're not even required to present identification. That burden falls to the police. Why is driving, a common, every day, legal activity, any different?

Quote :

"As for the plates: the plates follow the car, the license follows the driver. A car can be illegal by not having insurance, a driver can be illegal by having their license revoked. The two are not related to each other. An illegal driver can be in a car with insurance in someone else's name, and a legal driver can be in a car without insurance."

The original argument was : "The only thing that having a drivers' license really does is guarantee that you have insurance, which is a very good thing and that's not even a requirement for a license in all states."

Since the insurance is attached to the car / plates, the drivers license is redundant in this.


Lumex:

1) Which does nothing to establish the safety or lack thereof of the driver. Nor does it establish said driver took and passed your states particular exam.
2) Except its not. It's proof that at the very moment that you paid the DMV your money, that no one had any evidence you weren't unfit to drive.
3) It's not the states business to make the insurance companies jobs easier. As for law enforcement, why does your driving record need to have a separate system than your standard criminal records?
4) Circular reasoning, drivers licenses are not good simply because we say they are good.
5) Which is not required for any other purpose. It is possible for someone to go their entire life without a drivers license. Nor is it any national standard, as a quick look through any drivers license guide will tell you.

Quote :

"It's possible to drive unlicensed so long as you are not caught. Are you trying to say that licenses are inadequate and should be replaced with a more enforceable system? Otherwise, simply removing the license requirement would make this problem far worse."

I'm saying that the having of a license and license system is entirely separate from the state revoking the rights of a driver to drive. I'm saying that whether or not you have an actual license in your hand, you will either drive or not drive as your disposition to following the law compels you.

2/4/2011 12:55:03 PM

I've been helping a friend of mine learn how to drive. she's from Texas and has had a drivers license for 4 years. but in Texas you don't have to take a road test to get a license. (it probably saves DMV costs). You just have to sign off that you got lessons. so she has a license but could barely drive and was a big danger on the road

2/4/2011 2:01:29 PM

Is this about doing away with the physical cards? Or is it also about getting rid of driver certification?

^^
1,2 - It's not yet practical to do away with physical cards. The technology is available to be completely wireless, but it hasn't saturated the whole of the nation's law enforcement. Outside of major cities, I highly doubt most police departments have the budget to meet the technology needs of cardless documentation.

3. No, but it's still a good thing that insurance companies and law enforcement collaborate. Traffic violations short of misdemeanors don't go on your criminal record, so tracking them would be a different system. It doesn't matter if you're just talking about getting rid of the physical card, which is probably not a problem regarding insurance, except that you would have to remember your driver's license #.

4. It's not circular reasoning. It makes practical sense for drivers to have a standardized physical ID on them at all times. Threre are plenty of good reasons.

5. A state-isssued ID is good for many reasons, and even better if its standardized nationally. There are differences among states, but nationally, all driver's licenses have several common pieces of data.

2/4/2011 5:27:41 PM

Quote :

"The question is, should you be required to present evidence that you are not restricted from engaging in a legal activity? If you're walking down the street, and a cop stops you because you tossed your soda can on the ground, you aren't required to present evidence you have no outstanding warrants. You aren't required to present evidence you aren't an escaped convict...Why is driving, a common, every day, legal activity, any different?"

If a cop stops you on NCState property, they will ask for proof you have a right to be here, such as an employee ID or student ID. Otherwise, you might be charged with trespassing. That is because the owners of the property have seen fit to issue IDs to authorized guests to distinguish them from un-authorized trespassers.

The roads are not unowned property. It is reasonable to expect people to have permission to use someone else's property. As such, it seems entirely reasonable for the state to treat its roads just like every other large organization treats their private property for all the reasons I gave you: it makes it trivial to prove you have a right to be here, a right that is neither automatic nor inalienable, since you yourself accept the state has a right to exclude citizens from the right to drive.

2/4/2011 6:05:05 PM

Yeah let's just change the way we do things for the hell of it.

2/4/2011 6:05:39 PM

Quote :

"I've been helping a friend of mine learn how to drive. she's from Texas and has had a drivers license for 4 years. but in Texas you don't have to take a road test to get a license. (it probably saves DMV costs). You just have to sign off that you got lessons. so she has a license but could barely drive and was a big danger on the road"

And yet, it is perfectly legal for your friend to drive. That's sort of my point, the licensing scheme doesn't actually prove that a licensed driver has any skill or is a safe driver.

Quote :

"Is this about doing away with the physical cards? Or is it also about getting rid of driver certification?"

A both I think. Obviously the stronger argument is the cards, but I think an argument could also be made that the certification process wastes more resources than it makes people safer.

Quote :

"It's not yet practical to do away with physical cards. The technology is available to be completely wireless, but it hasn't saturated the whole of the nation's law enforcement. Outside of major cities, I highly doubt most police departments have the budget to meet the technology needs of cardless documentation. "

If there's no way to verify the physical card, then the card is useless. All the card says is you have a card with your picture on it. The card it self gives no indication that it is valid or real. That is to say, without the ability to perform cardless documentation, the card it self is worthless.

Quote :

"No, but it's still a good thing that insurance companies and law enforcement collaborate."

Which does not require a licensing system.

Quote :

"It's not circular reasoning. It makes practical sense for drivers to have a standardized physical ID on them at all times. Threre are plenty of good reasons."

And what are they? That's what I'm asking here. What are the reasons, why do they require having a license to drive, and why do these reasons only apply to someone driving a car and not to someone riding a bike, or a moped or walking down the street?

Quote :

"A state-isssued ID is good for many reasons, and even better if its standardized nationally. There are differences among states, but nationally, all driver's licenses have several common pieces of data. "

Positive ID is different from a drivers license.

Quote :

"If a cop stops you on NCState property, they will ask for proof you have a right to be here, such as an employee ID or student ID. Otherwise, you might be charged with trespassing. That is because the owners of the property have seen fit to issue IDs to authorized guests to distinguish them from un-authorized trespassers. "

And yet, you will not be asked for, nor required to present ID to walk down the road. Hell, you can even be in a motor vehicle on the road, and not need ID, so this clearly isn't a regulating who has access to the property issue.

Quote :

"As such, it seems entirely reasonable for the state to treat its roads just like every other large organization treats their private property for all the reasons I gave you: it makes it trivial to prove you have a right to be here, a right that is neither automatic nor inalienable, since you yourself accept the state has a right to exclude citizens from the right to drive."

Yet the roads are owned by the people are they not? Do the people not have the right to use the things which they own? Further, it is not a given that the right to be on a road is neither automatic nor inalienable. Only a person operating a motor vehicle on the public roads is required to possess and show identification (which again is separate from a license). Other people may be on and use public roads and never need or be compelled by law to produce identification or any positive proof that they have a right to be there.

Quote :

"since you yourself accept the state has a right to exclude citizens from the right to drive."

I do accept that, and I accept that the state has a right to exclude people from the freedom to move about freely. However, I don't accept that the right to drive is or should be one of the few "rights" which we demand citizens provide positive proof of permission rather than the state provide cause and reason to restrict.

Quote :

"Yeah let's just change the way we do things for the hell of it."

I didn't say that. I'm asking whether the way we do things is providing us with a real benefit relative to its costs. We just accept that licensing is a good thing and a useful thing because that's the way it has always been for as long as we've been alive. That doesn't however make it true. And the longer I think about it, the less I see as an actual benefit that isn't already accomplished through some other means, or is a secondary benefit that doesn't require a driver license to accomplish.


[Edited on February 4, 2011 at 7:14 PM. Reason : dasf]

2/4/2011 7:10:55 PM

Quote :

"I have not argued for the removal of laws allowing the state to revoke someone's right to drive."

Then you are not arguing against licensing. Without licensing, the government wouldn't be able to regulate who can drive and who cannot.

Quote :

"You or I or most people in this thread would also not drive if we were given a legal court order telling us we couldn't, regardless of whether we have a plastic ID card."

What would they revoke if not a license? Are you simply talking about getting rid of the card? That's fairly petty if we still had to go in and be registered as drivers, you would still have a licensing system, just no plastic card.

Quote :

"Hardly an eye test"

People often fail it or are only able to pass it with glasses on, in which case they are required to drive with glasses on. You don't really need perfect eyesight to drive a car, just enough to recognize signs and other vehicles.

Quote :

"I'm arguing that the actual licensing process is redundant, flawed and doesn't actually solve or prevent any problems."

If you did not license, how would you regulate who can drive and who cannot? You do understand what a license IS right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/License

It seems you have no idea what you are even arguing against.

2/4/2011 9:26:19 PM

Quote :

"Yet the roads are owned by the people are they not?"

No they are not. They are deeded and titled to the city/county or state of New York. That the property owner chooses to allow vagrants on their property in certain circumstances is their choice. For example, a pedestrian standing in the middle of street is illegal. But that same pedestrian standing in the middle of a city playground is perfectly fine. A legal driver driving on the street is perfectly fine, but have that same driver park his car in the middle of the city playground is illegal.

Like I keep saying, the government owns government property. You have no right to it more than the government allows. You have a right to stand in a private indoor mall at noon, but you don't have a right to park your car there or try to stand there after closing time.

Quote :

"That is to say, without the ability to perform cardless documentation, the card it self is worthless."

I have driven through many police checkpoints in my life and sure enough, the police let people go right on through after looking at your drivers license. It would have taken forever if they had to radio in for every driver. I as a driver WANT a license. I demand written proof (regardless of how reliable it is) to protect myself against a cop eager to ruin my day by arresting me under suspicion of illegally driving just because I didn't say "Yes sir" fast enough. There is only two solutions here: either repeal the state's right to revoke driving privileges, not an option in terms of safety, or give us documentation in an easy format police are obliged by law to accept absent proof to the contrary (contacted dispatch).

[Edited on February 5, 2011 at 11:10 AM. Reason : .,.]

2/5/2011 11:07:14 AM

could you explain how one has a right to stand on private property?

2/5/2011 3:31:40 PM

Quote :

"Then you are not arguing against licensing. Without licensing, the government wouldn't be able to regulate who can drive and who cannot. ... What would they revoke if not a license? Are you simply talking about getting rid of the card? That's fairly petty if we still had to go in and be registered as drivers, you would still have a licensing system, just no plastic card. ... If you did not license, how would you regulate who can drive and who cannot? You do understand what a license IS right? "

So you're saying without explicitly granting you permission to do something, the government can not take away your right to do that? Oddly enough, there are plenty of activities that don't require you to be licensed before the court can take away your right to engage in them. For example, there is no explicit license for the government to take away when they issue you a restraining order. Equally, if part of your punishment for a crime is that you may no longer use a computer or other telecommunications device (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Mitnick), there's no "license to go online" that the government takes away from you.

Quote :

"It seems you have no idea what you are even arguing against."

No, I do. Doesn't mean that it's necessarily right. You on the other hand, seem to think that licenses are some magical talisman that without, the government could not enforce laws.

Quote :

"hey are deeded and titled to the city/county or state of New York. That the property owner chooses to allow vagrants on their property in certain circumstances is their choice."

So it was always my understanding that state / federal ownership of land and property was held in trust for the people, hence my statement. In digging deeper into this, it appears that while this is true for a large chunk of public land, it may not actually be true for public roads. It's certainly implied, but I can't find anything offhand that it definitive. That being the case, it would appear under the Public Trust Doctrine, that you actually have more right to usage of public navigable waterways than you do to the public roads. In fact, NC general statutes even say that "The marine and estuarine and wildlife resources of the State belong to the people of the State as a whole. The Department and the Wildlife Resources Commission are charged with stewardship of these resources. (GS 113-131)" Perhaps then a better question for this discussion is not over licensing, but rather first if public roads should also be incorporated into the public trust doctrine?

Quote :

"For example, a pedestrian standing in the middle of street is illegal. But that same pedestrian standing in the middle of a city playground is perfectly fine. "

I'm going to have to ask you for a citation on that. At least for NC I was only able to find law that obstructing a roadway was illegal.

Quote :

"I have driven through many police checkpoints in my life and sure enough, the police let people go right on through after looking at your drivers license. It would have taken forever if they had to radio in for every driver. I as a driver WANT a license."

Again, the question is, should you have to prove that you are allowed to be engaging in a legal activity, or should the state have to prove otherwise?

Quote :

"There is only two solutions here: either repeal the state's right to revoke driving privileges, not an option in terms of safety, or give us documentation in an easy format police are obliged by law to accept absent proof to the contrary (contacted dispatch). "

Of cours the third option is to require that the state have to prove you have no right to be engaged in a legal activity, and release you otherwise. Also, again I'm going to have to ask you for a citation that the police are obligated to accept a presented license as valid. I have a strong suspicion that if a cop decided he thought your license might be fake, he would have every right to hold you until it could be verified.

2/5/2011 4:00:37 PM

Quote :

"So you're saying without explicitly granting you permission to do something, the government can not take away your right to do that? Oddly enough, there are plenty of activities that don't require you to be licensed before the court can take away your right to engage in them. For example, there is no explicit license for the government to take away when they issue you a restraining order. Equally, if part of your punishment for a crime is that you may no longer use a computer or other telecommunications device (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Mitnick), there's no "license to go online" that the government takes away from you."

What you are talking about are court orders. Those are a good bit different than licensing, for example, would you have court orders to prevent every single person who underaged or blind from driving? WHat would you do, just start taking newborns to court in order to prevent them from driving? If you want the government to keep a registry and regulate who can and cannot drive, you are, by definition, talking about licensing.

Quote :

"You on the other hand, seem to think that licenses are some magical talisman that without, the government could not enforce laws."

Licensing is a concept, not a little plastic card. For example, the license to practice law, while it comes with a certificate, is more of a record than a card you have to show.

2/5/2011 4:19:55 PM

Quote :

"Those are a good bit different than licensing, for example, would you have court orders to prevent every single person who underaged or blind from driving? WHat would you do, just start taking newborns to court in order to prevent them from driving? If you want the government to keep a registry and regulate who can and cannot drive, you are, by definition, talking about licensing."

Now I know you're just being stupid and dense. It is illegal for anyone under the age of 21 to drink alcohol, yet somehow the courts mange to maintain that restriction without issuing a "license to imbibe" to everyone else. It is not permitted for anyone under the age of 18 to vote in an election, yet the state manages just fine without issuing a "voting license" to everyone else. It's a damn good thing the state issues a "license to make porn" once you turn 18. And man it was sure tough getting my "license to contract", so that I could get my student loans. And man, where would we be today if we didn't have our "license to work"?

What's that you say? They don't issue licenses for those things? It's possible for the government to make a law that restricts people from engaging in an activity without issuing licenses to engage in the activity being restricted?

2/5/2011 5:55:45 PM

Quote :

"It is illegal for anyone under the age of 21 to drink alcohol, yet somehow the courts mange to maintain that restriction without issuing a "license to imbibe" to everyone else."

When you buy alcohol, you have to present a proof of age, would you care to let me know who issues that proof of age?

Quote :

"It is not permitted for anyone under the age of 18 to vote in an election, yet the state manages just fine without issuing a "voting license" to everyone else"

Same question.

Quote :

"They don't issue licenses for those things?"

They do, it's a proof of age. Being over 16 is not the only requirement to be able to drive, the retarded and blind cannot drive regardless of age. The things you've listed are restricted only by age.

2/5/2011 6:07:24 PM

Quote :

"i think that WAAAAY more proficiency should be required before getting a license."

You are intruding on the liberties of everyone who does not drive, and would intrude on those who your system would find not sufficiently proficient, by the massive network of roads.

Did you know it's often illegal to walk along the shoulder of the road? Driving is a right in a society where you take away people's ability to use their legs to accomplish the same task.

2/5/2011 7:08:02 PM

^^ Positive identification is not the same as a license. Further, I can assure you when I purchased alcohol last night that I displayed no proof of ID or age other than myself, which is perfectly legal:

Quote :

"(d) Defense. – It shall be a defense to a violation of subsection (a) of this section if the seller: (1) Shows that the purchaser produced a driver's license, a special identification card issued under G.S. 20-37.7, a military identification card, or a passport, showing his age to be at least the required age for purchase and bearing a physical description of the person named on the card reasonably describing the purchaser; or (2) Produces evidence of other facts that reasonably indicated at the time of sale that the purchaser was at least the required age."

As to voting, one merely need present a utility bill or bank statement to register, no need for any license.

2/6/2011 9:10:11 AM

again, the retarded and blind can buy booze and vote

2/6/2011 1:17:34 PM

Irrelevant. If the state wanted they could make a law to that effect, and it still wouldn't need to issue a license to buy booze to enforce it.

2/6/2011 2:31:35 PM