Driving Licenses

[Zespris]

It may seem like a stupid question, however, how would car licensing work in an Anarchist society? I mean, would we allow everyone to drive a car when they're 16 putting everybody at risk?

In an Anarchist society it could work because no one has cars and everybody uses public transport, but how would it work in a Liberitarian society (That's the reason I put the topic in OI), because if Liberitarians want the least control over you, would car licences exist?

[Loknar]

They'd better exist, there is already enough assholes on the road.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 06:29 PM
It may seem like a stupid question, however, how would car licensing work in an Anarchist society? I mean, would we allow everyone to drive a car when they're 16 putting everybody at risk?

In an Anarchist society it could work because no one has cars and everybody uses public transport, but how would it work in a Liberitarian society (That's the reason I put the topic in OI), because if Liberitarians want the least control over you, would car licences exist?
i wasnt aware no one would be able to drive a car in communism :o . i would actually like to here ideas on this because most people who drive are really, really, terrible at it. but it would also seem logical less people would be driving, along with better public trans. and of course most communities would require education class on driving.

[KC]

Public transportation is so much better than having cars anyways.

[C_Rasmussen]

Um lets see there are some people that don't have their license yet and drive a fuck of alot better then some people that have it.

[Anarchist Freedom]

Hell yeah we would. Americans suck at driving. We need some german drivers in america to teach people how to fucking drive my lord. People in america stop eating mcdonalds blow up your mini van and SUV get a real fucking car and go fast!

[Anarchist Freedom]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 10:38 PM
They'd better exist, there is already enough assholes on the road.
Wow we agree on something.

[Publius]

It may seem like a stupid question, however, how would car licensing work in an Anarchist society? I mean, would we allow everyone to drive a car when they're 16 putting everybody at risk?

In an Anarchist society it could work because no one has cars and everybody uses public transport, but how would it work in a Liberitarian society (That's the reason I put the topic in OI), because if Liberitarians want the least control over you, would car licences exist?

A libertarian society could have drivers licences. I myself think it should.

But others don't.

Tell me, why do you need a drivers licence? How can the government tell you where you can and can't drive on roads that you payed for?

Driving is a right not a privilage; I have the Supreme Court cases to back that up.

In all liklihood, companies would spring up that test you and issue you licensces. These would show you are a capable driver and would, as such, be very useful. You might have to pay a huge sum for insurance if you're not licenced, or you might not be able to get insurance at all.

Driving without insurance isn't a wise idea because of the debts you could incur, and the risk of lawsuits that could ruin you.

It would make perfect sense to get insurance and get a license, free from government coercion.

And you still have the freedom not to.

[TheKingOfMercy]

A driving licence, issued after you have taken a driving test, to prove to any authoritah that you are capable of handling a petrol driven, steel weapon.

Licences arent for the government to tell you that you can and cant drive, they are to prevent fools who would be a danger to everyone driving on the open road.

Driving isn't a right, people have 'rights' to very little. Owning a car allows you the privilege of driving, you can't do it without a car, thus it's not a right. Ownership of cars is not a right either, because you can exist perfectly well without one.

[Taiga]

I strongly believe that there should be driving licences. Not sure about age, though.
A car is a source of the high danger. The society should be sure that the person is capable to drive safely. It's a test, not a priviledge.

[Hegemonicretribution]

I think all cars should work on magnets. However "free driving areas" should also exist so there is always a chance for people to enjoy driving, driving could be pleasurable or an extreme sport, similar to sailing.

I would like to believe in everyone, and fuck laws off, but I live in a country with no national speed limit, a higher vheilcle ownership to population rate than anywhere in the world, and annual T.T. races. I have seen freedom on the road go wrong so many times, and so reguarly you would be suicidal to get rid of the last remaining controls.

[Publius]

A driving licence, issued after you have taken a driving test, to prove to any authoritah that you are capable of handling a petrol driven, steel weapon.

I agree with you.


Licences arent for the government to tell you that you can and cant drive, they are to prevent fools who would be a danger to everyone driving on the open road.

Basically. It's still an infringement on your freedom though.



Driving isn't a right, people have 'rights' to very little. Owning a car allows you the privilege of driving, you can't do it without a car, thus it's not a right. Ownership of cars is not a right either, because you can exist perfectly well without one.

Yes, it is a right.

You have a right to ownership, a right to travel, and a right to the roads you payed for.

[TheKingOfMercy]

QUOTE

Driving isn't a right, people have 'rights' to very little. Owning a car allows you the privilege of driving, you can't do it without a car, thus it's not a right. Ownership of cars is not a right either, because you can exist perfectly well without one.


Yes, it is a right.

You have a right to ownership, a right to travel, and a right to the roads you payed for.

You have a right to own a car yes. Not to drive it though. You can travel perfectly well on the roads on your legs, 'tis what they're for after all.


QUOTE
Licences arent for the government to tell you that you can and cant drive, they are to prevent fools who would be a danger to everyone driving on the open road.


Basically. It's still an infringement on your freedom though.

Depends how you view freedom, freedom to be rammed by a drunk, freedom to be mowed down by someone not capable of driving. Somethings that the liberal types consider 'infringments of freedom' are necessary, for the collective good.

[OleMarxco]

Or for the individual good. Depends on the eye who catches. Still, takin' freedom away from someone who has drunk-driven, or drives drunk, IMPLIES they would be a hazard (A.K.A. sort-a-of an insult or compliment, depends on how you see it) or somethin', just 'cuz they can't handle the liqeur. Uh, I mean, the alcohol, o'course. And it assumes such will happen, and that they would do it again, as if they are routine-criminals or somethin'...bad mistake. And if they have a job for society that requires 'eir drivin'? TOUGH SHIT, eh, I guesseth? Plus, it's a myth that all un-capable's of drivin' mowes people down, hardly, most of the cas(h)'es, they CRASH-IN-THEIR-FUCKIN'-GARAGE! ;)

[Publius]

You have a right to own a car yes. Not to drive it though. You can travel perfectly well on the roads on your legs, 'tis what they're for after all.


Let's do the math here: You can own a car

+

You can travel on the roads


=

You can travel on the road in your car




Depends how you view freedom, freedom to be rammed by a drunk, freedom to be mowed down by someone not capable of driving. Somethings that the liberal types consider 'infringments of freedom' are necessary, for the collective good.

We could just lock people in their homes, that would make the world safe as well.

[TheKingOfMercy]

OleMarxo -

If someone drives drunk, they should be banned permanently, they brought it upon themselves, you can't defend drink drivers. If they are caught once, chances are they have done it before, and will do so again.

And it's sort of a myth that people incapable of driving kill, because most of the time they arent allowed to drive, see how well that particualr system works ? :D

Publius





You have a right to own a car yes. Not to drive it though. You can travel perfectly well on the roads on your legs, 'tis what they're for after all.


Let's do the math here: You can own a car

+

You can travel on the roads


=

You can travel on the road in your car

You can yes, but you do not have the right to. If you are banned from driving, you can still own a car, you just loose the privilege of driving. If you dont choose to excersize your right to own one, you dont have the privilege of driving. See how that works ?


Depends how you view freedom, freedom to be rammed by a drunk, freedom to be mowed down by someone not capable of driving. Somethings that the liberal types consider 'infringments of freedom' are necessary, for the collective good.


We could just lock people in their homes, that would make the world safe as well.

No need to get sulky about it.

[El-Bortukali]

bah cars should be outlawed, everyone should drive motorcycles instead....

[Publius]

You can yes, but you do not have the right to. If you are banned from driving, you can still own a car, you just loose the privilege of driving. If you dont choose to excersize your right to own one, you dont have the privilege of driving. See how that works ?


Driving is a right, not a privilege.

A right cannot be revoked.




No need to get sulky about it.

It wasn't sulk, it was derision.

[KC]

Driving is a right, not a privilege.

A right cannot be revoked.

Maybe in your head. What are you going to do with drunk drivers?

[Publius]

SPECIAL POLICE OFFICER BULLETIN
U.S. COURT DECISIONS CONFIRM "DRIVING A MOTOR VEHICLE" IS A
CITIZENS RIGHT AND NOT A GOVERNMENT GRANTED PRIVILEGE.

For many years Professionals within the criminal justice System have
acted upon the belief that traveling by motor vehicle upon the roadway
was a privilege that was gained by a citizen only after approval by their
respective state government in the form of the issuance of a permit or
license to that Particular individual. Legislators, police officers and
court officials are becoming aware that there are now court decisions
that prove the fallacy of the legal opinion that" driving is a privilege
and therefore requires government approval, i.e. a license". Some of
these cases are:

Case # 1 - "Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the
right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the
ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be
regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience. - Chicago
Motor Coach v Chicago 169 NE 22
("Regulated" here means traffic safety enforcement, stop lights, signs,
etc. NOT a privilege that requires permission i.e.- licensing,
mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, etc.)

Case # 2 - "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways
and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by
automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at
will, but a common right which he has under the right to life, liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness."- Thompson v Smith 154 SE 579.

It could not be stated more conclusively that Citizens of the states
have a right to travel, without approval or restriction, (license,) and
that this right is protected under the U.S. Constitution. Here are other
court
decisions that expound the same facts:

Case # 3 - "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the
citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the 5th
Amendment." - Kent v Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125.

Case # 4 - "Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove
from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of
personal Liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or
through the
territory of any State is a right secured by the l4th Amendment and by
other provisions of the Constitution." - Schactman v Dulles, 96 App
D.C. 287, 293.

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT

As hard as it is for those of us in Law enforcement to believe, there
is no room for speculation in these court decisions. The American
citizen does indeed have the inalienable right to use the roadways
unrestricted in any manner as long as they are not damaging or violating property
or rights of
another.

Government, in requiring the people to file for "drivers Licenses,
vehicle registrations, mandatory insurance, and demanding they stop for
vehicle inspections, DUI/DWI roadblocks etc. without question, are
"restricting", and therefore violating, the Peoples common law right to
travel.

Is this a new legal interpretation on this subject of the right to
travel? Apparently not. The American Citizens and Lawmen Association in
conjunction with The U.S. Federal Law Research Center are presently
involved in studies in several areas involving questions on constitutional
law. One of the many areas under review is the area of "Citizens right to
travel." In an interview a spokesmen stated: "Upon researching this
subject over many months, substantial case law has presented itself that
completely substantiates the position that the "right to travel
unrestricted upon the nations highways" is and has always been a fundamental
right of every Citizen."

This means that the "beliefs and opinions" our state legislators, the
courts, and those of as involved in the law enforcement profession have
acted upon for years have been in error. Researchers armed with actual
facts state that U.S. case law is overwhelming in determining that - to
restrict, in any fashion, the movement of the individual American in
the free exercise of their right to travel upon the roadways, (excluding
"commerce" which the state Legislatures are correct in regulating), is
a serious breach of those
freedoms secured by the U.S. Constitution, and most state
Constitutions, i.e - it is Unlawful.

THE REVELATION THAT THE AMERICAN CITIZEN HAS ALWAYS HAD THE INALIENABLE
RIGHT TO TRAVEL RAISES PROFOUND QUESTIONS TO THOSE WHO ARE INVOLVED IN
MAKING AND ENFORCING STATE LAWS.

The first of such questions may very well be - If the States have been
enforcing laws that are unconstitutional on their face, it would seem
that there must be some way that a state can legally put restrictions,
such as - licensing requirements, mandatory insurance, vehicle
registration, vehicle
inspections, D.W.I. roadblocks, to name just a few, on a Citizens
constitutionally protected right. Is that not so?

For the answer to this question let us look, once again, to the U.S.
courts for a determination on this very issue.

The case of Hertado v. California, 110 U.S. 516. states very plainly:
"The State cannot diminish rights of the people."

"the assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is
not to be defeated under the name of local practice."- Davis v.
Wechsler, 263 U.S. 22, 24.

Would we not say that these judicial decisions are straight to the
point - that there is no lawful method for government to put restrictions
or Limitations on rights belonging to the people?

Other cases are even more straight forward:

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no
rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." - Miranda v.
Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491.

"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted
into a crime.· - Miller v. U.S., 230 F 2d 486, 489.

"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this
exercise of Constitutional rights."- Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 945. (
There is no question that a citation/ticket issued by a police officer,
for no
drivers license, no current vehicle registration, no vehicle insurance
etc. which carries a fine or jail time, is a penalty or sanction, and
is indeed "converting a Right into a crime".)

We could go on, quoting court decision after court decision, however,
In addition, the Constitution itself answers our question- "Can a
government legally put restrictions on the rights of the American people at
anytime, for any reason"? (Such as in this particular case - when the
government believes it to be for the safety and welfare of the people).

The answer is found in ARTICLE SIX of the U.S. Constitution:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be
made in Pursuance thereof;.shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the
judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the
Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary not withstanding". (This
tells us that the U.S.
Constitution is to be upheld over any state, county, or city Laws that
are in opposition to it.)

In the same Article it goes on to say just who it is within our
governments that is bound by this Supreme Law:

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of
the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial
Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound
by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution;". - ART. 6 U.S.
CONST.

We know that Police officers, are a part of the Executive branch. We
are "Executive Officers".

Article 6 above, is called the SUPREMACY CLAUSE, and it clearly states
that, under every circumstance, the above listed officials in these
United States must hold this documents tenets supreme over any other laws,
regulations, or orders. Every U.S. Police officer knows that they have
sworn a oath to the people of our nation that we will not only protect
their lives and property, but, that we will uphold, and protect their
freedoms and rights under the Supreme laws of this nation, - the U. S.
Constitution.

In this regard then, we must agree that those within government that
restrict a Citizens rights, (such as restricting the peoples right to
travel,) are acting in violation of his or her oath of office and are
actually committing a crime against such Citizens. Here's an interesting
question. Is ignorance of these laws an excuse for such acts by
officials? If we are to follow the "letter of the law (as we are sworn to do),
this
places officials that involve themselves in such unlawful acts in an
unfavorable legal situation. For it is a felony and federal crime to
violate, or deprive citizens of their constitutionally protected rights.

Our system of law dictates the fact that there are only two ways to
legally remove a right belonging to the people. These are - #1 - by
lawfully amending the constitution, or #2 - by a person knowingly waiving a
particular right.

Some of the confusion in our present system has arisen because many
millions of people have waived their right to travel "unrestricted" upon
the roadways of the states and opted into the jurisdiction of the state
for various reasons. Those who have knowingly given up these rights are
now legally regulated by state law, the proper courts, and "sworn,
constitutionally empowered officers-of-the-law," and must acquire proper
permits, registrations, insurance, etc.

There are basically two groups of people in this category:

#1 - Any citizen that involves themselves in "commerce," (business for
private gain), upon the highways of the state.

Here is what the courts have said about this:

"...For while a citizen has the right to travel upon the public
highways and to transport his property thereon, that right does not extend to
the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place for
private gain. For the latter purpose no person has a vested right to use
the highways of the state, but is a privilege or license which the
legislature may grant or withhold at its discretion..." - State v Johnson,
243 P. 1073, 1078.

Other U.S. court cases that confirm and point out the difference
between the "right" of the citizen to travel and a government "privilege" are
- Barney v Board of Railroad Commissioners; State v City of Spokane,
186 P. 864.; Ex Parte Dickey (Dickey v Davis), 85 S.E. 781.; Teche Lines
v Danforth, 12
So.2d 784.

There are numerous other court decisions that spell out the
JURISDICTION issue in these two distinctly different activities. However, because
of space restrictions we will leave it up to officers to research it
further for themselves. (See last page for additional references).

#2 - The second group of citizens that are legally under the
jurisdiction of the state is the individual citizen who has voluntarily and
knowingly waived their right to travel "unregulated and unrestricted" by
requesting placement under such jurisdiction through the acquisition of a
state - drivers license, vehicle registration, mandatory insurance,
etc. (In other words "by contract only".)

We should remember what makes this "legal," and not a violation of the
individual’s common law right to travel "unrestricted" is that they
knowingly volunteer, freely, by contract, to waive their right. If they
were
forced, coerced or unknowingly placed under the States powers, the
courts have said it is a clear violation of their rights.

This in itself raises a very interesting question. What percentage of
the people in each state have filed, and received, licenses,
registrations, insurance etc. after erroneously being advised by their government
that it
was mandatory?

Many of our courts, attorneys and police officials are just becoming
informed about this important issue and the difference between
"Privileges vs. Rights". We can assume that the majority of those Americans
carrying state licenses, vehicle registrations etc., have no knowledge of
the rights they waived in obeying laws such as these that the U.S.
Constitution clearly states are unlawful, i.e. "laws of no effect". In other
words - "LAWS THAT ARE NOT LAWS AT ALL."

OUR SWORN DUTY

An area of serious consideration for every police officer, is to
understand that the most important law in our land he has taken an oath to
protect, defend, AND ENFORCE, is not state laws, nor city or county
ordinances, but, that law that supercede all other laws in our nation, - the
U.S. Constitution. If laws in a particular police officer's state, or
local community are in conflict with the SUPREME LAW of our nation,
there Is no question that the officer's duty is to "uphold the U.S.
Constitution."

What does this mean to the "patrol officer" who will be the only sworn
"Executive Officer" on the scene, when knowledgeable Citizens raise
serious objections over possession of insurance, drivers licenses and
other restrictions? It definitely means these officers will be faced with a
hard decision. (Most certainly if that decision affects state, city or
county revenues, such as the issuing of citations do.)

Example: If a state legislator, judge or a superior tells a police
officer to proceed and enforce a contradictory, (illegal), state law rather
than the Supreme Law of this country, what is that "sworn officer" to
do? Although we may not want to hear it, there is but one right answer,
- "the officer is duty bound to uphold his oath of office" and obey the
highest laws of the nation. THIS IS OUR SWORN DUTY AND IT'S THE LAW!

Such a strong honest stand taken by a police officer, upholding his or
her oath of office, takes moral strength of character. It will, without
question, "SEPARATE THE MEN FROM THE BOYS." Such honest and straight
forward decisions on behalf of a government official have often caused
pressure to
be applied to force such officers to set aside, or compromise their
morals or convictions.

As a solace for those brave souls in uniform that will stand up for law
and justice, even when it's unpopular, or uncomfortable to do so...let
me say this. In any legal stand-off over a sworn official "violating"
or "upholding" their oath of office, those that would side with the
"violation" should inevitable lose.

Our Founding Fathers assured us, on many occasions, the following:
Defending our freedoms in the face of people that would for "expedients
sake," or behind the guise, "for the safety and welfare of the masses,"
ignore people’s rights, would forever demand sacrifice and vigilance from
those that desired to remain free. That sounds a little like - "Freedom
is not free!"

Every police officer should keep the following U.S. court ruling, that
was covered earlier, in mind before issuing citations in regard to
"mandatory licensing, registration and insurance" - verses - "the right of
the people to travel unencumbered":

"THE CLAlM AND EXERCISE OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RlGHT CANNOT BE CONVERTED
INTO A CRIME." - Miller v U.S., 230 F 2d 486. 489.

[KC]

Wow that's interesting. When/where is that from? So if I didn't get a license or register my car or get insurance I could legally drive?

[Publius]

Wow that's interesting. When/where is that from? So if I didn't get a license or register my car or get insurance I could legally drive?

According to the Supreme Court you can.

Now if your ignorant, fascist cop is going to understand; I doubt it.

Libertarian Presidential candidate Badnarik doesn't drive with a licensce and has been arrested for it on a number of occassions, but he's actually in the right.

[Capital Punishment]

The problem with no license or registration is that someone could get away with stealing a car and it could put dangerous people on the road. I think licenses are necessary. It's not that big of a deal to carry one around. All though it is a cool thing to know that you don't legally need to have one.

But wait, if someone gets their license revoked, can they still drive, since you don't legally need a license (according to the Supreme Court)?

[Publius]

The problem with no license or registration is that someone could get away with stealing a car and it could put dangerous people on the road. I think licenses are necessary. It's not that big of a deal to carry one around. All though it is a cool thing to know that you don't legally need to have one.

I think we should license people! That way, when a crime is commited, we can track them down. We should put tracking chips in people too! That would make it even easier!




But wait, if someone gets their license revoked, can they still drive, since you don't legally need a license (according to the Supreme Court)?

Of course.

If I give you meaningless piece of paper that says "You are hereby granted the right to eat", then revoke it, do you lose the right to eat?

No. You always had it.

That piece of paper/plastic is meaningless.

[enigma2517]

What the supreme court says is lovely.

Don't care much for all that however.

We're talking about building a post-capitalist society here.

Basic principle of it revolves around collective individuality. This ensures each person the highest degree of freedom. It stops being a freedom, or a right, or watchyamacallit when it infringes upon on other peoples rights. Driving reckless has the ability to KILL people. That taking away the highest degree of freedom possible.

Theres nothing detremental about taking a persons ability to personally drive a vehicle, considering that public transportation would be greatly improved by then (I hope). If this person willingly endangered others lives for what...getting somewhere quicker or getting home after getting hammered...well...thats beyond being irresponsible.

Please correct me if I missed anything, I do admit I skimmed over certain sections of this thread.

[Publius]

What the supreme court says is lovely.

Don't care much for all that however.

We're talking about building a post-capitalist society here.

Basic principle of it revolves around collective individuality. This ensures each person the highest degree of freedom. It stops being a freedom, or a right, or watchyamacallit when it infringes upon on other peoples rights. Driving reckless has the ability to KILL people. That taking away the highest degree of freedom possible.

Theres nothing detremental about taking a persons ability to personally drive a vehicle, considering that public transportation would be greatly improved by then (I hope). If this person willingly endangered others lives for what...getting somewhere quicker or getting home after getting hammered...well...thats beyond being irresponsible.

Please correct me if I missed anything, I do admit I skimmed over certain sections of this thread.

I don't think you read ANY of the thead, because the original poster asked this


but how would it work in a Liberitarian society (That's the reason I put the topic in OI), because if Liberitarians want the least control over you, would car licences exist?

That's what I was answering.

[truthaddict11]

you got enough people on the road without licenses or insurance already it doesnt matter what society its in except in communism it wont be against the law. plus arent most of you commies against cars?

[KC]

plus arent most of you commies against cars?

Is being in favor of public transportation the same as being against cars? Of course this is a personal belief, and nowhere in any communist writing does it say that we should be against cars. Public transportation is much, much more efficient than cars. Environmental issues could be the biggest argument (Link (http://www.cas.usf.edu/philosophy/mass/Stephanie.html)), but if you don't care about that, it's also a lot more space-efficient and less costly than cars. Many highways and roads wouldn't be needed, which would create space to put something else there. Also, having public transportation would be cheaper than owning a car. People don't usually take public transportation regularly, though. This is mainly due to the fact that there aren't many cities with good public transportation systems. If you go to San Fransisco you'd understand how much easier public transportation is.

[truthaddict11]

come to chicago see our "efficient" public transit. and I have debated the "enviroment issues" surrounding cars before. read my posts in enviroment or go to envirotruth.org I'm not knocking public transportation, whenever I go into the city I use it, its much more cheaper than parking or taking a cab but the is absolutly horrible. I use my car in the suburbs because it is easier and the public transit system is unrelible. i'd rather spend money on gas and insurance and go wherever I want than rely on a system that stops service way to early, is dirty and whose schedule is laughable.

[KC]

I'm not advocating using public transportation over cars, because today public transportation isn't that good. I'm saying that in my ideal society public transportation would dominate.

[Latifa]

Publius, while that you do have the right to drive, do you think other drivers have a right to be safe from you after couple or nine drinks? Sure, you can drive, but you probably shouldn't: the reason we have drivers licenses are because of selfish people much like yourself.

[Organic Revolution]

Originally posted by Anarchist [email protected] 13 2005, 12:15 AM
Hell yeah we would. Americans suck at driving. We need some german drivers in america to teach people how to fucking drive my lord. People in america stop eating mcdonalds blow up your mini van and SUV get a real fucking car and go fast!
you know... that statement did not make any sense. people need to learn how to drive... but you want people to drive fast?

[apathy maybe]

In an anarchistic society, how are you going to stop someone driving? Who would issue a licence to drive? If a person using a car damages either objects or hurts a person, then the consequences would be applied the same way if they used a gun (or a knife or whatever).

[Publius]

Publius, while that you do have the right to drive, do you think other drivers have a right to be safe from you after couple or nine drinks? Sure, you can drive, but you probably shouldn't: the reason we have drivers licenses are because of selfish people much like yourself.

By drinking, you forfeit your right to drive.

[JKP]

In addition to seatbelts and airbags, add another safety feature. Have a sensor that detects alchohol in the air within the car. If the driver is drunk, it wont start.

[Publius]

In addition to seatbelts and airbags, add another safety feature. Have a sensor that detects alchohol in the air within the car. If the driver is drunk, it wont start.

And we'll add a hearing test, a vision test, a reflex test, a driving aptitude test and a course on driving delivered via the radio!

[Latifa]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 12:31 PM

Publius, while that you do have the right to drive, do you think other drivers have a right to be safe from you after couple or nine drinks? Sure, you can drive, but you probably shouldn't: the reason we have drivers licenses are because of selfish people much like yourself.

By drinking, you forfeit your right to drive.
Not by your logic!

Now lets see... I have a car ( but i'm so tanked up it looks like a fruit bat )

and a road which I pay taxes for....

Under your wise guidance, I could drive it!



More seriously, tell me why drinking forfeits my right to drive.