Licenses Are Merely Government Permission Slips for Rights We Already Have!

The following debate originally took place upon my Facebook wall, after I posted artwork being shared by the page, “The Liberty Principle: No Consent from the Governed“…

Rayn:

Daniel F.: So should one have an unqualified right to operate a motor vehicle despite not knowing how to operate it safely, or having shown a complete disregard for the safety of others while driving it? Should one have the “right” to endanger the safety of others, either through ignorance or complete disregard?

Now there IS way too much bureaucracy in all this – fees for renewing one’s license and registration, overzealous police patrolling the streets looking out for traffic and parking violations so they can issue summonses mainly for the purposes of bringing in revenue – while “fixing” tickets for their own friends and relatives. Meanwhile a fine that can cause significant financial hardship for a poor person will barely be of any inconvenience at all to a rich person despite both committing the same “offense”, which may or may not have any actual justifiable reason for existing at all. (Speed limits for instance – it should not be an offense simply to drive above some arbitrary preset limit; only if they are actually endangering others should there be cause for any sort of action against them.)

Rayn: LOLZ! A license is merely a highly overpriced government permission slip for the right to freely travel. It provides ZERO GUARANTEE that one actually has the ability to safely drive a car, nor that one will continue to maintain the ability to safely drive a car, and it certainly isn’t an indication that one will actually regard the safety of others when driving! You might not have noticed, but the vast majority of accidents that take place in America result from the actions and activity of “licensed” drivers! So, obviously, a “license” means almost nothing, in the scheme of “safety.”

Alternatively, plenty of individuals do have the ability to safely drive a car, while having no valid driver’s “license” to speak of. This is especially true when considering the fact that the government revokes and suspends the driver licenses of so many, year after year, as punishment for non-driver safety offenses – such as non-payment of “tickets,” non-payment of court fees, drug convictions, etc… Also, the mere act of letting a valid driver’s license “expire” (which is simply a euphemism for failure to REPAY for a license that was already adequately secured) will result in the revocation of a driver license, as well! (Interesting enough, such a situation makes a driver’s license an indirect tool of abuse against low-income individuals).

And, speaking of indirect State abuses that come with our current state of affairs, a “driver’s license” (and a “non-driver license” for that matter), are major tools of oppression in the arsenal of the police state, giving courts the ability to strip away the right to freely travel for non-driving related, victimless “crimes,” and giving cops the pretext to harass and warrantlessly search any person walking down the street. The latter especially true for individuals of color, and for the disabled – who are the most likely to be on the receiving end of such State activity.

As for your question, “should one have the ‘right’ to endanger the safety of others, either through ignorance or complete disregard,” the answer is “no.” We have a right to live, to self-ownership, and to peaceful co-existence. No one has the “right” to initiate harm against others, no matter the so-called “motivation.” But, this all has very little to do with a driver’s license, and everything to do with Individual action, ability, and responsibility.

One thing we can agree upon is the unnecessary bureaucracy involved, and the many abuses that come with it. Also, speed limits are also highly problematic, and indicative that the the rules of the road are about the State’s USUAL AGENDA: COMPLIANCE WITH AUTHORITY, and REVENUE COLLECTION – rather than “SAFETY”…

‘Only One in 20 Road Accidents Caused by Breaking Speed Limit’
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-407521/Only-20-road-accidents-caused-breaking-speed-limit.html

Speed Limit Fact Sheet:
https://www.motorists.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/speed-limit-fact-sheet.pdf

According the the fact sheet, “federal and state studies have consistently shown that the drivers most likely to get into accidents in traffic are those traveling significantly below the average speed. According to an Institute of Transportation Engineers Study, those driving 10 mph slower than the prevailing speed are six times as likely to be involved in an accident. That means that if the average speed on an interstate is 70 mph, the person traveling at 60 mph is far more likely to be involved in an accident than someone going 70 or even 80 mph.”

Daniel F.: So then what would your solution be in order to make sure that people driving on the road are qualified to operate a motor vehicle and not putting the lives of others in danger? And also that the vehicle itself that they are operating is roadworthy and does not present a danger to others either? I’ll agree that there’s a lot of total bullshit in HOW we implement this (i.e., using this as an opportunity to extract money from people at every opportunity and to prevent people from driving for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with driving. It also certainly doesn’t help any that in much of this country you pretty much need a car in order to be able to get anywhere at all.) And while it is certainly possible for one to be perfectly capable of safely operating a motor vehicle without having some piece of paper that says so, how are others to know this? If one truly is capable of safely operating a motor vehicle then they ought to be able to prove it, and obtain that piece of paper that attests to that fact. (Notwithstanding the fact that when you look at all the idiots on the road that somehow did manage to get and keep their licenses that piece of paper is hardly worth anything anyway. Yet another instance of rot in this system we call “society”).

Daniel F.: One thing – that I know you would be completely against – that I think needs to be implemented in certain areas of New York City anyway, is congestion pricing in some of the busiest areas. What!? you’re saying, one should have to PAY extra just for the”privilege” of being able to drive their own car on certain streets? Problem is, their actions affect everyone else. The traffic condition in Flushing, where I have to pass through in order to get into the city, is absolutely horrendous. The buses that run into and through Flushing would be able to operate far more quickly and efficiently if there were fewer cars also sharing the road. By attaching a cost to private cars using the most congested streets, there will be fewer cars using those streets at any given time, and the remaining traffic (including the buses) will be able to move faster.

If one’s actions generate an external cost to the rest of society, then they ought to be expected to repay some of it.

Rayn: “No matter how disastrously some policy has turned out, anyone who criticizes it can expect to hear: ‘But what would you replace it with?’ When you put out a fire, what do you replace it with?” – Thomas Sowell

“It is time to try freedom instead.” – Ron Paul

As you stated, yourself, “only if they are actually endangering others should there be cause for any sort of action against [drivers].” Indeed! And, no one has a right to implement any tyrannical pre-crime polices over others, no matter what the excuse! You should RESPECT the fact that we are ALL actually INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY, not the other way around! In reality, you, myself, society and the government have ZERO JURISDICTION over free and peaceful people! I know you probably don’t want to hear this, but if you want to implement policies over others, you’ll JUST HAVE TO WAIT until they actually engage in criminal behavior, FIRST! Sucks, doesn’t it? LOL!

“If one truly is capable of safely operating a motor vehicle then they ought to be able to prove it, and obtain that piece of paper that attests to that fact,” you’re still claiming? You already admitted the fact that “when you look at all the idiots on the road that somehow did manage to get and keep their licenses that piece of paper is hardly worth anything anyway.” And, as I’ve already stated, “A license is merely a highly overpriced government permission slip for the right to freely travel. It provides ZERO GUARANTEE that one actually has the ability to safely drive a car, nor that one will continue to maintain the ability to safely drive a car, and it certainly isn’t an indication that one will actually regard the safety of others when driving! You might not have noticed, but the vast majority of accidents that take place in America result from the actions and activity of ‘licensed’ drivers! So, obviously, a ‘license’ means almost nothing, in the scheme of ‘safety.’

Alternatively, plenty of individuals do have the ability to safely drive a car, while having no valid driver’s ‘license’ to speak of. This is especially true when considering the fact that the government revokes and suspends the driver licenses of so many, year after year, as punishment for non-driver safety offenses – such as non-payment of ‘tickets,’ non-payment of court fees, drug convictions, etc… Also, the mere act of letting a valid driver’s license ‘expire’ (which is simply a euphemism for failure to REPAY for a license that was already adequately secured) will result in the revocation of a driver license, as well!’

As for your comment about ensuring “that the vehicle itself that [a driver is operating] is roadworthy and does not present a danger to others,” you should take note of the fact that MANY states require ABSOLUTELY NO INSPECTION of motor vehicles, and obviously, this has presented ZERO PROBLEMS on Muh Roads!

Rayn: You’re DAMN RIGHT that “I would be completely against” the idea of “congestion pricing”! And, you are doublethinking your way through this debate! You already admitted that “a fine… can cause significant financial hardship for a poor person [and] will barely be of any inconvenience at all to a rich person”! Yet, you are now advocating a system that would disenfranchise low-income people, and only allow the wealthy access to Muh Roads? LOL! That is purely tyrannical fallacy!

Jordan K.: Daniel, professional slave.

Daniel F.: So I should have an average of 15 minutes of my day being wasted stuck in traffic because you want the freedom to drive your car wherever you want no matter how badly it ends up snagging traffic? And I’m also to “assume” that you know how to drive safely until you run me over? And who’s going to pay my fucking medical expenses? Especially if you don’t have liability insurance as you believe it should be your right not to have to carry it if you don’t want to and don’t have anywhere near enough assets to cover the damage you did anyway? And what if you decide you’re just not going to pay anything? Who (if anyone) gets to apply any sort of force to ensure that you take accountability for your actions?

You speak of “freedom”, yet conveniently ignore the freedom of EVERYONE ELSE. (And another conclusion I can seemingly draw from all this, is that if a bunch of people get together to build a system of roads, that you should be able to freely use them as you wish without having to contribute ANYTHING to their construction or maintenance.)

Genaire:  I not only drive professionally Daniel. I’m also a trainer of other professional drivers and I can say as a professional of 7 years and nearly a million miles of driving a tractor trailer that I wouldn’t trust most new cdl holders to drive my car let alone a 18 wheeler in which the state has qualified them to drive. The companies have realized this fact and placed people like myself to train them so they won’t be a hazard not only to themselves but people like yourself that don’t want to be delayed by they lack of state certified ability.

Daniel F.: And the difference between a fine and a fee is that the fine is for something that society doesn’t want people doing at all (i.e., driving recklessly – which includes driving with excessive speed for any given road conditions), and the fee (i.e., congestion pricing) is for something that we want people doing LESS of. It is OKAY to SOMETIMES drive on a certain particularly crowded street; we just want there to be FEWER cars there at any given time so that the traffic that is there will move faster, so to accomplish that we create a small cost to it.

In Finland, someone was recently fined over $100,000 for going over 30 miles an hour over the speed limit. In Finland, fines are based on one’s income. This individual was quite rich, and that $100K was to him what something like two to three hundred would be to either of us. The idea is that one should not be allowed to drive in such a dangerous manner and put other people’s lives at risk, and get off with what to them is little more than a slap on the wrist, while at the same time one of more modest means should not be reduced to complete poverty while someone far more wealthy would be far better able to recover.

Daniel F.: Jordan, do you have ANYTHING at all to actually contribute to this discussion?

Daniel F.: Problem is we give licenses to people who shouldn’t have them at all. As for the trucking companies, making sure that drivers are trained above and beyond what the state requires is motivated to a significant extent by liability issues. If a truck driver causes an accident and the company’s liability insurance has to pay out then their premiums are going to increase, so it is sound business policy to take any reasonable steps to reduce the probability of accidents and thus the liabilities they might be exposed to.

(I also don’t get what you mean by “people like yourself that don’t want to be delayed by they lack of state certified ability.” I for one think that one absolutely should be required to be certified in some way that they are safe to operate a motor vehicle and that certification requirement should carry the force of law. There are far too many people out there that their state has certified as “safe” when they are anything but. It’s the anti-statist types that seem to think that one should have the unqualified right to drive and only be held accountable for causing an accident AFTER the fact.)

Genaire: Agreed the problem is they give licenses to those who shouldn’t have them at all but again if we both know this is being done why would you put so much stock in a system you yourself know has failed? The private sponsored certification is far safer then the state mandated licensing.

Yes these companies take actions to defend themselves against these state certified dangers yet these same dangers could technically buy their own truck without working for a company. Leaving the public in great danger.

The people like yourself comment was in response to this question you posed: “So should I have 15 minutes of my day be wasted stuck in traffic no matter how badly it ends up snagging traffic?”

Rayn: So, ensuring freedom to travel for all is “inconvenient” for you, is it, Daniel? LOL! Poor you! Yet, you’re not even close to a victim, and NO ONE violated your rights, whatsoever! Your mindset is absolutely tyrannical, and your sense of entitlement is laughable! Traffic congestion is the direct result of BAD CENTRAL PLANNING! Perhaps, you should petition your beloved government for some real solutions (you know, ones that don’t involve stripping away the rights of peaceful and innocent Individuals). Alternatively, you could always just VOTE HARDER! LOL!

If you don’t approve of the fact that you must “‘assume’ that [one] know[s] how to drive safely until [one] run[s] [you] over,” then you’re gonna have a real hard time in life with your tyrannical desire to pre-crime the world in the name of “safety”… For one, Individuals are hit by cars EVERY DAY by LICENSED DRIVERS!!! Personally, I’ve been hit by a car at TWICE on Muh Roads in my youth – and, in both cases, the driver had a license! That worthless piece of paper provides ABSOLUTELY NO GUARANTEE OF ANYONE’S SAFETY, and it NEVER HAS! It is merely a scheme to generate revenue, and also provides a pretext for a vast number of human rights abuses!

Secondly, you walk down the street every day, under the general assumption that others know how to safely operate their own body, their personal effects, and their non-automobile modes of transportation, and hence, must wait until one ACTUALLY causes you harm before you have any recourse, or jurisdiction. Should the State license our ability to walk down the street, and say… use a smartphone, for the sake of “safety”? LOL! Similarly, should the State license the ability to ride a skateboard, rollerblades, a bicyle, a scooter, a segway, a wheelchair, etc, for “safetyness”? No? Completely different, you say? Tell that to your beloved State, then! Here’s just a FEW of the MANY areas of the country that require such licensing:

Illegal to Skateboard Without a License (Florida):
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/features/the-list/orl-0317skateboard-20150317-photo.html

Kansas Bicycle Registration and Licensing:
http://www.kansascyclist.com/bicycle-registration.html

Yes, You Need a License to Ride a Bike in Los Angeles*:
http://la.streetsblog.org/2008/09/17/yes-you-need-a-license-to-ride-a-bike-in-los-angeles/
(amusingly enough, LA eventually opted out of this nonsense, but only because “it wasn’t a revenue producer,” as this article states: http://articles.latimes.com/2013/oct/28/news/la-ol-cyclists-licensed-like-drivers-20131025“)

And, the trend continues:

New York Bike Law Could Mean Mandatory Licenses and Insurance For the Whole State:
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/new-york-bike-law-could-mean-mandatory-licenses-and-insurance-for-the-whole-state-6723325

Power-Hungry Senator Proposes Licensing for Bicycle “Operators” (Washington):
http://acidrayn.com/2014/07/06/power-hungry-senator-proposes-licensing-for-bicycle-operators/

Georgia Bill Would Require Bicycles to be Licensed:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/10/07/georgia-bicycle-bill/2935865/

Two Proposed State Laws to Create Mandatory Bike Licenses? (Oregon):
https://btaoregon.org/2015/02/two-proposed-state-laws-to-create-mandatory-bike-licenses-heres-what-you-need-to-know/

And, rest assured, that the wording and the premise of these laws, and proposed laws, are EXACTLY the same as that of licensing and registering automobiles!

And, in reality, when the State does manage to enact such a major power-grab, do you honestly believe that it truly keeps you “safer”? Or, does it really just prevent a great deal of Individuals from exercising their right to freely travel, while also giving State agents the right to molest the free travel of any and everyone, at any given time, and without a single legitimate cause?

Rayn: On another note, we haven’t even discussed auto insurance, Daniel, so I see no reason for you to falsely assume that I “believe it should be [my] right not to have to carry it if [I] don’t want to and don’t have anywhere near enough assets to cover the damage [I] did.” We’re talking about State LICENSES. Please try to stay on topic, here! It is a red herring fallacy for you to attempt to diverge from the issue, at hand!

Also, at no point did I “conveniently ignore the freedom of EVERYONE ELSE.” Please provide proof of your claim. And, I really hope that you’re not referring to your personal traffic inconveniences, as they have nothing to do with freedom!

Besides this, your claim that “if a bunch of people get together to build a system of roads, that [I] should be able to freely use them as [I] wish without having to contribute ANYTHING to their construction or maintenance,” is PURE FALSEHOOD, and another Red Herring. I stated no such thing, nor did I even imply so. My husband and I pay for Muh Roads, and do so even MORE than the average American, for many technical bureaucratic reasons relating to our ownership of our RV, and our Tractor-Trailer! Perhaps, you’re confusing me with all of the millions of tourists who come to America every year and pay nothing for their use of the roads? Who knows?

Rayn: Finally, Daniel, I know the difference between different forms of state theft – whether fine or fee, thank you very much! You’ve obviously missed my point, which is that the revenue collection schemes of the State represent a major form of discrimination against low-income Individuals, and work to disenfranchise them – as you initially appeared to acknowledge, but apparently, do not really perceive, in full.

Daniel F.: The part about having 15 minutes of my day being wasted stuck in traffic is in regards to congestion pricing for using certain city streets that are most subject to congestion, which Rayn argues infringes upon one’s right to drive their car where they wish without having to pay extra for it. Also this isn’t me driving but taking a bus. So it isn’t just me but thousands of other people as well who end up being delayed by traffic in excess of what these streets can realistically handle at any given time.

The trucking companies’ actions here have as much to do with liability issues. At the very least, it is what gets the higher-ups who are primarily looking at the bottom line and less the human costs in having less qualified drivers on the road to sign off on the expense of providing additional training of new drivers, because it will save them even more on insurance costs. If it didn’t, while there would be those who would wish to go ahead with doing their part to make the roads safer because it was the right thing to do, they would in many instances be overruled by those elements who were only interested in profit. (That by law a corporation’s primary purpose is to maximize shareholder value can make it that much more difficult for a corporation to engage in altruistic behavior if it is sacrificing profits in order to do so).

Genaire: If a company is worried about the liability involved in placing one of these state licenses drivers behind the wheel of their vehicle why exactly aren’t you? State licensing is no guarantee of competence. I don’t think I drove any better the years before I gained my license then the days after I gained my license and I in fact owned a vehicle in which I drove frequently without said state sanctioned license. My ability came through experience not some piece of plastic.

Daniel F.: Rayn, it would be consistent with your other stated views that one should be allowed to drive without liability insurance if they don’t feel like paying for it. Anyway, how does one go about ENFORCING it, or judgments against someone for causing injury or death to another through negligence? Any entity that was able to do so would necessarily possess certain characteristics of a “government.”

And it’s not just me who is inconvenienced, but thousands of other people every day as well.

As for the millions of tourists that you say pay nothing – first they pay sales taxes on all the stuff they buy, and the billions of dollars they spend while they’re here ends up as part of the overall profits for businesses all over the country and the income of the people that work for them, a portion of which ends up going to the government as income tax, which goes to pay for, among other things, roads, so tourists DO in fact end up paying for the roads they use.

Daniel F.: If the money collected from congestion pricing fees was used to subsidize mass transit so that fares could be lowered or eliminated entirely, then lower income people who rely mainly on mass transit to get around would actually BENEFIT from this.

Of course it is due to conservatives’ desire to cut taxes (especially for the rich) that state and local governments are forced to rely on other sources of revenue to make up for budget shortfalls, which they do (in addition to slashing public services wherever they can) by extracting from ordinary people by fining them for whatever “infraction” they can catch them for and by constantly inventing new ones that they can ticket people for. So in that manner, it is the poor who end up footing the bill for tax cuts for the rich (both in the loss of public services and when some cop with absolutely nothing better to do decides to ticket them for jaywalking.) And when one can’t afford the initial fine then the state finds ways of extracting far more out of them.

But this is the problem of a state run amok that is no longer accountable to the people that it exercises power over.

Daniel F.: Genaire, for the trucking company it’s a matter of dollars and cents. Any accident is going cost them, no matter how well trained the driver; it’s that better trained drivers get into fewer accidents. So long as there is a financial benefit for companies to provide training to their drivers above and beyond what the state requires, they will continue to do so.

The license doesn’t grant any abilities, it’s merely supposed to show that you already possess these abilities. (Except that in many cases it doesn’t even do that).

Daniel F.: Once when I was driving on the parkway I had some idiot try to change lanes right into me, and it was only because I was somehow able to have my car strafe into the opposite lane (and that there was no one already there) that I was able to avoid an accident. There’s a reason why defensive driving is taught (although it should NOT serve as an excuse for the state – or whatever certification agency would exist in the absence of the state regulating these things – to allow people who shouldn’t be allowed to drive to drive anyway).

Daniel F.: Rayn, have you EVER had someone nearly smash into you on a skateboard at full speed while walking somewhere? Some skateboarders can be almost as bad as cab drivers.

Genaire: Does the license demonstrate this? The new drivers have the highest rate of accidents. Only through experience is actual skill gained. Sadly the license does grant abilities. It grants the ability to remain out of state or federal prison in some accident cases where as without said license you are most assuredly going to jail. I however thought in this “free democratic republic” people were innocent until proven guilty and should not be forced through coercion to get this failed license.

The fact is these licenses have very too do with proof of ones competence, it is just another way to tax the people.

Jordan K.: Yes, everything that Rayn said was right and you are a professional slave. Is that allowed or do you argue against seconding others as well?

Jordan K.: Maybe the world should just let you two debate in private and everybody stay quiet because Daniel Froman doesn’t think people should talk unless they have something new to add. I’ll tell you what buddy me standing up for what Rayn has already said is just important and tactful here than anything you’ve offered. Don’t try to insinuate I shouldn’t be here because you’re scared that you’re of the minority opinion in your argument.

Jordan K.: Lol and you’re a Bernie supporter. Oh god… Arguing with a socialist, Rayn… like slamming your head into a brick wall. Daniel Froman you are a disgrace.

Rayn: Well, you don’t understand my views, then, Daniel, and it certainly isn’t consistent with my position, as I’m the one advocating for freedom, peace and personal responsibility, while you’re the one advocating for outsourcing responsibility to the State, as well as the legitimacy of State force (and the violence, abuse, kidnapping, and imprisonment that comes with it), while justifying a corrupt contol-grid, where we pay the State for our rights, as though they were merely privileges, and we’re all presumed as criminals, first and foremost, until proven otherwise! As I’ve already stated once in this debate, “this all has very little to do with a driver’s license, and everything to do with Individual action, ability, and responsibility.” So, how do you rectify your non-sequitur leap in logic? It almost seems like you’re posing a straw-man argument, and hoping I’ll take the bait, so you can segway into a whole different debate than the one you started, here. But, rest assured that I won’t bite! I already suggested that you “please try to stay on topic, here!” I’ve dealt with far too many Statists jumping all over the place in an effort to find something, anything, that will prevent them from dealing with the realities of the violence and human rights abuses they directly or indirectly advocate for, in the name of “safety”! In a recent previous debate, I explained to you very clearly that your “freedom is slavery” claims are unfounded, and merely represent fear-mongering hatred of your fellow human being. Specifically, I said, “the planet isn’t a plantation, nor a prison, nor a tax-farm. As human beings, we all have a right to Self-ownership, and to live in the peace of freedom. Liberty is only slavery to those who buy into the weak-willed religion of the ‘original sin/pre-crime’ you continue to espouse. Grovel all you want before the cult of Godvernment, but I will never bend my knee – regardless of your efforts to horizontally enforce me into silence with your ill logic. I’d rather live on my feet than die on my knees! Enjoy your slavery!” I also said, “as far as I’m concerned, assigning humanity with labels fit for criminals is merely an excuse for the corrupt and polluted souls among us to collectively oppress and punish us all for crimes we haven’t even committed, in an effort to catch a boogie man that lives no further than the nearest MIRROR!”

As for your personal inconvenience (and, even that of thousands, for that matter), I already noted, “you’re not even close to a victim, and NO ONE violated your rights, whatsoever! Your mindset is absolutely tyrannical, and your sense of entitlement is laughable! Traffic congestion is the direct result of BAD CENTRAL PLANNING! Perhaps, you should petition your beloved government for some real solutions (you know, ones that don’t involve stripping away the rights of peaceful and innocent Individuals). Alternatively, you could always just VOTE HARDER! LOL!”

Also, if sales tax pays for tourists to use roads, then why do my sales taxes not also qualify!?Doublethink much? Are you so eager to falsely accuse me of trying to free-load that you are unable to remain consistent enough to allot me the same respect as a visiting tourist? Either way, as I said, Genaire and I “pay for Muh Roads, and do so even MORE than the average American, for many technical bureaucratic reasons relating to our ownership of our RV, and our Tractor-Trailer! “

Daniel F.: I’m already in the “minority” here even without your chirping, Jordan. Difference is, both Rayn and Genaire actually have something intelligent to say, even if I do not agree with them on certain things.

Rayn: As for skateboarders, I shouldn’t be surprised that you would somehow find yourself in the position of justifying the licensing of them, Daniel. That magical piece of paper will most assuredly provide you with the perfect level of body armor to protect yourself from harm!

Daniel F.: I’m not even advocating for that position. In fact I’d say that issue is quite low on my list of concerns.

Of course this whole thing probably came about because someone got hit, or almost got hit and knocked down by a skateboarder, or their kid got hit or almost got hit, and they wrote a letter to some local politician demanding that something be done about this, and this was their pea-brained solution.

So, assuming that there was no government, if some idiot on his skateboard crashed into me and knocked me down and cause me to break my wrist, where would I go to sue him? (Now, if that scenario played out in just about any other first world nation other than the U.S., at the very least I wouldn’t have to worry about paying any medical costs I incurred, or suffering any financial hardship as a result; and I would still be suing for the pain inflicted and the inconvenience of having my hand in a cast for X number of weeks. In a completely stateless society, the prospect of their being some sort of universal, single-payer health care system that would pay my medical costs doesn’t look very good). How would the judgment be enforced? Or do I have to go about it entirely by myself (i.e., gather up a few friends and track him down and beat him up if he doesn’t pay for the injuries he caused by his negligence. And what if HE has friends who decide to go after me and my friends for confronting him even though he instigated the whole thing? I should think we can both agree that there should be no place for this sort of behavior anywhere.)

Daniel F.: No one is “violating” my rights, because apparently, I don’t have them. Apparently I don’t have the right to be able to safely cross the street without worrying about some idiot who has no business driving a fucking lawnmower whose top speed is 5mph let alone an actual car running me down because barring him from actually driving is somehow infringing on his “rights”. Apparently I don’t have the right to be able to walk down the sidewalk without having to periodically check over my shoulder to avoid being run over by some idiot on a skateboard or a bicycle (the latter of which he should be riding in the fucking STREET; I would also add that I once nearly got hit by a cyclist who thought that cyclists weren’t subject to traffic laws and were allowed to run red lights!)

And you still have not proposed any alternative system by which one’s rights (the ones that we still have, that is) would be upheld. I still can’t see how life under any manner of system that you would seemingly “consent” to live under would be anything other than, as Hobbes would put it, “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” (Now Hobbes was full of shit on a number of things – particularly in that once the people grant their consent to be governed that they have no right to revoke said consent when said government abuses its authority, but he was right in that without some sort of social contract that we all agree to adhere to, we are nothing).

Rayn: Well, at least you’re not a total tyrannical control freak, then – though your words did stand out as justifying skateboarding licenses. Either way, how would a skateboarding license prevent you from getting hit by a skateboarder, and breaking your wrist, Daniel? A driver’s license certainly doesn’t prevent you from being hit by a car (or car accidents, or even reducing speeding, for that matter). As I said, the only purpose of licenses is “generate revenue, and also provide a pretext for a vast number of human rights abuses!”

Rayn: As for your “rights,” and your attempt to claim that I said you don’t have any, Daniel: INCORRECT. What I said is that no one is violating your rights when you’re inconvenienced by traffic, to be exact. And, I’ll add that no one is violating your rights when you haven’t been hit by a car, but *feel* so very afraid that you might that you attempt to tyrannically rule over the innocent, and make them prove that they aren’t guilty (as though that is even possible, anyway). Try to twist my position all you’d like, but I actually said that you “must wait until one ACTUALLY causes you harm before you have any recourse, or jurisdiction.” And, before that, I said, “you should RESPECT the fact that we are ALL actually INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY, not the other way around! In reality, you, myself, society and the government have ZERO JURISDICTION over free and peaceful people! I know you probably don’t want to hear this, but if you want to implement policies over others, you’ll JUST HAVE TO WAIT until they actually engage in criminal behavior, FIRST! ” These statements are a far cry what you’re falsely concluding!