Addressing the issue of mobility, specifically drivers' licensing, if the Federationist tenet is that state requirements for drivers' licenses are unconstitutional, a lot of people are going to label the Federationist platform as crackpot. Let's stipulate that requiring drivers licenses is unconstitutional because it infringes on liberty (to be mobile). So too then are speed limits, stop signs, traffic lights, etc. Even parking meters violate my fundamental right of liberty because part and parcel of movement is arriving at a destination, and having to PAY (to park) to enjoy my fundamental right to liberty is no different than having to pay for and pass a drivers' license exam. Now what if my preferred mode of transportation isn't a car, instead it is a small airplane -- I want to visit my friend who lives 10 miles away, but I am not going to drive, I'm going to fly. Does this mean FAA regulations (air space, licensing, etc.) are unconstitutional? So when I fly into a telephone line or a commercial aircraft that is en route toward its landing strip feel free to sue. Instead of having regulations to prevent these problems and to make sure I actually know how to fly the plane well, we're just going to flood the court system.

It'll be interesting to see this discussion grow. First thoughts, speed limits, stop signs, traffic lights, etc are "rules of the road" but really just serve to give people guidance and direction about how to proceed safely. It's the tickets you get for violating these guidelines that are questionable. Certainly they're offensively regressive as implemented with fines.

Clearly not all of these guidelines are followed 100% of the time and yet, it's not chaos on the roads.

Riding around Buenos Aires was interesting. There's no stop signs on many corners in the middle of the city. Taxis just slow down and yield or stop on their own, I guess because they have a desire to live.

This sort of reduction to the absurd serves no purpose. I will entertain it exactly once for the purpose of illustrating this sort of idiocy.

Quote:

So too then are speed limits, stop signs, traffic lights, etc

No they're not in the general sense. A speed limit may recognize the visual distance at which a roadway obstruction could become visible, for example. Stop signs and traffic lights both increase the rate of traffic flow by prioritizing the flow of traffic, albeit at the cost of a material decrease in safety (this has been proved, incidentally; the safest system for intersection control is in fact NO CONTROL whatsoever. Cognizant that another vehicle may come through without warning the level of caution displayed by drivers goes up, and the accident rate goes DOWN.)

Quote:

Now what if my preferred mode of transportation isn't a car, instead it is a small airplane -- I want to visit my friend who lives 10 miles away, but I am not going to drive, I'm going to fly. Does this mean FAA regulations (air space, licensing, etc.) are unconstitutional?

You are obviously unfamiliar with ultralights. They're perfectly legal to fly, carrying only yourself, without a license of any sort in the vast majority of the airspace over this nation.

Air traffic control, incidentally, is much like a speed limit sign and controlled airspace (e.g. a TCA) is typically imposed where there are high levels of traffic and coordination between aircraft is seen as a reasonable risk-reduction strategy.

I would just add my response in the original thread - Driver's licenses have ceased to have much to do with driving. They are becoming an internal passport.

Driving is like having a gun for self-defense. It should be the burden of the state to prove you are unable to properly own/use one (unless you are a minor).

If they do prove someone is negligent or dangerous, they can get an injunction - an anti-license - that would carry penalties if the person continues - either with a gun or a vehicle. And I mean a high threshold of proof and a punitive prison term if violated.

I should not have to carry a "driver's license" when I'm out running or risk arrest because the police can't ID me. It should not be revoked because I didn't pay some state levy or anything else unrelated to driving. Nor should such things happen with "concealed carry permits".

Nor does taking away a license prevent someone from driving - I know a sister Stephanie that works with the poor who was hit by an intoxicated Lawyer who had a long suspended license and all kinds of points, restrictions, and such.

Worse, it becomes an excuse for the police to attempt to search your car or do something else, their term is "30 seconds and I've got you" since you will do something in that time - not signaling a lane change, stopping an inch beyond the stop bar, go 0.1 MPH above the speed limit...

Then there's insurance - I would pay a lower rate or take a chance on ruining my life if I drive irresponsibly (we do need to have proportional fault back - as is if I'm 0.01% responsible, I'm on the hook for 100% of the damages).

Either answer or ignore those who call you a kook. There are plenty of proper answers to the objection. "But we have always done it this way" isn't a rational argument. "Driver's licenses" are an evil tradition like in the classic short story http://www.classicshorts.com/stories/lot....

If it becomes too tedious or controversial, perhaps adding something like:

"As 'Drivers Licenses' are currently a means of enforcing judgments, a national ID card, and other things completely unrelated to driving, Federationists seek to remove any restrictions on the right to drive unrelated to a judicial finding of an actual incapacity to handle a vehicle, and specifically ending their use as an internal 'your papers, please' passport".

So, would this same line of thinking apply to the exercise of all the rest of the police powers? Regulation of health, safety, and welfare is fairly settled.

I've hear Walter Williams make this argument many times. And he'd also do away with medical licensing, police forces, fire departments, the military, etc.

But back to the original point of this post, this is a heck of a pill to get people to swallow, likely a bridge too far. If getting people to embrace this is a necessary step, then I fear for the movement.

Licensing (for driving) is about identification, not verification of driving skills. You think the authorities trust you to just tell them who you are when they pull you over? How can the insurance companies control you if they can't pull your drivers license when you lapse insurance?

No id? Sit in jail when arrested.

@starvingartist - your vehicle has a VIN visible in many areas, so they know the vehicle, and can see who you are. Perjury can still apply. I haven't thought through license plates (which are simply a more visible VIN - vehicle identification number). The insurance companies can use whatever policy they want to write a policy.

@Mrbill - If you are arrested you will sit in jail until/unless you make bail. To do so will usually require some ID. Not having ID by itself cannot be probable cause for anything.

Quote:

Not having ID by itself cannot be probable cause for anything.

Au contraire'

Part of the Patriot Act supports the failure to provide proper ID will be reason enough for arrest, until ID is secured / proven.

Offered with no comment.



I hope this doesn't break the rules but I did think it was relevant to the conversation.

I would add that if signs that regulate traffic flow (stop signs, yield signs, lights at intersections, speed limits, etc.) are not unconstitutional then so too is a driver's test to ensure that one actually understands these signs/lights and knows how to follow them as a prerequisite to obtaining a license to drive.

Why don't I need a license to operate a boat then?

Incidentally, that's a boat of any size. For real.

Yes, that means I can operate a personally-owned, not-for-hire 100' long 100 ton (or more) mass yacht with no licensing at all.

I have owned and operated vessels from canoes to those of approximately 60', and have owned one of 45', 1000 shaft horsepower and a gross mass of approximately 50,000 lbs. I hold no "yachting license" yet my operation of all of these vehicles has been perfectly legal in both US and International waters.

The rules of the road for marine travel are far more complex (there are two sets, actually, inland waters and COLREGs.) The test for a commercial captains license is rather rigorous and absent LOTS of study most people will fail it outright on lights and signals (first module), which is arguably the toughest.

Nonetheless there is no licensing requirement unless you are engaged in commerce. If I take passengers for hire or am paid as a captain, I need a license. But for any size vessel operated upon the public waterways of the United States and Internationally, as a private citizen transporting myself and my personal property for private, non-commercial use, I have the right to travel in peace, and that right is still respected.

Believe me, if I strike something or someone with a 50,000lb yacht, it's going to do a LOT more damage than if I hit someone with a car.

This right to travel does not relieve me of liability. If I choose to go upon the waterway not knowing what I'm doing, and I injure or kill someone, or damage their property, I am fully liable for the harm I caused.

Why is the car model right and the boat model wrong, when the boat can do MUCH more harm than the car?

You guys have this backward.

The number of people who use cars to travel >>>>>>> the number of people who travel via boat. As long as a legislature's laws concerning liberty to move around via a specific mode of transport pass rational basis review they are not unconstitutional; it seems to me that a license to drive a car passes rational basis review.

This is the premise for a random search of your home too. Otherwise known as a "Writ of Assistance."

And guess what - that's unconstitutional too.

Karl wrote..

This right to travel does not relieve me of liability. If I choose to go upon the waterway not knowing what I'm doing, and I injure or kill someone, or damage their property, I am fully liable for the harm I caused.

You didn't address this at all.

fisticuffs wrote..

I would add that if signs that regulate traffic flow (stop signs, yield signs, lights at intersections, speed limits, etc.) are not unconstitutional then so too is a driver's test to ensure that one actually understands these signs/lights and knows how to follow them as a prerequisite to obtaining a license to drive.

Why must a "license to drive" be the goal of showing you understand street signs?

Street signs existed before drivers licenses were required everywhere. Something must have convinced people that they would be understood without threatening penalties for not passing some 20 question multiple choice test (that you can take many times).

Quote:

No they're not in the general sense. A speed limit may recognize the visual distance at which a roadway obstruction could become visible, for example. Stop signs and traffic lights both increase the rate of traffic flow by prioritizing the flow of traffic, albeit at the cost of a material decrease in safety (this has been proved, incidentally; the safest system for intersection control is in fact NO CONTROL whatsoever. Cognizant that another vehicle may come through without warning the level of caution displayed by drivers goes up, and the accident rate goes DOWN.)

I have personally seen this. I went to Kunming, China about 15 years ago. At the time, it was a city of about 7 million people. The main roads through the city were divided, with about 5 car lanes plus a large bike lane (enough for about 12-15 bikes across) going each way. These roads were as busy and crowded as any rush hour traffic here in the U.S. The intersections had stop lights, but they were completely ignored as if they weren't there! The result was a kind of weave of cars, bikes, and motorcycles, each independently makings their way through the intersection, very slowly. No accidents.

Mrbill, what's to address? If the Federationist platform is to overturn Supreme Court jurisprudence and/or appear to most people as extreme, then, IMO, that's a mistake.

We already have an overburdened court system as it is. Prevention of tort is preferable over liability of tort as long as the prevention passes constitutional muster. If one of the goals of driver's licensing is to provide a minimum amount of potential safety for drivers (and pedestrians) by allowing those to legally drive who know what traffic regulations mean and prove to the state a minimum level of competency operating a vehicle (there is an actual driving portion to a driver's exam) then there simply needs to be a rational basis to pass constitutional muster -- and in this case there is a rational basis.

No need for principles when you have Supreme Court rulings. I see.

Fist, just make sure you recall your position here (it'll be here for posterity and I'll enjoy shoving it in your face) when the "black box" requirement that the NHTSA is going to impose goes into effect as a two-way transponder deal and you're allocated "200 miles a month" of your privilege that you acceded to voluntarily.

Oh, and if you exceed it? The car just stops running. By remote control.

Remember, it's a privilege.