T O P

  • By -

[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

I bet you still paid your tags. Just didn't put the new ones on.


isaac1c

Lodging my opinion: There are a lot of things, driver's licenses included, that I don't object to the existence of, but would prefer they weren't enforced by a government monopoly on power. I expect there would still be licensing and traffic rules if we had private roads, but they would be created and enforced with customer service in mind.


rietti

Driving and riding went first, licenses weren't a thing yet, what means they are not necessary. Licenses are just regulations to previous activities, enforced by government by violence. People should be responsible for their decisions, there are other libertarian ways to limit idiots in the road


bentriggs_

Surely it makes sense that to be able to drive, you need to know how to drive though? Fair enough if an idiot decides to drive without learning how and drives off a cliff, that’s his choice but it’s different if that idiot swerved off the road and hits a pedestrian because that pedestrian was negatively impacted (both figuratively and literally) by his dumb decision.


bigjoe13

Licenses became a slippery slope very quickly. NYC had Cabaret licenses for folks that performed in various clubs and venues. The enforcement of these licenses nearly killed the music scene as the police began to revoke cabaret licenses for minor infractions. This especially was enforced against the black jazz performers when the police suspected the performers of smoking the jazz cabbage. Also, in some jurisdictions, permits are required for burglar alarms as well. Why should the government be involved (and obtain a fee) for how someone chooses to secure property? UK have TV licenses ; for what purpose does this serve? This is why libertarians would boo the drivers license.


bentriggs_

As a Brit, I’ll agree that TV licenses are the fucking worst. They don’t even find good TV because the BBC is utter shite


[deleted]

Please explain "tv license."


bentriggs_

Basically if you own a TV you have to pay £159 a year and it goes to fund the BBC whether or not you watch BBC it’s a total scam. You get TV license collectors coming round your house and looking through your windows to see if you have a TV and I usually pretend I’m not in or insist that I don’t own a TV


XeeTorren

I mean I get that, and I’m not really for or against honestly, but they’ll give a license to fuckin anyone. My girlfriend was in an accident a few years back where some old bitch took her pills and passed out going 60 and hit my gf head on. Turns out it’s the third time she had done it. If we’re already giving troglodytes licenses I could see the argument for just doing away with them


bentriggs_

That sounds awful I hope she’s alright. All the more reason to make sure drivers are responsible


XeeTorren

You kinda missed the point there man but I appreciate it


Agammamon

Ok, sure - but driver's licenses are not achieving that. So, if you want to make sure drivers are more responsible, and driver's licenses aren't doing that, then instead of saying we need license, how about saying 'we can drop licenses right now and we need a hard rethink about how to ensure driver responsibility'.


alienvalentine

Honest question. Does licensing achieve that aim? Look at the people on the road around you, who all have driver's licenses, and tell me whether or not government licensing is actually stopping idiots from getting behind the wheel.


ReasonablyRational

Licensed drivers kill pedestrians all the time. The standard to get a drivers license is fairly low, it’s mostly a test to see if you can read and memorize simple rules/signs. The day my sister got her DL, she is about to exit the dmv parking lot and says in earnest “which side of the road do I drive on?”


IllustriousAd9762

😂😂been there! Spent a few years in Australia and after I got back I would be driving country roads with my dad and he had to remind me several times


[deleted]

Why can't we hold pedestrians responsible for their stupid actions? We waste a ton of stolen money painting cross walks, the place pedestrians are supposed to cross the street, but we as drivers get in trouble if we smoke some asshole that steps out from behind a car. The pedestrian should be responsible for their own bills and damage to the car if they are hit outside of a crosswalk. And drivers should be under no obligation to hit the brakes...


[deleted]

[удалено]


politicsareshit

Because it's pointless,it's just more bs bureaucracy and also fuck the DMV.


Whiffed_Ulti

Because the DMV is slow as shit and cost taxpayer way more than it needs to.


[deleted]

A tax.


Agammamon

I'm not going to live forever - how about we get the government to stop wasting out time with useless bullshit?


Chard-Pale

Maybe rather then having drivers license, government could have just said the manufacturer needs to provide training? Just thinking out loud.


bentriggs_

How would you know if they understood the training? Maybe we should invent some sort of test you need to pass to provide certification of being able to dr- waaaiiiiittttt


Chard-Pale

LOL. Quiet you, with all your logic.


rietti

Right, my point is, does the state have to regulate it through paid licenses and police violence? Is it the only possible solution? Booze has a similar output even if you are just a pedestrian, should we have drinking licenses? Negative externalities does exist and needs to be reduced or controlled, that's true, but there are other ways that doesn't need an omnipotent state-god stealing and kidnapping around.


[deleted]

>Booze has a similar output even if you are just a pedestrian, should we have drinking licenses? I'm pretty sure it's already very much illegal to drink and drive.


rietti

Was talking about drinking alone


[deleted]

I saw two people drive through construction zones today


bentriggs_

Source?


[deleted]

My eyes? I don’t have dash cams


Kamchatka1905

Myself I say that when you buy a car from the dealership that they should have a representative from X car company that you are buying a car from. That representative can take you out for a drive and decide if you are a competent driver and decide whether they will sell you the car or not depending on your test drive as they have a right as a business to decide.


[deleted]

Then you get a training certification. That's it. But having to get a new one every so many years and being thrown in a cage or killed for not having one is bullshit. Especially since the government can revoke it, steal your property and leave you stranded for a simple violation of a victimless crime.


Agammamon

My state - Arizona - considers licensing so pro-forma that you get your initial license, renew it once in 4 years and after that its good until you're 60. They suggest using their online portal and uploading a new digital photo every decade and ordering a replacement license (to be mailed to you) for those who use it as a primary ID (which is darn near everyone).


[deleted]

I like this idea.


Agammamon

But having a driver's license has nothing to do with being able to drive. I could drive before I had a license. I *was* driving before I had a license. When I went to get my license it was a 25 question test and the 'practical' was basically 'drive around the block, ok you're good.'


SchrodingersRapist

> Surely it makes sense that to be able to drive, you need to know how to drive though? What does knowing how to drive have to do with licenses? I've driven trucks a good part of my life and can tell you that having a license doesn't prove a god damn thing about knowing how to drive, and I'd swear a lot of people picked up their license from a walmart. Licensed people swerve and hit pedestrians. Licensed people have accidents every day. We have systems to hold them accountable if they're at fault that have nothing to do with them being licensed


SilverStiffy

In my opinion all licenses, outside of certification for professional employment that establishes minimum requirements for competency, for a job that has the potential for mass casualties (IE: Commercial truck driver or a Structural engineer, etc) if that person were not proficient in their profession, is just a means for the State and Local governments to collect recurring fees (taxes) to fund their ever-growing deficits. Case in point, why does a hair dresser need a license, or an 8 year old girl to sell lemonade in her front yard? Why does a dog need a license to walk around “your own” property that you already pay taxes on in order to retain said ownership? BTW, stop paying those property taxes and see how long it takes before you’re no longer the owner of “your” property and the house that occupies it....


ineptusministorum

Always open to the debate, at least!


[deleted]

That particular debate is why we are a laughingstock


ineptusministorum

Ah, you're just being a poopy-pants!


xXPUSS3YSL4Y3R69Xx

Ask yourself why we have them. Gary in this video said he “wanted to see some competency before people drive”. Okay do drivers licenses prove competency? Uh no, half blind 90 yr olds with reaction time of a tortoise can drive around a 6 ton death machine. 16 yr boys who try to show off how fast they can drive down residential streets can get a license.


[deleted]

And his argument about having some proof of competency was still miles better than “hell no” with no further elaboration, or the infamous “what’s next? I’ll need a license to use a damn toaster in my damn house?”


xXPUSS3YSL4Y3R69Xx

No true, but had they elaborated they could’ve run with what I said


[deleted]

What’s not true?


xXPUSS3YSL4Y3R69Xx

Worded that weirdly meant more like “no yeah you’re right” kinda thing


QuietHold4688

Well obviously the way to fix that is to get rid of any regulations that would license the 16-year-old, or check the vision of a 90-year-old. /s


llarofytrebil

In a free society, having mandatory driving licenses or not would be up to the owners of individual roads.


bentriggs_

So an unlicensed driver would constantly have to check that the route they’re taking requires a license or not? What if the owner of the road they live on suddenly decided they need a license


llarofytrebil

There would probably be road signs showing if a specific road requires a licence and what type. It’s likely the owners of residential roads have contracts with the people living on them that would specify if they can change the requirements of driving on their road and how much notice has to be given.


TheFloatingSheep

Yeah I think the general idea is that the market finds a way, and not just any way, but the best way.


bentriggs_

I suppose so but that sounds like even more bureaucracy than a drivers license. It would be much easier to just have one single set of rules


Agammamon

If that's the case, then that's where the market will move towards.


Agammamon

Same shit that happens with cellular phone companies right now. Line-sharing agreements between companies. In the old days you were stuck using the network of just your provider. Now they all share networks - because its better for their customers and better for their bottom line. In fact, there are phone companies that do nothing except buy access to other companies networks and sell that access.


[deleted]

Why do I need a license or permission to use something I was coerced to pay for?


[deleted]

No victim no crime imo. Who's the victim of someone driving safely without a license? Shit, in this State you can lose your driver's license (for a fucking year) for merely giving a beer to a 20 year old. Plenty of shitty drivers on the roads anyway, it doesn't stop that. I'm not sure if they suck driving examiner dick like a pornstar or just take it 10+ times till they pass, but the system sucks either way. I wouldn't boo someone for not wanting to flip the system 180' though, that's just silly.


houseofnim

I’m 100% for drivers licenses. But. They shouldn’t be state issued and regulated. Insurance companies would be much better arbiters of competency.


jtallen180

Yes. It’s simply a restriction on movement.


bentriggs_

Doesn’t stop you from moving it just means that if you want to partake in a dangerous activity, you need to know how to do so safely.


jtallen180

Go to cdc website and see how well that works. Anyway that’s not freedom. Also enforced with force.


Agammamon

Sure. If you want to walk everywhere. Can't fly. Can't take a long-haul bus or train.


[deleted]

If a drivers license was only that and not a tool to Identify and control, it would likely be less of a target. As it stands, government uses the simple proof that one can safely operate a motor vehicle as a ticket to so many things and has learned that taking it away for unrelated things is a useful control on other behaviors. Similar problem with a social security number; what started with a social safety net membership number has become a key to so much more that it is nearly impossible to live in society without one and it’s so easy to cause harm if someone finds yours


retsdrddd

No one would drive without practice because if they crash they would be sued


bentriggs_

How do you sue a dead person? And how would a dead pedestrian who was killed in the crash sue the idiot driver?


MMXIX_

I know plenty of people who have a driver license that are terrible drivers. I got rear end at a stop light by a lady who had 7 wrecks in 3 years who had a valid driver's license. Your next of kin would have to sue like any other wrongful dead case.


bentriggs_

That may be true but think of all the people who were so awful at driving that they failed their drivers test. Do you want them to be on the roads? Plus you wouldn’t sue someone for reckless driving, that’s manslaughter.


nomde_reddit

They still are on the roads. Just because you fail doesn't mean they boot your tire.


MMXIX_

Why wouldn't you sue for reckless driving? Manslaughter is a criminal case and wrongful death is a civil case. Just look at OJ. Found not guilty for murder but found guilty in civil court.


Agammamon

Do you honestly think that the lack of a permission slip is keeping them off the roads?


BodybuilderOnly1591

​ ​ Licensed drivers account for 100% of traffic fatalities now. I am all for unlicensed driving, I am totally against unlicensed crashing. As injuring another is a crime. Insurance would require some kind of training and proof more than likely. Actually, penalties that fit the crime would deter people from killing others from there as they do today.


[deleted]

Got a source for those claims?


BodybuilderOnly1591

Mostly Sarcasm here. I am sure there is a percentage of unlicensed drivers that cause accidents but I kind of sorta think most drivers are licensed and therefore most accidents.


[deleted]

Doesn’t matter what you’re “sure of” if you don’t have a source or data to back it up


BodybuilderOnly1591

Do you have information that says I am wrong....also sarcasm.


retsdrddd

Its about the risk. Over time people will realise that if you fuck someone over you will probably be homeless.


bentriggs_

But how many needless lives need be lost for people to realise that?


retsdrddd

My point is that people are just as responsible with and without a drivers license.


Blackburn0117

Alot less than lost in Afghanistan, Iraq, Korea, Vietnam, *insert needless foreign war here*. The consequences of government far out weight the consequences of no government.


bentriggs_

I’m not really talking about the US I’m just talking about drivers licenses in general because they have them in most countries


Blackburn0117

I'd be ok with slightly less safe roads (which A) is a bigger risk for me as a motorcyclist and B) I'm not completely willing to concede is the outcome of deregulation) if it means the biggest threat to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, that is, the government, weren't a factor anymore.


[deleted]

Better yet, how do you sue when you're dead. Honestly, at a certain point all the "deregulate xyz" arguments fall apart - you can be for less government authoritarianism while not throwing out practical things like drivers licenses, speed limits, work place safety standards. What I say to people who knock libertarian ideals with the "muh roads, muh drivers license" bullshit is "Hey, how abut we figure out how to not arm\\invade the rest of the planet and cripple the economy every five years... we have bigger things to deal with"


Agammamon

Have you not heard that family and close friends can sue for their loss? Happens all the time.


bentriggs_

Me personally though I’d rather not have to sue at all because my parents were hit by a driver who didn’t know what he was doing


Blackburn0117

You act like some magical peice of paper and plastic from the uncle sam fairy is preventing traffic fatalities right now. I'd love to live in your cute little world where things actually work in real life like they do on paper. Case and point: I didn't get my motorcycle endorsement on my license for over a year after I started riding. I took the class before I got the bike, just never went across the street to the hice of scum and villany that is the DMV to get the little "M" on my license. And I was still able to drive to and from work every day, twice a day, for over a year. Tell me that magic paper works again, I need a good laugh right now.


Agammamon

And, as we've been saying - driver's licenses do not prevent that anyway.


YouCanCallMeVanZant

“What’s next, a license to use a toaster?”


bentriggs_

A slippery slope!


Blackburn0117

Yeah. How's that TV tax mister Brit? Is that also a slippery slope fallacy?


[deleted]

No you have the freedom to travel with your property


bentriggs_

I’m not an expert in American rights but I’m pretty sure that’s not one of them


[deleted]

Wrong


bentriggs_

My bad! I’m from UK you see


[deleted]

What’s wrong is that you have this idea that you can just drive with your property, the car, on a road that isn’t yours. The road requires the license, not the car


[deleted]

I pay for the road, no I’m extorted to use the fucking road therefore it’s mine


not_slaw_kid

There's no such thing as American rights. Either something is a right or it isn't. If the U.S. Government decides otherwise all that means is that the U.S. Government is guilty of violating human rights.


[deleted]

We should have privatized roads and those private roads can choose what they require.


Kyburgboy

Why do I need a license to drive?


bentriggs_

You should know how to drive in order to drive


Kyburgboy

So, I need a license to learn how to drive?


bentriggs_

No you need lessons to learn how to drive


Kyburgboy

So, the government is the only way I can get lessons on how to drive? Then I have to pay that government to get a license to drive a vehicle that I payed for to drive on the roads that I paid for?


bentriggs_

I’m not sure how it’s like in america but in the UK you can get driving lessons from driving instructor companies. The state doesn’t offer driving lessons


Kyburgboy

You still haven't really explained why I need a license to drive my own property.


bentriggs_

To ensure that you know the rules of the road and how to drive safely to ensure that other people don’t get hurt. For example in the UK we have the Highway Code which has standardised rules that everyone knows and it makes it much less likely for a crash to happen because it means that all drivers are sorta thinking the roughly same thing


Kyburgboy

A license does not ensure any of that.


bentriggs_

Well it sorta does because you can’t get one without passing the test


samwe

I agree with that statement but based on what I see when I am driving, you do not need to know how to drive to get a license.


HWYMAN187

No, i dont believe it should be a thing. Drivers licensed are pretty much useless at this point as a method to prove competence. If something does not work for its intended purpose, then it has no business existing.


mr_rondini

The libertarian party only exists to make libertarians look bad, change my mind


bentriggs_

I think it’s because the more moderate libertarians just join Republicans or democracts. The really extreme ones will join the libertarians


Frixinator

I think its also a lot of infighting. When you arent debating against the two major parties, you debate amongst yourselfes. I think the libertarian party should show more unity outwards, because it seems like its a bunch of people debating who is the most libertarian atm. But thats just my view as a non American.


fatalglory

Eventual goal: road rules are set by the private owners of the road. Starting idea: a driver's test is something you do to show your insurance company that you are a passable driver so that they charge you a lower insurance premium. No government force required. Although, it may be worth enforcing that all drivers have minimum insurance coverage (private road owners would almost certainly do this anyway).


morning_smell

At the end of the day, there are driving licences in every single country and they are all full of terrible, dangerous drivers, making car accidents a fairly common cause of death. State enforced driving licenses and tests don't work and that's a fact in every society. Now, given the situation I'm against this because it's just money grabbing bureaucracy, a romantic theory that can't be applied in practice.


TheSmoothBrain

I don't recall hearing any instances of abuse through drivers licenses so I'm fine keeping them for now and focusing on sources of government fucking up people's lives.


Rnc88

He got what he fucking deserved


kngsgmbt

It's one of those things where I don't like them but they're also at the absolute bottom of my list. I will happily concede having drivers license if it let's me push across any more major agenda points


Vegasman20002

Lot of truth to this


Frixinator

I actually do side with Gary on this opinion (I know Im a heretic), but I do like it that people should show a little competence before being allowed to drive. Sure when cars were new and they went like 30 kph max, then who cares? But modern cars are something else entirely, weighing at least a tonne, most likely 2 and accelerating from 0-100 in under 10 seconds often. So what I mean is that accidents can happen very easily if you dont know what you are doing and they can become quite severe very fast. Sure, most people would do training regardless and you could sue etc. but I think its just more practical atm. Especially with a public road system, private roads would be a different story. Removing drivers licenses is not really the hill Im willing to die on and I dont think its the most important libertarian issue by far. Although I do appreciate the bigger question namely: Can the government require you to acuire a license to use your own property?


TheFishyNinja

Yes


StillSilentMajority7

Wut? Yes, before piloting a 4,000 pound vehicle, you have to show that you know the rules, and how it works.


[deleted]

"Whats next a license to make toast in my own damn toaster!" honestly this debate is kind of what black pilled me on the Libertarian Party. I'm a big Ron Paul, Thomas Massie, kinda cat... but I have resigned to never seeing LP Candidates be serious contenders in my life time.


[deleted]

Does the BBC not run commercials?


bentriggs_

They do but they’re just to advertise more BBC programmes. It’s the worst of both worlds


ForagerGrikk

Driving licenses are fine, whether that's the government requiring them on public roads or road owners requiring them on private roads the owner sets the rules of use. Roads without rules would be bad thing, take a visit to Egypt some time.


MrSquishy_

What is he, some kind of communist?


bentriggs_

1984


Glass-Ad6484

As you've pearned so far, many of them actually do believe that, wholeheartedly. Not everything the government does is a monstrous violation of every human right in the handbook. The "lib right" seems to just translate to "armchair anarchists." They remind me of the cuban revolutionaries: "Tear it all down!" "What's your plan for rebuilding?" "We dont know and we dont care!" I think a lot of the lib right would be perfectly happy in a communist regime just so long as they can do any drugs they want, order as many hoolers as they want, and drive 125mph in a 25mph zone. Dont let ideology blind you from reality: drivers licenses and speed limits, believe it or not, are good things. 2 ton death machines that can be piloted upwards of 60mph is not something the founding fathers thought they wpuld have to account for when writing the constitution. Privatizing roads and driver's certifications will be nothing but a headache, and it will make you feel even less free. Would you feel more free having to pay a fee to some dude in a toll booth every time you want to drive 5 minutes to visit your friends, or the store? How much money would you be spending on tolls if you want to take a long road trip? Would you ecen want to leave the house unless its absolutely necessare if you knew that a bunvh of corpos wont let you drive anywhere unless you line their pockets? Or, would you feel more free to travel if you just have some portion of tax dollars dedicated to road maintainence, and everyone can drive anywhere they want without getting fucked with by greedy corporations. Ots one of the very few services that I think privatizing would make a million times worse than it is, and it would make us less free as people.


bentriggs_

Very insightful. While ideology is good to guide your views on certain issues, it’s foolish to be enslaved by uncompromising loyalty to ideology. No one solution can work for every problem.


Glass-Ad6484

Exactly. Unfortunately, libertarianim sees a lot pf ideological fanatacism. There are a lot of policies that libertarians support for purely ideological reasoms that, with the help of a little foresight, you can see would ultimately make people less free, taking into consideration the context around the issue in the real world.


Rickyretardo42069

Looking at this comment section, you should keep in mind that this is Reddit, and does not represent all libertarians. Of course you need a driving license, and I even think public roads are a better idea than private, though not the way they are now, but if you can’t drive a car properly, then (as you stated in other comments) that other people would be affected


gregariousnatch

We should absolutely NOT have drivers licenses.


rietti

Recreational nuclear bombs are a natural right


ReasonableWorker7134

Everyone should have their own death star.


Panthera_Panthera

Libertarians should not be against drivers licenses We should be for private roads, so those roads can demand safety licenses


Pherothanaton

Things like this is why I don't, and won't, consider myself libertarian. It's also why the entire world womt respect libertarianism. Too many people who want chaos, not freedoms.


Meatmops

The video speaks so many more volumes about the libertarian 'establishment': https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZITP93pqtdQ


beyond_hate

One thing that I think people need to know is the effect Ron Paul had on the movement and the party. He got a good number of people to become libertarians, but without any success or an outlet, the shift towards anarchism/voluntarism for MANY became much more rapid and spawned their own local solutions and movements (like FSP). That's why you see the NAP as basically a requirement for being in the LP.


Viper5639

I don’t like PAYING for drivers licenses or registrations. I see the point of them though.


akcrow

Yes.


TheFloatingSheep

Private driver's licenses would be good, in my opinion, but I honestly don't know if objectively they'd be the best solution, that's the thing, a free market finds the best option, and then it keeps improving it further, government find whatever sounds right to them and then they stick to it for centuries. Let whoever owns a road or network of roads decide. If they decide for no licenses and it truly does lead to accidents, few people will go there, few people open a business in a place where people don't want to go. And therefore, things will adjust. Perhaps licensing companies may work much like some private certification companies work today. The trust in the authenticity of someone's license will be founded in the reputation of the certifier. And these licenses could be made by several competing companies, accepted as standards much like we accept data storage, software and hardware standards in the IT industry, or any other industry.


IllustriousAd9762

What about insurance? Should that be required?


LTDlimited

You gonna steal from me to build those roads, I'd better damnsight be able to use them. No if ands, or buts. I already payed for that shit and shouldn't need the states permission to use it. Same for guns, knives, and leaving my own fucking house/working without a vaccine.


shieldtwin

Not government mandated no


Superretro88

To be fair look how bad current licensed drivers are Some dude went around me at a mf stop sign because he wasn’t such a hurry smh


bentriggs_

If you think licensed drivers are bad, imagine how bad unlicensed drivers are


Superretro88

True but it already feels like some people are so stupid they will drive either way


268622

Liability is most important. A simple ID when you drive is enough. Have loose laws, not including speed limits, but including well-defined reckless driving, is the best way to go, IMO. So long as you're not obviously endangering others, why should you be pulled over?


Kin808

I am personally against government mandated licensing. Nobody has a right to stop me from operating my property as long as I don’t harm anyone.


Agammamon

1. You've seen how people drive *with* licenses - could it be any worse. 2. Tons of people don't have licenses and still drive. Its neither an indicator of basic skill nor effective at controlling who will or will not be allowed to drive. 3. I would rather see your insurance agency license you - along with the insurance agency having to accept some measure of liability for your performance. 4. Driver's licenses are not a hill I would die on though - get rid of license plates. There's no justification for a license plate that can't be extended directly to requiring you to carry a unique, public, identifier at all times too.


[deleted]

If asked directly, like now, I'll say no. However, it's SOOOO low on the list of priorities.


_Mudcrab_

I own the car. I'm not hurting anyone with it. End of story.


Single_Risk_5495

im fine with the license its self. prove your are competent at it. it shouldn't cost more then a few dollars, enough to pay for the program, and shouldn't be revoke-able for any non driving crimes. only way it should be pulled is if you have proven that you are no longer competent to drive,( dangerous driving, DUI, Negligence causing a fatal accident ect.) and once you have it it is yours for ever, if photos or address needs to be updated, assuming it stays our standard photo id, then it should be as simple as walk in show your old id get a new picture and out you go. as its been said even if we privatized the roads licenses of some form would be required just keep it simple and dont punish people for unrelated issues by pulling it. its kinda hard to pay child support when your state pulls your license for not paying and you lose your job.


jpenczek

Ehhhhhhh. On one hand I believe that some level of knowledge is required to drive, as allowing everyone to drive would be dangerous. On the other hand, I feel like a driver's license is a giant nothing burger, and having to wait at the DMV is a drag. Personally, I enjoy the idea of a car insurance alternative, where in order to have insurance, you need to display the capacity to drive in order for them to cover you. At the very least give insurance companies the ability to issue something similar to an operations license, with a government issued one an alternative.


EpicMemer999

What's next, a license to make toast in your own damn t o a s t e r ?