Driving w/o a license

[elkingrey]

I don't pay anything in fuel taxes. If I'm not personally handing a check over to the state, then I'm not paying it. In other words, the gas station is paying it. Now yes, I understand that all taxes eventually end up hurting the consumer, but the point I'm trying to make is that the gas station owner charges me X for gas. I don't have a choice in that matter. If the gas station owner then wants to give a portion of what I pay him over to the state, that's his prerogative. I don't have control over what other people do. If an agorist gas station owner charged me less for gas and didn't hand over any money to the state, I would frequent his station instead.

Also, I kind of like the fact that people are stuck behind me in traffic. Maybe it will encourage them to reevaluate government traffic laws. Also, I've found that driving is much more pleasant obeying all of the laws. I'm much less concerned about always being in a hurry. Plus I'm less stressed about getting pulled over. Also, it's actually saved me a couple of times, because there were some near misses that likely would have been crashes had I been exceeding the speed limit. Also, I don't know what you're political persuasion is, but I'm an anarchist. I'd love to see everybody stop asking for permission to drive.

[Russell Kanning]

I like all your ideas. In some places you can go for years without interference.

[MaineShark]

I don't pay anything in fuel taxes. If I'm not personally handing a check over to the state, then I'm not paying it. In other words, the gas station is paying it. Now yes, I understand that all taxes eventually end up hurting the consumer, but the point I'm trying to make is that the gas station owner charges me X for gas. I don't have a choice in that matter. If the gas station owner then wants to give a portion of what I pay him over to the state, that's his prerogative. I don't have control over what other people do.

So, using the same logic, you have no problem with IRS agents who ask an employer to garnish someone's wages, right?  They don't actually take people's money... it's the employer doing it.

Sorry, but if you contract with someone to do some specific thing (and the sign at the pump clearly states that taxes are included in the price), then you are responsible for that choice.

You could get a biodiesel machine and make your own fuel, buy a diesel vehicle of appropriate vintage, and pay no road taxes.  You choose to buy gas at the pump because it's convenient, and saves you time that you would otherwise have to expend on making fuel.  I pay $10/year for a license for the same reasons.

Also, I kind of like the fact that people are stuck behind me in traffic. Maybe it will encourage them to reevaluate government traffic laws.

No, it just makes us think, "what a jackass!"  I never assume someone is driving slow because of the law; I assume he's driving slow because he doesn't care about others around him.  You're free to pull over and let other drivers get by.

Also, I've found that driving is much more pleasant obeying all of the laws. I'm much less concerned about always being in a hurry. Plus I'm less stressed about getting pulled over.

Sometimes, it's important to hurry.  For example, my daugther cut her head a few weeks ago, and I had to take her to the hospital.  I suppose I could have called 911 and involved the government, but it was not necessary.  Getting there in a reasonable manner, was.  If someone had been impeding traffic, I would have (justifiably) been quite annoyed.  And I would have been annoyed with that individual, not the signs on the side of the road.

I never stress about getting pulled over.  It happens once every year or three, I neither argue nor give an inch, and they go away.  Meanwhile, I save many hours of my valuable time, each year.

Also, it's actually saved me a couple of times, because there were some near misses that likely would have been crashes had I been exceeding the speed limit.

No, driving at an appropriate speed for the conditions at that particular place and time saved you.  It would have saved you if the speed limit were 20mph lower, or 20mph higher.  You seem awfully concerned with the numbers on signs.  As an anarchist, I don't give a hoot what number is on a sign; I drive at a safe and appropriate speed, regardless of what number some thug has posted.

Also, I don't know what you're political persuasion is, but I'm an anarchist. I'd love to see everybody stop asking for permission to drive.

I'm most definitively an anarchist.  But living in the real world, we have to deal with the fact that the government does exist.  $10 per year is a smaller infringement upon my rights than constantly obeying every arbitrary traffic sign.  I can earn $10 in minutes, and be set for the rest of the year.

[elkingrey]

I definitely have a problem with the IRS threatening business owners. But I'm threatened too, and I don't pay. So why can't they man up as well?

I don't care what the money goes to after I pay the gas station. Hell, his prices might be higher than the next because he gives 10% tithe to the Catholic Church. The point is, I have no control over what he does with the money after I give it to him. He says the price is X and I choose to pay it or not. The only difference is that he's TELLING you he's giving some of it to the state.

I'm not always free to pull over and let others drive by. Often times there is no shoulder. But the person who wants to speed almost ALWAYS has the ability to cross a double yellow and go around. Why isn't that in your playbook? You want me to speed but you're not willing to go around? Come on!!

And yes, I'm all about driving at safe speeds. I've been doing 20 MPH LESS than the speed limit over the last few weeks because the roads have been super icy. The only time I've ever felt it was dangerous to actually drive less than the speed limit is when everybody is doing 20 MPH over the speed limit in the fast lane in California. But even then, if you want to do the speed limit you simply drive in the slow lane, not the fast lane.

[KBCraig]

I don't care what the money goes to after I pay the gas station.

Of course you do, just as you care that the landlord, if you rent, pays property taxes out of your rent. If he didn't, you'd soon be out of a place to live. Or, out of a place to buy gasoline.

[elkingrey]

I say I don't care because I try not to care too much about the things I have no control over. I have no control over what people do with the money I give them. I am fully aware, though, that if there were no property taxes that my rent would be about $500 less every month. So, if an agorist/disobedient landlord were willing to house me for less every month on the money he'd be saving by not paying taxes, I'd go for that.

People need to get creative in their thinking.

Imagine two landlords. One landlord pays $500 per month in property taxes. He charges $1500 a month in rent. So, he pockets $1000 a month net.

Now imagine a second landlord. He doesn't pay $500 a month in rent, even though, officially, he's supposed to. Maybe instead he's paid somebody off in the government (corruption). Let's say he pays off $250 to the "right guy" instead of the $500 he's "supposed" to. So, instead of collecting $1500 from me every month, he's only charging me $1400. $250 goes to the official he pays off and he gets to net $1150 every month. I'm happy because I'm only paying $1400 a month in rent. The landlord is happy because he's making $1150 every month instead of $1000. And the government official is happy because he's getting an extra $250 a month. Who's the loser? Whoever would have benefited from the $500 in taxes, say, the police, the teachers, etc.

This is how business is done with mafia groups. You see, the mafia doesn't buy into the whole patriotic BS about paying taxes for the "common good" and crap. Also, this is how things are done in third world nations. This is what's likely to happen here, too, at least more than it already does.

Now, let me ask you. You're a potential tenant renting a home. Would you rather rent from the guy who's charging you $1400 a month or $1500 a month? I know who I'd rather choose.

[Tom Sawyer]

Taxes are the least of the problem with the "Drivers License"... just like filing fed taxes, the money pales compared to the big brother privacy killing features.

The republican position, "Think of the tax dollars wasted!" So if it was a privately funded tyranny you'd be OK with it?

[elkingrey]

Taxes are the least of the problem with the "Drivers License"... just like filing fed taxes, the money pales compared to the big brother privacy killing features.

Agreed.

[MaineShark]

I don't care what the money goes to after I pay the gas station. Hell, his prices might be higher than the next because he gives 10% tithe to the Catholic Church. The point is, I have no control over what he does with the money after I give it to him. He says the price is X and I choose to pay it or not. The only difference is that he's TELLING you he's giving some of it to the state.

So, what's your point?  You have "no control" over what the clerk at the DMV does with $50 after you hand it to him/her.  Maybe the clerk will pocket it.  Maybe the clerk will put it in the drawer and it will fund the State.  You don't have direct control over that, so according to your theory, there's no moral implication if you pay that $50 at the DMV.

I'm not always free to pull over and let others drive by. Often times there is no shoulder. But the person who wants to speed almost ALWAYS has the ability to cross a double yellow and go around. Why isn't that in your playbook? You want me to speed but you're not willing to go around? Come on!!

Because it's almost always unsafe to do so.  Not 100% of the time, but in the overwhelming majority of cases, the double-yellow is there because it's unsafe to pass in that location.

Speed limits, on the other hand, have almost nothing to do with the safe speed, and almost everything to do with revenue generation.  Additionally, even when set "properly," they're set based upon the skillset of a 98th-percentile driver (ie, only 2% of drivers actually have to drive slower than that to be safe, whereas 98% of drivers can drive that speed or faster in safety).  So, the odds are very good that, even if a particular speed zone was set using scientific criteria, it is ridiculously restrictive for the overwhelming majority of drivers.

And yes, I'm all about driving at safe speeds. I've been doing 20 MPH LESS than the speed limit over the last few weeks because the roads have been super icy.

That has more to do with your skill as a driver, than any sort of absolute standard of safety.  Other than during and active ice storm or somesuch, I've rarely found that conditions even require driving as slow as the speed limit, let alone slower.  But, again, I drive based upon the conditions in that place and time, not the number on a sign, whereas you've indicated that you are modifying your driving based upon some legal standard.  Doesn't seem very anarchic, to me.

Taxes are the least of the problem with the "Drivers License"... just like filing fed taxes, the money pales compared to the big brother privacy killing features.

Could you detail some of those privacy issues?  I haven't noticed that there are many, but maybe I'm missing something?  The form is pretty basic, and doesn't really seem to require any information that the government does not already have: http://www.nh.gov/safety/divisions/dmv/forms/documents/dsmv450.pdf

So, given that this is all stuff they have, anyway, how does it impact my privacy?  I don't elect to have my physical address displayed, so there's no real privacy risk if it's stolen by a third party, either.

[Tom Sawyer]

  They don't know where to come and kill my dog.

And by the way all the states are on board with the Real-ID in spite of our efforts to the contrary.

[elkingrey]

I've made my case. I'm not really interested in beating to death this debate. I don't really care if you have a license or not. It's your life. Plenty of anarchists have licenses. To me, asking the state for permission to drive and giving them money isn't the way to freedom. I guess it comes down to being the change I want to see in the world. I don't want to see people give money and ask permission to the state to drive, so I don't do it myself.

[MaineShark]

They don't know where to come and kill my dog.

Pretty sure they already know.

And by the way all the states are on board with the Real-ID in spite of our efforts to the contrary.

Hasn't happened here, yet.

I've made my case.

I really don't think that you have.  You've said you don't have a license because you don't want money to go to the State, but you buy gas at the pump, which funnels far more money to the State.  It would be inconvenient, but nowhere near impossible, to avoid doing that.  So, why is one thing acceptable, and the other unacceptable?

I don't really care if you have a license or not. It's your life. Plenty of anarchists have licenses. To me, asking the state for permission to drive and giving them money isn't the way to freedom.

Could you please point out where I've ever asked the State's permission for anything?  I fill out a one-page form and pay $50 every five years to avoid being assaulted by sociopathic scumbags with tin badges.  Can't see where "permission" comes into it...

And, as already noted, you give them money every time you fill up your tank.  You don't have to do so, but you choose to, because it's easier.

I guess it comes down to being the change I want to see in the world. I don't want to see people give money and ask permission to the state to drive, so I don't do it myself.

By the way, does your car have license plates?  Do you pay registration fees to keep them current?  Do you get it inspected?  If you do any of those, why that, and not a license?

This all seems rather arbitrary.  You could readily avoid paying fuel taxes (heck, you don't even need to brew your own - you can just get a diesel vehicle and fill up at the "off road" pump, and avoid the fuel tax), but you do not.  I'm guessing you have a license plate on your car, or I imagine you'd be pulled over frequently.  So, you comply with certain things, but then there's this one thing, which costs less than those, and you refuse to comply with that one particular thing?

I mean, it's your life; I'm just trying to figure out where you're coming from on this, because I'd like to understand it.

[elkingrey]

I think you and I are on totally different wavelengths.

But to answer a couple of your questions, I don't actually own a car. My wife does. It's in her name and she chooses to register it. So, in that regard I am somewhat flying under the radar since the vehicle is "legal."

[Tom Sawyer]

The purity argument is tedious... we all choose a path, some participate more than others.

The one aspect that I have found surprising in my involvement with Free Staters is the reaction (by many) to my non-participation in big brother's programs. Somehow I figured that at least people would understand, even if they chose a different (less difficult) path.

Inch by inch the powers that be have accustomed people to giving in. School, work, using a car, getting a credit card, etc... the web that has been created is unescapable, or so they want you to believe... resistance is futile... just go along, even your own family will marginalize you, push you out. Like everyone else, just accept that you are owned.

[MaineShark]

The purity argument is tedious... we all choose a path, some participate more than others.

The one aspect that I have found surprising in my involvement with Free Staters is the reaction (by many) to my non-participation in big brother's programs. Somehow I figured that at least people would understand, even if they chose a different (less difficult) path.

Many things, I can understand.  As you noted, there is no "pure" path (other than going off and living in the woods, I suppose), because the system is set up to prevent that.  So, we each make choices.

Someone choosing not to answer the Census, for example, makes a lot of sense on a cost/benefit analysis.  It's not a major "win" on the benefits side, but the cost (potential penalty, and odds of even facing that penalty) is very, very low.

Lots of things can make sense.  I just can't see avoiding a driver's license as one of them.  The cost is very, very high - if you get caught, the penalties are substantial, and the odds of getting caught are high.  You can reduce the odds by modifying your entire driving technique, thereby incurring substantial cost for yourself, and also causing those around you to incur substantial cost.  And the benefits don't seem to be substantial - the economic benefit is tiny, and I can't see that there's any substantial privacy benefit, since the government already has all of that information.

Someone worried about the privacy aspect could put in a maildrop for an address, for example.  Ilegal, or course, but the odds of getting caught are very small, so the cost is not substantial.

I also can't see that it offers any benefit as activism.  Someone who goes around telling everyone he knows that he drives without a license is going to get reported, so that's not really practical (preaching to the choir doesn't count - I'm talking about using it to "convert" those who aren't already on the side of liberty).  And, if he does get caught and uses his trial to attempt to bring light to this form of oppression, the typical member of the population is not going to be swayed; almost everyone accepts that licensing of drivers is needed for "safety," and will oppose anyone going without a license.  Going after some of the ridiculous professional licensing would be more likely to win converts - it's far easier to convince someone that a barber really doesn't need a license in order to give you a good haircut, or somesuch.  The cost would still be there, but the benefits would be substantial enough that it would make sense to deal with that cost.

As I said, I'm trying to understand this, but I can't seem to see a rational basis for that decision; it seems like it's entirely emotional.  If someone had already cut out every other more-substantial sort of interaction with the State, and this was just the next step in the line, it would make sense.  But if someone is driving a registered car, paying hundred of dollars in fuel taxes each year, etc., then this doesn't seem like it's anywhere close to being the next step.  If I fill my tank once, I've been forced to pay the State about the same as the yearly cost of a driver's license.  The whole thing just does not seem to mesh - it offers little benefit, requires susbtantial cost, and most or all of those doing it are still participating in more-substantial ways.