Driving w/o a license

[Jim Johnson]

Wear a coat in the winter, or freeze. 

Hint: Government is the winter.

[elkingrey]

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.

FYI, when my license expired 3.5 years ago in California I wrote a letter to the editor in my local newspaper (and it was published) that I would be driving w/o a license anyways, and my reasons for doing so. Cops never targeted me. So that throws out your theory that I'd "get reported." I've been telling lots of people, including strangers that I drive without permission. Hasn't bitten me yet, thank God.

And also, I recently read an article that 10% of Minnesota drivers don't have licenses. I don't know what the numbers were like in California, but with all of the illegals there, I guaranty you the numbers of people driving without licenses was high. So, that also shoots to hell your theory that 'almost everyone accepts that licensing of drivers is needed for "safety,"'

I disobey lots of government laws. My attitude is that if you can't be bothered to drive without a license, you're not ready to disobey the big boy stuff.

[MaineShark]

FYI, when my license expired 3.5 years ago in California I wrote a letter to the editor in my local newspaper (and it was published) that I would be driving w/o a license anyways, and my reasons for doing so. Cops never targeted me. So that throws out your theory that I'd "get reported." I've been telling lots of people, including strangers that I drive without permission. Hasn't bitten me yet, thank God.

And also, I recently read an article that 10% of Minnesota drivers don't have licenses. I don't know what the numbers were like in California, but with all of the illegals there, I guaranty you the numbers of people driving without licenses was high. So, that also shoots to hell your theory that 'almost everyone accepts that licensing of drivers is needed for "safety,"'

We're not talking about California or Minnesota.  We're talking about New Hampshire.  And no, telling strangers won't get you reported, since strangers don't know who you are, in order to report you.  It also won't convince them of anything, because folks are typically convinced by those they know, not some stranger they just met.

I disobey lots of government laws. My attitude is that if you can't be bothered to drive without a license, you're not ready to disobey the big boy stuff.

That makes little sense, since you proactively go out of your way to obey the traffic laws, except for that one particular law.  You not only obey them, but you've stated that you typically drive less than the speed limit, in order to make sure that you don't get pulled over.  So, you're not only obey, but over-obeying.  When you're 99.9% obedient and 0.1% disobedient, you're not in a position to put yourself forward as some bastion of disobedience.  You're disobeying something very minor, and talking like you're doing some big, important thing.

[elkingrey]

The difference is that I actually WANT to obey the traffic laws. I don't go out and break laws just for the sake of breaking laws. I don't smoke pot because I don't want to, not because it's illegal. I obey the traffic laws because I want to, not because it's illegal. I was driving under the speed limit, and using my blinkers, well before my license ever expired.

[MaineShark]

The difference is that I actually WANT to obey the traffic laws. I don't go out and break laws just for the sake of breaking laws. I don't smoke pot because I don't want to, not because it's illegal. I obey the traffic laws because I want to, not because it's illegal. I was driving under the speed limit, and using my blinkers, well before my license ever expired.

You don't see the issue with wanting to obey laws?  Why would any anarchist want to obey laws?

I want to (and do) drive safely.  Sometimes that means I'm obeying the law (eg, I always use turn signals).  Other times, that means I am not obeying the law.  My goal is safe driving, not obedience; whether I am or am not in compliance with the law at any given time results from whether that particular law is or is not reasonable for that place&time, because I'm going to drive in a reasonable and safe manner, regardless.  Your goal is, by your own statement, to obey.

It's not about being disobedient for the sake of being disobedient.  It's about whether one even gives a hoot.  Going out of one's way to either obey or to disobey still acknowledges the law.  I'll drive in a safe and reasonable manner, regardless of the law.  If a speed limit in some area happens to be reasonable, you'll see me driving that speed.  If it's unreasonably-low, I'll be driving faster.  If it's unreasonably-high, I'll be driving slower.  My actions will be unrelated to the number on the sign, because signs don't magically control my life.

You talk about "being the change," but I certainly don't want to see a world in which folks want to be obedient, so that does not seem like the sort of "change" I should "be."

[elkingrey]

It's not about wanting to be obedient. I think you're really stretching things.

I actually think the speed limits are fairly reasonable, by and large. For example, when a 50 turns into a 30 when you come into town the roads may be perfectly safe to continue to do 50. Sure, there's nobody around. But what about the noise your car causes? Those houses on the street have to listen to cars drive by all day and there's a big difference in the noise factor between 30 and 50.

Look, in an ideal world the roads would all be completely privately owned. There would be no licenses, but there would surely be traffic rules, such as speed, right of way, etc.

I really can't believe you're defending licenses so bad. Are they something you never want to get rid of? If you want to get rid of them, are you waiting until the government no longer issues licenses? Do you vote? I don't vote. I just live life.

[MaineShark]

It's not about wanting to be obedient. I think you're really stretching things.

I don't.  Since you've flat-out said that you want to be obedient.  Those are your words.

I actually think the speed limits are fairly reasonable, by and large.

Science disagrees.  Speed limits, if they are set "properly," are based upon 98th-percentile drivers.  So they are excessively restrictive for 98% of the population.  And, in many (probably most) cases, they are then further reduced in order to generate ticket revenue.

For example, when a 50 turns into a 30 when you come into town the roads may be perfectly safe to continue to do 50. Sure, there's nobody around. But what about the noise your car causes? Those houses on the street have to listen to cars drive by all day and there's a big difference in the noise factor between 30 and 50.

Interesting.  Previously, you said that it pleased you to cause gross inconvenience to other drivers.  Now, you're stating that drivers should be considerate of others.  Which is it?

Look, in an ideal world the roads would all be completely privately owned. There would be no licenses, but there would surely be traffic rules, such as speed, right of way, etc.

I doubt there would be numerical speed limits.  "Reasonable and prudent" is a good rule.

I really can't believe you're defending licenses so bad. Are they something you never want to get rid of? If you want to get rid of them, are you waiting until the government no longer issues licenses?

Engage in logical fallacies, much?  False dichotomy, strawman, ad hominem... I could go on.  You have a whole plethora of them, just in a couple sentences.

I've specifically said that it's wrong for the government to require licenses.  I've also said that it's a poor choice of activism.  Folks do it because it's easy, not because it is in any way effective.  And the same folks will pay all manner of taxes on fuel, food, and the like, because avoiding those (even though they constitute a far greater issue) is somewhat inconvenient.

Do you vote? I don't vote. I just live life.

Yup, I vote.  I go in and write "none of the above" under each office, and "no" on each spending item, and to repeal any ordinance which is offered for repeal.  It's effective activism, as it helps to reduce the apparent percentage of consent (to those still in the system, whom we are trying to reach, both "yes" votes and staying home are viewed as consent), and often helps to directly reduce the amount of violence perpetrated against innocents.

[elkingrey]

You're right. I'm wrong. You win. Have a nice day.

[Free libertarian]

Wear a coat in the winter, or freeze. 

Hint: Government is the winter.

I thought Edgar was the Winter.   Dude is white as snow.

[Tom Sawyer]

Wear a coat in the winter, or freeze. 

Hint: Government is the winter.

I thought Edgar was the Winter.   Dude is white as snow.

But, Johnny was cooler!

[Jim Johnson]

Wear a coat in the winter, or freeze. 

Hint: Government is the winter.

I thought Edgar was the Winter.   Dude is white as snow.

But, Johnny was cooler!

I can't believe how you guys just go off track... squirrel!

[Russell Kanning]

I like the way you think egrey.
we all do things a little differently ... but I can get along great with the ones that don't try to hurt me or others and are trying to go against the system a little bit at a time ... or a lot at once.
I don't like debaters, those that hurt us, and those that tell us we are doing it the wrong way.
So egrey is my buddy

oh btw Tom Sawyer, under torture I told the feds that your dog, was a nsa agent.

[MaineShark]

I don't like debaters, those that hurt us, and those that tell us we are doing it the wrong way.
So egrey is my buddy

Except that's exactly what he's doing:

I disobey lots of government laws. My attitude is that if you can't be bothered to drive without a license, you're not ready to disobey the big boy stuff.

I'm assuming that you have a CDL, at this point, right?  According to him, you must not be ready for "big boy stuff," then...

Sorry, but I'm not tolerant of the One-True-Way types.

[Tom Sawyer]

I personally know of two people who couldn't satisfy NH ID requirements for a Drivers License... both have had licenses for 30+ years, Passports, military security clearances, etc.

The shots are being called by the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators... no need to deal with all those pesky state legislatures, just get this one organization to push the big brother plans through. Just like virtually all police departments now follow the same policies and procedures...

[Tom Sawyer]

Joe, you're mischaracterizing the interaction.

elkingrey revived a thread to express his noncooperation to a hopefully receptive audience of fellow travelers. You enjoy the debating, and are pretty good at it... elkingrey's mistake was being baited and allowing you to establish the focus. It's not about the gasoline tax or the license fee etc. Hell if I could pay these assholes to leave me alone I would.