Libertarian outlook on vehicle transportation

[Agent CSL]

I have been searching for someone to tell me why I'm wrong for thinking this, but yet I can't find the reverse argument so I'm writing this subject yet again.

Vehicle transportation. How can driving be a right? I personally believe that anyone can do anything they want, unless it puts people in IMMEDIATE danger. Driving a car qualifies as immediate danger as you are peddling a couple tons of sharp metal and gas at 40MPH+ towards others doing the same. I really wouldn't want someone who is not "qualified" to drive, to be driving. That is why I support LOCAL/STATE-level auto licensing and driving tests. I do not support search or seizure, but in the case where someone is obviously drunk/tripped out and choosing to drive, they should be arrested for endangering others.

[forsmant]

Life is inherently risky as the natural tendency of thing is death.

[NaT805]

I think most people that drive are already not qualified, lol.

[hypnagogue]

I agree with you Agent CSL. If a person wants to use public roads with everyone else, it's only prudent that rules would be established so that an individual may not place another into undo risk.

Now, if you want to drive like a moron on your own land feel free.

[Catatonic]

I agree with you Agent CSL. If a person wants to use public roads with everyone else, it's only prudent that rules would be established so that an individual may not place another into undo risk.

Now, if you want to drive like a moron on your own land feel free.

This can be said of just about any subject. Yeah you have a right to own guns, but there should be laws in place to make sure you don't hurt anyone or put anyone at risk. Doesn't sound very libertarian to me.

What I want to know is, if transportation is a natural right, why wasn't it included in the bill of rights? Did the founders just think that too silly a thing to bother with including?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I have been searching for someone to tell me why I'm wrong for thinking this, but yet I can't find the reverse argument so I'm writing this subject yet again.

Vehicle transportation. How can driving be a right? I personally believe that anyone can do anything they want, unless it puts people in IMMEDIATE danger. Driving a car qualifies as immediate danger as you are peddling a couple tons of sharp metal and gas at 40MPH+ towards others doing the same. I really wouldn't want someone who is not "qualified" to drive, to be driving. That is why I support LOCAL/STATE-level auto licensing and driving tests. I do not support search or seizure, but in the case where someone is obviously drunk/tripped out and choosing to drive, they should be arrested for endangering others.

Who have you harmed by driving drunk? No one. Only the initiation of force constitutes aggression and therefore criminal. Drinking a beer or ten is not an initiation of force.

As for driving a right? It's not a right. Life, Liberty, Property are rights.

Besides all roads should be privatized and subject to free-market forces.

[Met Income]

Why can't licenses be private and voluntary? Insurance companies like licenses. They would LOVE licenses that are more stringent.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Why can't licenses be private and voluntary? Insurance companies like licenses. They would LOVE licenses that are more stringent.

Except that insurance companies in states that mandate insurance aren't private. They are in collusion with the State. Secondly, the roads themselves are "public" so it wouldn't make sense to have a quasi-private industry to tell us who, and who cannot drive on it if we are all ready paying for it involuntarily. It is akin the the Federal Reserve in that vein. Now, if you privatized all roads, then it would only make sense, and be morally acceptable to have the companies who owned the roads come up with their own requirements for use.