[bestclimb]

Originally Posted by Sven7

I agree that there should be higher standards for American drivers. This is something to bring up at the state level by mailing your representatives or attending a caucus.

I challenge you to find where anything says driving is a right. Isn't that kind of like saying running drunk and naked through the street is a right? Just because you pay taxes and have the ability to do it, doesn't make it okay. We limit certain activities for good reason, and keeping unlicensed, uninsured and irresponsible drivers off the road is one.

As far as gas guzzling vehicles and irrational decisions, fine. I am just as opposed to 5,000 pound death machines as any of you are, but if someone (like me) wants to make a stupid decision and go buy a luxury sedan with a 3.4L engine for the sole purpose of commuting 6 miles to work, I see no reason to legally limit them in doing so.

Behavioral modification through legislation rarely works as intended- much like subsidies. So, leave people to do what they want. It'll catch up to them. I'll sure be sick of 20 mpg by spring.

I don't have to find where anything says specifically that driving is a right, that's not how rights work. The BOR is not the end all be all of the list. I noted earlier the 9th amendment. It is kind of like an umbrella covering the rest of them.

What harm is it in driving unlicensed (or uninsured for that matter)? If someone did so responsibly obeyed traffic laws and had the ability to pay for any damages that they caused?

Running drunk and nekid might offend someone's sensibilities. Doing it in the streets impedes others from using the area designated for them. Which is why it is not legal in most areas. The issue with this strawman is not that he is drunk and naked, it is that the scarecrow is running through the streets. The real question is how is someone driving responsibly (even if they had no licence) interfering with anyone else's access to the area?