> Driving without harming others is a "right."

It is actually not. It is a privilege. You have to earn it and you can lose it. In some states (maybe all?) you agree to this FACT when you get your license.

https://driversed.com/driving-information/the-driving-privil...

> An unlicensed unregistered driver who drives responsibly has done nothing wrong, and anyone stopping that person is a tyrant who has no place in our society.

They're unlicensed because they either didn't take the required training, or lost their license, or perhaps lost significant vision. It is irresponsible for others (such as family) to let them drive.

And regarding the tyrant thing. hyperbole? are you trolling?

Rights don't come from the government. The government can only infringe upon rights. The fact that tyrants will try to stop you does not mean it isn't a right.

>They're unlicensed because they either didn't take the required training, or lost their license, or perhaps lost significant vision.

Or they're unlicensed because they meet the standards and more, perhaps even trained as professional drivers. They may be far more safe than others but merely believe driving is a right, and thus do not submit to infringements. If you've been on the road, you can see having a license has little bearing on whether you are a safe driver.

>In some states (maybe all?) you agree to this FACT when you get your license

Those who haven't gotten a license haven't agreed with that "fact."

>https://driversed.com/driving-information/the-driving-privil...

I thought you would enjoy one quote from the website you cited: "No one has more right to the road than anyone else." That is, their statement necessarily agrees those with a license have no more right to use the road than anyone else such as those who don't.

Except that you should demonstrate your responsibility in order to qualify to drive, first, before you start driving around. That's what the license and registration do, they constitute a couple of very easy "hoops" to jump through to show that you are at least responsible enough to write down your name and address and have it tied to your vehicle's license plate.

I don't include kowtowing to agents of the state as an indication of responsibility.

Why is it kowtowing? Past taxpayers paid for the roads. The roads are a group thing and have group rules. To use the shared resource, you need to do so safely. The group decided to have agents verify you know how to do them safely. They use licenses and registration as the mechanisms. If you don't agree with the group rules, buy some land and an ATV and drive alone on your own resources without endangering others.

I get libertarian values, but arguing against licenses and registration and calling it tyranny and kowtowing is strange.

Roads should all be privatized and paid for by tolls (or whatever private mechanism), not registration. Registration costs have little bearing on how much you actually use the road and are about the worst example of measuring how much is owed for wear etc; I'd argue your very argument is about why registration is the worst possible way to pay for roads and needs abolished.

> To use the shared resource, you need to do so safely.

You can do things safely without being licensed or registered. In fact I'd argue having a driver license is almost "proof" you'll be unsafe by your standards, since the majority of licensed drivers are batshit insane on the road (and you made the statement about "the group" aka majority being the decider of the state of something)

>The group decided to have agents verify you know how to do them safely.

I did not elect any of those "agents." And I'm pretty sure the "group" that voted for licensing of vehicles in my state is dead and in the ground, like the guys who voted to keep slaves. Also not a fan of the idea 4 guys of the 5 vote to break their own legs, so all 5 have to do it. I see public roads as breaking my own leg, by busting the free market for roads by creating a violence imposed subsidized government system. You create this subsidized system that destroys the market for private market roads where a license wouldn't be required, and then you say "well see, you don't need a license on private property but we destroyed through subsidies the market that would allow those roads to freely compete HA HA!"

...except made themselves unaccountable to our legal system.

I'm hoping this is just some silly and normative libertarian take, because it's otherwise laughably wrong: driving, as a matter of settled law, is not a right in the US. It's not a right anywhere in the world.

There is some problems with the common statement that "driving, as a matter of settled law, is not a right"

First off, as we have seen "settled law" is never really settled

Secondly, the common justification that it is a privilege and not a right is the fact you must pass a skills challenge to be licensed, and then it could be revoked if you abuse the "privilege", neither of which would be the case if were a "right"

But it is now "settled law" as you call it that the 2nd amendment is an indivual right, but in order to bear arms in many many states you must pass a skills challenge to be licensed, and then it could be revoked if you abuse the "privilege????"... so if logic on why driving is not a right holds then logically all licensing and regulation around gun ownership and carrying are de-facto unconstitutional

However if instead the public can put reasonable limits for public safety on both gun ownership and driving, both driving and gun ownership would be rights... as they should be considered.

Driving is a right because we have the right to travel, and government can only under very limited circumstances limit that right to travel.

> First off, as we have seen "settled law" is never really settled

Sure. I naturally await the day that any of our 50 beautiful states, much less the federal government, decides that driving is a fundamental right!

Insofar as law can be settled, the absence of a right to drive is settled.

> However if instead the public can put reasonable limits for public safety on both gun ownership and driving, both driving and gun ownership would be rights... as they should be considered.

This is affirming the consequent: the fact we put reasonable limits on a government-recognized right and a non-right does not imply that the non-right is somehow a right. The government puts limits on hunting on federal lands; that does not imply a right to hunt (either on those lands or at all).

You have a right to free movement. The government is not required to respect any particular instantiation of your movement as a pure right in itself. Put another way: you right to travel does not give you a free pass to fly a plane without licensing and safety training.

If you have the right to free movement but the government requires someone licensed to operate for the vast majority of ways of efficient free movement, that's just infringing on the right to free movement in a clever and devious way while saying "well you could walk!"

It kind of reminds me of the states where you need a license/permit to acquire a gun, "but you could acquire an antique muzzleloader without one" so the mental gymnastics justify it as not an infringement.

Rights don't come from the government. The government can only infringe upon rights.

I haven't presumed that they do.

Governments can indeed infringe upon rights, and they can also infringe upon plenty of things that are not rights. Like driving.

Then you understand your argument that your opinion coincides with settled law lends no credence one way or another to your argument. We have a simple difference of opinion, and the fact that government infringes on the ability to drive is not evidence that driving isn't a right is fact.

Sure it does. The US government has correctly and as a matter of settled law determined that driving is not a right. Their decision to infringe on this non-right, if it can even be called infringement, is entirely a regulatory concern.