[Spooky23]

That's a distinction that's really defined by place and isn't really relevant to the problem. Perhaps your neighbor is ok with your 8 year old driving through his farm to get to another part of yours - but it quickly will fail to scale beyond that 1:1 relationship as liability is a thing. By rejecting the rules of the state, it's now your problem when your culvert fails and the 8-year old is ejected from the car and is grievously injured.

At the end of the day, because the ability to drive is a function of competence and skill, it cannot be a right. Our ancestors in the 1890-1920 period weren't wild-eyed socialists - they lived through the early days with no rules.

[AnthonyMouse]

> At the end of the day, because the ability to drive is a function of competence and skill, it cannot be a right.

Can a function of competence and skill not be a right? How do you square this with the first and second amendments, for example?

[Spooky23]

I’m not a lawyer or a gun enthusiast. To me, the 2nd amendment clearly articulates that the government has broad discretion to regulate firearms as part of the civil militia of the citizenry. Others disagree.

With the first amendment, competence and skill don’t apply. Anyone can express themselves, assemble, complain to the government or hand out manifestos, including ignorant or stupid people. I can go start a religion and exercise all sorts of bizarre practices without approval or reprisal.

[landemva]

> liability is a thing.

Liability is always a thing. Your physical harm to people or property is separate from the scope of a fishing license or some other State contract such as a driver license.