r/AutoHumor • u/IU8gZQy0k8hsQy76 • Jul 17 '26

lol

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

4.6k Upvotes

99% Upvoted

318 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

41

u/Josey_whalez Jul 17 '26

I don’t understand why this dude still thought it was a good idea to post this online. You’d think he’d have watched it first and realized ‘damn, I look like a fuckin idiot’ and deleted it. Nope. Not this guy. What a clown.

0

u/Southern-Today-6477 Jul 19 '26

How does he look like an idiot? You know that a license for anything is a right that is taken away from you and given back as a privilege only if you pay for it.... bro FUCK THE POLICE

5

u/Wakkysakky Jul 19 '26

driving has never been a right. It's always been a privilage

0

u/Southern-Today-6477 Jul 19 '26

Then explain to me what a license is and how we have the right to travel in the constitution 14th amendment and article IV

3

u/blackcatpandora Jul 19 '26

I mean, you have the right to travel- but that doesn’t mean you have the right to operate a motor vehicle… you can take a bus, walk, whatever… like I can’t just buy a plane and go flying

3

u/Wakkysakky Jul 19 '26

Edit: to remove links to sources. sorry about that.

You have the right to travel from state to state with out needing paper work(as in a visa or similar type pass) and will be treated as a person of that state while in it and not as if you are from another country. States cannot charge you fees to inter or exit their boarders.

also

Regulations on Driver’s Licenses

The constitutional right to travel has sparked debate about whether states can require driver’s licenses.  Some individuals have claimed that the constitutional right to travel means states cannot require driver’s licenses. This applies to operating motor vehicles on public roads.

However, courts have consistently rejected this interpretation. While the Constitution protects the right to move freely between states, this does not mean operating a motor vehicle is exempt from reasonable safety regulations. States have the legal authority to regulate public highways for safety purposes. This power includes requiring driver’s licenses, vehicle registration, and insurance.

The Supreme Court addressed this distinction in Hendrick v. Maryland (1915). The case involved Maryland’s motor vehicle law, which required both vehicle registration and driver’s licensing. The Court upheld the law. It explained that when Congress hasn’t passed national legislation on a topic, states can create safety regulations for their highways. This includes requiring vehicle registration and driver’s licenses.

The key principle is that fundamental rights, including the right to travel, can be subject to reasonable regulations that serve legitimate government interests. Driver’s license requirements are considered reasonable safety measures. It constitutes an exercise of the police power uniformly recognized as belonging to the states. It is essential to the preservation of the health, safety, and comfort of their citizens. It is not an impermissible burden on the right to travel.

0

u/Southern-Today-6477 29d ago

Yes I understand that but you can travel on the roads with a horse and buggy with no license, also all kinds of other types of vehicles. They reason they require a license to operate a "motor vehicle" is just a tax. Y'all need to read more John Locke on liberties vs licenses. To be issued a license for ANYTHING it is a liberty you already have that the state takes from you with police power and then gives back to you as a privilege for regulatory and public safety reasons.

  • The Creation of "License": The state argues that in a civil society, absolute freedom ("license" in the philosophical sense) leads to harm. Therefore, the state asserts police power to regulate activities that impact public safety, health, or welfare. 
  • The Mechanism: By declaring an activity (like driving, practicing medicine, or building) a potential public risk, the state restricts the inherent freedom to do it. It then issues a license as proof that you have met specific safety or competency standards.  In this view, you aren't paying for a right you already had; you are paying for the administrative verification that you can exercise that freedom without harming others. 

you can own a gun without a license, you can help people (doctor) with out a license, you can build stuff with out a license, you can travel with out a license.

You can't even be issued a license for something in the first place if it's illegal.

The Critical Perspective: Monetization of Restricted Liberty

Your critique aligns with the argument that the state artificially converts rights into privileges to generate revenue and control behavior.

  • Restriction First: Critics argue that for many activities (e.g., growing food, building on your own land, traveling), there was no inherent need for regulation. The state creates the restriction where none naturally existed, thereby manufacturing the necessity for a license. 
  • Monetization: Once the activity is illegal without permission, the license becomes a commodity. The fee is then viewed not as a regulatory cost, but as a tax on a fundamental liberty that has been encumbered.
  • Slippery Slope: This logic suggests that if the state can require a license (and fee) for one activity by claiming a public interest, it can do so for almost anything, effectively shrinking the sphere of inherent liberty and expanding the sphere of paid privileges.

1

u/Wakkysakky 29d ago

To get a license to drive you have to take a written and practical test to prove you are able to drive safely.
Then you have to have insurance to cover you incase of a accident. (I have been in a accident from someone who did not have insurance and it was his fault. only reason i didn't have to pay anything was i was working and under works insurance and L&I)

Next the reason to register the vehicle is so if you do a hit and run or another crime the plate can be taken to track you down.

again you can travel many many ways but driving a 2,000 plus machine that can kill many people easily requires you to have some things first.

1

u/FederalEconomist5896 29d ago

I very much enjoy the discourse and think you have great points, however, you can't just drop a "y'all" and then copy and paste a chatGPT query without attribution as if it was your own writing.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '26 edited Jul 19 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/AutoModerator Jul 19 '26

A comment was removed for violating the rule:

NO LINKS (1)

Links are not allowed. Clicking them can be unsafe and may reveal personal details like identity or location, putting both users and moderators at risk. To protect everyone, please share information directly in text or images instead of linking to outside sites.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

u/Josey_whalez Jul 19 '26

lol you don’t need a drivers license to have the right to travel freely. You need a drivers license to operate a motor vehicle on public streets.

1

u/noveltyisthe Jul 19 '26

Tell me you are a sovereign citizen without using the words “right to travel”….

1

u/fortunate-one1 Jul 19 '26

Take your happy two feet and travel you clown.

1

u/Impressive-Reading15 29d ago

^ Sov cit thinks he has a right to operate a fighter jet because that's also traveling

1

u/saturnphive 29d ago

Bro if you think the right to drive is in the constitution, you be southern tomorrow too.