Who Says?

Most (and perhaps even all) of our states assert in their driving manuals that driving is not a right but a privilege, indicating that the state is free to grant or withhold as it chooses -- or rather as its bureaucrats choose.

Many people accept this without thinking about it. Nonetheless, saying this doesn't make it true.

For example, individuals who live on farms or other large pieces of private property routinely operate motor vehicles on that land even though they are too young to obtain the license that states issue to indicate granting of the 'privilege.' Numerous off road vehicles regularly are operated on public lands by unlicensed individuals. And the state, prudently, does not interfere with any of these exercises of individuals' driving rights.

Accordingly, the most that the state assertions might possibly really mean is that the state can determine who nay drive on state roadways. Were the roads privately owned would not the owner rather than the government have the right to determine who could use them?

But is even that limited application of the claimed governmental power correct? What about use of commonly owned roadways by horseback riders prior to the automotive age? No governmental agency would have dared trying to grant or withhold riding rights so long as the rider did not endanger others.

As a practical matter the same thing is true today despite governmental assertions to the contrary. Drivers who do not draw attention to themselves by endangering others will not be interfered with by government agents irrespective of whether the the prudent individuals have licenses. If drivers transgress, the lack of a license will be just another (and relatively minor) basis for sanctions against them.

The important thing to note about this is that no claim of governmental authority is true either theoretically or practically merely because the government makes the claim. As the rebelious young stridently but properly demanded in the sixties: QUESTION AUTHORITY.