Free Republic

On the surface - and for all you shallow thinkers out there who are besotted with the idea of "fairness" - the proposal makes sense. Those who use the highways more should pay more, right? Um, no not really. The idea that the government should be able to monitor your driving is antithetical to the idea of liberty. And does anyone believe that the monitoring would stop there? There would be calls to install breathalyzers in every car, governors to prevent you from exceeding the speed limit. Perhaps they'd figure out a way to charge you for excess emissions.

Can computerized cars drive better than we can? The cover story of Time’s March 7 issue makes “the increasingly compelling case for why you shouldn’t be allowed to drive,” claiming that computerized cars are (or, it is hoped, will be) safer drivers than humans, and so the logical thing is to ban humans from driving altogether. The plan is simple and familiar: First you use behavioral economics (higher taxes) to discourage a certain behavior — think of smoking — and once it’s gotten really unpopular, you ban it. Before you know it, you can’t smoke in Central Park.

Why You Shouldn’t Be Allowed to Drive The article is behind a paywall, but I posted it to show where we are headed.

My uncle has a country place, that no one knows about. He says it used to be a farm before the Motor Law. And on Sundays, I elude the "Eyes" and hop the turbine freight - to far outside the wire where my white-haired uncle waits. Jump to the ground as the turbo slows to cross the borderline. Run like the wind as excitement shivers up and down my spine. Down in his barn, my uncle preserved for me an old machine - for 50 odd years. To keep it as new has been his dearest dream. I strip away...