[Prism]

What nobody has questioned here is that being liscensed automatically makes you more skilled.

Even that is irrelevent, as I tried to show in my 'licensing parents' links.

Surely, the state and the public has legitimate interest in insuring safe roads, that is why we have law to begin with -- BUT, the state/public does not have the right to use ANY MEANS to do so.

Especially an ineffective one that is a con that REQUIRES you to waive specific rights you normally have under law (burden of proof, reasonable doubt, search and siezure)

[TooBusy]

Actually, it is relevant because the argument for mandatory liscencing is the old make it safer for everybody, securitty for freedom argument. It is one thing to set a stanadard for a profession ( yes this argument applies to all liscences )but another to say that no one can perform a task because they have not paid their kick back to a bureaucrat.

Mandatory liscensing is like a closed union shop, it is not only an intrusion on your contract and property rights but also allows the government a collar on the economy.

[TooBusy]

Also, if liscensing was truly about ability and not identification papers and economic control, then there would be no need for information such as date of birth/addr/ss# etc.