>Driving a car isn't a right but a privilege so I'm ok with this That's an interesting perspective. I get it in the sense of safe driving - if you are swerving

>Driving a car isn't a right but a privilege so I'm ok with this That's an interesting perspective. I get it in the sense of safe driving - if you are swerving all about the road, you shouldn't be on the road - but it doesn't work so well for registration and tracking. Bare minimum, people should have a right to get around. So much of what people want to do in their life is beyond walking distance, that some method of transport is necessary to get there. This isn't a political right, but rather a pratical right - something that people need to be able to do to live a full life. At the extreme, house arrest involes banning a person from going anywhere, and is clearly a (perhaps necessary) breach of their rights. In particularly rural areas, banning someone from owning a car would amount to banning them from going anywhere. So I think it makes sense to say someone has a right to own a car. We ban poor drivers from the road merely because other rights are more important than driving is. For example, my right to safety is more important than your right to drive. If your dangerous driving puts my safety in question, than you should be taken off the road. However, if you manage to drive without infringing other's rights, than the government shouldn't be able to stop you from driving.