3 ms·
> this then recognizes that the government has a legitimate right to arbitrarily revoke your access to a motor vehicle that you've purchased and owned They do.
by user-the-name 5y ago
> this then recognizes that the government has a legitimate right to arbitrarily revoke your access to a motor vehicle that you've purchased and owned
They do. That is what losing your license is. They've always had this right. It is a good thing that they do.
- throwaway0a5e 5y agoGovernment doesn't have rights. It has power that the people tolerate. They've only had that power (in the US) since the late 1940s and early 1950s when licensing became a national thing. And there's a hell of a lot of procedure and safeguards that prevent them from exercising that power arbitrarily.
- hpoe 5y agoNo, there is a slight but subtle distinction. The government license is what allows me to use the public roads, however I can drive and use my car however I want as long as I am on private roads. In this case I am not allowed to operate my vehicle if not approved by the government.
- user-the-name 5y agoIn this hypothetical case, which you made up, and which it makes no sense for the government to implement as they can already just take away your license.
- curryst 5y agoIt's not made up, that's a legitimate thing. If I own a farm and want to do donuts in the field in my car, I can do that without a license. I could do it while drunk if I wanted to, it's all perfectly legal. You only need a driver's license to drive on public roads. This system changes that dynamic, because the government can stop you from driving on private property as well.
- user-the-name 5y agoI am talking about https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29188769 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29188769.