Proposed legislation in Harrisburg would expand access to driver’s licenses to all Pennsylvania residents, regardless of immigration status, WGAL reports. When Minnesota passed a similar law last month, one legal immigrant told Fox News that the change was “absolutely outrageous.” Understandably, those who have waited for years, and jumped through countless governmental hoops, are a bit ticked off that others can simply skate their way into “privileges” that were heretofore reserved for legal immigrants.
In other news, Pennsylvania legislators are trying to get phone-based (digital) driver’s licenses legalized by next year.
All this news about driver’s licenses (and the supposed “privilege” of driving on the common roadways) should cause us to ask a more fundamental question: Is it just for the government to force anyone (immigrant or otherwise) to get a driver’s license (plastic or digital) in order to drive on the roadways?
It seems that driver’s licenses did not exist in the United States prior to 1900. Given that people drove buggies on roadways prior to the 20th century, one wonders how our society functioned without massive transportation departments and driver’s license centers. But function our society did.
The growth of driver’s licenses over the past century, not to mention a thousand other regulations and requirements for driving on common roadways, is demonstrative of a society becoming ever more enmeshed in authoritarian statism. (Statism being a political system in which the state has substantial centralized control over social and economic affairs.)
In a free society, individuals would be at liberty to travel without paying extortion money to the state in order to operate a motor vehicle. The Bible defines the role of the civil ruler, and it does not include terrorizing good conduct (cf. Romans 13:3). Unfortunately, because we have foolishly granted the civil government the “authority” to detain and fine people for peacefully driving on roadways (causing no harm to person or property), we have created a tyrannical monster, with tentacles of “law enforcement” officers ready to take your money for not following their loopholes to operate a motor vehicle. We now drive on the roads of serfdom.
So, instead of arguing over who should have the “privilege” of being forced to pay for a piece of plastic (or digital license), we ought to recognize that the freedom to travel is a right, and the civil magistrate has no role in regulating our travel, but only in administering justice if we harm another person or property during said travel.
The liberals are saying “driver’s licenses for all.” The conservatives are saying “driver’s licenses for some.” The Christians ought to be saying “driver’s licenses for none.”
Chris Hume is the managing editor of The Lancaster Patriot. He is responsible for managing customer service, sales, and content across all The Lancaster Patriot’s print and digital channels. He can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org or @ChrisHume1689 on Twitter.
Chris, the problem we face when discussing the issue of the registration of motor vehicles and driver’s licenses is that most of God’s people have a lack of knowledge of what the government is actually regulating.
“In Pennsylvania, driver’s licenses are issued specifically for the class and type of vehicle you OPERATE. Therefore, the class of driver’s license you SHOULD [not “shall”] have depends specifically upon the type of vehicle you OPERATE. Generally, speaking [but not always] the majority of APPLICANTS for Pennsylvania driver’s licenses will be OPERATORS of regular PASSENGER vehicles [i.e. “passenger cars”], pick-up trucks, or vans.” This quote is taken from “LICENSE TYPES & RESTRICTIONS” on the PennDOT website.
You have to take the time to define the above terms written in UPPER CASE letters in order to KNOW what they actually mean before you assume you are going to be “operating” a “TYPE of vehicle” on the public highways that are required to be registered and for which users of that type of vehicle “should” apply for a driver’s license and register the vehicle.
Operating a passenger car on a public highway is a privilege but using the family automobile on a public highway for private family traveling purposes is not a privilege.
Why then would you apply for a certificate of title for the family car, register it as a “passenger car” and apply for a driver’s or operator’s license if you are not going to USE it for the transportation of persons [i.e. passengers] for hire, compensation or profit? It is the USE to which the automobile is put rather than its design.
What is a “privilege?”
Privilege – A particular and peculiar BENEFIT or ADVANTAGE enjoyed by a PERSON, company, or CLASS [of persons i.e. operators], beyond the common advantages of other citizens. An exceptional or extraordinary power or exemption. A right, power, franchise, or immunity held by a person or class [of persons] against or beyond the course of the law. Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th. Edition.
OPERATING an automobile on a public highway is a privilege beyond the course of the law which does not allow the common highways to be used for commercial purposes since the highways are only “OPEN to the public for purposes of vehicular travel as a matter of right or custom.” Title 75, Sec. 102 Definition of the term [“trafficway.”]
PennDOT does not require the family car to be registered as a “passenger car” but it does allow you to do so. And, when you “do so” your family car becomes a commercial passenger car and you become a commercial driver when you drive it even if you do not have a CDL.
To the best of my knowledge and understanding PennDOT is regulating commercial transportation on the public highways, not private vehicular travel.
Harry, thank you for highlighting DOT’s definition of “traffic-way” as “OPEN to the public for purposes of vehicular travel as a matter of right or custom.” I now have this definition highlighted in my printed, bound copy of Title 75.
At the same time, this gem demonstrates the contradiction and fantasy of government lawyers attempting to define every nook and cranny of daily life. Herein is how the freeman makes distinctions between true law that never changes, from the propaganda of false law, which does enslave the uninformed.
These communists, like roaches, refuse to come forward to the light of the day of public discourse. Their refuge is their administrative law and its administrative law courts of prosecution via information. The King’s way of due process under our common law heritage is prosecution via the victim and witnesses—that’s liberty. But when the civil government makes all the accusations and prosecution with information only—that’s tyranny. I do not consent to the criminality of their extortion.