Yaron Answers: What Would Driving Laws Be Like In A Free Society?

[BrotherWoody]

Right. English Common Law is the basis for our tort law. In fact, our earliest court cases were torts over water rights. However, 17th cent. British Admiralty Law is the source of all contract law & that law is still operative & controlling today within a closed system of bureaucratic capitalism. Much of this is being discussed currently & there's a lot on the web. The least we can hope for legally is a new convention and/or nullification of existing laws, then legal subsidiarity.

[BrotherWoody]

Yes, in our system where the state controls all that it now controls. Dismantling the system to allow for private roads is not in the nature of any state to do. The state profits greatly from public roads & their various departments & private contracts that maintain them. Granted, now liability falls on the parents but in a private system of public roadways who's to say? In our era of bureaucratic capitalism, the state isn't going to give up its monopoly on anything like the law or its force.

[SuperFinGuy]

In the future we won't need most roads. Systems for counteracting the force of gravity are around the corner. I think the main incentives for dicipline while driving is that people don't want to hurt themselves or others and be penalized.

[BrotherWoody]

Currently, only with the sanction of govt., are private anythings legal, i. e., contracts, right of ways, etc. The govt. won't give up its proprietary rights over anything, especially roads. The interstates were built for the military & subsequent access by the public was the justification. Think too of all the public lands that the govt. should but will never relinquish to private ownership. Until there's a new constitution, the desire for private roads is spinning your wheels, so to speak.

[ThomasTheIdealist]

I imagine that in a free market there could even exist private roads established for unlicensed drivers under a "drive at your own risk" contract.

That would be an interesting experience. And oddly enough, I doubt the drivers on those roads would be any worse than the ones legally on roads today.

[muckypup]

You make a great point SFG, we are confined to the thinking that roads the only means of travel. If it arose that the (argument sake) Road Barron's existed and would deny access to everyone, then enterprising people would make vehicles that fly, or transport by other means. We may end up much more advanced society.

[SuperFinGuy]

Also there is civil engagement or to civically approach people if they are acting in an irresponsible manner or the concept of dishonour when people act in an objectively desrespectful/negligent way that can be penalized. These ideas are already documented by the Common Law which is the base of the judicial system.

[djuro]

It is easier not to be free, so we will never be free.

[harleywoolford]

U would have to privatise the roads first

[halloranedward]

worry about the govt owning your labor first, and worry about waste and mismanagement of street spending last, LIBERATE AIRSTRIP ONE !

[fakjbf]

C

A parent is responsible for their child and any legal action taken against that child until they are 18. Now they could still face juvenile detention for the car jacking and manslaughter if someone died, that is still on the kid. But any damages or medical bills would be paid for by the parent, because they are the legal guardian and it is therefor their duty to keep their child out of such a situation.

[BrotherWoody]

Under the private solution, who's liable if your 8 yr. old steals the keys & gets in a wreck? a. the insurance company; b. the cops on the road; c. you; d. the kid; e. the plaintiff; f. who knows?

[BrotherWoody]

Hmm. Are all jurisdictions in agreement? Plus, what constitutes a jurisdiction that's recognized by all? Would the owners of the roads be their own jurisdictions? Would the owners of the roads have interjurisdictional rights? What about proprietary & exclusionary rights? What about the owners right next door? Cars don't pass through on your road anymore because they'd then need to continue through on your neighbor's road that's strung with pot holes. What then happened to your tolls?

[ColemanMulkerin]

I laugh at road questions when it comes to libertarian things. When I first came across small government thinking, one of the first things I asked was about roads. Looking back on it it's funny because that issue is really quite easy to explain compared to more complicated issues.

[halloranedward]

under british common law roads are unowned free public right of ways, people can purchase a long skinny piece of land, and build a road on it, and you can charge a toll if you want, it's a driveway not a road, on a road the govt, s main obligation is to keep it unowned, that means not charging a toll a govt (city county state fed) can, if they want, spend surplus money on paving a road, or putting a statue in a park, that does not mean they must or should.

[drstrangelove]

hospitals? because uninsured people would be unnecessarily injured and maybe the hospitals would been up footing the medical bills...?

[RodCornholio]

In a free society there would not be laws which permit individuals to initiate force on another.

[qhack]

Perhaps we will eventually see the vehicle licensing have competition much like the USPS has with Fed-Ex and UPS. Personally, I think vehicle licensing is the last Item we should worry about. There are many bigger problems in society that big government has caused. Lets get government involvement out of current business models first.

[LucisFerre]

[[under british common law roads are unowned free public right of ways, ]]
-
Tell us about having to pay the queens tax to ride on the roadways, or the brake-line scam people have do deal with in the UK.

[halloranedward]

where england used to be, before the fascist .