You don't need a licence to own a car, nor to drive one on private property, such as a racetrack. You only need a licence if you want to drive your car on public roads, which (by the definition of "public") are the property of the government, so the government is allowed to place restrictions on who is allowed to drive there.
bUt nOt iF Im a sOvIeRiGeN CiTiZiEn bRo i dOnT HaVe tO FoLlOw uR LaWs
/s (if needed)
But in all seriousness. This is what it comes down to. You're able to own a car and drive it on your private land if ya want to -- but thats kinda useless if you want to use it for what everyone else in America wants a car for, transportation.
Suck it up and pay the freight.
Is not your car your property? And are you not a free man/woman in a free country? I think Government should pay
us to get licensed and to have our vehicle licensed.
What do you think?
I think if you use something that is provided by the government, then you should help to pay for it through taxes.
If you want to drive a car on roads and through traffic management systems that are run and maintained by the government, then you should pay to do so. Licence fees and vehicle taxes help to pay for what the government provides.
Consider that the right to travel is a freedom that is supplied by government. Government has all kinds of ways to support payment of roads without licensing... such as toll roads. In addition, the rights of way that are "enhanced" by government making roads, are really an impediment to people who wished that the roads were not in their way, so they could travel on the rights of way.
However, Former LEO (Law Enforcement Officer), Jack McLamb, shows us that the right to travel is a basic legal right, even though most LEOs consider doing it without licensing is a crime. Right to Travel:
For years professionals within the criminal justice system have acted on the belief that traveling by motor vehicle was a privilege that was given to a citizen only after approval by their state government in the form of a permit or license to drive. In other words, the individual must be granted the privilege before his use of the state highways was considered legal. Legislators, police officers, and court officials are becoming aware that there are court decisions that disprove the belief that driving is a privilege and therefore requires government approval in the form of a license. Presented here are some of these cases:
CASE #1: "The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.
CASE #2: "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.
It could not be stated more directly or conclusively that citizens of the states have a common law right to travel, without approval or restriction (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S Constitution.
CASE #3: "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.
CASE #4: "The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right." Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.
As hard as it is for those of us in law enforcement to believe, there is no room for speculation in these court decisions. American citizens do indeed have the inalienable right to use the roadways unrestricted in any manner as long as they are not damaging or violating property or rights of others. Government -- in requiring the people to obtain drivers licenses, and accepting vehicle inspections and DUI/DWI roadblocks without question -- is restricting, and therefore violating, the people's common law right to travel.
The problem is that people don't generally know how to fight this in court when a LEO accuses them of a crime like this.
But the question in the OP essentially is, shouldn't government be forced to pay people who they force to get licensing? I mean, you can't legally force someone to do work on your property without paying him. So, since the public is in trust to government, shouldn't the government be forced to pay when they force you to get their licensing, especially when it is a right for you to do without their licensing?
EDIT: The 5th Amendment:
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Notice that the bolded part says that there needs to be due process of law, not due process of code or statute. By forcing payment for licensing, the property of the vehicle owner is essentially being forced into public use by license payment. To be fair and legal, the license payment should be to the vehicle owner if nothing else, as reimbursement for whatever payment he had to make to government.
