Privatizing drivers licenses?

[malkusm]

Hey guys, I had an idea today while standing in line over at the good old DMV. I'll spare you my horrible story of how and why I spent my entire lunch hour there.

The idea, though, came to me because of a simple realization: if the state did not own a monopoly on driving privileges, I would have given up on them in frustration long ago and switched providers. Their ineptitude in providing any quality in their service is astonishing, and as far as I can tell the system as it stands has not done an effective job at making driving in this country any safer.

Here's the idea: Privatize drivers licenses.

How would we do it? Allow insurance companies to issue drivers licenses to those that they are willing to insure.

This would work in a similar fashion to the way banks use the notion of credit to determine who is eligible to receive a loan, and who is risky. Insurance companies would be less inclined to insure and license a driver who has been convicted of multiple offenses on the roads, or would charge very high premiums to do so, to offset potential business losses. This already happens with insurance - why not make your insurance card your drivers' license?

The government would still have the ability to define and protect laws on publically maintained roadways (although of course ideally we would also allow competing, private roadways to be built which could determine their own laws). The insurance company already raises premiums on drivers after offenses, and have the ability to deny coverage. Why shouldn't we let the free market decide who is too risky to drive?

Let me know what you think. Criticism is welcome.

 

[hypnagogue]

Why shouldn't we let the free market decide who is too risky to drive?

Because the wealthy are by no means better drivers. This is honestly not much different from the system we currently have. Driving without insurance is illegal same as driving without a license. One comes from the state, one comes from a corporation, and you need both.

 

[malkusm]

But if an insurance company is willing to take on the risk of a driver whose license would have been suspended under the current system, why should the state disallow it? It's a business venture and a risk for the company - they are rewarded with high premiums at no expense, if the driver stays accident free, and incurs a loss if they don't.

Also I think that insurance should not be mandatory - the driver then proceeds at his own risk (and, some would argue, would be more careful drivers because of it). I think that the insurance company could issue them the right to drive, however, because this is already built into their business infrastructure - they are best equipped to be able to assess risk and proceed at their own discretion.

 

[Kludge]

Let the road owners decide

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Hey guys, I had an idea today while standing in line over at the good old DMV. I'll spare you my horrible story of how and why I spent my entire lunch hour there.

The idea, though, came to me because of a simple realization: if the state did not own a monopoly on driving privileges, I would have given up on them in frustration long ago and switched providers. Their ineptitude in providing any quality in their service is astonishing, and as far as I can tell the system as it stands has not done an effective job at making driving in this country any safer.

Here's the idea: Privatize drivers licenses.

How would we do it? Allow insurance companies to issue drivers licenses to those that they are willing to insure.

This would work in a similar fashion to the way banks use the notion of credit to determine who is eligible to receive a loan, and who is risky. Insurance companies would be less inclined to insure and license a driver who has been convicted of multiple offenses on the roads, or would charge very high premiums to do so, to offset potential business losses. This already happens with insurance - why not make your insurance card your drivers' license?

The government would still have the ability to define and protect laws on publically maintained roadways (although of course ideally we would also allow competing, private roadways to be built which could determine their own laws). The insurance company already raises premiums on drivers after offenses, and have the ability to deny coverage. Why shouldn't we let the free market decide who is too risky to drive?

Let me know what you think. Criticism is welcome.

Why should insurance companies have the SPECIAL RIGHT to issue driver's licenses? The hell with that. That's more like corporatism, or fascism, take your pick.

 

[danberkeley]

Why should insurance companies have the SPECIAL RIGHT to issue driver's licenses? The hell with that. That's more like corporatism, or fascism, take your pick.

Why should anyone, especially the state, have the "SPECIAL RIGHT"? If you owned a ranch with a road on it you could issue your own licenses.

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Why should anyone, especially the state, have the "SPECIAL RIGHT"? If you owned a ranch with a road on it you could issue your own licenses.

do the insurance companies own the land? ha. learn some comprehnsion. Insurance companies have no right to issue licenses, people should not even be required to own licenses. you sound like a fascist

 

[Carehn]

why not have a government enforced test but allow the DMV,s to be privet? I would prefer it best if it was not mandatory to have a drivers license at all.

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

why not have a government enforced test but allow the DMV,s to be privet? I would prefer it best if it was not mandatory to have a drivers license at all.

I think what we should do is scrap the entire thing. driver's licenses are really not necessay, at all.

 

[brandon]

Hey guys, I had an idea today while standing in line over at the good old DMV. I'll spare you my horrible story of how and why I spent my entire lunch hour there.

The idea, though, came to me because of a simple realization: if the state did not own a monopoly on driving privileges, I would have given up on them in frustration long ago and switched providers. Their ineptitude in providing any quality in their service is astonishing, and as far as I can tell the system as it stands has not done an effective job at making driving in this country any safer.

Here's the idea: Privatize drivers licenses.

How would we do it? Allow insurance companies to issue drivers licenses to those that they are willing to insure.

This would work in a similar fashion to the way banks use the notion of credit to determine who is eligible to receive a loan, and who is risky. Insurance companies would be less inclined to insure and license a driver who has been convicted of multiple offenses on the roads, or would charge very high premiums to do so, to offset potential business losses. This already happens with insurance - why not make your insurance card your drivers' license?

The government would still have the ability to define and protect laws on publically maintained roadways (although of course ideally we would also allow competing, private roadways to be built which could determine their own laws). The insurance company already raises premiums on drivers after offenses, and have the ability to deny coverage. Why shouldn't we let the free market decide who is too risky to drive?

Let me know what you think. Criticism is welcome.

Wow, I posted almost the same exact idea last December after my experience at the DMV. I'm gonna try to find the thread now. I like the way you think!

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Wow, I posted almost the same exact idea last December after my experience at the DMV. I'm gonna try to find the thread now. I like the way you think!

you like fascism? alrighty

 

[brandon]

you like fascism? alrighty

I have no idea what you are talking about...

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I have no idea what you are talking about...

giving insurance companies the right to tell us weather we can drive or not? sounds like it, to me.

 

[brandon]

giving insurance companies the right to tell us weather we can drive or not? sounds like it, to me.

No. Here is my idea....

I think that only people with insurance should be allowed to drive. Obviously, I would prefer private roads over public roads, but that's not going to happen. Instead of the state having a monopoly on driver's licenses, we should have competing companies issuing licenses based on their own criteria. The insurance companies then can pick which licensure companies they wish to recognize as valid and insure the holders of these licenses.

But naturally the process would become streamlined, and the insurance comapanies themselves would be the ones giving out the licenses.

This is not fascism. Fascism involves the collusion between government and corporations. Government is not invovled at all in the situation me and OP are talking about.

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

No. Here is my idea....

I think that only people with insurance should be allowed to drive. Obviously, I would prefer private roads over public roads, but that's not going to happen. Instead of the state having a monopoly on driver's licenses, we should have competing companies issuing licenses based on their own criteria. The insurance companies then can pick which licensure companies they wish to recognize as valid and insure the holders of these licenses.

But naturally the process would become streamlined, and the insurance comapanies themselves would be the ones giving out the licenses.

This is not fascism. Fascism involves the collusion between government and corporations. Government is not invovled at all in the situation me and OP are talking about.

Government IS involved. They wouldn't have the right to issue licenses WITHOUT government. No one should be required to possess a license and/or insurance.

 

[brandon]

Government IS involved. They wouldn't have the right to issue licenses WITHOUT government.

No no no, and no. Currently they are being prohibited from giving out valid licenses due to the government monopoly. In the absence of the government prohibition, anyone could issue a license. They won't have to ask the government if they are allowed.

Maybe license isn't the best word for this. Look back at the OP's analogy to credit rating if you are still having trouble understanding.

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

No no no, and no. Currently they are being prohibited from giving out valid licenses due to the government monopoly. In the absence of the government prohibition, anyone could issue a license. They won't have to ask the government if they are allowed.

Maybe license isn't the best word for this. Look back at the OP's analogy to credit rating if you are still having trouble understanding.

hmm ok. I thought you were advocating the issuance of MANDATORY driver's licenses.

 

[hypnagogue]

If the government isn't giving insurance corporations the special privilege of issuing driver's licenses, then who gives a damn if an insurance company says you can drive or not.

Don't say, "No. They're just making a law that says you have to have insurance to drive." because that's the exact same thing. We'll just be calling our driver's licenses "proof of insurance."

 

[FunkBuddha]

I agree with the OP. I thought about this same thing after listening to FTL one day. Why should government issue a license? They aren't assuming any risk by you driving.

The insurance company is the one assuming all of the risk. They should be allowed to test you periodically to see if you are able to drive well and pull your license or raise your rates if you are not. This would cause insurance premiums to drop for good drivers and bad drivers would either have to pay more or stay off the road.

 

[werdd]

I dont even think we should have insurance