Would you apply the same logic to cars? Because I think all of your points apply equally to cars, but nobody seems to object to the idea of both registering them and requiring a license to drive.
Yes. Make driver education mandatory in public school. A vehicle tag should simply identify the vehicle out of a sea of mixed clones (a la: which blue Mustang?).
I actually think the U.S. Founding Fathers would have enumerated a "right to vehicular travel" if they had conceived of license-as-a-privilege restriction on horseless carriages.
We'll never know though, which makes personal conjecture meaningless. And while the "Founding Fathers" may have had some singular ideas at the time, they were merely people. We could speculate what the authors of the Magna Carta might feel about drones, or the Athenian democrats as well...
The position the founding fathers held on freedom of movement is known based on their writings. I don't think it's too speculative to debate about which way they'd lean on the matter. That said it should be an exercise in futility since we do live in very different worlds but it isn't because the constitution's only flexibility is interpretation by federal judges.
Or maybe they would have been scared completely senseless seeing tons of steel being piloted by an idiot with no training at speeds they didn't even know were possible for humans to achieve.
Either way, I couldn't care less about what people who died 200+ years ago would have thought about cars, except in an abstract "wouldn't it be cool to show George Washington a modern car and see how he reacts" sort of way.
> Or maybe they would have been scared completely senseless seeing tons of steel being piloted by an idiot with no training at speeds they didn't even know were possible for humans to achieve.
In light of the second amendment, that seems unlikely.
Isn't a letter of marque basically a primitive license?
I think it's funny that both of these replies center on refuting my idea that they might be frightened, but ignore the more important idea that what they would or would not think is not important.
License to initiate warfare under authority of Congress, yes.
License to own and operate harmlessly one defensively, no.
The philosophy of the Founding Fathers is extensively documented. Not the least of which is their carrying out revolt and secession against a superpower for the purpose of securing personal liberty and minimizing control & harassment by government. In light of that, the notion of them fearing cars and using government to restrict ownership thereof by punishing lack of paperwork is absurd.
I don't think it's absurd to imagine that something so completely beyond what they could have even imagined might have hit them on a deep, irrational, emotional level.
It's a few hours' training to teach a basic skill most of them will use (along with all the other "not all of them will use it" things they do or should learn). Those who don't formally learn will still likely end up behind a wheel anyway, documented or not - and it's those non-documented ones who are precisely the ones we particularly DO want to ensure are trained one way or another.
And yet that doesn't really happen. The death rate in Vietnam per inhabitant is only 2x higher than the U.S. which is pretty much all explained by the fact that they drive motorcycles instead of cars.
It's 10,000 people more (in a country of 90M people) not 250,000. And, like I said, it's not due to the lax traffic laws/enforcement, it's due to the average Vietnamese riding a motorcycle instead of a car while wearing a useless brain bucket -style helmet.
> One human life is too much.
We all die anyways, might as well enjoy ourselves instead of spending all our time and money on insurance and waiting for "stop signs" and "red lights".
