Licensing:: random thought part 1

The argument of a license is that the license is evidence of proficiency. Yet, the notion itself, is self-defeating, for, in order to earn the license, the individual must, in fact, already be proficient.  The so-called driver's license is the best of the #cowardsgamble examples. For, the argument those that demand licensing be required use is the context of 'fear' of non-proficient drivers flooding the streets and causing chaos. Yet, every single one of us at 15 years old was an unlicensed driver, learning to drive.  We, by the Ethical necessity of advancing and bettering our lives, had to master this skill before we had a chance to take the test for the driver's license. It was our mastering the skill that mattered, the State's opinion of this by printing out a shiny little object one can carry in the wallet is secondary. The act of driving and transporting oneself and their property was the primary Ethical requirement of the individual: In order for the individual to expect to increase the value of their own future. By the very fact that 15-year-old unlicensed drivers do not create havoc in the streets, we can see that the magic document is not the social cure-all the State claims it has the power to create. As usual, the state does not create the metaphysical reality of the universe. Instead, it pretends it does and forces us to comply, by threat of death.

Assuming then, one is willing to bend to the coward's gamble and say: Okay, sure you want to make sure the guy using his own property in his own manner understand things like right of way, striped lines, yellow lines, and street signs; fine. We'll ask him and if he does, give him a document to indicate that he passed it; its called a diploma.  Like all diploma's it has no expiration date. One does not need to go back to High School at sixty years old and re-validate that they graduated from high school; does not need to go back and prove they still know the twenty-six letters of the alphabet; that two plus two still equals four. The whole idea of a license is absurd, because it is apparent, that the skills earned from that institution were real and the subsequent years have only strengthened those very real skills.

What is worse is that the State requires that these licenses be renewed. How is that even possible? This is the sort of Kantian absurdity we live under, where the State defines reality. A license being only valid for a period on a calendar some how indicating that the possessor has the skill, but when the fictional document comes to its ends, is the State implying that the skills have been lost too?  After all, if the point of the license is to verify proficiency, then by ending the license, the State is saying they no longer agree with their opinion of proficiency? Has the driver suddenly, on a particular date, come to the end of their skill?

It's illogical, but it is supposed to be. This is because the license is not truly a document of proficiency, but a totalitarian tool to control the behavior of people. The use the coward's gamble, because they fear the actions of their neighbors, and thus force a behavior on them by the act of creating a fictional worst case where they apply a fictional construct called a license to fix the whole false view.