It's a matter of Public safety (or General Welfare if you want to get Constitutional). Getting a driver's license shows that you have the minimum skills necessary to safely operate a motor vehicle on public roads. Legal liability for any accidents/injuries/deaths falls to the landowner as a case of negligence - perhaps even gross negligence. Since the States own the land and build the vast majority of roads, the individual States reduce their liability by requiring licenses.

It's the same reason we control air traffic: it's a matter of coordination in order to provide safety. We can certainly argue about the way such coordination is organized and implemented, but I don't think anyone is going to make the case that such order is unnecessary.

"My position is fully consistent. Not only the post office, but streets, roads, and above all, schools, should all be privately owned and privately run."
--Ayn Rand, Playboy interview 1964

Technically, there is no right to drive. There is a right to cross interstate boundaries, but method of conveyance isn't included.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ugpg8...

Bingo!
This noisy dino had a hunch you are one of those quiet Gulchers who have been here longer than me.
Clicked on your moniker to see. Bingo again.

Drivers' licenses were not required - back in my father's time. When did they start being required?

On the other hand, there was a brief push in CA, back in the 1970s, to make people register their horses and get a 'rider license'. I recall pictures with a paper license plate tied to the top of a horse's tail. No one did it, and the attempt died quickly.

I think it is a rebuttable premise that there would be poorer driving and more accidents without licensing than there is with it. Does anyone have data on this?

Jan

The same way they own the property you live on while you only own the real estate.

Property taxes are the rent owed for yor use of their property.

Your taxes personally paid for less than the footprint of 1 tire off your car, if you would like to drive on the rest of the roadway you have to play by the rules.

Sounds like a good plan to me.

How could "they" own the roads that we paid for. I think we own them. So, no license necessary.

It's a mix of personal liberty and property rights.

You have the right to travel, they own the property and have the right to say how it will be used.

In this case if you want to operate a motor vehicle on the road they demand you be properly licensed, registered, and insured.

You don't want to do that and you have two feet, start walking.

Have you seen a recent episode of COPS, lately?

Most of the bozos they pull over already either don't have licenses or they're suspended.

Maybe it's already a movement.

Taxes are needed to build and maintain roads. Not rocket science. You can drive any thing you want unlicensed on private land. Minimum qualification make sense to drive a 4000 lb contraption at 60 mph on a public road for very obvious safety reasons.

I recall reading previosly about your DL renewal woes. Give them Hell, Lady!!

Government employees on a power trip. Probably union-protected to boot. They can't be fired no matter how much they abuse their position or are incompetent. This seems to be true in any government position, top to bottom. State, federal or local.

Does the Odometer in your car register your speed when you are baking up. Mine doesn't. I want one.

politicians say there is no constitutional right to drive a car

they call it a "privilege"
this way they can tax you and call it "safety'

It's a bit difficult to understand why DPS hires dumb people to give the tests who are making up their own rules and not adhering to the Texas Traffic Code.