First off, there is no "contract." A contract is a voluntary agreement. The State forcefully seizes property and uses it to control the roads. This is not a voluntary agreement. By getting a driver's license, you aren't entering a voluntary agreement, you are asking the State for permission to use the roads you were forced to pay for.
This whole "privilege to drive argument" is anti-intellectual, statist propaganda. If the roads were privately operated in a free-society, then you could theoretically enter a contract in which it is mutually agreed upon that you cannot use the roads of you are impaired or going over a certain speed limit. There is no mutual agreement under State control. They set the rules, and you must obey their laws.
Second, laws should not deal with risk and probabilities. You either harm someone else's natural rights, or you don't. Insurance companies deal with risk. Not government. If you have a gun, should you be arrested because you MIGHT harm someone? Intoxicated driving and speeding might be risky, but so are many activities. Once again, thousands and thousands of people are killed by people shooting guns. By simply having a gun, you are are putting people at risk, right? Isn't it a privilege to own a gun?
This is a flagrant logical fallacy. Just like millions of people who shoot guns NEVER harm anyone, millions of people drive "intoxicated" and never harm another human being. Just like a gun owner should only be a criminal the moment he harms another person, a drunk/speeder should only be a criminal the moment he harms someone with his car, or his gun, or whatever.
Third, what is this "rational" bullshit? Are you the decider of what is rational thought? Do you know the correct speed limit for everyone to drive? Should other people be arrested by the government because they are acting in a manner that is irrational to you? This is statism 101. It is not the government's role to decide what is rational.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here:
The Daily Paul is a communi