You start off with a sleight of hand: “Without licenses or IDs, how will we track repeat offenders?” Hold on, Sparky. Nobody said people shouldn’t have ID. We’re talking about licensing. That’s not the same thing, unless you think a Costco membership card and a passport are interchangeable. An ID simply identifies who you are. A license is the state telling you that you’re not allowed to function like a normal human until you’ve first genuflected before their bureaucracy. You’re collapsing categories like a college freshman who just discovered Foucault.

If someone drives drunk, you don’t need a license to know who they are—you need police, courts, and records. That’s how we track criminals: we book them, fingerprint them, and prosecute them. Their driver’s license is just a piece of plastic with their mugshot on it, which they already ignored the moment they got behind the wheel hammered. Pretending that licenses are the tool by which we track offenders is like saying umbrellas stop rain. No, they just make you feel drier while it’s still raining.

Then you drag in your “libertarian license” story from Amish country. Okay, but you might want to notice what you just admitted: all those tailgaters flying past you at warp speed in Pennsylvania? They had licenses. State-approved, rubber-stamped, DMV-certified. And they still drove like jerks. So thank you for providing Exhibit A that licensing doesn’t solve the problem—it just gives bad drivers official permission to keep being bad drivers.

And don’t get me started on your neurosurgeon comparison. That’s apples to radioactive oranges. Driving a car is not brain surgery—it’s a daily activity millions of ordinary people do, like walking or eating. You can’t keep people off the road with “you’re not qualified” the way you can keep Cousin Eddie from performing a lobotomy with a butter knife. When you conflate those categories, you’re not making an argument—you’re just stapling together scary words and hoping nobody notices the seams.

On speech, you insist it can’t cause harm. Really? Tell that to the mobs whipped into frenzy by demagogues, or the teenage girl who kills herself because of relentless verbal abuse. Words can absolutely destroy lives. But you’d rather pretend that a careless word is harmless while a sober man driving to work is a walking catastrophe unless he’s got the DMV’s permission slip in his wallet.

Now, your kitchen knife jab. Yes, a knife in your kitchen isn’t the same as a car. True. But the principle holds: both are ordinary tools of life that carry risk. Licensing them assumes everyone is incompetent until proven otherwise. By your logic, every homeowner should have to register their steak knives with Homeland Security, because “they could kill someone.” That’s not an argument—that’s paranoia in a lab coat.

And then you wave statistics around like a magician’s handkerchief: “Licensed vs. unlicensed drivers.” Here’s the thing—most unlicensed drivers are already lawbreakers who don’t care about the rules. They didn’t cause accidents because they lacked a license; they caused accidents because they’re the sort who flout the law. That’s not a case for licensing, that’s a case for holding scofflaws accountable. If you think a laminated card would’ve stopped them, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

Finally, the clunker: “Licensing doesn’t presume guilt; it just makes you prove you know the rules.” Friend, that’s literally presuming guilt. It’s saying you’re too ignorant to be trusted until you’ve passed the government catechism. That’s like saying, “We don’t assume you’re a thief, but you must prove you’re not by letting us frisk you at every Walmart entrance.” It’s the DMV’s theology: all men are guilty until tested, signed, and stamped.

In short: IDs identify. Laws punish lawbreakers. Licensing is just the government’s way of charging rent on freedoms you already had.

Stop being a government control loving faggot. That's how we got in this mess.