How would you feel if this same mentality was applied to pet ownership? Having children?
It kinda is. Dogs need to be licensed, and need to have a tag showing their vaccinations are up to date. The license is a one-time thing, but shots come up every 2-5 years, depending on the shot. Dogs that are a menace or injure other people or animals are captured and held until the owner can prove responsible. The state ensures children are in school, seeing a doctor regularly, etc, and generally not being "abused". And, well... CPS. In all these cases, the owner is showing themselves taking responsibility, on a regular basis, will a fee involved.
I think it could be argued that paying for tags/registration, and with states that require it, annual inspections is the same. For all three, the government doesn't look into your performance as a pet owner, parent, or driver unless there is a concern as to your ability to be responsible. For example, a cop wouldn't inquire about you as a parent unless they see you mistreating your child in public, nor would they inquire you as a driver unless they see you driving improperly. So for the driving, you're imposing additional tests, additional challenges that imposes upon a person's ability to be a free, independent citizen in a country that often requires the burden of car ownership to be able to be fully free and independent. There is no regularly scheduled state test to be a pet owner and there is no state test to be a parent. To be honest, I'd argue that regularly scheduled state tests for all three are unfair because they impede on us.In all these cases, the owner is showing themselves taking responsibility, on a regular basis, will a fee involved.
Yes I am, because it is a social good. Not everyone should always have access to everything. So for the driving, you're imposing additional tests, additional challenges that imposes upon a person's ability to be a free, independent citizen in a country that often requires the burden of car ownership to be able to be fully free and independent.
The same arguments could be used towards anything then, from restricting someone's right to use the internet (hey, if someone's computer savy, they don't deserve to use the internet, they could be contributing to malicious botnets) to voter I.D. laws (we gotta make sure people who are voting are who they say they are). What you're proposing is an impediment, and once that impediment is in place, it can have unintended consequences. You have good reasoning behind your opinion, I'm not gonna deny you that. I will say though, that your solution is very unfair and probably pretty unreasonable. Then again, that's what makes it an unpopular opinion, huh? Kudos.Yes I am, because it is a social good.