As I go about this struggle to secure a license, having lived without one for almost 3 months as of this writing, I'm starting to develop some peculiar insights.

Around 1981, I took courses to learn how to drive. My goal was to obtain a driver's license, which was proof that I knew how to drive safely. That is, after all, what possession of a driver's license proved. I believed that ever since 1981, but now I have my doubts.

Last month I got a call from my insurance agent, and he told me his company policy was to not renew insurance for people that do not have a driver's license. I have a really good letter ready to go to them, to show them that it's not my fault I have no license, and I really am a good customer and a safe driver, and I was even a bit optmistic that I could get an exception from them. That optimism might be a bit naive.

It occures to me that insurance companies want me to have a driver's license, not to prove I know how to drive safely, but so that they can keep tabs on me. If I have a driver's license, then any speeding ticket or DWI or any other driving infraction will appear in a file which they will see. Then they will be able to either raise my insurance premiums or cancel my policy. So a driver's license is not so much a license as much as a file. It's a file that's kept by the government, and it's purpose is to maintain a record of someone's driving history. Of course one's traffic violations would be the only thing to make it into the file, so we can accurately say that a driver's license is proof of the existance of a government held record of someone's criminal driving activity.

That's right. The government is saying that I'm not allowed to drive because I have not adequately cooperated with their efforts to open a reliable record of my criminal driving history. Everyone that has a driver's license has such a record on file with the state. Such a criminal file might be empty, but it is a criminal file nonetheless.

So why do they want an SSN? Yes, it's for identification, but not to prove that I really am who I say I am. They want an SSN so they can check it against one or more databases to find out if I already have a license, either here in Pennsylvania or in some other state. You see, some people have thwarted the state's filing system by getting 2 or more licenses, thus opening up 2 or more files on that person's criminal driving history. They report one of the licenses to the insurance company, and they use the other(s) whenever they receive a traffic citation. That way the insurance company never finds out about their accumulated points. When they say they require the number to prevent fraud, that's the fraud they mean. SSNs, as unique personal identifiers, help the state maintain more accurate files on each driver's criminal driving activity.

On one of my letters to my state legislator, I suggested that they pass a law making 2 types of licenses. One that would be a regular license, and the other for people like me that would say "Not to be used for Identification". When I wrote that I thought they didn't want to issue fake ID's to people, which they certainly don't, and for that purpose my suggestion is a really good idea. But it also completely flies in the face of the whole point of having driver licenses. If people could get non-ID licenses without SSNs, then the state would be less certain that it was accurately tracking the driving habits of it's citizens.

(On a side note, since my providing an SSN would assist the state in compiling a criminal case against me, it would seem to border on a violation of my 5th Amendment right against self incrimination).

So proof that one knows the rules of the road and can safely drive is only a very small part of what licenses are all about. Auto insurance companies like the SSN requirement idea because it allows them to keep a more watchful and reliable eye on our driving habits. I should therefore, probably be little more cautious in bringing my insurance company in on this matter (though I have no choice). My plea could fall on ears hostile to any thought of one's right to privacy.

Conclusion: Licenses are for government record keeping of each driver's criminal driving activity, and have very little to do with proving one has the ability and knowledge to drive safely.

February 1, 1999

All information presented here is done so under the protection of the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and article I section 2 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Furthermore, as established in the famous trial of William Penn in August 1670, and contrary to the unlawful instructions given by most American judges, in addition to judging the facts of a case, juries also have the right and duty to pass judgement on the law (meaning they may acquit a violator of the law if they believe the law in question is unconstitutional, immoral, just plain stupid, or if the penalty is deemed too harsh). Juries are also lawfully free to vote according to their conscience, above all other considerations.