Pushing aside all the double-speak in the bureaucrat's rule books, in search of the elusive truth, we become aware of many previously accepted ideas such as a person needing a driver's license before they can legally operate a car on the streets or highways. That, too, is a rule -- not a law. We might even call it a myth. The same is true of the popular misconception that one must have a pilot's license before legally flying an airplane. Still another myth is the argument used to promote "mandatory seat belt use" in autos -- those advocates often refer to aircraft passengers being "required by law to use seat belts."
The truth is that you do not have to have a pilot's license to fly an airplane except at certain major, designated airports, such as Los Angeles International, Chicago O'Hare, New York's Kennedy Airport and several others. To fly the plane you must know the rules and you have a responsibility to abide by them for the sake of public safety. Contrary to popular opinion, Pilots do not need to be licensed by the government, unless they are flying passengers for hire.

MANDATORY SET BELT MYTH
The seat belt story is equally untrue. According to the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR's):
No. 91.14 FASTENING OF SEAT BELTS
(a) Unless authorized by the Administrator--
(1) No pilot may take off or land a U.S. Registered civil aircraft (except free balloons that incorporate baskets or gondolas and airships) unless the pilot in command of that aircraft ensures that each person on board has been NOTIFIED to fasten his safety belt.
The term "pilot in command" is part of the double-talk the bureaucrats have developed to further their controls over the public. A "pilot" and a "pilot in command" is not the same thing. The pilot in command is one who is flying an aircraft with passengers, usually for hire, and to do that you are required to have a Pilot's Certificate, a Medical Certificate and certain aircraft ratings and experience. Even then, the aircraft crew is not required to ensure that you buckle up. All the FAR's require is that you be "notified" to buckle up. Of course, your friendly airline insurance underwriter certainly has some policy provisions which limit their liability if the crew does not require you to fasten your seat belt.
Don't misunderstand! This is not to say that seat belts are not a great idea -- especially in airplanes. It is unlikely that you could find a pilot anywhere who does not understand the necessity of seat belts in his aircraft. However, the public is being conned into believing that government can make seat belt use mandatory in autos when they cannot even make their use mandatory in aircraft (except for pilot and crew).
Again, recall that a regulation is not a law. There are NO EXCEPTIONS to a valid law. In the case of seat belt use there are numerous exceptions; Taxi cabs, school buses, delivery trucks, public buses -- the list goes on.
Lee Iacoca, former CEO of Chrysler Motors and once considered a serious contender for the office of President of the U.S.A., advocated seat belt legislation which would REQUIRE everyone to wear seat belts while in a passenger car -- driver and passengers. In his best selling autobiography, "Iacoca," he pointed out that his enthusiasm for seat belt legislation dated back to 1956. Much of his emphasis was placed on the lives he claimed would be saved when people are FORCED to wear seat belts. But a few pages later in his book he admits that as the head of a major auto manufacturing firm, such legislation could save his company many millions of dollars in lawsuit judgements paid each year because of accidents and subsequent deaths due to defective equipment.
Iacoca opposed the Federal mandate ordering manufacturers to install automatic airbags in vehicles. He argued that a certain number are bound to fail and then the manufacturer would be sued. But, seat belts are unlikely to fail and if people are injured who are not wearing them, no matter how unsafe the vehicle might be, the unbuckled person will be considered to have contributed to their own injury by not using the safety belt. The auto makers' product liability would be substantially reduced. Many advocates of mandatory seat belt use are not just concerned with safety. They want to violate the rights of the people by mandating an action. The purpose is somewhat self-serving -- Iacoca's own admission. Insurance companies have found that passage of so-called "mandatory seat belt laws" allows them a defense of "contributory negligence" if someone is injured because they did not comply.
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) announced that "people riding in the back seat of a car might be safer if they did not wear a seat belt." The statistics show that people wearing lap belts in the back seat are often injured more seriously than the back seat passengers who are not buckled up. Who should they sue? The NTSB and others previously insisted that all passengers would be safer if they wore a seat belt. Laws (rules) have been passed in some states which supposedly require every-one to buckle up. Now the experts admit they were wrong about back seat passengers. Could they also be wrong about the front seat passengers? Isn't this really a matter for each individual to decide?
My own mother was killed when she was thrown from a vehicle in an accident and died when her head struck the curb. The investigating officer said she died because she wasn't wearing a seat belt. However, he also stated that my ex-wife, who was driving, and another passenger, would have probably have been killed or seriously maimed if they had been buckled up.
A young girl who had the distinction of rolling-over two cars before she turned 18 (rotten driver) lived because was thrown clear of the car and would have been crushed if she had her seat belt on. But in the second roll-over she had her seat belt on and it did save her life. The decision to buckle-up really is a personal one.
When you see a sign that says "Buckle Up, Its Our Law" there is a good chance that there is a law which requires state employees to wear their seat belts. That's legal! To order a private citizen to buckle up is not a valid law! Remember, if there is an exception to the "law" it is a rule unless you volunteer. People in taxis, on buses, in motorhomes, driving delivery trucks and numerous others (including children on school buses) are seldom "required" to wear seat belts. But, such so-called laws are favorites for insurance companies who want to claim "contributory negligence" because they know that half the people will not buckle up!


YOUR DRIVER'S LICENSE
Does possession of a driver's license make a person a better driver? Does lack of a driver's license make one less qualified to drive?
There was a young woman in St. Paul, Minn., who tried to learn how to drive when her husband went into the Navy at the start of World War II. She paid 25-cents and got a license (no testing back then). She did manage to get the car moving in a forward direction on occasion. She was intimidated by the family car and refused to get behind the wheel except in an emergency. She estimates she drove less than 100 miles before her husband returned home in 1945 and resumed all the driving chores. She never got behind the wheel of a car again.
Forty years later she still had in her possession, a valid Minnesota Driver's License. Since she never received a ticket for a traffic violation, the state automatically renewed her license just by having her mail in a few bucks every four years, and having her eyes checked.
Another man refuses to submit to any prior restraints by the government and, as a result he has been driving for the past ten years without a driver's license. He estimates he puts on over 15,000 miles a year and has never received a ticket during that time.
Which driver would you rather encounter on the streets? The lady who cannot drive but has a license -- or the man who is a good driver but refuses to apply for a license?
When you apply for a driver's license you are agreeing, in advance, to comply with all the rules and regulations the legislature and the Motor Vehicle Department (MVD) may make regarding that license and your operation of a motor vehicle. You are not REQUIRED to have a driver's license. You apply for it VOLUNTARILY -- therefore your rights are not violated if the Motor Vehicle Department suspends your license for any non-discriminatory reason they choose. You agreed when you applied for the license.
Keep in mind that prior to 1954 some states didn't even issue driver's licenses and most did not recognize the licenses of other states. When a person was stopped for a traffic violation, if the officer did not know that they were local, he would arrest them and take them before a magistrate who set their bond or fined them on the spot. The acceptance of a driver's licenses issued by a State has made the license a virtual "get out of jail free" card. If you have one, the cop will let you sign the ticket. If you don't have one, he will arrest you for the violation and take you to the judge.
The problem is that most law enforcement people and judges do not realize that you are not a criminal if you refuse to carry around that driver's license. The Driver's License has become a virtual National Identity Card. Possession of the license usually tells the officer that your license has not been revoked by the Courts.
If, via due process in a Court of proper jurisdiction, you are found guilty of reckless and unsafe operation of a motor vehicle, the court can order you to stop driving for a period of time and further order that you will not drive until you have passed reasonable tests of your ability and competency (MVD driver's tests). If you drive contrary to such a valid court order, you can be jailed for contempt of court. While you are under the court's jurisdiction (probation is usually involved) the court can even order you to refrain from driving without a valid, state issued driver's license in your physical possession.
The burden of proof is on the government. You do not have to prove in advance that you are a safe driver before you drive. The law has the burden of proof to show that your operation of a motor vehicle endangers the public safety.
The lower courts are continuing the double-speak game and have most lawyers and the public convinced that "driving is a privilege" and not an inherent right. Privileges can be revoked. What the courts actually say is that your "Driver's License is a Privilege" which may be suspended or revoked. It is a privilege offered to you by your State government which permits you to volunteer to accept the burden of proof and let them test you in advance. What the State giveth the State may taketh away! You cannot be required (except by court order) to have a driver's license in order to exercise your freedom to travel about in this nation by the most popular means of transportation available to you (your car) free of unreasonable restraint or harassment by government agents.
If you have a driver's license, your rights cannot be violated if MVD suspends or revokes it (unless you can show actual discrimination). With or without a driver's license, you are required to abide by the traffic safety regulations. The state passes most of those regs to protect the safety of the public. It has that authority and can enforce REASONABLE traffic laws under its police powers. The purpose of traffic control regs is to expedite the safe and orderly flow of traffic -- such laws are reasonable.
In fact, all those traffic regulations (stop signs, speed limits, turns, etc.) are based on one principle law: "No person shall operate a vehicle on the streets and highways without exercising due regard for the safety and occupancy of said streets and highways." The violation of traffic regulations are prima-facia evidence that you are in violation of the principle law.
If you own an airplane and don't know how to fly it, you would be a dead fool if you were to get behind the controls and try to take off without instruction. Any unsafe action on your part can result in a charge being made against you in a court of law and the court can convict you of endangering the public safety -- if that is what you did. But if you do know how to fly an airplane and you know the rules and do not fly in a manner which endangers the public safety, you cannot be required to have a pilot's certificate. The burden of proof remains on the government, as it should be.
If you think it is okay to leave things as they are regarding the application for licenses and permits, keep in mind that such programs will be expanded. Bureaucrats are seldom content with just so much power. They usually want to control everything. Among the areas you can look forward to find efforts at "licensing" will be small boat operators, journalists, preachers and the kid who cuts your lawn. Everything must be controlled according to bureaucratic procedure. The enabling act passed by Congress to enforce the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement (and subsequently NAFTA), provides that professionals working in a foreign country must have authorization from their respective Attorneys General or Secretary of Labor. Doesn't that sound like the start for licensing of journalists?
It should only be a matter of time before insurance companies refuse to write liable and slander insurance for the media unless they meet the approval of the Free Trade Agreements (treaties). The government is prohibited from licensing journalist under the First Amendment, but those insurance firms can make any rule they want. Not too many CEOs of multi-million dollar TV, radio and news organizations will want to operate with un-insured journalists.
In fact, the day when you will have to have a National Identity Card (similar to a state issued driver's license or ID card) complete with your Social Security number, may not be too far off. Legislation to supposedly help the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) control illegal aliens will subsequently necessitate each of us to have such a card if we want to work, cash a check or prove identity for any purpose (Chapters 12 & 15).
In the 1990's, after several terrorist threats to airlines, the U.S. Government required all airlines to demand that all passengers produce photo ID. Nobody complained during such a crisis, so in 1996, the airlines started applying the edict on their own, demanded government issued ID, and blamed the government. The airlines like the idea of making sure that nobody transfers the return portion of their airline ticket to another person. Now you must conform to carrying government issued ID or you can't travel on airlines.