Of course auto insurance should be completely voluntary as well. Well what if somebody hits you and has no insurance and cannot afford to pay the bill? He will be forced to work off his debt to you and pay court costs most likely under the custody of the insurance company or another company. The '"loan" company would more than likely foot the bill and take the debt upon itself because the consumer would demand to be paid immediately. This is incentive enough to not drive without insurance, and if you cannot afford it, then to not drive.
Nobody needs a piece of plastic to be able to drive. Nobody needs driver's ed to be able to drive.
I guess when my parents were in a wreck 5 years ago and my dad was in a coma for a week and the bills were in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, well on their way to a cool million, the guy at fault could have just worked it off at his factory job...after he recovered from HIS injuries. Guess what -- he'd NEVER be able to pay it off, and a "loan company" would never pay the bill assuming he could -- they would be broke in no time flat, "loaning" 500 grand to a guy that makes 30 grand a year! Sure, people would have an incentive NOT to, but look at all the people drving with no insurance even though it IS a law...make it optional, and all the poor people would never buy insurance, and when you get hit by them you would be SCREWED.
You don't have to get insurance in certain states if you post a bond of a certain amount (basically proving that you are rich, have hundreds of thousands in the bank, and could pay for any and all damages you might cause or suffer...it's still not the smartest idea, I'm sure, but it's not 100% required -- there are loopholes IF you can afford it and IF you want to take the chance.
As far as licensing, you don't have to take driver's ed, it IS voluntary (at least in my state), you just have to pass a driver's test at the DMV...and it is apparently *very* easy given the fact that most people on the road drive like total morons. To make the requirements LESS stringent to be allowed to drive a car is flat-out absurd...
You don't think someone who gets picked up for 5 or 6 drunk-driving charges should have their driving privilages revoked? Kinda hard to do with no license.
I'm all for small government and libertarian ideas and all, but there's no way any of this would work at all...I thought this thread was a joke when I clicked on it, I can't believe someone is being serious.