Who will license drivers?

Since handing out driver’s licenses is clearly not one of government’s tasks, (driver’s licensing has little to do with owning the road), in a stateless society the only interested party would handle driver’s licensing: insurance companies. After all, if someone can’t drive, they probably cause lots of accidents costing the insurance company lots of money; causing them to demand proof of skill before they grant a driver’s license. (Translated from the official Dutch title, literally “evidence of driving skill”).
Hold on, one might say: wouldn’t a rich guy just drive without insurance and expevt to pay for any damages he causes out of pocket? (Perhaps injuring or killing people)
Well: in a stateless society the wealth would likely be distributed more evenly, because the opportunities to become rich would be equalized: there would be no ridiculous licensing requirements to open a business anywhere, no crony capitalism (see (1) below).
But apart from the fact that everybody would be more or less equally rich:
Some road owners (remember: businesses may run an access road to their business to get customers to be able to reach them), will refuse such drivers access to their roads, making their car useless, as well as harmless.
This is another balancing check to ensure that people actually pass driver’s exams before they go on a drive.
This will ensure sufficiently high standards for safe road conditions. And those standards will not be set ridiculously high, or nobody will pass their exams, meaning that THAT insurance company will not be able to sell car insurance, if only because nobody will try to buy it from THEM, they will seek out a different insurance company, that may have slightly higher rates because actually selling insurance would mean they occasionally have to pay out, raising costs, which will have to be paid by consumers.
This will see to it, that it will not be unduly difficult to pass a driving exam.

(1): this does not mean that in stateless society there would be heavy industry in rural housing communities, polluting the heck out of the neighbours: because, once again, interested parties (the neighbours), would object to having their interests harmed, by noisy, smelly petro-industry, noisy, hazardous big rigs driving to and fro, carrying heavy cargo.

In short, the current situation, where the government owns the roads and grants (ocasionally) driver’s licenses, is wrong on so many counts, that it is just another reason to embrace statelessness: the government does get a lot of its loot from taxing driving/car sales/ownership and not spending that money on building enough roads, but still they are not strongly incentivised to pass standards of decency on their monopolist driver’s licensing agency because being a totalitarian dictatorship, they can raise taxes on whatever they want, and still get their money from the citizenry.

While it’s  true that the Dutch CBR, Central Bureau for Driver’s Licensing (yes, comrsde, thst is its actual name), is a private business, they are not a true market operator, because they have a government monopoly, and follow government’s rules, so they are as close to a government agency as it gets, without strictly legally being one. Being the government that makes and changes the laws, has its perks.

Why the resistance to making room for new roads?

(This applies to the preparations for the Dutch #Betuwelijn. I Kknow that’s old hat, but it gells quite nicely with futile objections against statelesness, so,this makes alfor a new way to,undrrmine the “Who’ll make the roads”-argument against #anarchism)

“Without the state, who would make the roads?”

That is a common objection to statelessness, in fact it’s so common that I’ve given it its very own category on this blog. So, why do some people hinder the building of roads / railways?
Again, it’s because these are done by the state, in the only way a state knows how: using blunt force and supreme arrogance: presenting people with a fait-accompli: there is going to be a new railway over here” and the crappy village where you and your ancestors have been living for goodness knows how many generations is in the way, so is going to be leveled.
“Out of the goodness of our hearts we’ll pay you this (ahem) generous amount of money, so you’ll get out of our glorious way”. Now get lost and let us have our way! This is a democracy, meaning you’ll have to listen to us!

Is it any wonder the inhabitants of that village fight even heavily armed police-bulldozers willing to risk the legal and health consequences that redistance entails? No, of course it isn’t! That’s why the roads stand a better chance of being built WITHOUT eminent domain. Asking nicely is a much better strategy. The state being at the top of the list of hateful crap, for most, is always going to have problems supplying any goods it hasseized the monopoly power on, because of exactly,that: they have SEIZED monopoly power, and they abuse that monopoly, by forcing people to sit in traffic jams, instead shouting thst thry should go by train.