I thought I might offer this to younger people (and a lot of older peolple too) as a way to clarify issues as well as to get thinking in a liberty-oriented way: question the necessity of the rule.
Boil everything down as basic as you can, and ask yourself why this is necessary.
For example, driver's licenses. In my state, the government is soon going to enact a fee on driver's licenses. But this jarred me; why does the state have the ability to sell me the right to drive my car? What business is it of theirs to grant me driving priveleges?
The conclusions are twofold: Firstly, the practice of driving was originally a right (for those who had cars), and the government unnecessarily turned it into a privelege they could grant to those they wanted to. Secondly, a common answer is that the state mandates licenses in order to make the roads safer for everybody. However, when you think about it, this is not true. Young drivers who want to drive will simply do so without a license. They do this for the same reasons older people whose licenses have been revoked will still drive; because the license is not the reason people drive, and drive safely. Another comment to make proving the license is not the motivating factor is that plenty of people have their licenses, and get in accidents nonetheless.
Hopefully, when asked if driver's licenses are necessary, with a little thought the answer is No, driver's licenses were unnecessarily put into use and have little to no effect on the safety of driving.
Phew! Looks longer when I write it out!