Stop Signs and Liberty
Something as seemingly innocuous as a stop sign can become the occasion for the use of terrible violence and terrible oppression. And think about it: we are talking about local government that is especially sensitive to public opinion. If we see corruption here, what about at the national level, where the citizens are nothing but an abstraction?
So, no, I have no problem with making the stop sign a symbol of the fight. It shows that even the least objectionable aspects of the state can mask despotism and that we should think hard -- very hard -- before ever ceding control of even the smallest parts of life to the state. FULL ARTICLE
Comments (44)
Cousin
Cannon to right of him,
Cannon to left of him,
Cannon behind him,
Volley'd and thunder'd;
Storm'd with (radar)shot and shell,
While sign and state fell,
He that had fought so well
Came thro' the jaws of Death,
Back from the mouth of hell,
Published: July 14, 2009 8:13 AM
Tyler
Knowing government if a large corporation wishes to build a road privately they'll invoke eminent domain and swindle the landholders. I guarantee it. I cannot support the privatization of roads with eminent domain still in the arsenal of government. Building new roads is a difficult task especially in heavy urban areas such as Dallas and not everyone is willing to sell their house and move. It's not right for the government to use eminent domain and it's not right for a company to use it either.
Freedom of movement is a constitutional right. PUBLIC roads safeguard this.
Published: July 14, 2009 9:01 AM
Brad
The sudden privatization of roads is not going to happen - too much money to be made for the State and its cohorts.
Since there are going to be State made roads, and there are going to be dangerous intersections, there is a place for stop signs as a precaution to people who are driving, particularly strangers to the area. But that only had "cache" when they were sparsely used. Once we advanced well into our corporo-fascistic, litigation laden society, more and more stop signs had to be put up even in the remotest of places so that "proper" allocation of fault could be distributed. "Who came from which controlled stop?" "Who had a right of way?" "Who is 51% responsible and who is 49% (or worse who is 100% and who is 0% simply due to a sign)?" The yield sign has gone by way of the dinosaur replaced with definitive stop signs for this reason. Uncontrolled intersections likely keep interventionists awake nights.
And so stop signs and their endless advancement is emblematic of the world we live in. Everything has to be controlled, like the fairly simple act of driving. One stop sign on every corner. Four way stops at every crossroad. And god forbid you don't come to a complete stop, turn off your engine, get out of the car, and toss your keys down a sewer grate just to be extra safe.
Which then leads to the next issue, that ANY behavior perfectly sensible within the facts and circumstances like little or no traffic, is license for another advancement of the State. The simple act of treating a stop sign as a yield sign when there is hardly anyone else about is a "blow against the empire". The individual is not allowed any latitude in making judgements. It is not up to them to weigh the realities of a given moment and behave appropriately. Non-compliance with even the most far reaching law is not allowed. Rolling through a stop sign, then, is seen as the same as going 100 miles an hour down mainstreet in a drunken stupor. Of course it's not and the State tacitly admits as much when such infractions are treated in such a blase and bureaucratic manner. You don't even have to show up at the hearing, just put down an amount of "bond" and if don't show up, you're automatically guilty and the bond pays the fine. Don't want to hassle people too much, I guess to force them to show up at the "trial".
So it's a combination of conditioning people to take whatever the government wants to hand out, gridding out every last inch of three dimensional space for the insurance industry to calibrate who is going to have to come up with what in claims, and a cash cow for the local thugs to pad the budget shortfalls. Speaking on the last one I find it not so coincidental that I see more and more cruisers parked hither and yon lately, just as State and local budgets are "suffering". Another sign of the advancement of the State - cast the net far and wide, and it can be used to different degrees depending on need. It is this that has most libertarians cautious about the necessity of advancing the State - once it is all and everything there is not guarantee to what ends it will be used and for whom.
I have no problem yielding to authority. I am not an anarcho-capitalist, mostly out of realism that there will always be a State. It is just how cavalier both the left and right can be in allowing for the endless advancement of State function. If a little bit is good, then a little more must be better. And even a little more better yet (allowing for a collective neurosis to become "good public policy"). Accepting a State that has a few well written laws to protect life and property seems to be a good compromise between the ideal of complete individualism and a Statist Dystopia. Unfortunately we are much further down the road to the latter than the former.
I put it this way - the government long ago made just about every law necessary to protect life and property. Granted with technological change they need to be freshened up a bit as laws can be defined within the technological reality in which they are made. So MAYBE we add a few new laws (replacing old laws), at every level, every so often. But the laws and regulations and the creep of control has gone well beyond simply preserving life and property. It is bureaucracy pushing the envelope of "caution" insanely far to basically justify its existence, both with the legislative and executive branches.
Basically it's not the fact that some stop signs exist, it is the fact that they have advanced to every street corner. It is symbolic of every advancement in Statism in the name of safety. Every law requiring smoke detectors every three feet in every house. That railings in houses MUST be three feet high. That every room in a half finished basement MUST have a step of a given height below the window. Every toy marketed to age group X MUST meet internationally defined requirements. One person in a million dies with three feet of a product, it must be recalled. The list goes on and on. Every last aspect of our lives now has a proverbial stop sign planted right on it. And individual common sense will not be tolerated. The trial lawyers and insurance companies have leveled the field and planted the seeds, and neurotic Pols and bureaucrats handle the rest.
So what approach needs to be taken? Holding perfect anarcho-capitalist ideals is fine as a starting point. In the real world of Statism, then, libertarians best bet is try and convince people that no amount of Statism completely does away with risk. Even with laws to protect life and property, the individual is the first line in their own defense. No policy or law is completely efficacious. There will always be risk and bad happenstances, and no amount of laws and precaution can make them not be. And so the idea is to spread the concept that more and more laws and regulations beyond a certain point has little net gain in safety. Trading huge amounts of liberty for an infinitesimal gain in safety/efficiency is nonsensical. If we are going to have a State, then on a scale of 1-10 a 3 is sufficient to preserve live and property without giving up too much liberty. We, unfortunately, are at about an 8 right now heading squarely in the wrong direction. Getting people to face their existential fears and not demand to codify every aspect of every individual's life is the key. Perhaps itself not easy, but offering completely outside the box concepts is not a good starting point. Were not going to go from level 8 with an up arrow to 0 in a heartbeat. Let's get to a 5 relatively soon and work on 2 or 3 from there. If we don't work within reality we are likely headed for a 10 within 5-10 years.
Published: July 14, 2009 9:10 AM
Matt
"The private road would be devoted to serving the customers, not looting them at the point of a gun"
I learned that lesson years ago.. I was stopped at midnight for going through an amber light that the policeman said was red. There was no other traffic at the time except I and the hidden, watchful and eager policeman.
I went to court on that one in the mistaken belief of Justice.. seems revenue was more important than Justice. I will not make that mistake again, in the future I will pay and contribute to the loot. It will be easier, I and many others were and are in the same situation, I will remember that bitter taste for a very long time.
Beware though in these financially strapped times the pressure on the Police will be greater than ever to produce the goods. Happy Motoring.
Published: July 14, 2009 9:32 AM
newson
"and the sign said 'long-haired freaky people need not apply...'"
five man electrical band - still great after all these years.
Published: July 14, 2009 10:06 AM
Tim Kern
The stop sign was not removed by "the authorities." It was stolen.
It adorns a kid's basement. After a short while, he won't pay it any attention, either.
Published: July 14, 2009 10:18 AM
Cramchakl
Brad,
Thank you for bringing a reasonable viewpoint to a forum often wrought with ridiculous hyperbole and fantastic imaginings of a stateless world. I usually find myself depressed when coming here and seeing such strong minds marginalizing themselves and their opinions by arguing for the least likely options when I think giving an inch could gain a mile in terms of acceptance and credibility.
Also, could someone please explain why they think a private road owner is any less likely to exploit their customers with the enforcement of ill-placed traffic signage? The general "people" accept this behavior in the name of safety from the State; why not from a Road Baron? I expect an answer like, "We'll find another route and the Road Baron will go out of business." Like you could now, to avoid $1000 in fines, but don't?
Published: July 14, 2009 10:24 AM
SweetLiberty
Many libertarians seem lost in the balance between order and chaos, favoring chaos in every instance. Railing against stop signs and the police that enforce the rules of the road rings hollow without presenting a viable alternative. I am a husband and a father. Taking my family on the road is statistically one of the most dangerous things I can do. I am a danger to others and am endangered by others whenever I get behind the wheel. It is a common set of rules that provides us all with a modicum of safety. Abolish these rules, and only those that drive like Mad Max will dare the streets.
I’m all for privatizing what can be privatized, but this does not equate to the elimination of laws and their proper enforcement. On the one hand, we want our laws to be impartial and fair. On the other hand, we demand our police and judges exercise common sense. But common sense is often completely arbitrary and subjective, and what seems reasonable to officer 1 is a concept officer 2 is incapable of grasping. To solve this dilemma, we should insist that all laws be enforced completely and without exception. Then, if the majority of citizens find the law unjust, its penalties can be modified or the law (or stop sign) may be abolished all together. But bemoaning the fact that laws change does not make the case for anarchy.
Published: July 14, 2009 10:30 AM
Kevin
When I drove in Korea, there was a grand total of 1 (ONE) stop sign that I encountered in the entire island of Jeju, and that was on a sharp incline that intersected with a highway.
Most three way and four way intersections were uncontrolled, and a few of the bigger ones were controlled with lights. Many less-busy intersections were controlled with only flashing yellow in all four directions, which, unlike flashing yellow in North America, means slow down and prepare to stop since the cross direction also has a flashing yellow.
At no point did I ever feel like I was in danger while driving; in fact, it was very relaxing not having to focus so much on the arbitrary rules and focus more on actually DRIVING.
That being said, I'm not sure it can apply here because there also seemed to be many less aggressive drivers in Jeju. I think, combined with stricter licensing, that fair road rules can work and that we don't need to put a stop sign on every single four-way and three-way intersection like is done in almost every newer suburb around here, nowadays.
Published: July 14, 2009 10:57 AM
Brent
I once got a ticket for making a right on a red light (on a Sunday morning with no traffic), but only because I saw the tiny NEW sign only after I had started pulling out.
1 month later, the "no right turn on red" signs were removed. Bet they made a killing in the month or so that they were up.
Published: July 14, 2009 11:22 AM
Timothy
"All 'law-abiding citizens' must change with the arbitrary dictate of the traffic masters."
Jeffrey, I've just finished re-reading 1984, and I think you have forgotten that there was never any stop sign at that intersection.
Published: July 14, 2009 11:23 AM
Geoffrey S.
"Government is not reason; it is force."
You realize this with the most trivial of violations like getting arrested for giving a pedicure without a license, or, in my case, getting a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt. You take something like that to court and you realize these guys make up anything they can get away with. Reason only comes into play when assessing the costs of public backlash.
Published: July 14, 2009 11:27 AM
David Spellman
Tyler,
Which article of the constitution are you referring to when you say, "Freedom of movement is a constitutional right?"
"Jeffrey, I've just finished re-reading 1984, and I think you have forgotten that there was never any stop sign at that intersection."
Not only that, you never paid a fine or spent a day in jail, either. Stop imagining things you wild-eyed, wacko libertarian!
Published: July 14, 2009 11:35 AM
greg
The problem is not the stop sign, it is people that think their time is so important that they don't have to stop. I have a news flash, you are not that important! Slow down, enjoy the ride, you reach your destination on time. And please, make all of your telephone calls before you get into your car!
Published: July 14, 2009 11:42 AM
Tim
The valid reason for Stop signs is the determination of Right-of-way - not commanding people to a complete stop.
Yield signs make so much more sense - in the case of actual property damage the determination of fault is clear and yet there is no arbitrary enforcement because the responsibity is on the driver to actually drive responsibly. Stop signs should be replaced by Yield signs. Four-way Yield intersections work great, everybody slows down but nobody has to stop - they are a lot more effecient to get through. Responsibility is Freedom - Yield signs would increase the freedom to drive.
Published: July 14, 2009 11:46 AM
End the Fed
Here's the thing...what's stopping a private corporation from buying up a bunch of land, letting people "own" it but reserving the right to buy it back, hiring a "defense" force, letting people use its roads for an annual fee, and setting up certain rules for those roads? This corporation can even call people who live on its property "citizens". So you could say anybody who lives on its property is subjecting itself to the corporation's rules. The corporation can take back your land through eminent domain, but you agreed to that when you moved into the corporation's land. Now what happens if this corporation ends up owning land the size of a country?
Published: July 14, 2009 11:57 AM
Yancey Ward
Civil disobedience may explain the disappearance of the stop sign. I could imagine someone was ticketed for not coming to a complete stop at the empty intersection, got annoyed at the fine and took his revenge by returning in the dead of the night and taking the sign as repayment.
Published: July 14, 2009 12:46 PM
Curious
"The central planners make the rules, and the public be damned."
It is the public that keeps electing the central planners.
Look around you, Mr. Tucker, perhaps it's your neighbor, your coworker or who knows who, those are the people that keep voting for the central planners. Those are the ones to blame for your suffering.
Published: July 14, 2009 12:50 PM
Jonathan Finegold Catalán
Curious,
On the other hand, Mr. Tucker's neighbors do not have a choice between electing a central planner and choosing not to have central planners. We vote because the government gives us the option to do so, not because we give that option to ourselves. And, although, I do not agree with anarcho-capitalism (I agree with the concept, but I disagree with its application to reality), I can see Mr. Tucker's point.
There are some interesting passages in this article. I've wanted to make a blog entry on the topic for quite a while, and I think I will write one tomorrow. The passage in question is:
I would like to share a passage from the book Resurgence of the Warfare State (Robert Higgs):
The same is applicable to roads and stop signs. Every time a teenager runs across a major street (knowing full well the amount of traffic present) and is hit by a car, there's a collective call for government to act and "pay" (in reality, we are paying, not the government) for the installation of a stop sign or some other tool of traffic control.
In any case, I will write my blog post on the inevitability of government tomorrow (not that anybody will read it!).
Published: July 14, 2009 1:14 PM
Sean W. Malone
Curios:
Most of the central planners (my father, to some degree being one of them) aren't elected at all. Perhaps the head of the division is elected, but the vast array of people under the government officials' employ are not elected at all - obviously. So it's quite likely that not only did the person who decided to put Tucker's stop sign up not get elected, but that his neighbors and other various constituents would have no way of knowing who is responsible either way.
Personal anecdotes: I've gotten two really ridiculous tickets... one for "failure to yield", which i got crossing a street after coming to a complete stop at a stop sign, then proceeding through the intersection. There were a line of parked cars making it hard to see oncoming traffic, so i rolled forward slowly then went through as it was clear - but apparently, my judgment of the gap in traffic was not to the liking of the cop who pulled me over anyway... although, as i was only driving about 10 mph across the intersection, no one had to slow down to avoid me and no accident was caused, i have no idea how that warranted a ticket.
The other time was recently - I got pulled over in my own drive way for turning left onto my own block from a busier street at 6:55pm against a "no left turn between 4-7pm sign". Again... No accident or even slight inconvenience was caused... except of course to me. Both on the day and then later when I had to go to the Beverly Hills courthouse and pay the $160 fine.
Published: July 14, 2009 1:17 PM
Driver
The Mises Institute should run an article on libertarian traffic engineer hero Hans Monderman.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xo3KWHqmDhA
Published: July 14, 2009 1:31 PM
Jonathan Finegold Catalán
I guess I've just gotten lucky. I've only been pulled over once. I was pulled over by a female police officer, and she told me that:
1. I was speeding (and it was raining).
2. I was driving between two lanes.
3. My tail light was out.
So, I thought I had a guaranteed ticket. She asks me if I had been drinking and where I was going. So I told her "no" and "to the club". I passed a quick alcohol test, but I still thought I was going to get a fix-it ticket and a speeding ticket.
She surprisingly let me go. This must have been only three months ago.
Published: July 14, 2009 1:41 PM
Anonymous
I recently got my first traffic ticket for speeding after a decade of safe driving. I think its an indication that California is becoming much more oppressive. The state's violence against non-criminals will certainly accelerate in the hard years to come.
"Indeed, all states have gone to great pains to control rivers, coasts and seaways, streets and railroads, and especially, mail, radio, television, and telecommunication systems. Every prospective dissident is decisively restrained in his means of moving around and coordinating the actions of individuals if these things are in the hand or under the supervision of the state" (Theory of Socialism and Capitalism, pg. 155).
Published: July 14, 2009 2:30 PM
axiomata
One of my favorite libertarian quotes had to do with the demunicipalization of garbage collection. Here is how it was set up in Doherty's Radicals for Capitalism:
[William F.] Buckley mocked what he saw as the libertarians' effete and useless disengagement from the cold war, scoffing at them for shuffling off from serious geopolitics to their little intellectual seminars on demunicipalizing garbage removal.
In 1963, FEE board chairman E. W. Dykes, an Ohio architect, responded to this line of attack by taking Buckley's critique for a given and defending libertarians on those seemingly outrageous terms.
War is the culmination of the breaking of libertarian principles, not once, but thousands of times. We are challenged to jump in at this point and apply our principles to get out of the unholy mess, built up over years and years of error on errors. I suggest it would be a very little different challenge had he posed this proposition: "You are a second lieutenant. Your platoon is surrounded. Your ammunition is gone. Two of your squad leaders are dead, the third is severely wounded. Now, Mr. Libertarian, let's see you get out of this one with your little seminars.
My answer—"demunicipalize the garbage service."
Now wait, don't give me up as a nut yet. I have a point. That second lieutenant is a goner. And so is the prospect of a lasting peace until man learns WHY it is wrong to municipalize the garbage service. You can't apply libertarian principles to wrong things at their culmination and expect to make much sense. It is too fundamental. You have to start back at the very beginning and that is precisely what our little seminars are for. There are people who build for tomorrow; there are people who build for a year; there are people who look forward a generation—the libertarian, a part of the "remnant," takes the long view—he is looking forward to the time when war will be looked on as we now look on cannibalism, a thing of the past. . . . What do we do in our little seminars? We make the case for freedom which cannot coexist with interventionism. . . . Again I say: We will never end wars until we at least understand why the garbage service should be removed from the jurisdiction of the police force—that is, government. (260-1)
Published: July 14, 2009 3:13 PM
S Andrews
This article doesn't help the libertarian cause. Given your anarchist views, why do you support a constitutionalist libertarian like Ron Paul?
While there is some logic to these arguments, we are so far away from this utopia that we should be spending time discussing more practical issues.
Published: July 14, 2009 4:58 PM
Dave Kraus
Wealth is taken from me with the threat of force to build, and maintain roads that I will never traverse. Whats the difference between this, and eminent domain.
Published: July 14, 2009 5:50 PM
2nd Amendment
Sweet Liberty,
Libertarians have a Buttom-Up approach to order. Just because we are opposed to a Top-Down approach doesn't mean we want chaos and destruction everywhere.
Heck, if there were no stop signs, I would pay more attention to intersections because I would know an idiot could be just around the corner and I would have to think twice.
We libertarians think that a far superior order is achieved when every individuals is involved in creating that order, we favor the Buttom-Up approach.
We think this kind of order far surpasses any decreed order stemming from illegitimate and centrally planned authority.
Plus, if you studied your history class correctly, you would have learned that the 20th century has been the most chaotic century of all times. Vast wars and immense destruction and mass murders have taken place, all under the command of governments which were supposed to bring "order".
We believe that putting too much power in the hands of one entity is the biggest danger to order that there can be and that it creates enormous lethal chaos.
Published: July 14, 2009 6:29 PM
Bill in StL
A busy intersection in India:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjrEQaG5jPM
Not that I'm against stop signs, signals, or driving rules on principle, but here at least is an example where they seem to be doing well with a much more informal system.
Published: July 14, 2009 8:29 PM
Gil
"Even now, a quick google of 'libertarians' and 'stop signs' reveals many people on the Left and the Right who think it is just stupidly hilarious that libertarians talk about these issues."
Yep, pretty much.
Published: July 14, 2009 9:31 PM
S Andrews
Should there be a rule requiring people to drive on the right side of the road?
Published: July 15, 2009 12:02 AM
JonBostwick
S. Andrews,
People have a personal interest in driving safe, that is why there aren't more accidents then there are, not government threats of violence.
The more the responsibility for safe driving is shifted away from people and onto traffic control devices, the more death tolls will continue to rise.
It might be worthwhile to point out, for the sake of the less well informed, that objection to government rule making does not equate to objection to rules in general. Is it possible to object to the government manufacturing shoes without being opposed to shoe manufacturing in general? Same for law.
Published: July 15, 2009 12:28 AM
Thinker
S Andrews
No, there should not be such a rule. Some form of rules of the road are useful for preventing accidents, but they should be like the rules of etiquette-purely designed to keep people from getting hurt. Unfortunately, there is only one rule that is necessary (drive safely), and it is all but impossible for anyone other than the driver to generally enforce without being oppressive. "Everyone must drive on the right side of the road" is purely arbitrary and provides consistency more than actual safety, and enough exceptions to cover all possible, and "safe", reasons to violate that rule leave the rule with little reason to be enforced. Of course, the private owner of a road may think otherwise and design rules accordingly.
A few weeks ago, there was a blackout in my area in the evening. There was significant traffic, but after driving around a good bit, I saw no accidents despite the lack of illumination. I even very nearly caused one by trying to follow the state's "rules of the road" (there was a police car nearby, and I was concerned about being robbed). Police officers were only at a couple of intersections, and they actually slowed things down relative to the intersections where they were not directing traffic. Admittedly, this is only a single anecdote, but it illustrates how the state's rules are not actually necessary for driving safety.
Also, there's an interesting article dealing with road signs and traffic safety here
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.12/traffic.html
Published: July 15, 2009 12:29 AM
Curious
Jonathan Finegold Catalán:
"...Mr. Tucker's neighbors do not have a choice between electing a central planner and choosing not to have central planners."
Of course they have a choice, they can vote libertarian, no?
Sean W. Malone:
"Most of the central planners (my father, to some degree being one of them) aren't elected at all."
Who creates the jobs for them Sean? If everybody voted libertarian, would there be any central planning jobs?
Published: July 15, 2009 12:38 AM
Thinker
Curious
Most of the time, its not as simple as "vote libertarian". In most elections, there is no libertarian candidate, only a republican and a democrat, and sometimes party isn't even a variable. If you mean "vote for a libertarian (not referring to party)", there is not always that choice either, and not voting is not helpful.
And if everybody voted libertarian, then why would there be any government to speak of?
Published: July 15, 2009 12:49 AM
pbergn
Obviously Mr. Tucker has issues with the concept of the authority. What author forgets, or is honestly mistaken about is the fact that by violating traffic rules he is violating the other individuals' right to move freely without the risk of being run over or sustaining an injury...
The strange thing about the freedom that everybody tends to forget is that it is relative, and should be regarded in the context of multiple interactions of members of the given society, rather than relative to single individual...
I think Mr. Tucker would have made an excellent benevolent monarch or illustrious leader - father of the nation, as some would have called him, or someone like that... Nevertheless, I sympathize with his traffic rules-related woes...
You know, it's funny - how can Libertarians not see that the Government is simply a large corporation?
What is the difference to the little guy who is actually running the show?
The notion of private and public is purely nominal. There will always be a very small percentage of very successful entrepreneurs in the free market, who would run the show much like the government does. In fact, they are the very lobbyists influencing most of the decisions and policies carried out by the governments today...
No, honestly, what is significantly different in corporation XYZ running the roads, and manning the traffic, as opposed to the government doing the same?
Let me tell you something - if a strategic resource, such as roads turns out in private hands, it will be even worse, since now the private entity in charge has the vested interest in squeezing every penny on the dollar spent, whereas government is not driven by the day-to-day profit, since it de facto and de jure owns the coercive power and the power to create money... I think when the government is in charge, however inefficient it may be, at least it does not have that pressing need to make ever more profits, which essentially reduces the pressure on the ultimate consumers - us, the common people...
And besides, where does this conviction that private sector does everything much better come from? I have seen enough sloppy job done by very private companies, and some really high-quality work done by public and non-profit organizations...
The truth is somewhere in the middle - the balanced solution is generally the right approach to almost all issues related to social problems, such as justice...
Published: July 15, 2009 2:49 AM
thesprot
I enjoyed very much reading the article. Beautiful.
Those of you who think that a stop sign is not a big deal, are so very wrong. It is not just the stop sign, it is a range of similar traffic issues enforced by the state to "protect us", that not only do not ease transport but make it worse, and which in most cases is just plain theft, from local governments or the police department. A read on American local newspapers says everything, people being fined extravagant amounts for traffic violations that are comical in most parts of the world. What is even more obvious, from a statistical point of view is that it seems people are fined more during hard times than during boom times. That is because the states that go bust, try to squeeze the last drop of peoples blood if not through taxation than through law enforcement. That is why a stop sign is such a big deal.
Who can be more qualified in making traffic laws than the people who drive on these roads daily!. Not the state for sure or the police force. If it is the protection of their citizens they worry about than who better to control traffic laws than the people who depend and drive on them daily. If the government build those roads for the people than let people decide what traffic laws should be, each community or district can decide where stop signs should be placed and what traffic light they should have, after all it is their children who get killed daily on those roads.
Police departments and local governments who are short on cash, so they take from the people in any way they can, must not be allowed to have any control, they can only enforce the law that the people make, that's what they are paid for, not to rule but to serve, not to make the laws as they wish but to equally enforce them.
Or are we too "stupid" to know what's best for us!
How very criminally socialist of them.
Published: July 15, 2009 3:24 AM
Thinker
pbergn
"by violating traffic rules he is violating the other individuals' right to move freely without the risk of being run over or sustaining an injury..."
There is no right to move about without risk of injury. However, there is a right to move about without being injured by another person. Not stopping at a stop sign does not necessarily violate that right; only when there is actual damage caused to someone else or their property is there a violation of their rights.
"The strange thing about the freedom that everybody tends to forget is that it is relative, and should be regarded in the context of multiple interactions of members of the given society, rather than relative to single individual..."
In other words, society determines which actions are permissible and enforces its dicta through government, right? Perhaps you would care to offer some justification for submitting one's will absolutely to the collective? Would it go something like..."Resistance is Futile."?
"how can Libertarians not see that the Government is simply a large corporation?"
With a corporation, membership is wholly voluntary; whereas government oppresses people regardless of their interest in being oppressed. That's a pretty substantial distinction.
"what is significantly different in corporation XYZ running the roads, and manning the traffic, as opposed to the government doing the same?"
First, corporation XYZ must satisfy its customers in order to stay in business. Government must merely cow its subjects into handing over their money.
Second, XYZ must deal with competitors in the road business.
"if a strategic resource, such as roads turns out in private hands, it will be even worse, since now the private entity in charge has the vested interest in squeezing every penny on the dollar spent"
But the private entities (and I must emphasize the plural) cannot compel usage of their roads. If the price is too high or roads too poor, they will be used less, either as consumers turn to competitors or go driving less.
"government is not driven by the day-to-day profit, since it de facto and de jure owns the coercive power and the power to create money"
Exactly. Those are not good qualities. The government exists because it successfully robs people and eliminates any upstart robbery businesses. Last I checked, robbery was not a good thing and for a variety of reasons. And the power to create money=power to inflate the currency, reducing its value, setting off the business cycle and robbing people of their savings. Not good.
"And besides, where does this conviction that private sector does everything much better come from? I have seen enough sloppy job done by very private companies, and some really high-quality work done by public and non-profit organizations"
Potentially, but inefficient private companies must either get their act together or go out of business without grant of special privilege from the government. In the private sector, there is the risk of loss associated with failure; whereas in government, if there is loss, more money is thrown at the problem. This is not conducive to improving quality or reducing cost.
"The truth is somewhere in the middle - the balanced solution is generally the right approach to almost all issues related to social problems, such as justice"
Social problem, n., failure of the aggregate to live up to an individual's arbitrary value system.
Published: July 15, 2009 3:42 AM
vandal
I have that stop sign in my rec room now. You're welcome to it. I can go get another.
Published: July 15, 2009 6:53 AM
John Reed
Without taking away from the point of the story, I add the following:
If the intersection in question was privately owned, it would be prudent for the owner to establish a rule or a notice as to who has the right of way. Until the governmental entity gives up ownership _it_ has a prudent responsibility to establish a rule or a notice as to who has the right of way.
Granted that the "Stop" sign was an inappropriate notice, and that removal of _any_ notice or rule as to how users of the intersection should act was also inappropriate, what should the owner of the intersection do?
Perhaps a "Yield" sign for the less traveled directions would solve the problem. The "Yield" sign would provide advance notice of the potentially hazardous intersection while at the same time facilitating traffic flow. It would also establish a prima facie responsible party in the event of an accident and a defense for the owner against claims that he failed in his prudent responsibility to reduce the opportunity for accidents.
Published: July 15, 2009 10:27 AM
Michael A. Clem
And besides, where does this conviction that private sector does everything much better come from? I have seen enough sloppy job done by very private companies, and some really high-quality work done by public and non-profit organizations...
This entirely misses the point. A job "done too well", that is, that costs too much for the desired value, is just as inefficient as a job done too poorly. Government, running on taxation, has no economic feedback to know if they've done too much or too little on any particular project. Customers determine the value they desire, and how much they're willing to pay for it. A taxpayer merely complaining about a project cannot say exactly what they desire and how much they are willing to pay for it, what tradeoffs they are willing to make--this can only be seen by market action.
Published: July 15, 2009 12:09 PM
Curious
Thinker,
"...not voting is not helpful."
Why not? If the only choice is non-libertarian, I don't vote, therefore I am not responsible for the central planners' actions.
"And if everybody voted libertarian, then why would there be any government to speak of?"
Being libertarian doesn't mean no government, it means limited government, no?
Published: July 15, 2009 3:37 PM
JonBostwick
"Being libertarian doesn't mean no government, it means limited government, no?"
Being a consistent libertarian requires no government.
Published: July 16, 2009 2:15 AM
befree
In the 17th century that Jean-Baptiste Colbert (who was French Finance Minister under King Louis XIV of France) originated the suggestion that
"the art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to obtain the largest possible amount of feathers with the smallest possible amount of hissing".
When a "law" is written it obviously needs not be based on libertarian principles. Laws bring order because the super bully can keep everyone from splintering into gangs like Somalia. The laws don't bring freedom, humanity has never entered that rarefied place where free men can stop organized bullies.
All tyrants, democratic and otherwise, keep an ear to the ground to listen for hissing. That is the true check and balance the proletariat use. Plucking feathers and being the big bully is what governments do. Its about power, not right and wrong.
Even Chinese communists have learned to harness the "free market" and now they have communism with wealth.
Most probably they got rid of the sign because people acclimatized and it stopped bringing an income. They will find some other way to get you, they always do and if you hiss too loud they will throw you in jail so you don't stir up too many geese.
Published: July 16, 2009 9:37 PM
Anonymous
"Ultimately, the state is in control or we are.
There is nothing in between."
We each should be free to control our choice to take actions that are political freedoms. A limited state should control and constrain anyone who would violate a political freedom. Is that "in between?"
Organizations like the Institute have a responsibility to formulate a valid political standard to separate actions into political freedoms and violations of political freedom and to ensure the state protects the former and constrains the latter.
Published: July 28, 2009 12:35 PM