Is there no case at all for cellphones and driving?
The New York Times runs a 4,000-word article today that provides not a single contrary opinion (ok, one passing and buried comment about freedom) to the idea that talking on cellphones while driving should be banned by all governments everywhere. The tenor of the article is along the lines of: the world is not flat but round, and repeatedly expresses amazement that few governments are banning the practice.
One question that immediately popped in my own mind is this: if talking and texting are really so obviously risky and increase death and misery, why do people continue to do it? The article has this answer: "The answer, they say, is partly the intense social pressures to stay in touch and always be available to friends and colleagues. And there also is the neurological response of multitaskers. They show signs of addiction -- to their gadgets."
So there we go, the typical NYT theory that we are all as stupid as Pavlovian dogs, but governments are as smart as Pavlov.
I went googling to try to find a single dissenting word on this subject. Wikipedia (Deo Gratias!) points out that the bans have been completely ineffective but for the revenue they raise for governments. The entry also points to three studies that draw attention to the equal or greater danger of talking to passengers while driving, one of which (American Transportation Research Board) concludes that conversations with passengers should also be banned.
In any case, it does raise the question: is there no more robust case against bans? I suspect that the rational for bans is the same that we heard before alcohol prohibition in the 1920s: alcoholism is related to poverty, broken homes, crime, and every manner of social corruption, therefore it should be banned, end of story. Having read the pro-prohibition literature from that period, I experienced what might have been the frustration of the anti-prohibition forces, continually trying to explain that a society of human beings is more complicated than the prohibitionists assume but their explanations on the need for freedom fell on deaf ears in the midst of a social hysteria.
Comments (57)
Marc
It the government were concerned about safety, one obvious solution is to make the road test to receive a drivers license realistic.
Why does driving back and forth from the local post office qualify someone to navigate rush hour traffic in Atlanta?
Published: July 19, 2009 10:30 AM
Frank
Freedom to put others' lives at risk should not be protected. This is one area where I've been struggling to reconcile my Austrian bias with my need for security on the road.
The best answer would be privatization of all roads for then it wouldn't be government banning cell phone usage. Shareholders and users of private roads would feel pressure to provide the safest environment for their customers.
There are many studies, both formal and informal, showing how cell phone usage, because of the distraction it creates, leads to higher risk of accidents. Again, from published studies to Discovery's "Myth Busters", the case against talking/texting and driving is quite clear.
Anecdotal evidence also supports a ban; I've seen numerous people texting while driving on the freeway. Usually, the texters jump to the middle lane and drive about 10-15 miles slower than traffic around them and swerve in and out of the lane.
WIth over 40,000 deaths a year, driving is already dangerous enough without adding risk associated with cell phone use.
Will laws fix the problem? Probably not, and that's where any "solution" falls apart. Here in Oregon, a cell phone ban while driving goes into effect in January. But if it's not enforced, which I don't see how it can be, it won't accomplish much.
Perhaps the best tactic is education; billboards and TV spots with mangled cars from accidents where the driver had been texting might prove effective in dissuading drivers from texting and driving.
Published: July 19, 2009 10:33 AM
PMix
I hate to say it Jeffery, but I'm at least partially with Frank on this one. As long as the government continues to own the roads, it is only right that they have the power to determine what is and what is not allowed on them. I certainly would expect that some private road owners would choose to ban the use of cell phones on their roads in order to attempt to promote safe driving.
While there are certainly many good arguments against cell phone bans, it is very different than the total prohibition of alcohol consumption. Prohibition banned an activity that took place in private homes and bars and was by itself harmful to no one other than the drinker.
The one sort of breakdown of Rothbardian political philosophy is when it comes to government owned property. Since the theory decides that all government owned property, in this case roads, should not exist, it inherently can not be used as a philosophy to determine what governments ought to be able to do with their property. I personally believe that governments ought to have the power to make any decision that a private individual would if they happened to be the owner of said property.
Published: July 19, 2009 10:53 AM
Jonathan Finegold Catalán
Both countries that I live in for considerable parts of a year (Spain and the United States) have banned cellphone usage on the road. In both countries, the law was not really followed at first (although, I guess that bluetooth solved the problem, to a degree). I have texted and driven, and I can say that while I don't slow traffic (because I can do more than one thing at one time), I was not completely aware of my surroundings, either. That is, I had a greater propensity to get into an accident.
But, the deal is the same when drinking and driving (not alcohol, just drinking a soda, water, et cetera). You are not paying attention to the road when you are taking a sip. I have almost gotten into accidents twice like that. I am just good at responding quickly (I have never gotten a ticket, nor have I ever gotten in an accident). So, there are plenty of things that could be banned if the government was genuinely worried about our safety.
I have seen police officers on their cellphones, though.
Published: July 19, 2009 10:56 AM
David
The roads are owned by the government. That is the problem. Entrepreneurs might be able to handle this situation differently if roads were privately owned. It's not even worth arguing what the government wishes to do with its roads. The fact that the NYT feels the overwhelming need to justify these policies is to keep up the illusion that WE are the government, which of course, as Rothbard explained so clearly in Anatomy of the State, is just nonsense.
Jeffrey, can you share some links to the anit-prohibitionist material from the 1920s that you referenced in this blog? I would love to read some of that stuff, if only to share in their misery :0)
Published: July 19, 2009 11:07 AM
Chee Heong Quah, MYS
Absolutely agree.
Instead of banning this and that, it is up to the users and when externalizes occur, the legislation can play its role. For instance, one can be held responsible if he causes death when using phones while driving.
OK. There would still be trouble if one person causes tens of death. In this case, if there's demand to fix some hands-free gadgets on the cars, the markets can handle it. There isn't any need for government to ban people's lives.
Published: July 19, 2009 11:09 AM
Marc
Frank states: "Freedom to put others' lives at risk should not be protected."
Driving puts lives at risk.
It is not the proper function of government to prevent risk.
You seem too willing to make turn texting into a criminal act, despite the fact that no person is harmed.
Read Lew Rockwell's classic essay on Drunk Driving.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/drunkdriving.html
Published: July 19, 2009 11:15 AM
Andrew_M_Garland
Should You Be Allowed To Use Your Cellular Phone While Driving?
Regulation (2000) PDF By Robert W. Hahn, P aul C. Tetlock,
and Jason K. Burnett
Economic analysis of cellphone benefits vs ban. $5 billion cost of use, $25 Billion utility of use, $20 Billion net utility of use. Search in PDF for "Net Benefits of a Ban"
Published: July 19, 2009 11:49 AM
S Andrews
The skills required to open a bottle of water or a can of soda, while driving, is different from accurately typing a 10 digit phone number or a 10 letter text message. I would think, one is 10 times more likely to cause an accident doing the latter compared to the former.
Published: July 19, 2009 11:50 AM
Curious
No bans make sense, cellphone ban is no different.
If someone threatens somebody's life or property, they should be punished.
Whether they do it with or without their car, whether they use a cellphone while doing it, whether they are drunk or not, - it is all irrelevant.
Published: July 19, 2009 12:00 PM
John
"You seem too willing to make turn texting into a criminal act, despite the fact that no person is harmed."
Not a valid argument. You're excusing risky behavior simply because it didn't happen to hurt anyone that time around. If someone engages in behavior that increases the likelihood of an accident, then harm was done.
Published: July 19, 2009 1:31 PM
Dave
As an EMT I respond to more accidents involving low blood sugar than cell phones. So would you suggest diabetics not be permitted to drive?
Published: July 19, 2009 2:10 PM
jeffrey
It can probably be shown statistically that people leaving gyms and tennis courts, who are physically tired out, are higher risk drivers. Maybe the law ought to be consider this too?
Published: July 19, 2009 2:21 PM
End the Fed
The only real solution is private roads. As long as they're "public" (government) owned, the government sets the rules (because it can make whatever rules it wants on "its" property). Cell phone users are more likely to be in an accident? Ban cell phones. People who drive at 9 am and 5 pm are more likely to be in an accident? Ban driving at 9 am and 5 pm. Drivers of polka dotted cars are more likely to be in an accident? Ban polka dotted cars.
Published: July 19, 2009 2:28 PM
Marc
John,
I am not willing to punish someone for what might happen.
If someone is texting and causes a wreck that kills someone, don't charge them with texting. Charge them with manslaughter or murder.
For a real crime to occur, there must be a victim. Someone must have their person or property damaged.
Published: July 19, 2009 2:30 PM
Michael Lawrence
I like Frank's last thought, which is a PR campaign. Let's bat these ideas around in public without coercion, and see what happens in a court of dialectic, as it were. I've noticed that as the years pass, I talk on the phone less when I drive. But I do think that it can be done responsibly; the trick is knowing one's own limits. The idea that the gov't can know that on our behalf, however, is absurd.
SIightly off point: I disagree with the idea that the government "owns" the roads. Rather, the government has confiscated land and money to build the roads, and if I've correctly understood the theories that Rothbard laid out, stolen property is not validly owned by the aggressor and ought to be returned to the last rightful owner if he can be found.
Published: July 19, 2009 2:31 PM
End the Fed
"I am not willing to punish someone for what might happen.
If someone is texting and causes a wreck that kills someone, don't charge them with texting. Charge them with manslaughter or murder.
For a real crime to occur, there must be a victim. Someone must have their person or property damaged."
And that holds for drug laws, gun laws, "hate speech" laws, etc.
Published: July 19, 2009 2:49 PM
reductio ad absurdum
If advocates of this anti-distraction law are consistent, they must argue for the abolition of all driving. The advocates of this law cannot be consistent thinkers. Let's push this anti-distraction law to it's logical conclusion.
Zoning out (thinking) while driving is very common. People start thinking about events and future plans while driving. One could argue this is "distracting". Should the government make thinking illegal while driving? How can someone drive without thinking?
I often see people reading while they drive. Should the government ban all reading while driving? Of course, people must read street signs when they drive.
I drive over the golden gate bridge everyday and the views are spectacular. One could argue that the views are distracting. Should the government use violence to prohibit people from enjoying views? How can someone drive without looking at their surroundings?
Outlawing distracting behaviors like thinking, reading, and looking at our surroundings would make driving impossible. If advocates of this law are consistent, they must argue for the abolition of all driving.
Published: July 19, 2009 2:53 PM
End the Fed
"Rather, the government has confiscated land and money to build the roads, and if I've correctly understood the theories that Rothbard laid out, stolen property is not validly owned by the aggressor and ought to be returned to the last rightful owner if he can be found."
All property (land) is stolen. Someone had to go up to it and say "I got here first so this is mine and not yours". What does
1. "here" mean? There's only so much land you can physically occupy at one time.
2. "first" mean? Was the first person alive the owner of the entire planet?
Published: July 19, 2009 2:57 PM
Pascoh
...the case against the 'ban' is the simple application of the justice principle:
-- government agents/employees should not be exempted from laws that are enforced against average citizens
Driver cell-phone use is generally not prohibited to police, firemen, utility workers, inspectors, ambulance drivers, meter-maids, road maintenance workers, etc, etc.
How is it somehow safe & legal for all those types of drivers to operate cell phones ?
2-Way Radios of various sorts have been widely used by drivers worldwide for a long, long time. If they were inherently dangerous, it would have been noticed long before cell-phones arrived.
There's no history of radios being unsafe for aircraft pilots to use at will... and flying (especially military) is much more demanding than any automobile task.
Safe cell-phone use is a just matter of mild discipline and common sense.
Most drivers can handle it easily.
Published: July 19, 2009 4:24 PM
Russ
David wrote:
"The roads are owned by the government. That is the problem."
This is partially true, although probably not the way you intended.
If the roads were owned by private companies that could get sued for allowing dangerous driving conditions, there would probably be a strict crackdown on driving while phoning or texting by the road companies, or their hired security staff.
As for the question "Why do so many people continue to use cellphones while driving if it is so dangerous?", the answer is the same as for the question "Why did so many people vote for Obama?" The answer to both is "Because most people are idiots."
Published: July 19, 2009 4:47 PM
Russ
Pascoh wrote:
"There's no history of radios being unsafe for aircraft pilots to use at will... and flying (especially military) is much more demanding than any automobile task."
Aircraft pilots are highly trained professionals. Most drivers are not highly trained in driving.
"Safe cell-phone use is a just matter of mild discipline and common sense."
That rules out most of the public right there. For instance, common sense dictates that you should have both hands free while driving. Yet most people who drive while using their cellphones do not have hands-free sets.
Published: July 19, 2009 4:52 PM
John M
"Freedom to put others' lives at risk should not be protected."
Uhh...are you serious?
Drinking alcohol increases the likelyhood of a violent outburst. SHould people not be allowed to drink?
Being black greatly increases the probably of committing a violent crime, should we kill all blacks?
Having arms greatly increases the probabilty of committing a violent act? Should we chop everyone's arms off?
To believe in freedom isn't to believe people should be allowed to do what is safe, but the freedom to do what is unsafe. We dont punish people because they MIGHT hurt someone, we punish them because they DO hurt someone. If we actually punished people severely for people who commit acts of aggression (as great theorists like Walter Block suggest we do), then that would act as a deterrence for the risky behavior and we wouldn't need to outlaw the behavior outright.
Some people can talk on their phones and drive without any effect on their performance. Some people can even text and drive without hindering their ability to navigate the highways. Some people can drive 120mph without any effect on their handling of their automobile. We shouldn't prohibit everyone from doing these things just because SOME PEOPLE can't handle it. Some people can't hanlde their booze, that doesn't mean no one should be able to drink. Those who can't handle talking and driving shouldn't do it, if they do they will face the draconian consequences.
Published: July 19, 2009 4:58 PM
Vitor
Cell phones are really a problem if you are driving a manual transmission car, which are the majority here in Brazil. But with an automatic transmission, it isnt much of a big deal.
Published: July 19, 2009 5:27 PM
Les
According to FARS, the number of traffic deaths has been steadily declining:
http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx
So, what is supporting the ban? How many deaths are attributable to cell phone use?
Published: July 19, 2009 5:50 PM
Heather
It seems to me that texting and phoning while driving are scapegoat technologies, easy to enforce laws against and to create revenue from. It is obvious that most drivers are distracted most of the time from many different things. The argument shouldn't be "What should we ban?" because, really, where do you draw the line?
The easiest way to cut down on distractions and accidents is to better educate and train drivers. Of course, that means taking drivers' licensing out of the government hands and into private ones.
I also think that the revenue collected from traffic stops should not directly benefit the officers and local government involved. This would take away monetary incentives and bring actual human safety back into the forefront in driving laws. It would take care of things like speed and red light cameras and police officers hiding in bushes and tailgating. This might also get communities more involved in the driving licensing process.
Like Ron Paul keeps saying, we need to redefine the argument.
Published: July 19, 2009 6:22 PM
Frank
John M wrote:
"'Freedom to put others' lives at risk should not be protected.'
Uhh...are you serious?
Drinking alcohol increases the likelyhood of a violent outburst. SHould people not be allowed to drink?
Being black greatly increases the probably of committing a violent crime, should we kill all blacks?
Having arms greatly increases the probabilty of committing a violent act? Should we chop everyone's arms off?"
---
Thank you, John, for focusing on one statement, taking it out of context, and then responding with a plurium interrogationum (loaded question) argument to limit direct replies to your loaded questions.
When taken in the context of banning texting/talking on phones while driving, the statement makes perfect sense.
Driving is a privilege, not a right. One has a constitutional right to own a car; one does not have a constitutional right to drive said car. It is a privilege that must be earned through training, testing, and licensing. Whether that is done by the state or private sector (I prefer the latter) is irrelevant to the need for driving regulation (or "rules" if you prefer).
Were roads privatized, would stop signs, yield signs, traffic signals, and traffic rules simply vanish? Of course not. They exist to reduce traffic accidents (to increase safety, if you will).
So driving rules limit the "freedom to put others' lives at risk" and those rules are needed. That's why people don't have the freedom to drive 100 MPH down my neighborhood street or to run a stop sign at the end of the block. Those actions create unnecessary risk.
Likewise, texting on a cell phone creates unnecessary risk, and according to multiple studies, the risk increases by a substantial factor and is more dangerous than DUI.
But, again, if you'd read my entire response, you'd see that there are large problems with such a law since it is extremely difficult to enforce. (It's also difficult to spot texters: http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_12758495 ). Even still, some private road companies might seek ways to enforce these rules, perhaps going as far as to jam cell phone signals were the market really free and the government truly limited (FCC oversight currently prohibits jamming).
And of course, there are exceptions to every situation. Texting at a red light, talking for hours while cruising Nevada's desolate Highway 50.
But I have to agree with several other commenters here who have stated that the general public is too stupid to make reasonable choices. The founders knew this and created the Electoral College and a republic rather than a direct democracy. (And yet, millions voted for McCain and Obama.) That the general public cannot make responsible decisions should surprise none of the readers of Mises, who constantly berate--and rightfully so--public education.
At any rate, there are bigger fish to fry, like the Federal Reserve, and great issues, like a return to private property rights, sound money, and rule of law.
In the meantime, don't be a dumbass; don't text and drive!
Published: July 19, 2009 7:17 PM
Robert Brager
You want to know what I think?
I think that there is nothing more distracting out here on the roads and highways of the United States than having to be on a constant lookout for duplicitous tax-eating vultures lurking, silently seeking still more revenue to collect at the expense of hapless motorists. Who's more likely to be speeding at what many of us might consider dangerous speeds? Who is more likely to run red lights and stop signs? And what of those times they effectively bring their quarry to heel at the side of the road? We've all seen the videos captured for posterity of cops intimidating, brutalizing, tasering, etcetera unfortunate motorists who have run afoul of a cop's need to project his or her control, authority, and strength. Is there a more unsafe class of motorist than the police officer behind the wheel of a car? I'm hard-pressed to imagine such an example; in fact, I can come up with none.
I can't wait for the debate to at last arrive at the inevitable question, "in the name of public safety, should we ban cops from the streets?".
Published: July 19, 2009 8:16 PM
Gil
What Franks said! However, if people want to do a daft reductio crap then why not say that "everyone has the right to drive a car and shoot a gun at pedestrians provided they deliberately miss and will be charged accordingly if they hit or kill someone"? Or "walk down the street with a super-sharp samurai sword swishing at people close enough to intimidate them but at no point hurting them"? What harm was done? None? Some people were offended? People are also offended by 'hate speech', so what?
Published: July 19, 2009 8:23 PM
K. Chris C.
As a longtime newspaper reader, I can tell you the only reason for this article is as a "trial-balloon" for a new Federal law.
Hence the one sidedness and the emphasis on the lack of governments and states tackling this "issue."
This article will be the first of many in MSM leading up to some grand announccement once everyone is abourd or confused.
The other reason that they pursue such asinine laws is to lessen debate on a larger and more asinine law like say Universal Health.
Within a month or so they will have everyone talking about driving and talking and/or texting.
Better duck, 'cause here it comes.
Published: July 19, 2009 10:23 PM
K. Chris C.
As a longtime newspaper reader, I can tell you the only reason for this article is as a "trial-balloon" for a new Federal law.
Hence the one sidedness and the emphasis on the lack of governments and states tackling this "issue."
This article will be the first of many in MSM leading up to some grand announcement once everyone is aboard or confused.
The other reason that they pursue such asinine laws is to lessen debate on a larger and more asinine law like say Universal Health.
Within a month or so they will have everyone talking about driving and talking and/or texting.
Better duck, 'cause here it comes.
Published: July 19, 2009 10:24 PM
K. Chris C.
As a longtime newspaper reader, I can tell you the only reason for this article is as a "trial-balloon" for a new Federal law.
Hence the one sidedness and the emphasis on the lack of governments and states tackling this "issue."
This article will be the first of many in MSM leading up to some grand announcement once everyone is aboard or confused.
The other reason that they pursue such asinine laws is to lessen debate on a larger and more asinine law like say Universal Health.
Within a month or so they will have everyone talking about driving and talking and/or texting.
Better duck, 'cause here it comes.
Published: July 19, 2009 10:25 PM
Vanmind
"The skills required to open a bottle of water or a can of soda, while driving, is different from accurately typing a 10 digit phone number or a 10 letter text message. I would think, one is 10 times more likely to cause an accident doing the latter compared to the former."
Likeliness is not a crime.
Published: July 19, 2009 10:40 PM
kjb
A pure ban of something I think would be rarely successful. People have to understand and socially accept why something is being banned.
Some of the comments here though, do seem to suggest that the banning (or legislating) for anything should not be allowed. This position is ridiculous, following that, why should we "ban" murder?
The answer is to supplement a (good) piece of legislation with the appropriate social incentives so that in the end, the necessity of a ban can just about be lifted as people would not even think of doing it.
Countries used to outlaw exorcisms...whilst I'm not sure if they are still in the law books, I can't think of too many people actively wanting to pursue such a thing (and socially it has become an inconceivable act).
Published: July 20, 2009 12:00 AM
Libertas est Veritas
Finland banned cellphone use while driving a few years ago. There was a brief time when people bought bluetooths and pulled over to the side of the road to use the phone. But eventually everyone realized that the law is completely unenforceable and resumed talking on the phone as usual. The only difference being that people on the phone while driving tend to make a panicky move to hide their phone whenever a police car goes by, which can be quite dangerous. So the law merely increased risky behaviour.
Not that talking on the phone can't increase the risk of an accident, but so can a plethora of other activities. I suppose you can ban everything that distracts you from the road (music, talking to passengers, etc) but then you run into problems created by the monotony of driving, like people falling asleep at the wheel.
Published: July 20, 2009 3:17 AM
John M
"So driving rules limit the "freedom to put others' lives at risk" and those rules are needed. That's why people don't have the freedom to drive 100 MPH down my neighborhood street or to run a stop sign at the end of the block. Those actions create unnecessary risk. "-Frank
What your argument boils down to this: if its public property the government has the right to regulate it.
My argument: No, it doesn't. The fact that the property is owned by the State doesn't give the State any moral right to aggress against your individual freedoms. The State is not a legitimate entity and only acquires its property through coercision and aggression. of course, if the roads were privatized their would be rules and requirements, but that doesn't mean the State, a violent aggressor, has the right to impose those same regulations. The state, through its traffic laws, is violating the natural rights of individuals and that is inhernetly immoral.
I guess what it comes down to is that I'm a rothbardian deontologist and you're a Friedmanite utilitarian consequentalist. You'll believe trampling on my natural rights is justified so long as it achieved your machiavellian ends: utilitarian ethics. I dont.
Published: July 20, 2009 3:41 AM
Gil
No, John M, the issue is whether people have the right to engage in harmful where there's a good chance they'll harm others. A lot of people like to think 'an ounce/gram of prevention is worth a pound/kilo of cure'. Apparently you, and those who think like you, believe 'prevention is a scam to initiate force against people on the bounds that something might happen in the future but probably won't'.
Besides the "I don't like when the State does it but I like it when a private actor does it" strains beliefa. You would hate speed limits because the 'state say so' but would abide by speed limits because a private entity would say so. Both are infringing upon your freedom to travel at high speeds and infringing upon your right to 'act as you like until someone gets hurt'. But please do tell at least you use a rifle to shoot out traffic lights when there's no cops around. (After all, the 'state' has no right to own property therefore you can't 'vandalise' it per se.)
Published: July 20, 2009 8:20 AM
matskralc
But please do tell at least you use a rifle to shoot out traffic lights when there's no cops around. (After all, the 'state' has no right to own property therefore you can't 'vandalise' it per se.)
The fact that the state doesn't legitimately own it doesn't in and of itself mean that nobody does.
Published: July 20, 2009 9:15 AM
bob
I talk and text while driving, and I've never swerved out my lane or caused an accident. I can drive well with my knees.
I would agree on the whole that most people cannot properly do this. But, they shouldn't be penalized for talking/texting/other. They should be penalized for reckless driving or causing an accident.
Otherwise, you are blaming more and more indirect forms of behavior towards the behavior you are ultimately trying to avoid. This is like banning guns, banning alcohol, etc. It will likely only marginally solve the original problem, while actually causing much larger problems.
Published: July 20, 2009 9:24 AM
Ron
I have the perfect solution to the problem of engaging in distracting activities while driving:
All cars should be designed with a separate driver's compartment which completely isolates the driver from passengers via soundproof barriers, features a built-in faraday cage to prevent the use of a cell phone, and is equipped with an on-demand airborne stimulant misting system to prevent the driver from falling asleep at the wheel. All drivers will be state highway department employees who must undergo rigorous training and pass a battery of exams (at the expense of the car's owner, of course). Only by putting government completely in control of every aspect of vehicle operation can we eliminate the potential for harm at the hands of the unwashed mass of drivers.
Published: July 20, 2009 9:59 AM
locknroll
I drive and use a cellphone. However no matter who is on the line I try to keep my full attention on the road and drop the conversation should road conditions become slightly more than boring. Also if the conversation is frivolous I will just call them back later. The truth is that there are hundreds of distractions while driving. Kids, friends, changing cd's, eating, drinking non alcoholic beverages:p etc can all be dangerous while driving. In fact looking the wrong way can be dangerous while driving. The only thing that needs to be enforced are existing laws - you run into someone...pay the consequences.
Published: July 20, 2009 11:07 AM
BT
To End the Fed:
"All property (land) is stolen. Someone had to go up to it and say "I got here first so this is mine and not yours"."
All property (land) is not stolen. For it to be stolen, it has to be taken from SOMEONE. Your post indicates that you believe land was stolen from "mother earth"?.? You are correct on one point; someone had to initially lay claim to a given piece of property. But at the beginning of civilization who would he have been stealing from? Nobody!! As society(s) progressed, the only legitimate claim to a given piece of property would have been a VOLUNTARY economic exchange between the owner and the buyer.
If I remember correctly, John Locke stated that the only property anyone has a right to claim is that piece that he can actually use. In other words, if I claim 100,000 acres, but I only farm 10 of those acres, I can not legitimately lay claim to the other 99,990 acres. Therefore, the first person on planet earth had no right to claim all of earth because he could not have possibly used it all!!!
Published: July 20, 2009 12:42 PM
BT
To John M:
I generally agree that the state is worthless. However, the state has a some legitimacy to existance when people choose to set it up!!! Keep in mind that the colonists chose to have a government!! After kicking the Brits out, they could have easily decided to go back to their plantations, cabins, or printing presses and mind their own business...they didn't!! So, the U.S. has a right to EXIST because people willingly put it in place! What the state doesn't have a right to do is become overly aggressive and oppressive! This possibility could easily be minimized through one of President Jefferson's ideas:"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." So, Mr. John M., I ask you: If you are discontent with the state and think it is destroying your freedom, why aren't you plotting to overthrow it? Oh...that is right - you don't believe in violence!! I forgot....Oh well, looks like you will be a slave forever!!! Hope you enjoy it because the state surely isn't listening to your complaining; however, they might listen to your "fist in their face!"
To all the "extremos" posting here:
I would love nothing more than to see the private sector take over the state-run transportation sector of the economy. I believe it would operate more smoothly and my tax burden would be reduced. However, I think most of you posting here would be shocked because their would still be rules, fines, and penalties. Just because the government doesn't operate a system doesn't mean everything would be a free-for-all!!!
Published: July 20, 2009 1:08 PM
Eric F
"Wikipedia (Deo Gratias!) points out that the bans have been completely ineffective but for the revenue they raise for governments."
This is something that seems quite familiar. I recall an article I read earlier this year in Car and Driver, where several former police officers in Michigan talked about how traffic tickets (in that case, for speeding) were merely used as an avenue to generate revenue for governments, rather than to actually deter speeding. One of the quotes:
"A lot of police chiefs will tell you the goal is to have nobody speeding through their community, but heaven forbid if it should actually happen—they’d be out of money."
Just recently in Minnesota they passed legislation to make not wearing a seat belt a primary traffic offense, so that just not wearing it is enough to be pulled over and ticketed. I can't help but think this is from the same line of thinking as making cellphone use on its own behind the wheel an offense.
But hey, perhaps we should eliminate all risk of driving by banning personal transport and forcing everybody to take public transportation, driven by government-approved operators.
Published: July 20, 2009 1:41 PM
redshirt
I think I agree mostly with Frank and Gil so far.
BT: Privatized roads would at least answer to the users of the road. If things were too strict for the regular travelers then the road owner would have to shut it down or have to adapt. (Maybe drive at your own risk clause?)
Eric F: Seat belts save lives. That is well studied. PA has that law. Maybe the insurance rates are rising in Minnesota and the state feels compelled to improve its image.
As for cell phone use in the car, until I heard that people using cell phones in cars are actually worse than drunk drivers in their reaction times, I did not think much of cell phone bans. IMHO, if someone is driving erratically, they should be pulled over. If they were engaging in a behavior that created the erratic driving they should be ready to accept the ticket. If they can't stop their own dangerous behavior, they should be removed from the road permanently. (That's what businesses do when they have problem employees, or problem shoppers for that matter.)
You can't remove someone permanently from the road unless there is some kind of law to make it illegal to do something while driving ... I don't see how you can escape the logic. It's irrelevant whether it makes a large global difference. Getting one really bad driver off the road is going to help someone down the line. That's a fair trade in my book.
That said, education and technology seem to be the only real ways of improving overall road safety.
Published: July 20, 2009 3:23 PM
matskralc
Eric F: Seat belts save lives. That is well studied. PA has that law. Maybe the insurance rates are rising in Minnesota and the state feels compelled to improve its image.
Seat belt non-use is a secondary violation in PA. It is a primary violation only if the driver is under age 18 and the number of passengers in the car exceeds the number of seat belts OR if the non-restrained person is under the age of 4, in which case they must be in an approved child restraint i.e. car seat.
Published: July 20, 2009 4:08 PM
John M
"the state has a some legitimacy to existance when people choose to set it up!!! "
People chose to set it up? Certainly not every single person signed the Constitution. SOME PEOPLE set it up. The government is legitimate to them, but that doesn't mean it is legitimate and not violating natural rights. As Walter Block states, if a bunch of people get together and create a club and call it the USA, just because they decide you live in their club's jurisdiction that doesn't make it so. You have to willingly consent to be subject to their laws, and if their laws are unjust there is no reason to abide by them. As Augustine once said, "what are governments without justice but robber bands enlarged?"
"So, Mr. John M., I ask you: If you are discontent with the state and think it is destroying your freedom, why aren't you plotting to overthrow it? Oh...that is right - you don't believe in violence!! I forgot....Oh well, looks like you will be a slave forever!!! Hope you enjoy it because the state surely isn't listening to your complaining; however, they might listen to your "fist in their face!""
Its not that I don't believe in violence, its that I dont believe in aggression. The State is aggressing against me and I DO have a right to overthrow it. The reason I am not employing violent means to overthrow it is because those means are not likely to be successful and will probably result in my death. Instead I am employing my speech to "overthrow" or abolish the State, by advocating my principles on forums such as this.
"A lot of people like to think 'an ounce/gram of prevention is worth a pound/kilo of cure'. "
That is the quintessential difference between utilitarians and natural law theorists. I believe in natural law, I dont believe in machiavellian ethics that "the end justifies the means". I believe, unlike you, that people have natural rights.
"Besides the "I don't like when the State does it but I like it when a private actor does it" strains beliefa. You would hate speed limits because the 'state say so' but would abide by speed limits because a private entity would say so. Both are infringing upon your freedom to travel at high speeds and infringing upon your right to 'act as you like until someone gets hurt'. "
There is a major difference between state ownership and private ownership. State ownership is illegitimate whereas private ownership is legitimate. If I choose to conduct myself inappropriately at someone's house he has the right to kick me out. If I conduct myself inappropriately on someone's road (ie text and drive), he has the right to kick me out. I would abide by the road owner's rules because I dont want to be kicked out. the State has no right to kick me off the road, or fine me in anyway, because I refuse to recognize its ownership of the road in accordance with my natural law principles.
Needless to say, there are far more utilitarians on this board than I thought. You do realize mises.org is run by rothbardian deontologists, no?
Published: July 20, 2009 4:15 PM
Eric F
"Eric F: Seat belts save lives. That is well studied."
While that is certainly true, should it really be the government's responsibility to make everybody wear their seat belts? Or, perhaps a better question based on the broader topic that is being discussed here would be: should it be the government's responsibility to try and legislate out all risky activity in driving?
Published: July 20, 2009 4:43 PM
BT
Mises.org might be run by Rothbardian deontologists, but its readership is a group of misfits, anarchists, and wanna-be Mises and Rothbards.
READ, READ, READ Mr. John M.: I said government doesn't have a right to oppress; this includes violations of natural rights!!
Yes, Mr. John M., people chose to set it up!! There was nothing preventing those that didn't want to be a part of the newly formed United States to revolt right then and there!!! Or move somewhere else!!!
Please, enlighten me to the natural rights that people such as Jefferson wanted neutralized/eliminated. From all my readings of Jefferson, he sounded like a classical liberal--you know, just like you (supposedly).
Our modern government has and does violate natural rights all the time; I agree with you on that. However, it seems like you are for a "NO LAW" plan, and that seems a little impractical!! I hear Somalia is looking for entrepreneurial spirits (and they don't have law and order over there either; sounds like a match?!?). Again, practice what you preach!!! If you don't like laws, then move to Africa-they are definitely short on laws on that continent!!
Oh yeah...I keep getting mixed up. You don't believe in AGGRESSION, not violence.
Bravo, you got one right!! Yes, you do have a right to overthrow our government...I am impressed you realize this!! However, your excuse for not employing violence is laughable. I am sure that everyone ever involved in an overthrow of a government thought it wouldn't be successful (and they also knew their lives were at risk). So, let me get this straight - you want full freedom, don't believe the government has a right to exist, don't believe any of its laws apply to you, but you are not willing to stake your life and sacred honor on these beliefs? Mmmm, Mmmmm, Mmmmm...sounds like an easy way out to me. So FREEDOM isn't worth your life? Then you will never have it!!!
Like I said earlier, no one, especially the state, is listening to your dissenting voice here on the mises website. Instead, you are being viewed as an anarchist, hell-bent on destroying the very fabric of society with your no-law, anything goes diatribe. If you want to "have an audience," write your dissent to Obama himself!!!
Published: July 20, 2009 5:03 PM
John M
"people chose to set it up!! There was nothing preventing those that didn't want to be a part of the newly formed United States to revolt right then and there!!! Or move somewhere else!!! "
They shouldn't have to. They have the right to their property. Simpy because they accepted aggression didn't mean it was just and ethical.
"Please, enlighten me to the natural rights that people such as Jefferson wanted neutralized/eliminated. From all my readings of Jefferson, he sounded like a classical liberal--you know, just like you (supposedly).
Our modern government has and does violate natural rights all the time; I agree with you on that. However, it seems like you are for a "NO LAW" plan, and that seems a little impractical!! I hear Somalia is looking for entrepreneurial spirits (and they don't have law and order over there either; sounds like a match?!?). Again, practice what you preach!!! If you don't like laws, then move to Africa-they are definitely short on laws on that continent!!"
Your argument is chalk full of strawmen. I have no problem with law, I have a problem with laws that infringe on natural rights.
jefferson owned slaves, his theory on natural law was obviously perverted.
Somalia's economy has boomed since anarchy was established. Somalia doesn't count regardless, its warlords are funded by the US gov't.
It is a nismoer to state the Africa as a continent has no law, it has plenty of law, that governments are largely run by tyrants who violate natural law on an enormous magnitutde.
"Bravo, you got one right!! Yes, you do have a right to overthrow our government...I am impressed you realize this!! However, your excuse for not employing violence is laughable. I am sure that everyone ever involved in an overthrow of a government thought it wouldn't be successful (and they also knew their lives were at risk). So, let me get this straight - you want full freedom, don't believe the government has a right to exist, don't believe any of its laws apply to you, but you are not willing to stake your life and sacred honor on these beliefs? Mmmm, Mmmmm, Mmmmm...sounds like an easy way out to me. So FREEDOM isn't worth your life? Then you will never have it!!!"
I simply dont believe it is necessary, or in my self interest, to use violence to achive my ends. Gandhi, MLK, and many others have achieved their goals through nonviolent means. Violence isn't a necessary condition for change.
"Like I said earlier, no one, especially the state, is listening to your dissenting voice here on the mises website. Instead, you are being viewed as an anarchist, hell-bent on destroying the very fabric of society with your no-law, anything goes diatribe. If you want to "have an audience," write your dissent to Obama himself!!! "
No one is listening to my anarcho-capitalists views on miss? Are you crazy? Almost everyone of the Senior Fellows of this institute are anarcho-capitalists, I'm sure there is magnanimous support of my views on this website.
Anarchy doesn't mean no law, anarchy simply means no-authroity, meaning there is no institution that possesses a monopoloy on the use of force. Why dont you actually read some of the literature on this site before you criticize the beliefs of the majority of the Fellows of this institute?
Start here: http://mises.org/rothbard/mes.asp
http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp
Finally, finish here: http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/ethics.asp
Dont knock Rothbard till you've tried him.
Published: July 20, 2009 6:19 PM
Gil
Of course, I said you probably don't like 'prevention' JohnM hence you seem to confirm the idea 'prevention is a scam to initiate force against people on the bounds that something might happen in the future but probably won't'.
But the 'I'll do and like it if the person telling me so is a private entity' is still humourous. It's akin to ye olde stories where the ruler is 'illegimate' and the people keep rebelling and eventually the legitimate ruler is restored to the throne even though the overall nett result is still pretty much the same. Or, it's like a boy who doesn't being told what to do by men 'who aren't his father' but happily submits to the rule of his father even though his father is practically abusive compared to the men who merely verbally chastise the boy on the streets for merely littering.
By the way a constitution is a procedures manual for the government in question not 'the people' per se hence it doesn't require 'everyone to sign' it.
Published: July 20, 2009 7:46 PM
John M
Your analogy is extremely weak. If you believe property rights are natural rights then I dont have the right to infringe on anyone's property. I abide by the terms the property owner articulates because it is a voluntary contractual agreement. The State seized the property, therefore it doesn't have a natural right to make terms regarding its use. The property owner, however, does have a natural right to the property, and if i wish to use it I must agree to his his contractual terms.
in your analogy with the boy, the boy is FREE TO CHOOSE who he listens to. You didn't say he was COMPELLED to listen to his abusive father, but he willingly does because he LIKES to. I reject being FORCED to abide by someone's rules on property that does not rightfully belong to them, whereas I do not mind consenting to abide by the terms of someone who rightfully owns said property. the State, as Rothbard so eloquently put it, "is a band of thiees writ large." I am simply stating people shouldn't be forced to follow the rules of theives and crooks, and only the rules of people who respect the natural rights of individuals.
An ACCURATE analogy of the situation would be as follows: A boy(John) knocks on his friend (Gil)'s door. Another boy(BT) tells John he cannot enter. John ignores BT because he knows the house belongs to Gil, not BT.
"By the way a constitution is a procedures manual for the government in question not 'the people' per se hence it doesn't require 'everyone to sign' it."
Uhh, yes it does. If you are going to violate my natural rights, in order to do so you have to have my consent. if me and my friends got together and signed a document called "John M's Constitution" and then knocked on your door and forced you to give us all your property you would not find it to be just. But according to you, I could argue that I didn't need you to sign anything before I created my clubhouse and forced you to give up your property to fund it.
my question to you, who obviously does not beleieve in natural law, if a constitution is only a "procedure's manual", then what, pray tell, gives government its legitimacy?
Published: July 20, 2009 9:01 PM
Gil
"If you are going to violate my natural rights, in order to do so you have to have my consent."
Of course, that's an impossible statement isn't John M? If you consent to an action then there's no violation. It's the same as saying "can a person sell themselves into slavery?" Of course not, because the action was voluntary it can't be slavery. Lifelong voluntary servitude isn't the same as lifelong involuntary servitude. Slavery is different from free labour regardless if slaves can have better working conditions than many free labourers.
Alternatively, if you see the government identical to private property owner except the government is 'illegitimate' then the argument is going to be hopelessly circular. Similarly, if a constitution is a procedures manual of a government then there's no meaningful equivalent in the private sector - why would a private property owner write up a piece of paper limiting his right and responsibilities on his own property?
My legitimacy for government - the founding people chose to have a government over a given amount of land such that newcomers have to abide by it. An aspiring immigrant to the U.S.A. has no business complaining about the government, the constitution, the laws, the customs, etc., they accept all these things if they choose to stay and can only change things through official channels. A child born into the U.S.A. likewise has to accept what their ancestors have set up because they weren't born in a vacuum.
But then are you going to argue that the U.S. Government is false because white people didn't homestead or trade land but stole it from the previous inhabitants? Are you going to say the U.S. Government is illegitimate because it wasn't founded on a popular revolution followed by secession but with a coup d'etat by approximately one-third of the population (two-thirds of the population didn't want separation from the British Crown) to seize the power from the British Government and set the same government except they now happened to wield the power (from King George to President George)?
Published: July 21, 2009 1:31 AM
Gil
"If you are going to violate my natural rights, in order to do so you have to have my consent."
Of course, that's an impossible statement isn't John M? If you consent to an action then there's no violation. It's the same as saying "can a person sell themselves into slavery?" Of course not, because the action was voluntary it can't be slavery. Lifelong voluntary servitude isn't the same as lifelong involuntary servitude. Slavery is different from free labour regardless if slaves can have better working conditions than many free labourers.
Alternatively, if you see the government identical to private property owner except the government is 'illegitimate' then the argument is going to be hopelessly circular. Similarly, if a constitution is a procedures manual of a government then there's no meaningful equivalent in the private sector - why would a private property owner write up a piece of paper limiting his right and responsibilities on his own property?
My legitimacy for government - the founding people chose to have a government over a given amount of land such that newcomers have to abide by it. An aspiring immigrant to the U.S.A. has no business complaining about the government, the constitution, the laws, the customs, etc., they accept all these things if they choose to stay and can only change things through official channels. A child born into the U.S.A. likewise has to accept what their ancestors have set up because they weren't born in a vacuum.
But then are you going to argue that the U.S. Government is false because white people didn't homestead or trade land but stole it from the previous inhabitants? Are you going to say the U.S. Government is illegitimate because it wasn't founded on a popular revolution followed by secession but with a coup d'etat by approximately one-third of the population (two-thirds of the population didn't want separation from the British Crown) to seize the power from the British Government and set the same government except they now happened to wield the power (from King George to President George)?
Published: July 21, 2009 1:32 AM
BT
To John M.
You believe in laws? It sure doesn't sound like it!!
Love your role models....MLK, Ghandi. Now, find some real ones.
Where do you live Mr. M? Because if it is in the U.S., then YOU HAVE STOLEN property because your goverment confiscated much of it from the Indians!! So, give it up...you have no natural right to it!!! Give it up I say!!
Any one of your or my arguments can always be counterargued. It is a pointless debate. I don't have to worry though, you will never obtain what you really desire because you are too weak to claim it!!!
Could you please provide data on the booming climate of Somalia? A website would be nice.
Never said aggression was just or ethical. Simply stated that those who don't like something have the right to AND SHOULD rebel!!!
Finally, according to you, all laws infringe on your natural right to do something. For instance, you think a cell phone ban on the highways is transgressing your natural right; your natural right to what? Be careless? Be negligent? It hasn't limited your ownership of the cell phone...so no infringement on property! And, if I remember from another member of the faithful posting here, one of your gods - Rothbard, Hayek - "argued correctly that property rights are the only natural right." Go easy here, I am just repeating what another faithful servant said of one of your gods.
And are the Mises fellows going to change everything in the United States. Probably not...so again, your little voice cries out in vain!!
And I will criticize when, where and how I want to...it is my natural right! Hey, I am just following your policy.
Published: July 21, 2009 11:45 AM
John M
"It's the same as saying "can a person sell themselves into slavery?" Of course not, because the action was voluntary it can't be slavery. Lifelong voluntary servitude isn't the same as lifelong involuntary servitude."
In this case it is merely a question of semantics. One can agree to be a slave, if your definition of a slave is someone who always does what he is told regardless of his desire. I can sign a contract stating I will do whatever the other party tells me to do for the rest of my life. Whether you call that "slavery" is up to you, but yes, you can make an agreement to be a "slave" so long as that agreement has your CONSENT.
"Alternatively, if you see the government identical to private property owner except the government is 'illegitimate' then the argument is going to be hopelessly circular. Similarly, if a constitution is a procedures manual of a government then there's no meaningful equivalent in the private sector - why would a private property owner write up a piece of paper limiting his right and responsibilities on his own property?"
The argument will forever be circular so long as you believe someone who obtains his propetty by force (a thief/robber) is the legitimate owner of that property.
A property owner wouldn't because the property owner knows he has legitimacy. Governments know they dont have legitimacy so they write up constitutions and bills of rights to make them appear legitimate so people we accept their authority.
"My legitimacy for government - the founding people chose to have a government over a given amount of land such that newcomers have to abide by it."
What are you talking about? The founding people didn't choose this. a GROUP of people chose this and forced everyone else to agree to it. Many of the "founding people" still wanted to be a part of Great Britain. Again, this goes to the idea of the "Club of the USA", just people some people get together and decide to start up a club, doesn't mean everyone is automatically a member. The club, however, can make everyone members by threat of force, but that doesn't make them morally legitimate.
"But then are you going to argue that the U.S. Government is false because white people didn't homestead or trade land but stole it from the previous inhabitants? Are you going to say the U.S. Government is illegitimate because it wasn't founded on a popular revolution followed by secession but with a coup d'etat by approximately one-third of the population (two-thirds of the population didn't want separation from the British Crown) to seize the power from the British Government and set the same government except they now happened to wield the power (from King George to President George)?"
Who wielded the power? Certainly not those 2/3rds. And just because they got something out of the deal doesn't mean the deal was just, as they did not consent to it.
if I kill you and give your belongings to society, does that means ociety shouldn't complain because they got something out of it? This is what separates the deontologists from the utiilitarians, we dont try to justify murder, you do.
"Where do you live Mr. M? Because if it is in the U.S., then YOU HAVE STOLEN property because your goverment confiscated much of it from the Indians!! So, give it up...you have no natural right to it!!! Give it up I say!! "
Nonsense. I stole nothing. If someone steals something and sells it to a pawnshop and I purchae it, that doesn't make me a thief. Now, do I feel the Indians deserve just compensation for the crimes committed against them? Absolutely. But just compensartion wouldn't mean to give them all their land back, considering that land had exponentially increased in value since our development on it.
"Any one of your or my arguments can always be counterargued. It is a pointless debate. I don't have to worry though, you will never obtain what you really desire because you are too weak to claim it!!! "
Then counterargue if you can. I'm too weak to claim it? I am claiming it, one mind at a time. Just like everyone at this Institute is claiming it, by winning hearts and minds.
"Could you please provide data on the booming climate of Somalia? A website would be nice. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy_in_Somalia
"Finally, according to you, all laws infringe on your natural right to do something. For instance, you think a cell phone ban on the highways is transgressing your natural right; your natural right to what? Be careless? Be negligent?"
My natural right to my liberty. My liberty to mulittask and enjoy a conversation on a cellular phone while I travel. "Negligence" and "carelessness" are freedoms too. Someone who drinks heavily is being "careless" and "negligent" with his body, doesn't mean he doesn't have a right to do it.
"It hasn't limited your ownership of the cell phone...so no infringement on property! And, if I remember from another member of the faithful posting here, one of your gods - Rothbard, Hayek - "argued correctly that property rights are the only natural right." Go easy here, I am just repeating what another faithful servant said of one of your gods."
This statement almost makes me want to end my conservsation with you. You clearly show NO understanding of even the most simple and basic idea of ownership.
YES it HAS limited my ownership of the cell phone, just like a law banning the consumption of alcohol LIMITS my ownership of said alcohol in my possession. If I have a property right to that cell phone that means I have the right to use it as I please.
And yes, all rights ARE property rights. This is what Rothbard called the principle of self-ownership. We are all owners of your own bodies and our own labor, therefore, so long as we do not transgress the ownership rights of others, no one has the right to tell us what to do with our bodies and our labor.
"And are the Mises fellows going to change everything in the United States. Probably not...so again, your little voice cries out in vain!!"
Well the purpose of this website IS to change everything in the United States and in the world. It is an adruous task but one certainly worth devoting one's labor to in great regard.
"And I will criticize when, where and how I want to...it is my natural right! Hey, I am just following your policy. "
It is your natural right, I was merely giving advice. But I'm coming to think you aren't the type of person that takes advice.
Published: July 21, 2009 4:23 PM
BT
Like I said Mr. John M., all of our arguments can be counter-argued.
"This statement almost makes me want to end my conservsation with you."
I do enjoy our little fireside chats, so please don't stop chatting. However, it is your right..so do as you please. You are definitely a well-read individual (I hesitate using the adjective intelligent because you are simply regurgitating what you have read and chose to believe in).
"Nonsense. I stole nothing."
You have, in essence, stolen from the Indians because you knew the property was originally theirs yet you still chose to "purchase" it. You had no right to it because you did not get the consent of the original owner - the Native American.
I was hoping for a more legitimate source than wikipedia; I hardly rate that site as a solid, primary source. Nevertheless, it was entertaining reading. So, my question to you - why haven't you moved? I am still waiting for one of you fanatics to embrace what you preach. It could be profitable you know - you could write a book about the experience. But alas, you probably wouldn't earn that much on the book sale because there is no justification for you to have a copyright to the material (i.e. you wouldn't have a monopoly on the material). It is interesting though, that such a smooth - sailing society as Somalia can not even take care of simple things like pirates - surely the entrepreneurs can generate enough jobs to put the pirates to legitimate work!
"My liberty to mulittask"
Don't know if you know it or not, but there is compelling evidence to suggest that humans can not parallel process (i.e. multi-task). Furthermore, by your own admission, YOU have no right to travel: YOU think government has NO legitimacy thus no right to own/confiscate property-including that for road building. However, you seem to believe in traveling on this confiscated property. How can this be? Even if you believe the government doesn't own it, YOU certainly do not own it (again, going by your mind set). So, what are you doing stealing space on a highway that doesn't belong to you. Have you compensated the original owners? I could go on and on, but you get the idea.
"You clearly show NO understanding of even the most simple and basic idea of ownership."
Is it I who shows no understanding of anything? Or is it you? Negligence and carelessness within the confines of your own being ARE FREEDOMS!!! Absolutely poor example with the drunk person - you outwitted yourself. The drunk does have every right to be negligent and careless with his body...what he doesn't have a right to be is negligent and careless with MY BODY by entering a vehicle and attempting to drive. I think you miss something entirely. YOU can do whatever YOU want with YOUR body, but once you enter into society, there must be some amount of order - limits (i.e. I need to have reasonable assurance that freakin' utopians like yourself aren't cokin' up before you head out on the highway).
"You clearly show NO understanding of even the most simple and basic idea of ownership."
Property ownership doesn't mean you have the right to use it as you please when your behavior is predisposed to trumping my rights. Again, your ignorant example of alcohol shows you stopped short of carrying the thought through. I would never want to ban alcohol consumption (for many reasons); however, your example seems to be "operating in a void" (i.e. you assume no other participants in society). Let us use another example to really illustrate the point. If I take my AK-47 (a favorite of anarchists) out and start shooting up in the air in the middle of your street, are you going to be alright with that? I mean, I am doing what I want to do with MY property. Who are you to say otherwise? Point taken?
Yes, changing people's hearts and minds is an arduous task; I have been trying to do the same for many years myself. However, I hope you know that rantings like yours will forever keep the majority at bay; so, I say again, your efforts are futile.
"It is your natural right, I was merely giving advice. But I'm coming to think you aren't the type of person that takes advice."
I take sound advice, not lunatic advice. For me, limited government and maximum freedom within the confines of my property (don't get cute on semantics here) is good enough. If you want to smoke crack, snort coke, and screw every porn star from sea to shining sea...it is fine with me!! But, and here is your dreaded limitation, you must do it on your property (or the property of someone who has given consent) where the threat of transgressing my rights isn't likely to happen!!! I know, you are going to charge me with utilitarianism aren't you? Well, I guess it could be construed as that; however, I would like to call it common sense.
I have a strong suspicion that people such as yourself would be the first to be trampled in a society with no order/laws/minor limitations. And, Mr. JOHN M., I truly hope that you are not living off the government dole, working at a government job, or attending any form of government institution because that would just be hypocritical (and you are a big enough hypocrite for complaining about the government while using its highways...the technology is present such that you would never have to use government sponsored roads in a direct manner)!!!
Finally, I was under the impression from another of the faithful posting here that Mises did believe in limited government.?. Did I miss something or did one of your brethren not interpret the "scriptures" correctly?
BTW, thanks for the earlier links on further educational reading, I will definitely begin devouring them ASAP. It will be an interesting journey no doubt.
Published: July 21, 2009 7:30 PM