orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (07/12/85)
In seeking to explain the need for some governmental authority to Libertarians I have used a quite simple and straightforward example from everyday life: the regulation of traffic on public highways. I had thought that the need for such regulation would be evident to Libertarians from the simple evidence of everyday life and reflection upon their own experience. Apparently their experience is different than my own and what would seem simple and straightforward is not so easily understood with ideological blinders. After conceding my point that social order was needed Clayton Cramer replied: > Social order, not government. In the absence of government or its > direction, people develop social order. I will now lead Mr. Cramer and the Libertarians further down the road and point out that, yes, in the *absence* of government people develop social order. Moreover in most cases the further development of social order involves the development of governmental authority to insure that order. Over 50,000 lives are lost every year on the highways. When lives are at stake I myself, and the vast majority of people do not wish to trust simply to others good will. Therefore traffic laws have been enacted along with traffic police (a governmental authority) to insure those laws will be followed. Mr. Cramer apparently wishes to deny the need for such laws: > > > The risk is small; the potential damage and injury is immense. Most > people (almost all people, in fact), *do* reduce their speed to avoid > accidents. I suggest you go spend some time driving. I frequently > see people who are incompetent drivers; frequently people who are > drunk, and don't realize how impaired they are; I *very* seldom see > people who are so stupid as to risk an accident just to get somewhere > faster. As I say my experience differs from Mr. Cramer's. Just last week I was sitting patiently at a red light. A car pulled up with a big fat Reagan bumpersticker and waited for awhile. Suddenly this car just took off across a major highway (speed limit: 50 miles per hour) right in the middle of a red light. The driver beside me honked at him and looked at me in amazement. I have found this same event repeated several times. (curious too that several had Reagan bumperstickers...) It seems quite clear to me that besides being a blatant violation of the law, this type of action is very likely to cause an accident. This happened *despite* laws, fines and the possible suspension of the right to drive for such behavior. Imagine how this person would drive if there were no such restraints on him! I will agree that if everyone followed traffic laws voluntary then there would be no need for a governmental authority to police such compliance. Even so there would still be the need for some authority to maintain traffic lights and so forth. But such is not the case-- which is why traffic laws developed in the first place. When laws are no longer needed because they are always complied with then they do tend to disappear. In earlier centuries there were laws against spitting and pissing in the King's hallways at Versailles. No such laws are required now with indoor plumbing. There are very good reasons for traffic laws and police to enforce them whether they are always obeyed or not. tim sevener whuxl!orb
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (07/23/85)
> In seeking to explain the need for some governmental authority to Libertarians > I have used a quite simple and straightforward example from everyday life: > the regulation of traffic on public highways. I had thought that the > need for such regulation would be evident to Libertarians from the simple > evidence of everyday life and reflection upon their own experience. > Apparently their experience is different than my own and what would seem > simple and straightforward is not so easily understood with ideological blinders. > After conceding my point that social order was needed Clayton Cramer replied: > > > Social order, not government. In the absence of government or its > > direction, people develop social order. > > I will now lead Mr. Cramer and the Libertarians > further down the road and point out > that, yes, in the *absence* of government people develop social order. > Moreover in most cases the further development of social order involves > the development of governmental authority to insure that order. > Over 50,000 lives are lost every year on the highways. When lives are > at stake I myself, and the vast majority of people do not wish to trust > simply to others good will. Therefore traffic laws have been enacted > along with traffic police (a governmental authority) to insure those laws > will be followed. Mr. Cramer apparently wishes to deny the need for such > laws: I am not an anarchist; I will agree that there is a place for government, but the potential for abuse is so high, that there needs to be a *very* compelling reason for allowing the government to involve itself. Governmental authority replaces social order because of two circumstances: 1. A minority refuses to recognize that their actions are wrong. (Armed robbery, for example). 2. A politically powerful minority decides to impose its will on the majority. (The 55 mph National Speed Limit.) As long as the government owns and operates roads, traffic laws and police make sense, but there is no intrinsic reason for the government to be in the road business, and no intrinsic reason for private roads to be subject to the government's traffic regulations. > > > > > The risk is small; the potential damage and injury is immense. Most > > people (almost all people, in fact), *do* reduce their speed to avoid > > accidents. I suggest you go spend some time driving. I frequently > > see people who are incompetent drivers; frequently people who are > > drunk, and don't realize how impaired they are; I *very* seldom see > > people who are so stupid as to risk an accident just to get somewhere > > faster. > > As I say my experience differs from Mr. Cramer's. Just last week I > was sitting patiently at a red light. A car pulled up with a big fat > Reagan bumpersticker and waited for awhile. Suddenly this car just took > off across a major highway (speed limit: 50 miles per hour) right in > the middle of a red light. The driver beside me honked at him and > looked at me in amazement. I have found this same event repeated > several times. (curious too that several had Reagan bumperstickers...) > 1. How "fat" was the bumpersticker? Your use of the word "fat" is intended as a perjorative against the driver, I think. Don't think you can win the argument without subtle manipulation? 2. I have seen an event like you are describing *once* in my life. Perhaps living in an anti-libertarian society like New Jersey provokes a sense of non-responsibility. (But then again, isn't that the goal?) > It seems quite clear to me that besides being a blatant violation of the > law, this type of action is very likely to cause an accident. > This happened *despite* laws, fines and the possible suspension of > the right to drive for such behavior. Imagine how this person would > drive if there were no such restraints on him! > Probably no worse; "laws, fines and the possible suspension of the right to drive" certainly didn't discourage this dope. > When laws are no longer needed because they are always complied with > then they do tend to disappear. In earlier centuries there were laws > against spitting and pissing in the King's hallways at Versailles. > No such laws are required now with indoor plumbing. > We didn't have those laws here; that's why they aren't still in effect. Are you sure they aren't still in effect in France? Laws tend to hang around long after the need for them has gone away. > There are very good reasons for traffic laws and police to enforce > them whether they are always obeyed or not. > tim sevener whuxl!orb This is rather like the argument that fundamentalists give for laws against drinking and adultery. "They won't be obeyed, but at least we've taken a stand against these sins!" Fundamentalism and your brand of statism have a lot in common.