orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (07/03/85)
> From Clayton Cramer: > If traffic in New Jersey is libertarian in nature, it's the only > thing about New Jersey that is. > > Seriously, my experience is that in the absence of operating traffic > signals, and where the right of way is not clear, most people drive > *very* cautiously, because they desire to avoid accidents in which > they will be injured, or at a minimum, their car will be damaged. Perhaps > New Jersey's problem is too many years of governmental control --- I > refuse to believe that any significant chunk of the population of > New Jersey is so completely incapable of thinking far enough ahead > to avoid a potentially dangerous accident. Are there that many morons > in New Jersey? > You are undoubtedly correct that *most* people drive more slowly without traffic signals. Which just proves that a modicum of social order helps *everyone* to achieve their goals more easily. Nor are most people so stupid that they will head directly for another car. However most people are also not so noble as to do such things as reduce their speed at their own quite clear expense for the more abtract benefit of reducing the statistical risk of accidents to others (or themselves). This illustrates basic statistical laws of large numbers which Libertarians seem to think do not apply to social groups. Although I cannot predict that *this particular speeder* will crash by exceeding the speed limit or by going as fast as he might given no speed limit, statistics can predict with a fair amount of certainty that when the average speed of *many people* is increased, there will be XX greater accidents and deaths. This certainty and this prediction is due to the larger number of cases for the case of many versus one individual. This confusion between *individual/particular* interests and the *average/collective* interests is peculiarly bred by capitalist ideology. Everyone is told that "anyone can become a millionaire". However the fact is that only a small percentage of people could ever become millionaires even if they try. Of those trying to run even small businesses 85% fail. People know this but they tell themselves (and are repeatedly fostered in this illusion) that *I* am different - *I* can beat the odds. Of course they are not different, and the great preponderance will fail. Of course *I* can speed and not have an accident - but in fact everybody speeding inevitably increases the number of accidents regardless of one's individual delusions. tim sevener whuxl!orb
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (07/04/85)
>/* orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) / 6:02 pm Jul 2, 1985 */ >Although I cannot predict that *this particular speeder* will crash >by exceeding the speed limit or by going as fast as he might given >no speed limit, statistics can predict with a fair amount of certainty >that when the average speed of *many people* is increased, there will >be XX greater accidents and deaths. Does this mean that we should make the speed limit 0, thereby eliminating all traffic accidents? Of course not. But where do you draw the line? Why 55? If roads were private, these problems would be mitigated. There might well be roads with different safety factors. Motorists could to some extent choose the level of speed/risk appropriate for them. >This confusion between *individual/particular* interests and the >*average/collective* interests is peculiarly bred by capitalist ideology. >Everyone is told that "anyone can become a millionaire". This Alger Hiss mentality is not what libertarianism is about, at least for me. As I see it, libertarianism is about letting people do what they want so long as they don't violate rights of others. If what one want is to become a millionaire, one is free to pursue such dreams. Libertarianism does not require such aspirations or even encourage them per se. > tim sevener whuxl!orb Mike Sykora
baba@spar.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) (07/06/85)
> >Although I cannot predict that *this particular speeder* will crash > >by exceeding the speed limit or by going as fast as he might given > >no speed limit, statistics can predict with a fair amount of certainty > >that when the average speed of *many people* is increased, there will > >be XX greater accidents and deaths. > > > > tim sevener > > Does this mean that we should make the speed limit 0, thereby eliminating all > traffic accidents? Of course not. But where do you draw the line? > Why 55? > Mike Sykora If an arbitrary speed limit of 55 is empirically superior to no speed limit in terms of aggregate fuel burned, aggregate accidental damage, and aggregate time spent by people in transit (once accidents and jams are taken into account), then it seems pretty clear that from a pragmatic point of view the arbitrary speed limit produces more satisfactory results than no speed limit, regardless of whether it was arrived at by science or chance. > >Everyone is told that "anyone can become a millionaire". > > This Alger Hiss mentality is not what libertarianism is about, at least for > me. > Mike Sykora No one, not even Tim Sevener, has accused libertarians of commie treason. So why are you so hasty to distance yourself from it? Are you *sure* you haven't got something to hide? ;-) Baba
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (07/07/85)
>/* baba@spar.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) / 5:21 pm Jul 5, 1985 */ >If an arbitrary speed limit of 55 is empirically superior to no speed limit >in terms of aggregate fuel burned, aggregate accidental damage, and aggregate >time spent by people in transit (once accidents and jams are taken into >account), then it seems pretty clear that from a pragmatic point of view >the arbitrary speed limit produces more satisfactory results than no speed >limit, regardless of whether it was arrived at by science or chance. It isn't clear from a pragmatic point of view, because pragmatism is concerned only with means. Ends must be, at least in part, decided upon before means are considered. > Baba Mike Sykora
baba@spar.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) (07/08/85)
>>/* baba@spar.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) / 5:21 pm Jul 5, 1985 */ > >>If an arbitrary speed limit of 55 is empirically superior to no speed limit >>in terms of aggregate fuel burned, aggregate accidental damage, and aggregate >>time spent by people in transit (once accidents and jams are taken into >>account), then it seems pretty clear that from a pragmatic point of view >>the arbitrary speed limit produces more satisfactory results than no speed >>limit, regardless of whether it was arrived at by science or chance. >> >> Baba > > It isn't clear from a pragmatic point of view, because pragmatism > is concerned only with means. Ends must be, at least in part, decided > upon before means are considered. > > Mike Sykora Pragmatism concerned only with means? You should look up words that you don't understand before quibbling over their meaning. Baba
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (07/09/85)
> > >Although I cannot predict that *this particular speeder* will crash > > >by exceeding the speed limit or by going as fast as he might given > > >no speed limit, statistics can predict with a fair amount of certainty > > >that when the average speed of *many people* is increased, there will > > >be XX greater accidents and deaths. > > > > > > tim sevener > > > > Does this mean that we should make the speed limit 0, thereby eliminating all > > traffic accidents? Of course not. But where do you draw the line? > > Why 55? > > Mike Sykora > > If an arbitrary speed limit of 55 is empirically superior to no speed limit > in terms of aggregate fuel burned, aggregate accidental damage, and aggregate > time spent by people in transit (once accidents and jams are taken into > account), then it seems pretty clear that from a pragmatic point of view > the arbitrary speed limit produces more satisfactory results than no speed > limit, regardless of whether it was arrived at by science or chance. > Operative word there is "if". It seems clear to me that 55 is not optimal for most of the Western United States, with the possible exception of cities. In fact, most people out here disagree about how optimal 55 mph is, and vote with their right foot against it every day.
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (07/09/85)
> > From Clayton Cramer: > > If traffic in New Jersey is libertarian in nature, it's the only > > thing about New Jersey that is. > > > > Seriously, my experience is that in the absence of operating traffic > > signals, and where the right of way is not clear, most people drive > > *very* cautiously, because they desire to avoid accidents in which > > they will be injured, or at a minimum, their car will be damaged. Perhaps > > New Jersey's problem is too many years of governmental control --- I > > refuse to believe that any significant chunk of the population of > > New Jersey is so completely incapable of thinking far enough ahead > > to avoid a potentially dangerous accident. Are there that many morons > > in New Jersey? > > > > You are undoubtedly correct that *most* people drive more slowly without > traffic signals. Which just proves that a modicum of social order > helps *everyone* to achieve their goals more easily. > Social order, not government. In the absence of government or its direction, people develop social order. > Nor are most people so stupid that they will head directly for another > car. However most people are also not so noble as to do such things as > reduce their speed at their own quite clear expense for the more > abtract benefit of reducing the statistical risk of accidents to others > (or themselves). > 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. > This illustrates basic statistical laws of large numbers which > Libertarians seem to think do not apply to social groups. > Although I cannot predict that *this particular speeder* will crash > by exceeding the speed limit or by going as fast as he might given > no speed limit, statistics can predict with a fair amount of certainty > that when the average speed of *many people* is increased, there will > be XX greater accidents and deaths. This certainty and this prediction > is due to the larger number of cases for the case of many versus > one individual. > Speed isn't the only factor; variation in speed within traffic is the major factor. Your comments about statistical laws are unclear. > This confusion between *individual/particular* interests and the > *average/collective* interests is peculiarly bred by capitalist ideology. > Everyone is told that "anyone can become a millionaire". Almost everyone has the opportunity; not all take it. Look at the charming guy who runs HerbalLife. :-) > However the fact is that only a small percentage of people could > ever become millionaires even if they try. Of those trying to run > even small businesses 85% fail. People know this but they tell > themselves (and are repeatedly fostered in this illusion) that > *I* am different - *I* can beat the odds. Of course they are not > different, and the great preponderance will fail. > Of course *I* can speed and not have an accident - but in fact > everybody speeding inevitably increases the number of accidents > regardless of one's individual delusions. > > tim sevener whuxl!orb Depends on a lot of circumstances --- speed is only one.
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (07/09/85)
>/* baba@spar.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) / 4:30 am Jul 8, 1985 */ >Pragmatism concerned only with means? You should look up words that you >don't understand before quibbling over their meaning. I was not referring to the school of philosophy known as "pragmatism" if that's your gripe. As I understand it, pragmatism is concern with practical a questions, i.e., questions of technique. AM I mistaken?