mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (07/06/85)
In article <2380080@acf4.UUCP> mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) writes: >>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? This is why we have governments. >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 is pure speculation, and ignores the demonstrted fact that large variations in speed cause the most accidents. In any case, the owners of the roads would have to form some sort of agency to coordinate things like traffic signs, which side of the road to drive on, etc. Such a group would then enjoy monopoloy power over the roads with the right (as Mike has claimed) to deny service anyone for any reason. This is quite obviously tyranny. >>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. {It's Horatio Alger, not Alger Hiss.] Isn't letting people do what they want without violating the rights of others the state aim of the current government? It all depends on what rights you choose, and how you resolve conflicts between them. Mike seems rather consistent in his assertion that the right to unrestricted liberty in the use of private property is supreme above all other rights. I maintain that human beings are too prone to evil to be trusted with such a right. The abuses of economic power by the likes of the Rockefellers, Vanderbilts and Goulds is sufficient evidence for me. Mike has proposed nothing which would check their power, and indeed, he is quite adamant they have the right to such abuses. I suggest that it is no wonder that Mike's views are not held by working people, but by professors, bankers, and businessmen. Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe