orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (05/02/85)
> > >> "Coerce" to "cooperate" -- Huh? > > > >Did you make out a tax return this year? There is strong coercion to > >cooperate this way. Need more examples? > > > >Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh > > Has anyone ever shoved a gun in your face and told you to give > him your money? If you did, you were "cooperating" in this sense. > I think that when Mike says "coerced cooperation" he really means > "coercion" and is just trying to make it sound nicer. > > --JoSH Have you ever been almost killed by somebody running a red light or other such acts of highway lunacy? That is "noncooperation". Without the coercion of the police to restrain people this would be the normal state of affairs. tim sevener whuxl!orb
josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall) (05/07/85)
In article <617@whuxl.UUCP> orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) writes: >Have you ever been almost killed by somebody running a red light or >other such acts of highway lunacy? >That is "noncooperation". Without the coercion of the police to restrain >people this would be the normal state of affairs. > tim sevener whuxl!orb I'd like to cite this gem further to bolster my claim that Sevener really believes in coercion and not cooperation. Any reasonable person would fear the possibility of being smashed to bits more than the possibility of a $50 fine for light-running--anyone who believes the latter is necessary *merely believes in coercion rather than cooperation*. I (and most libertarians) believe that cooperation is its own reward, and that people do it naturally. --JoSH
orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (05/09/85)
> In article <617@whuxl.UUCP> orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) writes: > > >Have you ever been almost killed by somebody running a red light or > >other such acts of highway lunacy? > >That is "noncooperation". Without the coercion of the police to restrain > >people this would be the normal state of affairs. > > tim sevener whuxl!orb > > I'd like to cite this gem further to bolster my claim that Sevener > really believes in coercion and not cooperation. Any reasonable > person would fear the possibility of being smashed to bits more than > the possibility of a $50 fine for light-running--anyone who believes > the latter is necessary *merely believes in coercion rather than > cooperation*. I (and most libertarians) believe that cooperation > is its own reward, and that people do it naturally. > > --JoSH It just so happens that about 50,000 Americans a year die in traffic accidents. Of those deaths some are reckless drivers who have inadvertantly committed suicide by driving recklessly. However there is also a high proportion who are simply victims of others reckless driving. These people did absolutely nothing wrong in terms of either speeding or driving recklessly yet they were hit by others who chose to ignore speed limits and rules of reasonable driving. This lack of cooperation or concern for others occurred *despite* existing speed limits. While it is true that 90% of people will cooperate to avoid harming others without any legal coercion whatsoever there is a minority which will not. Moreover, even among the 90% who generally cooperate and would drive reasonably with no legal sanctions there are many with a natural propensity to downplay the danger of their own speeding (tell me who *actually* goes the speed limit??) since it causes no immediate deaths. Such speeding or reckless driving merely increases the *probability* that others (or oneself) will be killed. The existence of enforceable speed limits helps prevent the minority from threatening the lives of others and helps the majority to avoid the temptation to say "while I know speeding is dangerous on the whole, it is allright for me in this case, especially as I am in a great hurry". The effect of such speed limits in preventing highway deaths is demonstrated by the drastic falloff in traffic deaths after the passage of the 55 mile per hour speed limit. tim sevener whuxl!orb
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (05/21/85)
I don't know whether this response belongs in politics.theory, but it belongs in something.theory, and the original was in politics, so here goes: >The existence of enforceable speed limits helps prevent the minority >from threatening the lives of others and helps the majority to >avoid the temptation to say "while I know speeding is dangerous on the >whole, it is allright for me in this case, especially as I am in a great >hurry". > >The effect of such speed limits in preventing highway deaths is >demonstrated by the drastic falloff in traffic deaths after the >passage of the 55 mile per hour speed limit. > > tim sevener whuxl!orb After a month driving mostly in Germany, without speed limits most of the 8000 km (5000 miles in USA), I don't believe what Tim says. The main reason for highway deaths is bad driving, and in particular, being where you shouldn't be (usually in the left lane of an expressway). Germany is experimenting with speed limits on certain sections of the autobahn (most of which is without speed limits). Driving behaviour on those sections is different from that on the unlimited parts, and looks more like N. American behaviour (which I previously believed to be due to bad driver education). On the unlimited sections, it is easy and comfortable to cruise at 160 kph (100 mph in USA), although most of the slower traffic seems to go at about 130-140. At 160 you can usually cruise in the left lane of a 4-lane highway or the middle of a 6-laner, but you keep a good eye out for someone coming up fast behind you, and get out of the way in plenty of time. As a result, there is almost no passing on the right, and few situations where you need to "think fast". In contrast, when there is a speed limit, cars tend to travel around 20-40 kph over the speed limit, at about the same speed in both lanes, and thus many people feel no need to move over for someone who might want to go (illegally) faster. This causes the speeders to pass on the right, in the N. American manner. Complex situations can develop rapidly, causing accidents. I have seen no statistics on accident rates in limited as opposed to unlimited sections of comparable quality of highway, but my personal experience says that they are much more frequent on the sections with speed limits. The numbers are small enough that they could just be a statistical anomaly, though. On the other hand, I personally feel MUCH safer at 160 on an unlimited highway than at 130 with a speed limit of 100 (i.e. normal traffic speed). Of course, you couldn't have such rules when most of the cars on the road are N. American, because the car must be stable and precise in its handling at those speeds. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt
robg@mmintl.UUCP (Robert Goldman) (05/23/85)
The discussion of the speed limit or lack thereof in Germany seems to illustrate the difficulties libertarianism has with issues of social cost. As I understand it (and you are free to correct me if I am wrong), the motivating force behind the imposition of speed limits in Germany is neither safety nor fuel conservation, but pollution control. Germany has a very bad acid rain problem, especially in the Black Forest, and I had read that this was what caused agitation for a speed limit. It seems to me that issues like this, involving scarce resources `owned' by society at large (e.g., the water supply, the atmosphere), are issues which libertarianism has a great deal of difficulty coping with. Robert Goldman A Motorcyclist @MultiMate Int'l. "Drive Safely and considerately; the life you save may be my own." The opinions expressed here are those of the writer alone, and not his employer's, etc.