gjk@talcott.UUCP (Greg Kuperberg) (01/23/85)
The problem with ideal societies is that they don't exist. Or to put it another way, Communist Ideology: A subject without subject matter. --- Greg Kuperberg harvard!talcott!gjk "Nice boy, but about as sharp as a sack of wet mice." - Foghorn Leghorn
josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall) (01/25/85)
> The problem with ideal societies is that they don't exist.
AH, but this is net.politics.theory! Just as a physicist would
study the motion of point mass on a frictionless plane, here we should
study the activities of perfectly rational, completely self-interested
people in a world without I Love Lucy reruns.
--JoSHmmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (01/31/85)
>> The problem with ideal societies is that they don't exist. > >AH, but this is net.politics.theory! Just as a physicist would >study the motion of point mass on a frictionless plane, here we should >study the activities of perfectly rational, completely self-interested >people in a world without I Love Lucy reruns. > >--JoSH Not in net.politics.theory, please. Net.economics.theory perhaps, but here we should deal with people AS THEY ARE. After all, (almost) all political theories would produce Utopia if the land were populated with ideal people (ideal == suited to the theory). Libertarians usually deal with ideal people: totally informed, completely rational about decisions, and capable of correct judgment about the results of their actions. (Sorry, I forgot. JoSH is a propertarian, not a libertarian. That must require a different set of ideals). -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmt
cliff@unmvax.UUCP (02/03/85)
> Not in net.politics.theory, please. Net.economics.theory perhaps, but > here we should deal with people AS THEY ARE. After all, (almost) all > political theories would produce Utopia if the land were populated > with ideal people (ideal == suited to the theory). > > Libertarians usually deal with ideal people: totally informed, completely > rational about decisions, and capable of correct judgment about the > results of their actions. I would like to know where you got this idea... Libertarians don't care whether people make rational decisions or not. Here is an example of two different hypothetical societies S: Has subsidized medical care for many groups of people--consequently the significant drain on the workers causes many people to lobby for the creation of laws to ban harmful practices. Here's the rub: In society S, the decision of which harmful practices to avoid is made by a few people, some are too widespread to ban (i.e. smoking) and others are not harmful but are banned for political reasons. L: The people who get sick are the people who pay for their medical aid--consequently the unpredictability of some devestating illnesss causes many people to purchase medical insurance. Since there are quite a few different medical insurers there are different guidelines (and penalties) allowing alternative lifestyles. Since the insurers are in it to make a profit, the people who smoke either pay an extra premium or are denied insurance. _________________ (the bottom line) Society S counts on its legislators to be rational people, capable of correct judgement about the results of their actions. Since the action involved is the passing of laws the impact is more significant. When a law is made it is rarely rescinded (even if the conditions that brought about the law have since changed for the better (i.e. income tax and 55 m.p.h. speed limit)). If the legislative class in society S is elected, then that means that the entire voting populace either have little say in what goes on because once someone is elected he does as he sees fit, or the entire voting populace must be rational people, capable of correct judgement about the results of their actions. One real world example is the U.S. where through medicare and medicaid the health industry is subsidized. People now want to pass seat- belt laws saying: Everyone must wear seatbelts. There is little talk of banning smoking, in fact the tobacco industry still receives subsidies. Net result: people have less incentive to stop smoking then in society L (since their medical bills will be subsidized), people who want to ride in a car without seatbelts are prohibited by law and the years lost to cancer still outnumber the years lost to death in vehicle. Society L does not depend on anybody being a rational person, nor does it pro- hibit it. People are free to live their life as they see fit. Most people live their lives by letting others lead (religiously, medically, etc.), so they won't be left out in the dark with no information. Ralph Nader is still allowed to tell others about the consequences of their actions... The cancer society can site facts and figures about the joys of a slow painful death. Insurers will do a better job encouraging safe practices by making it more obvious which bad habits are known to decrease life expectancy. --Cliff [Matthews] {purdue, cmcl2, ihnp4}!lanl!unmvax!cliff {csu-cs, pur-ee, convex, gatech, ucbvax}!unmvax!cliff 4744 Trumbull S.E. - Albuquerque NM 87108 - (505) 265-9143
al@ames.UUCP (Al Globus) (02/08/85)
> ........ When a law is made it is > rarely rescinded (even if the conditions that brought about the law have since > changed for the better (i.e. income tax and 55 m.p.h. speed limit))..... The 55 m.p.h. limit was never rescinded because the number of traffic fatalities went WAY down when the speed limit was lowered. I don't know the exact numbers but I believe it involved many thousands fewer deaths per year.
jlg@lanl.ARPA (02/09/85)
> The 55 m.p.h. limit was never rescinded because the number of traffic fatalities > went WAY down when the speed limit was lowered. I don't know the exact > numbers but I believe it involved many thousands fewer deaths per year. Quite true. The leading cause of traffic fatalities is (and always was) DWI. But, in most situations, a contributory factor is excessive speed. However, what the National Traffic Safety Bureau statistics don't show is a breakdown of the fatality statistics by the accident location and cause (except in very general terms). A friend of mine did a breakdown of this kind for traffic accidents in texas and found some anomalies. For all non-highway travel the fatality rate went down with the intorduction of the 55 mile speed limit. This includes frontage roads, freeways, access roads, etc.. For highway driving though, the fatalities went up slightly. Not real suprising - a major cause of highway accidents in the west is driver fatigue. The 55 mile speed limit makes driving times 20% longer, and with the large intercity distances in the west this extra time takes it's toll in lives. Blanket regulations like the 55 mile speed limit should always be expected to have SOME deleterious effects vs. the original case by case determination of speed limit based on road condition, traffic loads, etc.. J. Giles
jlup@cci-bdc.UUCP (John Lupien ) (02/10/85)
<imaginary data - but the line eater isn't particular> > > changed for the better (i.e. income tax and 55 m.p.h. speed limit))..... > > The 55 m.p.h. limit was never rescinded because > the number of traffic fatalities went WAY down > when the speed limit was lowered. I don't know > the exact numbers but I believe it involved many > thousands fewer deaths per year. Well, now, there have been some OFFICIAL types of dissagreement on what exactly was the effect of the 55 limit. The most reliable estimate, (from an independently conducted study, no less) was that the largest number of deaths saved attributable to the speed limit change was 2,400. The minimum effect was given as 1,000. I'd be glad to dig up the reference if anyone needs it, but I wanted to point out that there are other numbers hidden in these estimates. The values given represent "accident fatalities". People die of old age, too, at a rate of one per 600,000 highway hours (assuming that you age at the same rate driving or not). Out of a "pool" of 10,000,000,000 road hours (originally) for Americans, and assuming maybe half of them are "highway hours" the decrease in highway speed of about 20% gives an increase of 1,000,000,000 hours, or 1666 deaths, which is right in the ball-park with how many deaths have been claimed as "saved". Statistical evidence aside, the administration of the 55 mph limit costs taxpayers and drivers many *DOLLARS*. The arguments as to how many lives could be saved either way cannot really be confirmed, but the cost to the nation of having a radar speed trap every 3 miles, drivers being delayed and merit ratings being massacred, not to mentibn ticketing, collecting, and associated court expenses represents a very tangible argument against such measures as a ridiculously slow *national* speed limit. In a closing note of optimism, I would point out that in West Germany, there is *no* speed limit on the autobahn, and that very few deaths occur on German highways. Secondary routes are the big problem there, very much as they are in the US. Drive fast, but safely. John Lupien The opinions expressed above are my opinions. <imaginary data>
franka@hercules.UUCP (Frank Adrian) (02/13/85)
In article <792@ames.UUCP> al@ames.UUCP (Al Globus) writes: >The 55 m.p.h. limit was never rescinded because the number of traffic >fatalities >went WAY down when the speed limit was lowered. I don't know the exact >numbers but I believe it involved many thousands fewer deaths per year. But an interesting question is if this is an example of 1) reduced speed or 2) a "Hawthorne effect" due to changing the environment (For those of you unfamiliar with the Hawthorne effect, a study was done at Hawthorne St. plant of Western Electic in the 1940's. The lighting in the plant was increased. Productivity went up. They turned the lights back down. Pro- ductivity went up again. The light setting had nothing to do with pro- ductivity - it was the changing environment which increased it). There is evidence to support both views. If the decrease is a result of reduced speed, the highway fatality rates should stay about the same (per 1000 driver miles) year by year (I am assuming that the basic view of drivers vis a vis traffic laws being obeyed and enforcement are constant). The statistics show a yearly increase since the time the law was passed. This either means that people are ignoring the law, the law is not being enforced, or the reduction in fatalities was due to a "Hawthorne effect". On the other hand, you have a reduced rate of fatalities indicating that it is the reduced speed limit which causes it. As far as I know, the only way to tell the difference between a "Hawthorne effect" change and a true variable correlation is to change the variable, check results, put the variable back to where it was, and check results again (i.e., find a state. Increase the speed limit to 65 for 5 years. Check fatality rates. Decrease the speed limit back to 55. Check the fatality rates over the next 5 years). As a person interested in science, I'd like to see this experiment done. If a lower speed limit worked (there was a positive correlation between legal speed limits and highway fatality rate), we could maybe lower the speed limit some more and get more fuel savings and less traffic deaths. And if the change is due to a "Hawthorne effect", we could remove a law from the books which is clearly irritating to a fair percentage of the populace. Of course, this probably makes too much sense to ever be carried out. Frank Adrian - MFotN