Have been having an argument with a friend. He has been taking the position that drink driving, speeding and dangerous driving laws should not exist as they seek to regulate an immeasurable externality and that no one is physically harmed by these actions (This is in case of an individual caught engaging in these actions without causing an accident).I disagreed as I viewed the dangerous driving/drink driving/speeding as an action knowingly undertaken by an individual in opposition to the rules that govern that shared resource (The road). These actions constitute an unreasonable risk to the community and the purpose of the laws were not to seek recompense but to change the individual's behavior. These laws exist as the community found value in policing these actions and would lobby against them if they were unreasonably restrictive, or lobby for them if these laws did not exist.Any comment from the guys on this forum would be appreciated.
I favour vigilante control of roads. Example: if you drive 150kph swerving drunk through a town, I endorse you getting your ass getting kicked.
Btw, this should be in the politics forum.
I endorse private roads where property owners can do whatever they want with them.
If you don't like what they do, just don't give them your money.
i would think that unless the driving causes others to adjust their own driving in an super-defensive way the drunkenness or speeding should jest be allowed to flow.
kill someone with your car and and heavy restitution and loss of road access should be the likely result.
As for the "public" roads... In my view the burden of responsibility is just too light - this "lightness" breeds such excesses.
Restrictions and punishments prove their failure everyday!
Obviously it is very arbitrary statement - nobody knows what it would be like without them, nonetheless...
Infamy and personal obligation to compensate for injuries and damages plus lost profits - that would be very much harder to risk.
As for the "private" roads... My road - my law!
What should the driving laws be?
-privatize the rodas and it won't be a problem anymore.
What should we teach in schools?
-privatize the schools and it won't be a problem anymore.
Should we pass this particular law?
-Privatize the law and it won't be a problem anymore.
You get the drift? These problems exist because of our socialist policies in those areas. They pit us against eachother for control of the gun. No one fights over what fast food establishments should serve, and this is because there is no coercive monopoly on them.
Just a thought.
"Constitution worship is our most extended public political ritual, frequently supervised as often by mountebanks as by the sincere"-James J Martin
Hey guys,The friend he was arguing with was me. Dazaris wants to learn economics and understand Austrian economics, but I don't have the time to invest, so I wanted some people here to help him with some of the fundamentals of understanding Austrian economic ideology.My position was, that first of all someone with a libertarian / anarcho-capitalist ideology, does not see laws that require the direct infringement on liberty (levying a fine, removing license, removing the car from their possession, crushing the car and possible jail, these are possible consequences of breaking these laws in Australia, which is the context we're discussing it in) without a direct cost having been incurred (eg, someone was hit, property was damaged, or similar). The libertarian / anarcho-capitalist view is that, someone who drives ‘recklessly’ yet does not impose actual costs on another person, should not have a punishment/cost exacted on them, as this presumes that they have exacted a cost (an externality) on someone else and that the cost was measurable. The libertarian / anarcho-capitalist view suggests that a market solution should be used instead.This was the original argument: Whether or not a libertarian / anarcho-capitalist view is consistent with having police fine and punish people for doing something they see as wrong.To address this new version of the argument...Your statement that the person has broken rules that govern the use of the “shared resources”, is a problem with the tragedy of the commons. We have a common good, which nobody owns, or everybody owns, and where one person benefits by using it ‘more’. In this case the driver in question is imposing an external cost on the other users, however this cost cannot be measured, and never becomes fully incurred, it is a hypothetical cost. More so it's an action which the government is incentivising to be stopped, in this way they are trying to address the tragedy of the commons.You state that "these actions constitute an unreasonable risk to the community", however this is a normative assessment, as we have stated that no (measurable) cost has been incurred, and so we have no basis with which to assess whether it was unreasonable risk. Though since risk is a reflection of possible economic loss (which can include loss of life, etc) and no (measurable) cost has been incurred, the risk could not have been unreasonable. Especially when we understand that no physical cost was imposed, eg, the actions of that driver did not cause an accident.This is without going into whether the incentives work, however I’ll mention briefly that shared space and studies on no speed limits suggest not. Though, I do not want this argument to turn into a quantitative nightmare on the efficacy of laws.The "value" the community gains from them, is not necessarily rational, and is not necessarily tangible. In all likelihood a large amount of the value, which you see as a rationale for why it exists, is primarily a function of them feeling safer, whether or not they actually are. Additionally, the rational that 'if these laws were bad, they wouldn't exist' (to paraphrase you) requires an assessment with a limited time period, as we do not know whether these laws will be judged as such in the future, additionally it presumes that no bad laws could ever be created (such that this law must be just), that people are rational (such that they could produce a just law) and that people have enough information to ensure the efficacy of these laws (such that it is handled correctly), all of which we know to be incorrect on some level. This is without going into the political forces which drive the creation of these laws.Now to approach it from another angle.Given that the government imposes a cost on travelling at speeds which many people regularly travel at, we can see that there is an increase in the cost of travelling from one place to another (similar to incentivising drug suppliers and consumers). This has the effect that less people on the whole will travel less, and that the costs of travel will be higher. Additionally, the government's actions in these instances result (if caught enough) in the remove of the vehicle, which imposes further costs on society, these costs are measurable in the loss of income, the loss of ability to work, the possible creation of a need to go on welfare, and the destruction (crushing) of a good. In this case, the cars and people they are targeting are people with relatively good cars, who have spent a relatively high amount of money on them, and often work hard jobs to attain these vehicles. An additional consequence of this is that several markets for these sorts of goods become extremely affected. A portion of the hardcore car enthusiasts leave the country as they find the costs of owning and pursuing their hobbies are too high (they are priced out of this market, but can afford it elsewhere, this happens quite a lot in Australia). Additionally the average car enthusiast either pursues his hobbies less or not at all. I have seen both of these happen increasingly over time as this market for transport has been increasingly regulated. This has vastly changed the economy, especially in the market for muscle cars and similar, which Australia is (was?) an exporter of.Another way to approach this is from a liberty point of view, where the government perpetually encroaches on people’s ability to go about their lives, resulting in far less prosperity for those involved, under the rationalization of a future hypothetical cost.Lastly, the specific instance we are talking about, is a friend of ours who has been given a summons under hoon driving laws to present tomorrow morning at a local police station for his punishment. 2 months ago an off duty police officer witnessed our friend accelerating excessively, it was not stated that he broke the speed limit, however it is charged that he was driving in a manner which is reckless to public safety. On this day in question the road was wet, and he was travelling along a freeway (a highway with a 110kph speed limit which is a 68mph speed limit), in a powerful done up car, such that his tyres would have 'chirped' since traction control was always on. The police got in contact with our friend, by phone, 2 months after the fact, and have stated that "We can impound your car, however if you come in and sign a statement, we'll let you off with a reasonable fine and several demerit points (points against your license which if you get enough result in its removal)". He is a student and basically has no ability to fight this, as in Australia, if you fight and you lose, you get the full penalty of the law and you pay for their court costs and prosecutions costs on top of your own, which can be quite large. Additionally the Police officers word is evidence, akin to film, and would be entered as such. A legal advice service has stated that "It is extremely difficult to contest a traffic matter successfully". In this case the person is stuck with the substantial risk of facing all of these large costs if he contests it, or copping to a smaller cost. This happens quite regularly, and the person will almost always take the lower cost option, even though it requires they admit guilt.I'd like to see some Austrian analysis of what Dazaris is saying and perhaps maybe some good references for him to study.Thanks,Uriah
Oh also, I should mention Dazaris is likely to be studying a double degree next year a Bachelor of Economics with a Bachelor of Finance, so he's into this kind of topic, and wants to understand it better.
Hey Uriah, just a paragraph by paragraph response to your post.Paragraph Two:Regardless of whether any cost is incurred the individual's is unreasonably increasing the risk to the other drivers using the road. The law isn't concerned with whether a cost has been incurred or an accident has happened. The law's purpose is to coerce people into driving in a responsible manner and the fine is just the means in which this is achieved. The fact that no economic cost has been accrued is irrelevant.Paragraph Three:A libertarian/anarcho-capitalist view may be consistent with this rationale but mine is not. I've only every been arguing from my own standpoint on this issue. Apologies if I didn't make this clear.Paragraph Five:Are public roads a "common good"? I was under the impression that the goverment builds, maintains and polices the roads and as such they possess ownership (I doubt they'd be too impressived if you tried digging it up looking for pirate gold!). The owner of the roads (In this case the goverment) clearly defines their rules of conduct when utilizing their roads in order to protect the other users. Should individuals want to drive dangerously on their own property where they are not putting anyone else in danger I would have absolutely no issue.Paragraph Six:Not as much a normative assessment as you think. Though I can't be bothered right now chasing up references it has been determined that speeding (Driving on a road with no limit is something different), drunk driving and using a mobile phone while driving significantly increases the risks of a car crash. As the cost that may or may not be incurred are irrelevant in this context (The purpose of the law is to coerce not to recompense) this is unreasonable on the part of the offender.Paragraph Seven:Again not chasing up refences (May do so tommorrow), they have noticed a drop off in accidents due to drunk driving since they stepped up enforcement in South Australia.Paragraph Nine:The value the community gains from this is a tangible reduction in the number of accidents caused by dangerous driving. Goverment introduced advertisements aimed at educating the public on these issues may have also led to this trend.Paragraph Eleven:The only people that will experience an additional cost in this case will be those that actually breaks the law (Taxes excepted). The loss of income and ability to work is a consequence of the individual's actions and dependent on him re-offending. The law is not supposed to be pleasant, it is intended to curtail behavior that puts other people's lives at risk. If the individual chooses to continue re-offending after being caught, he's not just acting dangerously, he's acting stupidly as well.Paragraph Thirteen:Whether said charge is going to be difficult to context is to be seen. Our mutual friend is planning to fight the action along with another friend who is acting as a witness (Was in the passengers seat at the time). He has no priors and believes he is innocent and I fully support him in pursuing this as far as he can. Here's hoping that this ends well for him.
Paragraph Two:
What is your measure of "unreasonably increasing the risk to the other drivers"? You have no way of saying whether or not it has been "unreasonably increased". The reason the law is attempting to incentivise people is based on the idea that this is an "unreasonably increasing the risk", which as I've shown, we don't know.
Paragraph Three:
You stated this was, I just checked the logs. Also, I re-clarified this later.
Paragraph Five:
Look up the definition of common good. More so, just read about "The Tragedy of the Commons".
Paragraph Six:
A correlation has been found, yet as we know with regression analysis, the line of regression only estimates it. This is the problem and this is why it is normative. Unless you're trying to say that everyone who speeds/talks on their phone/drink drives, dies? Look up the definitive of Normative and Positive. Although something has been measured, this only says something of those circumstances or is summary data. Any further extrapolation is not a positive statement, and more so, the "This *should* be regulated" is a normative statement.
Paragraph Seven:
Don't care about quantitative assessments.
Paragraph Nine:
This would assume you can measure the drop off in the number of accidents, which you can't. You could estimate it on average, eg, a regression analysis, but no matter what, you'd be wrong. Additionally, since these costs are in the form of not having other costs, these are intangible. Can you detect with your senses the absense of a crash? Look up the definition of tangible.
Paragraph Eleven:
You need to go study supply and demand, specifically how markets price in incentives.
Paragraph Thirteen:
The "difficult to contest" was based on legal sources which deal in this area. Either way, he did spin his wheels, though it would have only been a chirp. By your own admission, you believe this is correct. He needs to be incentivised to not do it and he was "unreasonably increasing the risk to other drivers". So he admits he isn't innocent, but not to the cops, however he's hoping to fight it. Now before you come back and say "Well not in this instance", think about how hard it is to judge every instance, and how this grey area is exactly what I was talking about.
My take: so long as the government controls the roads, it should enforce laws against drunk driving (note: one beer doesn't count as "drunk") and other dangerous behavior. I suspect that's what most private road owners would do.
Cork brings up a good point. I think it really depends on which side on the left-right and limited-gov/no-gov divides you fall on. The left (and likely Block's group of plumbliners) would most likely hold that governments cannot legitimately own land, and hence the only owners of gov roads are those who have homesteaded them, or those forced to pay for them. The right would likely support a position where any gov asset should be treated, in the short term, like a landlord would, in this case imposing restrictions on use. Also, some limited govers see road provision as a legitimate government function, and hence wouldn't have so big a problem with it.
My sympathies, for the record, are towards the right's position, and I'm agnostic-leaning-against on whether roads are a legitimate government function.
Not going to reply point by point this time. I just have a single question for you.
Do you believe that driving drunk and driving while texting/on phone do not increase the chance that you will have a car accident?
If we can establish the above I'm pretty sure I can figure out where you're coming from on this issue.
Hey, thanks everyone for your input so far. I have been reading and it's been good to get a lot of different viewpoints on the matter.
dazaris: Not going to reply point by point this time. I just have a single question for you. Do you believe that driving drunk and driving while texting/on phone do not increase the chance that you will have a car accident? If we can establish the above I'm pretty sure I can figure out where you're coming from on this issue.
I believe that driving, period, increases your chance of a car accident. I believe that driving over 5mph increases your chances of a car accident. What's your point?
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap