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.
Thought I'd strip all the specifics out of the argument as people seem to be getting caught up on those rather than getting straight to the heart of the issue. My fault as wel for adding too much unnecessary information to my original post. Anyway, what had me and Uriah arguing in the first place was the morality of punishing someone for a "crime" in which no physical damage or cost resulted. In this case it was to do with anti-hoon laws, but the same can be said for someone caught drunk driving, speeding, etc.Our two positions were as follows:=Uriah=That as no physical cost or accident resulted from the individual's actions it would be immoral to punish them as:1) That there is no way to assess the cost of the action.2) That there is no way to assess the risk their behavior represented.3) It would only be moral to punish the individual should an accident actually take place, an actual cost had been tallied and an aggrieved party had been identified.=Dazaris=Regardless of whether a physical cost was incurred or an accident resulted it is immoral on the part of the individual breaking the law to increase the risk posed to other inviduals on the road as:1) Assessing the cost of the action was irrelevant as the fine itself was punitive in nature intended to change the individual's behavior rather than a matter of transferring the cost to a specific individual.2) It is possible to assess the relative risk of specific types of behavior (Drinking, speeding, etc), as opposed to the absolute risk. That is to say you can say that one type of behavior will tend to increase the risk that an accident will take place (Deleterious effects of alcohol, stopping power of car, etc).3) That it is moral to punish the individual even though no accident has taken place as they are actively increasing the risk to the other individuals on the road in a manner which could be avoided (Not drinking, catching a taxi, obeying the speed limit in the school zone, etc).Uriah might want to step in here and fix up what I've put down as his argument as I don't think I've gone into enough detail on his points.Anywho, discuss.
That's close enough, though it's now framed as moral which has no method with which we can assess it. Well, none I'm interested in, if you want to talk about that, check out a philosophy forum, or read some Immanuel Kant or similar.
Economically we assess this as is it efficient or not. Which is what we've been discussing, so no real need to discuss it more, since (just read back over it), pretty much well all that can be said has been said, though I have noticed that some of the conversation has been on a bit of a higher level, and might require a lot more reading and study for someone to understand it.
I literally can't think of anything else I could say, which would show this, especially if the question has been changed to a moral one. If anyone else has any thoughts, I'd be interested.
Hey Justin,
The other factors that may affect the driver are beside the point of my argument as they are outside the driver's control (Situation factors). What I have an issue with are the factors within the driver's control as through his actions he actively increases the risk that an accident will take place.
If gave an insurance broker the choice of two individuals to insure and the only difference between them was that one drinks and drives and the other doesn't, I have no doubt which of the two he would pick.
Uriah,
Ah, no problem dude, my mistake then. I was under the impression that we were discussing what "should" be the case, which falls into the category of a philosophical argument. Efficiency on the other hand is completely descriptive as far as I was aware and no valuation on it's behalf can be made without resorting to a philosophical system of some kind.
Anywho, thanks for spending the time working with me on this and thanks to everyone else for their input.
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