Let's Have Libertarian Traffic Laws (A Modest Proposal)

[Troubadour]

Let's Have Small-Government Traffic Laws (A Modest Proposal)

I was sitting at a stoplight today, waiting for Big Gubmint to give me permission to drive across the intersection, when it occurred to me that traffic would be better managed if it were left up to individual initiative and the free market. Why do Socialists have the power to tell me not to drive into a busy intersection whenever I feel like it? Why do I have to yield to pedestrians who are too lazy to work hard enough to afford a car? Who are they to say I'm not allowed to drive on the sidewalk? My tax money paid for that sidewalk, pal! Shouldn't all the lazy people using it on my dime get out of my way if I feel like driving on it?

So I began thinking, wouldn't it be great if there were no stoplights, stop signs, yield signs, or other Big Gubmint limitations on my liberty as a self-motivated driver? People would naturally self-organize at intersections, and carefully pursue rational self-interest. Anyone who failed to do so would be removed from the roads by natural selection, and any others they killed in the process...well...they just weren't fast enough to get out of the way, so it's just that many fewer people to worry about. Hey, more road for me!

Now what, you may ask, are we to do about the crashes that do happen? Wouldn't they obstruct traffic? Well, I have the solution to that too - eliminate lane lines, center-dividers, and curbs so that drivers can drive anywhere they please, be it on grass, on sidewalks, or weaving suicidally through opposing traffic. If a hard-working, tax-paying free-market Ubermensch wants to use the right-hand sidewalk as a left-turn lane, that's between him and the half-dozen cars and pedestrians he's on a collision course with, not the Gubmint. If I decide that an intersection is a parking lot, just move around me instead of crying to the Nanny State to come steal my property by towing it away. Maybe I feel like driving on the "wrong" side of the street; maybe I feel like driving through a wilderness preserve and catching me some endangered species dinner. Isn't that my natural right as an American?

Come to think of it, there are a lot of Big Gubmint impositions on free traffic flow that we can do without. For instance, speed limits and "street legal" requirements. If I want to drive at 200 mph with spinning blade weapons extruding from my hubcaps, shouldn't I be free to do it? I mean, it's not like I'd be forcing anyone to put themselves in the path of my gore-covered Death-mobile - they'd be perfectly free to spot me with binoculars in time to get out of the way. Thus the true Libertarian meaning of freedom is asserted: My freedom to put your life in danger for my own amusement, and your freedom to get out of my way before I can kill you.

Come to think of it, let's also get rid of lampposts - all that free light being provided at taxpayer expense reeks of Socialism. But then, if we let cars drive wherever they want, we can take care of the lamppost problem without spending a single additional dime of taxpayer money, so it all works itself out: The lampposts get knocked out free of charge to the taxpayer, and the world is rid of genetically inferior drivers. The beauty and elegance of the free market are astounding, are they not?

Working model of a Small-Government intersection:

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Re: Let's Have Small-Government Traffic Laws (A Modest Proposal)

You know what's funny.
If you had researched the topic of, "do we really need traffic lights, stop signs and other kinds of traffic control?"

You would of found that the answer, in many cases, is no.
Tisk, tisk, you're not doing your homework.

A good read on it.
AutoSpeed Blog » Blog Archive » Do we need so many traffic lights?

 

[Mensch]

Re: Let's Have Small-Government Traffic Laws (A Modest Proposal)

I was sitting at a stoplight today, waiting for Big Gubmint to give me permission to drive across the intersection, when it occurred to me that traffic would be better managed if it were left up to individual initiative and the free market. Why do Socialists have the power to tell me not to drive into a busy intersection whenever I feel like it? Why do I have to yield to pedestrians who are too lazy to work hard enough to afford a car? Who are they to say I'm not allowed to drive on the sidewalk? My tax money paid for that sidewalk, pal! Shouldn't all the lazy people using it on my dime get out of my way if I feel like driving on it?

So I began thinking, wouldn't it be great if there were no stoplights, stop signs, yield signs, or other Big Gubmint limitations on my liberty as a self-motivated driver? People would naturally self-organize at intersections, and carefully pursue rational self-interest. Anyone who failed to do so would be removed from the roads by natural selection, and any others they killed in the process...well...they just weren't fast enough to get out of the way, so it's just that many fewer people to worry about. Hey, more road for me!

Now what, you may ask, are we to do about the crashes that do happen? Wouldn't they obstruct traffic? Well, I have the solution to that too - eliminate lane lines, center-dividers, and curbs so that drivers can drive anywhere they please, be it on grass, on sidewalks, or weaving suicidally through opposing traffic. If a hard-working, tax-paying free-market Ubermensch wants to use the right-hand sidewalk as a left-turn lane, that's between him and the half-dozen cars and pedestrians he's on a collision course with, not the Gubmint. If I decide that an intersection is a parking lot, just move around me instead of crying to the Nanny State to come steal my property by towing it away. Maybe I feel like driving on the "wrong" side of the street; maybe I feel like driving through a wilderness preserve and catching me some endangered species dinner. Isn't that my natural right as an American?

Come to think of it, there are a lot of Big Gubmint impositions on free traffic flow that we can do without. For instance, speed limits and "street legal" requirements. If I want to drive at 200 mph with spinning blade weapons extruding from my hubcaps, shouldn't I be free to do it? I mean, it's not like I'd be forcing anyone to put themselves in the path of my gore-covered Death-mobile - they'd be perfectly free to spot me with binoculars in time to get out of the way. Thus the true Libertarian meaning of freedom is asserted: My freedom to put your life in danger for my own amusement, and your freedom to get out of my way before I can kill you.

Come to think of it, let's also get rid of lampposts - all that free light being provided at taxpayer expense reeks of Socialism. But then, if we let cars drive wherever they want, we can take care of the lamppost problem without spending a single additional dime of taxpayer money, so it all works itself out: The lampposts get knocked out free of charge to the taxpayer, and the world is rid of genetically inferior drivers. The beauty and elegance of the free market are astounding, are they not?

Working model of a Small-Government intersection:

Simplification is a relatively new idea.

 

[spud_meister]

Re: Let's Have Small-Government Traffic Laws (A Modest Proposal)

You know what's funny.
If you had researched the topic of, "do we really need traffic lights, stop signs and other kinds of traffic control?"

You would of found that the answer, in many cases, is no.
Tisk, tisk, you're not doing your homework.

A good read on it.
AutoSpeed Blog » Blog Archive » Do we need so many traffic lights?

Replacing a lot of traffic lights with roundabouts (not the traffic circles you's have) is a good idea, however, traffic lights are needed to a certain degree as they break up the flow of traffic, and can make sure that the round abouts don't get clogged.

 

[Troubadour]

Re: Let's Have Small-Government Traffic Laws (A Modest Proposal)

You know what's funny.
If you had researched the topic of, "do we really need traffic lights, stop signs and other kinds of traffic control?"
A good read on it.
AutoSpeed Blog » Blog Archive » Do we need so many traffic lights?

The blog post advocates roundabouts, but why should Big Gubmint come in and force drivers to stay within a circular area? If a driver wants to drive in the opposite direction to that indicated by the Nanny State, shouldn't he be allowed to?

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Re: Let's Have Small-Government Traffic Laws (A Modest Proposal)

Replacing a lot of traffic lights with roundabouts (not the traffic circles you's have) is a good idea, however, traffic lights are needed to a certain degree as they break up the flow of traffic, and can make sure that the round abouts don't get clogged.

I've been reading a good bit on this and in experiments in the U.K. and some other European countries, is that they find that people are more visually aware of their surroundings and practice more cautious driving.

One place I saw involved a 7 street intersection, taking out the traffic light reduced the accidents to 1 a year.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Re: Let's Have Small-Government Traffic Laws (A Modest Proposal)

The blog post advocates roundabouts, but why should Big Gubmint come in and force drivers to stay within a circular area? If a driver wants to drive in the opposite direction to that indicated by the Nanny State, shouldn't he be allowed to?

You're argument is a straw man, few libertarians advocate anarchism.
That's why there is a whole separate movement called, anarchism.

 

[Mensch]

Re: Let's Have Small-Government Traffic Laws (A Modest Proposal)

The blog post advocates roundabouts, but why should Big Gubmint come in and force drivers to stay within a circular area? If a driver wants to drive in the opposite direction to that indicated by the Nanny State, shouldn't he be allowed to?

Of course not. Just like he shouldn't be allowed to smoke a joint, exchange sex for money, view pornography, get married without government recognition, speak unless spoken to by Big Gubmint, or lots of other things.

 

[Mensch]

Re: Let's Have Small-Government Traffic Laws (A Modest Proposal)

btw,

Harry, how did you become a moderator?

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Re: Let's Have Small-Government Traffic Laws (A Modest Proposal)

btw,

Harry, how did you become a moderator?

Magic and bribery. :2razz:

 

[Ikari]

Re: Let's Have Small-Government Traffic Laws (A Modest Proposal)

These libertarian attack threads are getting lamer. At least be entertaining.

 

[spud_meister]

Re: Let's Have Small-Government Traffic Laws (A Modest Proposal)

btw,

Harry, how did you become a moderator?

He slept his way to the top, seriously, he fell asleep on the DP elevator and the mods took pity on him.

 

[reefedjib]

Re: Let's Have Small-Government Traffic Laws (A Modest Proposal)

Magic and bribery. :2razz:

What kind of magic? Did you project mental willpower or did you invoke the spirit world? Projecting mental willpower is harder at first, but ultimately more powerful. Maintaining relationships with the spirit world merely requires faith and love. Mental willpower requires cognitive focus and strong thought transmission.

 

[spud_meister]

Re: Let's Have Small-Government Traffic Laws (A Modest Proposal)

These libertarian attack threads are getting lamer. At least be entertaining.

I thought this one was pretty funny, false, but funny and well written.

 

[Troubadour]

Re: Let's Have Small-Government Traffic Laws (A Modest Proposal)

Simplification is a relatively new idea.

Of course it's satiric hyperbole, but it's also a legitimate example of Reductio Ad Absurdum. If someone treats it as a matter of faith that government regulation and public spending are bad, then there is no reason they would not literally believe what I've only said sarcastically.

You're argument is a straw man, few libertarians advocate anarchism.
That's why there is a whole separate movement called, anarchism.

Nearly all libertarians advocate "self-organization" as a solution to problems that only exist because self-organization has failed to occur. Roundabouts are not libertarian, they represent very careful social engineering. From my experience discussing with libertarians, they seem every bit as likely to believe that efficient traffic would manifest itself without any level of civic planning, history notwithstanding, and usually resort to moral arguments when practical arguments fail them - moral arguments such as those lampooned in my opening post (i.e., "Big Gubmint shouldn't be involved").

Of course not. Just like he shouldn't be allowed to smoke a joint, exchange sex for money, view pornography, get married without government recognition, speak unless spoken to by Big Gubmint, or lots of other things.

Now you're confusing victimless crimes with a subject inarguably involving public safety.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Re: Let's Have Small-Government Traffic Laws (A Modest Proposal)

He slept his way to the top, seriously, he fell asleep on the DP elevator and the mods took pity on him.

Is your avatar a belt?

What kind of magic? Did you project mental willpower or did you invoke the spirit world? Projecting mental willpower is harder at first, but ultimately more powerful. Maintaining relationships with the spirit world merely requires faith and love. Mental willpower requires cognitive focus and strong thought transmission.

 

[Fiddytree]

Re: Let's Have Small-Government Traffic Laws (A Modest Proposal)

He went from having a potato as a face to being a damn belt. It's like he's a skinny bastard trying to convince us he's a replica of Vin Diesel.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Re: Let's Have Small-Government Traffic Laws (A Modest Proposal)

Nearly all libertarians advocate "self-organization" as a solution to problems that only exist because self-organization has failed to occur. Roundabouts are not libertarian, they represent very careful social engineering. From my experience discussing with libertarians, they seem every bit as likely to believe that efficient traffic would manifest itself without any level of civic planning, history notwithstanding, and usually resort to moral arguments when practical arguments fail them - moral arguments such as those lampooned in my opening post (i.e., "Big Gubmint shouldn't be involved").

Roundabouts are self organizing but that isn't the total argument for less traffic control.

The fact that lights, signs and other methods of traffic control disengage the motorist is a sign that maybe less active control would work better.
There is some science behind it.

 

[Ikari]

Re: Let's Have Small-Government Traffic Laws (A Modest Proposal)

I thought this one was pretty funny, false, but funny and well written.

Meh. It's craigslist level.

 

[reefedjib]

Re: Let's Have Small-Government Traffic Laws (A Modest Proposal)

Ahh, mental willpower it is, then.

 

[Fiddytree]

Re: Let's Have Small-Government Traffic Laws (A Modest Proposal)

Meh. It's craigslist level.

Where's the prostitutes?

 

[Mensch]

Re: Let's Have Small-Government Traffic Laws (A Modest Proposal)

Of course it's satiric hyperbole, but it's also a legitimate example of Reductio Ad Absurdum. If someone treats it as a matter of faith that government regulation and public spending are bad, then there is no reason they would not literally believe what I've only said sarcastically.



Nearly all libertarians advocate "self-organization" as a solution to problems that only exist because self-organization has failed to occur. Roundabouts are not libertarian, they represent very careful social engineering. From my experience discussing with libertarians, they seem every bit as likely to believe that efficient traffic would manifest itself without any level of civic planning, history notwithstanding, and usually resort to moral arguments when practical arguments fail them - moral arguments such as those lampooned in my opening post (i.e., "Big Gubmint shouldn't be involved").



Now you're confusing victimless crimes with a subject inarguably involving public safety.

Oh yea, public safety. I must have forgotten to include riding motorcycles, rockclimbing, bungee jumping, non-marital sex, tobacco, alcohol, and various other activities that might endanger public safety. You know those stupid individuals, they'll just kill themselves if we don't plan their lives for them.

It always amazes me that people on the left will cry for the rights of "the people" but will degrade the intelligence and competence of the individual- the smallest human minority.

 

[spud_meister]

Re: Let's Have Small-Government Traffic Laws (A Modest Proposal)

Is your avatar a belt?

Don't be stupid, it's a collar.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Re: Let's Have Small-Government Traffic Laws (A Modest Proposal)

Don't be stupid, it's a collar.

:lol:

Oh like that makes more sense.

 

[Troubadour]

Re: Let's Have Small-Government Traffic Laws (A Modest Proposal)

These libertarian attack threads are getting lamer.

I probably erred in limiting the focus to libertarians - my goal was to lampoon Small Government ideology in general.

At least be entertaining.

If you insist...

Roundabouts are self organizing but that isn't the total argument for less traffic control.

They're self-organizing within a carefully engineered framework. That's the entire point of government regulation - not to puppeteer, but to create frameworks within which the natural consequences are desirable. Libertarians generally do not support that, and do not view government as a vehicle for improving anything, including traffic.

The fact that lights, signs and other methods of traffic control disengage the motorist is a sign that maybe less active control would work better. There is some science behind it.

Possibly, but there are counter-arguments. The point is not to oppose passive regulation, but to recognize that whether you're talking about lighted intersections or engineered roundabouts, you're talking about a decision by government to improve on what the free market would provide. Self-organized traffic doesn't even need paved roads, and that's not anarchism - you could still have a wild-west style Small Government that only hangs criminals and settles disputes, and frankly that's what the vast majority of libertarians I talk to seem to think would be best.