Troubadour
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2010
- Messages
- 464
- Reaction score
- 181
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
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:
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?
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?
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.
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?
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?
btw,
Harry, how did you become a moderator?
btw,
Harry, how did you become a moderator?
Magic and bribery. :2razz:
These libertarian attack threads are getting lamer. At least be entertaining.
Simplification is a relatively new idea.
You're argument is a straw man, few libertarians advocate anarchism.
That's why there is a whole separate movement called, anarchism.
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.
He slept his way to the top, seriously, he fell asleep on the DP elevator and the mods took pity on him.
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.
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").
I thought this one was pretty funny, false, but funny and well written.
Meh. It's craigslist level.
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.
Is your avatar a belt?
Don't be stupid, it's a collar.
These libertarian attack threads are getting lamer.
At least be entertaining.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?