oh lawd

[rusvik]

I honestly don't think traffic lights (and many other statisms taken for given) are necessary, but it is dealing with anti-social/sociopathic people which eventually makes people adopt laws. A good deal of human moral is imo. inherited and 'obvious' but sociopaths don't give a damn about such things and therefore threathen the 'live and let live' mantra of civilization. In primitive civilization people who stepped outside were punished swiftly and things such as duels kept people in check, but now we tend to punish everyone to deter some and that is how laws become unjust.

 

[JakeStratham]

I honestly don't think traffic lights (and many other statisms taken for given) are necessary, but it is dealing with anti-social/sociopathic people which eventually makes people adopt laws. A good deal of human moral is imo. inherited and 'obvious' but sociopaths don't give a damn about such things and therefore threathen the 'live and let live' mantra of civilization. In primitive civilization people who stepped outside were punished swiftly and things such as duels kept people in check, but now we tend to punish everyone to deter some and that is how laws become unjust.

Laws are fine. But they need to be established by property owners. They are the ones who are most invested to influence behavior on their property. For example, you probably have an unspoken rule that visitors to your home cannot take a shit on your living room carpet. Your property, your rules. If someone violates your "no shit on carpet" rule, he or she would likely be ousted and asked not to return.

Today, we have monopoly law, based not on property ownership, but on the whims of an elected body of rulers. And of course, a monopoly police force is put in place to enforce the rulers' arbitrary laws.

The result is that people who are inclined to follow rules do so and give the impression that monopoly law works. It is a facade of effectiveness. Meanwhile, sociopaths continue to run amok.

 

[JakeStratham]

I meant to add the following to my previous post, but was timed out...

For example, consider an ice skating rink. Most people tend to skate along the perimeter in the same direction. They do not need a law telling them to do so. They do so naturally after watching the behaviors of others (social proof). A few folks will always act in a manner that is inconsistent with the behaviors of those around them. To wit, there will be a few skaters who travel in the opposite direction.

In this case, establishing a law criminalizing inconsistent behavior is unlikely to change anything. Those who are following the pattern set by their fellow skaters will likely continue to do so. The few who skate in the opposite direction are unlikely to change their behavior because of the law. They may change to escape detection from the enforcers, but that is a temporary change.

Social proof influences behavior everywhere - at restaurants, in theaters, at baseball parks, etc. In addition, rules - or laws - set by property owners communicate the owners' expectations for those who might wander in with aberrant tendencies. In many cases - e.g. your "no shit on carpet" rule - the rules are unspoken and generally accepted by everyone.

 

[rusvik]

^ Right, and it would be better if that punk on the ice skating rink had gotten a talking to or a quick diciplining by the crowd instead of restricting the freedom others. Deterrence through protection of personal protection and that is why I believe guns are for the most part a good for a civilized society. I also believe that children should thai boxing or MMA growing up. This works well in say Thailand, where lager louts know better than to mess with a 140 lbs Thai, because the little fucker likely can fight and if he can't then his mates will join. And Thailand is remarkably peaceful despite the random loss of face shooting.

 

[kingofsp]

In truth, traffic lights aren't necessarily bad. I am certain they can be useful in certain situations. But rather than allow states to own roads, a situation that allows costs to be socialized and encourages blanket solutions (sometimes, to nonexistent problems), the roads should be privately owned.

I agree that traffic lights could have some use in a free society. One big difference between the current system would be that if you were waiting at a red light at 4am and there wasn't a single car in sight, you could just safely pass through without having to worry about some overly caffeinated cop intimidating/citing you. Or a red light camera, for that matter.

 

[JakeStratham]

I agree that traffic lights could have some use in a free society. One big difference between the current system would be that if you were waiting at a red light at 4am and there wasn't a single car in sight, you could just safely pass through without having to worry about some overly caffeinated cop intimidating/citing you. Or a red light camera, for that matter.

Absolutely. This brings up a few interesting issues, specifically related to property ownership and private security agencies.

First, suppose the road were privately operated for a profit. Its owner would naturally be interested in getting folks to use his road. If the software running the traffic lights is poorly-programmed, his customers are likely to complain, blog about it, rate the road poorly (e.g. Consumer Reports), or migrate to his competitors' roads. The owner would thus be compelled to make changes that lead to a better experience for his customers. (Contrast that scenario to the current one.)

Second, suppose the provision of security were the exclusive domain of private agencies. Each agency would compete to bring customers in the door. To do that, they might need to operate in a manner that most would consider to be "professional" from a business perspective. Here, it would behoove an agency to refrain from approaching every situation with aggression and drawn guns. Conflict - particularly armed conflict - is costly. It drives costs upward, which might lead to customer attrition.

Now let's put the two dynamics together: consider a private road operated for a profit by an owner who has hired a private security agency to ensure order and minimize mayhem. As mentioned, the traffic lights might work properly. Additionally, security agents might behave professionally. To that end, running a red may result in less severe consequences (if caught) than is the case today. After all, a road owner who employs thoughtless thugs to patrol his roads is likely to lose customers to his competitors.

I'm rambling. But these are the things I like to think about. For some, its boobs. For me, it's this stuff.

By the way, if you've haven't read Block (here's the link to his road book again), he's a hoot. I think you'd get a kick outta him.

To mattseh, I apologize for hijacking your thread. I won't say it'll never happen again, because we both know that would likely become a lie.

 

[DewChugr]

Absolutely. This brings up a few interesting issues, specifically related to property ownership and private security agencies.

First, suppose the road were privately operated for a profit. Its owner would naturally be interested in getting folks to use his road. If the software running the traffic lights is poorly-programmed, his customers are likely to complain, blog about it, rate the road poorly (e.g. Consumer Reports), or migrate to his competitors' roads. The owner would thus be compelled to make changes that lead to a better experience for his customers. (Contrast that scenario to the current one.)

When I read this my immediate thought was comcast, I began to worry. I am relieved knowing this will never happen.

 

[kingofsp]

When I read this my immediate thought was comcast, I began to worry. I am relieved knowing this will never happen.

Don't Blame Big Cable. It's Local Governments That Choke Broadband Competition | Wired Opinion | Wired.com

Deploying broadband infrastructure isn’t as simple as merely laying wires underground: that’s the easy part. The hard part — and the reason it often doesn’t happen — is the pre-deployment barriers, which local governments and public utilities make unnecessarily expensive and difficult.
Before building out new networks, Internet Service Providers (ISPs) must negotiate with local governments for access to publicly owned “rights of way” so they can place their wires above and below both public and private property. ISPs also need “pole attachment” contracts with public utilities so they can rent space on utility poles for above-ground wires, or in ducts and conduits for wires laid underground.


The problem? Local governments and their public utilities charge ISPs far more than these things actually cost. For example, rights of way and pole attachments fees can double the cost of network construction.

So the real bottleneck isn’t incumbent providers of broadband, but incumbent providers of rights-of-way. These incumbents— the real monopolists — also have the final say on whether an ISP can build a network. They determine what hoops an ISP must jump through to get approval.


This reduces the number of potential competitors who can profitably deploy service — such as AT&T’s U-Verse, Google Fiber, and Verizon FiOS. The lack of competition makes it easier for local governments and utilities to charge more for rights of way and pole attachments.