Richard Combs, solidly in favor of the right to self defense, observes:
On the other hand, I live in the city. My house sits less than 10 feet from the houses on either side. I'd really rather not have one of my neighbors storing hundreds of pounds of high explosives in the basement and assembling bombs. I think that would present an unreasonable risk to me, making my neighbor guilty of reckless endangerment. Therefore, some restrictions are justified.
I have a lot of problems with the way government regulates our society, but I'm not entirely against regulation.
As an example, let's look at traffic law, perhaps the most over-regulated part of American life. Traffic engineers routinely set speed limits lower than necessary. This leads to all kinds of abuse by local governments. Often they use traffic tickets not to promote public safety, but to generate revenue. A random and tax on motorists, if you will.
Because of those things I'm against speed limits as we currently know them. A car travelling at ten or fifteen miles per hour over the speed limit is probably maintaining a reasonably safe speed. Imagine, for example, a moderately busy street through a residential neighborhood. The speed limit will typically be around 30 MPH, but a driver could be safe at 40 MPH. Caught on police radar he'll get a ticket. Clearly unfair, to my mind. But on that same road a driver doing 90 MPH is a clear danger to pedestrians or other drivers, and I see no reason to wait until he actually injures someone for the police to stop him.
That is indeed a form of regulation, and it's similar to what Richard is talking about, but it's not similar to what we presently know as regulation.
Indeed - it's not even really regulation. Such things as reckless driving should be prosecutable under existing ordinances prohibiting reckless endangerment of human life. In essence, when someone is performing actions that pose high risks of physically harming others, that's tantamount to assault; one is totally justified in using defensive force to stop them, just like you would be justified at shooting a robber or rapist before they assaulted you. There's no need for arbitrary limits; this is why we have juries, after all...
Posted by: Seth Dilday at August 17, 2005 12:06 PMJust stopped by to tell you that I moved my blog, but then I noticed that you don't link to me, so um... never mind! ;)
One of the deputies I work with says he doesn't pull people over until they're about 12 miles over the speed limit, unless he is looking for a reason to pull them over (suspects drugs, or car matches a description of a stolen car etc). I hope all deputies feel that way, because I am constantly driving at least 5-10 mph over the speed limit, but not in residential areas because 30 is fast enough there.
Posted by: D Bunny at August 18, 2005 11:09 AM"That is indeed a form of regulation, and it's similar to what Richard is talking about, but it's not similar to what we presently know as regulation."
This sentence may work better, in its last clause, if the "we" is assumed to be solely libertarians. It doesn't explicitly state it, but it seems to contain the assumption that any "regulation" is inhrently bad, and thus any regulation that isn't inherently insanely evil is not even a regulation, but some other thing. This is pretty much begging the entire question.
Posted by: Gary Farber at August 24, 2005 12:30 PMNo, that's not what I meant. Modern governments regulate by looking at broader consequences. For instance, a local traffic authority might decide that since there will likely be fewer accidents, a speed limit might be set at 35 MPH instead of 45 MPH. However, an individual motorist traveling at 45 MPH might be doing so safely.
I'm arguing it's not until an individual constitutes a clear and immediate danger that regulation should take effect, IE the driver doing 90.
Posted by: Walter at August 24, 2005 02:21 PM