|
What Else Should Be Banned
On the Road?
Manuel Lora
Lew Rockwell.com
Monday November 26, 2007
Cell phone bans are popular these days. The rationale
is that too many accidents are caused by people being distracted
by cell phones and because they are so popular they should be
banned – everyone should have to use a hands-free device.
But this is just another arbitrary dictate by the state, which
has unfortunately taken over the management of roads and highways.
The government has no incentive to be entrepreneurial. Whatever
rules are enacted, they do not have to reflect the "customers"
that it is "serving."
My question is simple. Because government-run roads are presumably
safer with cell phone bans, should we not call for more bans?
For example, it is possible that some people become more distracted
by things other than cell phones. Some women put on makeup while
driving and then steer with the knees. Parents can become completely
overwhelmed by loud children in the mini-van. Then there’s
the champion of them all: the fast food eater. This strange and
mythical creature, often found commuting from suburbia to downtown,
has been spotted doing any or all of the following: wolfing down
a double whopper; seasoning fries with ketchup and extra salt;
wiping off spilled chocolate milkshake from his shirt; and watching
a movie on his iPod. With enemies such as those, I am shocked
– shocked! – that the government has not cracked down
on makeup, children and food...or at least not yet (let’s
not give them ideas).
(Article continues below)
Why is there a battle against specific distractions? Should it
not make more sense to instead target reckless driving as opposed
to the causes of the problematic driving? If you can listen to
ear-piercing hip hop and still drive carefully and not hurt others,
there is no problem. And the same goes for drive-through maniacs,
women who pretend they are at the beauty parlor, and, yes, even
drivers who are high (or low). Moreover, who is to say that a
fifteen-minute conversation on a hands-free device has to necessarily
be more distracting than a one-minute conversation with a regular
cell phone? Finally – and this is important – driving
skills are not uniform. It’s possible that driver A is much
better than driver B even if A is on a cell phone or eating.
Let me make it clear that I am not recommending any particular
policy. I would love to see roads de-socialized and all government
barriers in the transportation industry abolished. Let road entrepreneurs,
communities and neighborhoods figure out the details of highways
and roads. So long as bureaucrats are the ones establishing road
policies there shall be madness. That said, it is true that privately
controlled and managed roads would have rules. The difference
between private rules and those set by the government is that
the managers have an incentive to come up with a set of policies
that aim to please their clientele, for otherwise they will lose
customers, credibility and could face increased competition. Still,
there will be those who would never be completely satisfied about
a particular rule. In fact, it’s quite possible that on
certain roads, the owner might impose rules that are as restrictive
as what the government does today. Even here, however, there is
at least the option of opting out and finding another way to get
to your destination.* In a free society you would not be forced
to pay for the building and maintenance of roads, much less for
the enforcement of its rules.
Where there’s no aggression or threat of aggression against
others, the government should just stay away.
*Acceptance of an offer is rarely ever an all-or-nothing event.
Usually there is a pros & cons analysis. Individuals act on
the overall benefit that accepting the offer entails. Therefore,
whenever there is free exchange it is only necessary that parties
consider the officer good enough. This means that, for example,
we don’t have to like everything about a restaurant or a
store or a private road; it matters that we like it more than
other options. It goes without saying that one of the options
in free exchange is to be free to reject offers.
|
INFOWARS:
BECAUSE THERE'S A WAR ON FOR YOUR MIND
|
|
