fascinating story, also a parable

[Bier Meister]

Are you really this stupid?

 

You can't honestly be suggesting that traffic flows were wonderful before stoplights were put into place... can you?

 

(Although, I do suppose that this belief would be consistent with your general belief that regulations are harmful--and, in fact, it perfectly illustrates that you have a general (or perhaps even willful) ignorance of the past and the conditions that caused certain regulations to be imposed in the first place.)

 

 

you are so much fun to converse with! rather than asking if I am really so stupid as to make a completely accurate observation of something that actually happened, why don't you get off your chubby little dwarf ass and pick (cork it).

 

 

[Azazello1313]

and to be perfectly clear, I am NOT arguing that we should eliminate all traffic lights and traffic rules. I am saying:

1) this is an illustration that spontaneous orders often arise that are far preferable to planned alternatives, much to the surprise of many; and

2) rules designed to enforce social order ironically often make us more selfish and anti-social, as demonstrated here, when removing those rules made people more aware, engaged, and courteous.

 

if you want to start a b*tchfest, please at least stick to refuting one of those points rather than your own strawman.

[i_am_the_swammi]

what I find most interesting is how the imposition of top-down planned rules usually makes us selfish and competitive within the little bit of freedom we are granted. when the lights are there to tell us when to go, when to stop, when to yield, it takes away our own agency and responsibility. remove the micromanaging, and a sort of spontaneous order arises due to people being more engaged, more aware and more courteous.

 

 

2) rules designed to enforce social order ironically often make us more selfish and anti-social, as demonstrated here, when removing those rules made people more aware, engaged, and courteous.

 

In the first quote quote, you state that "top-down planned rules usually make us selfish and competitive."

 

In the second quote, you state that "rules designed to enforce social order ironically often make us more selfish and anti-social".

 

While the traffic study is indeed interesting, I'm not sure that warrants a blanket statement that rules make us selfish, competitive, and anit-social? What other examples/rules lead you to beleive that this is usually the case, as you state above?

 

Conversely, I can lthink of thousands of examples of top-down rules that don't result in selfish, anti-social behavior.

[darin3]

Pardon the interruption, but I believe

simply needs to be part of this thread.

[Bier Meister]

Pardon the interruption, but I believe

simply needs to be part of this thread.

 

 

love that!

 

 

 

had something similar happen in paris.

[TimC]

Our hicktown just got it's 2nd traffic light. When you have every Bubba in town with a bumper sticker that reads "I shoot deer because I'm impressed by their intelligence and good looks", you need all the help you can get.

 

In Richmond, we have all the Civil War statues in the intersections which creates all kinds of roundabouts. Of course, we have to have lights on the roundabouts or people would kill each other from road rage every minute of every day. You get in them things with the wrong person and no light and you gonna get raped.

 

Anyway, they built this mall nearby out in the burbs where I work right when the economy collapsed with a half-dozen roundabouts. Thankfully, it is less than half-filled with tenants. I couldn't imagine negotiating this mall drive if it was packed. I'm pretty sure they've found dead bodies in cars from running out of gas by being trapped in this horrible layout.

 

If you've got normal people, these roundabouts and letting people make their own decisions are great. If you're driving with psychos, then not so much.

[Azazello1313]

In the first quote quote, you state that "top-down planned rules usually make us selfish and competitive."

 

In the second quote, you state that "rules designed to enforce social order ironically often make us more selfish and anti-social".

 

While the traffic study is indeed interesting, I'm not sure that warrants a blanket statement that rules make us selfish, competitive, and anit-social? What other examples/rules lead you to beleive that this is usually the case, as you state above?

 

Conversely, I can lthink of thousands of examples of top-down rules that don't result in selfish, anti-social behavior.

 

well I would say they usually make us more selfish and anti-social, but in most cases I am certain that difference is negligible or difficult (if not impossible) to perceive or measure, as most "rules" aren't so directly related to an activity like driving, which is so fundamentally social and interactive. but I think the general idea is worth considering -- when you substitute central planning for individual thinking, agency, responsibility, what is the result?

[westvirginia]

In the first quote quote, you state that "top-down planned rules usually make us selfish and competitive."

 

In the second quote, you state that "rules designed to enforce social order ironically often make us more selfish and anti-social".

 

While the traffic study is indeed interesting, I'm not sure that warrants a blanket statement that rules make us selfish, competitive, and anit-social? What other examples/rules lead you to beleive that this is usually the case, as you state above?

 

Conversely, I can lthink of thousands of examples of top-down rules that don't result in selfish, anti-social behavior.

 

This is purely anecdotal, but think about what welfare, medicare/caid, SS etc. has done to some. We have such a burgeoning entitlement mentality. I don't know, but I'd bet there is some case to be made, I just don't know how you'd measure it.

[i_am_the_swammi]

well I would say they usually make us more selfish and anti-social, but in most cases I am certain that difference is negligible or difficult (if not impossible) to perceive or measure, as most "rules" aren't so directly related to an activity like driving, which is so fundamentally social and interactive. but I think the general idea is worth considering -- when you substitute central planning for individual thinking, agency, responsibility, what is the result?

 

What are your thoughts on passenger screening before boarding an aircraft, versus people being allowed their own freedom?

How about air traffic control, versus pilots being able to fly at will?

How about imposing speed limits versus letting people drive however they want?

How about imposed no-parking zones, versus letting people park wherever they want?

 

I think these top-down examples are no-brainers, and they were just off the top of my head...I could probably think of a few hundred more....and I don't think any of them make anyone materially more anti-social

 

Do some have that effect? Well, sure, I guess. But I was calling you out on your statement that they usually do.

Edited August 12, 2010 by i_am_the_swammi

[Azazello1313]

What are your thoughts on passenger screening before boarding an aircraft, versus people being allowed their own freedom?

How about air traffic control, versus pilots being able to fly at will?

How about imposing speed limits versus letting people drive however they want?

How about imposed no-parking zones, versus letting people park wherever they want?

 

I think these top-down examples are no-brainers, and they were just off the top of my head...I could probably think of a few hundred more....and I don't think any of them make anyone materially more anti-social

 

Do some have that effect? Well, sure, I guess. But I was calling you out on your statement that they usually do.

 

well of your examples, I think passenger screening lines, while necessary for obvious reasons, certainly DO tend to bring out the worst in people. and speed limits, hell yeah, that leads to all kinds of aggression on the road -- the people who go the speed limit get all mad at the people who go faster, the people who want to go faster get mad at the a-hole who camps in the left lane figuring 'hey, I'm going the speed limit', etc. and then there's stuff like this: "the safest period on Montana’s Interstate highways was when there were no daytime speed limits or enforceable speed laws."

 

obviously, you have to have laws screening people before they get on airplanes, and you have to have people coordinating air traffic around airports, and you have to prevent people from parking in areas where they would create massive congestion. but on the margin between where rules are absolutely required and possibly not required, I think this is a pretty revealing anecdote about how some of our presumptions in favor of rules and planning are often askew.

 

as far as your harping on my use of the word "usually", look, ultimately the point is pretty simple: when you take responsibility away from people, they tend to behave irresponsibly.