All government laws are worthless, even those against
murder. You don’t stop certain phenomena by prohibiting them. Such are reduced
naturally when conditions for maximizing utility are upheld. Outright bans
merely create black markets. Even with murder. It is adequate self-defense of would-be victims, and not anti-murder laws, that stop would-be murderers.
But then, rules
as decided by private property owners serve a purpose. Engaging in certain
activities remains a matter of choice. For example, a restaurant owner may not
permit smoking in his establishment, but you’re still free to do so in your
property, or in that of another restaurant owner. No ‘black market’ for smoking
emerges even if all restaurant owners
do not allow smoking, because these owners, being profit-oriented, would merely be
reflecting clients’ general sentiment against smoking. True democracy has
nothing to do with government, and everything to do with private property.
Rules against
drunk driving still impractical
I contend that even in a purely private system of transportation,
where roads are controlled by actual owners, there would be little sense to
impose rules against ‘drunk driving.’
It is the sober person who decides to drink on occasions
where driving afterwards is likely. Rules that outline the consequences of being
found liable for traffic accidents, should appeal to such a sober person, not
to the future drunk person who couldn’t be expected to make good decisions.
A person, knowing the trouble associated with vehicular
accidents, thus makes the decision, even
before drinking, to drink less than he otherwise would without the
limitations of being a driver.
To charge a person who could hold his liquor and drive safely is thus no precaution.
Intoxication levels, if they can be measured so conveniently, may serve as
guides for would-be drivers, but for these to be more than recommendatory would
not make roads safer.
No comments:
Post a Comment