Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!cca!ima!inmet!nrh From: nrh@inmet.UUCP Newsgroups: net.flame Subject: Re: Please move over, wait, FORGET the ' - (nf) Message-ID: <873@inmet.UUCP> Date: Fri, 10-Feb-84 05:45:07 EST Article-I.D.: inmet.873 Posted: Fri Feb 10 05:45:07 1984 Date-Received: Sun, 12-Feb-84 21:45:32 EST Lines: 99 #R:hou2h:-27900:inmet:3900094:000:5119 inmet!nrh Feb 10 02:48:00 1984 Hey! Ease off on the criticism of "libertarian" driving habits. There haven't been very many chances to find out what these would be like, partly for the same reason that it's hard to figure out what a private postal system would be like. (Before you all barf about the imbecility of such a scheme, there were private post offices in the US -- The American Letter Mail Company, to name one, which were made illegal by Act of Congress in 1845). Before anybody claims that the Government hasn't made private roads illegal, I'll concede the point -- Government merely forces you to pay for existing roads, which it then lets you use for "free". Since private road companies would have to compete with public roads, they're poor investments (most times). The Federal Government, by the way, has not made 55 the "official" speed limit by the way -- they merely have promised to deny federal highway funding to states with higher speed limits. If I had to guess, though, I'd guess that a society with private roads would probably share standard lane-sizes, have standard billing arrangements (so that you didn't have to know in advance that you were going to travel on a particular road), use very new technology, have very high speed limits (on highways), and have very low fatality rates. Once again, let me defend those points in advance: 1. standard lane sizes: Obvious, but just for example -- nobody forces companies to put use RS232 for their telecommunications equipment -- they do so because they have a vested interest in being able to talk to "everybody". 2. standard billing arrangements (probably with reciprocity): Before you start shouting about how they'd never trust each other, consider "cirrus", an arrangement among many banks in the US, so that I can use my BayBanks cash card in any of them (I did, too, in New York at Manufacturer Hanover trust). Railroads used to do this (even before Nationalization), as a matter of course. 3. Use very new technology. Who do you think would rake in the bucks from installing cellular radio along their route? Who do you think would benefit from autopilot guidance systems (another interesting area for standards). The owners of those roads. Not to mention the "read the electronically-encoded credit card number" dohicky that lets you avoid those messy tollbooths. On private roads, tollbooths would go away quickly. Public ones are more cautious -- the tollbooth collectors have votes too, and are willing to work REAL HARD for the politician who offers not to abolish their jobs. 4. High speed limits. The Federal Government won't pay me any money unless I lower my speed limit from 150 mph to 55? F**k 'em. This is a LIBERTARIAN society -- the FEDS don't have the right to give me any money anyhow. They want to make it illegal for me to allow people to drive that fast? F**K 'em again! They don't even claim this right in a non-libertarian society. In fact, in a libertarian society, speed limits would probably be set by a cost-benefit balance between insurance costs, costs of making the road "safe" at higher speeds, and (most important) the customers and the competition. I find the current 55 mile an hour limit ridiculous. I'd pay a few cents extra per mile to drive at (say) 75mph, I'm pretty sure I'm not alone. I really want to be protected, though, from tailgators. Unlike a public road, a private road patrol might assure me that tailgaters will be dealt with by banishment, just as a private pub may assure me (however discretely) that brawling drunks will not be allowed to hang around there. On the other hand, a state must regulate these things with laws, and by its nature tends to wipe out competition, so I have neither the assurance of humane law that appeal to private persons brings ("Of COURSE I was driving quickly, but I'm Mario Andretti, I'll pay fines to all the people I scared, and plug your road on my next race"), nor the assurance of appeal that competition brings. 5. Low fatality rates. I'd pay a little extra (or perhaps my insurance company would charge me a little less) if I spent all my highway driving on highways that NEVER ALLOWED ANYONE WHO'D EVER BEEN CONVICTED (or found guilty, or whatever you'd call it when an ARBITRATOR decides who was guilty) OF DRUNKEN DRIVING (on manual, I mean) on their roads. I'll bet the issue of "Consumer Reports" that listed road fatality statistics would be a widely read book. Oh well, this is net.flame, not net.politics, so I'd better close with some flaming -- I'd much rather zoom along at 100mph knowing that the road was safe, and the road company ACCOUNTABLE, than trudge along at 60 (Or 55mph if the troopers are feeling itchy) and know that organizing a boycott of particular public roads would have NO impact, that suing the state was a long shot, that the maintainance budget had likely been raided, and what WAS the name of that bridge in Conn. that collapsed (thank god, at 2am) as a result of being Government-maintained..... See you guys in the whiz lane....