Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site spar.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!decwrl!spar!baba From: baba@spar.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) Newsgroups: net.politics.theory Subject: Re: Social Order and Mayhem : Re to Cramer Message-ID: <382@spar.UUCP> Date: Fri, 5-Jul-85 17:21:01 EDT Article-I.D.: spar.382 Posted: Fri Jul 5 17:21:01 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 11-Jul-85 20:12:36 EDT References: <674@whuxl.UUCP> <2380080@acf4.UUCP> Organization: Schlumberger Palo Alto Research, CA Lines: 31 > >Although I cannot predict that *this particular speeder* will crash > >by exceeding the speed limit or by going as fast as he might given > >no speed limit, statistics can predict with a fair amount of certainty > >that when the average speed of *many people* is increased, there will > >be XX greater accidents and deaths. > > > > tim sevener > > Does this mean that we should make the speed limit 0, thereby eliminating all > traffic accidents? Of course not. But where do you draw the line? > Why 55? > Mike Sykora If an arbitrary speed limit of 55 is empirically superior to no speed limit in terms of aggregate fuel burned, aggregate accidental damage, and aggregate time spent by people in transit (once accidents and jams are taken into account), then it seems pretty clear that from a pragmatic point of view the arbitrary speed limit produces more satisfactory results than no speed limit, regardless of whether it was arrived at by science or chance. > >Everyone is told that "anyone can become a millionaire". > > This Alger Hiss mentality is not what libertarianism is about, at least for > me. > Mike Sykora No one, not even Tim Sevener, has accused libertarians of commie treason. So why are you so hasty to distance yourself from it? Are you *sure* you haven't got something to hide? ;-) Baba