Almost everyone agrees the other guy is a terrible driver; he’s either too fast or too slow. He wanders across the double yellow. He doesn’t notice the light has turned green – or red. Almost everyone has an answer – and it’s usually another law. How about none?
I’ll wait a moment for the cries of outrage to subside . . . .
Consider what the scene would be like if there weren’t any laws. That is to say, largely arbitrary rules that everyone is supposed to follow – or else – most of them based on the premise that it us dangerous for anyone to disobey them. This is obviously untrue as well as silly, which is why almost all of us regularly disobey many of these rules. We make rights on red when it is safe to do so, irrespective of the law that says we must sit and wait for an eternity for the green that seems to never come. We make “unlawful” U-turns – assuming there’s no cop in sight to punish us for doing it and – of course – almost all of us “speed” pretty much every time we drive because we know it isn’t dangerous.
What if none of this were illegal?
What if people were free to use their own judgment is perhaps a better way to put this. It’s a ghastly idea, I realize. But, what might actually happen if that were allowed? Let’s preface this before answering with a supposition that people would also be held responsible for exercising their own judgment. More finely, they’d be held responsible when they erred in judgment and the result was a harm caused. Otherwise, leave ’em alone.
Is this such a terrible idea?
It is generally the same idea most of us accept in many other contexts. For instance, I might elect to go for a strenuous run on a hot day – because in my judgment, I’m fit and healthy and can tolerate a workout like that. A workout like that is probably good for me and certainly not dangerous. But there is always the possibility I might suffer a stroke. Should there be a law forbidding strenuous running on hot days?
How about driving after dark – or in the rain?
Such laws if proposed, would (hopefully) be rejected by most people as (among other things) least-common-denominator-ism, i.e., the imposition of a general presumption that no one can competently drive after dark or in the rain. This would be considered outrageous because most people do drive after dark or in the rain and know they are able to do so competently. Well, shouldn’t the same standard apply to driving faster than a law says you may when you are also able to do that competently?
The usual answer to that is people overestimate their competence – and there is truth in this. There is also truth in observing that competence displayed (or not) would very quickly sort things out, if that were allowed. It’s allowed at my gym. There are no laws – or rules – that forbid placing any amount of weight on the bench bar. People are free to exercise their own judgment about how much weight they can handle. Most people who lift have a very good sense of that line they ought not to cross. Most have found this line by crossing it. Just the same as kids find out about hot stoves. They’re not able to get the weight back up and it comes down on their chest, which can be both embarrassing as well as dangerous, if you haven’t got a spotter. They learn, in other words, to operate within the parameters of their capabilities. So many things in life are like this that most of us don’t give it much thought. We understand that competence varies and – purely out of self-interest – we learn to act in ways that align with our competence. We sometimes cross the line and when we do, we learn a valuable lesson. Chastened, we act more in line with our capabilities while also perhaps striving to increase them.
Exercising judgment is a form of strength training for the mind. The more we exercise this judgment, the stronger our minds become. Perhaps that is why there is what sure seems to be a deliberate effort to weaken people’s minds by training them not to exercise judgment and to instead rely upon the judgment of the state instead. To instill passivity – using fear about what might happen if people were not only allowed but expected to exercise their own judgment and be held responsible for it. If you make a right on red and it results in an “accident” – the word is bracketed in air fingers quote marks to make the point that it’s not an “accident” when you miscalculate time-space relationships and chose to pull out into the path of another car and it hits yours – then that’s on you. But if you can make the right on red without pulling into the path of another car and there’s no “accident,” why should that be illegal?
More finely, why should it be illegal for others who can do this competently to make rights-on-red?
Why should it be illegal merely to drive faster than someone else thinks you should not be allowed to drive?
Is it not of a piece with an edict that says you may not drive after dark or in the rain?
If you drive at whatever speed and lose control, then that speed was too fast – for you. It does not mean it is too fast for everyone else. If a driver can drive at whatever speed and not lose control then why would anyone else have a problem with that? To have a problem with a driver who doesn’t lose control – who does not have “accidents” – who merely drives faster than you think (and the state says) is “safe” is a petty meanness no different than insisting it ought to be illegal for everyone to drive after dark or in the rain because some people aren’t able to do that safely.
Wouldn’t it be freeing to live in a society that held people responsible for errors in judgment but left them free to exercise their own judgment?
. . .
If you like what you’ve found here please consider supporting EPautos.
We depend on you to keep the wheels turning!
Our donate button is here.
If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is: EPautos 721 Hummingbird Lane SE Copper Hill, VA 24079
