Finally, an article against bans on texting whilst driving:
Now think of this poll showing a widespread opposition to texting while driving. I submit that you would get similar results from a poll that asked people about the right to drive:
Do you support or oppose the right of everyone to own 4,000-pound heaps of steel and control them completely and autonomously at top speeds in the midst of thousands of other citizens whose lives could be in danger with so much as a slight flick of the wrist to the right or left?
That question could elicit nearly 100% negative results. We generally trust our capacity to manage ourselves but we do not trust the capacity of others to manage themselves. And we surely don’t believe that society can generally function well under conditions of freedom. Even though we live in the midst of spontaneous order and use its brilliance every day (grocery store, the world wide web, restaurants, housing developments), we don’t really understand it.
While we were promised that they would eventually be repaid possibly at a profit, CIT has now declared bankruptcy with the intent of transferring asset ownership to debt holders. Atanamis‘ commentary: This means that the $2.33 billion in preferred stock that the US government purchased are now most likely worthless. Government funds were wasted because those spending the money are not held accountable for the results of their actions.
N.F.L. Seeks Congressional Help on Drug Policy:
Roger Goodell, the commissioner of the N.F.L., took the unusual step Tuesday of asking Congress to change federal labor laws to prevent states from interfering with the league’s efforts to enforce its banned substances policy.
A step forward for the peoples of the world - domain names beyond Latin script
Regarding the texting while driving link…
The author says, ‘There are times when it is safe. There are times when it is not safe. The only ones who can really know the difference are the people behind the wheel’. I would argue that because of something he says previously (namely, ‘We generally trust our capacity to manage ourselves but we do not trust the capacity of others to manage themselves’), the clearest legislative standpoint is to say no unless authorised. Sure, people may be good judges of when to text and when not to, but the problem is, there is no way of legislating that. In other words, it’s a pragmatic law because we shouldn’t even trust our own selves when deciding if a distraction will impair our driving or not. Driving isn’t a God-given right, it’s a privilege meted out by the owner of the roads (in this case, the government). Yet it seems that the author thinks otherwise (’The ban gets support because people generally think that while they are responsible and good at calibrating what is safe and unsafe, others are not. Through this method, all freedoms could be abolished’).
Secondly, the author also says ‘Even though we live in the midst of spontaneous order and use its brilliance every day (grocery store, the world wide web, restaurants, housing developments), we don’t really understand it’. I don’t think the author really understands the idea of ’spontaneous order’ because none of the examples he provides are spontaneous. Each example is carefully planned to provide the easiest and simplest interaction of actors within a network — whether that is social, technological, etc. None of them are purely chaotic networks that have evolved independent of any outside influence like some kind of anarchist utopia. And that seems to be my main concern (even as an anarchist) with the article: the author seems to think in terms of anarchist utopias instead of the ‘real world’.
I totally and completely agree with cchrisr, and feel his post does an excellent job of assessing this position.