HTC FTW!

You are clearly wrong. Industries with little regulation (all non-black market businesses face something) like laser vision correction, software, consumer electronics, furniture, and selling flowers experience an explosion of competition. Industries with heavy regulation like (in the United States) electricity production, cable television, letter delivery, and radio broadcasting, on the other hand, are filled with monopolies. And the governments regulating them are just the biggest monopolies of all.

@Dave: You should apply that "give them [an] inch and they'll take a mile" sentiment to the government itself. Out of control phone companies don't have jails or men in riot gear, and don't claim the power to dictate how others do business.

How can "free market" mean anything but "no government regulation"? Apparently the Belgian schools failed you.

Argue for state control if you like, but don't call it freedom.

There's too much text in that image, Jon. But it's otherwise not bad.

As far as I know, the most common reason for traffic stops are speed violations, followed closely by running a sign or light (and—at least in Michigan—entering an intersection on a yellow light is a primary and ticketable offense!). It is well-documented that 50% to 70% of all cars on the road at any given time are exceeding posted limits. If you're going to make a claim like "speeding is the least used law", you had better back it up with some evidence.

Now, onto your idea of automated enforcement "coupled with making governments use the revenues for philanthropic reasons instead of bolstering their funds"...

1. What incentive would governments have to give up their free supply of non-tax revenue?
2. Even if they did, who gets to decide which charities receive the money? That's right, the politicians, who _of course_ would never pick their friends' organizations in exchange for under-the-table kickbacks. Ah, sweet justice.
3. Explicit traffic controls in general, and red light cameras in particular, make crashes more likely and people less safe. Heavy-handed attempts at enforcement will not change this, they will only waste money and anger people into fighting back (reference: THIS STORY).

It should have been quite clear that I was using speed limits as an example of bad laws. You claim dogmatic acceptance of them, but let me raise a few points to dissuade you of that position.

1. They are set artificially low in order to provide government revenue without increasing taxes. At any given time, the overwhelming majority of people on the road are exceeding posted limits. (National Cooperative Highway Research Program; Report 504: Design Speed, Operating Speed, and Posted Speed Practices p.88, "Operating Speed and Posted Speed Relationships"; http://trb.org/publications/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_504.pdf)

2. Because of this, police have free reign to detain anyone they please, citing "speeding" as the reason. Once stopped, the person loses at least $50-$300 and a significant amount of time, more if they decide to fight it or if the officer feels like being particularly ugly.

3. Only a small percentage of the population actually suffers such treatment in any given time period. If speed limits were really intended to keep people safe, then universal enforcement schemes (cameras, black boxes, etc.) would work. Instead you see incredible outrage and blowback like this vandalism. And if people actually gave up and submitted to speed limits, the economic damage would reach trillions of dollars... ask any professional driver if you don't believe me.

4. Most embarrassingly of all, traffic laws make people LESS safe. You might want to look up Hans Monderman—or the towns of Christianfield [Denmark], Drachten, Oosterwolde, Makkinga [the Netherlands], Latton, and Suffolk [England], among others (Hans' ideas are spreading rapidly due to effectiveness). The short version is that accidents DECREASE when traffic signs and signals are eliminated. Conversely, it is also well-known that accidents INCREASE wherever red light cameras are installed. As for speed limits in particular, changing them has no significant effect on speed or crashes. (U.S. Department of Transportation Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center; Synthesis of Safety Research Related to Speed and Speed Limits; http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/speed/speed.htm) (United Kingdom Department for Transport; Circular Roads 1/80, Annex E; http://www.abd.org.uk/speed_limits_85th.htm#appendix_a) Why would eliminating them be any different?

I am offended by your insinuation that a person cannot oppose speed limits without being a stupid "boy-racer", and appalled at your views on freedom. I suppose speech, religion, and privacy should also be limited if people support them too "aggressively"? And don't even think about rebutting that last one by referencing the danger of speeding; I can bring up countless instances where violence could have been averted by restriction of those freedoms.

Finally, your first assumption is incorrect. I support the rule of law only insofar as the law in question punishes people for actually threatening others. Laws requiring fugitive slaves to be turned in or sending Asian-Americans to concentration camps were bad. Laws prohibiting alcohol or speeding, although less severe, are bad FOR THE SAME REASON. And as for democracy, you can keep that nonsense. I want to live in an environment where rights are _never_ up for voting. A large mob has no more authority than one lone man; democracy just pretends otherwise.

Roads are not made safer by speed limits; they are made safer by keeping people liable for the damage they cause while on them. We have the former instead of the latter because it is profitable for driver-ticketing governments.

It should have been quite clear that I was using speed limits as an example of bad laws. You claim dogmatic acceptance of them, but let me raise a few points to dissuade you of that position.

1. They are set artificially low in order to provide government revenue without increasing taxes. At any given time, the overwhelming majority of people on the road are exceeding posted limits. (National Cooperative Highway Research Program; Report 504: Design Speed, Operating Speed, and Posted Speed Practices p.88, "Operating Speed and Posted Speed Relationships"; http://trb.org/publications/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_504.pdf)

2. Because of this, police have free reign to detain anyone they please, citing "speeding" as the reason. Once stopped, the person loses at least $50-$300 and a significant amount of time, more if they decide to fight it or if the officer feels like being particularly ugly.

3. Only a small percentage of the population actually suffers such treatment in any given time period. If speed limits were really intended to keep people safe, then universal enforcement schemes (cameras, black boxes, etc.) would work. Instead you see incredible outrage and blowback like this vandalism. And if people actually gave up and submitted to speed limits, the economic damage would reach trillions of dollars... ask any professional driver if you don't believe me.

4. Most embarrassingly of all, traffic laws make people LESS safe. You might want to look up Hans Monderman—or the towns of Christianfield [Denmark], Drachten, Oosterwolde, Makkinga [the Netherlands], Latton, and Suffolk [England], among others (Hans' ideas are spreading rapidly due to effectiveness). The short version is that accidents DECREASE when traffic signs and signals are eliminated. Conversely, it is also well-known that accidents INCREASE wherever red light cameras are installed. As for speed limits in particular, changing them has no significant effect on speed or crashes. (U.S. Department of Transportation Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center; Synthesis of Safety Research Related to Speed and Speed Limits; http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/speed/speed.htm) (United Kingdom Department for Transport; Circular Roads 1/80, Annex E; http://www.abd.org.uk/speed_limits_85th.htm#appendix_a) Why would eliminating them be any different?

I am offended by your insinuation that a person cannot oppose speed limits without being a stupid "boy-racer", and appalled at your views on freedom. I suppose speech, religion, and privacy should also be limited if people support them too "aggressively"? And don't even think about rebutting that last one by referencing the danger of speeding; I can bring up countless instances where violence could have been averted by restriction of those freedoms.

Finally, your first assumption is incorrect. I support the rule of law only insofar as the law in question punishes people for actually threatening others. Laws requiring fugitive slaves to be turned in or sending Asian-Americans to concentration camps were bad. Laws prohibiting alcohol or speeding, although less severe, are bad FOR THE SAME REASON. And as for democracy, you can keep that nonsense. I want to live in an environment where rights are _never_ up for voting. A large mob has no more authority than one lone man; democracy just pretends otherwise.

Roads are not made safer by speed limits; they are made safer by keeping people liable for the damage they cause while on them. We have the former instead of the latter because it is profitable for driver-ticketing governments.

Bad laws deserve to be broken.

@John Galt:

Nice name. You're clearly trolling, but I always was a sucker for the bait. Please ignore this link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-ionization_of_water