RE: Government as a Religion
July 13, 2013 at 8:06 pm
(This post was last modified: July 13, 2013 at 8:08 pm by genkaus.)
(July 13, 2013 at 7:22 pm)apophenia Wrote: This is an example of the nirvana fallacy, among others (there's an implicit fallacy of the beard, for one). Locke's point was not that traffic accidents would be higher under such a system, but that such a system would be unworkable without an overarching authority and that it is the acts of that authority which makes vehicular traffic possible. This is not a valid objection, and it doesn't become more valid on account of your quibbles. Locke's objection was to the lack of an authority leading to disaster, not to it being different, and the historical examples still hold. (Not to mention your example does nothing to address the general case.)
I quote, bolding mine:
(July 13, 2013 at 3:42 pm)LostLocke Wrote: I would hate to drive in Koolaid's country.
Some people will decide to drive on the right, and some people will decide to drive on the left.
It will be this way since there can't be a single person or group above the individual, so no one will have any actual authority to tell people which side of the road they are allowed to drive on.
You "hope" people will agree to drive on one side or the other, but again, without authority above the drivers no one can ever enforce driving on one side.
Convention, habit, cooperation, and mutual self-interest apply in the absence of authority. Camel driving Bedouins were adopting rules of the road long before traffic regulations and there are still not enough police to enforce them.
And what about ship traffic? According to your theory, the lack of enforcement of shipping regulations is resulting in an epidemic of ships running into each other.
No bubbles were burst this day.
Was that his point? Because the way I saw it, Locke didn't say that there won't be a workable system but that since any such system won't be enforceable, the casualties would be much higher. Either you misunderstood him or I did - either way, Locke would've to clear that up.
As far as I can see, neither one of us is arguing that vehicular traffic would become impossible due to lack of convention - I even made a statement to that effect. What we both definitely say, on the other hand, is that there would be many more accidents - something you don't seem to disagree with.
As for ship traffic - there are regulations in place for governing those as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internation...ons_at_Sea
Wikipedia Wrote:The International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea 1972 (COLREGs) are published by the International Maritime Organization (IMO), and set out, among other things, the "rules of the road" or navigation rules to be followed by ships and other vessels at sea in order to prevent collisions between two or more vessels.
[...]
Prior to the development of a single set of international rules and practices, there existed separate practices and various conventions and informal procedures in different parts of the world, as advanced by various maritime nations. As a result there were inconsistencies and even contradictions that gave rise to unintended collisions. Vessel navigation lights for operating in darkness as well as navigation marks also were not standardized, giving rise to dangerous confusion and ambiguity between vessels at risk of colliding.
[...]
The rules are specified in great detail in the regulations. Certain individuals are legally required to carry or possess a copy of the rules, such as the owners and/or operators of certain vessels. COLREG laws exist within each maritime jurisdiction. Any individual subject to such requirements should be aware of the complete, official wording. Copies are available from government and official sources, such as the coast guard.
In addition to the actual rules, a body of legal precedents and case law exists; judgements on the application of the various rules with respect to specific legal and admiralty court cases have been published. Such precedents of judicial interpretation provide guidance as to how the rules were deemed to have applied given specific facts, often with a view to apportioning contributory liability or blame.
So you see, even oceans are not exempt from traffic regulations. So, that's atleast one bubble burst this day.
