Government as a Religion

[Minimalist]

Why do people need a hierarchy to function in the first place?

To protect them from douchebags like you.

[Angrboda]

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.

I can see the road casualties and fatalities now.....

I've come to the conclusion that Koolaid is Chaotic Neutral.

Not to spoil a good bit of sarcasm, but there's good evidence that the rules of the road emerged independent of any forced uniformity, largely due to the mechanics of transport at the time, and when those mechanics changed, so did the consensus view on which side of the road to travel upon. Furthermore, I suggest that such a system would be meta-stable in the way that spin glass is in that even if there initially were a random distribution of conventions regarding which side of the road to drive upon, it would quickly converge on one or the other solution as a simple practical result of the higher cost of bucking the consensus. (Not to mention the fact that there are independent incentives to cooperation regardless of any higher authority. As a practical matter, it's unwise to assume that any simple system will not exhibit emergent self-order, independent of actual evidence.)

[genkaus]

Not to spoil a good bit of sarcasm, but there's good evidence that the rules of the road emerged independent of any forced uniformity, largely due to the mechanics of transport at the time, and when those mechanics changed, so did the consensus view on which side of the road to travel upon. Furthermore, I suggest that such a system would be meta-stable in the way that spin glass is in that even if there initially were a random distribution of conventions regarding which side of the road to drive upon, it would quickly converge on one or the other solution as a simple practical result of the higher cost of bucking the consensus. (Not to mention the fact that there are independent incentives to cooperation regardless of any higher authority. As a practical matter, it's unwise to assume that any simple system will not exhibit emergent self-order, independent of actual evidence.)

Not to pop your bubble, but even if such a convention were to arise and broadly apply to general populous, such a country would still have a much higher rate of traffic accidents and casualties if there isn't any higher authority to impose the convention. This is something I see happening in my own city everyday. If there is no traffic police in sight, a lot of drivers choose to drive against oncoming traffic rather than making a legal U-Turn down the road.

[thesummerqueen]

Government doesn't exist to monitor good people who usually organize and fall in line. It's to punish the motherfuckers who refuse to do so - of which you need only one to cause massive trauma on the road. Speed limits aren't for sensible drivers - they're for the idiot in the sports car who thinks he's on a NASCAR track.

[genkaus]

Government doesn't exist to monitor good people who usually organize and fall in line. It's to punish the motherfuckers who refuse to do so - of which you need only one to cause massive trauma on the road. Speed limits aren't for sensible drivers - they're for the idiot in the sports car who thinks he's on a NASCAR track.

The role of the government goes beyond that - it is required to define the lines good people should fall into. Even if the roads only had sensible drivers, it wouldn't mean that they agree on everything. A sensible Nascar driver may say that given his superior driving skills, he shouldn't have to follow the same speed limit as an average driver, while other sensible drivers may see the risk due self-overestimation and argue for a single limit for all drivers. Without a government to define and enforce those limits, even sensible drivers would be lost as to what speed they shouldn't go over.

[Angrboda]

Not to spoil a good bit of sarcasm, but there's good evidence that the rules of the road emerged independent of any forced uniformity, largely due to the mechanics of transport at the time, and when those mechanics changed, so did the consensus view on which side of the road to travel upon. Furthermore, I suggest that such a system would be meta-stable in the way that spin glass is in that even if there initially were a random distribution of conventions regarding which side of the road to drive upon, it would quickly converge on one or the other solution as a simple practical result of the higher cost of bucking the consensus. (Not to mention the fact that there are independent incentives to cooperation regardless of any higher authority. As a practical matter, it's unwise to assume that any simple system will not exhibit emergent self-order, independent of actual evidence.)

Not to pop your bubble, but even if such a convention were to arise and broadly apply to general populous, such a country would still have a much higher rate of traffic accidents and casualties if there isn't any higher authority to impose the convention. This is something I see happening in my own city everyday. If there is no traffic police in sight, a lot of drivers choose to drive against oncoming traffic rather than making a legal U-Turn down the road.

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:

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.

[genkaus]

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:

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

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.

[Angrboda]

So you see, even oceans are not exempt from traffic regulations. So, that's atleast one bubble burst this day.

Granted that the point of your case was that the absence of police presence resulted in failure to abide by legal regulations, your quoting maritime law is not simply irrelevant, it's counter-factual. Now go bother someone else with your pettifoggery.

(For what it's worth, I spent a great deal of time on the water in my younger days, so your implication that I'm ignorant of maritime law is not only insulting, it's patently false. I grew up in one of the world's most important ports, as a matter of fact.)

[LostLocke]

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.

That part is basically what I was saying.

Just as an example, if the US adopted Koolaid's system right now, the majority of people would drive on the right side of the road the majority of the time.
Simply because the cars are designed for right side driving, the street signs are on the right side, the lanes and traffic signals are designed for the right side, etc etc.
I'd guess for most people most of the time it would be driving as usual.
Those aren't the people I'm worried about.

What about the people who decide that driving on the right side isn't convenient for them because they're in a hurry, or they want to turn "here" despite the sign saying you can't, or they want to pass the slow drivers in front and on-coming traffic be damned, they need to get out of "my" way because where "I'm" going is more important than where you're going.
Or, last and in the vast minority, but still existent, those one's who want to drive on the left side of the road for no other reason than it's the wrong side of the road to drive on.

All those people listed do exist, there is no doubt of that.
The quantity I'm sure varies form place to place, but I live in Chicgaoland, and I see these people all day every day. Some of them I'm sure try their stunts because they feel at that point they can get away with it, IE there's no police nearby. How more often would it happen if they all knew they could get away with because no one can stop them at all?

[genkaus]

Granted that the point of your case was that the absence of police presence resulted in failure to abide by legal regulations, your quoting maritime law is not simply irrelevant, it's counter-factual. Now go bother someone else with your pettifoggery.

(For what it's worth, I spent a great deal of time on the water in my younger days, so your implication that I'm ignorant of maritime law is not only insulting, it's patently false. I grew up in one of the world's most important ports, as a matter of fact.)

Then you shouldn't be making statements like these. Weren't there coast-guard where you grew up?