Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!ephemeral.ai.toronto.edu!steeg From: steeg@ai.toronto.edu ("Evan W. Steeg") Newsgroups: ont.general Subject: Re: Lawbreakers (was Radar Detectors (was Highway Driving Rules)) Message-ID: <89May16.162634edt.11070@ephemeral.ai.toronto.edu> Date: 16 May 89 20:26:26 GMT References: <9584@watcgl.waterloo.edu> <3217@looking.UUCP> <3225@looking.UUCP> <264@sickkids.UUCP> <89May16.132807edt.18882@me.utoronto.ca> Distribution: ont Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto Lines: 79 In article <89May16.132807edt.18882@me.utoronto.ca> zougas@hammer.me.UUCP (Athanasios(Tom) Zougas) writes: >> >>Perhaps. But then why isn't the law changed? Actually, the question that >>interests me more is the following. Consider these three statements: >> >> (1) I frequently drive 10 or 20 mph over the speed limit, for the >> simple reason that it gets me where I'm going more quickly. >> >> (2) I often cheat on my income taxes, for the simple reason that >> it leaves me with more money to spend. >> >> (3) I like to shoplift, for the simple reason that it permits me >> to acquire more possessions at a lower cost. >> >>I suspect that many people would find nothing remarkable about #1, whereas >>most people would find #2 ethically questionable, at the very least, and >>would be rather shocked by #3. But what's the difference, really? > >The difference is: > > (3) You are taking away PROPERTY from its rightful owner > without their permission. > (2) You are taking away MONEY from the government. > (1) What are you taking away from whom in this case? > Clearly, you are taking away (some of) the probability that other drivers and passengers will complete their trip safely. Sure, it's a tiny increment of increased total risk, but the increased probability of accidents, and the increased probabilities of fatalities/injuries per accident, do add up. I'm not saying that I don't also speed sometimes, or that current laws shouldn't be improved. But, we want some kind of cost-benefit analysis, and let's not forget that there *are* costs -- to everyone -- associated with higher speeds. Speeding is *not* a purely individual activity whose effects are limited to the lawbreaker; and even if the *physical* effects of your speeding were limited to yourself, we, the society, are still affected if we have to pick up your medical costs. Speeding infringes on others' rights, just as does theft. You may be saying that the current (im-)balance of individual liberty versus collective safety is arbitrary, a cultural artifact; true, but the same can be said for our current view of private property. >My point is that all illegal activities DO NOT fall under the same category. >I think it would be more interesting to discuss why the traffic laws are >what they are and not to say: "Well, the laws the law and we have to obey >it." I agree, but let's not limit ourselves to traffic laws. And let's try to be more broad in our interpretation of "effects" and "rights". > >-- >This is my signature: > > tom zougas > And this is mine: Evan W. Steeg (416) 978-7321 steeg@ai.toronto.edu (CSnet,UUCP,Bitnet) Dept of Computer Science steeg@ai.utoronto (other Bitnet) University of Toronto, steeg@ai.toronto.cdn (EAN X.400) Toronto, Canada M5S 1A4 {seismo,watmath}!ai.toronto.edu!steeg -- Evan W. Steeg (416) 978-7321 steeg@ai.toronto.edu (CSnet,UUCP,Bitnet) Dept of Computer Science steeg@ai.utoronto (other Bitnet) University of Toronto, steeg@ai.toronto.cdn (EAN X.400) Toronto, Canada M5S 1A4 {seismo,watmath}!ai.toronto.edu!steeg