Big Brother
I remember reading a few months ago that San Francisco was contemplating the legalization of prostitution. Since it happens anyway, they might as well get some tax revenues for it. You hear similar arguments from Californians wanting to legalize marijuana for the same reason. For some reason, liberals find it easy to argue that personally destructive or addictive behavior is laudable as long as such behavior can produce tax revenue.
On another note, I recently went to California to visit my brother. While there, I had my first introduction to red light cameras. For those of you who live in municipalities that haven’t yet decided to participate in this Orwellian nightmare, red light cameras are basically cameras that watch busy intersections. If you run a red light, or you stop and your bumper is crossing the line of the crosswalk, or if you don’t come to a complete stop behind the crosswalk before making a right turn on a red light, then the camera will take your picture. You will then receive a ticket in the mail a few weeks later. This happened to my brother, and he received a $300 ticket.
So here you have a state that on one side is saying that there is no way we can regulate something like prostitution or pot, so the best alternative is to try and legalize them so we can get some tax revenue. On the other hand, we are going to regulate traffic light enforcement down to the inch. About the only consistent thing tying these two scenarios is a paradigm where a bankrupt government is doing everything it can, regardless of moral or ethical considerations, to fleece its already overtaxed citizens into giving up more of their property.
Like most government solutions to problems, the model here is to start with a really bad idea, and then see how much worse the idea becomes as the unintended consequences manifest themselves. The invisible hand that seems to inform the playing out of government policies is at best catatonic.
The more you look into how this automated traffic light enforcement works, the more ominously frightening it becomes. First of all, this operation is run entirely by private enterprises. Chuckles will be quick to point out that I have previously championed the idea of private industry solving problems where the government is incompetent. However, in reality, I do agree with him that discussing degrees of involvement is more important. There are certain functions in a society where gross incompetence and inefficiency help more than they hurt – traffic law enforcement is one of these areas. Getting people to come to a complete stop before turning right at a red light is a great problem for our government to solve. Turning loose the efficiency and ruthlessness of the private sector on this trivial, arbitrary law results in an unnecessary abridgment of personal freedom.
It isn’t unreasonable that in the near future, similar systems could also enforce speeding laws, and you could receive a ticket in the mail for driving 26 mph in a 25 mph zone. At this point the idea of a specific speed limit cut-off point becomes draconian and stupid. The purpose of the law – that people drive at reasonable speed -becomes subject to the letter of the law -that people do exactly what the government says, or else…
Apologists for these systems might argue that they help fund essential community needs, but since these systems are operated by private companies, 70% of most of the fees collected go to a company named Redflex in Australia. The revenue from these tickets doesn’t even stay in America. That is all America needs right now is one more massive transfer of wealth overseas as other countries take advantage of some of our more stupid laws and even stupider politicians.
Redflex is quick to boast that their systems reduce the number of T-bone crashes. However, their systems do cause a significant increase in the number of rear end accidents as people slam on their brakes to stop before the crosswalk. Of course insurance companies will make out like bandits as they get video evidence of accidents, and they probably get to boost premiums after the deluge of artificially tainted driving records hits the actuarial models.
Anyway I have provided some links below for anyone who wants to learn more about these systems. At least I live in a state where these systems haven’t been adopted. However, I would advise those who travel to California (the state with the most photo cops) to stay away from red lights.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29681527/page/2/
http://www.redflex.com/html/usa/index.php
http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/41006657.html
on 
on 
I suppose an answer is to privatize all the roads, get rid of gas taxes, and relieve the government from having to do any traffic enforcement. The only thing the government would have to do is ensure that the tolls charged by the private companies wouldn’t exceed what American’s were already paying in gas taxes. Private companies could set rules for using their roads that maximize everyone’s time, money, and greenhouse gases. The devil is in the details, but you get the idea.
I can definitely appreciate this post on many grounds. However, I want to point out an inconsistency that is reflected in both the first comment and the post, and a common inconsistency of more conservative views on economic policy (political stances across the spectrum all have their inconsistencies, to be sure, but this is a particular grievance of mine that frankly is often found on the left as well).
All this utopian talk about the wonder of free markets to solve problems (kudos, Ben, on your restraint on this issue, by the way), the magic of invisible hands, and the great efficiency of private enterprise really makes me tingle. However, when in the next breath one derides the fact that the increased efficiency of specialization takes bids for contracts overseas to firms that have created a niche and therefore can perform a task more cheaply, then I start to question the alleged purity of one’s economic argument, and see myself hopelessly falling into a position that can only be defended on blind nationalism.
If you are really to take your arguments on the importance of free markets seriously, then one has to allow for the fact that not all specialized niches will be filled most efficiently within the geographical space that today happens to be America, and, in fact, there is no objective reason why that should be the case. The most likely reason that an Australian company happens to be performing that particular task is surely the outcome of A) somebody’s astute lobbying or B) they underbid or outperformed competitors for the job. I am going to guess in this case that it happened to be B. Efficiency is efficiency, whether that sends bids overseas or not. Further, regarding the timeliness of needing to keep cash here in an economic downturn, I think there is good economic evidence to suggest that this is also a bad idea. In the great depression everyone held to their own guns (a natural response), and this protectionism spiraled the international economic situation deeper into oblivion. You can see wide recognition of this fact in recent agreements between countries vowing not to repeat this pattern, at least not at the same scale.
This brings me to my next point, and one that is closer to home for my interests. Immigration rarely factors into these economic arguments, and is most often ignored (probably) because it doesn’t work to the benefit of the conservative perspective to stress it. The underlying principle here is that if you really want to maximize efficiency, you have to allow not only for the free flow of goods and allow firms to create and thrive in particular niches, but you also have to allow for the free flow of labor for workers to find the niches where their skill sets and labor value in the market place can be maximized. Frankly, there is a very potent economic argument to be made here in favor of (more) open borders and greater labor flows, but this point is rarely made because it is not politically savvy. Nationalist sentiments run high on both sides of the isle, and sound economic arguments tend to suffer.
I think they should install cameras in whore houses and issues tickets in a likewise manner. The government could then sell the video to pornographers who will then have to pay taxes on their legal sales. Win-Win-Win. The third win is for the pornography consumers.
Actually, if you want to get technical, which I do, the ticket was for 390 dollars, plus the 75 dollar cost of traffic school. He had to wait in the county hell hole for 6 hours to get the ticket down to a nice even 300–pocket change.
I’ve seen/read alot of blogs on this subject lately. What opponents of red light cameras always fail to mention is public safety and lack of traffic cops. Pedestrians and cyclists need protection. Traffic laws do need to be enforced. There are never enough officers to enforce the laws of the land. And I’d rather have the available officers handling major crimes, like drug trafficking, assaults, robberies or murders. There are far more fatalities produced from T-bone crashes than rear end crashes. So comparison of the two types of crashes is certainly not an apples to apples comparison.
Frankly, if you don’t run red lights you don’t get a ticket. And since when is stopping before a crosswalk on a red light trvial or arbitrary. I don’t think people who are hit by cars turning right while they’re trying to cross the street would agree with you. I know a few who’ve been hit in that situation.
First of all, Josh, brilliant idea. I’ll have to tell the bar exam screeners about your astute thinking abilities next time they call me for a reference.
Second of all, Ashley, you aren’t even factoring in the interests cost of the particular ticket since it was probably paid for with student loan money.
Third of all, oaklandjed, welcome to the blog, and your point of view probably makes sense somewhere that isn’t Utah. In other words, places that have major crimes, drug trafficking, assaults, etc. on a regular basis. It seems like cops in Utah spend plenty of time doing traffic enforcement. I have to admit that I have run red lights before. Usually it is when you misjudge a yellow light, and you aren’t in the intersection in time, and it is too late to stop since you were trying to make the light. Dumb reason for a ticket in my opinion. Stopping before a crosswalk is completely arbitrary. Someone draws a line in the road and says stop here. One inch further and you are violating the law. It also doesn’t help when the stupid engineers lay the traffic light sensor loops halfway in the middle of the intersection, so you don’t have anyway of letting the light know you are waiting without breaking the law. As for pedestrians, we don’t really have them where I live, so I guess crosswalks become less arbitrary when they are actually being used.
Fourth of all, Jake, I wasn’t deriding the idea of an Australian company doing this. I was tempted to put in a paragraph telling people to buy stock in Redflex, since it looks like a good co. and if you can’t beat ‘em join ‘em. However, I was pointing out the problem of taking a big source of public revenue (cops writing tickets) and outsourcing this revenue to a private company. As you can see from my post, I am not surprised that the private company can do traffic enforcement so much better than our public law enforcement agencies can. This is just not even a contest. The point I was making is if grocery store A can provide products with better quality, price and service that grocery store B, then this creates more personal freedom for the consumers of both stores. Law enforcement is a different animal than buying groceries. It is arguable that every American citizen breaks many laws every single day of their life. More efficient law enforcement translates to a restriction of personal freedom. Right now in Utah, I can stop at a red light with my bumper over the crosswalk, and as long as I don’t hit a pedestrian, another car, or have a cop with an attitude behind me it is very unlikely that I will get a ticket. It is also very unlikely that any of the above scenarios will ever happen, so it is therefore very likely that my actions won’t cause anyone any harm. To make this otherwise harmless but illegal act a punishable crime every time it happens seems to be an unnecessary reduction of personal freedom. To use the efficiency of the market to reduce personal freedom seems problematic. Reducing personal freedom is a service that is best left to politicians and police, because they are so ridiculously inefficient at what they do.
I am assuming your closing comments about immigration reflect some frustration that you are having that you want to immigrate permanently to Thailand, but their conservative immigration policies have made it so that there is no economical demand in their country for those with anthropology PhDs.
Wow, Josh, that was incredible. If this weren’t a G-rated blog, I would say that I laughed my ass off. Please consider running for public office some time, just so I can have the pleasure of voting for you.
As for Ben, it’s actually all too easy to immigrate to Thailand permanently – legally or otherwise. Although, a classical liberal such as yourself might be averse to some limitations on personal freedom here, perhaps most notably lese majeste laws.
But no, I was merely pointing out that ardent nationalism tends to trump the supposed purity of free market arguments when it comes to issues like migration.
Scameras are a big racket. The camera company gets most of the cash. Here’s a related article about them:
http://www.caranddriver.com/features/columns/c_d_staff/patrick_bedard/sticking_it_to_the_man_column
Great! now every time i go to the big city I gotta watch out for these? at least they aren’t on the highway checking our speed limits.
Mike´s last blog ..Contact Us