32 ms·

I'm a daily MR reader, so I like them, but this is classic Libertarian exercise in manipulative framing. Gasoline consumption does, in fact, increase non-linear

I'm a daily MR reader, so I like them, but this is classic Libertarian exercise in manipulative framing. Gasoline consumption does, in fact, increase non-linearly with speed at highway speeds. Police departments do have to pay their officers salaries. He could just as easily have written it this way: - the real cost of gasoline is about $10/G. when you count pollution, military expenditures to protect supply, etc. - Big Government and lying politicians bring that down to $4 to curry favor with voters - that means voters drive bigger cars faster than they otherwise would - that leads to an ethos of unlimited speed - all of the above leads to highway casualties - drivers who try to drive responsibly risk being run over by maniacs driving 4K lb behemoths at 80 mph. Note that the above does not represent my views, but it fits the evidence as well as Tabarrok's take.

eru 15y ago
Yes. And you should probably internalize most of those externalities via a higher price for petrol (i.e. tax it).
- spenrose 15y ago
  Thanks for all the replies. My common rejoinder is that Libertarians, including A.T., support the political choices that create the current situation (untaxed gas externalities, police budgets funded by fines, highways for private cars over public transit, etc.), and while supporting rational policies in theory (high gas taxes etc.), when forced to choose, choose the small-screwed-up-government party that believes in subsidized SUVs killing people over the big-inefficient-government party that wants higher gas taxes and better train service. We live in this country, with this political landscape. Small yet incredibly efficient government is not a choice (though both the Clinton and Obama administrations have worked hard on effectiveness). Own the choice you are making instead of playing purity games, guys.
  - eru 15y ago
    Don't bash the Libertarians for choosing a party. You might want to bash them for other things that you don't agree with. If I was living in the US, I'd probably vote mostly Republican, too. Gotta choose the smaller evil. But honestly, a binary choice is just no way to express political opinion: Why should my views on abortion correlated with my views on free trade? At least getting a multi-party system would be worth a try.
    - nknight 15y ago
      > If I was living in the US, I'd probably vote mostly Republican, too. Scanning your comment history, it looks like you're German? I think you may have a rather badly skewed (or outdated) view of American politics. Unless you're considered quite far right by European standards, the current US Republican party's views are probably far removed from your own. Your comment about "internalizing the externalities" by raising gas taxes alone would get you skinned alive at Republican gatherings in most states. And if you view Democrats as "left", all I can say is they often make your center-right parties look like socialists.
      - mseebach 15y ago
        You're missing the point by coercing the argument into a linear left and right scale. Abortion alone (very much on the agenda in US, almost not at all in Europe) screws that up. And there are plenty more issues.
        nknight 15y ago
        eru is clearly not a single-issue voter (nor do I classify single-issue voters as left or right, regardless of the issue in question, I simply classify them as irredeemably irrational). eru's statement was "If I was living in the US, I'd probably vote mostly Republican". In the context of the discussion, I interpret that, quite reasonably I think, as broad agreement with what he perceived to be Republican policies. My response was intended simply to point out to him that it is highly unlikely he truly has such broad agreement with Republicans, particularly in the context of other statements, and in the (hidden) context of other Europeans I've encountered who thought they would be Republicans in the US, and were quite surprised when they learned the modern state of the Republican party, which is far outside mainstream European politics.
mattgreenrocks 15y ago
> Police departments do have to pay their officers salaries. When discussing traffic, why is this even brought up? It's like the point of the law goes from protecting you to finding ways to screw you. I'm not saying abolish speed limits, I'm asking why the police even have a say against traffic engineers on a matter like this. Their inability to turn revenue should be their problem to solve...not everyone else's.
Zak 15y ago
Police departments do have to pay their officers salaries Yes, but it isn't ethical or good for society to do so by making a law just so that people will break it and get fined. Tying police pay to enforcement actions at any level will result in overzealous enforcement instead of the objectivity we should want from our police. You're also implying that raising the speed limit in the case being discussed would lead to a higher rate of crashes or injuries but you haven't provided any evidence for that claim. The author did provide evidence showing the opposite.
- nkassis 15y ago
  I agree, money from ticketing should go to some other use than directly to the police in the locality where the ticket was given. Hell it should go to education or something useful like that. Or to a general fund that is redistributed based on size to all police forces in a state. (obviously that isn't perfect either, that could lead to over hiring)
- thefreehunter 15y ago
  My biggest problem isn't with paying the fine (for example, associated with speeding), it's with the other penalties that come with it. If it was just a fine, I would pay it and be done. I fight every ticket I've gotten because of the increase of the cost of insurance that is associated with it. I got a ticket for 75 in a 70 on the freeway, ticket was $137 (the judge upheld the ticket...), no points but I still got an increase of $30/mo on my insurance for the next 2 years. That's much more than the cost of the ticket. As for the other point you make, in my state (Michigan), the courts ruled that jurisdictions need to provide a good case for having the speed limit lower than the standard. As soon as that ruling went into effect, most all the streets in town raised their limit to 45mph.
  - Zak 15y ago
    It seems to me that jurisdictions should be able to provide a good reason for having the speed limit at all. "It's the 85th percentile speed" is a good reason but simply being "standard" doesn't seem like one to me.
scythe 15y ago
>Gasoline consumption does, in fact, increase non-linearly with speed at highway speeds. Police departments do have to pay their officers salaries. Neither of these constitute even a slight approach to a justification for lowering the speed limit to give people more tickets. If someone wants to spend their money on gasoline, that's their prerogative.
- meatmanek 15y ago
  Well, in the 70s, it wasn't just their prerogative -- gasoline was in limited supply, so if some jackass burned a gallon extra getting from point A to point B, that's a gallon that someone else couldn't have.
  - SamReidHughes 15y ago
    That's what prices are for.
    - ericd 15y ago
      Gasoline has a very inelastic demand curve.
      - ckuehne 15y ago
        Your point being?
        ericd 15y ago
        That the market doesn't regulate demand for gas very well in the short run. I guess the govt. can't either, though.
      - Symmetry 15y ago
        Not that inelastic. The problem was that in the 70s Nixon instituted price controls, so there really wasn't any reduction in gas use as gas became more rare. And there were the sort of huge lines outside gas stations that we're used to thinking only occurred outside Soviet markets. Nowadays, when the supply of gas goes down a bit the price goes up and people carpool a bit more, don't drive to far away stores when there's a nearby store that's almost as good, and drive a bit more slowley. And it does really bring supply and demand into equilibrium - we didn't see huge lines outside our gas stations when Libya had its civil war. Demand for gas is indeed fairly inelastic, but that just means that the price swings much farther due to a change in supply than, say, the price of a diamond ring does. It would have to be perfectly inelastic for no adjustment to occur.
yew 15y ago
None of which justifies (or even relates to) paying the police (or anyone else, really) for intentionally endangering people's lives. The only question of merit here is whether or not keeping the speed limit artificially low is, in fact, dangerous or inefficient. The author contends to have presented evidence that this it is, so the reasonable response is a discussion of the engineering factors or the reliability of his sources.

eru 15y ago

Yes. And you should probably internalize most of those externalities via a higher price for petrol (i.e. tax it).

spenrose 15y ago
Thanks for all the replies. My common rejoinder is that Libertarians, including A.T., support the political choices that create the current situation (untaxed gas externalities, police budgets funded by fines, highways for private cars over public transit, etc.), and while supporting rational policies in theory (high gas taxes etc.), when forced to choose, choose the small-screwed-up-government party that believes in subsidized SUVs killing people over the big-inefficient-government party that wants higher gas taxes and better train service. We live in this country, with this political landscape. Small yet incredibly efficient government is not a choice (though both the Clinton and Obama administrations have worked hard on effectiveness). Own the choice you are making instead of playing purity games, guys.
- eru 15y ago
  Don't bash the Libertarians for choosing a party. You might want to bash them for other things that you don't agree with. If I was living in the US, I'd probably vote mostly Republican, too. Gotta choose the smaller evil. But honestly, a binary choice is just no way to express political opinion: Why should my views on abortion correlated with my views on free trade? At least getting a multi-party system would be worth a try.
  - nknight 15y ago
    > If I was living in the US, I'd probably vote mostly Republican, too. Scanning your comment history, it looks like you're German? I think you may have a rather badly skewed (or outdated) view of American politics. Unless you're considered quite far right by European standards, the current US Republican party's views are probably far removed from your own. Your comment about "internalizing the externalities" by raising gas taxes alone would get you skinned alive at Republican gatherings in most states. And if you view Democrats as "left", all I can say is they often make your center-right parties look like socialists.
    - mseebach 15y ago
      You're missing the point by coercing the argument into a linear left and right scale. Abortion alone (very much on the agenda in US, almost not at all in Europe) screws that up. And there are plenty more issues.
      - nknight 15y ago
        eru is clearly not a single-issue voter (nor do I classify single-issue voters as left or right, regardless of the issue in question, I simply classify them as irredeemably irrational). eru's statement was "If I was living in the US, I'd probably vote mostly Republican". In the context of the discussion, I interpret that, quite reasonably I think, as broad agreement with what he perceived to be Republican policies. My response was intended simply to point out to him that it is highly unlikely he truly has such broad agreement with Republicans, particularly in the context of other statements, and in the (hidden) context of other Europeans I've encountered who thought they would be Republicans in the US, and were quite surprised when they learned the modern state of the Republican party, which is far outside mainstream European politics.

mattgreenrocks 15y ago

> Police departments do have to pay their officers salaries. When discussing traffic, why is this even brought up? It's like the point of the law goes from protecting you to finding ways to screw you. I'm not saying abolish speed limits, I'm asking why the police even have a say against traffic engineers on a matter like this. Their inability to turn revenue should be their problem to solve...not everyone else's.

Zak 15y ago

Police departments do have to pay their officers salaries Yes, but it isn't ethical or good for society to do so by making a law just so that people will break it and get fined. Tying police pay to enforcement actions at any level will result in overzealous enforcement instead of the objectivity we should want from our police. You're also implying that raising the speed limit in the case being discussed would lead to a higher rate of crashes or injuries but you haven't provided any evidence for that claim. The author did provide evidence showing the opposite.

nkassis 15y ago
I agree, money from ticketing should go to some other use than directly to the police in the locality where the ticket was given. Hell it should go to education or something useful like that. Or to a general fund that is redistributed based on size to all police forces in a state. (obviously that isn't perfect either, that could lead to over hiring)
thefreehunter 15y ago
My biggest problem isn't with paying the fine (for example, associated with speeding), it's with the other penalties that come with it. If it was just a fine, I would pay it and be done. I fight every ticket I've gotten because of the increase of the cost of insurance that is associated with it. I got a ticket for 75 in a 70 on the freeway, ticket was $137 (the judge upheld the ticket...), no points but I still got an increase of $30/mo on my insurance for the next 2 years. That's much more than the cost of the ticket. As for the other point you make, in my state (Michigan), the courts ruled that jurisdictions need to provide a good case for having the speed limit lower than the standard. As soon as that ruling went into effect, most all the streets in town raised their limit to 45mph.
- Zak 15y ago
  It seems to me that jurisdictions should be able to provide a good reason for having the speed limit at all. "It's the 85th percentile speed" is a good reason but simply being "standard" doesn't seem like one to me.

scythe 15y ago

>Gasoline consumption does, in fact, increase non-linearly with speed at highway speeds. Police departments do have to pay their officers salaries. Neither of these constitute even a slight approach to a justification for lowering the speed limit to give people more tickets. If someone wants to spend their money on gasoline, that's their prerogative.

meatmanek 15y ago
Well, in the 70s, it wasn't just their prerogative -- gasoline was in limited supply, so if some jackass burned a gallon extra getting from point A to point B, that's a gallon that someone else couldn't have.
- SamReidHughes 15y ago
  That's what prices are for.
  - ericd 15y ago
    Gasoline has a very inelastic demand curve.
    - ckuehne 15y ago
      Your point being?
      - ericd 15y ago
        That the market doesn't regulate demand for gas very well in the short run. I guess the govt. can't either, though.
    - Symmetry 15y ago
      Not that inelastic. The problem was that in the 70s Nixon instituted price controls, so there really wasn't any reduction in gas use as gas became more rare. And there were the sort of huge lines outside gas stations that we're used to thinking only occurred outside Soviet markets. Nowadays, when the supply of gas goes down a bit the price goes up and people carpool a bit more, don't drive to far away stores when there's a nearby store that's almost as good, and drive a bit more slowley. And it does really bring supply and demand into equilibrium - we didn't see huge lines outside our gas stations when Libya had its civil war. Demand for gas is indeed fairly inelastic, but that just means that the price swings much farther due to a change in supply than, say, the price of a diamond ring does. It would have to be perfectly inelastic for no adjustment to occur.

yew 15y ago

None of which justifies (or even relates to) paying the police (or anyone else, really) for intentionally endangering people's lives. The only question of merit here is whether or not keeping the speed limit artificially low is, in fact, dangerous or inefficient. The author contends to have presented evidence that this it is, so the reasonable response is a discussion of the engineering factors or the reliability of his sources.