Hey guys,
The friend he was arguing with was me. Dazaris wants to learn economics and understand Austrian economics, but I don’t have the time to invest, so I wanted some people here to help him with some of the fundamentals of understanding Austrian economic ideology.
My position was, that first of all someone with a libertarian / anarcho-capitalist ideology, does not see laws that require the direct infringement on liberty (levying a fine, removing license, removing the car from their possession, crushing the car and possible jail, these are possible consequences of breaking these laws in Australia, which is the context we’re discussing it in) without a direct cost having been incurred (eg, someone was hit, property was damaged, or similar). The libertarian / anarcho-capitalist view is that, someone who drives ‘recklessly’ yet does not impose actual costs on another person, should not have a punishment/cost exacted on them, as this presumes that they have exacted a cost (an externality) on someone else and that the cost was measurable. The libertarian / anarcho-capitalist view suggests that a market solution should be used instead.
This was the original argument: Whether or not a libertarian / anarcho-capitalist view is consistent with having police fine and punish people for doing something they see as wrong.
To address this new version of the argument…
Your statement that the person has broken rules that govern the use of the “shared resources”, is a problem with the tragedy of the commons. We have a common good, which nobody owns, or everybody owns, and where one person benefits by using it ‘more’. In this case the driver in question is imposing an external cost on the other users, however this cost cannot be measured, and never becomes fully incurred, it is a hypothetical cost. More so it’s an action which the government is incentivising to be stopped, in this way they are trying to address the tragedy of the commons.
You state that “these actions constitute an unreasonable risk to the community”, however this is a normative assessment, as we have stated that no (measurable) cost has been incurred, and so we have no basis with which to assess whether it was unreasonable risk. Though since risk is a reflection of possible economic loss (which can include loss of life, etc) and no (measurable) cost has been incurred, the risk could not have been unreasonable. Especially when we understand that no physical cost was imposed, eg, the actions of that driver did not cause an accident.
This is without going into whether the incentives work, however I’ll mention briefly that shared space and studies on no speed limits suggest not. Though, I do not want this argument to turn into a quantitative nightmare on the efficacy of laws.
The “value” the community gains from them, is not necessarily rational, and is not necessarily tangible. In all likelihood a large amount of the value, which you see as a rationale for why it exists, is primarily a function of them feeling safer, whether or not they actually are. Additionally, the rational that ‘if these laws were bad, they wouldn’t exist’ (to paraphrase you) requires an assessment with a limited time period, as we do not know whether these laws will be judged as such in the future, additionally it presumes that no bad laws could ever be created (such that this law must be just), that people are rational (such that they could produce a just law) and that people have enough information to ensure the efficacy of these laws (such that it is handled correctly), all of which we know to be incorrect on some level. This is without going into the political forces which drive the creation of these laws.
Now to approach it from another angle.
Given that the government imposes a cost on travelling at speeds which many people regularly travel at, we can see that there is an increase in the cost of travelling from one place to another (similar to incentivising drug suppliers and consumers). This has the effect that less people on the whole will travel less, and that the costs of travel will be higher. Additionally, the government’s actions in these instances result (if caught enough) in the remove of the vehicle, which imposes further costs on society, these costs are measurable in the loss of income, the loss of ability to work, the possible creation of a need to go on welfare, and the destruction (crushing) of a good. In this case, the cars and people they are targeting are people with relatively good cars, who have spent a relatively high amount of money on them, and often work hard jobs to attain these vehicles. An additional consequence of this is that several markets for these sorts of goods become extremely affected. A portion of the hardcore car enthusiasts leave the country as they find the costs of owning and pursuing their hobbies are too high (they are priced out of this market, but can afford it elsewhere, this happens quite a lot in Australia). Additionally the average car enthusiast either pursues his hobbies less or not at all. I have seen both of these happen increasingly over time as this market for transport has been increasingly regulated. This has vastly changed the economy, especially in the market for muscle cars and similar, which Australia is (was?) an exporter of.
Another way to approach this is from a liberty point of view, where the government perpetually encroaches on people’s ability to go about their lives, resulting in far less prosperity for those involved, under the rationalization of a future hypothetical cost.
Lastly, the specific instance we are talking about, is a friend of ours who has been given a summons under hoon driving laws to present tomorrow morning at a local police station for his punishment. 2 months ago an off duty police officer witnessed our friend accelerating excessively, it was not stated that he broke the speed limit, however it is charged that he was driving in a manner which is reckless to public safety. On this day in question the road was wet, and he was travelling along a freeway (a highway with a 110kph speed limit which is a 68mph speed limit), in a powerful done up car, such that his tyres would have ‘chirped’ since traction control was always on. The police got in contact with our friend, by phone, 2 months after the fact, and have stated that “We can impound your car, however if you come in and sign a statement, we’ll let you off with a reasonable fine and several demerit points (points against your license which if you get enough result in its removal)”. He is a student and basically has no ability to fight this, as in Australia, if you fight and you lose, you get the full penalty of the law and you pay for their court costs and prosecutions costs on top of your own, which can be quite large. Additionally the Police officers word is evidence, akin to film, and would be entered as such. A legal advice service has stated that “It is extremely difficult to contest a traffic matter successfully”. In this case the person is stuck with the substantial risk of facing all of these large costs if he contests it, or copping to a smaller cost. This happens quite regularly, and the person will almost always take the lower cost option, even though it requires they admit guilt.
I’d like to see some Austrian analysis of what Dazaris is saying and perhaps maybe some good references for him to study.
Thanks,
Uriah