I experienced something the other day that every driver experiences at one point or another. I was minding my own business, happily speeding along in my car, when I noticed a pair of brightly blinking blue lights in the distance. Even though our local law enforcement was already occupied with another driver who was pulled over, I slowed down a bit. It was in this sudden act of obedience to traffic laws I realized an enormous problem. Somehow, despite the fact that I was encased in a fragile chunk of metal hurtling at 80 miles per hour in a thin channel in which other chunks of metal travel at the same ludicrous speeds, I was completely at ease. My reliance on law and order had blinded me to such extreme danger.
I realized something that night. We don’t need most traffic laws. In fact, the roads would be safer without any laws at all.
I think enforcement of and obedience to laws are perfect examples of what in psychology is known as “classical conditioning.” This is what Pavlov demonstrated with his famous experiment where he taught dogs to salivate at the ringing of a bell. The dogs would normally salivate when they saw food, but he added a ringing bell. When the dogs grew used to the bell ringing as food arrived, he removed the food from the process. The dogs then salivated at the ringing of a bell.
This concept can easily be applied to obedience of traffic laws. Naturally, a person operating a car would travel up to a certain speed because he realizes the danger of driving too fast. But once law enforcement is added to the equation it replaces the fear of speeding. Then just the presence of a cop will lower a driver’s speed.
This arrangement seems harmless because it still reduces the speed of traffic. The problem is that people begin to rely on these laws. There might not always be a cop around to enforce rules, but the danger of speeding is always there. Reality tends to be a far more merciless yet efficient deterrent of crime – more so than any law.
One might say that to theorize on the safety of roads without rules is one thing but to do that in practice is another. I would like to direct the college student’s attention to an every-morning occurrence: walking on sidewalks. I’m afraid to say that there are no sidewalk police to govern the hectic traveling of busied class attendees. It’s funny, but sidewalks are still safe places for walking. At the intersections of walkways there are no collisions, no one speeds and all is in order.
The reason sidewalks are safe for walking is because its lack of regulation creates a sense of responsibility among walkers. No one depends on the authority of someone else to enforce rules, so everyone watches out for himself. If people realize the small danger of tripping and hurting your elbow, isn’t it reasonable to assume people are aware of the danger of driving too fast? I find no reason for the state to regulate something that will naturally be deterred.
But, of course, this argument isn’t about people making good decisions. It’s about people making their own decisions. There are many other dangerous things out there that the government might as well prohibit if safety is its only concern. Why not make eating a Big Mac illegal? The things are greasy as hell! Or why not make running with scissors illegal? You could poke an eye out!
This whole issue boils down to a very simple idea. No one needs a second pair of parents on Capitol Hill shaking their fingers at unapproved activities that clearly should be an individual’s decision. The government should not busy itself with people’s personal lives. The state should worry about protecting its citizens’ rights and let the citizen worry about his or her own safety