A plan for safer traffic

Reason has a brief clip (at the end of this post) on a town's police cracking down on an individual who carried a sign warning drivers of speed traps.

What this man did, however, is a public service. Indeed, provided he might have had other things to do with his time, it's downright heroic and should be emulated.

Why?

Because he's alerting speeding or careless drivers that it's in their best interest to drive carefully within the speed limit. This serves the public, and the drivers themselves, by creating safer traffic.

Police should be grateful. Indeed, they should deploy plainclothes officers to do this kind of thing, randomly, throughout parts of town. They could even announce the program to the public that they'll be doing it, and even announce that the signs will be lying 50% of the time.

Wouldn't that encourage drivers to obey the traffic laws and avoid getting pulled over?

If safety, not ticket revenue, really was the end-game of traffic laws and police patrols, this should be a no-brainer.

Prohibition and the Health Care Cost Argument

Check out my latest at the Downsize DC Foundation. Excerpt:

From seat belt laws, to smoking bans, to prohibition of (some) drugs, prohibitionists have led their propaganda campaigns against personal freedom with a "health care cost" argument. "Society" (by which they mean, taxpayers) will bear the health care costs from vehicle injuries, diseases from second-hand smoke, and addiction.

And now, they are extending their successful agitprop campaigns to salty, sugary, or fatty foods -- that is, all the foods you like!

But make no mistake: Their muckraking logic could extend to nearly EVERY facet of your life. What isn't healthy for you should be regulated or banned, because "society" will have to pay for your healthcare costs.

The prohibitionists have it exactly backwards...

The health care costs of supposedly "irresponsible" behavior isn't a reason to ban the behavior, it is a reason to get the government to stop paying for health care.