PDA

View Full Version : What is a government?



Igor_Goldenberg
30-07-2007, 04:04 PM
Here again I am seeking a definition. Not what should government do (read - we want government to do), not it's origin, formation or, but what is the government? I am seeking for a "Definition by genus and differentia". As such let me offer the one I stumble upon sometime ago but do not remember the source:

"A government is the organization which monopolizes the force in the region."

Axiom
30-07-2007, 04:52 PM
Throughout history governments can be seen as fronts for those that really wield the power .
Ceasar himself was answerable to the wealthiest land,slave owners in Rome.
GW Bush himself receives a folio everyday with the issues he must attend to.

Govt leaders are effectively puppets for the banking,corporate elite.
It has been in essence ever thus.

Govts are supposed to represent the people, but we all see countless examples where they abrogate this responsibility in favour of elite power's interests. eg. 1) pm g.brown refusing to hold once promised referendum on UK's latest EU status.
2) the open borders ,mass illegal immigration in the USA, expressly against the people's will and best interests
3)australia's current housing crisis,water crisis............govt cannot even organize the basics of human survival !

Discussing politics or govt in terms of left-big govt and right-small govt ,distracts us from the real politiks of the dynamic between those with most power and those with least.
If you follow recent extremes of so called left ,right govts, you will observe little difference in the material effect on the masses.Would you prefer the tyranny of mao or stalin ,or that of hitler or pinochet?

So left v right debate really is a tug of war where the winning side simply recieves the prize of a different flavour of oppression/tyranny (as witnessed in human history, and current events)

So in short govt is a means ,a front, a bureaucratic monolith whose real role is to control,pacify,order the populace,to keep them 'on task' as well behaved maleable serfs in a giant neo-feudalistic system(Soon to become a fully integrated global one)

Those are never so enslaved as those that do not realise they are

Igor_Goldenberg
30-07-2007, 04:55 PM
So, what is your definition?

Axiom
30-07-2007, 04:58 PM
So, what is your definition?
in my last paragraph

So in short govt is a means ,a front, a bureaucratic monolith whose real role is to control,pacify,order the populace,to keep them 'on task' as well behaved maleable serfs in a giant neo-feudalistic system(Soon to become a fully integrated global one)

Basil
30-07-2007, 05:09 PM
Here again I am seeking a definition. Not what should government do (read - we want government to do), not it's origin, formation or, but what is the government? I am seeking for a "Definition by genus and differentia". As such let me offer the one I stumble upon sometime ago but do not remember the source:

"A government is the organization which monopolizes the force in the region."

Hi Igor

I think the definition (as you seek it) requires clarification (regrettably) as to which government.

In consideration of this query, I look to your offered definition. In the case of say Australia, I reject the offered definition. The government is not the monopoliser. I could argue that the people are the monopolisers and it is they who have elected a group of people (temporarily) to command the force in the region. And so it was thus if traced back to the origins of democracy.

Elsewhere (geographically), your offered definition is perhaps closer, although I doubt (at this stage) it is a defining definition :eek:.

Capablanca-Fan
30-07-2007, 05:22 PM
Government's only roles should be restraining coercion and fraud, and protecting private property rights. Any more than that and they do more harm than good.

Axiom
30-07-2007, 05:38 PM
"A government is the organization which monopolizes the force in the region."
which mirrors my definition
the force being the power
the monopolising being the utilisation by said force/power and also as in the harnessing of resources(incl-human!)

Axiom
30-07-2007, 05:41 PM
Government's only roles should be restraining coercion and fraud, and protecting private property rights. Any more than that and they do more harm than good.
Exactly.
Govt is being used as the medium by which the elite harness the masses,under the guise that people have real choice in choosing real representatives!

Basil
30-07-2007, 05:44 PM
Government's only roles should be restraining coercion and fraud, and protecting private property rights. Any more than that and they do more harm than good.
Jon, that may be your assessment, but it is not what Igor has asked for.

Capablanca-Fan
30-07-2007, 07:05 PM
How about Reagan's, Government is often not the solution but the problem.

Basil
30-07-2007, 07:29 PM
Here again I am seeking a definition ... but what is the government?
Given my reservation in post #5, I offer broadly and roughly

Government is a mechanism of varying emanations often constructed on established ideals; operated by a relatively small group of people, often at the behest of a majority of people, with a view to exercising governance as periodically prescribed by the people.

...

Considering post #5 more closely ...

Government is the body with the apparent immediate power within a society.

Axiom
30-07-2007, 07:39 PM
Given my reservation in post #5, I offer broadly and roughly

Government is a mechanism of varying emanations often constructed on established ideals; operated by a relatively small group of people, often at the behest of a majority of people, with a view to exercising governance as periodically prescribed by the people.

... govt employing the act of governance??? huh?



Government is the body with the apparent immediate power within a society.
note the highly suitable adjective here "apparant" !

Basil
30-07-2007, 07:46 PM
govt employing the act of governance??? huh?
Good point. Clean it up for me? There's a chap.

Axiom
30-07-2007, 07:57 PM
Good point. Clean it up for me? There's a chap.
believing in individual responsibility,im sure we both agree that it would do you a world of good to simply clean up after yourself! :lol:

lest that be a directive of moral governance ;)

and if this is also a good point,..you know what to do !

Kevin Bonham
31-07-2007, 12:29 AM
"A government is the organization which monopolizes the force in the region."

Actually in many cases they don't. Often forces like gangs or insurgencies exert significant force themselves but it still makes sense to talk about the main force as being the government even if it doesn't quite have a monopoly. Even Afghanistan has a "government" of sorts although I'm not sure how much of the country it actually controls.

Factors like

* being the strongest force in a region (even if only exercising that force by will of the people as Howard suggests)
* leading or attempting to lead in an organised manner
* being recognised as the government by other countries

would all be relevant to some degree to a definition. Like many words it may be difficult to define precisely.

Capablanca-Fan
31-07-2007, 12:37 AM
“[A] wise and frugal government... shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.”
—Thomas Jefferson

Axiom
31-07-2007, 12:41 AM
“[A] wise and frugal government... shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.”
—Thomas Jefferson:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

Kevin Bonham
31-07-2007, 01:55 AM
Yes, but again that's a normative statement about good government, not an empirical statement about what government is.

Igor_Goldenberg
31-07-2007, 09:41 AM
“[A] wise and frugal government... shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.”
—Thomas Jefferson

Jono, what should be the role of the government is a different discussion. I am asking for a definition, as it makes understanding of it's nature easier.

Igor_Goldenberg
31-07-2007, 09:50 AM
Actually in many cases they don't. Often forces like gangs or insurgencies exert significant force themselves but it still makes sense to talk about the main force as being the government even if it doesn't quite have a monopoly. Even Afghanistan has a "government" of sorts although I'm not sure how much of the country it actually controls.


That is a valid observation. I'd say presence of other forces (and degree to which they are controlled by the government) determines the effectiveness of the government. In the above example government sees it's main task to achieve a full monopoly position.



Factors like

* being the strongest force in a region (even if only exercising that force by will of the people as Howard suggests)

Whether the force is exercised by "the will of the people" (whatever it means, and it means different things to different people. Usually "will of the people" means something one agrees with:( ) determined how the government is formed and operates.



* leading or attempting to lead in an organised manner

Again that's the role of the government. The ability to "lead in an organised manner" depends on whether it has the force to do so.



* being recognised as the government by other countries

any organization that can effectively monopolize coercion in the region will be recognized de-facto (even if not de-jury) by others.

Igor_Goldenberg
31-07-2007, 09:57 AM
Hi Igor

I think the definition (as you seek it) requires clarification (regrettably) as to which government.

In consideration of this query, I look to your offered definition. In the case of say Australia, I reject the offered definition. The government is not the monopoliser. I could argue that the people are the monopolisers and it is they who have elected a group of people (temporarily) to command the force in the region. And so it was thus if traced back to the origins of democracy.

Elsewhere (geographically), your offered definition is perhaps closer, although I doubt (at this stage) it is a defining definition :eek:.

Howard,

How come government in Australia is not a monopolizer of coercion? How can "people" coerce anyone into anything without the government? The fact that the government is elected by the people does not change it. It only affects what the force and coercion is applied for, but not the fact that the government is the only organization to apply it.

As I mentioned before, I am seeking for "definition by genus and differentia". We need to find a family to which this "concept" belongs to, and the main distinction within this family.

The only family I can come up with is is the "organization". If someone can narrow it down, I'll be more then happy.
The main distinctive with the other organizations is the monopoly of force/coercion/violence in the particular region. The monopoly, of course, might not be 100% effective.

Basil
31-07-2007, 12:54 PM
How come government in Australia is not a monopolizer of coercion?
Because it is neither its mandate nor its will. I assume you are talking generally of coercion as a defining element of government.

Clearly some coercion exists when a prisioner is herded into a police van, or commonwealth financial penalty is imposed. These aren't germane to your discussion I feel.


How can "people" coerce anyone into anything without the government?
I'm not sure of your parameters. 'Violence' and 'other authority' are two answers that come to mind.


The fact that the government is elected by the people does not change it.
When you say government, are you referring to the enduring institution which may change perceptibly but slowly over time; or are you referring to the government of the day which is far more dynamic with powers and auspices that change before one's eyes, viz Murray Darling.


The main distinctive with the other organizations is the monopoly of force/coercion/violence in the particular region. The monopoly, of course, might not be 100% effective.
I disagree. Again we are back to my post #5. The Governor General? A military coup? These things aren't isolated or restricted to certain parts of history.
-- Royalty being dethroned and de-headed! ;)
-- Coups
-- Legally enacted martial law


As I mentioned before, I am seeking for "definition by genus and differentia". We need to find a family to which this "concept" belongs to, and the main distinction within this family.

The only family I can come up with is is the "organization". If someone can narrow it down, I'll be more then happy.
I'll have a think and get back to you.

firegoat7
31-07-2007, 02:34 PM
Government's only roles should be restraining coercion and fraud, and protecting private property rights. Any more than that and they do more harm than good.

The question was what is government, not what is your boring ideology!

cheers Fg7

Igor_Goldenberg
31-07-2007, 02:42 PM
When you say government, are you referring to the enduring institution which may change perceptibly but slowly over time; or are you referring to the government of the day which is far more dynamic with powers and auspices that change before one's eyes, viz Murray Darling.

Institution

Igor_Goldenberg
31-07-2007, 02:44 PM
I disagree. Again we are back to my post #5. The Governor General? A military coup? These things aren't isolated or restricted to certain parts of history.
-- Royalty being dethroned and de-headed! ;)
-- Coups
-- Legally enacted martial law

It just changes one group as a government with another.

Aaron Guthrie
31-07-2007, 02:50 PM
It just changes one group as a government with another.But if your definition of government is the group with monopoly (or close to) of power in the region, then things such as coups are directly relevant. If the government really did have a monopoly (or close to) of power, then a coup would not be possible, would it? Or is it that the coup makers were *really* the government before the coup, and have just demonstrated this in enacting the coup?

firegoat7
31-07-2007, 03:12 PM
"A government is the organization which monopolizes the force in the region."

Igor,

Your question is what is government?
I believe that limiting your answer to a simple definition makes the question rhetorical.

Limiting something as cultural diverse as government is automatically self defeating, in my opinion. In other words I question whether there can be an all encompassing definition of a word like "government".

Other problem I have with your definitions specific context is that people can clearly organise a monopoly of force within a region, without being considered a government. People can also organise governments that are very weak compared to other forces within a territory. Most people tacitly agree that government are "the legitimised use of force within a specified territory". However, this claim is increasingly being challenged globally by numerous groups of people who suggest that even this definition is self serving.

In my opinion, a better way to define your question is to examine empirical examples of government or the very least classify them.

What is government?
Make your own list; Here is mine-:

a) institution
b) regulation
c) statism, nationalism and tribalism.
d) defence
e) welfare
f) collective and individual security
g) collective organisation
h) legislation
g) bureaucratic organisation
h) power
i) managed space
j) systematic politics
k) controlled public space
l) protection of private and public rights
m) historical precedence
n) people
o) recognition (very important)

Again, in my opinion, government is a plethora of diverse cultural interactions that are so numerous that it is practically useless to describe, in a way, without limiting its context and our understanding of it, except in very specific conversations. At best all we can really do is describe examples of government, examine them and investigate their relationships with real, past and imagined future human beings. I hope this helps.

cheers Fg7

firegoat7
31-07-2007, 03:26 PM
“[A] wise and frugal government... shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.”
—Thomas Jefferson

A reply to an old white ghost

What about women?
remember them
What about car accidents?
who protects us there..

What about mass marketing?
r u free to choose your propaganda?
What about greed?
is that what your really need? too feed your daily bread?


What about vice?
maybe its nice,
maybe its not,
but always remember

If you believe an old white ghost spoke the truth you're a lemming
cause Thomas Jefferson had a sex slave called Sally Hemings!

cheers Fg7

firegoat7
31-07-2007, 03:27 PM
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
groan.....
baaaaaa......baaaaaaaa...baaaaaaaaaaa
friggen sheep.


cheers Fg7

Axiom
31-07-2007, 03:33 PM
As i explored in my genesis of religion thread,it might likewise be useful to examine how the government entity came into being. That big-bang moment when we had something 'not - a - government' turn into 'a government'.
Was it plato's greece?
By looking at this point of creation,it is possible to glean the very fundamental elementals that make up this concept we call 'government'.

Capablanca-Fan
31-07-2007, 04:18 PM
A reply to an old white ghost
A reply to doggerel from a politically correct denier of the Democracy of the Dead.


What about women?
Included in the generic "men".


What about car accidents?
Covered in protection of property. Road rules are within the purview of a just government; revenue raising by the nanny state with speed cameras is not.


What about mass marketing?
What about it?


r u free to choose your propaganda?
Better than the Anointed choosing it for us.


What about greed?
What about it? Greed is a property of people, and is not eliminated by leftist policies. But leftists usually define 'greed' as YOU wanting to keep more of the money YOU earned, but strangely enough, never as the Government wanting to confiscate more of YOUR earnings.


is that what your really need? too feed your daily bread?
Is that for the Government to decide?


What about vice?
What sort of vice do you have in mind?


If you believe an old white ghost spoke the truth you're a lemming
cause Thomas Jefferson had a sex slave called Sally Hemings!
Heavily disputed (http://www.tjheritage.org/documents/AmericanHeritage_2.pdf).

firegoat7
31-07-2007, 06:16 PM
What sort of idiot tries to critique someone else's verse?

cheers Fg7

Igor_Goldenberg
31-07-2007, 09:10 PM
But if your definition of government is the group with monopoly (or close to) of power in the region, then things such as coups are directly relevant. If the government really did have a monopoly (or close to) of power, then a coup would not be possible, would it? Or is it that the coup makers were *really* the government before the coup, and have just demonstrated this in enacting the coup?
It is indeed relevant. I am more concerned with the concept. If a government is thrown out by force, it means it was not able to control the monopoly and thus replaced by the more efficient group.

Basil
31-07-2007, 09:13 PM
Igor, I'm not sure where the idea of monopoly has been ratified. I certainly don't hold the concept as integral. Ditto with coercion.

Igor_Goldenberg
31-07-2007, 10:57 PM
Igor,

Your question is what is government?
I believe that limiting your answer to a simple definition makes the question rhetorical.

Limiting something as cultural diverse as government is automatically self defeating, in my opinion. In other words I question whether there can be an all encompassing definition of a word like "government".


There is indeed a big difference between Cuban and Australian form of governance. The question is what do they have in common?


Other problem I have with your definitions specific context is that people can clearly organise a monopoly of force within a region, without being considered a government.
If and when they succeed (which is not often), a new state is born. Any examples to the contrary are welcomed.


People can also organise governments that are very weak compared to other forces within a territory.

Then it will not be a real government. Stability of the government is mostly determined by whether it can control other forces.


Most people tacitly agree that government are "the legitimised use of force within a specified territory".
However, this claim is increasingly being challenged globally by numerous groups of people who suggest that even this definition is self serving.

The level of legitimation directly depends on how effective they can control that specified territory.


In my opinion, a better way to define your question is to examine empirical examples of government or the very least classify them.

What is government?
Make your own list; Here is mine-:

a) institution
b) regulation
c) statism, nationalism and tribalism.
d) defence
e) welfare
f) collective and individual security
g) collective organisation
h) legislation
g) bureaucratic organisation
h) power
i) managed space
j) systematic politics
k) controlled public space
l) protection of private and public rights
m) historical precedence
n) people
o) recognition (very important)

Again, in my opinion, government is a plethora of diverse cultural interactions that are so numerous that it is practically useless to describe, in a way, without limiting its context and our understanding of it, except in very specific conversations. At best all we can really do is describe examples of government, examine them and investigate their relationships with real, past and imagined future human beings. I hope this helps.

cheers Fg7

Most of the listed describe the differences between governments. To define it, one needs to determine what is common for the governments and what differs them from other institutions/organizations

firegoat7
31-07-2007, 11:25 PM
To define it, one needs to determine what is common for the governments and what differs them from other institutions/organizations

Igor,
You asked people to define what is government. I pointed out to you that we can measure government empirically. I even produced a list of things that I think are important. I also suggested I hoped it help, clearly it may not have. I never asked you to believe me, nor did I suggest that you have to. Just like I don't believe your question is honest. Furthermore, I don't believe consensus on similarities and differences is necessarily truth.

cheers Fg7

arosar
01-08-2007, 08:19 PM
What happens when a government outsources its military power?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2138917,00.html

AR

Kevin Bonham
04-08-2007, 01:12 PM
That big-bang moment when we had something 'not - a - government' turn into 'a government'.

Possibly happened as soon as humans started settling into societies large enough to be mass-governed. Certainly before Plato's Greece.


Road rules are within the purview of a just government; revenue raising by the nanny state with speed cameras is not.

Curious about why you think this, given that in general people exceeding the speed limits are placing the lives of others at higher risk. Hence if a fine deters them this is a good thing, and if the fine also funds the State in the process then that's less money it (ideally) has to obtain from non-speeders through taxation. (Whether revenue from speeding fines really is used to keep taxes down as opposed to increasing government spending I couldn't say; suspect the latter.)

That said for speed cameras to be justified speed limits need to be clearly marked everywhere where they are in use, and cameras need to be targeted at where they will save the most lives, not where they will make the most money.

I know some libertarian types support the idea that the only offence is to actually cause an accident that harms someone else, and therefore "dangerous" driving that doesn't cause an accident shouldn't be policed at all. However that's one issue where my interest in not being wiped out by some idiot overrides my interest in a relatively token freedom.

Kevin Bonham
04-08-2007, 01:20 PM
Heavily disputed (http://www.tjheritage.org/documents/AmericanHeritage_2.pdf).

And furthermore (I think this must be one of the pages I most often link to!) lemming mass suicide is an urban myth (http://www.snopes.com/disney/films/lemmings.htm).

Capablanca-Fan
04-08-2007, 02:19 PM
Curious about why you think this, given that in general people exceeding the speed limits are placing the lives of others at higher risk.
This presupposes that there is such a danger. Sure, the speed limits in built-up areas are sensible, but it's hard to believe that >100 or 110 km/h in straight highways with four lanes a piece is dangerous. Since most drivers exceed them, then either they are stupidly low or most drivers are criminals. The German Autobahns have no speed limits, and it's doubtful that they are better quality roads than our highways. One German friend was scornful of our nanny state attitude towards speeding.

Also, those ads for "every k over is a killer" insult people's intelligence. And they add to the danger by focusing on the speed, and not on the fact that the rear driver was following too close, and swerved like a lunatic instead of simply hitting the car in front.


Hence if a fine deters them this is a good thing,
Right then, if I flash my lights to warn drivers of a speed camera or cop, that is also a good thing, because it slows the oncoming cars down immediately and thus increases safety far more than a fine imposed a week after the supposed harmful driving. But you can be sure that the cops would bleat, and this bleating shows that their main motivation is revenue collection, not safer driving.


That said for speed cameras to be justified speed limits need to be clearly marked everywhere where they are in use, and cameras need to be targeted at where they will save the most lives, not where they will make the most money.
But they are not. They are far too often placed at the bottom of a hill on a safe highway.

The perception of cops as revenue raisers also reduces respect for police, especially from people who have called for help for burglary and such, but the politzei were far too busy collecting revenue to come. There was an outcry a few years ago in NZ about this.


I know some libertarian types support the idea that the only offence is to actually cause an accident that harms someone else, and therefore "dangerous" driving that doesn't cause an accident shouldn't be policed at all. However that's one issue where my interest in not being wiped out by some idiot overrides my interest in a relatively token freedom.
I am not one of those types. However tailgaiting is more dangerous than breaking an arbitrary speed limit, and so is carelessness at an intersection.

Capablanca-Fan
04-08-2007, 02:22 PM
And furthermore (I think this must be one of the pages I most often link to!) lemming mass suicide is an urban myth (http://www.snopes.com/disney/films/lemmings.htm).
Why, do you often come across people who believe that?

Kevin Bonham
04-08-2007, 02:38 PM
This presupposes that there is such a danger. Sure, the speed limits in built-up areas are sensible, but it's hard to believe that >100 or 110 km/h in straight highways with four lanes a piece is dangerous.

If this is so then increase the speed limits and police at the appropriate level. I note that 120-130 is quite a common speed limit range under such conditions in Europe so you may be right.


Since most drivers exceed them, then either they are stupidly low or most drivers are criminals.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if most drivers sometimes went a bit faster than they should.


Right then, if I flash my lights to warn drivers of a speed camera or cop, that is also a good thing, because it slows the oncoming cars down immediately and thus increases safety far more than a fine imposed a week after the supposed harmful driving. But you can be sure that the cops would bleat, and this bleating shows that their main motivation is revenue collection, not safer driving.

I'm not convinced, because if some drivers speed most of the time but slow down for speed cameras, then the existence of cameras is only causing a slow-down in some areas. However if such drivers do not know where the speed cameras are, they may slow down in all areas.

Kevin Bonham
04-08-2007, 02:41 PM
Why, do you often come across people who believe that?

I often come across people who use lemming mass suicide as a metaphor, hence "lemming" as an insult, but who aren't aware that lemmings don't actually kill themselves in that way.

Capablanca-Fan
04-08-2007, 03:14 PM
If this is so then increase the speed limits and police at the appropriate level. I note that 120-130 is quite a common speed limit range under such conditions in Europe so you may be right.
At least, make the speed limits high enough that it's possible to overtake within the length of the overtaking lane without breaking the law. It is crass to build overtaking lanes that are illegal to use for their ostensible purpose in most cases.


It wouldn't surprise me at all if most drivers sometimes went a bit faster than they should.
Faster than they should, or faster than a speed limit set arbitrarily low? Even if true, it seems that a low priority should be pinging drivers for speeding downhill on straight uncongested highways.


I'm not convinced, because if some drivers speed most of the time but slow down for speed cameras, then the existence of cameras is only causing a slow-down in some areas. However if such drivers do not know where the speed cameras are, they may slow down in all areas.
But clearly they are not, judging by the bulging state gov't speed camera revenue coffers. However, the result of a flashing light is an immediate slowdown, thus an immediate safety benefit — if speed were really the danger they claim, and if they really were placing cameras on known black spots.

There would be a much higher safety benefit if drivers watched the car in front and stayed two seconds behind, and watched both ways before entering an intersection, than driven by these asinine state gov't ads to obsess about their speedos.

Kevin Bonham
04-08-2007, 03:52 PM
At least, make the speed limits high enough that it's possible to overtake within the length of the overtaking lane without breaking the law. It is crass to build overtaking lanes that are illegal to use for their ostensible purpose in most cases.

Allowing a slightly greater speed in overtaking zones while overtaking would seem to be the solution to this.


Faster than they should, or faster than a speed limit set arbitrarily low?

Both.


Even if true, it seems that a low priority should be pinging drivers for speeding downhill on straight uncongested highways.

To me that depends on how steep the hill is and whether there is a median strip between lanes. (We have a lot of goat tracks passing for highways down here that do not have dividing sections. Very dangerous at any speed and direction.)


But clearly they are not, judging by the bulging state gov't speed camera revenue coffers.

Not sure whether the amount earned can really tell you anything about whether speed cameras work. Looking at speed-related accident stats before and after would be better although correlation still doesn't prove causation.

Capablanca-Fan
04-08-2007, 05:12 PM
Allowing a slightly greater speed in overtaking zones while overtaking would seem to be the solution to this.
Yeah, better than having cash registers in wait.


To me that depends on how steep the hill is and whether there is a median strip between lanes. (We have a lot of goat tracks passing for highways down here that do not have dividing sections. Very dangerous at any speed and direction.)
Sure. Doesn't apply to the highways with 4 or 4 lanes each side that are often the place for the government's cash collectors.


Not sure whether the amount earned can really tell you anything about whether speed cameras work.
It indicates that there is too much disconnect between the crime and the punishment.

Anyway, acting on the principle that preventing crime is better than punishing it afterwards, it is better to warn drivers of speed cameras ahead.


Looking at speed-related accident stats before and after would be better although correlation still doesn't prove causation.
Indeed, and making sure that speed really is the factor. This is a contrast to those moronic ads, even if the driving situations were to be taken at face value.