Red-Light Camera Haters Unite
A benefit concert will be held this Saturday in south Saint Louis city, for people opposed to the use of red-light cameras. As our regular readers know, there are few things that incense me, and some others here at the Show-Me Institute, more than red-light cameras. They are a blatant violation of our constitutional rights. Even if they did achieve their ostensible goal — greater safety and a reduction in accidents — they would still be violating our rights. The fact that they do not increase safety, but merely raise revenue for local governments (their true purpose), is all the more reason to oppose them.
This concert will benefit efforts to eliminate red light cameras. The newly created effort is bipartisan, informational, and interested in enabling liberty, and as such I can safely link to it from this blog. My family and I will be attending. If you have never been to the Royale, it is a great place, owned and operated by the man who got me into competitive boxing. (One fight, lost on decision. My opponent won fair and square, but he was bleeding more than I was. And, yes, he also has a great restaurant that you should visit.)
Both a Democrat, state Rep. T.D. El-Amin, and a Republican, state Rep. Jim Lembke, will be addressing the gathering. It is organized by Ed Martin and Jesse Irwin. These are two elected officials and two citizens who care deeply about individual liberties. Please consider supporting the cause. Now I shall return to long-winded blog posts about zoning. …
1. Wow, Stokes-a redheaded Irishman who drinks Bud AND boxed? The wonders never cease.
2.Great event…great venue, too bad they have typos on their website.
Comment by Nick Loyal — October 20, 2008 @ 7:14 p.m.
I disagree w the assertion that red light cameras violate your rights. lets start by talking about govt controlled CCTV cameras for general crime prevention purposes, instead of just traffic safety ones, like seen in London. assume for a moment that a pseduo-libertarian govt was in charge and eliminated all victimless crime laws. so the only laws being enforced are legitimate initiation-of-force type offenses such as theft/murder. if we still have a govt monopoly on police, then wouldnt you *want* cameras everywhere? it makes it more likely to identify legitimate criminals, it keeps the cops honest, and theres no drawback to police monitoring your everyday activity, bc if you really are minding your own business, then theres no laws on the books to bring against you. the underlying reason we hate cameras is bc we disagree w 99% of laws, and thus do not want to make it easier for police to enforce tyranny. the libertarian position is literally that we want it to be easier for ppl to commit crimes, bc we do not believe that the majority of behavior described by criminal code is in fact criminal. so if we were to eliminate all the bad laws, then theres no reason to keep police from using more efficient technology to deter legitimate infringements. so my point is theres nothing inherantly wrong w an omnipresent surveillance state (again this is all assuming we only get most the way there, and theres no private police alternative).
so in regards to redlight cameras, yes theyre bad, bc running red lights should not be a crime. but my position would be far more radical, than elimintating the cameras: simply make all traffic laws suggestions. traffic signals and posted speed limits would just be a helpful service provided by govt to provide guidelines for safe driving, but no legal consequences for breaking them, unless an accident occurs. and then the cameras either go away, or are only used to monitor for other crime. cameras are a symptom, not the disease.
Comment by vroman — October 21, 2008 @ 9:23 p.m.
Re: getting rid of all the bad laws.
Sign me up! But, because that’s not likely to happen anytime soon, why not try to get rid of invasive state surveillance where possible? It’s at least the kind of intermediary battle where there exists a chance of success.
Comment by Eric D. Dixon — October 21, 2008 @ 11:54 p.m.
bc your not likely to get rid of either. so why not stay philosophically consistent in your doomed position?
Comment by vroman — October 22, 2008 @ 9:52 a.m.
If staying philosophically consistent serves as an impetus for doing nothing, than I’ll take inconsistency.
That being said, we love all the insightful comments, vroman, whoever you may be. Please keep up the debates.
Comment by David Stokes — October 22, 2008 @ 11:00 a.m.
“bc your not likely to get rid of either. so why not stay philosophically consistent in your doomed position?”
There are degrees of probability. Neither is likely to happen, but getting rid of all bad laws is a long, long-term goal with a statistically insignificant probability of success. Getting rid of red-light cameras is a short-term goal with a small but realistic chance of success. It’s not like it hasn’t happened elsewhere.
In a book club meeting a while ago, somebody mentioned that one of your pet peeves is the notion that the hearts and minds of the general population need to change to embrace libertarian ideas as a precondition for political action. Yeah, that’s not going to happen. But it seems to me just as wrongheaded to gauge the value of current political solutions through such an impractical and improbable lens: First, assume there are no bad laws.
Comment by Eric D. Dixon — October 22, 2008 @ 2:40 p.m.
ok, Im not trying to talk you out of it. I was just (perhaps overzealously) explaining why I think red light cameras are a very low priority, among all things Id like govt to stop doing.
Comment by vroman — October 24, 2008 @ 7:31 p.m.