The following is a discussion that was held at my online college course. This might :

Diego R. (Original Post) – Rules and Laws accomplish only one thing: they point out a problem in society. However, rules and laws, rarely if ever prevent the problem that they are suppose to address. Driving speed limit laws are a prime example of the failed logic of laws. Instead of creating laws that address the problem its more logical to address the cause of the problem. Example: Instead of speed limit laws, we design cars that have a GPS system connected to the cars main computer that regulates your top speed based on speed limit, traffic and driving conditions. I addition, these cars would have sensors that would enable it to become aware of other vehicles and objects on the road and react to any sudden changes to the driving environment. Using this method as a logical response to the thousands of automobile accidents every year, the accident rate would be in the double, if not single digits (or zero), every year.

RE: Brandy – I have to politely disagree with this. Every law may not be followed or prevent “bad” from happening. However, they serve as a deterrent. In your example, if we built cars with GPS that regulated speed there would be a few problems. Not only would the cost of such said device bea burden on most American’s but in the event of an emergency one’s life would be in the control of a machine – not their own hands. I personally feel that designing such said device is demeaning. Driving includes many responsibilities, one of which is driving at a reasonable speed. If there were a logical response like the ones you have mentioned below we would not live in a world of free choice, but in a world where all is black and white and there are no decisions to make because they are all made for us.

RE:RE: Diego R. - ” In your example, if we built cars with GPS that regulated speed there would be a few problems.”
- I thought you were disagreeing with me?

Answer this question: Do we have the resource available to make the transition to a the type of automobile transportation I am referring to? When you look into it, the answer is yes, we do have the technology and resources to accomplish such tasks.

” Not only would the cost of such said device bea burden on most American’s…”
- Like previously mentioned, money shouldn’t be the question, the question should be, “do we have the resources”. During WWII America produced ~3000 planes in 1940 while by 1944 that number had jumped to ~90,000 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_aircraft_production_during_World_War_II) ; but America didn’t have the money for such expansion, however, it did have the resources for such a increase in production. If the economy where to collapse today there would still be teachers that would be willing to teach, workers willing work, and you would still see food in stores, cars in dealer lots, and electronics at best buy, but no money to acquire those items (that’s what happened during the great depression). Something is definitely wrong with this monetary system we have today, the so called “Fractional Reserve System”. Do you know how money is expanded (or created)? Please watch at least the beginning of this film (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7065205277695921912#) it will outline the process of money creation in our fractional reserve system.

“but in the event of an emergency one’s life would be in the control of a machine – not their own hands.”
- Have you ever heard of air bags, anti-lock break system, smart all wheel drive systems or seat belts ? Let’s start with air bags, would you trust yourself to be able to deploy an airbag at the right moment before a crash ? Would you trust yourself to be able to break with just enough pressure during an emergency situation so that you may avoid your car skidding ? Would you trust your self to dynamically manage the power to each wheel on your car in an emergency situation? Would you trust yourself to lock your seat belt right before a collision? It’s obvious that we don’t have the capacity to react properly to emergency situations but we have technology that far surpasses our ability to manage a car during an accident. I am sure you trust the previously described technology with your life everyday when you travel in an automobile.

“I personally feel that designing such said device is demeaning”
- Demeaning? Do you think a calculator is “demeaning” because it does something that most people can not do with ease? Do you think a computer is “demeaning” because it has the ability to do many different forms of calculations in speeds that are impossible for a human being to consciously achieve? You think the current safety technology in cars today that I described in the above response is “demeaning” because it sometimes saves peoples lives?

“Driving includes many responsibilities, one of which is driving at a reasonable speed.”
- You can’t trust people to be responsible drivers as the monthly death rate of car accidents continues to show.

“If there were a logical response like the ones you have mentioned below we would not live in a world of free choice, but in a world where all is black and white and there are no decisions to make because they are all made for us.”
- First of all, there are logical responses to problem of car accidents as I have clearly described one in the original post. Decisions are made for you today without any concern for your opinion. Did you EVER vote to knowingly raise your taxes, the price of Oil, how much of your income tax should go to the national debt that is owed to the federal (private) reserve, or to go to war?

- Diego R.
__________________________________________________________
Beyond, Politics, Poverty & War.
www.TheVenusProject.com

It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society. – Jiddu Krishnamurti .