James Skemp's StrivingLife

Drumming On the mind - Whispers in the Ears -
NOThing yet has been said - Again we wait quietLy Like the cat -
How cAn Value Even be placed -
FrEe As i wRite Soundly i sleep?

I must admit that Robert Heilbroner's An Inquiry Into the Human Prospect was not quite the book that I thought it was going to be. The title and cover were what drew me to the book, and the back cover information had little impact, if any, because I realized after reading the book that I may not have read it...

Of course, Heilbroner refers to Hobbes at least once, and Marx quite a few times, and since these two are political philosophers, and since philosophy runs through everything, I wasn't displeased with the book in the least. Rather, I found Heilbroner to be quite interesting and enlightening, even though much of his information is thirty years out of date. The future that Heilbroner sees is, in one way, here, yet, in quite another way, not here.

Heilbroner's question is "Is there hope for man?" [1: 13] The question is not so much a philosophical one, but rather a practical one. Given the way that human beings are by nature, given the way human beings are within socio-economic systems, and given the way nature is treated, can we expect human beings to exist in the future? Will war or nature drastically change humankind as we now know it? The ultimate answer is that something is going to have to give. Either man will realize that things need to change, or nature, through her checks and balances, will deal with the problem.

Heilbroner's inquiry is quite interesting, in that he desires to seek the answers to the questions that arise without bringing his own wishes and desires into the mix. After all, it is one thing to say what you think you would do in a situation, and quite another to do it when the situation arises. Similarly, then, it is one thing to say what you wish would happen - optimistically or pessimistically - and another to actually see how it progresses. Heilbroner's conclusions are certainly something that I doubt many people would willingly put forth, save a great deal of radicals, because of the solution's ties to a strong military, or controlling force. However, it's often difficult to understand exactly where Heilbroner stands - from the view that his stand is divorced from his actual desired position - on particular issues.

Overpopulation is one of these troublesome areas. Tied with this is the question of whether greater civilizations ought to help other civilizations become industrialized as well as with their population problems, by the way of aid. On the one hand, giving aid to such countries only brings the environmental threat that much closer. Yet, if countries do not provide aid, then the possibility of strife, by way of - here nuclear - war is a great possibility. Yet, to speak in Heilbroner's favor, he does in fact state that this three issues - overpopulation, environmental issues, and war - are tied very closely together. On the one hand, providing aid, especially technologically, would perhaps enable us to come up with better solutions to the environmental issues - as more people working on a problem means, often times, faster results - and at the same time prevent the outbreak of war, and aid against overpopulation. Yet, on the other hand, providing aid means a decrease in benefits to a class of individuals, which may facilitate the outbreak of war, as well as the chance that aid may do nothing but lead towards a closer environmental threat, as well as the higher chance of war - as higher technology equals greater weapons.

Heilbroner has quite a few other things to say, and I found quite a lot of it to be noteworthy. However, instead of going into any great detail about this, I want to move to the original intention that I had when thinking of writing this article. Heilbroner gives two definitions, one of capitalism and one of socialism, that I thought were quite noteworthy.

Capitalism is "an economic order marked by the private ownership of the means of production vested in a minority class called 'capitalists,' and by a market system that determines the incomes and distributes the outputs arising from its productive activity. It is a social order characterized by a 'bourgeois' culture, among whose manifold aspects the drive for wealth is the most important." [1: 63] We have here a economic description, as well as a social description of capitalism, which is not characterized 'typically' by the United States, as he takes great care to point out.

Socialism is a tad different, in that we can give an economic description, but not a single social description - rather we can give three of these. Heilbroner would describe socialism as "an economic system by its replacement of private property and the market with some form of public ownership and planning." [1: 71] As for the three social orders, we have first a type that has "an industrial apparatus closely resembling that of capitalism, both in structure and in outlook, and a highly centralized, bureaucratic, and repressive social and political 'superstructure'." [1: 71-72] Another type exists in which "political centralization and social repression" are present, "but not the framework of industrialism characteristic of the first type". [1: 72] Finally, the third type "seeks to combine a high degree of industrialism with a considerable amount of political freedom and decentralization of control." [1: 72]

Heilbroner also points out that socialism and capitalism both live by the clock, both systems desire to control nature, and both systems place a heavy emphasis on the priority of production. It's interesting to note that while such societies may be rich, they are not necessarily happy, proving that money does not in fact buy happiness. Industrialized styles of life, "in contrast with non-industrial civilizations, seem dazzlingly rich in every dimension except that of the cultivation of the human person." [1: 77]

Finally, before I leave this topic, and therefore this article, it's interesting to point out the justifications of power that Heilbroner states. Perhaps these justifications would make an interesting discussion at some future point. We have "the preservation of property, the conduct of war, the establishment of law, or [...] the safeguarding of a society threatened by war." [1: 105] Whether these are the only possible justifications is an interesting question, but one that I cannot discuss here, as this article is finished.

Bibliography

1: Heilbroner, Robert L. An Inquiry Into the Human Prospect. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1974.

History

Created: February 6th 2004
Modified: June 20th 2004; December 20th 2004; February 5th 2005

Let's assume, firstly, that you are driving in a 55 mile per hour (mph) zone. Now, that is the speed limit, or, in other words, the limitation of traffic/vehicle speed. Now, if you are going 55 mph, then you are going 100% of the allocated speed. That is, you are going 55 in a 55 zone.

Now, if you are going 50 mph, in that same 55 mph zone, then you are going 90.90% of the allocated speed (50 / 55). So, you are going ~ 9.1% under the speed limit (5 / 55). Now, if you are going 5 mph over the speed limit, or 60 mph, then you are going ~ 9.1% over the speed limit, or, 109% of the allocated speed limit (60 / 55). Now, 109% over the posted speed limit is not that bad.

Now, let us assume that you are going 65 mph in a 55 mph zone. 65 / 55 is equal to 1.18, so, you are going 118% over the speed limit. Now, what about 7 mph over the speed limit (in a 55 mph zone)? Well, 62 mph translates to ~ 113% of the speed limit, or 13% over the speed limit.

Now, let us take that 7 mph and translate it to a few different speeds, which tend to be common road speeds (at least in Wisconsin), as well as what 5 mph over the speed limit would be, as well as 10 mph over. All percentages are rounded to the nearest percent (1%) in this and in later tables.

Zone Speed Limit in mph (ZSL)	5 mph over the speed limit in % [(ZSL + 5) / ZSL] * 100	7 mph over the speed limit in % [(ZSL + 7) / ZSL] * 100	10 mph over the speed limit in % [(ZSL + 10) / ZSL] * 100
10	150%	170%	200%
15	133%	147%	167%
25	120%	128%	140%
30	117%	123%	133%
35	114%	120%	129%
40	113%	118%	125%
45	111%	116%	122%
55	109%	113%	118%
65	108%	111%	115%

Which means, of course, that going 5 mph over in a 45 mph zone is the same as going 7 mph over in a 65 mph zone, percentage-wise.

Now, truth be told, the speed limit is the speed at which no vehicle should exceed. That is, if the speed limit is 65 mph, then no vehicle, save emergency vehicles, should go over 65 mph. However, as most people know, people speed. Not only that, but police officers do not tend to pull people over, and hand out tickets, if someone is going 57 mph in a 55 mph zone. There is, of course, some amount of leeway. After all, people do go 50 mph in a 55 zone, and tickets are not handed out to those kind of people. However, if someone is going really slow, then they may be pulled over (such as if they are going 35 in a 55 zone) because there is a chance that someone may run into them, believing that they are at, or near, the speed limit.

So, therefore, some amount of speeding is allowed, or acceptable, for one reason or another, in this day and age. After all, if you are in a group of 5 other cars, and you are all going ~ 5 to 10 mph over the speed limit, it's probably safe to assume that you will not be pulled over (assuming you are in a 55 to 65 mph zone). So, the first question is, if some amount of speeding is allowed, how much is allowed? The second question is, should people be allowed to speed that amount (the amount found in answering the first question), if indeed any amount is found? So, these two questions should be attempted, and then, I am sure, we will find other questions that will arise.

Now, as for our first question, of what a good speed over would be. Now, we could say that going 5 mph over the speed limit is acceptable. After all, typically, if you go 60 mph in a 55 mph zone, you are not pulled over. Likewise, if you are going 70 in a 65, you are not pulled over. If we take a look at the % that you are exceeding the speed limit, we find that you are not exceeding 10% over the speed limit.

Of course, if we take the premise that "It is okay to go 5 miles per hour over the posted speed limit" we run into some problems. For example, if we go a mere 5 mph over the posted speed limit in a 10 mph zone, then you are going a full 50% over the speed limit, or, 150% of (1½ times) the speed limit.

One may argue that speeds below 25 mph are not often seen, and if they are, most people know to go near the speed limit, as they tend to be seen in residential zones. Ignoring the fallacy of one of the points in that statement, we may agree, and look only at 25 mph and over. Going 120% of the speed limit does not indeed seem too bad (that is, going 30 in a 25 zone).

Perhaps the premise that "It is okay to go 5 miles per hour over the posted speed limit, as long as the posted limit is 25 mph or over" is acceptable. Of course, someone may use our premise to say the following premise. "It is okay to go 120% of the posted speed limit, as long as the posted limit is 25 mph or over." After all, we are allowing that in the 25 mph zone with our premise. Therefore, why not allow it as our rule? So, the following table would show this in action.

Comparing the two premises:

Therefore, we see that while they start at the same point, the second premise rapidly begins to distance itself from the first premises results. In fact, the following numbers are the differences, beginning at ZSL = 25. {+0, +1, +2, +3, +4, +6, +8}

Expanding the table further, we would see that for ZSL of 75, the first premise would yield 80, while the second would yield 90! Perhaps, we could use a slightly different premise, that uses both of the above premises.

• Premise #3
  1. If ZSL is less then, or equal to, 25 mph, then one may drive up to 120% of the speed limit.
  2. If ZSL is greater then, or equal to, 25 mph, then one may drive up to 5 mph over the speed limit.

The first line (#1) will allow us acceptable speeds in 10 and 15 mph zones, while the second (#2) will allow us acceptable speeds in zones 25 mph and above. Allowing 5 mph over is unacceptable in speeds below 25 mph, while 120% is unacceptable over 25 mph.
So,

Of course, some people are bound to say that going a mere 70 mph in a 65 mph zone is far too slow... So, the question is, is 70 mph too slow? It is, after all, a mere 108% of the posted speed limit, and we are allowing above that for lower speeds. In fact, if going 75 mph were allowed (or 10 mph over), then the car would be going only 115% of the speed limit. Or, 7 mph over would be going very close to 110% (111% in fact) of the speed limit. So, why not allow 110% or 115% of the speed limit for higher speeds? So, we could have something like (with mph rounded to the nearest mph):

So, we could have the following premise:

• Premise #4
  1. If ZSL is less then, or equal to, 25 mph, then one may drive up to 120% of the speed limit.
  2. If ZSL is greater then 25 mph, then one may drive up to 115% of the speed limit.

So, our new table would be:

Of course, if we follow this to 75 mph (as we did a bit ago above), we would have an allowed speed of 86 mph, or 11 mph over the speed limit, which is not that bad. Now, the problem is, if we allow Premise #4, we have a lot of percentages. And, of course, not many people know their percentages very well. I'm sure, if you ask some waiters and waitresses, that they will agree with this statement. People, typically, would prefer to have a concrete number (such as what was in Premise #3, which stated "5 mph over"). 'No one', will be the argument, 'has the time to do the math of acceptable speeds. Only a math wiz could do it...'

So, while Premise #4 appears to be more real to life, it could never really be implemented. Of course, let us assume, for the sake of argument, that Premise #4 is allowed. That is, "If the posted speed limit is less then, or equal to, 25 mph, then one may drive up to 120% of the speed limit." and "If the posted speed limit is greater then 25 mph, then one may drive up to 115% of the speed limit."

Now our question is, ought we allow there to be an accepted speeding law? That is, ought we allow Premise #4, or any other accepted premise, to be abided by by law officials? This, of course, brings up a lot of grief. 'The posted limit is the posted limit, and you should not go above that limit. Limits are set by review (that is, limits are based upon the roads features and typical traffic volume) and are there for a reason.' Also, 'If it is acceptable to go x over (or x% - assuming x is > 100 - of the speed limit), why couldn't someone argue that it's okay to go x + 1 over the speed limit? Or, how about x + 2?' And, yet again, 'If one limit is not followed (that is, if the posted speed limit is not followed), then why should we believe that another limit would be followed?'

These are excellent questions which perhaps need to answered before we set up an accepted 'speeding limit' ...

As for myself, I believe that going the speed limit is a good idea in areas in which the speed limit is less then 25. I think going a couple over in areas from 25 mph to 40 mph is acceptable, and in areas 45 to 50 (or so) that 5 mph over is acceptable. In 55 to 65 mph zones, I think that from 7 to 10 mph over is acceptable. Of course, I have an older car, so I try not to exceed 72 mph. Personally, I find that sometimes speeders are a good thing, because if I can see them not get pulled over, then I know that up to that point there are not cops out ;)

---

Originally was Thoughts on the Speed Limit.

This article was created January 5, 2003, and was modified October 28, 2003, and February 4, 2004.