>On the surface it sounds like a good idea to eliminate the victimless
crimes
>from the law, like drug abuse etc. But what about something like the
traffic
>laws, where there is no wictim at first for driving without a license or in
>other recless ways. Certainly more people will be killed or maimed. Isn't
>this a too high price to pay for the added freedom? I havn't made my mind
up
>yet.
No one is necessarily arguing for the abolition of traffic laws. In a libertarian society these would be set by private owners under arrangement with insurers etc. The argument about traffic laws is really about how good a job the government is doing in setting the most cost-efficient incentives/disincentives to trade lower accident costs against higher inconvenience to drivers taking into account the effect on a usually distorted automobile insurance/health insurance market, and whether private ownership regimes can tackle these tradeoffs better.
Regards
Jason Soon