So I got pulled over for speeding...

[Bitcoin Oz]

Other question doesn't matter. Be careful what contracts you sign.

So, let's assume you've bought up the "key roads" through a city in a grand master plan to lose money. You impose "whimsical" rules on those roads to deny yourself traffic. We'll even assume that you cannot be routed around on existing roads. (Seriously, play around with this on Google Maps or OpenStreetMap, see if you can actually block traffic by buying up a few roads.) Those "other people" won't have to sell. They'll build roads themselves, to get around your ridiculous restrictions, and make a little money, to boot. Then, once you've gone out of business, they'll turn those ad hoc roads back into gardens or whatever they were before you decided to waste a bunch of your money.

And that's, of course, assuming this (or something like it) doesn't ruin your plan.

Ok. You can just assume that you currently live in an AnCap world where most contracts are implicit and in them there's a clause that says that most disputes that can't be solved by something called a law-book is solved by majority vote. You are free to move anywhere, but be aware that most AnCaps in this world share this view.

Have a look at any major city. An accident in the wrong place locks the place up for hours, even if you can route around the accident. And in in most cities they have these things called "houses". They kind of block they way for new roads.

I wonder how all those roads got there before government came along ?

[AntiCap]

I wonder how all those roads got there before government came along ?

They were privately owned and it was a huge mess. When you were traveling you had to stop at gates to pay the owner of the new road that you began your journey on, assuming that you were allowed to go there in the first place as many had restrictions on where you were allowed to go, and you'd have to purchase "passports" to be allowed to travel over their land. You could be locked in a patch of land because your neighbors wouldn't sell you a "passport".
Mind you, this was several hundred years ago.

Then society found a better solution.

[myrkul]

Ok. You can just assume that you currently live in an AnCap world where most contracts are implicit and in them there's a clause that says that most disputes that can't be solved by something called a law-book is solved by majority vote. You are free to move anywhere, but be aware that most AnCaps in this world share this view.

Have a look at any major city. An accident in the wrong place locks the place up for hours, even if you can route around the accident. And in in most cities they have these things called "houses". They kind of block they way for new roads.

1) That would be great, if it remotely resembled anything an AnCap would do...which none of it does. Try again.

2) Right, because houses take up the whole yard, especially the front part by the street. Yes, you can damage traffic flow by blocking certain roads, but you can't stop it completely, and even assuming you want to waste money by doing so, eventually you'll run out, and more sensible people will come into possession of your roads.

[AntiCap]

Ok. You can just assume that you currently live in an AnCap world where most contracts are implicit and in them there's a clause that says that most disputes that can't be solved by something called a law-book is solved by majority vote. You are free to move anywhere, but be aware that most AnCaps in this world share this view.

Have a look at any major city. An accident in the wrong place locks the place up for hours, even if you can route around the accident. And in in most cities they have these things called "houses". They kind of block they way for new roads.

1) That would be great, if it remotely resembled anything an AnCap would do...which none of it does. Try again.

2) Right, because houses take up the whole yard, especially the front part by the street. Yes, you can damage traffic flow by blocking certain roads, but you can't stop it completely, and even assuming you want to waste money by doing so, eventually you'll run out, and more sensible people will come into possession of your roads.

1) So you can't have contracts like that? Contracts that says that you can change the rules by majority vote. Or implicit contracts. Or "the spirit of the law" as somebody called it.

2) Who needs to stop it completely? I just need do disrupt it. And who's to say I can't make money out of that. I could have patches of land outside of the city that I'd want to increase the value of.  Or have environmentalists pay me to plant trees there. And to build new roads, even if you find place, you still have to convince every single homeowner that they want a new road on their doorstep. A single "no" would stop any improvement efforts on your part.

[FirstAscent]

Who did he harm?

Depends on how you look at it. He took up resources that could better be spent on solving or preventing other crimes. 

Nope. Cop did that. Didn't have to chase him, could have stopped when he lost him.

And the consequences of a collision gets worse with increased velocity, so while nothing happened today, the police acted in the public interest to prevent that.

Nope. That's an increased risk of harming someone, and it was his decision to take that risk. Risk ≠ harm, though. So, fail on that, too.

Or you could argue that increased speed leads to more pollution which harms the environment and thus everybody.

Nope. Any increased pollution is a result of increased consumption of gas. The cost of the pollution that is caused by burning the gas is already factored into the cost of gas.

Either way he didn't follow the rules that were setup and got punished for it. Rightfully so.

Nope, still not harm. That's no different from jaywalking or letting your grass grow too tall.

1) You're not serious? If people weren't speeding cops could do other things. Now they have to watch over people who can't follow the rules. That cop would could have been put to better use than to catch speeders. Helping somebody's granny over a street or something.

2) That's his risk to take when he's on the race track. Not on a public road. The harm he has potential to do increases, and he has no right to take that decision for everybody else on the road.

3) More fuel burned, more pollution. WTF does cost have to do with anything? People nearby breathe in more pollution, that's harm. And if you agree with +90% of the climate scientists you also contribute to global warming, admittedly not by much though. Still harmful to the environment.

4) Nope, not harm. I agree with that. Didn't say it was though. Just that there are rules and you either follow them or accept the consequences.

In my state they do you for speeding if you are 1km over the limit. Now speedo error can be +/- 10%. Tell me how one can do the right thing when its technically impossible to do so ?

I believe the most likely case here is you don't have your facts straight.

The fact you cant possibly know your speed to the extent required by law isnt the definition of arbitrary punishment ?

Nobody holds you to a 1km accuracy. That's where you don't have your facts straight.

Yeah i was wrong its actually 0km over http://smh.drive.com.au/motor-news/margin-for-error-on-speeding-reduced-to-zero-20110324-1c8kp.html

Note that the design rules allow for a 10% tolerance while speed cameras have none and many people have received fines for being less than 5km over.

So what? That doesn't change anything I have remarked about this statement. That has little to do with leniency. All that is being stated there is that the law is the law. It's like saying: "If we're trying to determine if you're trespassing on someone's land, the cutoff is going to be if you're on their land, not 20 feet into their land."

So they've now made it clear what the law means, which says nothing more than what the speed limit sign already says. After that, however, and this is where you need to show a little more wisdom, the following will occur:

- Allowance for drivers to watch the road, rather then their speedometer continuously. Courts don't want to be fighting cases where the accused demonstrates that there must be an allowance provisioning for safety where the driver cannot always look at the speedometer.

- Allowance for slight inaccuracies in the speedometer.

- Allowance for slight inaccuracies of the police cruiser's speedometer or radar.

- The officer will not want to be known for numerous tickets thrown out.

Factor all those in, and we're back to about ten percent leeway, which is about what you can expect in the U.S. Basically, here in the U.S., you might be able to count on 4 miles per hour over the speed limit. Often you'll get more, if the officer has other priorities, which is often. But that's it.

[SgtSpike]

myrkul... you keep talking about contracts with one or more people.  Why don't you consider the agreement with the government to follow the law a contract?  Isn't that part of being a citizen of a country is about?  Have you renounced your citizenship yet to void that contract?

[Coreadrin_47]

myrkul... you keep talking about contracts with one or more people.  Why don't you consider the agreement with the government to follow the law a contract?  Isn't that part of being a citizen of a country is about?  Have you renounced your citizenship yet to void that contract?

So, wait, you're saying that all I have to do is renounce a designation that has been arbitrarily placed upon me, without my consent, based on the fact that I was born inside of a certain arbitrarily-selected region of the planet earth?

Well, holy shit.  Can you guarantee that if I do renounce this designation -which I never consented to in the first place, have been able to negotiate on, or address any terms of in any meaningful way - that i won't have men with guns shooting me for no longer accepting the 'benefits' of this designation based on the location of my birth?

Oh, wait.......

Contracts need the following:

offer, acceptance, intention to create legal relations, and consideration.


Was citizenship an offer?  Nope - Imposed at birth without consent.

Did I have the opportunity, or will I have the opportunity, to accept or reject this alleged "contract"?  I can reject it, but then if I attempt to keep going about my life I will be locked in a cage or killed.  So I must "accept" it under threat of violence i.e. under duress.  (consensus ad idem is the absolute foundation for all contracts in order to be valid, for the record)

Consideration essentially means that both parties are bringing something of value to the contract (or one party is limiting himself to the benefit of the counterparty, etc.).  One could make the childish argument that some of the things that violent nation-states do are of "benefit", however the key point of the contract is that consideration must be done by both parties.  I have not received consideration because I have not been able to address the terms or negotiate a counter offer.  Nobody can be forced to accept a contract, only forced to act within the confines of a contract which they have already accepted.

Consideration has to be sufficient, meaning that both parties WANT what is being offered (even if that mean I sell you my house for a penny).  I do not want what is being offered, and did not have any opportunity to express this.

I never intended to engage in legal relations with the counterparty to this alleged contract.


    a party must have capacity to contract;
    the purpose of the contract must be lawful;
    the form of the contract must be legal;
    the parties must intend to create a legal relationship; and
    the parties must consent.

I did not have the capacity to contract at the time, or even to authorize an agent to do so on my behalf.
Under common law, most of the things that are legislated are immoral and unlawful.
"legal" just means whatever those writing the legalese want it to mean, so this can be gotten away with.
Intent must be proven - I could not have had an intent at the time, or authorized anyone to do so on my behalf
I did not consent, do not consent, and will not ever consent.

misrepresentation is a valid defense against the legal binding of a contract - the terms have been changed since I signed the contract, and added to, therefore the contract is null and void even if I did intend to enter into it once upon a time.

Incapacity - including infancy, this is a valid lawful argument, as I was incapable of engaging in any form of contract at the time

Duress - I'll let you figure that one out....


Now, all this to say, anyone who could possibly entertain the modern slavery notion of a "social contract" needs to have their head examined.  Please, do the world a favor and study the history of societies that adopted such "morality".  Even just read the damned body counts.  They are not low.  Statism is the most destructive religion in the history of the human race.  Talk about believing in unicorns (that happen to kill 100 MILLION people in the 20th century)!

[AntiCap]

myrkul... you keep talking about contracts with one or more people.  Why don't you consider the agreement with the government to follow the law a contract?  Isn't that part of being a citizen of a country is about?  Have you renounced your citizenship yet to void that contract?

So, wait, you're saying that all I have to do is renounce a designation that has been arbitrarily placed upon me, without my consent, based on the fact that I was born inside of a certain arbitrarily-selected region of the planet earth?

Well, holy shit.  Can you guarantee that if I do renounce this designation -which I never consented to in the first place, have been able to negotiate on, or address any terms of in any meaningful way - that i won't have men with guns shooting me for no longer accepting the 'benefits' of this designation based on the location of my birth?

Oh, wait.......

Contracts need the following:

offer, acceptance, intention to create legal relations, and consideration.


Was citizenship an offer?  Nope - Imposed at birth without consent.

Did I have the opportunity, or will I have the opportunity, to accept or reject this alleged "contract"?  I can reject it, but then if I attempt to keep going about my life I will be locked in a cage or killed.  So I must "accept" it under threat of violence i.e. under duress.  (consensus ad idem is the absolute foundation for all contracts in order to be valid, for the record)

Consideration essentially means that both parties are bringing something of value to the contract (or one party is limiting himself to the benefit of the counterparty, etc.).  One could make the childish argument that some of the things that violent nation-states do are of "benefit", however the key point of the contract is that consideration must be done by both parties.  I have not received consideration because I have not been able to address the terms or negotiate a counter offer.  Nobody can be forced to accept a contract, only forced to act within the confines of a contract which they have already accepted.

Consideration has to be sufficient, meaning that both parties WANT what is being offered (even if that mean I sell you my house for a penny).  I do not want what is being offered, and did not have any opportunity to express this.

I never intended to engage in legal relations with the counterparty to this alleged contract.


    a party must have capacity to contract;
    the purpose of the contract must be lawful;
    the form of the contract must be legal;
    the parties must intend to create a legal relationship; and
    the parties must consent.

I did not have the capacity to contract at the time, or even to authorize an agent to do so on my behalf.
Under common law, most of the things that are legislated are immoral and unlawful.
"legal" just means whatever those writing the legalese want it to mean, so this can be gotten away with.
Intent must be proven - I could not have had an intent at the time, or authorized anyone to do so on my behalf
I did not consent, do not consent, and will not ever consent.

misrepresentation is a valid defense against the legal binding of a contract - the terms have been changed since I signed the contract, and added to, therefore the contract is null and void even if I did intend to enter into it once upon a time.

Incapacity - including infancy, this is a valid lawful argument, as I was incapable of engaging in any form of contract at the time

Duress - I'll let you figure that one out....


Now, all this to say, anyone who could possibly entertain the modern slavery notion of a "social contract" needs to have their head examined.  Please, do the world a favor and study the history of societies that adopted such "morality".  Even just read the damned body counts.  They are not low.  Statism is the most destructive religion in the history of the human race.  Talk about believing in unicorns (that happen to kill 100 MILLION people in the 20th century)!

Imagine we find you, drunk out of your mind and naked in the streets and when you come to your senses we tell you that we've let you stay in our apartment complex for a the week it took you to recover, rent free, but that we now want you to start paying since you're capable, you still think you have the right to remain even if you don't pay when the time is up?

But we're pretty far from driving now.

[mufa23]

Fuck the Police.

[myrkul]

1) So you can't have contracts like that? Contracts that says that you can change the rules by majority vote. Or implicit contracts. Or "the spirit of the law" as somebody called it.

2) Who needs to stop it completely? I just need do disrupt it. And who's to say I can't make money out of that. I could have patches of land outside of the city that I'd want to increase the value of.  Or have environmentalists pay me to plant trees there. And to build new roads, even if you find place, you still have to convince every single homeowner that they want a new road on their doorstep. A single "no" would stop any improvement efforts on your part.

1) Sure, you can. There's an implied contract between you and the owner of a restaurant and yourself, that he will feed you, and you will not be an asshole. And you can have contracts where the rules can be changed by majority, but not combined at the same time. Especially when you are given no choice to accept or not the implied contract. If all your neighbors wrote up a contract that said you were the town sperm dumpster, and had to perform fellatio for any and all of them, would you feel like you have accepted a fair contract?

2) As I said, the landowners which surround your roads will not sell, they'll get together and build a road themselves, to capture some of that business that you're rejecting, if not simply to make life easier for themselves. As to making money by doing that, I suppose you could, if you wanted to ruin your reputation. You could probably make much more money by running the roads so as to maximize traffic, and as a bonus, you don't piss off an entire city.

[sippsnapp]

Couldn't resist trolling, look its awesome

[SgtSpike]

Fuck the Police.

Obvious fake image is obvious.

1) So you can't have contracts like that? Contracts that says that you can change the rules by majority vote. Or implicit contracts. Or "the spirit of the law" as somebody called it.

2) Who needs to stop it completely? I just need do disrupt it. And who's to say I can't make money out of that. I could have patches of land outside of the city that I'd want to increase the value of.  Or have environmentalists pay me to plant trees there. And to build new roads, even if you find place, you still have to convince every single homeowner that they want a new road on their doorstep. A single "no" would stop any improvement efforts on your part.

1) Sure, you can. There's an implied contract between you and the owner of a restaurant and yourself, that he will feed you, and you will not be an asshole. And you can have contracts where the rules can be changed by majority, but not combined at the same time. Especially when you are given no choice to accept or not the implied contract. If all your neighbors wrote up a contract that said you were the town sperm dumpster, and had to perform fellatio for any and all of them, would you feel like you have accepted a fair contract?

2) As I said, the landowners which surround your roads will not sell, they'll get together and build a road themselves, to capture some of that business that you're rejecting, if not simply to make life easier for themselves. As to making money by doing that, I suppose you could, if you wanted to ruin your reputation. You could probably make much more money by running the roads so as to maximize traffic, and as a bonus, you don't piss off an entire city.

1) That's why we have human rights and lawmakers who are supposed to act in the best interest of the people - to protect people against unfair contracts like that.
2) Your plan would introduce vast inefficiencies (way worse than the government) into road building and maintenance.  If people are duplicating roads to compete for lower prices, they are putting in way more capital expenditure than is necessary.  The reason there is a forced monopoly on things like roadways and utilities is because it doesn't make sense financially to have multiple companies competing for the same thing - the recovery of capital outlay would require prices much higher than is seen today.  Instead of me paying $10/month in local taxes to maintain the roadways near me, I might be paying $200 in fees throughout a month of driving on some cobbled-together private road system.

[myrkul]

1) That's why we have human rights and lawmakers who are supposed to act in the best interest of the people - to protect people against unfair contracts like that.
2) Your plan would introduce vast inefficiencies (way worse than the government) into road building and maintenance.  If people are duplicating roads to compete for lower prices, they are putting in way more capital expenditure than is necessary.  The reason there is a forced monopoly on things like roadways and utilities is because it doesn't make sense financially to have multiple companies competing for the same thing - the recovery of capital outlay would require prices much higher than is seen today.  Instead of me paying $10/month in local taxes to maintain the roadways near me, I might be paying $200 in fees throughout a month of driving on some cobbled-together private road system.

1) "supposed to"... except the very existence of those lawmakers and the system which supports them is an unfair contract like that.

2) Only if someone were to do something like this, blocking off roads, rather than running them for max efficiency. If it didn't make sense for there to be multiple companies competing, there wouldn't be a need for a forced monopoly, one would develop naturally.

[SgtSpike]

1) That's why we have human rights and lawmakers who are supposed to act in the best interest of the people - to protect people against unfair contracts like that.
2) Your plan would introduce vast inefficiencies (way worse than the government) into road building and maintenance.  If people are duplicating roads to compete for lower prices, they are putting in way more capital expenditure than is necessary.  The reason there is a forced monopoly on things like roadways and utilities is because it doesn't make sense financially to have multiple companies competing for the same thing - the recovery of capital outlay would require prices much higher than is seen today.  Instead of me paying $10/month in local taxes to maintain the roadways near me, I might be paying $200 in fees throughout a month of driving on some cobbled-together private road system.

1) "supposed to"... except the very existence of those lawmakers and the system which supports them is an unfair contract like that.

2) Only if someone were to do something like this, blocking off roads, rather than running them for max efficiency. If it didn't make sense for there to be multiple companies competing, there wouldn't be a need for a forced monopoly, one would develop naturally.

1) I disagree.
2) But that's exactly my point - people WOULD block off roads (until paid a handsome sum), or leave the road in a state of disrepair BECAUSE of the local monopoly.  And as soon as they saw another competitor try to build a secondary route, the original road owner would lower their fees and repair their roads so that said competitor may as well not even continue building - it wouldn't end up being profitable for him.  The existing road would be willing to be a temporary loss leader to drive out the competition, then resume the price-hikes and lackluster upkeep until the next competitor tried to enter the market.  Now, if a competitor decided to continue building the second roadway anyhow, then the local market would drive the price down to a reasonable fee close to what we might be paying for road upkeep right now, but spread across two roads.  In other words, each road owner would then only be receiving half of the fees necessary to maintain their roads.

It just wouldn't work, at all.  There is very sound reasoning behind forced utility monopolies with regulated pricing.

[myrkul]

1) That's why we have human rights and lawmakers who are supposed to act in the best interest of the people - to protect people against unfair contracts like that.
2) Your plan would introduce vast inefficiencies (way worse than the government) into road building and maintenance.  If people are duplicating roads to compete for lower prices, they are putting in way more capital expenditure than is necessary.  The reason there is a forced monopoly on things like roadways and utilities is because it doesn't make sense financially to have multiple companies competing for the same thing - the recovery of capital outlay would require prices much higher than is seen today.  Instead of me paying $10/month in local taxes to maintain the roadways near me, I might be paying $200 in fees throughout a month of driving on some cobbled-together private road system.

1) "supposed to"... except the very existence of those lawmakers and the system which supports them is an unfair contract like that.

2) Only if someone were to do something like this, blocking off roads, rather than running them for max efficiency. If it didn't make sense for there to be multiple companies competing, there wouldn't be a need for a forced monopoly, one would develop naturally.

1) I disagree.
2) But that's exactly my point - people WOULD block off roads (until paid a handsome sum), or leave the road in a state of disrepair BECAUSE of the local monopoly.  And as soon as they saw another competitor try to build a secondary route, the original road owner would lower their fees and repair their roads so that said competitor may as well not even continue building - it wouldn't end up being profitable for him.  The existing road would be willing to be a temporary loss leader to drive out the competition, then resume the price-hikes and lackluster upkeep until the next competitor tried to enter the market.  Now, if a competitor decided to continue building the second roadway anyhow, then the local market would drive the price down to a reasonable fee close to what we might be paying for road upkeep right now, but spread across two roads.  In other words, each road owner would then only be receiving half of the fees necessary to maintain their roads.

It just wouldn't work, at all.  There is very sound reasoning behind forced utility monopolies with regulated pricing.

1) Then convince me.
2) Why do you assume that people would be paying for roads they don't use?

[Coreadrin_47]

1) That's why we have human rights and lawmakers who are supposed to act in the best interest of the people - to protect people against unfair contracts like that.
2) Your plan would introduce vast inefficiencies (way worse than the government) into road building and maintenance.  If people are duplicating roads to compete for lower prices, they are putting in way more capital expenditure than is necessary.  The reason there is a forced monopoly on things like roadways and utilities is because it doesn't make sense financially to have multiple companies competing for the same thing - the recovery of capital outlay would require prices much higher than is seen today.  Instead of me paying $10/month in local taxes to maintain the roadways near me, I might be paying $200 in fees throughout a month of driving on some cobbled-together private road system.

1) "supposed to"... except the very existence of those lawmakers and the system which supports them is an unfair contract like that.

2) Only if someone were to do something like this, blocking off roads, rather than running them for max efficiency. If it didn't make sense for there to be multiple companies competing, there wouldn't be a need for a forced monopoly, one would develop naturally.

1) I disagree.
2) But that's exactly my point - people WOULD block off roads (until paid a handsome sum), or leave the road in a state of disrepair BECAUSE of the local monopoly.  And as soon as they saw another competitor try to build a secondary route, the original road owner would lower their fees and repair their roads so that said competitor may as well not even continue building - it wouldn't end up being profitable for him.  The existing road would be willing to be a temporary loss leader to drive out the competition, then resume the price-hikes and lackluster upkeep until the next competitor tried to enter the market.  Now, if a competitor decided to continue building the second roadway anyhow, then the local market would drive the price down to a reasonable fee close to what we might be paying for road upkeep right now, but spread across two roads.  In other words, each road owner would then only be receiving half of the fees necessary to maintain their roads.

It just wouldn't work, at all.  There is very sound reasoning behind forced utility monopolies with regulated pricing.

1) Then convince me.
2) Why do you assume that people would be paying for roads they don't use?

Actually the most common local road arrangement through the 1800's, apart from the turnpike system (which outpaced government building by over 400%, for the record), was that local business owners would get together and hire people to build amazing, new roads, so that customers could get to their businesses.  Novel idea.

Even a community could do it on a personal level without using violence or coercion.  They could simply ostracize the people who don't want to help.  It's one thing to withold resources that you are entitled to, and another to attempt to extort someone by threatening to lock them in a cage if they don't use the shit you are telling them they HAVE to, without any other options.

I love how it always comes back to roads and cars.  Meanwhile, every single PIECE of a car has a bunch of regulations attached to it (why the basic design hasn't changed in, oh, 80 years or so), and the medium for using a car (roads) has been fully monopolized by the state for 100 years or more.  Look at industries elsewhere that the state raped or monopolized and you see the same thing - changes on the margins, but no new paradigms.  Trash pickup is still done in the EXACT same way as it was in the 1920's.  Recycling is just a money pit that burns up twice the resources it's supposed to save - one of the largest dig-it-fill-it-back-in make-work projects that government has ever imposed on society.  Cars haven't changed, even though the theory of the flying car has been around since the 1930's and it has been attempted multiple times in the past (always shut down by government, or only allowed to essentially be a plane that you can drive to and from the airport, which sort of defeats the point).

The opportunity costs of the Statist religion are immense.  They make me sad, right down to my soul.  We should be saying "Hey, remember roads in cities?  What a waste of space!"

And for everyone who seems to think that human beings couldn't manage to use personal flight devices, you imagine what someone in the 1800's would have thought if you had told them "human beings will travel at over 5 times the speed of the fastest horse, over land, in a machine that they fully control, that weighs over five times as much as a horse carriage, and they will travel in groups of thousands of these machines going every which way."  Probably about the same shit your Statist, religious brain is thinking right now...

[FirstAscent]

And for everyone who seems to think that human beings couldn't manage to use personal flight devices, you imagine what someone in the 1800's would have thought if you had told them "human beings will travel at over 5 times the speed of the fastest horse, over land, in a machine that they fully control, that weighs over five times as much as a horse carriage, and they will travel in groups of thousands of these machines going every which way."

The American Quarter Horse has been clocked at speeds up to 55mph (with rider).

And then there's absolute and pure domination: www.youtube.com/watch?v=1u16T05o7JA

And now we return to our regularly programmed bickering and arguing.

[Coreadrin_47]

And for everyone who seems to think that human beings couldn't manage to use personal flight devices, you imagine what someone in the 1800's would have thought if you had told them "human beings will travel at over 5 times the speed of the fastest horse, over land, in a machine that they fully control, that weighs over five times as much as a horse carriage, and they will travel in groups of thousands of these machines going every which way."

The American Quarter Horse has been clocked at speeds up to 55mph (with rider).

And then there's absolute and pure domination: www.youtube.com/watch?v=1u16T05o7JA

And now we return to our regularly programmed bickering and arguing.

Allow me to correct and edit to show "average", then.  As far as road travel goes, I would be surprised if most horse and wagon combos were going faster than 10mph...