As long as people continue to think that controlling and managing systems is always the best way to achieve an end result, nihilistic philosophies such as libertarianism, anarchism, etc will continue to be treated as anti-intellectual or idiotic.

  I just tried arguing with people that driving higher than the speed limit or eliminating the speed limit altogether would lead to safer travel. If you were to drive faster -- not recklessly -- in your daily commutes you would statistically be subject to less accidents. 1) you would be forced to be aware of your surroundings and 2) people would be more aware of your movement.

  All I received was cognitive dissonance. It was treated as if it were an axiom -- that speed limits were necessary for safety, so I was quickly rebutted. Nearly exiled as the village idiot when my theory has been proven.

  This is how these philosophies are treated. It's going to take some evolution or large enlightenment before people can open up to these sort of things: negating what currently exists for better alternatives.

It seems it is only instinct to build up upon garbage and somehow turn it into a structure that doesn't collapse on itself.

Not sure I'd call most of what you listed as Nihilist.

I have read quite a lot of research papers about road accidents, but I haven't seen any research that supports or dismisses your claim. What I notice however is that the speed I need to "stay awake" is increasing as I get more used to driving at a certain speed. In the beginning even driving below the limit would feel very fast, but now I can be 20% above and still be bored. No matter how alert the speed makes me, higher speed leaves less time to react, so at some point it would be better to be bored.

Anyway, the number of deaths is usually what is targeted, not the number of accidents. Above about 55-70 MPH (depending on the kind of accident) the chance of dying in an accident starts increasing significantly, so naturally it is more effective to lower the speed.

Ayn Rand most likely despised nihilists and the idea of subjective morality.

Americans crash more because the vast majority of people are right eye dominant and Americans drive on the right for historical reasons. Nowadays people just pay the highwaymen instead of drawing their weapon so why not drive on the left side and avoid accidents, idunno,lol

godamnit   

*My thinking* They don't drive on the right (correct) side of the road. the opposite of right is left. I am so smart

We can choose to build and maintain a safe transportation system that removes human error and therefor be safer and more efficient. We don't because the established interests would lose money if this were the case. That is why a change in values is necessary if we are going to ever become civilized.

You couldn't function as an individual. We are a social animal, and require social stimulus in order to live, grow and develop. The illusion of individuality is perpetuated in order for you to consume at a greater level than you would otherwise.

I'm glad we agree.

This is where we disagree though. You seem to assume that people live in a vacuum, being fully capable of deciding for themselves what affects their emotions and state of mind. In fact, we are heavily influenced by our environment, and the society we develop in. Certainly, the things that make you happy are not at all the things that make an Eskimo happy, nor a man who lived 10,000 years ago. You are conditioned to feel, believe and behave in the manner that you were brought up in. No one can choose what makes them happy, they are conditioned to be happy.