Outside the Law

[musashi]

I know Russia is far from being society based upon Objectivist standards, but in recent years and in some ways Russia has transformed into one of the more business friendly governments around the world (Gasprom excluded). And in many respects businesses have had to create their own infrastructure, including setting up their own security. I’ve imagined this type of self-reliance vs. depending upon an array of public services would be an aspect of an Objectivist society – again I know Russia is not it.

The flashing a blue light is a smoking gun to indicate that Barkov placed himself above government regulation prior to the accident. Then he ran from the scene. And by appearances Barkov was able to initiate a cover up within the civil service. In this case there seems to be evidence before, during and after the event to indicate Barkov’s criminal intent, and yet the perpetrator has VIP Cart Blanch.

In an Objectivist society, should there be a double standard in the law?

FATAL CAR CRASH HAS RUSSIANS SEETHING

MOSCOW – A fatal car crash in downtown Moscow has exposed growing public anger at officials who seem to live above the law, as they flout the rules of the road and endanger the lives of ordinary Russians.

A black Mercedes with a flashing blue light on the roof and a VIP inside collides head-on with a little hatchback, killing the two women in the car. The VIP — a vice president of Lukoil, Russia's largest private oil company — leaves in another car, and police blame the hatchback for swerving into oncoming traffic.

But civic activists have disputed the official version, and a rap song condemning the oil executive to hell has become an instant YouTube sensation, with more than 300,000 hits by Friday afternoon.

In recent years, numerous government officials, powerful businessmen or their relatives have been involved in fatal accidents, often caused by drunken driving, and gotten away with fines or reprisals. But this time people are saying "enough."

Bloggers are urging Russians to boycott Lukoil gas stations, and opposition activists are calling on the Kremlin to stop the "lawlessness" of officials and rich businessmen who flout traffic rules and avoid responsibility for accidents they cause.

Muscovites are all too accustomed to seeing luxury sedans driving in the opposite lane to escape gridlock. The cars often have flashing blue lights, issued mainly to government officials to help them get to important meetings on time.

Lukoil vice president Anatoly Barkov said in a statement posted on the company Web site that he was interested in an "objective and unbiased investigation" into last week's accident. He also expressed his condolences to the family of Olga Alexandrina, the 35-year-old driver of the hatchback, and her mother-in-law, Vera Sidelnikova, 73. Both women were gynecologists and were on their way to work.

Some of the strongest support for the two women has come from civic organizations formed to defend the rights of drivers.

Sergei Kanayev of the Federation of Car Owners says he has eyewitness evidence that it was Barkov's car that pulled into the lane of oncoming traffic. He also claims that police removed numerous closed-circuit cameras from the major Moscow avenue where the crash occurred.

"I personally saw there were no cameras left some 70 meters (yards) around the site," Kanayev told The Associated Press.

Police officials have denied this claim. "The crash site was blocked by a billboard," Sergei Kazantsev of Moscow traffic police said in televised remarks.

City police and federal investigators were not available for comment Friday despite numerous phone calls.

A lawyer representing Alexandrina's family says the lack of footage will make it difficult to receive justice.

"We don't trust Moscow police and investigators," Igor Trunov told the AP.

Prominent opposition leader Boris Nemtsov said the incident was indicative of the political system created by Vladimir Putin, the former president and current prime minister.

"Putin lives by the principle 'friends get everything, and the rest get the law,'" Nemtsov told the AP. "Since oligarchs are friends, everything is for them. They are a caste above the law, and Putin heads the caste."

The controversy inspired rapper Ivan Alexeyev, also known as Noize MC, to write an angry song that has attracted wide attention since its posting Tuesday on YouTube.

"Miserable mob, shiver with fear, a patrician is coming your way," Alexeyev sang on behalf of Barkov, whose mug shot was superimposed over the figure of Satan from an episode of "South Park," the U.S. cartoon series. "We're late to hell today, so get out of the chariot's way."

[RoarkRangor]

It is for the rightful owner of the road to decide who can drive where, when and how. Whatever the rightful owner decides that the rules of the roads are, are the just rules. Today, most roads have no rightful owner; they are appropriated by governments or paid with stolen property. Because the possessor of the roads is not the legitimate owner, nothing can be said about what the rules of the road should be.

I didn't vote because I couldn't find a option that I agree with.

[Oleksandr]

Hmm, Mother Russia is saying that it is opening her wide arms to more business? Nice, I'll just wait and see when those wide arms close to scoop up all the loot.

[Darth Venger]

Hmm, Mother Russia is saying that it is opening her wide arms to more business? Nice, I'll just wait and see when those wide arms close to scoop up all the loot.

EXACTLY!

Russia is a mob run state of lost souls.

[musashi]

Hmm, Mother Russia is saying that it is opening her wide arms to more business? Nice, I'll just wait and see when those wide arms close to scoop up all the loot.

EXACTLY!

Russia is a mob run state of lost souls.

It absolutely is a mob run state. And yet if you run a business there you gain a number of benefits.

• Get your own emergency beacon for your "patrol car" (perhaps not a siren - they should work on that).
• You can drive against traffic at any hour of the day
• You can kill people
• You can influence local and national law enforcement.
• You can destroy state’s evidence

Moral or not, I call that a pretty business-friendly environment. And the graft and corruption of the government taken aside… Why shouldn’t business get all these perogatives and more? Shouldn’t a business be allowed to be selfish?

Mother Russia isn’t coming to the business's aid. They are in an unregulated environment. These businesses gain as much justice as they can buy. Is it a surprise to anyone when they actually make a purchase?

[Benjamin Brieg]

Russia? Business friendly? Don't make me laugh. The current "Russian State" might as well be the Russian Mafia and all business that want to do business need to bribe officials etc.

(Disclaimer, I'm Russian)

And to answer the question, roads should be a private enterprise yes; and the company or corporation who owned the roads would find it in their best interests to fine and/or ban people who endangered others on their roads much as government does now. Its not profitable to clean up burning wrecks every day.

[Kushan]

(Disclaimer, I'm Russian)

brb changing my vote on your app

[Oleksandr]

(Disclaimer, I'm Russian)

brb changing my vote on your app

Racist!

[musashi]

Russia? Business friendly? Don't make me laugh. The current "Russian State" might as well be the Russian Mafia and all business that want to do business need to bribe officials etc.

I do agree. I can’t think of many places that are more corrupt than Russia. But let’s take a step back. Bribes (right or wrong) are accepted business practice in many countries. In one sense bribes form a crude market for the resolution of business disputes. The party that pays the most prevails.

How are bribes different than the costs associated with complying with unjust regulations? Doesn’t this boil down to a distinction of who’s pocket the money is going into?

And to answer the question, roads should be a private enterprise yes; and the company or corporation who owned the roads would find it in their best interests to fine and/or ban people who endangered others on their roads much as government does now. Its not profitable to clean up burning wrecks every day.

Let’s say you built and owned the road. And traffic flow is very much imbalanced, but business is good - you have so many customers that the road becomes gridlocked at peak times.

Anatoly Barkov comes to you the owner with a proposition. “Ben I’d like to buy a license to drive against traffic so that I don’t have to wait. Up front and every year I’ll pay an amount equal to your total investment cost in the road. I will avoid accidents to my best effort and if I’m in a crash driving the opposite direction I’ll pay all the costs and damages.”

Is it still in your best interests to ban Anatoly’s crazy driving? If I owned that road I’d probably sell that “wrong way license” for a heck of a lot less, and I’d probably sell multiple wrong way licenses until my normal subscriptions begin to taper off. My point here is that there is a price for practically anything. I don’t think we can assume that a private owner would prohibit wrong way driving under all circumstances.

And this leads us to a generalization that we should expect a private owner to establish unique trading terms for her customer-base in ways that maximize the private owner’s profits. In short the private arrangement creates not a unified law, but multiple laws depending upon the terms negotiated with the private owner.

And think about this scenario in the opposite… What if our rule of law required that each private owner operate under equal terms for all customers? To me that sounds very similar to centralized planning. To me that seems like a very invasive intrusion upon the private owner’s property rights.

[Benjamin Brieg]

To answer your first point:

Governments exist to enforce contracts. When bribes and corruption reach an endemic state such as in Russia and other third world countries the system breaks down. Compare the average standard of living in a corrupt country to a (relatively) uncorrupt country. In the end bribes and favoritism are an infringement of personal liberty and contrary to the principles of a free state.

Yes bribes are in the short run favorable to the parties involved, but the total cost is greater in the long run and that cost is spread unfairly.


As for your second point, I would argue that when I drive on a road which is provided for me by a private entity that I in essence sign a contract which states that I will pay for the use of the road in return for safe passage to my destination. By providing such a "wrong way" service the owner of the road has breached the trust and I would have to go to court to settle.


Remember as well that a capitalist state is not a lawless state, it is simply one in which individual rights to property and pursuit of happiness are paramount. By endangering the life and property of their customers the owner of the road is liable in this case.