Civil disobedience!

Probably not...

But, I did notice that one of signs of the obnoxious, sing-songy command "throttle down in town" has been defaced! On it is a sticker encouraging us to drink Smuttynose! I'll drink to that!

Sign proliferation: Amtrak edition

Did you know that Exeter is an "Amtrak served community"? These signs are located on every road entering Exeter. I noticed the one on Epping Rd. a while back, but now they're everywhere. What is the purpose of these signs?

First, let's point out that the Amtrak Downeaster is terrible. Here's the current (as of 9/7/17) notice: 

PRIORITY ALERT: Modified Downeaster Service- September 10th and 11th

Due to the MBTA’s Merrimack River Bridge Construction Project, Amtrak Downeaster Trains will operate between Brunswick, ME and Haverhill, MA ONLY. Ticketed passengers travelling [sic] to/ from Boston North Station will be transported via motor coach for the Haverhill-Boston segment of the trip. There will be NO service to/from Woburn.

How convenient. Even when they are running, there are only five round trips per day. Compare that with, say, CJ bus, which operates virtually around the clock. And, further, they can't even run those trains on time. Maybe the signs should read "Amtrak torn community." 

So, again, what is the purpose of these signs? Is it just make-work, tax-funded jobs? Is Darren Winham's "encouragement" of business? Is it to promote the buying of expensive, high-tax Exeter homes? 

As I claimed before, more signs indicate more control and less freedom.

Sign proliferation in Exeter

So it goes.

There is a shiny new stop sign for those people looking to enter Epping Rd. from Park St.

But wait, there's more! There's a shiny sign that says "NEW" underneath. AND, there is a "stop ahead" sign a few feet in front. AND, below that sign is another "NEW" sign. It sounds like Homer Simpson is at work.

Getting rid of one road sign, and putting up four for a non-problem. There was nothing wrong before, but we get to find out what new problems with traffic patterns will follow. How's the crawl along Water St.? And the parking space crunch?

Exeter's increasing signage and decreasing freedom

I propose a new rule of thumb:

Within a political territory, the decrease in the residents' freedom is directly correlated with the increase of government signs. 

So it is in Exeter. As I've noted before, Exeter suffers from the proliferation of signs. The most recent installment of permanent commands from our town rulers lies along Dan "beautify my storefront" Chartrand's new sidewalks. No Parking, No Idling, Reserved, etc. The idling one is interesting. Here is the new one:

 Here is a similar, but older one (by the boat launch behind Stillwell's):

Spot the difference? In the older one, the word "please" is more prominent. It reads almost as a suggestion, but the new one is more explicit in what is verboten. We arrive at a corollary to the rule of thumb:

As the freedom within a political territory decreases, the government signage becomes more hostile.

Now, why do these rules make sense? The answer can be found in Hayek's Road to Serfdom. As government run monopolies (i.e., socialist enterprises) necessarily fail, the democratic rulers are "confronted with the alternative of either assuming dictatorial powers or abandoning his plans." It is always the former. The failure of government intervention perversely justifies more government intervention. ("We just need to raise more taxes and pass more laws.") More intervention means more government signs to control all aspects of our lives.

So, in Exeter, the trend toward more statism and less prosperity is obvious. Only when people begin to understand all the problems with government intervention and learn to respect property rights will the trend be reversed. Until then, be prepared for more of these ugly signs littering the town.

Road signs

Years ago, I preferred New Hampshire’s road signs to Massachusetts’. The latter signs are very blunt:

OBEY THE SPEED LIMIT, OUI GETS YOU ARRESTED

On the other hand, just before the Seabrook exit, in the "Live Free or Die" state, you might read the apparently friendly

HANDS FREE, THE WAY TO BE

Now, however, I realize the passive aggressive tone of these sing-songy commands: they are still backed by the full violence of the State.  Disobey and you will get fined. Ignore the fine, and you will get arrested. Resist arrest, and you will be shot. Just as in Wayward Pines, ID, everyone is cute and friendly on the surface, but should you defy the commands, you will suffer.

Here’s an even more obnoxious one:

HELP US RESPECT OUR COMMUNITY, THROTTLE DOWN IN TOWN

(You can find it at the intersection of Epping Rd. and Park St., and on the way into the downtown area from Portsmouth Ave.) Who is the “us” and “our” in that directive? What is the community? Can Exeter bikers ignore it, as they are part of this alleged community and have a say of how to use "our" roads?

It would be interesting to study the connection between the proliferation of road signs and the increase of local totalitarianism. Every sign is a command that we should all obey. And, if the command is not yet an ordinance, some local mini-dictator will eventually propose it as such. "No," they say, "it is all just to keep us safe." Meanwhile, on July 1, 2015, as I was driving on 101 from Manchester to Exeter (~25 minutes), I noticed the following:

• about two dozen drivers who had no lights on in the rain with little visibility,
• a young (maybe teenager or early twenty-something) girl looking straight down into her lap (texting?) as she drifted halfway onto the shoulder,
• a man driving with no lights, no signal, and no blinker absentmindedly pulling off the shoulder into the right lane as he was busy lighting his cigarette,
• a good 15 drivers changing lanes with no blinkers, and
• an undercover cop speeding down the left lane at a solid 75 mph, and

Maybe more signs will transform these people into model motorists. Then again, every single driver was driving above the bureaucratically-imposed speed limit.

In reality, only respect for private property will mitigate local conflicts. (In fact, a simple application of private property was used recently to discuss noise issues.) In contrast, publicly-owned property suffers from the tragedy of the commons. If "we" all "own" the road, people will tend to use the resource in ways that others will deem unfit. Unhappy individuals will resort to their only recourse: government force.