Television’s favorite bumbling anti-hero Homer Simpson once described public transportation as being reserved strictly for “losers.” I used to share his sentiment. But working in what James Pinkerton calls “Powercity” with a subway stop outside my Virginian apartment, it’s much more cost effective to bear the nearly hour-long commute then sit in bumper-to-bumper traffic. So for five days a week, I do my best to grasp onto what little sanity is retained by venturing into the soulless pit known as Washington D.C. The journey is made unnecessarily worse due to the brutish and discourteous behavior of fellow travelers. In response to the continual abuse, I will offer up some advice on how to conduct oneself in crowded, public areas. Admittedly, I have no formal knowledge in this subject outside of anecdotal experience and my own understanding of praxeology.
First, it must be clarified that I fully understand the pitfalls of state property, and thus all the arguments to be rid of it. Transportation with the word “public” in front of it unquestionably invites abuse. As far back as Aristotle, private property was recognized as the greatest coordinator of efficiency through limiting waste. And in most instances, public transit acts more as pocket-filler for crony capitalists than a genuine social good. However, since government-owned and operated transportation exists, it shall be dealt with.
The thing to remember is the Washington D.C. metropolitan area stands out from other sprawling public transport cities. It is a rathole teeming with diseases such as sociopathy, uncurled jealously, and the unrelenting desire to oversee the lives of millions. Business, for the most part, is conducted on a popularity contest basis. And yet the loathsome bunch who operate the behemoth machinery of the federal government are not at all unpleasant when removed from the habitat of legalized aggression. Indeed, the state bureaucrat is an interesting creature. While sulking from place to place, they act surprisingly innocuous. Given that most are members of the greatest criminal gang on the face of the Earth, I imagine they justify their monotonous day jobs with mental somersaults over the efficacy of state-sanctioned murder, theft, and oppression.
Even so, the typical government employee will not hesitate to resort to animal instincts if it means arriving at their destination a few minutes earlier. This means crowding into trains at full capacity, denying any and all empty breathing room. Like a herd of cattle, they are strangely comfortable with having their bodies closely packed together. Inevitably, one will shout for others to make room. The nuisance will be one of three things: overweight, elderly, or naturally loud-mouthed.
Natural law theory, which no public employee has familiarity with, is based on humanity’s unique attributes to determine what actions are conducive to pursuing the good while promoting overall flourishment. With this in mind, it is almost subhuman the way others behave on the metro. Man was not meant to have his face hard-pressed against another’s for the sake of convenience. The very act is illogical. To voluntarily submit yourself and others to congested conditions may not be premeditated aggression but it’s degrading for all involved.
Next, it should go without saying that talking on the phone in a crowded, confined space is universally taboo. Unless you are a major Wall Street Trader (and thus implicating yourself for the non-crime of insider trading) or a high-ranking military official with the authority of war declaration, your conversation is an impediment to relaxing silence. Still, middle-aged folks refuse to learn this lesson, as they yammer away to their spouse on the necessity of the family minivan being parked curbside so as to avoid the terrifying outdoors upon departure. Worse are those who keep the ringer on their cell phones at the loudest setting; like an irritant time bomb ready to explode.
The same critique applies to the endless chatter of work environments. In the rush hour traffic, there never fails to be two or more co-workers who find it necessary to hold boisterous conversations about their respective occupations. Usually this will entail a mix of complaining and grandstanding, directed primarily toward gathering peer approval. When government workers engage in sharing war stories, the annoyance metric is multiplied tenfold. Talk of wooing lobbyists with pathetic flattery or authoring some inane piece of legislation is enough to make any decent man struggle to maintain a tight composure. These episodes are made worse by the loudness in tone – an element necessary to be bothersome to begin with. Children need to be reprimanded to use their “inside” voices. Adults should not have to.
Possibly the worst offense in mass transit conduct occurs when a passenger decides to sit on the outside of a seat meant for two persons, thereby denying everyone the chance to avoid standing. There is absolutely no excuse for this, other than the brazen narcissism that accompanies an empty sense of accomplishment from government work. Colleagues of mine claim to have called attention to this rude behavior by demanding to sit in the abandoned space. I have never found a need to be so brash. The man or woman who consciously chooses to close off a perfectly good sitting area will receive a justful amount of stares and contempt. Disdain may not have a physical presence, but it still can be observed.
Thomas Hobbes famously depicted ungoverned humanity as a pack of violent savages who would rip each other limb from limb if it were not for the state. This characterization has been utilized by collectivists for centuries to justify their stranglehold over the populace. But if you observe people going about their everyday business, they are relatively benign. In the great struggle for material security, energy is invested more in productive efforts than aimlessly harming others. So affronts to living the good life are done in a more subtle manner as opposed to explicity. The government provides the unscrupulous enough of an outlet to act out their antisocial urges. At the same time, these officials who employ the machinations of the state do not, in a sense, carry their destructive work home with them.
Libertarianism finds its basis in the principle of non-aggression. As a political philosophy, it says nothing about manners or how to behave among others. Being the most civilized of all ideologies, refined social conduct would appear to go hand and hand with the moral framework of property rights. The harmony created by the voluntary division of labor requires, at the very least, a mannerly comport to be most effective. If the statist busybodies in D.C. could only learn these lessons, I would not look forward to my commute like I look forward to visiting the dentist.