But the question is whether such a policy can or cannot attain the ends which the government wants to attain by resorting to it. This is a purely praxeological and economic problem. Neither the philosophy of law nor political science can contribute anything to its solution. The confusion and lack of judgment displayed in dealing with the problems of interventionism are amazing indeed. It is obvious that traffic regulations on the public roads are necessary.
Nobody objects to the government's interference with the car driver's conduct.
The advocates of laissez faire contradict themselves in fighting government interference with market prices and yet not advocating the abolition of government traffic regulation. The fallacy of this argument is manifest. If this agency is the government or the municipality, it is bound to attend to this task. It is the task of a railroad's management to fix the timetable of the trains and it is the task of a hotel's management to decide whether or not there should be music in the dining room. If the government operates a railroad or a hotel, it is the government's task to regulate these things.