nrh@inmet.UUCP (08/08/85)
>/* Written 10:19 pm Aug 6, 1985 by psuvax1!berman in inmet:net.politics */ >/* ---------- "Re: Supposed monopolies: the railro" ---------- */ >> Regarding Charley Wingate's conjecture that the railroads were >> monopolistic way back when, I merely note that they had the benefit >> of federal land grants and subsidies. >> >> --Barry >> -- >> Barry Fagin @ University of California, Berkeley > >Here we are. The road (railroad) is a kind of utility, i.e. if it is organized >sensibly, then it creates a local monopoly. Consider interstate highways. It >doesn't make much sence to create 3 competing highways from Salt Lake City to >Albuquerque. Why? Because the necessary capital spending never could pay >of. At certain stages the same concerns the railroad. Also, to much of >competition is clearly counterproductive, because the networks are not >sufficiently developed. Of course, one can point that some markets contain >2-3 highways/railroads. But this is a local oligopoly. >Now, why roads, railroads, pipelines, transmition lines etc. were invariably >build with goverment intervention (eminent domain, land grants etc)? >Because THIS WAS THE ONLY POSSIBLE WAY. In his book, "The Tyranny of the Status Quo", Milton Friedman points out the strong tendency people have to consider that the way things are done now is the only possible way to do them. Friedman was one of the people who first proposed income tax withholding from paychecks. He encountered strong resistance from (guess who?) the IRS (!) who argued that the way the tax was then collected was the only way in which the system could possibly work. As for private road systems, I don't know that much about them -- I'm told that rural roads in New England were private until farmers prevailed upon the government to pay for their maintenance (the farmers didn't like paying the upkeep to ensure their access to cities). I suspect that without government intervention in the roads system we would have built differently -- perhaps with less intrusive fast intercity transport ( more shipping, airships and planes and fewer railroads and automobiles) I suspect that private road systems would have continued, had we kept hands-off, but with a certain amount of irksome toll-gathering. >I do not argue with Barry, but with libertarian who critisize goverment >that it got involved in the economy (whatever the involvment). In many >cases state property/regulated enterprizes/supported enterprizes is the >only way to go. Okay, WHAT things actually require the state's intevention? Only about half of all libertarians are Anarchists (no state). The rest see some functions as best supported by the state (defense is an obvious one). It seems to me that current-day libertarians do not so much insist that the state not do anything as insist that it's actions be *FULLY* justified. In a great many cases, (say 80-98% by expenditures of the current government functions) the government DOESN'T justify itself as being "the only way to fly", but merely attracts enough lobbyists and political hacks to extend itself in whatever directions seem most politically profitable. Just for example, the government need not be the way to supply old age pensions, but it insists on doing it (and has badly mismanaged the system at that). The government need not be the mechanism used for actual provision of schooling (whatever you may think about it's right to require schooling). The government need not be the people to provide postal service (but we are warned of hideous consequences by postal worker's unions if the government gives up this function).
lkk@teddy.UUCP (08/12/85)
>As for private road systems, I don't know that much about them -- >I'm told that rural roads in New England were private until farmers >prevailed upon the government to pay for their maintenance (the farmers >didn't like paying the upkeep to ensure their access to cities). Or the cities weren't paying their fair share for access to the farmers? Given a society in which very few people are really self-sufficient, anything that has an effect on commerce (especially of essentials) is of concern to the society as a whole. -- Sport Death, Larry Kolodney (USENET) ...decvax!genrad!teddy!lkk (INTERNET) lkk@mit-mc.arpa
nrh@inmet.UUCP (08/14/85)
>/* Written 12:32 am Aug 11, 1985 by umcp-cs!mangoe in inmet:net.politics */ >/* ---------- "Re: Supposed monopolies: the railro" ---------- */ >In article <7800374@inmet.UUCP> nrh@inmet.UUCP writes: > >>I suspect that without government intervention in the roads system we >>would have built differently -- perhaps with less intrusive >>fast intercity transport ( more shipping, airships and planes and fewer >>railroads and automobiles) I suspect that private road systems would >>have continued, had we kept hands-off, but with a certain amount of >>irksome toll-gathering. > >I suspect that the demand for private cars would have inevitably overwhelmed >questions of economies of scale. Funny, there seems to be no demand for private Zeppelins overwhelming questions of air-risks. What? There isn't because our government subsidizes roads? Does that imply that there'd be no great demand for private cars unless there was no acceptable substitute already in place in another sort of society? Yes, indeedy! >.... >It's not clear to me why we have government-owned roads, as opposed to some >sort of a utility. It's quite clear that competition between private >road systems could only be possible on an intercity basis; within a town, >there simply isn't room for multiple roads to a dwelling. A good reason why you would buy road access from a real-estate developer along with your house -- the development could have access to several road systems. In the case of city apartments, one could locate between competing roads, or leave one's car a few blocks away. >>>I do not argue with Barry, but with libertarian who critisize goverment >>>that it got involved in the economy (whatever the involvment). In many >>>cases state property/regulated enterprizes/supported enterprizes is the >>>only way to go. > >>Okay, WHAT things actually require the state's intevention? > >>Only about half of all libertarians are Anarchists (no state). The rest >>see some functions as best supported by the state (defense is an obvious >>one). It seems to me that current-day libertarians do not so much >>insist that the state not do anything as insist that it's actions be >>*FULLY* justified. In a great many cases, (say 80-98% by expenditures >>of the current government functions) the government DOESN'T justify >>itself as being "the only way to fly", but merely attracts enough >>lobbyists and political hacks to extend itself in whatever directions >>seem most politically profitable. > >I find it curious that defense is universally singled out as the one function >libertarians universally delegate to government. *I* sure find it curious. As I say above: "Only about *half* of all libertarians". Get the picture? The rest argue that defense should be done privately. Sorry if it was unclear. >Nowhere does the association >between government and industry cause such economic distortions. *WRONG*. The minarchist libertarians concede that this would happen, but argue it as a externality required by the criminal behavior of governments. You know, imperialism, war, stuff like that. >I think it >is safe to say that, if normal economic pressures prevailed, the defense >industry would be radically different. Few buyers pay for as much incompetent >workmanship. So why protect the defense industry? A good question. That's why *HALF* of all libertarians are Anarchists. The minarchists argue that a "night-watchman" government is a simpler government to oversee, so that its individual functions could be more closely overseen. >>Just for example, the government need not be the way to supply old >>age pensions, but it insists on doing it (and has badly mismanaged >>the system at that). The government need not be the mechanism used >>for actual provision of schooling (whatever you may think about >>it's right to require schooling). The government need not be the >>people to provide postal service (but we are warned of hideous >>consequences by postal worker's unions if the government gives up >>this function). > >I think it's fair to say that the reason why all of these functions were >acquired by the government was that people wanted to be surthey were done. People also wanted to be sure other people were sober. That's why they amended the constitution so that it was illegal to sell liquor. This worked very well indeed. Perhaps as well as Social Security. Perhaps the most important libertarian idea to become more widely accepted recently is that the State is *unreliable*. You can't depend upon politicians to do the right thing, or courts to do anything quickly, and so on. >It is certainly arguable whether many of these should continue to >be done by the government directly. BUt compulsion to see that these services >are performed means some sort of governmental coercion. I feel no need to chain myself to the earth; gravity holds me there pretty well, and doesn't limit my lateral mobility. I feel no need to have a government to enforce contracts -- private enforcement would work as well and have nice aspects to it regarding flexibility and limitation. >One can argue at >great length whether we should have government services or licensers. >I think it would be hard to show, though, that market forces would (for >instance) guarantee postal service for everyone. OUR government doesn't guarantee postal service to "everyone" in the sense that people who move around and have no fixed address don't have mailmen following them. I think it would be pretty obvious that anyone who cared to rent a post office box would be able to do so for a small fee (you can do that NOW at non-statist mail drops) and failing that, would be able to pick up mail at private agencies without prior arrangements (you can do that NOW at American Express or Western Union (the sender pays in the latter case). Certainly if it were worth enough to you, you'd have no trouble hiring someone to pick up your mail at the box and deliver it to you. Of course, if you CHOOSE to live in the middle of a dangerous or hard-to-reach area, you can count on this being expensive. Charles: as with the discussion of consumer testing agencies, you seem to have never heard of the private agencies that already accomplish the things you think must be done by government. Netnews makes people sound nastier than they mean to be (some study at CMU tends to confirm this, I'm told) so please don't take the following advice unkindly: Please try to consider what private alternatives exist before arguing that something must be done by government. A surprising (and to me, heartening) number of things most folks feel must be done by government are done quietly and efficiently by private organizations. >C Wingate >/* End of text from inmet:net.politics */ >