nrh@inmet.UUCP (05/29/85)
>/**** inmet:net.politics.t / mmintl!robg / 10:24 am May 23, 1985 ****/ > > The discussion of the speed limit or lack thereof in Germany seems >to illustrate the difficulties libertarianism has with issues of social >cost. As I understand it (and you are free to correct me if I am wrong), >the motivating force behind the imposition of speed limits in Germany is >neither safety nor fuel conservation, but pollution control. Germany has a >very bad acid rain problem, especially in the Black Forest, and I had read >that this was what caused agitation for a speed limit. It seems to me that >issues like this, involving scarce resources `owned' by society at large >(e.g., the water supply, the atmosphere), are issues which libertarianism >has a great deal of difficulty coping with. Economic externalities are the classic case of "what the market won't fix". This does not mean that libertarian philosophy doesn't allow for their handling, merely that the free market won't handle them (given certain restrictions on the market). This is, I should point out, hardly a particular problem of libertarianism: unless you care to argue that Germany has a libertarian government, it's pretty obvious that the Black Forest problem, and other externalities will be seriously bungled by non-libertarian governments. If you say: "but at least non-libertarian governments have a mechanism for coping with such a thing", I agree -- but look at how it is used. In a libertarian Germany, it would not be hard to imagine that the Black Forest was owned by a bunch of nature lovers who sued the CLASS of automobile owners (and polluters in general) through a court system that permitted this. There are also non-anarchic solutions (minimal government might concern itself exclusively with preventing its own growth and with economic externalities). Believe me, if the plight of the Black Forest (and similar problems) is your biggest objection to libertarian society, you probably would PREFER a libertarian society to the one you live in now. By the way, if you are correct in your understanding that pollution avoidance was the reason speed limits were imposed, then consider this: when will those speed limits go away? Will cars that DON'T pollute at high speeds, or pollute the same at high speeds as low speeds be permitted to travel at high speeds? Lest you think that the law will go away, I remind you that in the US, we have a 55 mph speed limit sold to us on the basis of an "energy crisis". The energy crisis is gone, but we still have the 55 mph limit. (By the way, I invite anyone who believes that 55 has seriously lowered the fatality rate to post the relevant statistics IN FULL).