From: snail@lsl.co.uk
Newsgroups: uk.misc
Subject: Re: Transport subsidies - Was: Car Parking
Date: 5 Jan 93 13:21:50 GMT
Distribution: uk
Organization: Laser-Scan Ltd., Cambridge

In article <2T6uwB14w165w@mantis.co.uk>, mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:
> snail@lsl.co.uk writes:
>> In article <i9NVVB21w165w@mantis.co.uk>, mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:
>> > Let's suppose there's a desperately ill orphan with no telephone, no
>> > vehicles, and no legs.  How does it get to where it *NEEDS* to go in this
>> > so-called free road transport system of yours?  Eh?!  Eh?!  Answer me that!
>> 
>> ["so-called free road system" referring to our current road system as opposed
>> to a no-taxes, toll-road, no-health, no-education, pay for it yourself etc
>> system...]
>> 
>> No problem.
> [...]
>> Now if you'd like to answer the original question, despite the fact it wasn't
>> aimed at you...
> 
> I think you missed my point.  Those arguing against the free market are
> coming up with increasingly unlikely and bizarre situations where it might
> break down, in an effort to show that the free market can't work.  I decided
> to come up with an unlikely and bizarre situation where the current setup
> doesn't work, and exaggerate it for comic effect (TM).
> 
> See,
Oops, patronising so early in the year...

> in the real world there are vanishingly few people who have *no* money,
> and those were the people you were arguing would be out of luck in the free
> market.  It's also the case that those few who have *no* money are just as
> stiffed by the current subsidised road setup.
   
Obviously you live in a different world than I. *no* money maybe, but so
little money as to be equivalent. I think most people would rate the growing
numbers of homeless people as having very little or no money, interms of the
fact they are trapped in their situation.

> In spite of the arguing which has gone on, I have yet to see much concrete
> evidence that transport will be more expensive (in terms of how much time
> you'll have to work to be able to afford to travel a distance x) under a free
> market. 

Lets take a simple case. It's been said before, by some on the net, that since
most of us are in favour of paying taxes, then surely we'd give this money to
charity out of the goodness of our hearts if we weren't taxed, and that also
since we would, we must be a good example of what the rest of the country would
do.

Neither is true, not even the first part of that, it is against human
nature to disadvantage yourself. People might not like admitting that fact, but
I'm just being a realist.

The second point that just because we'd do it means the rest of the country
would do it, is sorely missing the point. The fact that we are on the net
(not to be elitist) says something about the type of people we are and the
educational and intellectual backgrounds we have and why we might choose to
donate money to various organisations. Regrettably most of society in this
country doesn't have this background and would disagree strongly (the fact
that the various bi/trans/gay sexual groups exist on the net is good proof of
this, I suspect the various insults these people get would go up enormously
if everyone had access). I'm not trying to be elitist, and if the wording I've
used comes out that way it accidental. I'm not very good at writing things
like this. I think you'd find the average person in the street may think it's
a good idea to donate to charities, but when it comes to parting with the
cash, it isn't so easy. 

And yes, I do donate to various charities and organisations, just for those
of you who think I don't.

As a counterpoint: I've yet to see any argument to say that transport costs
                   would stay the same or decrease as a result of a free
                   market. Markets charge *what they think they can get away
                   with*, not a price which represents the cost of production
                   plus a reasonable profit. In the case of roads, the profit
                   should simply be to keep the roads going, ie: NO
                   SHAREHOLDERS, infrastructure is important, too important to
                   let a few companies bugger it up.

I can just see the followups coming in with <<define reasonable>>. Well for
starters, the City doesn't make reasonable profits, usually. Take that either
way, it's obvious which I'm aiming for.
-- 
snail@lsl.co.uk      

"Washing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless
 means to side with the powerful, not to be Neutral."
                                                     Quote by Freire.
                                                     Poster by OXFAM.