Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Question about Libertarian Idealogy posted to sci.econ
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 13 Sep 92 22:39:01 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Sep12.011348.3455@leland.Stanford.EDU>, bohnert@leland.Stanford.EDU (matthew bohnert) writes:
> Hello to all...
> 
> I plan to vote libertarian in the upcoming election (due to the clear 
> lack of any acceptable alternative), but I find myself wrestling with
> some of what I perceive, perhaps erroneously, to be `good things' for
> society that the Libertarians appear to be against.
> 
> The first that is obvious to me is government subsidized mass transit.
				     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

	That's probably the biggest sticking point.  Why waste money on
inefficient operators?
	On the other hand, if mass transit is "a good thing" then enough
individuals and businesses should be willing to participate in the funding,
building, and operating of a mass transit system.

	So instead of letting government spend billions to enrich some party
loyalists, let's let the business community and the population at large decide
what to build and where to build it.

> I've been to Europe, as well as to several major American ubran centers,
> where subsidized mass transit is an essential key to a prosperous,
> more liveable urban/rural lifestyle.  It appears to reduce several problems
> common to urbanized areas, chief among them smog and traffic congestion.
> At this point in time mass transit seems to be unable to pay its own way
> purely in terms of a revenues/expenses balance sheet, but provides innumerable
> benefits that `trickle down' (I promise I won't use that term again) thru
> the economy, and perhaps cannot have a price tag as such.  The Libertarian

	I like Boston's T system.  It's impractical for smaller cities, though. 
For cities smaller than 500k, buses and trolley systems would seem to be the
answer.  Spur lines for rail systems if they are along big city commuter
routes are also practical.
	One of the problems with present mass transit is politics.  Here in
Dayton, the city decided to get rid of trolleys and use diesels.  Hmm, the fact
that diesel bus people had given large contributions to the commission had
nothing to do with it, right....  Then the population made such and outcry that
the city called in a third party to evaluate the situation.  They said stick
with trolleys.  Diesels are find for suburbs, but not the dense inner-city
area.
	So after N diesels were bought, the city decided they had to use them
since selling them at a loss was bad....  A few years later, with most of the
trolley system dismanteled, they switch to trolleys.  Of course they are
nowhere near as cost-effective now that a lot of their lines have been removed.

	So we're stuck with too few trolleys (too expensive to hang more cable)
and dirty diesels.  And they wonder why people use their cars instead.  Take
the bus?  I'd either had to leave for work at 6am or take a 1 3/4 hour bus
ride.  Or, I could use my car and take a 20 minute ride.  I carpool when I can. 
The city is simply too narrow minded to successfuly run a mass transit system. 
They opposed the outer beltway being built because "it would take away business
from the city center".
	Guess what?  The city center decayed due to their mismanagement.  The
beltway was finally built, and that corridor boomed.  All economic growth in
the metro area is occuring along that beltway.

	Bureaucrats usually don't make good businessmen.

> ideal would seem to be to `wait' until the inconvenience of traffic and
> pollution causes enough discomfort for a private enterprise to provide
> a profitable mass transit system.  However, this would require an enormous
> amount of capital resources, as well as working through snags involving
> property ownership, utility lines, etc.  Is there some Libertarian who
> can explain to me why subsidized mass transit is a bad thing?

	As with the above, plus the only thing the government has that private
industy wouldn't have is the power of eminent domain.  Now if you've ever had
your property taken away because of this, you know what I mean when I say it's
the least profitable way to lose property.

	So if your train line is all purchased except for that one piece of
property, and the owner won't sell?  Should we wait until they do decide to
sell or pass away?  Sure, or replan the route.  I don't know of many people who
will want to live that near a mass transit line in any event.  Paying them fair
market for their land and the moving costs for their homes (or to rebuild them)
will usually suffice.  But we shouldn't use force to decide the issue.

	What would you say if a group of people rang your doorbell and stated
that the majority had decided you were to live elsewhere?

> The other key disagreement I have with the party is on environmental
> issues.  Certainly, the stance of suing for violation of property rights
> via pollution is something I wholeheartedly agree with.  But what do you
> do with money once a PRICELESS natural resource has been adulterated?
> If company X pollutes the local drinking supply because `it thinks it
> can get away with it', but gets caught, pays damages, and perhaps goes
> bankrupt in the process, who loses?  No amount of money awarded to plaintiffs
> is going to change the fouled state of the environment.  You can't go to
> Sears and `reorder' pristine wilderness... it's gone for good!  It seems
> as though the Libertarians rely on the threat of a potential lawsuit as
> the basis for disincentive to pollute.  I just don't buy this... the earth
> is a finite resource, and one that must be treated accordingly.  If somebody
> screws it up, and even if they pay some `cost', you just can't keep moving
> on indefinitely to new resources that will satisfy your needs.  At some point
> the planet will be exhausted.

	It's the same as trying to use preventive force.  How can you watch
everyone?  Theft, murder, etc are outlawed, with severe penalties, but that
hasn't stopped people from doing it.

	But how many people will risk their entire company to save a few
dollars in waste disposal?  Especially when they can turn around, use green
advertising and raise the price?

	Companies usually don't use fraud because the risk is too great.  With
the government, pollution violations and the EPA seem to go hand in hand.  Who
is scared of the EPA?  No one.  Incredibly small fines, and strategic
contributions to certain lawmakers gets you a wink and a nod during
inspections.

	What company can bribe an entire region?

> Any comments?  I guess the above characterizes me as a heretic in some
> hardcore circles, but I would appreciate thoughtful responses just the same.

	Actually, my views are pretty close to yours, I simply don't trust the
bureaucracy to do a good job.  Personally, I have no objections to government
planning mass transit, as long as they get businesses who run such operations
to consult on it.  Then turn the operation over to contracters.

	Pollution?  It won't stop until people demonstrate they are willing to
pay for products that have incurred the higher cost of non-polluting
production.  It's happening a litte, with "green" products.  You've just got to
vote with your wallet.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Newsgroups: sci.econ